What is MF?

The question is not just theoretical. Andrew and I disagree on what constitutes MF for purposes of posting to this forum, and I think input from list members would help in clarifying what we want to see here.

 

<p>

 

The issue arose from a post I made under the "For Sale" category, and listed the items that constitute my Arca-Swiss system. As some of you undoubtedly know, the A/S F-line system is lightweight modular monorail, and the nominal 6x9 and 4x5 versions convert to one another by swapping the bellows and either one or two standards. Mine is the nominal 4x5 version, which I use in the field almost exclusively with roll film (120), a not uncommon practice. Andrew deleted my post, saying,

 

<p>

 

>This isn't about medium format at all!

 

<p>

 

For me, this raises several questions. Would the nominal 6x9 be about MF? Would a monorail like the Gowland or the Cambo 23, which take only 120/220 roll fim (or the now rare 2 1/4 cut film) be about MF? If no to these, then what *is* MF? If yes to these, then is the distinction simply that if it _can_shoot 4x5 as well as 120, it's off-limits? That seems rather arbitrary and self-limiting, but if it's necessary to shield the list from such distinctions, OK. I do think it odd, though, that the presumably MF relevant Fuji 680--which costs much more than the Arca, weighs more, takes a lesser range of lenses, and offers far less in the way of pc movements (but does have the apparent virtue of being unable to shoot 4x5)--would constitute an acceptable for sale post, while an Arca would be something that the list needs protection from. I posted in the belief that list members willing to read about the Fuji would also be interested in the choice of an Arca. And I strongly disagree that a system which I use almost exclusively with 120, "...isn't about medium format at all!"

 

<p>

 

I have suggested to Andrew that any system that can be used exclusively with 120 in the field be considered MF relevant. Otherwise what does MF mean? Obviously, putting 120 back on a 20lb Linhof GTI 45 doesn't make it a MF camera. But where's the line? The Cambo 23SF is a monorail billed as MF by Calumet, and takes only roll film, but weighs more and is bulkier than my A/S nominal 4x5, which is also set up for roll film use. Those interested in having a say about what is and is not MF for purposes of posting to this list, please speak up. Is my suggested MF definition OK to others? Or is it too broad? How should we deal with cameras like the Calumet 23 and the various Arca F-line configurations? As list maintainer, Andrew makes the final decisions, and, ultimately, he does get to define MF for us, but I would hope that his decisions reflect some consideration for what may be of benefit to the list members, and that his MF definitions bear some resemblance to those already established by practice.

 

<p>

 

Updat: In my last communication with Andrew, he indicates that a view camera which is capable of using roll film _only_ would qualify as a MF post. This disqualifies my Arca in its present configuration, and the post will remain deleted. Presumably, I could downgrade the camera so it could not take 4x5, and then offer it to the list. Andrew says this keeps the list on topic. He also informs me that the "Classified" section is a more appropriate section for posts about selling items than the "For Sale" section. I apologize to the list for not realizing that. But I also notice that Steve Adams' post of Sept 2 titled "Nikon Equipment" has not been deleted, perhaps because in among the 35mm equipment there is also a Hassy item. Is is then on topic, and does MFD benefit more by a Nikon F3 being posted for sale, which cannot shoot MF, than an Arca, which does? I cannot follow Andrew's distinctions.

Would it be too simple-minded to define a medium-format camera as one that is DESIGNED TO SHOOT PRIMARILY 120 or 220 roll film? Not one that can be adapted or modified to shoot 120 or 220, but one that was designed to shoot, and whose primary purpose as designed and built was to shoot, 120 or 220 roll film? Maybe you can think of half a dozen exceptions right off the bat, but wouldn't this definition serve in the vast majority of cases?

Gordon. I don't believe that your disagreement with me stems from the definition of medium format - perhaps your point is 'should posts be deleted'?

