Jump to content

Medium vs Large Format


don_simmons

Recommended Posts

I have used an old Hasselblad & loved the pictures I got. Before I go

out & purchase a new MF setup, I want to exclude large format from

consideration. Most of my photography is landscape, & I don't think I

will mind the somewhat more cumbersome setup with large format. Any

opinions on which one to pursue from a hobby standpoint? Also, where

is the large format forum? Any recs on large format cameras/lenses for

field - landscape?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can find the Large Format Forum <a href= http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography> here </a>

 

<p>Deciding on large format vs. medium format is a personal decision. You need to balance cost vs. convenience, anticipated reproduction size, analog vs. digital reproduction, and whether you are willing to carry the extra weight and take the extra time to use a large format system.

 

<p>Large format systems usually cost less than medium format systems, and you will get better tonality. You'll also miss a few shots you could get with roll film systems as you tinker with camera movements.

 

<p>Will you need a new tripod to carry the extra weight? Do you have a hand-held light meter already? You'll need one with large format, but many medium format systems have them built in.

 

<p>If you're going to color digital reproduction and do not plan to print beyond 240x30 you'll find 120 film sufficient. If you're shooting black-and-white, the extra control of processing sheet film individually can tip the scales in favor of large format.

 

<p>Decisions. Decisions. I'm still wrestling with this one as I use my Yashica Mat and Minolta Autocord. I've sold my darkroom equipment and invested in my computer to go digital, but still like the control I gain with large format. But every time I'm out shooting I find myself getting shots I would have missed with large format.

 

<p>Check out the new Zone VI Ultralight on the Calumet web site. It's a great camera. Add 90mm and 210mm lenses and you can get into large format for less than $3,000 with new equipment.

 

<p>Stick with the big three lens manufacturers and you can't go wrong. Nikkor, Rodenstock and Schneider are all excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movements are probably more of an issue than image quality between the formats. And landscape's tough: movements help, but you generally need fewer of them. Usually just tilt is plenty. A Rollei SL66 if you don't mind used, or the massive Fuji G680 cameras if you can afford new and don't mind the heft. If all I wanted a big neg for was landscapes, I'd opt for one of those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use P67 and Sinar 4X5. The Sinar is a giant pain to use if I need a quick shot and easily the most flexible, interesting and rewarding tool if time and bulk are not the issue. Often landscape will meld with architectural photography and MF will be sadly lacking in most cases in perspective and focus control. You may want to purchase roll film backs because not only is 4X5 sheet film expensive it is also tedious to load and use. If your hobby is going to be photography and all that is basic and fundamental then you will love LF. If tedium and total lack of any automation (much less just an upright image) will eventually get on your nerves then go with one of the MF systems mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Don... I use both formats. For Landscape nothing beats a good folding 4x5 Field or Technical camera.

<p>

My Linhof Tech III is 50 years old and sets up <i>really</i> fast. A 135 F5.6 Sironar N folds up inside with cable release (it will infinity focus a 90mm) and a Horseman quick release gets it on the tripod in about 2 seconds. I use it soooo often I can set the camera/tripod down within 2 ft of it's final "taking" place (with the 135mm). It's got swing/tilt out back, rise/shift up front and a drop bed for fall, weighs less than my now gone Mamiya RB67 and the film is more than 4 times the size of my new-ish Hasselblad. The Linhof will also give me almost life sized images on the film with my 210mm.

<p>

Beyond that the meditative contributions of LF and the contemplation required to find the image, suit this format to my approach to the landscape.

<p>

The medium format camera works well if you want extreme lens configurations for landscape, and the ability to run with your whole outfit under duress. It is of course superior for photographing people, in studio and out.

<p>

Take a look at the many folding 4x5 cameras available new and used and handle as many as possible before buying.

<p>

Use medium format if you've got your family in the car yellin' at you to hurry up ...t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Pentax 67 & 645, and a <a href="http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/super-graphic.html">Graflex Super Graphic</a>.

