Popularity of Medium Format

[gateway]

<p>How does medium format fit into current photography trends? Are there more of us 'new' people? Medium format cameras in very good, pre-owned condition seem to sell quickly on the web.</p>

<p>As a new -old- Yashica owner, these questions came to mind. One unfortunate these days-gamblers seeking a working camera and buying those with shutter problems on Internet auctions listed as 'no returns'. If you have the technical expertise, it makes sense, otherwise...</p>

<p>John</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>You can use medium format for nearly any job, including sports. Cameras are reasonably portable, but not as ergonomic or flexible as 35mm/DSLRs. Obviously MF's main virtue is the large image size, which can make larger prints than smaller formats. Anything goes if photography is your hobby. Whether MF is commercially feasible depends on your particular niche.</p>

<p>I (personally) would not use MF for weddings and events, even MF digital, with the exception of formal group photos. It is too slow in operation and too expensive overall to justify (both gear and consummables), and a DSLR is more than good enough. MF is great for groups, portraits, studio work in general, fine art and landscapes - all relatively "contemplative" activities.</p>

<p>Most medium format cameras were designed for professional use, and hold up well with age. Most, especially Hasselblad, can be readily serviced and repaired. My first Hasselblad (500cm) was nearly thirty years old, but performs like new after an inexpensive CLA ($150) at Hasselblad USA. You need to know what you're buying and stay away from ancient versions unless you are a collector. <em>Caveat emptor</em>!</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Most of my photography is involving architectural work, using, in addition to my view camera (with 4x5, 6x7, and 6x9 formats), a Hasselblad 6x6, Minolta and Nikon 35mm's, and, only very occassionally, a DSLR. the medium and 35mm cameras are used primarily for detail shots where perspective control is not needed, such as details of crown moulding, collumn tops, doorway mouldings, etc.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Like Vick, I also shoot several formats from 8x10 down. And then there is my Nikon DSLR. </p>

<p>By far, my favorite is my Hasselblad system. It's not just that is a Hasselblad although they are wonderful. It's mostly that I want to think my way through what I am doing with an analog system. I appreciate my digital and what it can do, but I have to do waaayyyy too much remembering of how to get all those functions to behave or even to find them to make it any fun. The fun and simplicity of working with a film camera and especially a good medium format just can't be overstated.</p>

<p>By the way, I have bought much of my gear on eBay without serious problems. Ask detailed questions about condition, both mechanical and cosmetic and double check the seller's feedback and ebay ratings. You should be fine. Another good source for good used gear is KEH.com.</p>

<p>In my experience, they are very conservative in rating the equipment they sell. For example, I bought Hasse 500CM body and 150mm Sonnar lens from them a few years ago that they rated as bargain. I could not find a mark on either item and they continue to perform flawlessly.</p>

<p>Good luck.;</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[gary e]

<blockquote>

<p>Was reading a post that you wrote on photo.net about advancing the Yashica immediately after taking an exposure. I've ordered a clean, 'working' Yashica A, and look forward to shooting the first test roll, soon. It's the first version with the Yashimar or non-Yashikor lenses. This format is new to me...<br /> <br /> Thanks for the tip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Medium format has gained popularity through Holgas and the like for their non-std images. Also other std brands got unloaded by pros at a low prices brought on by their transition to digital, so they are now more affordable to own. I'm sure 120 or 220 film will be around for some time to come, so people will continue to shoot it as long as it's available. It also tends to slow the process down for most people, so results may come out better; having 12 shots in 120 roll 6x6 also forces you to shoot only what you find most interesting.</p>

<p>Buying on the internet is always a gamble, but with some patience you can find some good MF gear at reasonable prices. Sometimes I will look for a good repair person ahead of a purchase in case I may need one after receiving the item or buying a cheap fixer upper if it's worth the effort and additional cost. It's all up to you in the end on how you use your gear; collect or use.</p>

<p>One last tip with your new Yashica A, when feeding your takeup reel for the first time hold the feed (film) roll with your thumb to provide some resistance until you reach the "Start Here" line comes up. This keeps the film snug on the takeup reel and a more packed roll when finished. You'll avoid fogging or light leaks when unloading your camera this way. Good luck on your first roll.</p>

<p> </p>

[graham_martin2]

