Is only reason to buy MF just to get large prints?

<p>I have noticed on several occasions when someone starts asking a question about what brand or model MF camera to buy that invariably some people respond by saying that unless you are going to have large prints made that you might just as well stay with a 35mm camera.</p>

<p>I don't share that view. I very rarely get large prints made. Instead I enjoy the format for the discipline it places on me plus the very fine detail and overall "look" one gets. To me it is pure enjoyment to use my Hasselblad 500 c/m. I know it gets a little expensive to get a roll developed and scanned, but waiting to get that CD back is such wonderful anticipation. Just looking though that WLF with a huge magnifier opens up new worlds that 35mm doesn't offer. That's not to say that I don't enjoy 35mm negative film. I do use that format especially when I need to work faster.<br>

What other reasons do MF users have for this type of equipment other than lager prints?</p>

<p>You are not alone. Michael Kenna shoots 2+1/4 and his exhibition prints are 6 inches square. In fact i think that the images reproduced in some of his books are larger than his actual prints.</p>

<p>For me, it is several reasons.</p>

<p>1) I have better glass in MF. It doesn't matter what format you shoot, you need good glass.<br>

2) Film and scanning costs me little. A 5 pack of TMY is only $21 locally. The screwing around stuff (lucky) is about 1.50 a roll. Foma100 (my fav) is a little over $2. Ektar 5 pack is about $27 locally. That's not expensive. I develop and scan my own.<br>

3) Quality. It's not about the dots. A bigger neg just looks better.</p>

 

<p>Graham, for me, it's all of the reasons you stated, except I do get larger prints of 'my keepers'.<br /> Thankfully, (for my wallet), my skills are lacking enough that there aren't that many keepers.</p>

<p>The state of Montana is known as 'Big Sky Country'. <br /> Trying to explain that to someone who's never been to Montana is difficult. You have to see it for yourself.</p>

<p>To me, images from medium format are like that Montana sky. <br />Some people see the difference, some don't...I do!</p>

<p>I have excellent glass and cameras in 35mm format, but i'm preferring MF for the huge ground glass it offers. It's big! It's heavy! It's quirky! (sounds a LOT like me!!!). I also have a Minolta Autocord TLR that's just so interesting to use (and again the big ground glass is very nice to use).</p>

<p>I'm also wanting to slow my photography wayyy down. I *can* do this with 35mm, but my MF format of choice really shines (and pretty much requires) when on a tripod. Yes, i can use a tripod with my 35mm format, but then the sheer volume of area on the ground glass and 6x7 negative makes the experience/results so much more *interesting*.</p>

<p>I like the WLF method alot. It's way cool and again, so much more real estate than the viewfinder on my 35mm kit (though the viewfinders on my 35mm cameras are marvelously bright).</p>

<p>Honestly, i like fiddling around with the gear more. I like the how modular the MF SLR kits are.</p>

<p>If i've gotta scan to get my uploadable results anyway, i may as well scan something HUGE!!! I have a dedicated 35mm neg scanner (Minolta Scan Dual III) which i suspect will outresolve my lowly Epson V500, but if i want to print some with high quality, i can always have a hi res scan done for me.</p>

<p>For me, MF is the largest i want to go because of film handling convenience (i don't live in a country with many options). Besides, i can always shoot b&w can get easy scannable results w/o a wet darkroom (i'm a husband and father and simply don't have a large enough place for a dedicated darkroom).</p>

<p>I moved to MF purely for the quality, both in terms of resolution of detail and smoother tonality. Even then, I rarely print above 10 x 8. I use mainly Mamiya TLRs, but also the RB67. I made some 16x12 prints from a partial neg shot on a Mamiya C220 - the detail and tonality are superb.</p>

<p> The MF is versatile. It works well for small or large prints. </p>

<p>For all of the above-mentioned issues of quality from the MF negative, in addition, my Hasselbad outfit has grown to include bellows for macro work and all the trappings that follow. It's just a comfortable sized bundle of gear to handle, and there's not much I can't do with it.<br>

For landscape and architecture works, I often compose with waist level finder, then fine focus with a chimney finder with diopter adjustment.<br>

But it is a little narcotic I fear, .. I mean the larger negative for it's aesthetic benefit. Because seeing the value of 6x6 over 35mm in modest enlargements like in the region of 10x12 inch is enjoyable enough. A 4x5 inch neg to the same size print is something to behold. Well, I have 5x7" in the plans, and will get the enlarger some time next year. I don't especially want to print bigger than 16x20 inch even then. And contact prints from LF negs are stunning.<br>

I love the results obtained from PMK Pyro development on some films. You can head over to the appropriate forum for more on this.</p>

