When/Why did you move up to MF?

[david_henderson]

Ten years ago consequent on a decision to take my photography more seriously. I chose medium format because

 

The photographers whose work I most admired at that point tended to use medium format.

 

Because I hated the tiny angular little piece of 35mm film and the viewfinders that seemed to keep me detached from my subject. I wanted to shoot square or close to it, and have a finder that would actually enable me to see what I was doing.

 

At that time a lot of commercial buyers wouldn't touch 35mm, and whilst I didn't have any particular commercial avenues in view at that point, I wanted my future portfolio to be commercially eligeable if opportunities emerged.

 

I also large numbers of first time MF entrants buying low cost and often elderly medium format gear, presumably because used prices are so low that it costs very little to try it. I do often wonder though whether many of these purchases will be enduringly used- some of them will have a lot of miles on the clock and won't always be cheap or even economically viable to fix if they develop a problem. The cost of film and processing is higher than many of these new users are accustomed to, and will rise. I can't help but feel that a lot of these cameras will find their way back onto eBay fairly quickly, or be headed for the back of the closet. I hope not- because the more active MF users there are the better it is for me- but I fear so.

[Aoresteen]

I started with a 30's German 6x9 folder in 1972. Moved 'down' to 6x6 1n 1976 - Hasselblad 1000F. Even went to 645. Now Hasselblad 6x6 is my main camera (Mamiya 645 with the 35mm lens is the poor man's SWC). A few years ago I bought a 6x9 Cambo view. I just love 120 film.

 

I still use Leica RF and Contax RF cameras. For 35mm SLR's it's Olympus OM gear and a pair of Zeiss Contaflexes. Why? 'Cause I can.

[andre_noble4]

Year 2003 - 1/500th Flash Synch - Larger Surface area

[kmcgrew]

Gary:

 

Great thread; thanks!

 

I first started shooting MF in the late 1980's, when I was shooting religious architecture. I had a YashicaMat 124G. It didn't work as well as a 4 x 5, so I used it for railroadiana shots for a while, but eventually traded it off and didn't think much about MF for several years. It was simply the wrong tool for the job.

 

In late 2001 I starting thinking about a career change, being a network geek and what with that job market in the tank by then. I bought a couple of Bronica ETRSi bodies, finders, lenses, and several backs. Since then, I've never looked back.

 

The two things I like most about MF are the larger image size compared to 35mm and the fact that it is not a "point and shoot" tool. Nick hits this nail right on the head: MF requires time to setup before shooting--or at least it should!

 

Oh, I still shoot 35mm and I've got a Nikon D70 now, but the love of my serious photogrpahy life is my MF. I've even got a 6 x 9 back for my Wista DX II 4 x 5!

[pics]

I'm willing to bet that more amateurs and hobbyists like myself have entered the MF field in the last couple years than at any time in recent history. The simple reason is the used market and the availability of used gear at reasonable prices. As I see it, this should be a wakeup call to MF manufacturers to reevaluate the price and value of their gear. Lets face it, a new MF system is not worth the several thousand dollars companies charge for it. Professionals that made up a guaranteed consumer group in the past are shrinking in numbers as digital improves and fits their needs, and amateurs like myself aren't about to give Hassleblad 5K for a camera that does no better than a 10 year old used Mamiya for a fraction of the price. Instead of these issues causing the destruction of the MF industry I think manufacturers should see it as a wakeup call to make their products a competitive option for the large number of amateurs who currently have little interest in buying new. Judging by the threads on this site, there are still many people interested in medium format film photography but manufacturers are failing to connect with 90% of them.

[russ_britt3]

1974 because I could not get 16X29 or larger out of 35mm,also most pro labs would charge extra for 35mm processing back then because it was hard to retouch small negs.If you wanted large prints you had to shoot med format for portaits.I have sold 30X40s that looked great shoot on a Hassey back in the late 70s.

[aeaster]

Daniel, I agree with you 100%. What I think we really need is a good, well-built and dependable new TLR on the market. A late model Rolleiflex is about as expensive as some Hassies, and how many non-professionals (those of us with day jobs) can afford that. We need a modern version of the Ricoh Diacord or the Zeiss Ikoflex. On second thought, we need the Ciro-flex Model F back in production.

