Why is MF film typically slow?

<p>From what I have seen most MF film is relatively slow with a corresponding fairly slow max shutter speeds on lenses. I am comparing this to 35mm film. I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason, but I don't understand the engineering of MF cameras enough to figure out the reason.</p>

<p>I think you're mistaken. Most 35mm emulsions are also available in 120. Give us specifics. </p>

<p>At one time you could get most of the same films in both formats. But there have always been certain film.s only available in 35mm just because they always sold more 35mm cameras.<br>

Also most medium format users are looking for finer grain and a higher quality image. So 3200 film for example would be used more in 35mm cameras because of the faster optics and lower expatiation's of image sharpness.<br>

I never saw or used any film faster than 800 asa in my Hasselblads.<br>

But Kodachrome on the other hand was only available for a short time for 120 users, I never really understood that. Kodachrome in 120 I always thought was a perfect match for large prints......but I guess I was the only one?</p>

Are you talking about the film speed, or the max shutter speed on the cameras?

<p>First the film. There is no reason why fast films can't be used in MF, but they don't sell well. It would be reasonable to use a fast film in medium format to compensate for the slower lenses. The larger film area easily compensates for the image quality loss in a higher speed film. In practice, most people use MF in controlled lighting situations and choose to use slower films. </p>

<p>As for cameras, most MF cameras have leaf shutters. It is hard to get faster than 1/500th of a second in a leaf shutter. </p>

<p>Doing a quick check on eBay I found a total of 165 items for 120 film. 83 of those had an ISO of 200 or less, 53 with ASA of 400 or 800, and 29 which weren't specified. When I started looking at the unspecified ones, at least half were ISO200 or slower.</p>

<p>The other half of my question was why are MF lenses generally no faster than 1/500 second. Russ's point about MF shooters looking for finer grain certainly makes some sense. I hadn't really thought it about that aspect before.</p>

<p>Are you talking about the film speed, or the max shutter speed on the cameras?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was actually referring to both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A broader selection of films is available for the 35mm format simply because it's more popular. However, Adorama carries Ilford Delta Pro 3200 in 120, along with several 800 ASA color films. While the selection is admittedly limited, fast film does exist for medium format.</p>

<p>Even in 35mm, it's true that most films are fairly slow. There are a number of films available in the 25-400 ASA range, but relatively few beyond that (and one of the best, Fuji Neopan 1600, was discontinued not long ago).</p>

I've two rolls of 3200 in my bag that I can't think of how to expose in my Rollei. Maybe burn it off with some bar

scenes or something.

 

I should try my hand at night-time street photography. Drunks inside and outside of bars on a tuesday night,

downtown.

 

 

Thaawaaap, click, whhirr. Stealthy.

<p>Focal plane shutters (as in 35mm cameras) achieve high speeds by moving a very narrow slit across the film, starting the closing curtain just 1/1000th of a second or less after the opening curtain starts. There were some focal plane shutters in larger formats, but none were particularly successful.</p>

<p>Most MF shutters are leaf shutters. It's difficult to make those with speeds faster than 1/500th due to the mass that must move to open and close the blades. In fact the fastest speed decreases as the shutter size increases:<br>

Copal 0 = 1/500th, Copal 1 = 1/400th, Copal 3 = 1/250th (there is no Copal 2).</p>

<p>Since leaf shutters have no curtains in the first place, this technique is obviously impossible for those.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>Re film speed...</p>

<p>As others have said, MF photographers typically want maximum possible quality, and quality decreases as film speed increases.</p>

<p>Another reason is the type of work for MF v. 35mm.<br /> The latter is (was) frequently used for news-type work where fast shutter speeds are desirable or even mandatory.<br /> MF cameras are seldom used for such, although the Rolleiflex was when it was popular.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>MF leaf sutters at 1/500 vs your 35mm camera 1/1000 is only one stop difference, is it that significant? My favorite range of shutter speeds are 1/60 to 1/250 in most cases, I hardly ever use 1/500. If I found a reason to need 1/1000, I probably can make it up in develoment to compensate for the one stop.<br>

As for film speed.. all your 35mm film is available in 120 using the same emulsion formula, only difference is real estate.</p>

 

<p>You can always fit a filter to reduce your effective film speed. Something like a Rolleiflex,with its 1/500 max shutter, is crippled by 400 speed film - your option in bright sunlight is using F16 or F22 : probably the worst settings for lens performance, and ,as for throwing a background out of focus,forget it. But ,for example,fit a polarizer and you can open up 2 stops. The greatest speed loss came when Fuji took Neopan 400 /120 off the market.</p>

<p>While noting what has been said previously, I suspect that most fast film is used by 35mm users because they are shooting hand-held while MF users - and here I am speaking of my own practice - generally use a tripod so film speed, and thus shutter-speed, is not a major consideration.</p>

