Large Format or Medium Format Camera? (hopefully not a tired topic!)

[cecilia_don]

I am interested in photographing buildings, interiors and landscapes

for a living (hopefully).

Is a LF camera the clear choice here? I thought it was until I

spoke to a professional who photographs interiors and uses a medium

format camera. Perhaps he is unusual?

Thanks for all input.

[jorge_gasteazoro5]

Cecilia although it is possible to do architectural photography with a MF the best choice would be a LF to be able to correct distortion. This goes also for interiors, even more here because the wide angle lenses for MF cameras are almost twice as expensive as the wide angle LF lenses, for example my 50 mm lens for the hasselblad cost me $1400, the 65 mm lens for my 4x5 cost me $600! Of course this was before I discovered Badger or Robert white, but the rule still holds.

With a LF camera you can start with a very descent equipment for a few dollars, with MF is not so clear, specially if you want equipment in good condition.

As to landscape, here the choice is a little bit fuzzy, Michael Kenna does beautiful work with MF, and so do many other photographers. Since movements are not such a big deal with landscapes the best adavantage the LF offers is a bigger negative. With this, you also get the heavier weight, more time to set up, etc. so I think with landscapes it would be more a choice between how you like to work. OTH once you see a big negative, you have been asimilated..:-))

 

I hope this helps, good luck in your choice and I wish you succes.

[john_kasaian1]

Cecilia, I agree with the previous post. Top end MF lenses are too rich for my blood, so I sold my Hassy and never looked back. You can take great shots with MF and even 35mm if you have a PC lens, but IMHO 4x5(for what you want to do) wins hands down. Its the best learning tool going and those big negs and chromes are hard to beat. Proofing with polaroids are a big help in bizarre lighting situations that can occur with interiors. I've seen Cambo SC monorails going for cheap that would certainly be worth looking at---a lot of value in a professional grade camera compared to to the "student" lower priced monorails. A good tripod & meter, a Polaroid holder and a modern lens, say a 90mm to start with, and a few workshops and the rest is up to you. Good Luck!

[dan n.]

the 4x5... I agree with the posts above...as a MF and LF user...I use my MF as backup ....but each format has it plus and minus...I would suggest that you rent both format and play with it to see what suit you...

[matthew_runde]

<a name="1">I think that to a large degree the answer depends on your intended market.</a> Do you want to sell framed prints, have the images published in books or magazines, photograph for advertising clients, sell stock, publish greeting cards...?<br>

<br>

I think, too, that the answer is subjective, even within these choices. People have different styles and different ways of doing things, and their equipment choices reflect this. Some people don't use tripods, some people use 35mm, some people use digital, etc.<br>

<br>

So, I would suggest that you study your intended market and your personal preferences very carefully, and keep those things in mind when you choose equipment.

[chris_patti1]

Let me suggest some contrary considerations. A big reason that large format has traditionally dominated architectural photography is because it's very important to be able to correct perspective distortion, which LF can do with shifts, rise and fall. But if you are thinking about scanning and editing digitally, you can make the same corrections in the computer. It's also not necessarily the case that MF wide angle lenses are more expensive than LF lenses. Probably this is so if you are talking about Hassleblad, but the Pentax 67 45mm lens (a great lens, by the way) is $929 at B&H. New Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider lenses of similar angle of view for 4x5 all seem to be more expensive.

[adrian_tyler]

I too use both formats and I too photpograph buildings and interiors and feel that the 4x5 is the best for that job. I had to repair one of my Hasselbled lenses the other day and it cost me what a new good quality LF lens would cost, that hurt. You can "correct" perspectives with a non tilt and shift camera, see:

 

http://www.duich.com/adriantylernet/site/intro_calendar_2.html

 

but it is not very flexible and you have to cut into the neg. It is different looking for your subject than being contracted to do a subjet, that is to say you will be asked to photograph a lot of wierd buildings in dificult situations and you will need a LF camera to make it work.

 

adrian

[john_alexander_dow]

Having movements is the important thing. For buildings you really need movements. Interiors really need wide angle and movements give you scope for different viewpoints. For landscapes much depends on style. A lot of good landscapes are 35mm but if you have Ansel Adams in mind....

 

LF gives you much more flexibility and extreme quality but the price for this is all the film handling pain and lack of speed in "setting up" for a shot although this improves with practice

 

JD

[paul_owen]

Have the best of both worlds - a 5x4 camera and a roll film back - now you can do both!!