[maris_rusis]

I came DOWN to medium format photography from 8x10 via 4x5. The 8x10 equipment kit, about 25Kg, was starting to cause physical damage when carried 10km or more. 4x5 was less painful and more productive during long treks in search of landscape. Both large format systems have problems because of the limited amount of sheet-film you can carry without having to reload film holders in the field; a thorough nuisance.

 

I still use 8x10 and 4x5 but not far from home base. For long trips I use a Mamiya RB67 MF system which is easy to reload, gives dust free negatives, is more compact to carry, quicker to set up, and less vulnerable to violent (good for photography!) weather.

 

Downsides of the RB67 include: heavier than 4x5, no camera movements, lower picture quality discernable even in 8x10 enlargements. Everything is good within limits.

[paul_wilson2]

I started about 8 years ago with a Pentax 67 because I wanted more detail in landscapes. I quickly realized carrying the thing was going to be a serious problem. I also was leary of a system that would tempt me to buy too much stuff.

 

I sold it and bought a Mamiya 6 a few months later. The 6 suited my purposes well in terms of carrying it and keeping the system small. I used it for a year or so and realized I preferred a rectangular image so I eventually sprang for a 7II (thanks Robert White). I've had the 7II for almost 7 years and have no intentions of selling it even though I use a Nikon D200 for most things now.

[OCULUS New York]

'02 when the prices first sagged on new Rolleis. I bought a new 6003 outfit for $2200, with full warranty. Since then I have added lenses to a full complement, except for that fisheye...

 

Wonderful revelations in big negs. Be sure to PROJECT them!

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[Gary Naka]

The fact that digital has made used Hasselbald gear affordable to us non-pros. Well kinda, the lenses are still expensive in comparison to other brands. Specifically I could get a full 3 lens RB67 kit for the price of 1 Hasselblad lens. I'm still saving my pennies for a 50-CF. But the Blad was the camera of my dreams from when I was in school.

 

So the Hasselblad is my slow deliberate use camera.

My D70 is my take to parties and other events camera.

 

A 4x5 in on the radar, but maybe in a year or so, after I get my feet wet with the 6x6 and darkroom work again.

[eric friedemann]

"I've seen a lot of people getting into MF on this forum at this late date of the film era and thought I would ask this question..."

 

 

Gary, don't concern yourself terribly about the newness or obsolescense of a particular technology. Eugene Atget used the dying process of photographing on wet glass plates and managed to create one of the greatest bodies of work in all of photography, a visual history of Paris from the late 1880s to the 1920s:

 

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1763

[j. salty]

I got into MF about 6 years ago when a friend sold me a Mamiyaflex with 65mm and 80mm lens for very little. I was and still am heavily into LF, but shooting with MF is very casual and the negatives are sharp, and I've made some very large prints from them. I've since added a few more Mamiya TLR cameras and lenses.

[declark]

I finally couldn't resist it much longer at the rediculously low prices, so I got a Pentax 645 + 55mm lens at the beginning of this year. Things like grass, sand, rocks in the foreground just seem to have so much more detail than 35mm. A friend explained it something like this... Imagine how many blades of grass you see in a field (millions?) now imagine how many pixels you get per blade of grass... The 11 X 14's from it seem so much less strained than from 35mm, but there's something about the square format that is appealing, so there might be a trade in the future. My only complaint is the weight compared to my Nikon N80 setup. But then again the Pentax + 55mm is lighter than a friend's N90 + 35-70/2.8 + flash.

[gary_gumanow]

All,

Thank you so much for all of your great responses. Please keep them coming.

 

I recently got into MF (645), about four months ago, moving up from 35mm ever since I was 7 years old (37 years ago). My first first camera was a Brownie which used 120 film, but I always wanted one of those Hasselblads that they took to the moon (I was 8 in 1969).

 

My dreams came true this year as I got back into creating photographic art (at least I think it's art). ;-) I spent the last 17 years taking candids of my kids and family, snapshots; it was fun, but just not an artistic outlet.

 

My friend lent me her RZ67 II PRO and I fell in love with the viewfinder! I could actually see the image in 3D. I was blown away. I had to get into this format. I purchased a Mamiya 645 on craigslist locally, an AE Prism and wide angle eBay, and was hooked.

 

I print everything in 10x8 and couldn't get the grain out of my prints with 35mm. I couldn't believe the quality and resolution of the negs and prints coming out of my darkroom.