<p>I agree with what has already been said. After starting out with a basic Nikon F65, I moved up to an F100, and then an F5. I then got caught up in everything digital and went on a buying spree that would make your head spin. About 18 months ago I moved into Medium Format and I just enjoy the more relaxed atmosphere of the whole system. I currently own a Hasselblad 500 c/m and just bought a Mamiya 645AFD. Even though I don't print large pictures I personally like the tone and look of the MF film prints.<br>

I have just put up for sale one of my two Nikon DSLRs, and my intent is to use my MF cameras and Nikon F100 to hopefully turn me into a better photographer. I will be retiring at the end of the year, and so I will have all the time in the world to slow down. The DSLR will still get used because there are times when digital is the best way to go. (Hard to get 8 fps out of a 500 c/m!)</p>

 

[fredwelch531]

<p>I started using 35mm cameras (Olympus OM1 & OM2), then in about 1985 I bought my first medium format camera (Rolleiflex 3.5f) and never looked back. I found the format ideal for the kind of photography I do. I've had several medium format cameras since and I can honestly say that I've hardly touched 35mm since getting that first Rolleiflex. I have a compact digital for family snaps etc. I feel no inclination to upgrade that to anything better. In short; I love medium format film and my darkroom, and I find the whole sitting at the P.C. processing pictures thing very tedious.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>MF as the commercial mainstay became the defacto standard only when films and lenses had improved enough to move to the smaller format from 4x5, but weren't yet as good as they are today (e.g. in higher ASA/DIN/ISO emulsions grain would be objectionable, and you couldn't resolve individual faces in a group shot from 35mm). The shift took place rather rapidly and rather by storm sometime in the 1950's. There is less technical necessity for MF the past couple of decades, as better films and DSLRs have further broken down those barriers (as well as a whole host of other factors such as 1/250s focal plane flash sync, AF and so forth on 35mm gear). But no one (really, no one) was considered a commercial or wedding photographer if they shot smaller than 2-1/4 or maybe 645 until about 1990.<br>

Certainly one reason there's still so much MF gear coming up for sale is that this stuff was really ubiquitous before then. If no other MF gear is ever made again, there's likely enough rolling stock already in circulation to satisfy amateur demand for the next 50 years. Keep in mind to that commercial photographers didn't all at once jump on the bandwagon to 35mm or digital, though many that didn't were of the era that they were already close to retirement when these later paradigm shifts to 35mm and then DSLR occurred. (And their gear is now turning up at estate sales as they pass on).</p>

<p> </p>

[d_purdy]

<p>If you are a print maker 35mm is too small. I started in photography with view cameras and still use 8x10 for my still life work but I like to get out on the streets or in the woods and a Rolleiflex gives me so much freedom from carrying a heavy tripod and film holders that the loss of negative size is an acceptable compromise. Large format is difficult to do without making stiff compositions. A rolleiflex or other MF is much easier. For me 35 mm is too much a compromise in quality.<br>

Dennis</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>MF is mostly the Brownie format; ie 120 rolls; a 100+ year old format. It includes 620 that was say 1930's to a decade or two ago. It includes 220 that is mid 1960's. Moat all MF camera made by sheer numbers are box cameras; it is what the masses used before Kodapak/instamatics. The vast majority of MF images ever shot are with box cameras and simple 1 element lenses. When I was a kid every drugstore carried 120 and 620 verichrome; thats what the masses shot with. </p>

[ericophotography]

<p>I love my Mamiya RZ67. I've had it set up on a tripod so I can whip it out at a moment's notice. I've been threatening to take it out for street photography while we still have snow here in Northeast Ohio but haven't done so. I do use it often for portraits and studio work.</p>

[spud]

<p>We're definitely a dying breed, but as other posters have said, one look at that quality (resolution, saturation, dynamic range) and you'll be sold. I shoot with an Rz67 Pro II and its a great camera. It slows you right down to think about every single step in making the image. Too often when one gets a digital in their hands, the brain switches over to cruise control and with it, the creativity often follows.<br>

Long live MF</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>To my mind the apparent popularity of medium format amongst amateur photographers right now relates to established indusrtry trends like this.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>After the advent of 35mm, many users of medium format cameras were professional. Most of these had switched to digital by a few years ago leaving a glut of unwanted MF equipment on the market, some of which had seen heavy usage.</li>

