Is Medium Format analogue irrelevant?

[michael_beller]

<p>Why Medium Format now?<br>

No really.<br>

I recently acquired a MF film set up cobbled together with the help of some p.net friends. I came to thinking about why MF analogue anymore? Where does it fit in?<br>

35mm and DSLR seems good enough for street shooting, and if you spend major bucks a la D3x or something like that, digital studio work seems to satisfy most clients or serious amateurs. The Leica M8 fills the digital RF bucket.<br>

For fine art landscape/still life and portrait, seems Large Format (4x5 and up) is the serious choice.<br>

So...why Medium Format film? That last word is key here. Not talking about digital. Anyone that has seen a MF digital back's work knows it blows and D3xxxxx out of the water hands down. However, you must pay through the nose for it.<br>

Tell me why anyone should care about MF analogue anymore. <br>

Mike</p>

<p> </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Because with digital, it costs a great deal, also. Compared to MF cameras. MF is the best bargain available.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The Brownie/120 kids format started out with wooden spools over a century ago. Once it was just purely amateur. the bulk of all 120 and 620 that has been shot in the passage of time is amateur work; shot with box cameras. It was the camera of choice before instamatic came out in 1963/64. For those that like film; MF cameras are a great value today. Many folks that shoot film like a bigger piece of film to reduce the enlarging ratio; to make the tonality nice and smooth. Here I can shoot a nice 2x3" image with my Moscova 5 that cost only 40 bucks; and not worry about the concern of loosing the camera in a dangerous or risky situation; ie open deck during sailing under foul conditons. MF will still be around if folks shoot it. Comparing fuilm to digital is an endless debate; almost 2 decades old now.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Given excellent and equivalent lenses (and that's not a given), it's a slam-dunk for medium format film as compared to 35mm film of the same type. Just browse through the Classic Manual Cameras forum and look at some of the 6x6 and 6x9 images there, often taken even with fairly simple triplet lenses.<br>

Digital is another thing altogether, since there are so many additional variables (sensor size, fitness of lens for digital, sensor type, in-camera processing of the image, noise reduction, and many more) involved, as well as having most of the same problems of comparison that applied to film formats.</p>

<p>Right now the price penalty for going to medium-format digital is so high that only the hardest working professionals (or rich medical doctors, etc.) can afford it. I'd love to have a digital 6x6 or 6x4.5, but I wouldn't pay the price even if I had more money than I could stand.</p>

[michael_beller]

<p>Not meant to be film vs. digital debate by any means. Only format wise. <br>

Good point on the larger negative/transparency vs. 35/ Still, I wonder.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I use it because I like it.</p>

[btmuir]

<p>Cameras no matter how they record the image are tools.</p>

<p>Use the tool to acheive the vision you're after.</p>

<p>If I want grain or a non anitseptic look I shoot film. I'm even shooting more 35mm these days.</p>

[michael_beller]

<p>I phrased my question incorrectly. Let's forget digital. The only reason I brought that up is that is seems high end digital satisfies most professional uses today, whereas 120 was the format of choice commercially a couple decades ago yes? Thus, acquiring MF analogue set up and workflow seems less relevant to that aspect of photog.<br>

That leaves enthusiast/amateurs and fine art masters. Seems the latter is squarely in the LF camp? That leaves the former.<br>

And I guess Bruce is right, whatever tool it takes to acheive a vision.<br>

I have noticed for myself small things like a WL finder is fantastic, and totally different immersion into the creative process than prism VF's/</p>

<p> </p>

[sallymack]

<blockquote>Tell me why anyone should care about MF analogue anymore.</blockquote>

I can't answer for "anyone" but I care about MF film because I like the results I get from it.

[jack_welsh]

<p>About the WL finder, I prefer a WLF to the usual eye level, having to wear glasses these days.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>Simple, medium format film blows away 35mm film for me. The sharpness and smooth tonality cannot compare. I've shot a lot of 6X6 film this year, yesterday shot a roll of 35mm b&w film and am disappointed. </p>

[starvy]

<p>isn't there a new film based mf body released by fuji recently? there must be some interest for such a company to release a new mf body.</p>

[jack_fisher1]

<p>Michael,<br>

Beg, borrow or steal a medium format camera, and a few rolls of film. Then try it out. You will soon have an answer that you find acceptable. People can debate the pros and cons forever, and could possibly come up with an answer that you may be looking for. Some good ones listed above. It is really a matter of what one is looking for in results, convenience, durability, etc., etc. I have 6 MF cameras, and use them all because I like the results. I also use 35mm, 4X5 and digital. Each one has its own results, and has a purpose. My thoughts...</p>

[rossb]

<p>I wish I had a 645AF Mamiya to shoot film with. Seems very relevant to me. Nice camera, the prospect of high quality results and it would be fun to use. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>BTW film isn't analog(ue).</p>

<p>MF film looks beautiful and has astonishing resolution and tonality when properly processed and scanned/printed. 35mm based digital doesn't approach the kind of rich tonality. However, you need a decent scanner to get the detail out of the film - in my case it's LS-9000.</p>