 

<p>

 

My case for deleting posts is to keep the forum on the subject of medium format. If left alone, the discussion is likely to dilute, and become less interesting to those of us who wish to discuss medium format. There are other places to talk about 35mm or large format. I will also delete posts which are offensive or too-commercial and it may be appropriate to edit or delete where the format of posts is grossly at odds with usual MFD postings. I am less likely to delete a thread if there have been lots of replies to it.

 

<p>

 

I am aware that when I delete a posting the response may be anything from 'thanks that's fair enough' to extreme disagreement! This is often understandable, as the postee has taken time to write their message. I therefore often send out a reason for deletion, and offer alternate suggestions in order to sweeten this bitter pill.

 

<p>

 

I hope that I can justify my actions with consistancy, and I will update the 'ask a question' area to reflect my view of allowable topics. Any lack of consistancy is more a reflection of carelessness on my part than vindictiveness or bloody mindedness I assure you!

Virtually any 4x5 view camera can be adapted for 120 use by inserting a roll film back. Does that make the camera "medium format"? I rather agree with the post that suggested defining medium format as any camera manufactured to use 120 roll film,( and that would include quite a number of "view" cameras) but I would have liked to see the original for sale ad left undeleted. There are other forums dedicated to "large format" and perhaps the ad would have been better placed there, but we need to be a little more elastic in our definition of "medium format".

First, please let's remember that whether or not we always agree with everything he does, Andrew must spend a great deal of his time and energy for the betterment of this digest. His contribution is very valuable, partly because it helps keep things on track. I'd much rather have the odd posting bounced than be without a list maintainer. Please don't make Andrew's job too hard, even if you disagree with him. I imagine he gets little enough thanks as it is.

<p>

That being said, I personally do see the Arca Swiss 4x5, particularly if it's the one with the 6x9 front standard, as being suitable for posting here. While I have absolutely no experience with large format, I've looked with curiousity through some of the LF pages because I sometimes long for camera movements. I understand from this reading that the Arca 4x5 FC is popular with those wishing to shoot primarily, or exclusively, medium format. People seem to choose this camera because it is small, light, yet offers full movements. They may like either the flexibility of the occasional 4x5 frame (particularly useful for Polaroids), or may wish to use a 6x12 roll-film back. Neither would be an option with the 6x9 only version of this camera. Andrew's present criterion seems to rule the camera out because it can take 4x5 film, yet I think many people would choose this model for almost exclusive 6x7 or 6x9 work. Anyway, that's what I've been toying with the idea of doing.

I do wish to point out, however, that the above may well not be obvious to others. For that matter, it might even be wrong!

<p>

In general, I like to see discussion of MF cameras with movements. So I guess I wouldn't mind just a little bit more leniency in this direction. I would like to see 4x5 cameras that are particularly well suited to 6x7 or 6x9 work qualify, but don't know if there's enough interest among other readers.

<p>

At the other (35mm) end of the spectrum, I'm not sure of Andrew's exact criterion. I, too, was a little surprised to see posts about Nikon and Leica equipment. I must admit, that in both cases the posts included something that definately was MF-related, but felt that these posts might have been re-written to be more MF focused. However, these largely 35mm posts don't make it in very frequently, so I don't think it a big problem. Besides, I imagine that the vast majority of MF people also use 35mm equipment.

<p>

Also, if the criterion is that the camera must be primarily made for MF use, then does the Hasselblad XPan qualify? Is it not really a 35mm camera with a panoramic mode? It doesn't even take 120 or 220 film! Personally, I do think that discussion of this camera is appropriate; I just ask these questions to provoke thought as it straddles the MF boundary much like the 4x5 FC Arca Swiss does.

<p>

BTW, for anyone who doesn't know, there is a large format version of this digest at <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography</a> If MF view-cameras prove too unpopular here, moving these discussions appears to be an option.

<p>

I imagine Andrew will welcome suggestions, if we make them politely. Anyone else like to venture an opionion?