<li>Resulting from the loss of their key markets, several brands and models disappeared from the new market since the professionals who contributed the bulk of new sales were now not using MF. Used prices fell dramatically. In fact prices have fallen to the point that MF film systems , once unaffordable to many hobbyists, can now be acquired because they are a cheap way into quality photography as well as because the current prices make a long-held dream realisable.</li>

<li>The development of eBay has provided an easy route to get something for MF equipment for those people who try it and don't get along with it, making MF acquisition pretty risk-free. Sadly, it also provides an outlet for those whose equipment develops a problem and they discover that its often cheaper to replace than to repair. Given the ageing of the equipment, the fact that little of it is now being serviced, and that breakdowns are not being fixed will result in an ever increasing proportion of the MF equipment base that is broken in the hands of a user base that is ever less likely to spend money getting it fixed.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, yes in all probability there are more hobbyists having entered MF photography these last few years than at any time since 35mm replaced 120/620 as the "main" system . The important issue though are whether they are using MF much and will it endure? Sadly I think the answer both of these questions is or will become a resounding "no" . Many of todays MF buyers by my observation have other systems that are used for the bulk of their photographic volume and MF is an interesting and affordable experiment; many of today's MF purchases are bought without manuals and there are lots of questions on Photo.net that give the impression that there's a lot of newish MF users who can't use their equipment fully. Finally the equipment is getting older, and interval since last seen by a competent engineer is increasing. The total number of MF film cameras actually in use will be reducing since there are hardly any new ones being sold and some make the final slip off the mortal coil every day. I suspect that the number of hobbyist MF film users will start to diminish soon if it has not done so already. Its just the same old cameras going round and round; more of them limping every day.</p>

<p>All total speculation.</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<p>For me, it's been a mainstay since about 1986. I used 6x6 format Bronica SQa for all my professional work until about 1998. That included slides, much color print and black and white. Then I switched to Hasselblads which I still use for black and white fine art and personal work, almost no color. While I don't shoot much any more, it is clearly my first choice for my black and white work. As for there being more new comers, maybe. It's probably that it is affordable to more people today to give a try. I will use my Hasselblads as long as I can get film and chemicals. As for mf color, I don't personally see much purpose for it. I can shoot all and as much as I want on the Nikons, upload to the computer and do what I need. I have worked black and white digi on the Nikons and it's nice, but it just doesn't give me that incredible Hassie look I am used to.</p>

[gateway]

<p>It's been interesting (and fun) reading the responses of those that have been acquainted with medium format for a long time and some of which have worked these cameras for customers and clients. I'll be searching for posts and comments from those that have scanned 120 negs. or slides to computer.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Here in the UK there seems to be an increase in interest in MF. Second-hand gear hardly touches the shelves of the camera shops before it's gone again. I've missed three MF cameras because I didn't act soon enough.</p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>I recently began shooting MF, with a Rolleicord V. Why? Well, I can't say for certain...<br>

I am an amateur photographer and shot 35mm for 30+ years -- my first camera was an old Argus C3, then I moved to exclusively manual 35mm cameras (the Pentax MX was the best 35mm camera ever made ;-)) Then, like many of us, I bought a digital camera. I love my digital, but after several years, I just wanted the experience of shooting film again. I missed the way film forced me to compose my shots. I missed the feeling of "commitment" to the whole photographic process. Heck, I missed the ritual of simply loading film -- a sort of blank canvas upon which I could do anything I wanted.<br>

I had never shot TLR, and fell in love with the idea of a "retro" camera to go with my longing for "retro" photography. When I learned that the old TLRs produced wonderful results -- and saw the amazing square images folks posted here and elsewhere they shot with their 50+ year old cameras -- I was sold. Plus, have you ever noticed how an old TLR looks, feels -- even smells -- like a precision machine? That tangible sense of precision mechanics is something that we have lost in our electronic age... <br>

I am still in the "learning curve" with this new-old camera, and look forward to years of enjoyment. In fact, I am so excited that I am thinking about sending my one of my MXs into the shop for an overhaul so I can once again use an old friend.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>David wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>interesting and affordable experiment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's right on the mark. At the original prices when these cameras sold new, MF was not for me. At today's used prices, David's got it right.</p>

