In addition to what you've said, there's also the issue of diffraction. The smaller the aperture, the less a lens can resolve. This is very easy to observe on digital cameras, on for example a 24 MP FF camera, your sharpness drops after f/8 and f/22 is usually worse than wide open for any lens. For a 63 MP FF camera, that effect can be observed even at f/4 or f/5.6. The higher the resolution, the earlier you hit the limits of diffraction. With film, resolution (per area) is more or less the same across all formats. However, large format taking apertures are much, much smaller than 35mm and even medium format. f/64 is quite common and where those smaller format lenses end like f/16 and f/22 is considered fast apertures for large format. As a result, most of the time large format images will be limited by diffraction. Therefore, it's not that crucial to make large format lenses as sharp (per area) since in regular use it's physically impossible to exploit that sharpness anyway. I'm not a lens designer or an optical engineer but this characteristic probably lets the designers use it as a tradeoff somewhere else. If a lens doesn't have to be as sharp, it can be designed with a flatter image field, less aberrations or it can simply be smaller. And the lack of absolute resolution of large format doesn't matter because of smaller magnifications required to reach the same image sizes.
@@zakshah3480 Let me try Most lenses have adjustable apertures in them. When you start photography, first thing you learn is that the aperture controls the light. Think like the iris of your eye opening up to receive more light in dim conditions. You can then balance the exposure with the shutter speed. If you use an aperture like f/1.4 instead of f/8, the image receives more light and you can use a faster shutter speed to balance this. Because of this, a wider aperture is also known as a faster aperture. Further down the road, you learn that the aperture also controls something called Depth of Field, as in how much of the background (and foreground) is in focus. If you are shooting a portrait, you might prefer a faster aperture so that only the face is in focus while the background is blurred. If you are shooting landscape, you might prefer a slower aperture to get everything in focus. Think squinting your eyes to see better if you have blurred vision and don't have your glasses. So, if we are shooting a flat subject, for example a brick wall, should we use a fast aperture or a slow one? At first you would think it wouldn't matter much, but it does. The pieces of glass inside your camera lens bend the light but the more you bend the light, the more your result degrades. When you are using a fast aperture, you use the entire glass down to their edges but when you stop the aperture down, you are only using the center of each glass. The light is bent so much in the edges, you lose sharpness and contrast in your photo, even though everything is in focus. As a result, even if f/2 makes everything in focus for a particular photo, you might still want to use f/8 to make everything even sharper. What if we use f/22 to get everything even sharper? Let's go back to "squinting your eyes" example. You will realise (especially if your vision is not perfect) that if you squint your eyes a bit, everything becomes slightly sharper. If you squint too much, everything becomes even blurrier. This is diffraction. Long story short, stop the aperture down a bit and the optical quality increases. Stop it too much and optical quality suffers. There is a sweet spot. Where is this sweet spot? f/8? Most people would tell you that it is, but that would be wrong. Actually diffraction always exists but most of the time you just can't see it. If you had an absolutely perfect, very expensive lens that gives you a perfect result even at f/1.4, its performance would degrade very slightly even at f/2. However, you would also need a very high resolution sensor (or a very high resolution film scan) to see this degradation. Now lets put everything together in a couple of scenarios. Let's say you have a 24 MP full frame digital camera. Your sweet spot is at around f/8. If you have a lens that performs perfectly at that aperture, you can get 24 MP worth of resolution from that camera. If you set the lens to, let's say f/16, diffraction effects will be too much and you will lose sharpness. At that point, the results would be perhaps similar to having a 12 MP camera, since the diffraction eats up most of your optical performance. If you are using a flatbed scanner or a medium quality scan from a lab, 35mm film is scanned at a resolution that is equivalent to 10-20 MP. If you have a drum scanner, maybe you can get 25-30 MP from an area of 36mm x 24mm. That means, if you need f/11 for depth of field reasons, use it and results should be fine without losing too much quality when scanned with a flatbed scanner. Let's say you took a shot at f/22 for whatever reason, you want a high quality digital print from that negative and you want to hire a very high quality scanning service. Don't bother. There isn't enough detail in your film at that point to make it worth paying for a drum scan. How about if we shot medium format? A couple things happen. 