Do you shoot medium format? Which is your favorite aspect ratio and camera? Check out another video; showcasing CHEAP MEDIUM FORMAT CAMS: bit.ly/38J8RDr
This is a great comprehensive breakdown of the various options with medium format. I still have yet to properly try the 6x7 format (since all the cameras are so expensive). I've only used the 6x7 back with an Intrepid camera, but it's just a cropped 4x5 image as opposed to a proper 6x7 image.
This breakdown is great. Such a great comprehensive list with great recommendations. I jumped into MF with a Pentax 6x7 and it was intimidating. Now using it with the WLVF has become my favorite way to make photos. The entire process is a blast.
As a Pentax 67 user for more than 35 years, I have to say that a Pentax 67 with a waist level finder is (1) non-ergonomic and fussy to use, as the controls are all laid out for eye level usage, and (2) Of the several finder options, it is the most difficult to focus. Even the moderately rare fixed chimney finder is easier to use. If you are wedded to a waist level finder, get a camera designed from the ground up to use one - a nice TLR.
I've been shooting film since '92. Medium format since '00. This is all good info. Only thing I'd add is that 6x6 cameras tend to be TLR's, and they are usually the lightest. A good 124G can take you far.
I recently got a cheap 6x6 TLR after only shooting 35mm and it has definitely changed my shooting method. I find it far more enjoyable to shoot symmetrically due to the square frame.
I would argue 6x7 is not worth the cons. I have a Rolleiflex 2.8 & Hasselblad 500cm. Both are 6x6 and are two completely different style of camera. But the sweet spot of 12 shots is a great creative convenience. It allows you to maximize a certain type of film and able to switch to another type. Along with the fact both of my cameras are legendary lenses. But the aspect ratio is so perfect because it forces you to be more creative to make a boring aspect ration into a powerful image that will last forever. The Apollo moon missions were on 6x6 ❤
Should've given the Mamiya C series a shoutout when you talked about TLRs. Especially the C330 is a very good jumping off point due to its parralax compensation, automatic shutter clocking and customizability
I shoot 645, 66 and 67 in medium format. I chose the format depending on the ultimate use and desired look of the image. 645 is a 300% increase in negative area over 35 mm. That is SUBSTANTIAL. The increase in size for 645 is only 30%. No where near as drastic a step up. But if you are using images for the web, 35 mm will be plenty large. Perhaps not quite the tonal transition gradation, but plenty of resolution. I have printed 35 mm to 20x20. How many folks only show their images on line at no more than 6 mp. I have a printer in my iving room the size of a piano. If I want the best balance of resolution, tonal transitions over a large negative, shallow dof, portability, number if shots per roll, the 645 for me is clearly the winner. 15 shots, I can go all the way to 24x36 stunning prints. I can carry the camera all day. But for cool lenses like a 15-30 or 8mm fisheye or 180 or 300 mm, it's 35 mm all the way. Now in studio, for gorgeous resolution, my rb57 only gives 10 images but they are gorgeous. If I think I might want a 24x36 or larger, that is the resolution I want. But at 6.5 lbs, it is pain in the field has to live in a back pack be taken out and put away and usually on a tripod. But grain size is also a consideration. On 35, if I use a 100 speed like acros or tmax or even tmax 400 or portra 400, I can make gorgeous 20" prints. With 645, the grain that would look like golf balls on 35 mm is perfect for dreamy soft look. On 67 it starts to disappear. Same with fine grain film on 645 and definitely on 67, it appears grain free and "digital." One reason I shoot film is for real grain. My recommendation would be start with 35mm and a modern one so you arent wasting film, then 645. 67 only when you have mastered the other 2 and still want more resolution. I went the other way, and worked my way down to 35 mm and find for less cost I get wonderful results for much of my work. And MOST IMPORTANT, you should learn to develop at least black and white once you realize film is for you. It takes mailing 2 ways, developing and scanning from up to $ 25 down to less than $3. Just do it. I was doing it in 1959 at age 12. Just do it. And it gives you even more control over your results.
