Most common medium format

[Stock-Photos]

If never done medium format photography. I'm curious which has been

the most widely used format in the US. I've read about 120/220, 6 x

9 cm, 6x4.5cm, 6x6 and 4 x 5 inch. Of all these could anyone venture

a guess as to which is the most poplular? What are the panoramic

formats? Who uses 4"x5" film?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[kevin_kolosky]

I do not believe most people would classify 4 x 5 as medium format, but rather as large format. medium format is basically 120/220 size film in whatever configuration the camera you are using provides. I suspect that when everythig is said and done, 6 x 6 might be the most popular given the twin lens cameras from Mamiya, Yashica and Rollie, and the slr hasselblads and bronicas and rollies. probably 645 would be second and 6 x7 third and 6 x9 fourth.

[fotografz]

All of the medium formats you quote use 120/220 sized film. The most

popular format is probably 6X6 due to the long running Hasselblad

camera systems, and others like it. 645 format is gaining in popularity,

especially due to digital innovations. 6X7 is quite popular in studio

cameras like the Mamiya RZ Pro II. 4X5 is considered large format.

Panoramics come in a wide variety of widths. Most, but not, all use 120

or 220 film, so they start with 6...(6X12, 6X17).

[gl5]

I don't know if one could say that there is one most popular

medium format format but if I had to guess, I'd guess 6x7 since

that's what most fashion and advertising photography is.

[david_goldfarb]

120/220 and the less common 70mm are all medium format. Format sizes typically used with these films include 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17. As the frame becomes longer, it becomes more panoramic. I think of anything with an aspect ratio of 1:2 or more to be panoramic. 645, 6x6, and 6x7 are probably the most common these days.

 

4x5" is the most popular large format size. Go over to the LF forum, and you'll meet lots of people who use it, as well as 5x7", 8x10", 11x14", 12x20", 4x10", 7x17", 8x20", 16x20", 20x24" and even a few really unusual custom sizes. The most popular large format size after 4x5" is 8x10".

[andre_noble4]

I would guess it's 6x4.5 The smaller the format (beginning with

35mm on up), the more popular it is due to convience of size of

equipment/ ease of hand holdability.

[ross_mcleish2]

"6x4.5 ... more popular....due to convience of size of equipment/ ease of hand holdability."

 

Hmmmm........maybe, but there's an awfully large number of old 6x6 TLRs out there, not to mention (as other's have) all the new and old Rollei,'Blad, and Broni, etc, SLR 6x6s. 645 may be getting really popular lately because of all the new AF models dropping on the scene as 'bait' for the 35mm users whom 'want to/think they need to' upgrade to a larger format. If I read the original question correctly: "which has been the most widely used format" (historical tense), my feeling would be to favour 6x6 as most widely 'used'(along with a huge amount of 6x7). Future? Whom knows.......some say it will be all 35mm format digital. I'm sticking with my Rollei 6008i and 2.8GX and film for the moment :-)

[greg_smith4]

I'd say they're all popular. They all have their own place. I like the square and work with 2 6x6 cameras. I also am getting started with a 4x5. I use and like them both.

[richardcook]

I cannot find any global or US numbers for cameras sold and doubt we can obtain this figure anywhere. There may also be quite a difference between cameras sold and pictures taken (which may be different from pictures developed, printed, or viewed!). The film sizes 120 and 220 are just the ones that survived from a huge number of different film sizes. The numbers we use are what is left over from the (roughly) sequential numbering of different sizes of Kodak film beginning just before the the turn of the century (ahem, I mean before the run of the 20th century) starting with 101 and continuing upwards. The traditional method was to design a camera and film together and this led to a proliferation of sizes. Very popular formats included 120, 126, and 127 (I used to shoot 127 a lot!); 135 was the number assigned to the roll film that became 35mm. Some numbers were reused: the 110 film used in the cartridge Instamatic, that many of the grey hairs around recall, was numbered out of sequence, the prior 110 film having been long since discontinued.