 

<p>Honestly, with the way I use the P67, it isn't much faster to set up than a normal view camera. A press camera like mine is extremely fast to set up. While the rangefinder has lost its mirrors (its repairable), I still have the sports finder and a distance guage, plus of course the ground glass.

 

<p>The film cost for the view camera is higher, but I'm far more choosey about the shots I use it for. I have the convenience of Polaroids and Kodak Ready-Load packets. I keep film loaded in the 67 and 645 when I'm traipsing about, so I'm ready to photograph something which is unfolding quickly. If I kept film in my Polaroid back, there would be no difference in setup speed between the Graflex and Pentax.

 

<p>I really do like having some movements on a camera, so when I want to correct for convergence or whatever, I can do it. Do you often find yourself wanting to correct for convergence or something else? A shift lens for MF is extremely pricey. A used LF camera, with lens and backs, is cheaper than a MF shift lens.

 

<p>Since you say landscapes are your primary subject, the only question I have is this: Do you hike? If you hike, you may become disenchanted with a LF camera very, very fast. There was a question, last year I think, from a hiker who didn't like the weight of his MF system. The <a href="http://www.benderphoto.com">Bender view camera</a> is one of the lightest and cheapest view cameras on the market, but you have to assemble it yourself, and you'll still need a tripod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like Tom I have a old Tech III and like it also. I have a 90 SA, 162 Wollensak (you would be suprised at this lens) and a Fuji 240. I also have a Mamiya 645 with lenses ranging from 35mm-500mm. The only real problem I have with the 4x5 is sometimes if you shoot in dark areas as I sometimes do (early morning deep in the forest) it is hard to see. Also you can't afford to shoot many exposures with it. I use it as a bounus. When I run upon something great and I have time, I shoot it with the 4x5 as well as the 645 (15 with the 645 and 1 with the 2 1/4!) I don't think I would give up the 2 1/4 for the 4x5, but man the 4x5 Velvia trans are something to behold on a light box. I send them to special publishers that I really want to impress along with 645. Now that I read this I realize I didn't help a bit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can answer your questions but would urge you to consider: do you do your own darkroom work? If the answer is no, rather than buy MF or LF, perhaps just stick with 35mm and spend the money on a darkroom -- trays, enlarger, chemicals, etc. For $1,000 you can't buy much in the way of LF or MF, but you can put together a B&W darkroom with which you can print better pictures than most labs can or will.<p>

I have found that with time and care I can make really very good prints with a Beselar enlarger for which I paid less than $300.00 and a Nikkor enlarging lens worth about $200.00.<p>

If you buy the right enlarger, you can go to MF or LF when you are ready, but be warned; I priced LF enlargers recently and they cost a lot.<p>

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, that's a brilliant answer! However, used 4x5 enlargers can be found for not much money. I bought my Omega for under $400, including condenser and cold lights, 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 carriers, and two lenses.

 

<p>If I were working exclusively with 35mm, I would by six of those little Besseler Cadet enlargers, and play around doing stuff like <a href="http://www.uelsmann.com">Jerry Uelsmann</a>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you really aren't making size & weight considerations, then there are only two questions to answer:<ol>

 

<li>Do you regularly plan on making prints larger than 20 x 30?

<li>Do you require movements (tilt, shift, etc) for the type of photography you do?

</ol>

 

Answer both questions honestly. Sure, it would be nice to make lots of 30x40 prints, but in the real world I (for one) can't afford it, so I'd have to answer "no" to question 1.<p>

 

If the answer is "yes" to either of these questions, then go with large format. If the answer is "no" to both questions, stick with medium format.<p>

 

Good luck with your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, my portfolio of type r and c-prints from 4x5 film is all 16x20 and believe me, <i>anybody</i> can see the difference, I won't show 35mm with it. As far as price goes, if you have patience and shop around, LF can be much cheaper than MF at a very high quality level. Calumet has a sale on their beautiful 4x5 Field camera right now for about $675.00. I bought my Tech III for $300 7 years ago and picked up the 135 Sironar N for $250. Old Beseler 45MX enlargers go pretty commonly in the $350 range (you'll still need a 150mm enlarging lens, around $200). If you are shooting b&w, the older optics like the Wide Field Commercial Ektars are excellent glass. My first lens was a Schneider Xenar 135 which is great under 20 ft or with a 6x9 roll back. Creativity has many applications, in financial concerns and under the dark cloth...t
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

 

My $.02, for what it's worth.

