MF - why should an amateur bother??

[gene crumpler]

I love these debates! To cut to the chase, I have two idential 16x20 B&W prints of the same scene shot with a 6x7 pentax 105mm lens on T-max 100 and a Nikon F3 w/55mm micro nikkor on tech pan. Both were on a very heavy tripod, mirror lock up and the lenses set at there optimum f-stops. I forgot to mark the prints when I did them three years ago and now I'am suprised that I can no longer determine which is which. YMMV

[jeff_drew4]

A recent photo monthly arrived and 1 article focused on wide angle lenses and several prints, all good ones, were used to reinforce points presented. For me, the print that stood out and said "look at me!!" was a wedding in a beautiful, domed cathedral and the details for the dome stood out, as did the bridal party etc. This one print "knocked my socks off!" whereas all the others were very good. I checked further and my winner was taken with an older Hasselblad & Zeiss lens, all the others were taken with varieties of excellent 35mm gear. Consistently besieged with visual stimulae, MF and LF photos usually "rock me" whereas 35mm down to my Minox usually are just positively noticed. FWIW-IMHO!

[richard_tait]

I am a recent convert to MF, having bought a FujiGSW690III a couple of months ago. I did this primarily because I wanted to take shots for sale and stock and blowups at around the 10 x 15 mark and larger. But leaving that aside...

 

I like the discipline of having a completely manual camera with only 8 shots a roll. It makes me compose more carefully, which leads to much better results - in effect no more expensive than 35mm. This is because I am cutting down on the number of shots that I simply shouldn't have taken because they were not interesting enough. I am also enjoying the lack of automation. All in a camera that costs less than a Canon professional lens.

 

BTW, I am continuing to use 35mm for 'on the move' photography, or when I need to change lens (the Fuji's is fixed)

[nick_albano]

Saturation, contrast, quality of the glass, ease of scanning, more information in the neg or chrome, and tonal gradations that rock.

 

The work pace is certainly a personal choice, but, there are lots of photogs who are happier working slower and with a larger view finder and without a camera glued to their forehead.

 

Having said all that, I think MF is always a compromise situation. It is rarely the best at any one thing - 35mm is easier to handhold and if you like a big negative, well, 4 x 5 is bigger. But for all around versatility and quality of images it's hard to beat a Hassel (it's light enough to handhold, it's a mechanical wonder and the Zeiss glass is legendary).

[squareframe]

I'll take a different road. 35mm is a compromise of performance for mobility. 4x5 is a compromise of mobility for performance. my Hasselblad's yield that perfect sweet spot in the middle.

 

I cannot stress enough, the emotional impact of identifying with a particular format. for me, the square 6x6 is the perfect geometry that greatly influences my photography. it affords me compositions that best show how I see the world.

[bradley hanson]

I think Daniel has summed it up nicely. If you're not doing advertising/product/food photography, 35mm might be all you need. If you want a larger negative, medium format is the best compromise of size and resolution. The differences between 35mm and medium format aren't as great as they once were, as the optics of 35mm have improved more quickly than MF, and films for both formats are greatly improved. (Have you seen the detail Art Wolfe gets out of his 35mm Canon gear?) Medium format delivers the goods if you don't mind the added weight and diminished spontaneity (shorter film rolls, longer load time, frequently no motor drive, leaving the darkslide in, etc).

 

A lot of it may come down to your preference for format: rectangular, square or panoramic. I shoot a lot of MF and 35mm, and they have their own assets. If you love the square, MF is clearly the way to go. If you want automation and TTL flash metering, 35mm still offers more options. If you are scanning, 35mm scanners give more options, scanners are cheaper and faster. If you decide to go digital someday, tossing a digital back on an MF camera is easier than starting all over again with a new camera, although MF digital backs are still about $20,000.

 

The most important thing I got from shooting MF has nothing to do with resolution or image sharpness. Shooting a Hasselblad with no auto-return mirror and no meter taught me to slow down and understand exposure. I now use a handheld incident meter with any camera I use.

[grant_corban]

So much said...my 2 cents as a MF convert. I shot a group photo at my father in laws 79th birthday last year. His family is BIG! The 8x10 was well lit but the facial detail was a joke.

 

3 Months ago I bought a 6x6 Bronica so I can be ready for his 80th at the end of the year. Group shots I have taken so far (2) have been AWESOME.

 

I have some great 35mm shots as 8x10s, and use it all the time, but if I want to blow them up big, and I believe some of my shots deserve it, I am much happier to use my Bronica.

 

As an aside, when I use 35mm people will walk in front of me. When I use the Bronica they don't. They understand you are doing a job - even if I am not ;-)

 

Lastly, buy a TLR Yashica and enjoy. They will set you back less than US$200.

[jim h1664876971]

Well things have changed a lot in the 2 years since this thread was last active. Now

you can buy an epson 3200 flatbed scanner that does transparencies up to 6x9

inches for about 450 usd. It does a remarkably good job scanning negs and slides.

Buy one of these add to it a vintage folding medium format camera from ebay and

you have a killer combination to take you into the realm of big sharp digital prints for

CHEAP! Print these shots out online via a frontier or lightjet and you will have a

stunning result in a nice big print.

 

This is the way ive gone and now I get my film processed only and just print the shots

I like.

 

Or buy yourself a modern medium format system and the 3200 is still a great option.

I bought myself a fuji ga645zi point and shoot zoom. I also shoot a Bessa II 6x9 for

nice big negs. You could also go to 4x5 inches with the epson; serious resolution!

 

I guess ultimately only an amateur who wants to go beyond 8x10 printing would need

to do this, but at least now an amateur has the option of going BIG and SHARP for

just a little money.