Medium Format vs. Large Format

Occasionally I find myself asking if I should jump from 8x10 to medium format for the easier portability, quicker setup, cheaper film, and a slew of other apparent advantages. I know that I would never be able to duplicate the tonality of contact prints, but I often find myself passing on potential photographs because it would take too long to set up the view camera, or it's too windy, or too heavy to carry. I take landscapes mostly, with only a few portraits every now and then. Often I'm out in my boat and I find photographs I wish I could take but don't because I'm unwilling to lug a view camera onboard. I know the solution would be to have both formats, but I really can't afford that. I'm not trying to start a LF vs. MF debate. I'm just curious to know if anyone has tried a medium format transition and then returned to LF.

About ten years ago I went to medium format from 4x5 and I was not

truly happy because of the lack of movements primarily. I had a

Hasselblad which produced excellent image quality but there were many

times I could not get the desired depth of field due to no tilts

available or nonconverging verticals from no rise. So I went back to

4x5 and live with the fact that certain shots are not as easily

obtainable with it. If movements are not important for the images you

are contemplating then a good medium format camera can produce the

quality you seek.

I started with 4x5 about 20 years ago (I've never tried 8x10 but think

about it occasionally). About 10 years ago for many of the reasons you

mention I decided to add a medium format camera to my arsenal. I

settled on a Linhof Baby Technica IV which came with 3 lenses cammed

to its rangefinder. I have since added a fourth lens, without

rangefinder coupling. It gives me almost all the movements (lacks

front swings) that I get on my view camera but provides the

convenience of rollfilm. I have used it hand-held on a few occasions

but primarily use it as a medium format view camera on a tripod. With

fine grained film, I can get almost the same sharpness, etc as I get

with 4x5 (I rarely enlarge to greater than 11x14). I still do use the

4x5 quite a bit but have found the baby tech to be more than adequate

for most situations.

Bruce, You probably can afford both formats. Last year I bought a

Rollieflex T for about the same price as Kodak charges for a 50 sheet

box of 8x10 film. The Rollei dosen't have interchangeable lenses

like Hasselblad, but I haven't found that to be inconsistant with my

LF 8x10 experience having to make do with one focal length lens(I

secretly envy 4x5 shooters who carry an assortment of nifty glass in

little #0s and #1s that make a single #5 universal look like a city

manhole cover!) There are other quality, inexpensive TLRs out there

that are perfectly adequate for going places where your 8x10 can't

fit. Come to think of it, you could get a Speed Graphic and have

(nearly)the best of both worlds. With a polaroid or graphmatic

holder such an outfit would be pretty handy for the purposes you've

described, though adding such a back would probably cost more than a

TLR. I'm trying to figure out what to feed my Rollei now that

Verichrome Pan is out of the picture. By the way, don't forget the

Holga! If you tape it up good enough, if you accidently drop it

overboard don't be surprised if the darn thing floats! Good Luck!

About 10 years ago I was shooting mostly 4x5 and 8x10. I hurt my back

trying to unload a motorcycle frame from the back of my car, and at

the time I thought I would never be able to carry a heavy camera

again, so I sold the 4x5 and bought a Mamiya 7. I love the Mamiya

(great camera, great lenses), but now that my back is better I'm

looking at taking up the 8x10 again. You are correct, there are some

shots you simply can't make with the 8x10, but there are also some

shots where only an 8x10 negative will satisfy your desire for minute

detail. Now if I could just get an 8x10 enlarger...

Sounds like that familiar crossroad that I've certainly gone

through where you're kind of 'hashing it out with yourself' on whether

to do it, or not to do it. Do you know how many shots I've missed

because I didn't have any of my cameras with me?

 

<p>

 

I was in Rio for Carnaval this year, the one day I go to dinner

and don't bring my camera the sun sets behind Vidigil sending shafts

of beautiful golden light in every direction, I have to sit there and

watch. I've promised myself from now on, that I'm going to have

something with me wherever I go, period.

 

<p>

 

There's e-bay, if there's gear you've got gather dust, sell it on

e-bay, if there's a will, there's a way. Sounds from your post like

your heart has already made the decision, your mind is just figuring

out the angles. I won't say I moved up to LF, because I feel like I

need all three formats, for exactly the situation you're talking

about.

Bruce, I think it is possible to utilize both formats without

abandoning one for the other. The two are really very different tools

and permit a different way of seeing. As an example, view the work of

Brett Weston who used 11x14,8x10,5x7,4x5, 6x7 and 6x6 formats. As you

suggest, some things can not be done with the larger format and

certainly there will be a slight technical sacrifice. But for an

extension of your vision using multiple formats might work. Give it a

try.