 

Most of my comments have already been made, i.e., intended enlargement size, ease of use, etc., but I do have a bit to add.

 

With today's b&w and color films, MF (6x7) negs are the equivalent of LF negs of 20-30 years ago (4x5). Kodak's T-Max 100 shot at EI 80 and developed in D-76 1:1 at 72-73 degrees F is grainless at 20x24, and probably at 30x40. Kodak's new Portra 160 shot at EI 80 and processed normally is good for grainless enlargements to at least 16x20, maybe more. Kodak's and Fuji's transparency films are also vast improvements over their ancestors. In my book, this makes it an easy choice to stay at MF, considering a few additional factors.

 

The lens movements allowed by LF cameras can be mostly overcome by using the same techniques in the darkroom, tilting the enlarging easel or (with some enlargers) shifting the enlarging lens. The effect on the print is pretty nearly the same, though some LF shooters will probably post responses that claim the LF images will be sharper. I can't argue the point, since I've never shot LF. I do, however, get thoroughly acceptable results from making my 'movements' in the darkroom. You can get acceptable results from MF negs in glassless neg carriers because they don't sag as much as sheet film does, since they don't have to span as much distance across the carrier. Glass carriers will solve the sag problem, but introduce four more surfaces to rid of dust before printing.

 

Not only is roll film more convenient to use than sheet film, it is not subject to fingerprinting or dust in the film holder, as is sheet film. This is the one point that turned me away from LF. There is no SURE way to know that there is no dust on the film before shooting.

 

Not only are 4x5 enlargers (and everything else associated with LF) proportionately more expensive than MF, but they are also BIG!! You better have plenty of elbow room in your darkroom before bringing in the 4x5 enlarger.

 

While sheet film gives you some advantages with respect to individual tayloring of your development processes to the particular image you're working with, remember that each such custom process takes time. Multiply that by the number of images you will be working with at any one time.

 

I'm not saying 'don't', just be aware of the pros and cons. I investigated LF a year or so ago when I was dissatisfied with 6x6. After working with 6x7 and experimenting with some different developer combinations, I'm satisfied that I'll never need to go to LF for my hobby shooting.

 

Best regards,

 

Stew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buy a Horseman VH 6 x 9 technical camera. That way you have the advantages of both. It's lightweight, has great accessories and more than enough movements for landscape. I got one 7 months ago when I was faced with your question. Best decision I could have made. I get my 6 x 9 color transparencies drum scanned and printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Thus far, I've gone up to 18" x 24" and the enlargements are incredible. I can't believe you'd see any difference for 4 x 5 until you got beyond 20" x 30". Now, on the other hand, if you're going to shoot black and white or do your own darkroom work, you'll see a difference much sooner. But in color, and using the highest quality scanning and printing available today, there is no difference in quality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One final shot at this. If your community has a junior college or other continuing education institution take a class. After re-reading the posts (including my own) I have come to the conclusion that this forum is incapable of answering your question beyond supplying you with lots of opinion. There is such a large gap between LF and MF that even those who use both are probably not qualified to advise you as to which is right for you. Your key word was 'hobby'. I think the respondants are highly capable of helping with solution of specific equipment and technique problems but you will not know if LF is right or wrong for you until you try it. Some people find it highly therapeutic and rewarding because of the precision and tedium involved. It drives some people nuts. I think you'll have to decide nuts or not by hands on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read all of the responses and the above one, by Patrick Drennon, is the most brilliant simple thing I have ever read on the MFD or any other online forum.<p>

I bought a 4x5 camera a while back (a real old, cheap one) and played with it for a while. I already had a b&w darkroom so I could just tray develop my film and it worked out okay but I finally sold it because I didn't use it enough and didn't have an enlarger that could print up to 4x5.<p>

I was lucky -- I sold it to someone who paid me what I paid for it. If I had tried to sell it to a shop, I would have gotten NOTHING for it. Someday I might like to buy another 4x5 -- just right now it doesn't seem right for the things I do. I only discovered that by working with the 4x5. If you take a class, you can work with 4x5 cameras and decide if they are for you without having to buy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to carefully analyze how you take photographs and what final result you are trying to achieve. Do you often take spontaneous photos, or are your photos done in a more methodical manner? While view cameras and spontaneity are not mutually exclusive, it is hard to achieve a truly spontaneous photo with a view camera. Even the Linhof setup described earlier is not as fast as a medium format, hand held with a built in light meter.

