Medium vs. large format

Having been an artist and amature photographer for years, I am now

interested in moving up to a larger format. My question is, can a few

people chime in to direct me which route might be best? What I seek is

a camera that would enable me to shoot landscape/outdoor pics (no

studio) and provide a nice negative if I want to enlarge to poster

size or even larger. I assume that the larger the negative, the better

the enlarged pic, but are there large format cameras that can be

packed up in a backpack to get to a scenic location? What is the

largest enlargement I could expect from a medium format negative? Any

comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

A 4x5 press camera can easily be backpacked. You'd want grafmatic filmholders for it as they hold 6 sheets in the space of one regular film holder (2 sheets). So your field kit would be:<ul>

<li>Press camera</li>

<li>one or two loaded grafmatic film holders</li>

<li>Tripod</li>

<li>Cable release</li>

<li>Lightmeter</li>

<li>Darkcloth</li>

<li>Loupe</li>

<li>Optionally a film changing bag, a box of film, and an empty film box</li>

<li>Optionally one or two additional lenses in different focal lengths</li>

</ul>

Hi David,

 

Certainly medium format is far better for good-sized enlargments than 35mm, but if you are looking for a serious quality increase that will allow you to make posters, then it's large format for you. A 4x5 needn't be too heavy and shouldn't require a very beefy tripod. I lug my 8 x 10 around with a majestic tripod and it really is a workout - 4x5 isn't too different, weight-wise, from a medium format system such as an RB67 or a Fuji 680. Certainly it could even be a lot lighter, check out that new Toyo that is made of some kind of synthetics. Very light, nice features, and a good buy for the money.

 

Good luck with your new venture!

Hi, you might consider a Fuji 69 rangefinder. The negative is 55 x 82mm and if you use slow film you can enlarge to poster size. Has the advantage of using rollfilm, which in itself is flatter than a shhet of 4x5 and you get more shots at less cost. Your call, but I have plans to try LF too, going for a B&J press camera for $200.

 

Cheers.

There are a lot of 4x5 and larger formats that can easily be packed and taken out to fairly

extreme locations. This link, if you haven't found it already, will give you a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/matos-begin.html

 

You will probably want a field camera which folds up nicely. You may want to consider a

Tachihara (lighter) or Shen Hao (more movements, Graflok back) as a starter camera.

 

I'd also consider using Readyloads (Kodak) or Quikloads (Fuji). The film is more expensive,

but it saves you the trouble of loading film holders and fighting dust in the process.

 

From what I read, medium format can easily do 16x20, but if you want larger prints than

that I'd suggest going to 4x5.

 

Good luck!

 

Larry

Hi Dave

Been shooting since '68, starting with a c220, and then changing over to 35mm with Canon. Eventually I included medium format with a RB67, which I loved even though it was heavy. Nowadays I have a Mamiya 645 and a F1&A1 Canons, and I've been thinking about incorperating a 4X5 into the mix. The thing about large format is patience, lots and lots of patience. If your into fine art photos and don't mind spending a lot of time on one shot...go for it. Medium format dosen't take much longer than 35mm, for a fine shot, even when setting up a tripod, but you can easily double or triple your time with large format. And it is HEAVY! My RB67 kit weighed in at about 40lbs in a pack, try carrying that all over Europe, on foot. With all that said, I'll be getting into large format, but then again...I've been married 6 times, so I've learned to have ALOT of patience!

TJ

I don't quite know what you mean by poster size, but today's printing technologies mean that you can get a superb 36" sq print (and possibly bigger) out of a good 6x6 original. You do this via a drum scan and print via a LightJet (or Chromira, or Lambda) onto regular crystal archive gloss photo paper.

 

To my mind the quality I can get this way menas that there is no need for large format unless you have a need for the camera movements that come with it. I guess I'd kind of like these but not so much that I'm prepared to handle the inconvenience and film/processing cost of larger formats to be able to get it.

 

Inevitably though the ability to get really fine quality prints from any format depends not just on the process chosen but rather more so on the skills of the people carrying it out. Not every lab that buys a drum scanner and a LightJet turns out great large prints, and you might have to try a few before you get what you want.