<p>In particular I think MF black and white film is very charming and blows anything from digital away when prints are viewed side by side. (My digital stuff is Nikon FX).</p>

<p>However, for color things aren't so clear cut. I'm expreimenting with Ektar 100 now, to see if MF color is worth shooting (usually shoot E6 for color but the color accuracy of slide film is poor compared with digital).</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>The simple fact that a full kit of really really nice professional medium format camera and lenses will cost you less than the average entry level DSLR alone is something that people should think about. You don't shoot medium format the way you do 35mm, so processing costs take a long time to get significant, and if you shoot B&W and process at home, then the costs are negligible. From the "purist" stance, many of these beautiful old cameras are simple and direct. No meter to fuss with, no menus, and for many, no batteries. The few that take batteries (M645 for instance) will last for years with the same dependable battery. The ritual of composing and focusing and advancing film is different than digital and I'm sure it's annoying to some users, but I love the feeling of it. Also, anything with a WLF introduces a completely different shooting style than what most DSLR shooters are accustomed to. A bright WLF is a thing of beauty that inspires me to orchestrate images in a totally different way than an eye-level finder. I don't know why, it just does. </p>

<p>I suppose one could argue that in a time of miraculous motorized forms of transportation that bicycles are no longer relavant. They are slow, can't carry a passenger, don't handle rough terrain well, are miserable in the rain, and require your own personal energy to move you around... and yet, they are great fun and people love to ride bikes. They are cheap, don't require a license, and you don't have to take classes or be "hip" to ride one. Just don't try to ride a bike and shoot with a medium format camera at the same time!</p>

[rick_donnelly]

<p>At the risk of repeating what has already been very well said, MF offers a very different shooting experience and thus a different way of seeing the subject, a different way of creating an image. In my experience MF images often have a distinct look identified by the way the camera is handled and functions, the format shape, the depth of field and other subtle characteristics. It is also the best way to effectively capture certain final results, for example a mounted 6x6 or 6x7 transparency, which for some people has a unique aesthetic quality all its own. Perhaps it is a bit like an artist choosing to complete a painting in acrylics instead of watercolor. The different way you must handle the medium changes the artwork, even though the subject is the same.<br /> In my shooting, lens sharpness, image resolution, and other technical factors have little relevance, so I'm sure my opinion is in the minority.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Why? Because I still like to make traditional B&W prints MF is a nice compromise. Nice tonality and it's fast and easy to shoot when compared to LF.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I use it because it's as close to shooting large format without carrying all the big cameras and film holders. I can drop a small case of Hasselblad equipment into my trunk and off I go. It's easy to set up, and I like the results over digital equipment I own.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The first and last response cover most of the reasoning. MF film, especially 100 ISO and less B&W film, yields wonderful results, without the bulk of large format. Many masters use MF and not large format. MF film cameras and film are the best bargains around today for high quality photography, contrary to highly expensive MF digital.</p>

[samn]

<p>I shot 12 exposures of 120 in a Mamiya C220 today at various locations in the small city I was in. It took nearly all day. I know I screwed up at least 2 of the frames yet it was pure photographic enjoyment. Visualizing the shot, determining the correct exposure (I hope), setting it, unlocking and finally depressing the shutter release. I have not developed yet, but I know that the images that I get will surpass anything I usually get with 35mm or the digital I have.</p>

<p>No, absolutely not. Medium format analog is not irrelevant. I more than enjoyed myself all day, and the fact that people came up and asked about the camera and enjoyed having me explain it to them did not hurt either.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>Because high quality equipment can be had for next to nothing.</p>

<p>Because image quality from the 135 format is, well, really not that great.</p>

<p>Because view camera handling exceed my hassles threshold, as does sheet film development.</p>

[hauser]

<p>I have expensive digital stuff and the lenses with it, for 35 mm. I also have 35 mm film cameras. However, nothing brings me more joy than working with MF and that's mainly because of the properties of the lenses available. My MF lenses brings another dimension to my images than does the ones for my digital. I'll make a note here and say that I currently favor shooting wide open, with a minimal DOF. Some MF have amazing bokeh and curious properties which, for example, a Canon 85/1.2 doesn't have for my 35mm. And stepping down on the aperture on my MF brings tack sharp stuff with a wonderful tonality.</p>

<p>Also, having the larger neg is very nice and I think contrary to a post above me that you won't need that good of a scanner to enjoy a 6x7 neg compared to a 35 mm neg. I scan with a simple Epson 4700.</p>

<p>Taken with a Norita 66, 80mm, f/2: (my flickr account)<br>

Link: <a href=" Girl</a><br>

and here is another example of what you can't get with a 35mm lens: (my flickr account)<br>

Link: <a href="

<p> </p>

[k5083]

To put it in the starkest terms, if you trade the level of resolution, tonality, available optics, film quality, and other determinants of IQ against cost, bulk and hassle, MF film is the best bang for buck available today in photography, hands down, runaway. Nothing, film or digital, is even close enough to deserve second prize. That should at least make it "relevant."

[btmuir]

<p>It's interesting the very strong responces to the OP's question.</p>

<p>Should in of itself indicate that MF is still very viable to many of us.</p>