120 film is the same film as 35mm. There is a limit to how much it can resolve, even under perfect circumstances. We had said that 35mm film was scanned at 10-20 MP and if you have a much more expensive scanner, maybe 25-30 MP. However, medium format film simply has a much larger area. Even if we still use a cheap scanner and the smallest medium format camera (something 6x45), the film area is 2.5x times larger, which translates to a much larger file. 6x6 is even larger and then there's 6x7, 6x9 etc. If the resolution of my flatbed scanner had put my "diffraction sweet spot" to f/8 or f/11 for 35mm film, that point still stands. But since now I have a much larger film, I can enjoy much larger prints without paying for a more expensive scanner. How about if we shot large format? Remember how towards the beginning we learned that aperture also controls depth of field? This is where that piece of information becomes relevant again because aperture isn't the only thing that affects the depth of field. You may have heard of something called "medium format look" or "large format look". First of all, there is no such look. Second, what most people refer to with those terms is "ultra shallow depth of field". If you have a large format camera and a 35mm camera, both with lenses that give you a similar frame, if you set both to f/11 you get two completely different results. Everything will be in focus with the 35mm camera but almost nothing will be in focus with the large format camera. As a result, if you are shooting landscapes, f/8 might be enough on 35mm or f/11 might be enough on a 6x6 camera but for 4x5 or 8x10, you'll probably use something like f/32 or even f/64. Remember how I said the "diffraction sweet spot" depends on the sensor/scanner and not the film size? That f/64 negative is way beyond the diffraction limit even for a cheap flatbed scanner. Good news is, there is still a balancing act. The film size more than compensates for this diffraction effect. But it's important to keep in mind that this is not a free meal and just because the film size is larger doesn't automatically mean everything will be much sharper. Lens designers know about this. As a result, 35mm lenses (especially modern ones for digital cameras) are optimised to perform spectacularly even at very fast apertures. Large format lenses don't need to be, because they will be stopped down to f/32 which gets rid of all the apertures. This keeps their size and cost down.
I agree with Nicos but would also add it depends on your scanner. A dedicated expensive 120 scanner probebly outperform 4x5 on a flatbed scanner. Or maybe the same quality I have not tested. But 4x5 on a cheaper flatbed scanner will easy outperfomrm 120 on same scanner so you get away with a cheaper scanner like Epson v700 - v850. Also if you invest in good largeformat glas you often can use them on 5x7 too and no need to sell and buy new lenses. Largeformat cameras is be easier to fix if they break. Try to fix a Mamiya 7 if you drop it.
Film cost of ~$5 US per 4x5 color photo, ~$0.80 US per 6x6 color photo, or ~$1 US per 6x7. Each photo on large format better be perfect. On medium format it is not awful to expose 2 frames of the same scene. Medium format is not ideal handheld, but unlike large format, it is plausible. The way I see it, if all you need is 1 perfect photo, large format is the way to go, otherwise medium format is much more user friendly
@2:26 I was aware that many large format lenses do not resolve as well as medium format or small format lenses. However, I thought the high-quality large format lenses were equal in quality or superior in quality to small and medium format lenses.
On single or dual baffled cameras. Of what ever formate size. The risers allow you to, raise and lower. The lense and or the rear optical sight glass independently. ( Depending on wether the camera system is single or dual baffled. ) The raising and lowering is to center the subject matter. In both the lense and rear sight glass. Shift moves the lense and or rear sight glass. Either to the left or right for purposes of centering. Tilt allows you to tilt the lense and or. The rear sight glass independently backwards or forwards. By doing this you put the subject matter into. Alignment and or proper portion. Example a tall building, you don't want the top. Of the building to come out looking wide. And the bottom normal more. Do you want the bottom looking wide. And the top normal. Then you have your swing, swing is either to the left or right. Swing is also used for alignment and perspiration control.