I just reread your remarks and see that you can't afford both

formats. Perhaps you can if you keep it simple, maybe 6x6 with with a

single lens for starters. In any event, there will become a day when

you can no longer lift an 8x10 and the decision will become very

easy. Trust me. Best regards, Merg Ross

A few years ago, after considering the options (including the cost of

buying and processing film), I made the decision to stick with medium

format instead of moving up to large format. Accordingly, I bought a

Galvin 2x3 view camera (and have since bought a Toyo 23G as well) and

now have the best both of both worlds ... well, sort of. I've really

grown to like geared movements, which means I shoot with my Toyo more

than the Galvin, and it's anything but compact or light ... still, it

isn't as bulky or heavy as most 4x5 monorail designs and it's quicker

to setup and shoot than my friend's 4x5 flatbed camera. Someday, I'm

sure I'll eventually join the large-format ranks (probably with a 5x7

or 8x10 instead of a 4x5) but for now, medium-format view cameras are

(IMO, anyway) a decent compromise between cost, size and performance.

The Mamiya 330TLR is a wonderful camera! Viewing lens is

unfettered by the shutter action of return of the mirror, it's quiet

and people usually aren't aware that you're there taking shots.

 

<p>

 

It is the PERFECT camera for infrared since your filter goes on

the taking lens and doesn't obstruct the viewing lens(ever tried

looking through a lens with a 89b over it, you can probably see more

with a lens cap). No backs, just load it up and shoot, sure it's

involved to change the lenses, ergonomic are bad(get a grip), but it

takes beautiful pictures and the price sure is right.

 

<p>

 

E-bay always has 'em, and it won't hurt your conscience to look!

Yes MF and LF can co-exist. Usually I shoot first with MF then... if

time permiting I will shoot with LF ... there's some situations that

I'm glad that I have my MF with me such as when lighting is going away

fast... or curious onlookers...but the thrill of using LF is

"priceless"...

I personally use my Sinar F for 95% of what I shoot. I use 4x5 sheet

film for B&W. But I have a Horseman style 6x7 back for color, it is

much more cost effective then 4x5 transparencies. Plus incamera dupes

are a cinch. However, a view camera can be cumbersome.

 

<p>

 

I commented on Micheal Kenna's work previously and he is highly

successful with his approach. He uses almost all 2 1/4 square. Check

out his website for a different perspective. Ansel Adams also shot

almost exclusively with Hasselblad in his later years that produced

great works.

 

<p>

 

Having the roll film already loaded and an slr viewer, is far more

spontaneous then a viewcamera. Shielding the camera from the wind is

also much easier then having a bellows, focusing cloth flapping in

the breeze. Your feel for compositional balance is also different

from square to rectangle and the change can help one expand their

vision.

 

<p>

 

Personally, if I could afford some additional Hasselblad lenses, I'ld

shoot more medium format. But I will always have a view camera.

I read all of this with great interest. Right now I shoot 35mm,

6x7cm, 4x5, and 8x10. I actually use my medium format so

seldomly, though (been at least 6 months now), that right now

I'm considering selling off the whole kit and putting the money

into a few new LF optics or a 5x7 camera. I've just found that

working with a view camera fits how I think and see so much

better than anything else that I rarely see much point in using

anything else. Before you sell anything and invest in MF gear,

my one suggestion would be to rent or borrow as many different

medium format systems as possible and try them out to see a)

which system you like best, and more importantly b) if the

difference in working style is disruptive to the creative process

for you. When using my MF camera, if I had to think about what I

was doing as little as I do when using my 8x10, I'd definitely be

shooting more 120.

Hi Bruce

 

<p>

 

I have vote also for the coexistence of MF and LF but also 35mm and

Digital.

I have always a 35 mm camera (just a point and shoot) in my car and if

I go for a shooting I take at least one of my Nikons with me as adition

to the slow LF. And in thes days it is many times also a digital one.

Not every situation is good for LF. SO if I go with my car for a to or

3 days trip I take also a MF with me.

I use a variety of formats and have learned that each has its own

unique use. the LF cameras are almost entirely used for work that is

preconceived and part of on going projects, many of the sites first

explored with a 35mm Nikon. The Nikon is always with me in my

vehicle for those "sketches" when the subjects present themselves. I

use a Mamiya 330 mostly for urban work, especially in areas and

locations where using a view camera draws unwanted attention. If I

am traveling on the road to locations that I may not get a chance to

return to, I take both the medium and LF gear.

Dear Bruce

 

<p>

 

I started out in MF, then ventured into 617 panoramic, then to 4x5

and after all that bought a 35mm digital rig. Since then I have

added an Xpan and most recently an 8x10 What I like is how all the

formats can compliment one and other. When my square images did not

convey what I was trying to do, I often found the panoramic solved my

problems. You may want to look into either the Fuji 617 or fiddle

with the Hasselblad Xpan. The Xpan is really a neat system with the

ability to switch between panoramic (the images are bigger than what

you may have seen with other switchable cameras) and normal 35 sized

images. It is compact enough to carry in your bag, put in a jacket

or keep in a car.

 

<p>

 

As for the digital and as I have talked about previously in other

threads, I am finding it an ideal way to 'scout' locations and

capture ideas for future shoots with my LF equipment. I go back and

download the images and it helps me visulize and set up what I want

to do with the LF and cuts down on time searching for where I want to

set up my LF cameras at later points in time. Does digital replace

LF for me, no, but digital has fired me up for shooting many, many

more images than I would ever imagine.