<p>I disagree with Leigh about FP shutters in formats larger than 35mm not being particularly successful. The Pentax 6x7 and 645 come to mind, along with the Mamiya 645; all successful. There are others.</p>

Indeed. Mamiya 1/1000, Hasselblad 1/2000, Contax 1/4000. Slow?<br>But the question mentioned typical MF, and many of those use leaf shutters. Rollei leaf shutters 1/1000, Hasselblad H leaf shutters 1/800. It has been mentioned why leaf shutters typically are slower. But still.<br><br>The speed of MF lenses is largely determined by the diameter (and with it speed - the two are inversely proportional) of the shutter that is to be put in there. So though leaf shutter lenses may be a tad slower than typical 35 mm format lenses, there are some quite fast shutterless MF lenses. Another large part of it is money: the bigger and faster the lens, the more expensive it will be. And with MF lenses already being bigger than 35 mm format lenses, costing quite a bit more as a consequence, another leap up in price would make them unaffordable.<br><br>Film generally isn't slower, though (as also has been mentioned) the fastest emulsions generally came in sizes used by people who don't value image quality much anyway, i.e. 35 mm format shooters. ;-)<br><br>And that brings us to the Real Reason: MF and LF are used by people who put more value on image quality than 'boastability'.<br>There really is not much use for those fast shutterspeeds, other than being able to poo-poo your colleague's Super Camera that only goes to 1/4000 while your Extra Super Camera goes up to 1/8000.<br>Same for film: the best results are produced by slow(er) film. So people who spend the extra money on MF or LF cameras in search of that extra bit of quality are not likely to want to use anything but the best possible, i.e. slowest film (application permitting) too.<br><br>There is one practical use for fast speeds though: when you were foolhardy enough to put an f/2 lens on a camera loaded with ISO 800 film, you may need speeds over 1/1000 to be able to take pictures at all. ;-)<br><br>By the way: the loss of Neopan 400 (is it really gone, by the way?) would perhaps be a real loss would there not also still be TMax 400.

<p>Perhaps a better question might be why medium format shooters often prefer slower film. If I had to answer in one word, perhaps that word would be "resolution."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I really appreciate all of the great education you are giving me here. It all makes a lot of sense, and gives me a much better appreciation for the medium format world. For example, until just now, I hadn't known that it would make leaf shutter lenses much more expensive if they were to have significantly higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Just to expand on the topic - shooting medium format is different from 35mm (and in my experience 35mm digital differs from 35mm film). The cadance and approach to shooting differs as you change format and use different cameras. In my case my Fuji GX680 bodies take a long time to set up and use but can create wonderful images. It has a top shutter speed of 1/400 (leaf shutter in the lens) and takes 6x8cm negatives while allowing front lens movement. But it is 10+lbs, is really only suitable for tripod mounted shots, has to be shot in MLU and has no real meter. My Mamiya Pro 645s however handle very much like big SLRs, Focal plane shutter (some lens have a leaf shutter), motor wind, prism viewfinder and great builty in meter. These two cameras are pretty much the extremes of Medium Format working speeds and approaches.<br>

What I am suggesting is that you evolve a working speed and style appropriate to the camera system you are using. You also select the system to use based on what subject you are planning to shoot. I would never dream of using the Fuji for Sports or street but for portraits, Macro and landscapes it is great if you have time. <br>

In the period since digital has replaced film as the mainstream approach, manufacturers have reduced their ranges to what sells. Thus 35mm has a greater range of films available than MF. However, even here fast colour emulsion has almost disappeared and even fast B&W is hard to find. This is because if you need to shoot at high ISO digital is the way to go. My 5DII produces a pretty good image quality at ISO 1600 and is quite usable at ISO 3200. If you have ever shot colour film at high speed (I have used Ektachrome P1600 at 1600 and pushed to 3200) you will understand how poor the quality is. Black and white is better but even here the quality suffers at high ISO. Since MF shooters tend to have a slower more deliberate approach and shoot MF for it's image quality the film demand is for slower, high image quality emulsions. Indeed you will also notice than many of the cheaper consumer grade emulsions are disappearing - people who spend money on film and processing do not tend to try and save a dollar or two on the cost / quality of the film.<br>

On the subject of shutter speeds leaf / between the lens shutters used to have an advantage in that they could synchronize with a flsh gun at any shutter speed (unlike the moving slot of a fast focal plane shutter they have a moment when they are completely open). This was very useful for fill in and daylight use of flashguns - where the camera is set to make a natural light picture and the falsh just removes shadows etc... This advantage has disappeared with modern flash and shutter systems on DSLRs where most are capable of a high speed flash mode - where you can synch at any shutter speed. However, I own many cameras that go to a very high shutter speed (I have seven bodys that go to 1/8000) but find that I rarely need it. With MF bodys where I tend to load 50 or 100 ISO film I find that even 1/1000 on my Mamiyas is almost never used. The only body I have where another film speed would be useful is my Leica M6. Here the camera is limited to 1/1000 but my lenses are quite fast e.g. 35mm F1.4 and I often use a fast B&W emulsion (e.g. 400 ISO) . This causes a situation where sometimes I want the lens wide open for very shallow DOF but I do not have a fast enough shutter speed. Interestingly my Contax G system rangefinders do not have the same problem having 1/4000 or 1/6000 depending on the model. With a DSLR you do not have this issue as even with an F1.2 lens you can just change the ISO equivalent (my 5DII will shoot at 50 ISO although it is not a true 50 ISO)<br>