Depends on what your up to. Remember that a LF camera is a lot clumsier than an MF camera (quality has it's price). If you are planning to hit the jungle with it or have to overcome obstacles like fences or the like then go for the MF. If you want to do things you can easily reach on foot (or even with a car) than go for the LF. A friend and I recently did some Urban Exploration with his LF camera in an abandoned factory and I must say it was a bitch to drag it along. The tripod looked like you could put a .50 caliber machinegun on it, damned heavy that is.

you can get some Killer deals (Killer w/ capital K) on Technika monorail cameras, top of the line at one time, relativily small and easily transportable, incredibly built. (not for backpacks though)

 

But as stated above, the 4x5 press cameras are the least expensive way to get in and still yield high quality. Most have rangefinders and come w/ the lens. 8x10 folders are a little unweildy and not for the faint of heart. 8x10 film holders and lens still command high dollar.

 

I'd give Fuji 6x9 the nod. You can crank out lot more at less cost and the negs/chromes BIG.

 

I went thru this analysis some time ago and decided to get a H'bld w/ 60mmDisti. Love the cam and the optics.

To second Uncle Goose, it's not just about what will give you the highest quality prints but also about which camera you will actually enjoy using. A 4x5 will do you no good left in the closet because it's such a pain to use. Medium format exists because it is a good compromise between quality and convenence. You might try renting one (like a Pentax 645 or 67) and see if the quality is good enough.

David - There are a lot of fairly light 4x5 systems these days; depending on the distance you're interested in hiking, as well as the number of lenses and accessories that you want to carry, they can be lighter and more easily packable than a hefty MF system.

 

I shoot both LF and MF, but LF is always my preference for landscape use. I shoot 4x5 (and a small amount of 5x7), and have a Fuji GX680 as my MF outfit. Truth to tell, the latter is very bulky and heavy as MF systems go, but the 4x5 setup is much more user-friendly as far as "hikability" goes. LF is considerably slower to set up, of course; that goes with the territory, but IMO the benefits considerably outweigh the cost of setup time and cost-per-exposure.

 

The negative size is only half of the story. With LF, the huge benefit of movements can't be undervalued; those who haven't experienced them can't realize how important they are in maintaining a sharp image, especially when printed to large sizes. While certain compositions won't benefit from movements, these are few; I use tilt on at least 90% of my landscape work. The reason for my MF system being a GX680 is solely for its movement capability.

 

I'd avoid cameras in the Graphic line simply because they're very limited. A much better entry-level choice would be a Shen-Hao 4x5, which is full-featured, moderately priced, and surprisingly well built for the money. Check out Badger Graphic (www.badgergraphic.com) for Shen-Hao and a whole range of other LF goodies.

 

As far as scanning goes: from drum-scanned film, if you have an image where movement ability (or lack thereof) isn't making a big difference in overall image sharpness, 16x20 is about the break-even print size from 6x7 or 6x8 compared with 4x5. At 16x20, I can just barely begin to see the difference between MF and LF; mainly this is a difference in grain visibility rather than sharpness. At larger sizes, LF surpasses MF to an increasingly noticeable degree. That's not to say that you can't get a good print from MF larger than 16x20; far from it, but this is the point of departure from which you'll notice a real difference between the two sources.

 

If you have questions, feel free to email me.

 

Regards,

Danny www.dannyburk.com

With 6x7cm format I routinely get very good 20x24 inch. Just plain physics dictates that prints from 4x5 inch or higher will be better, but at least up to this size the difference is small. I have seen 30" prints from 6x7 win awards at juried competition.

 

There are many advantages to a LF system. A decent 4x5 field camera can even be both lighter and cheaper than a top of the line MF setup and can be backpacked if you are motivated enough. In addition, as mentioned by others, movements can add a lot to your images. In terms of absolute quality LF is no doubt superior to MF.

 

However, do be familiar with the details of the workflow. Apart from slowing you down for each shot, you will be limited by the amount of film you can carry. Unless you are using a wet darkroom you have to take into account the cost of drum scanning ($70+ per negative). A flatbed scan will simply throw away the resolution advantages. If you are comfortable with these inconveniences then all other obstacles in LF are surmountable.

With a tripod, and careful technique, certainly up to 11x14 and arguably up to 16x20 there are minimal differences between 6x7cm and 4x5in images made in a traditional darkroom and probably with a scanner as well. In my opinion, that not enough to warrant the hassles of a 4x5 but...