 

The earliest medium format camera of note was the Rolleiflex which was introduced in 1928 and it used a 6x6 format. Because this was adopted by so many manufacturers, including Hasselblad and Mamiya, it seems almsot certain that there have been more 6x6cm images made, the vast majority of them on 120 film, than any other. 220 film was introduced in the the 1960's by sacrificing the backing paper to maintain the same spool diameter -- which is the rationale for the pressure plate change seen on 120/220 capable cameras. It may well be that today there are as many 6x4.5cm images being made as 6x6's but argumens about this sort of thing tend to take on religious dimensions. Sales figures for cameras are not generally available and these would not tell how many images are being captured. There are now only three roll film sizes widely available: APS, 35mm, and 120/220.

 

In general, "medium format" now refers to any image made on 120 or 220 film with the "standard" formats including: 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 6x9cm. Panoramic in medium format usually refers to wide angle lenses and formats between 6x9cm and 6x17cm. These all use the same film but vary in the number of images per roll.

 

Square or near square formats are the rule not because they are better but because of the economics of lenses. In medium format the lenses are the most expensive parts of the cameras (look at the price list for the current Rollei 6000 series lenses and you will see what I mean!) and lenses, by their very nature, produce focus and resolution in a circle, not a rectangle. The cost of a lens is proportional to the diagonal of the useful rectangle size. A lens that produce useful images in the 6x17cm format would be equally useful taking a square image 18cm across (the diagonal of 6x17cm) which means that it could be used to produce an equal quality image about 12 cm on a side -- just about a 4x5 (inch) plate! The reason that near-square formats rule is that they make the most efficient use of the (expensive) optics of the camera (not to mention issues like flatness, etc.). Fans of the 6x6 format will tell you that the 6x4.5 throws away a third of the image, which is, in a sense true. On the other hand, if you can deal with that, you get more pictures on a roll of film.

 

You may want to consult the various books on medium format. Ernst Wildi's books are excellent and he makes a strong if not persuasive case for the square format. Hicks and Schultz's "Medium and Large Format Photography" is a bit more ecumenical about format.

 

See http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html for a list of film numbers and their corresponding sizes.

 

See http://www.sl66.com/slx/rollei_history_slx.htm for a brief history of the Rolleiflex.

 

Now ain'tcha sorry ya' asked? ;-)

[markci]

645, 6x6 and 6x7, by far. Anything else is sort of oddball or specialty.

[david_goldfarb]

Another reason for the popularity of 6x6 historically, is that the square eliminates the need to turn the camera, which would be really awkward with anything involving a waist-level finder. Imagine trying to hold a TLR steady at arm's length.

 

On the other hand the revolving back, which existed even on 4x5" cameras like the Graflex RB SLR offers another solution to that problem.

[david_gwynne]

For my not so humble opinion. Not the most common, and rare in a modern camera, is my preference 6 x 9, most commonly available as a used Mamiya Press variant. 645 to me is marginally superior to 35mm when one considers the cost premium. 6x6 is a lazy 645 because of the usual downward reflex viewfinder (square format is delicious for some compositions, but face it, most prints are cropped to rectangular). 6x7 is arrogantly called "ideal" format, probably because of traditonal wet darkroom paper sizes. 6x9 (and 645) is the ratio very close to print media, and of course, inket paper sizes. Expect to see a rennaissance of 6x9 (and 645) as digital prints supplant silver prints. For me, 6x9 gives the maximum image without the aggro of 4x5.

[dan_fromm2]

People, people, people.

 

How can we forget all of the low-line box and folding cameras that used 120 and larger roll films? Nearly every manufacturer but Leitz and press and view camera specialists made them. Even Zeiss-Ikon made them. I don't have data to base this on, but I suspect Kodak made more humble box Brownies than there are now roll film cameras in professional use.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[chip l.]

Let me chime in. The 6x6 format has been around for many of a year. This leads to a square image. If you crop to an 8x10 sized print you end up with nearly a 6x4.5 negative size. I think with the Mamiya 645 series, Contax AF645, and the Fuji 645 cameras; I would say that the current leader is the 645 format. The 6x6 format does give a person more flexibilty to crop after the fact.

 

The 6x7 format gives the most film area for an 8x10 sized image. The 6x9 gives the proportions that a 35mm user is comfortable with. I can understnad the confusion over the 4x5 format. This is generally considered "large format"; but many 4x5 cameras accept medium format backs.

 

Hope this helps...

 

Chip