Medium Format vs. Large Format

[Rob Pietri]

I personally use my Sinar F for 95% of what I shoot. I use 4x5 sheet film for B&W. But I have a Horseman style 6x7 back for color, it is much more cost effective then 4x5 transparencies. Plus incamera dupes are a cinch. However, a view camera can be cumbersome.

I commented on Micheal Kenna's work previously and he is highly successful with his approach. He uses almost all 2 1/4 square. Check out his website for a different perspective. Ansel Adams also shot almost exclusively with Hasselblad in his later years that produced great works.

Having the roll film already loaded and an slr viewer, is far more spontaneous then a viewcamera. Shielding the camera from the wind is also much easier then having a bellows, focusing cloth flapping in the breeze. Your feel for compositional balance is also different from square to rectangle and the change can help one expand their vision.

Personally, if I could afford some additional Hasselblad lenses, I'ld shoot more medium format. But I will always have a view camera.

[David R Munson]

I read all of this with great interest. Right now I shoot 35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5, and 8x10. I actually use my medium format so seldomly, though (been at least 6 months now), that right now I'm considering selling off the whole kit and putting the money into a few new LF optics or a 5x7 camera. I've just found that working with a view camera fits how I think and see so much better than anything else that I rarely see much point in using anything else. Before you sell anything and invest in MF gear, my one suggestion would be to rent or borrow as many different medium format systems as possible and try them out to see a) which system you like best, and more importantly b) if the difference in working style is disruptive to the creative process for you. When using my MF camera, if I had to think about what I was doing as little as I do when using my 8x10, I'd definitely be shooting more 120.

[Jim Chinn]

I use a variety of formats and have learned that each has its own unique use. the LF cameras are almost entirely used for work that is preconceived and part of on going projects, many of the sites first explored with a 35mm Nikon. The Nikon is always with me in my vehicle for those "sketches" when the subjects present themselves. I use a Mamiya 330 mostly for urban work, especially in areas and locations where using a view camera draws unwanted attention. If I am traveling on the road to locations that I may not get a chance to return to, I take both the medium and LF gear.

[John Bailey]

Dear Bruce

I started out in MF, then ventured into 617 panoramic, then to 4x5 and after all that bought a 35mm digital rig. Since then I have added an Xpan and most recently an 8x10 What I like is how all the formats can compliment one and other. When my square images did not convey what I was trying to do, I often found the panoramic solved my problems. You may want to look into either the Fuji 617 or fiddle with the Hasselblad Xpan. The Xpan is really a neat system with the ability to switch between panoramic (the images are bigger than what you may have seen with other switchable cameras) and normal 35 sized images. It is compact enough to carry in your bag, put in a jacket or keep in a car.

As for the digital and as I have talked about previously in other threads, I am finding it an ideal way to 'scout' locations and capture ideas for future shoots with my LF equipment. I go back and download the images and it helps me visulize and set up what I want to do with the LF and cuts down on time searching for where I want to set up my LF cameras at later points in time. Does digital replace LF for me, no, but digital has fired me up for shooting many, many more images than I would ever imagine.

Best Regards,

John Bailey

[Terence McDonagh]

Go for it. I shoot a lot of industrial areas, etc and don't always like the baggage/target required for even my very modest large- format. I have a Rolleicord V (even cheaper than Rolleiflex, but not bad, esp. if there's a chance of damage/loss) that I use with a monopod or mini-tripod when I don't want all the luggage. I also have an old Zeiss-Ikon 6x4.5 folder I bought for $25 that I carry everywhere. My 35mm has been relegated to a meter at best for most uses. There are inexpensive ways to get into medium format, just like large format. Give it a whirl and see how you like it, at a reasonable price. If it's everything you want, then maybe you upgrade. I agree with everyone, a TLR is nice and friendly and, except for the Mamiya, won't tempt you with additional lenses, etc.

[Brian Ellis]

I use 6x7 about half the time, 4x5 and 8x10 the other half. I know exactly what you mean about passing up potential photographs because of the time/effort involved in setting up the large format gear when in many situations it isn't really needed. I would never sell either the medium format or the large format systems, I think they complement each other and I'd encourage you to keep your large format gear and just add a relatively inexpensive medium format system. I use the Pentax 67 system and for landscape/people/still life, I think it's a great system. Not so good for anything requiring interchangeable backs (e.g. weddings) or flash generally, but it doesn't sound like these two drawbacks would be a problem for you. Since Pentax has recently introduced the Pentax 67II, which is an update of the Pentax 67 that was in production for some thirty years, you can get excellent deals on the Pentax 67 bodies on e bay and Pentax lenses are outstanding as well as inexpensive (by Hasselblad/Rollei standards that is).

[Jonathan Brewer]

David......Don't sell your gear, put it in a closet and forget about 'em, because the day will come when you'll walk toward that closet wishing they were there and glad that they are.

Everybody goes through these 'phases' of being 'in love', 'out of love', happy and/or sick and tired of a particular piece of gear, you'll come 'full circle' before you're through.

A Mamiya 330TLR is a wonderful camera BECAUSE you can add lenses. I'm not knocking Rollei, but if you change your mind lenswise with Mamiya you simply add a lens, with the Rollei, if you need and/or want another lens, you're gonna have to get another camera.

The 135 is the only other lens you would need.

[Jim Galli]

I'm a right tool for the job guy. You need one of those little Fujinon GSW690's and some Velvia. Put it on your wifes credit card and go have some fun. Get the one with the 65, not the 90. You sling it around your neck with a strap and forget it's there.

[Andre Noble]

Fast 35mm autofocus is a more natural compliment to your LF than MF, in my opinion.

[e]

I'm always bee bopping back and forth between Leica M's.. wonderful and quiet,Rollie tlrs cant beat 6 element 3.5 planar except for rolliecord xenar 3.5...linhof 2x3 and graphic 2x3 for quality and 4x5 graphic...12x20 once in a while but my latest love is 5x7 ...why not use a Rollie...the perfect compromise camera!Or try a Brooks veriwide...6x10 ultrawide...not much bigger than a leica. Of if you have the bread a Horseman 6x12 or Alpa 6x9!