 

I like the suggestion to take a class if one is available that will let you work with a view camera. If not, try and rent a view camera for at least a weekend so that you can get the "feel" of what it takes to work with the larger format. The camera will end up dictating a working style that you may or may not find agreeable to your sensitivities and photographic vision. As always, I advise taking a "test drive" before you commit the money and time it takes to learn to use a view camera to its fullest effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"The lens movements allowed by LF cameras can be mostly overcome by using the same techniques in the darkroom, tilting the enlarging easel or (with some enlargers) shifting the enlarging lens."</i>

<p>

This might work for slight perspective shifts, but if the negative has info that is out of focus, no amount of easel/ lens stage/ neg stage tweaking will give you a print that's in focus.

<p>

This reminds me of the old studio trick of sending the new assistant down to the camera store for a can of "focus spray"...t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few clarifications and random thoughts:

 

People talk about "medium format" as though it were one format, ditto "large format." Which formats are we really speaking about? 6x4.5 is as close to 35mm than it is to 6x7; and 6x7 is closer to 4x5 than 4x5 is to 8x10. Most people on these boards, when they talk about "large format", are really talking about 4x5, which is a very, very different entity than 8x10.

 

For me, the difference between 6x7 and 4x5 is not worth the extra time, effort and expense, especially since I like to shoot people, who have a tendency to move after the view camera shutter is closed and the film holder is put in the camera. Most of my 8x10 negs of people are not critically sharp, something which often doesn't show on a contact but which would definitely show on an enlargement. But 8x10 gives me something that 6x7 (and 4x5) doesn�t: the ability to present an exhibition size contact print, with its superb tonality and absolute lack of grain.

 

But my 120 film is usually much more evenly developed than my 8x10 film, despite the fact that I have a good tray developing technique, something which is clearly visible in even-toned areas of the print. Add to that the additional dust specks (from the contact printing glass) and black spots (from dust on the film during exposure) and you can see why my prints from 6x6 and 6x7 negs are invariably cleaner and need less spotting.

 

�With today's b&w and color films, MF (6x7) negs are the equivalent of LF negs of 20-30 years ago (4x5).� Yes, that�s undoubtedly true. As far as I�m concerned, the only real technical value to 4x5 is the ability to custom develop each sheet of film.

 

Another thing that no one has addressed is that, as Ansel pointed out, one simply �sees� differently with a Hasselblad, a Pentax 6x7 and an 8x10 camera. And this vision is going to translate into a very different set of photos for each camera.

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Don:

 

All of the responses seem to have some thought behind them, but they seem to be ignoring that you stated that most of your photography is landscape. Your overall tonal range will improve, with the increase in format size. Don't think you need to worry to much about movement, as I don't see landscapes moving too much, other than an occasional tree blowing in the wind!

 

Its's true there is not a significant different in grain structure between "well processed" 6x7 negs and 4x5 negs, but there will be a better perseption of contrast and smaller grain as film size increases. The question about darkroom space can be a greater consideration. If you have a 4x5 enlarger it will take up more room not just for the enlarger but for the larger print trays. There is no practical reason for going to a larger format if you are not going to go to larger print sizes. If you are only printing in the 8x10 to 16x20 range, then I wouldn't bother. If, however, you want 20x24 prints that look as good as your 5x7's from your MF negs, then by all means go for the big neg. Personnally, I am looking into one of the Bender view cameras in an 8x10 format and skip the enlargement process all together. Might even go 11x14 and contact print everything. Hope this helps you decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...