 

<p>I love 6x6, it's my favorite. I used Bronica SQa system for about ten years now I've had my Hasselblads since about 1997. The only problem is ME. I can't seem to get to developing my film or making prints and my darkroom is all pulled apart, I have to re-do my whole basement and work area... It never ends. I love the way the 100mm CF Zeiss draws, it's an incredible lens. I'm just as happy looking at 5x5 proofing as bigger prints.</p>

<p>I used to shoot with various Mamiya 645 cameras for many years. Now exclusively with Canon EOS 5D, 5DII, and 7D. I get better results (to my taste) with the Canon gear compared to old MF Cibachrome enlargements (up to 30x40 or so). I think the EOS camera and lenses weigh about the same as equivalent Mamiya gear, maybe with exception of the bulky Mamiya shift lens. If the question is between 35 mm film and MF film, I agree that MF film is superior even at small print or scan sizes.</p>

<p>In closeup/macro work MF lets the photographer cram more in the frame without giving up fine detail in the main subject. One doesn't have to give up fine detail in, say, a flower to get its setting in the frame. That's why I went from 35 mm to 2x3 for flowers and such.</p>

<p>Graham,<br>

I use a Mamiya 6MF, purchased intentionally to slow down my photography and improve my composition. With a 3-lens kit it lightened my load as well! Also, I wanted the larger negative (vs. 35mm) for scanning more detail. Additionally, what I've found is the MF has gotten me excited about black-and-white, which I never really was interested in with 35mm.</p>

<p>Comparing my MF scans to comparable digital images I make, there just seems to be more image "there" in the MF. It's subjective, I realize, but as the photographer when I'm happy then the world is good, right?</p>

<p>Basically, you pick the equipment that will do the job you need to do with it. I don't know that MF film is any better than my dSLR in many cases, but sometimes it is just what I feel will best do the job I want to do. I choose LF for the same reason. Aside from the glass, format or whatever, people don't give enough credence to just the mental part of it all, you use what makes you feel you can actually do what you want to do. You don't want to be thinking about your equipment or what would have been better, you just want to be thinking of the work you are doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In closeup/macro work MF lets the photographer cram more in the frame without giving up fine detail in the main subject. One doesn't have to give up fine detail in, say, a flower to get its setting in the frame. That's why I went from 35 mm to 2x3 for flowers and such.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the same at any scale. MF captures more detail.<br>

And you will see it in small prints too.<br>

Better tonality too.<br>

Still portable (many 35 mm film and dslr cameras are bigger and heavier than many MF cameras).<br>

There are enough reasons to use MF.</p>

 

<p>Crop sensor Canon 40D + 50mm 1.4 + hood</p>

<p>next to</p>

<p>Mamiya 7II (6x7) + 80mm + hood</p><div></div>

<p>Certainly if you want more control of DoF, then there are a lot of reasons to go to medium format...</p>

<p>Same 40D first (linearly upsampled without distortion to match the 6x7 scan), 6x7 TMAX second:</p><div></div>

 

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Crop sensor Canon 40D + 50mm 1.4 + hood<br>

next to<br>

Mamiya 7II (6x7) + 80mm + hood</p>

<p>Look Ma, no Menus!</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>No to answer how the would look on prints that are not huge, (whether there is a difference or not); print them like this at home:</p>

<p>360 dpi -> 24x30 print size equivalent</p>

<p>720 dpi -> 12x15 size equivalent</p>

<p>Aside of that, the viewfinder of my RZ67 and the vast arrange of film option/characteristics available are the main reason why I shoot MF even when large prints are not needed.</p>

<p>The 40D has a 60mm macro instead.</p>

<p>Graham, where do you get your roll developed and scanned, and what is the scanning resolution (dpi)? I have been using a canoscan flatbed scanner ewith MF negative adapter but the results are not that great; and I spend too much time with dust-removal etc. Thanks. </p>

<p>Nimesh, I am basically a lazy guy and don't do any of the processing myself (plus my wife wouldn't be too happy about me setting up a darkroom in the bathroom. I live in Florida and have found a lab in Daytona Beach that also burns a CD for me. The scans are are only 4 mps (2,000 x 2,000) for which they charge $15.00. I could get higher resolution, and the next time I'm there I'm going to ask them what the cost would be, and what their scanning resolution is.</p>

<p>There is no replacement for displacement. I have five medium format cameras and love them all. </p>

<p>You don't have to make big prints from medium format, but it's nice to know you can.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if using a retro camera gives you a tingle up your leg, it's hard to put a price on that (assuming it's not incontinence). That's a reason, if not justification, for spending three times as much on materials and infrastructure as for 35mm.</p>