I shot with a 4 x5 press camera and a 30lb tripod which was great for studio work where you might need a large negative or outdoors where I had the ability to choose the subject matter, which wasn't sports photography. My preference was 135mm with zoom lenses for general photography and med. format Mamiya 645 for the professional photo assignments weddings, street, product, still life. What I liked about the 645 was I could use it like a 135mm camera with a pentaprism finder with a built-in light meter gives me a much larger negative for image quality when using fast grain films. The hard part I had with medium format film in the 80s-90s was finding everyday photo labs to process and print colored film as most were set up only to print 135mm or other consumer size films. Having my own darkroom help with that issue of what I could print.
This was very insightful! Thank you for the video. For me, a big advantage of medium format is still the price to keep shooting and portability on long hikes. I currently shoot only digital aps-c and some 35mm film, but have been willing to get something bigger for landscape shots specifically.
Modified my comment. What’s the “correct” way to use a 4x5 camera (intrepid 4x5 mk4, to be specific) with 6x7 film back if I want to get a wide angle of view?
Hey. It's quite vague how you described resolution for lenses. Spatial resolution is a complicated subject because the ability of a lens to resolve detail is affected by aperture, distance from the center, focusing distance, light frequency and many other factors. Usually lens sharpness is abstracted in what are called MTF charts and theoretically all lenses should have one. In general, LF sharpness rolls off with the distance from the center, but they are usually very similar to MF lenses in the space domain of a MF lens. Of course, this is quality dependent and most of the time results are never straight forward. There are no clear cut winners here. Therefore, when you say that LF cropped to 6x7 is worse than regular 6x7 --- is completely dependent on many factors, including what part of the film you crop :)
I think there are some things you are missing here: 1. The Mamiya has interchangeable backs so you could bring multiple backs of you want to change film between shots. 2. Roll film is way cheaper and honestly if you are new to film photography you'll make a lot less mistakes with medium format. I think it's good to build confidence before jumping up. Other than that I do agree with you on level of control with large format. But you should have everything else nailed down (metering for zones, understanding composition, lighting) before you jump into adding the complexity that large format brings.
One of my cameras, I feel, gives me the best of both worlds. I have one of the Shen Hao 6x17 view cameras. I get the convenience of roll 120 film, and with two film backs, I can keep one loaded with color and the other with B&W for whatever presents itself best. But with the camera, my model has ALL of the movements, so that gives all of the flexibility you described of the general LF camera systems. It's not cheap, but so far, is well worth it and I really LOVE the unique panoramic view it gives. You can put ND filters on it and do long exposure panos that you simply cannot do with a digital camera with stitching of images. And if nothing else, it uses LF lenses, so, if I want to buy a LF camera, the lenses will be interchangeable with the Shen Hao pano camera. Give this a look....it gives a wonderfully unique perspective of the world.
Thanks for another interesting video. I was thinking about the same question. I have several medium format cameras, from a simple Zeiss 6x6 Ikonta to a Kiev 6tl to a Mamiya C220. My medium camera of choice is the Mamiya C220 partially because I have a complete system of interchangeable lenses and partially because it is really quite light especially compared to its stablemate C330. While somewhat bigger than a Rolleiflex it is really not that much heavier and of course so much more flexible. Last year, I finally decided to take the large format plunge and picked up a Busch Pressman Model D, which is sometimes called an American Technika. It is all metal, much smaller than a Graflex, has a revolving back, the same lenses as the Graflex and more movement though not as many as the Technika. Surprising when folded up it is not really all that much bigger than the C220, but of course heavier. It is really fun to play around with the lens movements and the details in the photo literally come alive, especially when printed using my 4X5 Beseler enlarger. As a press camera, it has a coupled rangefinder, which I surprised myself by using more often than the ground glass. Not every photo requires lens movements. One final thought related to your excellent comment on development. A large format negative can easily be developed in a tray, which will allow customizing your development solution and time. AND with B & W negatives, after a certain period of time you can turn on a green safe light and inspect the negative to see if you are happy with negative density. I find this extremely useful and has saved many a shot. Again, thanks for your excellent narrative.
