Macro photography with Medium format?

What is wrong with using medium format in macro photography? Most of

time people in the photo net talked about using with 35mm instead

of medium format. I thought that medium format has better quality in

enlarge the pictures than 35mm.

Thanks

Steve

Hi Steve, I do macro photography with my Hasselblads quite often and the results are superb. The main problem is that the equipment to do it can be quite expensive. I am more limited as to what I can shoot because of the cost factor of various items. Also if you want extreme closeups the equipment can be quite cumbersome. Sometimes the 35 is certainly a better way to go.

I'd agree with Dave. I've been doing a lot of macro in 35mm, and it's a lot of fun. I've recently been getting into MF and find I'd rather stick to 35mm in this situation. Reason (besides inexperience of course!) is getting the DOF. It's shallower in MF, and I've had trouble getting either too much or too little. I use a Pentax 67 with the 135mm 'macro' lens, but it only gives 1:3. I could get 1:1 with extension tubes but I don't have those yet. Quite frankly, wrestling a P67 to close in on a spider web is a real pain compared with a 35mm setup. Yeah, you can make a case for better quality enlargements, and I've seen some beautiful stuff but for me, it may not be worth the effort. John Shaw used 35mm for his Close-up book, he owned a P67 at some point , but you can see what he used for macros.

Depth of field is NOT shallow in medium format, or any format for that matter.

I think what Cowan meant was that to get the same working distance with MF as with 35mm, you'll need a longer focal length. The longer focal length will have less depth of field, so in practical use MF has less depth of field tham 35mm. But if you are not shooting insects, working distance is usually not a problem so MF would suffice.

I don't think that anything is "wrong" using MF for macro photography, but if you discuss this topic on the basis of a magnification ratio you will see that MF is of a disadvantage: a 1:1 ratio has the same size in both formats, and if it fills a 35mm film, it leaves quite some unnecessary background in MF. If you then enlarge from both formats to the same subject area, you need the same enlargment factor. However, MF lenses have (usually) a lower resolution (in terms of lpm) than 35mm lenses, and thus you are of disadvantage with MF. If OTOH you fill both formats with your object, you end up with a 2:1 (or whatever format you use) in MF vs. 1:1 for 35mm. For me, it's getting more and more difficult to work with increasing the magnification ratio (DOF is one of the problems). If I plan for macro pictures, I usually take my 35mm stuff with me (weight!), but for the unplaned occasions (which are quite frequent in my case) I carry two close-up lenses with my MF stuff (I think, meanwhile all of the 645 companies have macro lenses for 1:1 in their programs).

 

A friend has an old Rollei (I think it is an SL66?) which has an integrated bellows allowing tilts with which he does fantastic macro pictures.

Here is a cheap way to get some really nice MF macro. Get an old TLR Mamiya (be sure to get a model that gives exposure correction for close up, I think all do, but not sure) and a paramender and a 65mm lens. You can focus from infinity to nearly 1:1 (with my 330 anyway) with this setup. It is a bit of trouble using the paramender, but if you want easy you have to spend some $$$. Line counters will growl about the resolution using a lens like that for that purpose and how better 35mm would give the same for the same size print, but I think most people would find the results quite satisfactory. If you shop around you can find this setup for as little as $400 (I did). There a couple of advantages to this system over some. No mirror to worry about and no focal plane shutter to shake. Borrow one and give it a try. Kenny

Yeah, I did mean relative DOF when you take into account magnification/working distance in MF compared with 35 mm, this topic got beaten to death-several times, in the general Q&A section.

 

A few other thoughts came to mind-I guess film choices can be a limiting factor. You'll need faster film to deal with the DOF issues at small apertures in MF, in my situation, to overcome the mirror slap problem. You can probably get away with grainier films since the negative doesn't have to be enlarged so much. Cost, as already pointed out is another thing. A bellows for the P67 is $1400 new, but will get you to 3:1. Also what about using flash? I'm sure it's done, but can you imagine chasing butterflies with a P67,a Lepp bracket with 2 strobes and a max sync speed of 1/30?! Ouch!! Obviously I don't have the right setup for that.

 

So to get back to Steve's question, there's probably more to photograph with less hassle in 35mm. Yes you can use MF for macro and close-ups, but there's a wide range of choices, and therefore compromises in MF in terms of equipment, formats, convenience and expense. It looks like a lot of people have overcome them. I'm going to keep plugging away at it anyway because the challenge appeals to my masochistic side.