Oh, and don't forget the "fun factor" ie how much fun it is to take the time to frame the shot on tripod, meter, set aperture and shutter speed, manually focus, advance film, remove the dark slide, cock shutter and take the image. If photography has gotten stale for you, this can kick start a new love and new creativity selecting particular film for particular images.
I reject the repeated evaluation here of MF format size choice based on number of images per roll, i.e., cost per image. Frankly, if that is one of your major decision making factors, you need to stay with 35mm or go to digital or some non-film hobby. In a hobby which costs dollars, that consideration is somewhere between pennies and peanuts. Let me offer a format choice based on something material: What do you do with your images? If you scan negatives to digital files to post on the internet or show on a computer screen, when you look at those images, you cannot tell the difference between MF formats, or between MF and 35mm for that matter. In fact, if you are not having fairly large prints made, bigger than 8x10 inches, you won't see any difference. A larger MF format will just be more money to buy and use, larger, heavier to lug around. Consider all of these YT young guys with channels, hauling around their RB/RZ67, shooting Portra 400 at ISO 200. The images are ill-composed, over-exposed shit for the most part. It would be laughable if so many people didn't buy that nonsense and repeat it as some crazy gospel. If you want to buy some hefty MF equipment and use it to make the equivalent of vacation snaps, have a ball, but understand that you are doing that just because you like to play with the equipment.
Do you shoot medium format? Which is your favorite aspect ratio and camera?
Check out another video; showcasing CHEAP MEDIUM FORMAT CAMS: bit.ly/38J8RDr
I’ve shot all of them except 6x8 and definitely 6x7!
6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7. Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, Pentacon Six.
This is a great comprehensive breakdown of the various options with medium format. I still have yet to properly try the 6x7 format (since all the cameras are so expensive). I've only used the 6x7 back with an Intrepid camera, but it's just a cropped 4x5 image as opposed to a proper 6x7 image.
This breakdown is great. Such a great comprehensive list with great recommendations. I jumped into MF with a Pentax 6x7 and it was intimidating. Now using it with the WLVF has become my favorite way to make photos. The entire process is a blast.
As a Pentax 67 user for more than 35 years, I have to say that a Pentax 67 with a waist level finder is (1) non-ergonomic and fussy to use, as the controls are all laid out for eye level usage, and (2) Of the several finder options, it is the most difficult to focus. Even the moderately rare fixed chimney finder is easier to use. If you are wedded to a waist level finder, get a camera designed from the ground up to use one - a nice TLR.
I've been shooting film since '92. Medium format since '00. This is all good info. Only thing I'd add is that 6x6 cameras tend to be TLR's, and they are usually the lightest. A good 124G can take you far.
I recently got a cheap 6x6 TLR after only shooting 35mm and it has definitely changed my shooting method. I find it far more enjoyable to shoot symmetrically due to the square frame.
I would argue 6x7 is not worth the cons.
I have a Rolleiflex 2.8 & Hasselblad 500cm. Both are 6x6 and are two completely different style of camera. But the sweet spot of 12 shots is a great creative convenience. It allows you to maximize a certain type of film and able to switch to another type.
Along with the fact both of my cameras are legendary lenses. But the aspect ratio is so perfect because it forces you to be more creative to make a boring aspect ration into a powerful image that will last forever.
The Apollo moon missions were on 6x6 ❤
Should've given the Mamiya C series a shoutout when you talked about TLRs. Especially the C330 is a very good jumping off point due to its parralax compensation, automatic shutter clocking and customizability
Agreed, the c330 is such a great budget friendly beginner cam!
I’ve owned a Pentax 645, Pentax 6x7, Fujica GW690, Bronica SQ, a Fuji GF670, and have aspirations of getting a Mamiya 6 in the relatively near future.
Wow, quite a lineup! Both the Mamiya 6 and 7 are masterclass cameras!
