Advantages of M/F over 35mm other than bigger enlargements

[thomas_hardy1]

>>>>>>As far as the "real thing" goes does anyone make a handholdable 4x5?<<<<<<<<<

 

Yep, check out Razzle, Alpenhause, and Fotoman to start.

 

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

 

http://www.alpenhause.com/

[joseph_wisniewski]

Greg - "As far as the "real thing" goes does anyone make a handholdable 4x5?"

 

Har har har, very funny...

 

But just in case there's a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance that you are being serious...

 

They were called "press cameras", because they were "the" newsman's camera.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_camera

 

Many companies made them: Kalart, Burke & James, Mentor, Linhoff (my friend Bryce had a Linhoff Technika), Busch, Zeiss...

 

The "classic" was the Graflex corporation's "Speed Graphic", a 4x5 folder with a focal plane shutter (there were other models produced with just the leaf shutter, such as the "Crown Graphic") from produced from 1912 to 1973. Total production was about 4 million units. They made hand holdable folders from 2x3 to 5x7. You could focus a Speed Graphic via rangefinder, or on the ground glass, switch over to lens shutter or focal plane as needed. Interchangeable lenses. You could compose quickly with the wireframe viewfinder. They even had a 6 shot fast load magazine...

 

I used to have one, and the hat with the card that said "PRESS". OK, so I only wore that had as a "costume". I'm not that old. ;)

 

http://www.graflex.org/

 

And a cool review of the 4x5 Speed Graphic on a site called potatoe net or something...

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/large-format/speed-graphic

 

Come on... Weegee, Joe Rosenthal, David Burnett, Federico Scoppa...

 

"As you know 6x7 is considerably more than double the size of 35mm."

 

Actually, it's exactly double the diagonal, to 1/10 of a mm, 86.6 vs 43.3. I've always thought that was as much a reason for choosing the size than the whole "ideal format - enlarges efficiently to 8x10" campaign.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Thomas - wow, those are cool. I didn't know something like that was going on today.

 

F D - always glad to meet another sporkist ;)

[gt1]

Thanks Thomas! The Fotoman 45PS looks great!

 

Joseph, thanks for the Graflex links.

 

"I've always thought that was as much a reason for choosing the size than the whole 'ideal format - enlarges efficiently to 8x10' campaign."

 

Can you expand on that?

[httpwww.someantyx.coma]

Joseph nailed it when he said will power is what you need to slow down, and perhaps decaf. For me, I tried 35mm

film in the 80s in highschool but never really worked out beyond the Program AE settings. There was some cool

stuff I did but not taking a class and not fully comprehending things, well we didnt' have the internet we have

today. So I'm a digital shooter that's turned to film. On a whim I bought into MF and while I say the same

things like "it slows me down" (I don't drink coffee so the decaf doesn't apply) its true that will power and

discipline would do the same thing. However the tool (MF) is what helped. Now, when I shoot digital, I still

don't slow down but I'm getting better. ;)

 

Having shot 645 and now 4x5, I would steer you into Large Format over Medium format. The first time I pulled a

roll of MF film out of the tank I was stunned and awed. Now I've never pulled 35mm out of the tank but I can't

see anything that small so there won't the be WOW that comes with 6x7 or larger, or even 6x6 for that matter.

But when you pull 4x5 out, its incredible. (assuming you got focus and everything right). How is it

different/better than 35mm or digital?

 

I like the flow, I like that I have to and want to think about what I'm doing, what I"m shooting, why I'm

shooting it. With digital its spray and pray, I can't comment in 35mm. With MF or LF, its a conscious effort.

For me going to medium and large format wasn't so much about the technicals like megapixels or tonality or even

range - at an artistic level I don't care about those. Its that I want to consciously experience the shot -

taking it, composing it, thinking about it, developing it, and eventually - some day, printing it in a wet

darkroom. Ok, maybe just a slightly damp darkroom.