[bob.]

Although as pointed out above, you can correct converging verticals in the computer, you will need to compose with this in mind and will loose some of your precious negative resolution (although this may not be a problem depending on how high your scanning resolution was and what the finished output is going to be).

 

I agree with others that it seems to be mainly a question of what your particular end use is going to be and how deep your pockets are...

 

Cheers,

[jose_angel]

IMHO the LF is clearly the right choice for this kind of work... but I think that also you have to consider if this format works well with you...

 

With a Hassy or Pentax 67 or others you can set up your equipment in a few minutes, even to finish some work in minutes if you don't need a tripod, with a LF you will need more time to do it, and with a few exceptions, you never shoot (you can't) without a tripod.

 

Roll film are cheaper, process (in general terms) are cheaper with a MF system. Weight to transport is lower (my 4x5" bag weigths 9,5kgs. with two or three lenses).

 

Depending of your work, enlargements needed and the time you have -or you want to dedicate- to do this work, the LF could be better or not for you.

 

Also is important the LF "philosophy" or "way of life", so different than other formats... (It's a topic for other post...)

 

In my case, I start LF shooting interiors and details of old buildings, first in 35mm and Pentax67, now practically I only use the 4x5" camera for ALL the work I do... (and sometimes the Nikon 28Ti P&S I have in my pocket...)

 

Good luck,

[bj_rn_nilsson]

<p>Most of the question have already been answered (in terms of camera movements etc). But you also have to take into account the time factor. Many of those shots don't really need any movements and then the MF camera is much faster to use than any LF camera. Some other shots can be tricky, but they can still be made without movements. It's actually a matter of "knowing your trade". What I'm saying here is that a MF camera will give you say 100 shots in a couple of hours, while you might get 10 in the same time using LF. The LF shots may be better than most of the MF shots, but having the choice of a number of small variations (on MF roll film) also helps.<br>

Rambeling on about "time", the time spent should also include the "recognition" time, i.e. the time preparing for the shots without the camera. Some sites needs days or even weeks of preparation and planning, where you can use a smaller camera as a "notebook". In such cases, the time spent on the actual shots is only a small fraction of the total time used. Another not uncommon situation is when you don't have unlimited time with exclusive access to the site. There are lots of places where you'll get "15 minutes maximum" or so even though you are assigned by the owners of the site.<br>

Film and developing costs might also be a factor, in which case a roll of MF slide film will cost about the same as a single LF tranny.</p>

<p>The term "knowing your trade" is still the major issue here, and that of course applies to knowing your MF OR LF camera, as well as the film, light and everything else. Knowing what to do before you do it is the key to most professional work, in whichever field. The choice of tools is part of that knowledge. I know that this answer doesn't directly answer "which camera is best", as there is no simple answer to that question. Given that you have all the time you need (and that you get paid for all that time) LF is the obvious answer, but most assignments "in the real world" are probably due "yesterday" with a very limited budget.</p>

[christopher_smith2]

Hello,

 

I am just new to LF - my MPP Mk VIII is on its way.

 

I didn't want to get into LF in particular but to get hold of a camera with movements. To cut a long story short, there are at least two MF cameras which provide movements inherent in their design (as opposed to using shift lens).

 

Hasselblad Flex body

Fuji GX680 Mk III

 

Now from my point of view, these were not readily available 2nd hand and they cost far more than the money I wanted to spend.

 

Do you consider either of these two appropriate Cecilia question?

For my own interest, Do the range of movements and image circles for these cameras make them as flexible as field cameras or portable monorails?

 

For interior photography, very wide angle lens are a necessity. It appears to me that it is easier to get wide angle coverage on smaller formats - the minimum lens to film distance is smaller. Is this the case?

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[bj_rn_nilsson]

Christopher: Yes, those cameras have movements, but practical work with movements does take a fairly big groundglass. Doing movements on a small GG is hard, as it is "precision" work. Given a low light situation and the relatively small GG of e.g. a Hasselblad, I'd prefer a 4X5 (or larger) with a good fresnel lens. You also loose the "time" factor that I wrote about in my previous post, as setting up the Hasselblad or Fuji camera will take as long time (or longer time) than a 4X5.<br>

If you want a "quick" LF camera for architectural work, I cannot think of anything better than e.g. a Sinar P/P2/X camera. It is very sturdy and precise and finding/setting the tilts/swings and shifts is very easily done. They are for sure much more quick than a Hasselblad Flexbody or a Fuji. The downside is of course the sheer weight and bulk of those cameras.