 

The reason to use 4x5 is MOVEMENTS!!!! The ability to tilt and shift is what separates 4x5 from EVERYTHING else. In landscape and architectural photography movements make all the difference. A 4x5 can do things that cannot be accomplished with ANY fixed position lens camera, regardless of size. 4x5 is slower, more demanding of precision and less tolerant of stupid mistakes. I know, I have made many, pulling the darkslide while the lens is open, forgetting to stop down to shooting aperture and lots more.

 

There are lots of 3-4 pound cameras available from the Wista DX to the Canham DLC, to the others mentioned above. Which camera to choose is a discussion unto itself. Medium format can often work quite well, while travelling, for example, in situations where a 4x5 is just impractical, but for optimum quality, and that requires having the ability to tilt and shift, there's nothing like 4x5. Everything else is a compromise.

I now use a 6x6 SLR system and a Horseman VHR 6x9. I don't have any experience with

4x5, but from what I have read it may be easier to use than a 6x9 view camera. I chose

the horseman because it has adequate movements, I like using roll film - cheaper, and I

can scan using my dedicated medium format scanner. Also the Horseman folds up easily

into a relatively compact unit. I still would like to play with 4x5 just to see the

transparencies on the light table.

 

www.yosemitecollection.com

check out our marching band!

A 4x5 gives many more shooting opportunities and I like to use 6x12 and 6x7 film backs

to manage the costs, with 4x5 on hand if the shot needs it. Most shots benefit from one

camera movement or another with DoF tilts and rising front being my most frequently

used.

 

A 6x12 precisely framed and in focus with a 100% useable negative is substantially

superior to a 6x6 with a wasted foreground. In focus foregrounds provide for greater

apparent sharpness and a 6x6 from a camera with movements can have an advantage over

a fixed lens camera. An MF camera can easily blow to poster size if the sub

 

Speed of operation of a 5x4 can be pretty quick and often travelling for 2 hours to a

location puts a 3 minute setup into perspective. However, chasing opportunity shots of a

sun rise on a beach full of slippy rocks with a receding tide can be markedly easier with a

Mamiya 7 on automatic exposure !

 

Weight and size are issues if you want to walkabout, but if car based at single spot there is

no problem. Hiking is easy as weights can be kept to equivalent dimensions as MF, but

the temptation is to carry more gear and you'll end up with a LowePro Super Trekker with

no room for your waterproofs.

 

Having said all that a frame from an MF camera can easily blow to poster size with the

right choice of film and processing.

Eric, you forgot about the 85mm PC Micro Nikkor when used on the new D2X, surely that would be a handy set up for anyone interested in movements and low cost processing. Having said that, use of different focal lengths and cheap gear makes LF very tempting.

 

Just a question though, and one I've been thinking about recently:

Why do you need huge poster prints anyhow? I find small photos made with cheap cameras can have a huge impact if the subject matter is good. My friend Ruby sent me a photo of a Lilly we made together using her Contax slr, Zeiss glass, and slow B=W film. It was my into to photography. The photo is about two inches long, yet it has a character which might seem silly in a 20 inch print.

Which way you go is of course a very subjective thing. I have always shot 6x6 myself but

recently desired to try a more rectangular format. At first, I thought I wanted a 4x5 for the

negative size and went about constructing a Hand Held 4x5 very similar to the Cambo

Wide. I then found a mulit sheet Grafmatic and a very nice Leica Brightframe. My personal

work involves a lot of Landscape so my thinking was I could build this fast hand held 4x5

and have the best of both worlds. When I finished and used the thing it was just too

combersome and large for my liking(Although it was fairly light). I then played around

with some old 6x9 folders such as the Voigtlander Bessa 1 and the Zeiss Super Ikonta C

and found I really really loved the 6x9 format but wanted something a bit wider than the

normal lenses could give me. So, I ended up wiith the Fuji GSW690III and its a real dream

to shoot with. It's light, fast and super sharp. Shooting either Fuji Velvia or something

like EFKE 50 B&W, one can easily print as large as you like. For instance, a 4000 DPI scan

on my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 allows me to make 30"x50" sharp prints on my Epson 9600

if I so desire. But it all depends on how you like to shoot. If you like shooting

methodically on a tripod, then either a 4x5 press sytle camera or a 2.25x3.25 mini Press

(Crown Graphic, Horseman) would be the way to go...but at the expense of much more

weight than the fuji. Printing wise though, if you shoot a slow, fine grained film, anything

above 6x7(or 6x6 if your Square) will give you the film quality your looking for. That's just

my take on it.