Love the channel yo! The Kenny Hoopla pics are sick too! 💪🏽
Thanks homie!!
You used the same Ebay B-Roll for the Mamiya 645 and the RB67 :)
dammit, that always hurts the most when I don't catch it until after it's live 😞
I shoot 645, 66 and 67 in medium format. I chose the format depending on the ultimate use and desired look of the image. 645 is a 300% increase in negative area over 35 mm. That is SUBSTANTIAL. The increase in size for 645 is only 30%. No where near as drastic a step up. But if you are using images for the web, 35 mm will be plenty large. Perhaps not quite the tonal transition gradation, but plenty of resolution. I have printed 35 mm to 20x20. How many folks only show their images on line at no more than 6 mp. I have a printer in my iving room the size of a piano. If I want the best balance of resolution, tonal transitions over a large negative, shallow dof, portability, number if shots per roll, the 645 for me is clearly the winner. 15 shots, I can go all the way to 24x36 stunning prints. I can carry the camera all day. But for cool lenses like a 15-30 or 8mm fisheye or 180 or 300 mm, it's 35 mm all the way. Now in studio, for gorgeous resolution, my rb57 only gives 10 images but they are gorgeous. If I think I might want a 24x36 or larger, that is the resolution I want. But at 6.5 lbs, it is pain in the field has to live in a back pack be taken out and put away and usually on a tripod. But grain size is also a consideration. On 35, if I use a 100 speed like acros or tmax or even tmax 400 or portra 400, I can make gorgeous 20" prints. With 645, the grain that would look like golf balls on 35 mm is perfect for dreamy soft look. On 67 it starts to disappear. Same with fine grain film on 645 and definitely on 67, it appears grain free and "digital." One reason I shoot film is for real grain. My recommendation would be start with 35mm and a modern one so you arent wasting film, then 645. 67 only when you have mastered the other 2 and still want more resolution. I went the other way, and worked my way down to 35 mm and find for less cost I get wonderful results for much of my work. And MOST IMPORTANT, you should learn to develop at least black and white once you realize film is for you. It takes mailing 2 ways, developing and scanning from up to $ 25 down to less than $3. Just do it. I was doing it in 1959 at age 12. Just do it. And it gives you even more control over your results.
Oh, and don't forget the "fun factor" ie how much fun it is to take the time to frame the shot on tripod, meter, set aperture and shutter speed, manually focus, advance film, remove the dark slide, cock shutter and take the image. If photography has gotten stale for you, this can kick start a new love and new creativity selecting particular film for particular images.
Big up! 👍🏻
You do a great job with the narrating on these ✌️
Thank you kindly!
Thx for this amazing video!
No problem! Glad it was useful!
Thankyou for this video.
Glad it was helpful!
Should specify how the original Mamiay 645 is very different from the newer one you have
The original Pentax 645 makes 15 images on a roll of 120 size film.
Hold up, Kenny?
Haha, the homie!!
I reject the repeated evaluation here of MF format size choice based on number of images per roll, i.e., cost per image. Frankly, if that is one of your major decision making factors, you need to stay with 35mm or go to digital or some non-film hobby. In a hobby which costs dollars, that consideration is somewhere between pennies and peanuts. Let me offer a format choice based on something material: What do you do with your images? If you scan negatives to digital files to post on the internet or show on a computer screen, when you look at those images, you cannot tell the difference between MF formats, or between MF and 35mm for that matter. In fact, if you are not having fairly large prints made, bigger than 8x10 inches, you won't see any difference. A larger MF format will just be more money to buy and use, larger, heavier to lug around. Consider all of these YT young guys with channels, hauling around their RB/RZ67, shooting Portra 400 at ISO 200. The images are ill-composed, over-exposed shit for the most part. It would be laughable if so many people didn't buy that nonsense and repeat it as some crazy gospel. If you want to buy some hefty MF equipment and use it to make the equivalent of vacation snaps, have a ball, but understand that you are doing that just because you like to play with the equipment.