 

You know how you are so inclined to print ANYTHING that might be in focus with 35mm? Well, I printed everything coming off of those first few rolls of 120 as everything I shot seemed to be in razor sharp focus. I was in love.

 

I still shoot now and then with my 35mm, just to make sure that the batteries still work. I also have a wider lens on the 35mm so it gives me some flexibility.

 

I have a point and shot digital (Canon SD100) and it helps me remember where I parked my car downtown. I take a picture of the street sign with the digi just to remember where I parked. Its a great documentation device that way.

 

I really want the 120 roll film to stick around and hope that you all continue to purchase film and turn others on to this format so that we can continue to immerse ourselves in great images.

 

Thank you again for all of your posts. Please continue posting. I loved to see all of your respones this evening.

 

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

 

Gary

[dougmiles]

In the 60's when I was just getting more serious about my photo hobby, among other explorations I tried to see how good the results could be from my Pentax Spotmatic... Quite impressive when I used a tripod and very slow fine film like Agfa Isopan FF. But if that's what it took to get high sharpness and creamy smooth look, why shouldn't I make it easier with a larger neg?

 

Earlier when working in a camera shop I'd tried Hasselblad, Mamiyaflex, Rollei, Linhof 4x5 and discovered I did not like waist-level viewing. Putting the Porroprism on the Mamiya helped that, but then the camera was not comfortable to operate at eye level. What it came down to was wanting something like a Spotmatic using larger film. Ta-da... Pentax 6x7, but I rented an RB67 first to re-verify my preference.

 

Yep, Pentax 6x7 was right for me; I really like it. When a rangefinder is preferable, it's the Bronica RF645 or a Fuji 645. I like the ease with which MF produces rich tones and smooth bokeh.

[doug_nelson1]

I bought the Bronica RF645 late last year. I have always wanted to try MF, and was encouraged by comments right here at photo.net. Shooting Provia 100 slides, I have not been disappointed. I am using the RF645 as a travel camera, for shots for which I know I will want the best image quality. I have never really liked the 35mm aspect ratio. It usually seems too wide or too tall. Even so, my travel kit is the RF645 with 45 and 65mm, and a Leicaflex SL with the 50 and a 90mm.

[tito sobrinho]

I started with MF in '56- (YashicaFlex). Five years later, I bought a Retina IIc. Seven years passed and I got a Nikon F. Three years later, a Leica M4.

 

I still have all of them! Nowadays, my preferred cameras are the Hasselblad, and the Nikon F. The LF cameras are resting!

[nghi_hoang]

I don�t remember the exact date I got myself into MF, but it was more than four years ago. I was shooting with a Nikon system back then as it was the film format I started with when I first picked up this hobby. I remember looking down at the WLF of a Hasselblad that belonged to my university�s photo lab a few years before that. The composition jumped out at me. I knew I wanted the larger format, but I couldn�t afford to buy into the format as a college student. I had to save. After a while, I decided on the Mamiya RZ67. The RZ has a large negative, excellent optics, and a rotating back that I love. I still love composing with the WLF of my RZ67 and how methodical and contemplative I become when I shoot with this camera. The results are outstanding, whether they are prints from negatives or chromes, which are lovely on a light table. I am still building my RZ67 system, but being a medical student doesn�t really give me a budget to buy any lens I want/need. Hopefully, the used market will still be as good as it is today when I finish and get a job.

[Jochen_S]

At age 13 in 1983 I purchased a Kodak Disc 2000. Pictures sucked and 1 year later I gladly received a handed down 6x6 folder. Processing costs made me drool over and get into 35mm SLRs, but at age 20, with some BW darkroom experience, I was able to afford my 1st Mamiya TLR.

 

Handling 35mm negs in a darkroom isn't what I'd call fun. The picture quality of MF and already seeing something while the negs are still drying are great and worth lugging that bulky gear. I like MF for BW, because I can't handle editing and printing countless negs, and MF slows me down enough to keep it doable.

 

Without a own darkroom I prefer 35mm color work but with homeprocessed BW MF is great, as long as you can withstand the temptations of LF.

 

I 'll keep my gear because I can't afford switching to a comparable digital kit and don't trust inkjeting that much. At the moment I don't use it, but times might change again. I should get into portraiture of friends with a portable studio for example...