I'd have to go against popular advice here. Don't do the Fuji 6x9! I'd had that thing for a month and ditched it for a 4x5. It's severly limited - fixed lens and the interchangeable ones have limited lens choices. No Freaking tilts, shifts, swings, rise/fall. That's the main advantage of Large Format besides the Larger negatives. You can easily backpack a gowland pocket view or a wisner pocket with a lens or two. A quickload holder does away with the weight of conventional film holders. I guess the Fuji isn't too bad if you're shooting mostly distant mountains or objects - but when you want your photos to have 3 dimensional qualities like a close foreground object then you're SOL, the DOF on the FUJI is going to drive you nuts without tilts.

You can get a 6x6 Rollei with movements - wonderfull MF camera. LF has less DOF

remember...

In response to Adonis, he is correct in that if you need the movements of a technical

camera, the Fuji is not it. But the Depth of field at F11 or F16 with the 65mm lens on my

camera is pretty darn good. Thats equivilent to a 28mm lens on 35mm. No, without

movements, your not going to get everything from 3 ft. to infinity in focus but if you need

say 20-30ft to infinity, I don't think that would be an issue with the 65mm. It's good for

much more than just distant landscapes! Again, everything is a trade off and you make

those trade offs based on how and what you shoot. I need to shoot fast as I'm often

chasing moving cloud formations. I also shoot more static architectual subjects in color

and photoshop makes it very easy to make corrections that I would have used a view

camera for in the past. Speed and weight wise though, nothing can touch the Fuji. Load

some 220 and your good for 16 rapid frames. Once you add up the various weight of all

the view or technical camera components(backs, lens, tripod, boxes of film), your easily at

3-5 times the weight of the fixed lens fuji. But, if you need that modular versatility, then

the Fuji is not for you.

One camera is never enough! Get both a MF and LF camera!

Not to forget that one reason why LF cameras have and need movements is to overcome the limitations in depth of field with long lenses. MF camera with its shorter lens, yet giving the same field of view, can often get sufficiently large depth of field just by stopping down.

 

In this day and age, large format is more of a craft than necessity to get high quality images. Good medium format camera and lenses, whether film or digital, is sufficient for almost all normal uses and enlargement sizes.

Points to condsider: Movements, weight and speed. Unless you're going beyond 20x30 a 6x7 will give almost exact performance, especially with a top system like the Mamiya 7.

 

I use the Mamiya 7II (6x7 cm neg) rangefinder for my landscape shots, and the results are stunning. The rangefinder offers unparalled sharpness in its class. I have color images enlarged to 20x30 that are extremely crisp. The lenses for the Mamiya are sharper than any LF, and some of the finest ever made. The camera is very light, as are the lenses. I've taken identical shots with this system, 35mm, and LF, and enlarged the images to 20x30. MF blows away 35mm, but is basically identical to LF (4x5)at this size. I would assume 8x10 to be far more noticeable. 4x5 is double the size of 6x7, whereas 8x10 is 8 times as large as 6x7. So IMO, if tilts, et al are not important go with MF for ease of use, or 8x10 for a more substantial jump in size.

 

One point to note, is to never have your film digitally printed IMO. Always go with an optical enlargement. Scanning is an intermediary step that will reduce quality. Always print directly from the source, i.e. your film. I don't care what others say, I've been to the best labs (Duggal in NY) for both digital and optical prints from the same neg, and its not even close, optical is far superior.

 

I've been backpacking around the world, and when I'm on a 18 day hike in Nepal, the last thing I want is a slow LF camera that needs a tripod for every shot......

 

good luck!

Chris - I would agree with alot of what you wrote. However, some prefer the larger neg of the 4x5 or even 8x10 depending on the ultimate objective. Ansel Adams work would not be the same in smaller formats.

 

As you know, there are also outstanding fixed lens cameras such as the Fuji 6x9 and the point and shoot 4x5 such as Cambo, Horseman, and Alpa, to name a few.

 

Your right, on a trek overseas sometimes one needs to shoot fast and move on. Someday I would like to get one of those PS 4x5 wide angle cameras. For now its my Leicas and my 4x5 Linhof (special shots). For quik shots its the Leicas, and for more patience than maybe the 4x5. Its not all about speed. [Ck out the Schneider 110mm/5.6 Super Symmar-XL, one fantastic lens and reasonably priced comparatively speaking.]

 

Best Regards - Paul