To summarize this rather lengthy note - if you want high shutter speeds to freeze action go for a 35mm or DSLR, if you want high ISO to shoot in the dark go for a full frame DSLR (Canon or Nikon). With MF chose a slower more deliberate shooting style and subjects that work with it. While I am sure to get comments from others for saying this I would suggest that MF should not be your only photographic solution these days.</p>

<p>At one time, as said, pretty much anything that was available on 35mm was available on larger formats as well. Heck, at one time, there was 8x10 Kodachrome, I seem to remember.</p>

<p>On older cameras particularly, the shutter speeds were built-in/designed at a time when what we would now call ISO 160 film was HIGH SPEED. Plus, a focal-plane shutter is/was easier to take to high speeds. Many MF cameras have leaf shutters.</p>

<p>In short, what we have here is another example that selection is not only "natural selection", but often applies to cultural areas as well.<br>

The films that are still made and sold in larger formats (and smaller for that matter) are <strong>those that still sell</strong>. Those that appealed to a specialist, small market have largely gone the way of the passenger pigeon. ("This is a <em>dead</em> parrot").</p>

<p>Philip, an excellent overview of the MF rationale. I use digital (most of the time), 35mm film, and Medium Format for the slower pace and high quality images. I also subscribe to the theory that one uses different cameras (tools) for different situations. I am currently looking for a portable medium format camera to take with me to Hawaii later this year. I will be wanting to use it for the magnificent landscape opportunities where rich detail is very important to me.</p>

<p>You have a lot to choose from. 645 systems are the most portable - all are good but it comes down to lens prices which vary depending on the make - the usual suspects are Mamiya, Pentax and Bronica - Contax made a great 645 but it is expensive and electronic. I use Mamaiya which works well but I have also used Pentax look at lkens prices - especially wide angle on KEH.com for an idea of prices. If you want to go for a larger format the usual suspects are Hasselblad, Bronica and Mamiya RB or RZ (the first two are 6x6, the Mamiyas 6x7). Of these the Mamiyas are pretty big beasts and really work best on a tripod. <br>

My suggestion (for what it is worth) is either a Mamiya or Pentax 645 if you want something inexpensive or a Hassy 6x6. For a lot of classical landscape shots I found that the square format has little to add as you often crop them. The other big decision you need to make is metering - for example the Pentax and Mamiya 645 have fairly cheap metering prism options and will work like an SLR. With some of the others the best approach is a handheld meter. Hassy does have metering systems but they can be very expensive used.</p>

<p>I should also add that you should read the MF section of this site under Equipment and browse the web. Things you should look at in your choice are:<br>

Price (especially lenses)<br>

Size and weight<br>

Ability to handhold<br>

Size of negative<br>

Metering and viewing</p>

<p>One final thought is that there are also some fine (and sometimes expensive) rangefinder cameras in MF. Mamiya 6 and 7 are probably the best but there are also some cameras from Fuji and Bronica. It is important to research these as some have known issues (Fuji had bellows problems on some of its folding 645 cameras). Also be aware that some of the Fujis are focused using a distance scale only. Fuji makes some very good 6x9 rangefinders but they have no meter.</p>

<p>Leigh addressed the shutter question. Note that some large format camera shutters have even lower ranges of speeds than MF cameras, as they use typically even larger area (mass) leaf shutters. As for 35mm film and that available for 120 and large format, you can get about the same range of films in each format, from very slow (ISO 25 or less) to very high (800 and above). The higher speed films allow more depth of field with the MF and LF lenses (allowing them to be closed down more). In all cases, and especially with 35mm, the slow films give a resolution advantage compared to faster films, which can be important for enlarging from the small format. Nice thing about the higher speed films with MF is that you can sacrifice a bit of resolution by using them and gain needed depth of field for their longer focal length lenses. My experience is that there are as many slow and high speed films in both 35mm and 120 format (see Freestyle or other comprehensive sellers of currently available film emulsions), </p>

<p>Arthur you may be right but I have not seen films like Fuji Pro 800Z, Superia 1600 or Kodak T Max 3200 in anything other than 35mm for a while now. I checked the Kodak website and they only claim to make the 3200 in 35mm - I suspect the same applies to Fuji and others.</p>