 

<p>

 

Best Regards,

 

<p>

 

John Bailey

Bruce,

 

<p>

 

John Kasaian's suggestion that you purchase an inexpensive Rolleiflex

is a good one. I suggest that it be a 3.5F, usually available on EBay

for a relatively low price. If you buy a MF camera system and then

start buying lenses, you could end up with almost as bulky a system as

your 8x10. Also, if you are looking for a camera that you might want to

use in adverse weather conditions or on your boat, an expensive MF

camera might not be what you want either. The Rollei (or another fixed

lens inexpensive MF camera, such as a Fuji 6x9) will give you the

capability to work in situations where your 8x10 would be awkward.

Linda Butler used a view camera and a MF camera when putting together

her book on Rural Japan; in that book, she produced images in two

formats that were very gracefully coordinated.

Go for it. I shoot a lot of industrial areas, etc and don't always

like the baggage/target required for even my very modest large-

format. I have a Rolleicord V (even cheaper than Rolleiflex, but not

bad, esp. if there's a chance of damage/loss) that I use with a

monopod or mini-tripod when I don't want all the luggage. I also

have an old Zeiss-Ikon 6x4.5 folder I bought for $25 that I carry

everywhere. My 35mm has been relegated to a meter at best for most

uses. There are inexpensive ways to get into medium format, just

like large format. Give it a whirl and see how you like it, at a

reasonable price. If it's everything you want, then maybe you

upgrade. I agree with everyone, a TLR is nice and friendly and,

except for the Mamiya, won't tempt you with additional lenses, etc.

I use 6x7 about half the time, 4x5 and 8x10 the other half. I know

exactly what you mean about passing up potential photographs because

of the time/effort involved in setting up the large format gear when

in many situations it isn't really needed. I would never sell either

the medium format or the large format systems, I think they

complement each other and I'd encourage you to keep your large format

gear and just add a relatively inexpensive medium format system. I

use the Pentax 67 system and for landscape/people/still life, I think

it's a great system. Not so good for anything requiring

interchangeable backs (e.g. weddings) or flash generally, but it

doesn't sound like these two drawbacks would be a problem for you.

Since Pentax has recently introduced the Pentax 67II, which is an

update of the Pentax 67 that was in production for some thirty years,

you can get excellent deals on the Pentax 67 bodies on e bay and

Pentax lenses are outstanding as well as inexpensive (by

Hasselblad/Rollei standards that is).

David......Don't sell your gear, put it in a closet and forget

about 'em, because the day will come when you'll walk toward that

closet wishing they were there and glad that they are.

 

<p>

 

Everybody goes through these 'phases' of being 'in love', 'out of

love', happy and/or sick and tired of a particular piece of gear,

you'll come 'full circle' before you're through.

 

<p>

 

A Mamiya 330TLR is a wonderful camera BECAUSE you can add lenses.

I'm not knocking Rollei, but if you change your mind lenswise with

Mamiya you simply add a lens, with the Rollei, if you need and/or want

another lens, you're gonna have to get another camera.

 

<p>

 

The 135 is the only other lens you would need.

I'm a right tool for the job guy. You need one of those little

Fujinon GSW690's and some Velvia. Put it on your wifes credit card

and go have some fun. Get the one with the 65, not the 90. You sling

it around your neck with a strap and forget it's there.

Fast 35mm autofocus is a more natural compliment to your LF than MF,

in my opinion.

I'm always bee bopping back and forth between Leica M's.. wonderful

and quiet,Rollie tlrs cant beat 6 element 3.5 planar except for

rolliecord xenar 3.5...linhof 2x3 and graphic 2x3 for quality and

4x5 graphic...12x20 once in a while but my latest love is 5x7 ...why

not use a Rollie...the perfect compromise camera!Or try a Brooks

veriwide...6x10 ultrawide...not much bigger than a leica. Of if you

have the bread a Horseman 6x12 or Alpa 6x9!

I too have a Rolleiflex 3.5E with a Planar lens, this is my "point and

shoot" camera when I want to travel light. The image quality is

superb, especially with T-max 100 film.

Both LF and MF are both affordable. I own both. Actually I own from

16mm to 8x10. But I'm an addict. But I bought a Kowa Six which is an

excellent camera that is affordable and an 8x10 which is affordable if

not transportable everywhere I go. And 35mm with modern films

exposed and processed correctly are superb. and there are 2x3 cameras

that offer both portability and affordability. The best of both

worlds. Yeah it ain't contact but it is still pretty darn good. Don't

sweat the small stuff. Just shoot film. James

I thought 4x5 for a while and settled on a Horseman 980 (should have

the next version up=VHR) I have all the movements/lens

interchangeability as well as different backs for color/N B&W/+ or -

N/and film holders etc. However there is probably no weight advantage

as the whole kit with tripod weighs over #25.

George Nedleman