I agree about medium format as I have often thought when I have set out for a particular photo, hiked all the way there, and set up one of my medium format cameras “wouldnt it be better if I was just shooting large format? Wouldn’t I rather capture this one picture as best as I can and not have to worry about the rest of the roll?” That said some of the best photos I’ve ever got were things that came to me out of nowhere and if I was shooting large format I’m not sure I would have the foresight to prepare for them. Also I like to get a couple of variations of the same photograph on a roll of film which wouldn’t be financially viable for me on sheet film. So yeah maybe taking the time to learn what kind of photographer you are is key.
I would like to try roll film on a large format camera. I can't get the native 4x5 sheets developed here where I live. 😑 Unless I do it myself which is also a lot of effort and cost. However, the whole shift possibilities in large format are of course extremely attractive for me as an architectural photographer. 👍 Someday you'll get me to do it Nico 😄
Great presentation. I actually started MF with a 6x9cm view camera to have all of those shift and tilt controls, and I used multiple roll backs to deal with film changes and different developing times. I shot mostly landscapes, and what I found over time was that the swings and tilts to adjust plane of focus commonly were little used and could be managed with depth of field. On the other hand, setting up and breaking down the view camera with all of its separate parts consumed a lot more time. This left me approaching each possible shot with a question: Is this likely to be worth the time and effort? After a few years, I bought a Pentax 67 system, which takes the same photos without a sizable amount of management baggage. Note that with both systems, I mostly used a tripod, roll film, and separate metering of the scene, so those presented no differences. So, If I were regularly making 20x24 inch prints, I'd look as large format, if 16x20 or less, then MF, and if only scanning to social media and digital presentation, I'd go digital or use 35mm, since that process will wash away the quality distinctions of the large film formats.
I'm really interested in exploring the movements aspect of film photography, but I'm pretty sure I will never need a negative as big as 4x5 Therefore I'm saving up for a fuji GX680III from Japan. It's also 4:3 which is my favourite aspect ratio. I know it's a beast, but so are field cameras and at least the film costs wont be quite so high. Right now my main MF camera is the GW690, which I really like, but I'm not sure rangefinders are my thing. I might switch it for a pentax 645
I've been shooting MF for years, mostly with a Mamiya 6. I've taken it around Asia twice, taken it backpacking, around town for street portraits, etc, and it's never let me down. But...like many, I'm interested in LF, too. In my case, 4x5. But I obviously can't do as much with it (a Chamonix), and am currently exploring and working on what LF's limits are for are for me. Unlike with 135 vs 120, it's not just a matter of, what camera should I take? You have to know beforehand what camera you intend to take and use, and plan the trip/outing/shoot accordingly. They're different tools for different things (but with a bunch of overlap).
Love your format and work. Can i add a vieuw considerations? Consideration 1: I love the work flow with the fujica GX680. Medium format fits better with my scanner and darkroom. With 4x5 i only can do contact prints.. So medium format added better to my work flow. Consideration 2: price of camera's, film and de means to process the film/sheets. Consideration 3:Versatility , with a Fujica GW690 (for example) you can do both handheld and 95% of your landscapes needs. Consideration 3:The best camera is the one you have with you because of that the Fujjica GW690 (for example) gets the most use en makes the best pictures for me. .
