MF vs LF... which way to go?

Have been shooting 35 for years and recently discovered the Holga and

my friends Mamiya. Am ready for the step to medium format. Though in

my daily fantasy romp through ebay have been noticing the prices for

large format are more or less comperable.

 

What I would like to know is:

 

1)Are there any noticable differences in the formats other than

portability and ease of use (4x5 vs MF).

 

I take alot of candid shots and my 35 gear has suited me very well,

but am now less than impressed with the grain on some of my more

planned expeditions. Still enjoy the look and feel of gritty

street-level shooting; always will, and am determined to continue

the vein, but am fascinated with the quality of medium and large

format landscape and artisitic nude work.

 

2)Is it worthwhile to move through MF, understand the innuendo and

nuance of the format, or strike directly for the muscularity of LF.

 

Would adore if anyone who has crossed this path to offer any advice

and experience in the matter. I am determined to make the leap, but

am unsure of which direction is best. Money as they say... is of no

(little) object, would simply like to make the right choice.

 

Thanks for all the great advice,

 

Moshe

If money is no object, then you may want to get both. For the artistic nude I'd probably prefer medium format since you can move around more freely and get more spontaneity. For landscapes I'd probably prefer the 4x5. (If you go through all the trouble to carry and set up a tripod, you may as well put something big on top of it!)

I have used all three formats 35, MF and LF. Each has its place.

 

I limit 35 to family photos. Easy to use and inexpensive. However, the image quality is not up to my personal standards for enlargements greater than 8x10.

 

I have used 4x5 and 5x7 Cambo LF. It's great working with LF if you have the time and are willing to deal with the weight, slow set-up process, and composing upside down on a dim glass screen. However, for very large prints, work requiring focus (near-far) and distortion control, high quality close-ups, etc. they are indispensible. They may also contribute to a more contemplative approach which may improve your work if you are willing to devote the time and effort.

 

All of my important work (mostly landscape) is currently done using 6x7 Mamiya 7. I find this to be an ideal solution for my work. The print quality is essentially equal to 4x5 up to 20x24, especially for high quality digital prints. Further, the combination of portability, low weight, modest film cost, quick set-up time, more than compensate for the few disadvantages relative to LF. It's also not a lot heavier, or more cumbersome to use, than 35 mm.

 

The final selection should be based on your intended uses. Each format fills a unique niche. However, for most advanced amateur landscape work, a 6x7 rangefinder is close to ideal. I prefer the Mamiya 7 over the alternatives since it also accomodates a range of lenses. I currently use 55, 80 and 150 mm lenses. They are all superb.

 

Good Luck!!

Moshe: I've done both and found each format has its pluses and minuses. Ease of use and portability are subjective issues, but I left the LF world because I didn't have the professional interest to continue and MF could do nearly everything else, given what I was doing. I wish I had kept my field camera, tho'. Some types of photography are definitely LF mandatory and there are LF digital backs etc. to perpetuate the format. No single format "does it all well". Ask yourself how many times you really need one format or another and then decide. Otherwise you'll end up spending $millions on many systems.

Moshe,

 

Everybody has had some great thoughts. I'll just add a few. I've done nudes with large format. For me it didn't work. One little move and the focus is shot. Also things (and people!) can creap into the picture that you don't know about because you've already put in the film holder.

 

Depth of field is less with the longer normal lenses in large format. Being able to control the plane of focus via tilt can make up for some of that but not all.

 

I take slides. 12 pictures cost me around $5.00 for film and $3.00 for developing. Cost per picture, 66 cents. A 4x5 transparency cost about $5 for film and developing (at a custom lab).

 

Large format is just much slower working than medium. Depends on you.

 

I finally stopped with the large format and am very happy with medium. The prints I make (usually no bigger that 16x20) are completely satisfactory to me and compare nicely to the large format ones.

 

It's really up to you but if you like street photography then the slow, meditative larger format way will be very different. For you that might be great or it could drive you bonkers.

 

I don't regret my large format experience but vastly enjoy medium format even more.

 

And I envy you if cost is no (little) object!

 

Have fun!

One question. What size prints do you want to make? HONESTLY. Everyone says they want to make monster prints but few actually do. For anything up to 16x20, I doubt you'd see much of a difference between 6x7 and 4x5 (assuming good film and technique). With certain films and excellent technique, even a 30x40 inch print can look spectacular with 6x7, although at that print size a 4x5 neg would be preferable.<p>

 

Oh, and if you want to take pictures of people (nude or otherwise), stick with MF.

