from 35mm to medium format

[92135011]

alright all you medium format users
Used 35mm all my life
From a users point of view could you name the advantages of medium format?
Because Quality of image (quantitative) has many different aspects, you can be as specific as you want in this matter.

Oh yeah. I'm leaning toward waist level finders.

[another view]

The advantages really are because of the larger piece of film itself. There are several sizes of medium format, like 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17... but the first three are the most common. 6x6 (Like Hasselblad, Bronica SQ, TLR's) is of course a square negative, but usually you'll crop it into a rectangular print. Since it's square, you don't have to flip the camera over to shoot a vertical - and can get a vertical or horizontal from the same frame. However, once you do this crop your negative size is probably closer to 645 though...

With medium format in general, you enlarge the negative less than 35mm simply because it's bigger. The more times that the negative is enlarged, the more detail you'll lose and more grain you'll show. Comparing 16x20 prints from 35mm and even 645 which is the smallest medium format, you'll see a huge improvement.

Another thing - some labs will do negative retouching for MF (and LF), but can't for 35mm.

[92135011]

but what about the useability?
thats probably the most concerning question
once again i lean toward WLF

[another view]

Not sure what you mean by useability. Most all MF systems are fully manual, but they're usually used in situations that you might work with a 35mm SLR on manual too (like portraits, products). A few have TTL flash and/or AF, but not many. Does this answer your question?

A waist level finder works just fine for these situations too, but it does take some getting used to having the image reversed on the focusing screen.

[tijean]

If you want to dump an insane amount of money into this, there's always the Pentax 645nii and 67ii

Both are professional level, full featured cameras with price tags to match. Anything affordable will be fully manual, but just like with 35mm cameras, you will find a whole spectrum -- from the Moskva 5 Russian Rangefinger to the Hasselblad H1 (aka what I want for my birthday LOL).

[racingpinarello]

If you are leaning toward WLF, such as Hasselblad,Bronica, or Mamiya RZ then useability shouldn't be your concern.

Since the image is inverse in the finder, it's not the most intuitive. I consider my RZ with WLF a portable large format camera. I plan my shot, and then take it. Both of my cameras have metering with A or S priority.

I prefer my Mamiya 7 or RZ67 with a viewfinder because I can see, and then shoot. Overall, I really like medium format, but it's not as useable as 35mm and never intended to be.

What I get in return for the extra weight are large, better grained negatives. http://www.lorencrannell.com/personal.html the first image on the top row, is taken with Ilford 3200 shot at 3200 using my Mamiya 7. That's pretty useable since you can use faster speed film on the street without giving up fast shutter speeds.

Loren

[92135011]

Thank you for your helpful responses.
A little about my background so that you know where I'm coming from.
I'm a recent Leica M shooter switched from Nikon manual SLRs.
My M currently has no in-camera meter and I'm totally fine with lightmeters. I enjoy battery free operation and am not really that big a fan of AF. Current gear also has no shutter or aperture priorities. Using only primes and am getting increasingly better at judging the space to be captured before putting the camera to eye. Perhaps with this info you can suggest some possibilities.

BTW, to extend useability, I also meant the square format as most WLF are either 6x6 or 6x7 these days. Another View has said that most will be cropped to become close to 645, making the reason to get 6x6 a little useless. Does everyone find the square format less than useful?

[mdmc]

I do recall reading that some people love the square format and make square prints. as to image quality 6x7 enlarged to 16x20 is enlarged slightly less than 35mm to 8x10.
What camera(s) do you have in mind?
Mark.

[another view]

Of course you don't need a square format camera to get a square print. Common print sizes are rectangles, so with a 6x6 you will crop one side of the neg to get a print of standard proportions (8x10, 16x20). That's what I meant.

But having 6x6 gives you the option of cropping to either a vertical or a horizontal from the same negative later. You might plan to crop vertically, only to get the contact sheet or proofs back and decide that a horizontal print works better. With a 645 or 6x7, you would have shot a vertical and not had that horizontal (but with 6x7 the neg is big enough that you still could crop it anyway). Not trying to confuse you, but the bigger the negative, the more cropping options you'll have later. Bigger negs = better prints. That sums it up.

I had a Bronica SQ system which is like a Hasselblad copy (6x6 SLR). I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it, and don't have a MF scanner - so that's one reason why. Now that it's gone, I want to replace it with something and I'll probably go for a 6x7. Most MF systems have dropped so much in price that almost anything's affordable. The only exception, which is (of course ) the one I have my eye on is the Mamiya 7 or 7ii system. It's a 6x7 rangefinder system with really great lenses. Loren (Racing Pinarello) has one, and so does a friend. Pulitzer prize winner David Hume Kennerly uses one too. I saw the exhibit of his book Photo Du Jour, which was 16x20 selenium toned silver prints - they were excellent.
The Mamiya 7 system (original 7 body or newer 7ii, although not many changes to it) is very small for a 6x7 and probably about as close to a big Leica as you will find. There are other MF rangefinders out there too - Fuji made some really nice ones.

[racingpinarello]

I prefer 6x7 because you can crop to a 6x6 portrait if you wanted. They have screens that can mask the viewing window too.

My Mamiya 7 is my everyday camera. It's super light and would be the most equivalent xfer from 35mm.

Loren

[Clemmie]

Thank you for your helpful responses.
A little about my background so that you know where I'm coming from.
I'm a recent Leica M shooter switched from Nikon manual SLRs.
My M currently has no in-camera meter and I'm totally fine with lightmeters. I enjoy battery free operation and am not really that big a fan of AF. Current gear also has no shutter or aperture priorities. Using only primes and am getting increasingly better at judging the space to be captured before putting the camera to eye. Perhaps with this info you can suggest some possibilities.

BTW, to extend useability, I also meant the square format as most WLF are either 6x6 or 6x7 these days. Another View has said that most will be cropped to become close to 645, making the reason to get 6x6 a little useless. Does everyone find the square format less than useful?

Well....this is gonna sound a little goofy to some - but it's the path I've taken recently to explore Medium Format. The Kiev 60.

It's an SLR on Steroids - about twice the size of the average 35mm SLR, in all directions. Can use your choice of a prism viewfinder or a waist-level finder - both of which come in the 'basic kit', and it only takes a few seconds to swap them. The camera is fully mechanical - no batteries. The meter available in the prism finder does take batteries, but is inaccurate enough you'll do better sticking with your hand meter.

An advantage to the 6x6 format, is that you can easily shoot for 'normal' rectangular cropping - vertical or horizontal - without having to rotate the camera. And the square can be interesting for some things, too, that you couldn't do with a rectangular frame.

Here's a Kiev 60 group, for anyone interested -
Kiev 60 SLR-Free