I wish I could take the plunge into large format but I am not sure as yet, and then the question of how to get it scanned, and loading film holders etc. I love what I see with larger format but don’t have the courage. I have been toying with the idea of getting a Horseman 69, which would give me view camera options but in medium format. So many decisions!
not to interfere but i use a manfrotto 290 with my rb67 and it works very well i would even use it with my shen hao 4x5 if i were backpacking my gear the 290 fits very well in an average backpack
@@ThePhantomStarfish an after thought of sorts, i always use a cable release on the 290 and the 055 manfrotto i have as well. may be just fine without, but just so you have all the info i can give
I would love to shoot 4x5 and larger, but I love to print my pictures. Not all and not all the time :) but to have enlarger for 4x5 or 8x10 is just almost imposible in home environment. I know about Intrepid enlarger set which might be a route I would take. But yea that is big advantage of MF, the ease of printing :)
I have a 4x5 Beseler and a Simmons Omega B22 enlarger (35mm and 2 1/4 x 2 1/4). There really isn't all that much difference in actual space between the two. Remember with a 4x5 enlarger you can develop everything from 35mm to 4x5 so you only need one enlarger. I am lucky though. I have a 100-year-old house that has coal room. Lots of cleaning made it a perfect darkroom but it isn't all that large and I do have two enlargers set up.
In addition to what you've said, there's also the issue of diffraction. The smaller the aperture, the less a lens can resolve. This is very easy to observe on digital cameras, on for example a 24 MP FF camera, your sharpness drops after f/8 and f/22 is usually worse than wide open for any lens. For a 63 MP FF camera, that effect can be observed even at f/4 or f/5.6. The higher the resolution, the earlier you hit the limits of diffraction.
With film, resolution (per area) is more or less the same across all formats. However, large format taking apertures are much, much smaller than 35mm and even medium format. f/64 is quite common and where those smaller format lenses end like f/16 and f/22 is considered fast apertures for large format. As a result, most of the time large format images will be limited by diffraction. Therefore, it's not that crucial to make large format lenses as sharp (per area) since in regular use it's physically impossible to exploit that sharpness anyway. I'm not a lens designer or an optical engineer but this characteristic probably lets the designers use it as a tradeoff somewhere else. If a lens doesn't have to be as sharp, it can be designed with a flatter image field, less aberrations or it can simply be smaller.
And the lack of absolute resolution of large format doesn't matter because of smaller magnifications required to reach the same image sizes.
Yo,could you explain this again, but pretend I'm a 5 year old?
@@zakshah3480 Let me try
Most lenses have adjustable apertures in them. When you start photography, first thing you learn is that the aperture controls the light. Think like the iris of your eye opening up to receive more light in dim conditions. You can then balance the exposure with the shutter speed. If you use an aperture like f/1.4 instead of f/8, the image receives more light and you can use a faster shutter speed to balance this. Because of this, a wider aperture is also known as a faster aperture.
Further down the road, you learn that the aperture also controls something called Depth of Field, as in how much of the background (and foreground) is in focus. If you are shooting a portrait, you might prefer a faster aperture so that only the face is in focus while the background is blurred. If you are shooting landscape, you might prefer a slower aperture to get everything in focus. Think squinting your eyes to see better if you have blurred vision and don't have your glasses.
So, if we are shooting a flat subject, for example a brick wall, should we use a fast aperture or a slow one?
At first you would think it wouldn't matter much, but it does. The pieces of glass inside your camera lens bend the light but the more you bend the light, the more your result degrades. When you are using a fast aperture, you use the entire glass down to their edges but when you stop the aperture down, you are only using the center of each glass. The light is bent so much in the edges, you lose sharpness and contrast in your photo, even though everything is in focus. As a result, even if f/2 makes everything in focus for a particular photo, you might still want to use f/8 to make everything even sharper.
What if we use f/22 to get everything even sharper?
Let's go back to "squinting your eyes" example. You will realise (especially if your vision is not perfect) that if you squint your eyes a bit, everything becomes slightly sharper. If you squint too much, everything becomes even blurrier. This is diffraction.
