What's the big deal about Medium format?

[webster]

I have been viewing some medium format shots and even though they were posted on the web on web-size, i seem to notice that there is something different about them (other than the larger film real estate and different DOF).
I wonder if those who are shooting MF can shed some light into this.


*note, this is a genuine question, and as such i's appreciate if the poisoning is kept to a low. (a bit of poking fun is ok la)

[sean eng]

potential to blow up big big and huge huge.


sharpness, tone, depth, all vary


not to mention the time consuming plus the effort you will put in for each frame.
and the exciting moment after develop them.

[sean eng]

and, it is bigger than full frame (135 format)


evil!!!

[bimmer]

Maybe its the square format?

[azrul]

a) in the past most magazines and book publishers wanted them for: i) ability to enlarge and ii) the ease of viewing and selecting transparencies in 120 sizes. though many publishers have since gotten used to digital media, there are many that still make requests for film.

b) for b/w enthusiast, there is definitely more tonal gradation offered on a large film vs. a smaller one

c) for professionals, the option to have cameras that have changeable magazines gives options to easily switch between film types eg. b/w n trans without having to switch cameras or carrying an extra camera.

d) 6x6 (which is what i used for many years) offered 12 exposures per roll, which is convenient enough for commercial shooting. no need to wait finishing off a 36exposure roll.

e) most medium format cameras just had inherently sharper lenses coupled with a larger film; gives phenomenal detail. again most pros keep this in mind considering most commercial jobs require a lot of cropping once the image gets put into a layout or printed.

f) a variety of format sizes from a single film format: 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 (mags love these), 6x9 and 6x12. also super wide sizes: 6x17 or wider for panoramic cameras.

g) it's also used by large format shooters if they need to 'crop' an image and just shoot a minor detail without having to resort to shooting an actual 4x5 trans. i have a 6x7 roll film holder for that purpose. it's also faster n more convenient than 4x5 or 8x10 + you still get the full movements/corrections offered on a 4x5 camera, on a smaller film size.

some facts sans poison for mr. webster.

[Brian]

specifically referring to what you would see on the web, the extra tonal graduation gives the images a bit more "depth". They just look smoother.

There is a more pronounced difference when compared to digital-medium images as they tend to have very low tonal coverage. This is primarily because the best digital sensors have well-spaced photosites in order to reduce noise. This is the opposite of what you would need for good tonal coverage, densely-packed photosites/grains.

[dumbdumb]

and they have cool large real estate in viewfinder giving the photographer plenty of detail for composition and visualisation purposes

[Brian]

and they have cool large real estate in viewfinder giving the photographer plenty of detail for composition and visualisation purposes

Try large format

[dumbdumb]

Try large format

i'm not discounting this fact and when i do i will make sure i have enough money to own one
hehe

[webster]

azrul and brian thanks for the info (sans poisoning). I guess the key take home message for me is more tonal gradation. the larger real estate are academics and i am not concerned much about publishers and clients as i shoot for myself.
So i guessthe extra punch that i am see ing are probably more tones.

[noordin]

Keat has a lovely Pentax + 3 great lenses waiting for you. So come down to KL lah...............

[silentshutter]

ops. wrong thread. i shall move along now...

[webster]

Keat has a lovely Pentax + 3 great lenses waiting for you. So come down to KL lah...............

hahaha, thanks for the tip noordin. the thing is, i think the mrs will say yes if i say i wanna get another camera, but financially, i think it might not be the right time for me.

besides, i have pretty much figured what i think i want. something along the lines of hassy 500c/m or rb(or rz)67 or mamiya 7II or bronica 645rf. but make sure it's low low low rock bottom price.

[LoctorMayat]

orang pulau now become gearhead... *goyang kepala*

[Brian]

hahaha, thanks for the tip noordin. the thing is, i think the mrs will say yes if i say i wanna get another camera, but financially, i think it might not be the right time for me.

besides, i have pretty much figured what i think i want. something along the lines of hassy 500c/m or rb(or rz)67 or mamiya 7II or bronica 645rf. but make sure it's low low low rock bottom price.

If you're going MF, don't do 645. Too small. Go with at least 6x6 (like a Hassey or Bronica SQ or Mamiya 6) or 6x7 if you don't like square (Mamiya 7 or RB or RZ)

[webster]

If you're going MF, don't do 645. Too small. Go with at least 6x6 (like a Hassey or Bronica SQ or Mamiya 6) or 6x7 if you don't like square (Mamiya 7 or RB or RZ)

yeah, my thoughts too. 645 looks too small of a jump to commit to. so 645rf is out although i really like the system.
7II have been very tempting for years, but it is still too cost prohibitive

[divina]

I am not sure if the 645 should be "dismissed".

If one looks at a 11x14 print from a 35 mm negative and one from a 645 negative, the difference will be immediately obvious.

Another advantage of the 645 format is that it behaves largely like a 35 mm SLR.

[eugene]

Webster mau test drive? My RB's always lying around... imo, go for the CM..after using Yoong's one..I am having the itch again.

[dumbdumb]

imo, negative size should not be the only consideration when choosing the suitable mf camera. Azrul has written a very good guide on the uses of the negatives for different composition methods and publishing uses. It make sense to go for the type of negative size best suited for one's purpose i.e 6x7 would be a great medium for magazine layouts, 6x6 as a fantastic medium for portraits etc etc compared to the bigger the better mentality

[Brian]

imo, negative size should not be the only consideration when choosing the suitable mf camera. Azrul has written a very good guide on the uses of the negatives for different composition methods and publishing uses. It make sense to go for the type of negative size best suited for one's purpose i.e 6x7 would be a great medium for magazine layouts, 6x6 as a fantastic medium for portraits etc etc compared to the bigger the better mentality

Actually, 6x7 is perfect for portraits too. It enlarges to "normal" paper sizes (8x10, etc...) with no cropping. All you need is a camera that can shoot it vertical, like an RB or RZ.