[jack_welsh]

My first good camera after the basic box ones was a Mamiya 500 DTL about 38 years ago. The 35 negative, to me was just too small.So,I sold it and bought 2 Mamiya c330's and a 4x5 monorail view camera. I like the large groundglass of the larger formats. I never needed the built in light meters, etc, that are found in 35 cameras. I feel that a Sekonic spot meter is alot better.

A properly exposed negative in the larger formats, 6x6 and up are just as beautifull as the finished print.I got into Salted Paper and Carbon/ Carbro prints which needs the larger negative.Printing a Salted Paper outside was so much better than being indoors.

The more mechanical a camera is, 4x5 and so much of medium format, makes you think more.

Now,I only use 35 for Astro shots, or when I need a very large lens.That's why I bought a 75-300 lens for my Rebel Ti.

Years ago, I sold my equiptment to start building string instruments. Now, I have 3 Mamiya Medium Formats outfits and a 4x5 Anniversary Speed.

I will never go back to 35 in a large way.

It's a fact that the less you need to enlarge the negative, the better the finer print.

[photonaturally]

I do enjoy medium format a lot. I started with a bronica etrsi. There is visible difference in resolving power of

a larger negative. I've always wanted a larger format that was lighter and does not have the earth shattering

mirror slap. So I got the mamiya 7.

 

That is my best purchase EVER. If I have to sell that to save my life, I will not, in the off chance that I did

not die and have to live with the regret of selling it.

 

If you are coming from digital to film, there is a learning curve to knowing how different film look and feel,

and also how to develop b&w film and/or shoot for the way that you develop. Shoot, develop and print is all in

your hands. You will never get more control over anything in your life.

 

- Wen Lim

www.photonaturally.com.au

[colin_elliott]

"I use the Leicas because the lenses are faster and because I can shoot with Neopan 1600, something that I cannot do with the Mamiya."

 

Why can't you shoot Neopan 1600 with a Mamiya ?I'm able to shoot it in my Contax 645.

 

What sort of strange limitations does the Mamiya present?

[mikal_grass]

Colin, I guess I can but I would need an adapter, no? I have a panoramic adapter for the 7 II but that is about it. If there is a way for me to

shoot the Neopan 1600 on the 7 II please tell me how. You can reach me at grasslaw@gmail.com. Thanks.

[hakon_soreide]

Very nice thread, a bit of nostalgia and lots of good reasons to go for larger formats than 35mm. Reminds me why I am having problems parting with my Mamiya 7II even though I never use it anymore after buying a Canon 5D. <p>

One thing that hasn't been mentioned though, is that of course you can get the same angle of view and depth of field at the same aperture with a smaller-format digital camera as on an MF or LF camera. Multiple shots and stitching. It is actually less work than doing it all through the darkroom. Making huge stitched images and then printing them small, you get much that same feel of sharpness and tonality you get from an 8x10 from a well-exposed and sharp MF negative.<p>

Still, there is something nearly religious about putting those tack-sharp Velvia chromes from the Mamiya 7II on the light table and looking at them through a loupe. Even before you look at them through the loupe, you know it is something special, and you hold your breath as you take a closer look and see details and tonality that there yet are few scanners that can faithfully reproduce.

[ned1]

Depth of field matters relative to "normal" lens length.

 

A normal lens on a 35mm is a 50. A normal lens on an MF is a 90, which has a shallower depth of field. A head-and-shoulders lens on a 35mm is an 85 or 105. On an MF it's a 150. Huge difference. Much better for portraits. Typical head-shot lens for an MF is a 250.

 

And lest you say "I'll just use a 250 on my Nikon and stand further back", you would need to stand very far back indeed.

 

Bottom line, if you want to do portraits with shallow focus, MF has an inherent advantage.

 

On the other hand, if you want deep focus 35mm has the edge.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Edward Horn,<br><br>DOF does not depend on focal length as such, but on magnification and

aperture.<br><br>So "I'll just use a 250 on my Nikon and stand further back" will in fact increase DOF.<br><br>If

someone would want the same (narrow) DOF on 35 mm format as on MF, he could just use the same focal length

lens (and the same aperture) from the same distance.<br>The field of view will then of course be rather different. But

DOF will not.

