Medium Format Newb

[bigfatbadger]

First question:

Why medium format? In other words, why not 35mm or 4x5?

Well primarily because I'm looking to get enough experience to be in a good position as being an assisstant or second photographer for wedding etc. A lot of the adverts I've seen specify MF experience as a must and while I'm in a better paid job than I will be as an assisstant, I thought I might as well try to buy one, given that it might come in useful later on.

Secondly because I like experimenting with different formats. It's the same reason that I'm currently trying to assemble a pin hole camera!

 

[Torus34]

That changes the whole discussion.

Find out what cameras are being used by the pros and get one.

 

[Don Simon]

Find out what cameras are being used by the pros and get one.

That might be a bit difficult if he's on a tight budget... especially if the pros are using digital MF instead of film. If the ads only specify experience with MF in general as opposed to any specific camera, you probably don't need a current pro-level camera. It does however probably mean SLR instead of TLR or rangefinder.

 

[bigfatbadger]

Yeah, I was slightly hesitant to save up for a hassy, but thought that a 645 might be alright for getting experience with and a load of fun as well. Thanks for all your advice, I've seen a couple of second hand 645's for under £200 so am probably going to go with that!

Thanks again!

 

[Torus34]

Hope we helped. Let us know how you make out. We're rooting for you, you know.

 

[JamesD]

You might try looking at the Seagull TLRs. There's no meter, but that's a good thing. They're fairly cheap, and I've heard some people diss them, but I've also heard quite a few good things about them. I almost bought one myself, but then decided to get the Argoflex from Ebay. The Seagulls will certainly give you a chance to try MF without spending too much.

TLRs are great!

 

[JIP]

Well primarily because I'm looking to get enough experience to be in a good position as being an assisstant or second photographer for wedding etc. A lot of the adverts I've seen specify MF experience as a must and while I'm in a better paid job than I will be as an assisstant, I thought I might as well try to buy one, given that it might come in useful later on.

Bronica ETRSi, I have used my 2 for about 6 years and they probably had twice that time on them when I bought them and they still are great. Good wok horse wedding camera, realtively small and light as medium format goes wich is needed when you couple it with a flash and flash bracket I use a Metz 60CT4 wich maces for quite a package when on the bracket it stands over 2 feet high. Right now you can find them fairly cheap used wich begs the question, if you want to get into wedding photography why not use digital? When I started MF was the way to go and I made a substantial investment only to be stuck now purchasing all digital because the people I work for are 90% digital now wich is the way most wedding photography is going. Don't get me wrong I love my medium format cameras and would not trade their image quality for the world and I would love to continue using them for weddings but you have to go the way the market goes.

 

[ksmattfish]

I think that "medium format experience" means they want you to know how to safely handle rolls of 120 and 220, and know how to load their cameras and camera backs. The first part can be achieved by using almost any medium format camera (maybe not the 220 part). As far as loading cameras and film backs they are all a little different, so I can't see them expecting someone to have used everything out there. They want you to be able to figure it out quickly when they show you, and to be able to trust you to load it right. Then again, you may be hard pressed to find a pro that hasn't sold off all their medium format film gear already.

If you get a deal on a 645 camera that's fine, but overall I think 645 is already a dead format. It was great for wedding shooters, but as JIP said, it's all gone digital now. That fancy, full frame, 16mp Canon DSLR is pretty much already matching 645 (check out comparisons of 645 Velvia to various digital cameras at Luminous Landscapes). You may want to consider something bigger. Bigger does not mean harder. It does mean less shots per roll, but lots more neg!!! It's worth it. Most cameras with interchangable backs can handle various format sizes. I offer medium format film photography to my clients (commercial and wedding), and they aren't interested. I use it for my personal work where film economy isn't such an issue. I'd rather have the big neg.

Don't worry about an in-camera meter. If you're going pro you should learn to use a hand held meter anyway.

If you're investing in MF, you need good glass,
mirror lockup and leaf shutter.

Doc, your points are valid, but I'm going to play devil's advocate...

Even dirt cheap, no-name, medium format glass does a fantastic job. I get great results from my $15 anastigmat lens, medium format camera. If you have the budget for Zeiss, Mamiya, Schneider, Pentax, or Fuji then go for it. If your budget is more like Yashica, don't worry about it. There are plenty of brand names people aren't familiar with that are as good as it gets. I have a Norita 66, which hardly anyone has ever heard of, and it's lenses are just as good (and faster f/2) as my big name brand lenses.

