BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Comparing Formats - 35mm, 120, etc

Choosing Medium Format

First, are there any advantages to medium format photography over 35mm ASIDE FROM THE LARGER NEGS?

Is there an actual image quality difference?

What disadvantages would there be in switching from 35mm to medium format? With the newer AF 645's available, bulkiness seems to not really be a hindrance even for candid work.

I have noticed many professionals use medium format over 35mm? Is that primarily for the larger negatives or are there some other advantages as well in terms of the images made?

Finally, if one switches to medium format would there be a point in keeping 35mm equipment or would it be better to just sell the 35mm equipment to fund the medium format equipment?

I am not a pack rat and don't really see the purpose of holding onto 35mm equipment just for the sake of having it. But at the same time, I don't want to just get rid of it if there are significant advantages to keeping both formats.

I am primarily interested in outdoor photography ... portrait in the outdoors and on location and nature photography.

I am debating between picking up a 645 system and getting rid of my 35mm system or picking up a 6x7 system and keeping my 35mm for candid work.

Thoughts?

To love this question, log in above
June 22, 2003

Not likely what you want to hear. It's all related to "LARGER NEGS." Whether or not it makes a difference in "image quality" depends on how you define "quality." It has the capability to deliver greater technical quality at larger print sizes and in projection of slides to a screen.

The practical magnification limit of film is about 12X its linear dimensions (length and width) before resolving power of the film becomes visible to the "unaided" eye. Some films (in general, the faster ones) exhibit this with less magnification. This puts the practical limit for 35mm format at about an 11x16 print size. Some place the limit at 16x20; it depends on what is considered "acceptable." A projection is viewed at much greater distance than most prints, and it allows more graceful degradation. Close examination of a projected image on a screen clearly reveals its resolution limits though (using an excellent projection lens). If one starts with a larger piece of film, 12X enlargement of it allows a larger print and screen projection shows greater apparent sharpness with higher detail.

The tradeoff is size, weight and agility when making photographs. There are additional tradeoffs with fastest lens speeds and in film reloading. The fastest 35mm format lenses are faster than the fastest equivalent lenses for medium format systems by one to two f-stops. It takes longer to reload a medium format film insert than to reload a 35mm camera body. [Extra film backs can speed it up considerably, but at the cost of $$$ for the additional backs.] This is why all the photographers I know with medium format systems do not abandon their 35mm format systems. They use them for different types of tasks. One excellent example is wedding photography. 35mm has the weight, size, agility, faster lenses and quicker reload time for the candid, photojournalism done before the ceremony and at the reception. Medium format offers ability to repeatably and reliably make much larger prints from the "formal" portraiture done just before and just after the ceremony.

Those who use both systems leverage their respective strengths when their weaknesses do not greatly impair accomplishing the task.

To love this comment, log in above
June 22, 2003

A 67 system, it would seem, would do this ... the 35mm compensating for the lack of a 67 portability and speed; and, the 67 allowing for truly larger neg and greater enlargement ability.

In contrat, it would seem, a 645 system would be somewhat redundant ... somewhat larger negative, but enough to add it to a 35mm system rather than a 67?

In other words, if I am going to keep my 35mm system, why would I want to choose 645 over 67?

Do my questions even make sense ???

Thanks

To love this comment, log in above
June 22, 2003

Most 6x7 systems do not have quite the range of lenses available for them too . . . although this may not be that much of a consideration for you.

645 compared to 6x7 is similar to the differences between 35mm format and medium format, although not quite as dramatic. IMO, there isn't that much difference between 645 and 6x6 for standard print sizes. The only advantage a 6x6 offers is the square format which means it need not be turned on its side. If a standard print size is the goal (and not a square print), then the user of a 6x6 must be mindful of this when shooting the photograph as it will have to be cropped to a rectangle for a standard print (some pro labs will print a square, but common frame/mat sizes do not come in squares). OTOH, a 645 is more efficient with film: 15 exposures for 120 and 30 exposures for 220 versus a 6x6's 12 and 24 exposures. A 6x7 gets even fewer frames per roll.

To love this comment, log in above
June 22, 2003

And you did say outdoor photography????

To love this comment, log in above
March 13, 2004

If you want a medium format camera that isn't a backbreaker to carry, take a look at the Mamiya 7II. It is small and light by compairson to other MF cameras and produces outstanding results.

The Hasselblad 501 or 503 with the 80mm lens is a light setup too, with the standard viewfinder. With any of the prism finders, it is heavy and a bit awkward to shoot hand held. If you shoot from a tripod, this is not an issue.

The Pentax 67II is a good camera/system - while big and heavy, the lenses are very affordable and the camera operates much like a 35mm SLR.

All medium format cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. Give some thought to what your needs are and which camera is the best fit for you before you invest in a camera/system.

To love this comment, log in above
March 15, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
March 20, 2004