Newbie medium format questions

[azs]

I'm thinking about buying a medium format camera. I have a couple questions:

1. Is the image quality really head and shoulders above 35mm film? How big would I have to blow up the image to see a difference?
   
2. Do you always have to shoot with a tripod?
   
3. How hard is it to focus? And how do you focus, anyway?
   
4. I've been looking at medium format cameras for sale at KEH, and the cheaper ones say "Without Waistlevel." I'd like to save a little money, but is giving that up worth it? (If it matters, I'm planning to shoot outdoor portraits.)

 

[Designer]

Mostly, yes, the image quality (IQ) will be significantly better than the 35mm format, but much of the IQ depends on the quality of the lens.

No, only when the shutter speed is long, or you have a long lens.

Focus is usually done by looking into the camera's viewfinder. There will be either a ground glass screen or a split prism focus aid.

The waist-level viewfinder moves the camera down to your waist level, usually making the composition more balanced in terms of top-to-bottom proportions. You can simply bend down, shooting from a lower position.

(edit) right; unless it has NO viewfinder at all, in which case you need to make a phone call to the seller to find out.

 

[amolitor]

I'm not sure what KEH's convention is, it's possible that "without waistlevel" means "without a viewfinder of any sort"

Many medium format systems have multiple viewfinder options, of which the waistlevel is the simplest and cheapest, so it is reasonable that this could mean "it does not even have the basic finder, you have to get one before the camera is usable". But, check with KEH to be sure what they mean.

 

[timor]

Jumping in medium format is usually a big step. My question is, do you have any experience with film ? Some of your questions suggest you don't. Maybe you should consider a TLR rather than SLR as the first medium size camera ?

 

[cgw]

I'm thinking about buying a medium format camera. I have a couple questions:

1. Is the image quality really head and shoulders above 35mm film? How big would I have to blow up the image to see a difference?
2. Do you always have to shoot with a tripod?
3. How hard is it to focus? And how do you focus, anyway?
4. I've been looking at medium format cameras for sale at KEH, and the cheaper ones say "Without Waistlevel." I'd like to save a little money, but is giving that up worth it? (If it matters, I'm planning to shoot outdoor portraits.)

1. Yes. Research the negative real estate differences between 35mm and 120(@645/6x6x/6x7)and see for yourself. How big is "big" print-wise for you? A 6x7 negative can go 16x20 with no problem.
2. No but if you're after maximum sharpness, it doesn't hurt.
3. Focus works the same as 35mm SLRs with lenses that have focus helicoids. Some, like the big Mamiya RB/RZ cameras use a bellows rack&pinion. The bigger focus screens actually make focusing easier.
4. Many MF cameras are modular systems with swappable finders, film backs, motor drives, and lenses. "Without waistlevel" means NO viewfinder, which would be a separate purchase--and NO you can't really see to focus on an unshielded screen without one, especially outdoors. Most WLFs have a flip-up magnifier than helps nail focus. WLFs aren't that useful on rectangular format cameras(645 and some 6x7), since switching between landscape/portrait orientation puts the finder on the side of the camera. They're best on 6x6("square")format cameras. Some 6x7 cameras like the Mamiya RB/RZ get around this with a rotating film back that switches between landscape/portrait. Prism finders are the usual way 645 cameras accomodate shifts between horizontal and vertical framed shots.

 

[limr]

Jumping in medium format is usually a big step. My question is, do you have any experience with film ? Some of your questions suggest you don't. Maybe you should consider a TLR rather than SLR as the first medium size camera ?

I agree. I know I personally had a much easier time wrapping my head around the differences between 35mm and medium-format once I got a TLR. Everything about it is different enough that it forces you to think of the differences.

Of course, everyone is different, so it's up to you, but I second this advice that timor offered.

As for the other questions, my answers are pretty much the same as everyone else:

1. Yes, it's a noticeable difference in quality, even in smaller sizes.

2. No, you don't always need a tripod, but depending on a) what camera you get, b) what you're trying to take a picture of, and c) what your upper-body/core strength is like, you might need one at times when you wouldn't need one with a 35mm camera.

3. It's not hard to focus.

4. As suggested, it probably means no viewfinder at all, but it's best to contact the seller to be sure. Is a WLF worth it? I tend to really like WLFs even on a 35mm, so I would almost always opt for one, but others despise them and much prefer a prism finder.

 

[Josh66]

1. Is the image quality really head and shoulders above 35mm film? How big would I have to blow up the image to see a difference?
2. Do you always have to shoot with a tripod?
3. How hard is it to focus? And how do you focus, anyway?
4. I've been looking at medium format cameras for sale at KEH, and the cheaper ones say "Without Waistlevel." I'd like to save a little money, but is giving that up worth it? (If it matters, I'm planning to shoot outdoor portraits.)

I'd say that the differences can be seen in the negative. But, I wouldn't say that it's an Earth-shattering difference (same film, same developer - only difference being format), but bigger is definitely better. DOF plays a bigger role than image quality in comparing the formats, I think.

You would use a tripod for the same reasons in 35mm or medium format, so this is really a non-issue.

Focusing will depend on the camera, of course. I use a Fuji GF670 a lot - it's a medium format rangefinder. I find it a lot easier to focus than a 35mm rangefinder. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter, and the focusing patch is larger.

"How to focus" definitely depends on the camera. Just like in 35mm, there are different systems. Some are autofocus, some are rangefinders, some just have ground glass... It really just depends on what model camera it is. I'd say manual focus is much more common that autofocus though, but manual focus is also easier than it is in 35mm, due to the much larger viewfinder.


35mm:

2013021002 by J E, on Flickr




6x7:

2013012703 by J E, on Flickr

Same film, same developer. The medium format one appears to have less grain, but it's also enlarged less. At 100%, the grain should look the same on either of them.

I'd say that you can tell the difference, but that it's also not as huge as you would expect.

 

[timor]

Same film, same developer. The medium format one appears to have less grain, but it's also enlarged less. At 100%, the grain should look the same on either of them.

I'd say that you can tell the difference, but that it's also not as huge as you would expect.

It is not only that. Sure, emulsions on the films are the same, so same grain size and reaction to used developer. Bigger format in same size of print will give much better definition of detail and, what very important better tonal separation, in summary much better image which is enough to justifies much higher effort (physical and financial) associated with it. That's why I asked about film experience of OP, medium format is nowadays costly to learn film photography. It is not a system for trigger happy fellows.

 

[timor]

OK, I've seen KEH website. They sell bodies without any viewfinder, but there is a long list of VF one can buy. This is logical, why someone who has to change the body has to pay for VF, which he already has. BTW WL VF are more costly than unmetered prisms. Quite a bit.

 

[minicoop1985]

The thought that a small chunk of metal with a hinge would be worth way more than a much larger chunk of metal with a bunch of precisely cut and aimed mirrors is rather odd. Though from my searchings, WL finders seem to be much more popular than the prism finders-at least with Hasselblad and a few others I've been researching lately. Oh, and Rollei-I've only found one or two Rollei prism finders, though that makes sense as a prism finder with a TLR seems a bit impractical. It certainly would have its uses, but for most things, seems impractical.

 

[compur]

The difference in quality between 35mm vs MF can easily be seen in prints, especially those larger than 8x10".

When scanning negs and displaying them on a computer monitor the difference is more subtle but is still apparent.

Of course, this assumes negs that are properly exposed and processed and taken with a properly stabilized camera.

 

[trythis]

And, whats your budget? Roughly?