I think a medium format camera should be defined as one designed to take 120 or 220 roll film. Could the Mamiya 7 be considered a tool for 35mm photography because it can also take 35mm film? I really don't think so. On the other hand, strict adherence to definitions, in this case, seems unreasonable. The number of large format cameras that can be adapted to take 120 or 220 is not small, and their usage is sufficiently widespread to render definitions irrelevant as far as this forum is concerned. Those who regularly use/want/need the flexibility of view camera movements coupled with the convenience of roll film have at their disposal only one modern camera that meets the definition of medium format: the Fuji GX680. All other options meet the definition of large format. Deleting postings (whether questions or ads) about large format cameras that can take 120 or 220 film limits some sound alternatives to the medium format shooter.

OK. The GX680, the FlexBody, and the ArcBody.

I too use my Arca Swiss monorail almost exclusively for 120 rollfilm these days, using either Graflex 6x8 or 6x9 film holders. I regard it as an extremely versatile MF camera, having all the movements I need to achieve the results that I (and my clients) require.

 

<p>

 

The mere fact that I am using a front standard designed to accommodate the lenses more usually associated with 5x4 or even 10x8 film backs is totally irrelevant to the issue. I could just as easily use a 6x9 front standard, but this would preclude the use of my lenses of choice, as the 6x9 lens panels are too small - especially for wide angle lenses which need a dished (concave) panel.

 

<p>

 

With all due respect to Andrew, as moderator of this list, but I doubt that he has ever used such a combination, and is probably unaware of the problems that working photographers (many of whom are members of this list) need to overcome in order to get their MF pictures.

 

<p>

 

If Gordon, other photographers, and myself use the Arca Swiss monorail as a Medium Format camera, then I think mention of its use in this forum should be deemed acceptable.

 

<p>

 

Clive Bubley

I have to agree that ANYTHING which pertains to medium format photography is appropriate to be posted here, including large-format equipment with roll-film backs.

Having been the subject of deleted postings, I will side with the moderator and support the contention that MF means a camera designed primarly for use with 120/220 film (and some of the older roll films 127,620, etc). A link to a LF site might be an idea.

 

<p>

 

I don't currently use LF, but have in the distance past, and it seems obvious to me what the destinction is. Moving up from 35mm recently, I thought about LF, but decided that I didn't want the hassel of dealing with cut film and all of the headaches entailed!

 

<p>

 

Andrew takes a considerable amount of his time to maintain this site and I feel that he should be the final decision maker here!

I have to disagree with Gene on his argument. MF stands for Medium Format. Medium Format refers to the film (or glass plate) size. It is this image size which we choose to use in our pursuit, hobby or profession as photographers.

 

<p>

 

The equipment we use in order to achieve this image should be a side issue. However, many people on this list seem to think that the camera is the all important reason for this list to exist. They just regard the equipment as something to possess and talk about. Never actually use.

 

<p>

 

And I thought we were a bunch of photographers who liked and used this format to produce our photographs.

 

<p>

 

How sad.

 

<p>

 

Clive Bubley

an old thread but.... the appeal of medium format over large format is

three fold (a quick count).

 

<p>

 

1) speed- from one exposure to the next, in set up time and in focus

and handling.

 

<p>

 

2) portability- more optical options per pound, monopods sometimes

will suffice (or hand held for rangefinder folk & you dare devils) and

the film weighs less.

 

<p>

 

3)economics- less bucks per shot than sheet film, with slightly less

enlarge-ability than L.F. and big gains compared to pipsqueak formats.

 

<p>

 

so my opinion (i think that's what this forum is for) is that medium

format photography is about a method of working, and tools have been

manufactured to suit this approach. is that the chiken first? or the

egg?

 

<p>

 

anyone who uses large format cameras with sheet film AND roll backs

knows how these 3 factors influence the type of images achieved.

 

<p>

 

it's not about the equipment, it's about the approach.

 

<p>

 

but this forum is about equipment, as clive noted.