You might also want to try asking your question on the <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography">Large format forum</a> for a completely different set of replies!

I shoot MF and LF (have a 35mm slr, but it never gets used anymore). For portraits, I say go with a MF slr...no rangefinders...can't focus precisely and there's no fast MF rangefinder glass. I use LF for architecture (converging verticals from MF w/ no movements looks amateurish, regardless of the camera/optics) and for landscape, a mix of MF/LF. By a mix, I mean if the shot is a definite keeper and I want that one composition only, it's shot on 4x5. If the shot requires movements, it goes on 4x5 or on 6x7 using the 4x5 camera. If the shot is okay, but not great, or if I'm in a hurry and want to maximize productivity, if I'm making a dupe of a 4x5 shot on MF (for slide shows, etc.), if lighting is changing fast, if I need to use a long tele or fast glass, I use MF. By max productivity, I mean using matrix metering/auto winder in a MF slr most of the time and cross checking the reading w/ spot/ambient meters. In terms of operating speed/productivity between MF/LF, there's just no comparison. With MF, film costs are much less, but I get more keepers on 4x5.

 

For enlargements, if you're shooting B&W, you can't beat 4x5. For color enlargements, when you get to 5x-7x enlargement, although the MF image will still be sharp, color tends to fade. The best MF lenses are still a little sharper (Zeiss, Schneider, Mamiya 7, say around 120 lpmm) than the best LF lenses (Schneider XL's, say around 80 lpmm), but the reduced enlargement required more than makes up for this. On 4x5, more things can go wrong (focus slightly off, not stopped down enough for tilt, light leaks in holders/lens board/bellows, etc). If you don't have patience, then MF for sure! (LF takes me about 15-20 min/shot, including tripod setup time and assuming I don't have to wait for people/clouds to clear, etc.; MF is more like 2-5 minutes.)

 

One final note...top-end LF equipment costs much less than top-end MF equipment.It's really a bargain. As you don't machine-gun off film, the additional film costs are negligible.

If you'd like to go with MF but also have some movements, Linhof makes a setup (called the 679 I beleive) that can take backs from Hasselblad and some others. Also, Rollei has introduced their X-Act which does likewise. And Horseman makes a device that can also take several different cameras and add some movements.

 

Thus you can have your cake and eat it too! Buy a MF system, and if you want movements then add that capability.

 

It is the control of the image plane wrt to the object that gives LF it's power.

I don't really disagree with much of what is said above, but I would put a different spin on it (which you might expect from a die-hard LFer).

 

<p>LF is cheaper (for hardware), plenty of movements, nice big negatives, and separate development of negatives. It is easy to do street work with LF: either a press camera, or <a href="http://www.homestead.com/alangibson/images/snibgo1.htm">something</a> even stranger. If you want an SLR, just get an LF SLR (admittedly, they are not common). With an LF camera, you can use a MF back.

 

<p>Re Moshe's second question, I'm not convinced that MF really should be regarded as between 35mm and LF. Sure the film size is between the others, but I think it is really a different beast. Years ago it combined the worst of the other two formats. Now, I must grudgingly admit, modern MF cameras combine most of the best of both worlds (for a price).

I think a comparison of these formats is like comparing apples and oranges. If all you are interested in is better image quality than 35 mm you may want to pick MF. LF entails quite a shift in philosophy and vision. It is infinitely rewarding for those who are open to that change.

 

 

Composing your image on the large groundglass is of the joys of LF. I now find it hard to live without movements. For me, the choice was clear. Additionally, fine LF glass from Rodenstock and Schneider cost about 30%-50% of comparable MF lenses.

I use 35mm, Medium Format and 8X10. I have found little use for 4X5

(it's good for polaroids). I can't tell the difference between my

Mamiya 7 and a 4X5 at 20X24. The 8X10 blows them all away. The

beauty and perspicacity of a contact print is a joy. As for

enlargements: If you were to blow up an 8X10 negative to 40X50 inches

it would be approximately the same enlargement as a 35mm neg blown up

to 5X7 inches.

 

To see 8X10 and 6X7, 6X6, 645,35mm and 4X5 polaroid check out my site

at www.culturalvisions.com

 

Sorry that the site does not have much text explaining which is which.