Doing macro photography across formats works in very different ways. That's because the formats themselves are really different. 35mm has dominated macro work but thats a function of 1/ ease 2/cost and 3/ it is macro work - as someone pointed out earlier, a 1:1 in 35mm will be a much larger magnification ratio in a larger format, for the same framing and given that macro means small things, 35mm is just a lot easier for very small things. Personally, I think most of the time, it doesn't matter. You use the system you are comfortable with.

 

So the question is why another format? In other words, if 35mm is lighter and cheaper and easier for most work, why and when would you use another format? The critical points for me are the framing and object size i.e., the magnification ratio. I'm willing to chance it for larger macros. So, for example, I use 35mm for a flower roughly an inch across and using a larger format can be a pain for this - achieving the same framing is monstrously difficult due to the larger magnifications involved and if you overframe and stay with the same magnification ratio as the 35mm shot, you've gained nothing really, you still end up with information on the same square area of film. You've just done it in a more difficult way. I would feel more comfortable using a 4X5 for a larger flower about 4 inches across. Now you can obviously use 35mm and get a similar framing for the larger flower also but then you've obviously changed the magnification ratio and those beautiful small details which is what we are after in a macro are too compressed and lost. As for chasing butterflies with a 4X5....

 

DJ

IMO my Pentax 645 macro is superior to my Nikon close-up equipment. However, I do use my Nikon equipment much more frequently, because it is lighter, has 36 exposures, and is usually in my camera bag. Also, my Pentax is older and does not TTL.

Thank to you all!!!! I did some research about extension tubes for medium format as I would like to macro up near to 1x. It take more extensions than 35mm. Also it seems more expensive for that. Thank you all again!

steve--: parallel to your research on extension tubes you might want to consider close-up/diopter lens-es. Despite that they are less expensive they can produce very good results, depending on your lens close to 1:1. The Nikon 5T and 6T (62mm diameter) just cost ca. $40 ea., or if you have a really big filter size, a Canon 500D is availbale in 77mm (ca. $140?). You can use step-up (and some people say also step-down) adapters (probably requiring the further search for a hood). To get some pro's and con's over extension tubes vs. diopter, I suggest a photo.net search, to start with, e.g., "extension tube diopter".

Has anybody tried this in MF, particularly with tele zooms such as the

Pentax 645 80-160/4.5 with a Canon 77mm 500D?

 

As per Konrad's suggestion, try

http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/closeup2.htm

Just as with wedding work, one advantage leaf-shuttered MF cameras

have over most 35mm systems is the ability to flash sync at high

speeds and wide apertures, which I find useful for fill flash on

flowers and the like at mid-day. I have a short extension tube and a

reversing ring in my 6x6 carry-everywhere kit, which with the 55 and

85 mm lenses give me a useful (and usable) range of magnifications up

to 1:1.

There are various technical reasons why macro work is bound to get more difficult as format size gets larger. If you are willing to work with alot of patience, your perseverance can pay off with images that can be higher quality than what is possible in 35mm, but the issues you will have to deal with include:

<p>

1. A given composition requires higher magnification in a larger format. This means that DOF is thinner at a given f-stop, so you'll have to stop down, with a resulting loss of shutter speed.

<p>

2. there is more light lost due to bellows factor at a higher magnification. this means you will have to focus a darker image on the ground glass. larger format lenses have a slower maximum aperture as well, so images to be focused can be pretty dark.

<p>

3. at the slower shutter speeds, vibrations are a problem, and subject movement can be a problem. sometimes, flash can help here.

<p>

4. The setup is usually more clumsy/awkward. either you sacrifice some working distance, or you have to use a longer focal length lens and the resulting camera + lens gets bigger and heavier, and needs a bigger and heavier tripod, all making it more awkward to place the

camera just right for the shot.

<P>

It's just more difficult to work in the field at higher magnifications. By using 35mm, you basically capture the image at a lower magnification and do more enlarging after the fact. this leads to an easier job in the field.

<p>

for higher magnification macro work in medium format, an interesting option is to use a reversing ring and extension tubes. It will generally be possible to use 35mm optics when they are reversed and this can be a big cost savings. A comparatively cheap macro lens for 35mm reversed can make beautiful macro images for medium format at around 2X(ie at least 1.8X in fact), and it has enough coverage for 645 or 6x6 since it is reversed. You can use the same lens reversed for 6x7 as well, but you'll have to be around 2.3X to get enough coverage, as a rule of thumb. At lower magnifications, you'll have to use trial and error to find lenses with adequate covering power, but it can also be possible to use 35mm lenses reversed for medium format for lower magnifications, though some you try will vignette at lower magnifications.

Answering Pats question about using diopters with MF, I have used them with a 150 and 300mm for my Mamiya 645. The results are excellent. I get about 1:1 with the 300 and a Nikon 6T.