Mirror lock up is only important for an SLR. Other kinds of medium format cameras don't have moving mirrors, or mirrors at all.

Leaf shutters are nice, until you need a shutter speed faster than 1/500th. The Pentax 6x7, 67, and 67II are extremely popular focal plane shutter cameras. I love my 67II, and it does just as good of a job as my Hasselblad with a leaf shutter. Almost every photographer I've seen on TV using a medium format camera is using a Pentax 67: David LaChapelle, Spencer Tunick, Richard Avedon, Glenn Ketchum, and on and on. The people who have problems with focal plane shutter movement need to work on their technique, because their are plenty of photogs having no problems. Also most focal plane shutter cameras have leaf shutter lenses available, so it's the best of both worlds.

 

[terri]

If you get a deal on a 645 camera that's fine, but overall I think 645 is already a dead format.

Expand on that, if you will. You mean as far wedding photography only?

 

[ksmattfish]

Expand on that, if you will. You mean as far wedding photography only?

I think that 645 was designed specifically for the wedding/event photographer. Who else really ever used it?

I think that sometimes people tend to think that format size is some sort of ladder going up that must be traversed one rung at a time. Whatever the format size, medium format film works pretty much like 35mm, it's just bigger. I'm not trying to dog on 645, I just think people think there is some sort of logical progression they have to follow, and I don't think that's so. I went from 35mm to 4x5, and then later picked up medium format.

It is a smidge more expensive to shoot 6x7 (10 shots per roll instead of 16), but the neg is about twice the size, so you get even a larger quality jump going from 645 to 67, than you get going from 35mm to 645. On the other hand the difference in camera size is usually greater between 35mm and 645, than it is between 645 and 67 cameras. Yes, there are exceptions, the Mamiya 67 SLRs are monsters, but the Mamiya and Fuji 67 rangefinders aren't any bigger than a 645 SLR.

To me the main reasons people have for going with 645 are:

1) I'm going to shoot so many shots that those extra 6 shots a roll will really add up, and economy is more important than the bigger neg. If this is the case it might be cheaper in the long run to go with a full frame DSLR that gives very similar quality to 645. Also you can get 645 backs for some 67 cameras.

2) I want to get 30+ shots on a roll of 220. But I think vultures are circling for 220.

3) I'm not using a tripod, and I really can't handle the extra ounces of a slightly bigger camera. If weight is an issue, 35mm film really does do a great job for the size, and if you are maxing out your wrist strength camera shake may be an issue.

4) I got a fantastic deal (why? because no one wants them anymore). But most medium format film gear is going cheap these days.

I'm just saying that you don't have to go 35mm to 645, and if you are going to invest money in a camera system (even if it's a deal) I think it's worth considering other options, and if they would serve your needs better.

 

[ksmattfish]

I suppose another reason would be that there are 645 cameras available that have similar features as modern electronc 35mm SLRs such as matrix metering, motor wind, auto-exposure modes, and auto focus (medium format AF is not like 35mm AF though), while 67 cameras tend to be more manual.

 

[markc]

Matt pretty much covered how I've always felt about 6x4.5 too. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's like using a 1x.75 neg on 35mm film.

 

[terri]

I suppose another reason would be that there are 645 cameras available that have similar features as modern electronc 35mm SLRs such as matrix metering, motor wind, auto-exposure modes, and auto focus (medium format AF is not like 35mm AF though), while 67 cameras tend to be more manual.

Just curious as to why you dogged it. :razz: Since there are tons of them out there, and they were once the shiz, it's clearly still quite a viable option for those wanting to use 120 film, get larger negatives, and not have to spend a ton of money. You're probably right that it was largely used by wedding photogs of yesteryear - the Mamiya kit I picked up was clearly for that purpose, and I've been able to expand on it. In fact I'm laughing at the quality of lenses I now have that I considered out of reach just a couple years back. I can't feel badly about getting great Mamiya lenses at great prices.

So, it may in fact be a "dead format" for some purposes, but I'd be hard pressed telling someone, especially a beginner on a budget, not to waste money on a format that's more affordable than ever, built like tanks, and still offers quality glass that will afford them years of casual shooting pleasure.

Just another opinion.

 

['Daniel']

I have not used medium format but when I do (which I will) I want to get a 6x6 camera. I really like the square film especially in portraits.

 

[mysteryscribe]

as usual i stand corrected.

Never owned a minolta till i just bought the 35mm film system I bought. I must have had it on my mind sorry.

And if you are going to shoot film you might as well really shoot film go 4x5 right phillip