[gt1]

"Why can't you shoot Neopan 1600 with a Mamiya ?I'm able to shoot it in my Contax 645."

 

I haven't found it in 120 anywhere. I guess I haven't looked hard enough? I pretty much buy film at my local store or Freestyle, and Freestyle doesn't carry any 1600 films in 120.

[david_liu8]

Wow, thank you everyone for all of your comments and suggestions. I think I know what you're talking about being forced to slow down and think about what you're doing. There's definitely a zen-like quality of concentration and thinking when I shoot with my fully manual 35mm film SLR vs my DSLR, and I imagine it would be even more so with MF. After thinking about it, I think I'll see a much more cost-effective improvement in my skills from forcing myself to slow down and think about what I'm doing with what I have now, instead of investing in M/F. Especially since I don't think I want to deal with the headache of buying used equipment on ebay.

 

Let me say though, that it will be very tough to convince myself not to splurge on a used bronica setup from keh or the like when special occasions like christmas or my birthday arise.

 

Thanks again, and despite this message, I still look forward to hearing what other people have to say on this thread!

[jamescredland]

I bought an RB67 about a month ago, it's bloody brilliant. It's made a world of difference to my 35mm and DSLR work already just as a result of the steadying of the process. The viewfinder is amazing. The thing was so bloody heavy though I've gone and grabbed a Mamiya C330 for travelling around with so I can have the same mellow medium format experience elsewhere.

 

I just need to find a vaguely portable light meter.

 

So I say do it! My DSLR is dead jealous as it gathers dust on the shelf.

[john_forney]

Disclaimer, my "a" key is missing from my keyboard. Oh, so is my "q" key. my kids plucked them off.

 

-The itch.

 

If I recall my "itch" for MF gear, I took a similar approach you took. I asked questions. Looked at all the +/-. In the end, for me MF was/is a point along the path, not destination. 35, MF, LF, ULF all have their strengths. Until you know yours, you should try different options. That is, until you know how you see and work and what ultimately satisfies you, MF is just another tool along the way.

 

Each tool's +/- has been somewhat addressed in some way whether it is corrective movements, AF, etc. The bottomline is finding out what pleases your way of seeing the world. The compromises in each format are unique to the format. i.e. 4x5 is "slower" , but look at David Burnett's work. He mastered photojournalistic work with a 4x5...or maybe he was a master already and just decided for giggles to use the 4x5/ ektar combo. Either way, he mastered it.

 

Whatever. There are many diversions along the way. Its part of the process. Keep experimenting and find what you like, then stick with it and master it.

[johnw436]

Cheryl Jacobs , Jul 02, 2008; 08:37 p.m.

 

I shoot only MF and the occasional LF (4x5). After going to a Bronica with a prism finder many years ago, I honestly have no use for 35mm except for travel snaps and such. (Actually, even then I rarely use 35mm because my Bronica with 75mm lens is not that heavy.)

 

_____________

 

I could have written exactly the same thing. Cheryl and I must have been separated at birth! (I even shoot bronica and 4x5). I also have no use for 35mm gear anymore, so I keep a DSLR for anything that doesn't warrant MF or LF because it's so easy to use. The problem is when a get a great shot I agonize over not having taken it with my MF gear.

[gt1]

Thomas Hardy , Jul 02, 2008; 09:53 p.m.

 

"Yep, check out Razzle, Alpenhause, and Fotoman to start."

 

Damn, I thought I'd be content with my old junker Mamiya RB67 and shiny new 7ii. But now I look at the Fotoman website every day since Thomas posted that! I never thought I'd get addicted to cameras.

 

And re John Wilson and Cheryl Jacobs, I, too, stopped using my 35mm SLR, I use my Olympic Stylus now and then, but mostly use my 7ii supplementing with my DSLR.

[clive1]

Be warned that unless you have a dedicated dscanner, pro-scans (for making prints) of MF negs are much more

expensive than 35mm. If you do go down the MF path (I certainly recommend it), stick mainly with b/w, which you

can print yourself in a darkroom.