<p>The key question is what will come of these experiments? Will we find new joy and fabulous image quality? Or, will we be frustrated with breaking-down equipment, fuzzy scans, and no one who will process our films? Will we love the bokeh or hate the limited DOF? Will we love the subtleties of film, or miss the menu controls for Picture Control, Active D-Lighting, Saturation, ISO, and WB? Will we be able to get great scans? Or not be able to find a MF scanner at any cost? Will we enjoy the total control of a manual camera? or regret not having AE and AF?</p>

<p>Photographer: "My new MF camera is great!"<br /> Spouse: "Then, how come you haven't uploaded pictures from it to my phone?"</p>

<p>MF just cannot beat the convenience of digital. I'm looking for better image quality than from my DSLR, enough to offset the convenience difference. My experience so far: It took a couple tries on eBay to assemble a good kit. The gear is bulky so I don't usually carry it around. Found I need a bigger tripod. What I see in the negatives looks promising. Getting good scans is harder than I thought. I finally found a convenient lab who will process film and give me DSLR-quality (i.e. 6 MPx) batch scans so I can enjoy my photos, then get better scans of the keepers. For me, the jury's still out.</p>

<p>I've done pretty well buying on eBay. I have gotten a couple bad items, but sellers don't want negative ratings and I was able to return them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The total number of MF film cameras actually in use will be reducing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see this differently... The present interest means that MF cameras are being pulled out of the closet and put back into use. Some of this gear is very nice.</p>

[fredwelch531]

<p>Richard, The best, and for me the only way, to get the best out of medium format film is to develop the film myself and make my own prints in the darkroom. That's the way the medium was intended to be used. It was never really meant to scanned onto a disc.</p>

[harry_pluta5]

<p>All interesting perspectives. I also think that what we are seeing is the closet kings coming out. I picked up a 500CM that was very well maintained, was definitly not a pro's camera, for the price of one of my DLSR lenses. One thing about film, a well maintained 35 year old Hasselblad and lens is still a great camera capable of amazing pictures, how many 10 year old DSLRs are still around? And of those how many produce a picture you would be willing to blow up to even 5x7?</p>

<p>Speaking of 5x7, I still have a pair of Kodak 5x7s view cameras from the turn of the century, (the last one!), and they will still produce a landscape image that will beat anything a digital can do. The thing is when I take that camera out I really have to think and utilize all the skills I built over almost 40 years of photography to make one good image. An image that I will not know is good for several hours after I have taken it. With the digital I can just shoot away and if I load a 4 gig card I am bound to have one that is acceptable.</p>

<p>Finally as a boomer I am at the point where I want my life to slow down a little. Taking a nice long ride on the bike, finding some scenic spot out in the country side, setting up, composing that one shot, that is a nice way to catch my breath. Matter of fact I may just go out and do it tomorrow!</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Having grown up with the Kodak Brownies. When, I bought my first good camera. A Mamiya 500 DTL. Found the negs too small. So, bought a Mamiya C330.<br>

Kelly is right that most MF photos were shot by Brownie users. But, it was also the choice of Pros. Think Hasselblads, Rollei's, Mamiya RBs ,etc. Many comment on how useing MF cameras require a "learning" curve. Never felt that way to me.<br>

Pros in the early days of digital. Sold their MF cameras. Even though the quality was less than a 35 SLR. Because it was too expensive to put a Digital back on their 'Blads, etc.</p>

[clark_yerrington]

<p>as heartbreaking as it is to contemplate the possibility of accidentally buying a non-working camera, it might not be the all-consuming tragedy it's cracked up to be. it depends on the severity of the problem. there are still reputable, expert repair people out there and often they can send it back to you in like new condition and operation for a reasonable cost. then, properly cared for you can enjoy your MF outfit for decades to come. probably more than can be said for the DSLR....</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>After serious amateur photography with Leica M and R for the last 17 or so years, I took up MF, with Bronica first and now with Hasselblad. I am not a keen supporter of digital but I am well aware of the inevitable future.<br>

However, fear for uselessness of my MF equipment I feel not! When time comes, I will switch to digital backs--expensive maybe, but my Hasselblad bodies and lenses will survive! That advantage with MF cannot be overemphasized.<br>

Paul</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>My Mamiya ADF is a 22 megapixel digital camera.<br />It's also a film camera that lets me switch between film types from shot to shot.<br />It's soon to become a 40 megapixel digital camera.<br />Though I love my Nikons, no other system has the kind of flexibility one gets with a modern medium format camera.</p>