[mark_sampson]

Get the view camera. It's the tool best suited for the work you envision.

Contrary to the last post, it's much easier to do ultra-wide photos with a view camera. The big image on the groundglass is much easier to evaluate.

Architects prefer big, beautiful, hi-res 4x5 chromes, for better or worse.

Perhaps you can correct perspective in a computer- but that takes time, and your clients won't want to pay you for that time. They'll hire someone who doesn't need to charge them for that. And I'm not quite convinced that you can make as good-looking a result that way.

[ken_lee11]

I am not an expert, but I have played with the Photoshop "transform" function, which allows you to make perspective corrections. As you stretch the image, you not only lose the sides of picture (in the areas that you have compressed), you also degrade quality (in the areas that you stretch).

 

When you stretch an image, the software must introduce pixels that are not originally there, by copying adjacent pixels and inserting them to fill the space. The larger the size of your final print, or the more you stretch the image, the more this becomes noticeable.

 

If you are drawn to MF or LF in order to get a lovely image, then heavy perspective correction in Photoshop would probably degrade it. On the other hand, a nice LF lens with adequate coverage will send all the "pixels" to the film, no mater how much "correction" you apply through view camera movements.

[jnanian]

cecilia:

 

i would go for the large format camera. it will do everything you

will need, and you won't be wishing you had it later on.

 

some folks will tell you that you can shoot architectural work with

a medium format camera. some magazines AND architects will

tell you that they can't afford to pay the money for large format

photography or that medium format will do ... it all depends who

you talk to and what the budget will allow - -

 

when i was assiting in the 1980s, i worked for a very sucessful

architectural photographer. he worked for architects as well as

magazines. on all the jobs i worked on ( but one) he used a

medium format camera. all these jobs were interior views of

"beautiful homes" for a magazine.

 

if you are testing the waters for large format cameras &c, you can

always play with and shoot "straight -on" building views with a

speed graphic camera. i bring mine on most every job i go on

and 50% of the time it is what i will use. sets up in a flash, and

yields a big negative. you can buy a speed graphic for not too

much money, and later on if you decide you don't like or NEED a

large format camera, you can always sell it and get your

investment returned.

 

best of luck!

[john_bailey1]

Dear Cecilia

 

Yesterday, I came across an interesting section on Calumet's web site about architectural photography. I believe it is exerpts from a book by Richard Newman (I think that is the correct name) which you could also purchase to give you some thoughts and help with your decision. The link is:

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/default.taf?&random=88504&_UserReference=07DEA0CBF374A86D39931A4A

 

I have used both MF and LF for architecture, but you will see that the amount of control will push you toward LF. Maybe you can take a course or workshop in your area about architectural photography. Another thing to consider is renting cameras before you take the plunge.

 

Best Regards,

 

John Bailey

[cecilia_don]

Thanks to all for the great answers and feedback. All comments read thoroughly and notes taken. I love this website!!

[rob_pietri5]

Just some quick thoughts. If you are really serious, then LF is the only way to go ahead of MF. Get the best lenses availale, even if it means buying 2 or 3. Buy a spot meter, preferably a Pentax. Learn the Zone System. One book to get is "The Zone VI Workshop" by Fred Picker, AA series is also excellant. You can buy a meduim format, roll film back if you need to conserve on cash.

 

The point is, to become a professional photographer, especially Architeucural Photography, you have to learn the craft, the fundamentals of photography. You cannot just go out with a camera and expect to learn on the job. LF forces you to learn composition, perspective, how to see and interprete, complete control of the medium which are vital.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Cecilia

 

I work for architectures mags and I work with LF, MF, and 35mm. The main pages are shots with the LF but many times with a rollfilmmag on it. For the little pictures they are happy with 35mm.

Because they want also not paying to much if it is not needed.

You don`t need a 4x5 shoot for a picture wich is only 6x9 cm in the mag!

Does this make sence to you?

[edsel_adams]

There are also several MF systems that have full movements,these being the Hasselblad Arc or flex body,and the Fuji 6x8.These are pricey,but have ease of use over LF systems.