Long story short, stop the aperture down a bit and the optical quality increases. Stop it too much and optical quality suffers. There is a sweet spot.
Where is this sweet spot? f/8?
Most people would tell you that it is, but that would be wrong. Actually diffraction always exists but most of the time you just can't see it. If you had an absolutely perfect, very expensive lens that gives you a perfect result even at f/1.4, its performance would degrade very slightly even at f/2. However, you would also need a very high resolution sensor (or a very high resolution film scan) to see this degradation.
Now lets put everything together in a couple of scenarios.
Let's say you have a 24 MP full frame digital camera. Your sweet spot is at around f/8. If you have a lens that performs perfectly at that aperture, you can get 24 MP worth of resolution from that camera. If you set the lens to, let's say f/16, diffraction effects will be too much and you will lose sharpness. At that point, the results would be perhaps similar to having a 12 MP camera, since the diffraction eats up most of your optical performance.
If you are using a flatbed scanner or a medium quality scan from a lab, 35mm film is scanned at a resolution that is equivalent to 10-20 MP. If you have a drum scanner, maybe you can get 25-30 MP from an area of 36mm x 24mm. That means, if you need f/11 for depth of field reasons, use it and results should be fine without losing too much quality when scanned with a flatbed scanner.
Let's say you took a shot at f/22 for whatever reason, you want a high quality digital print from that negative and you want to hire a very high quality scanning service. Don't bother. There isn't enough detail in your film at that point to make it worth paying for a drum scan.
How about if we shot medium format?
A couple things happen. 120 film is the same film as 35mm. There is a limit to how much it can resolve, even under perfect circumstances. We had said that 35mm film was scanned at 10-20 MP and if you have a much more expensive scanner, maybe 25-30 MP. However, medium format film simply has a much larger area. Even if we still use a cheap scanner and the smallest medium format camera (something 6x45), the film area is 2.5x times larger, which translates to a much larger file. 6x6 is even larger and then there's 6x7, 6x9 etc.
If the resolution of my flatbed scanner had put my "diffraction sweet spot" to f/8 or f/11 for 35mm film, that point still stands. But since now I have a much larger film, I can enjoy much larger prints without paying for a more expensive scanner.
How about if we shot large format?
Remember how towards the beginning we learned that aperture also controls depth of field? This is where that piece of information becomes relevant again because aperture isn't the only thing that affects the depth of field. You may have heard of something called "medium format look" or "large format look". First of all, there is no such look. Second, what most people refer to with those terms is "ultra shallow depth of field". If you have a large format camera and a 35mm camera, both with lenses that give you a similar frame, if you set both to f/11 you get two completely different results. Everything will be in focus with the 35mm camera but almost nothing will be in focus with the large format camera.
As a result, if you are shooting landscapes, f/8 might be enough on 35mm or f/11 might be enough on a 6x6 camera but for 4x5 or 8x10, you'll probably use something like f/32 or even f/64.
Remember how I said the "diffraction sweet spot" depends on the sensor/scanner and not the film size?
That f/64 negative is way beyond the diffraction limit even for a cheap flatbed scanner.
Good news is, there is still a balancing act. The film size more than compensates for this diffraction effect. But it's important to keep in mind that this is not a free meal and just because the film size is larger doesn't automatically mean everything will be much sharper.
Lens designers know about this.
As a result, 35mm lenses (especially modern ones for digital cameras) are optimised to perform spectacularly even at very fast apertures. Large format lenses don't need to be, because they will be stopped down to f/32 which gets rid of all the apertures. This keeps their size and cost down.
I agree with Nicos but would also add it depends on your scanner. A dedicated expensive 120 scanner probebly outperform 4x5 on a flatbed scanner. Or maybe the same quality I have not tested. But 4x5 on a cheaper flatbed scanner will easy outperfomrm 120 on same scanner so you get away with a cheaper scanner like Epson v700 - v850.
Also if you invest in good largeformat glas you often
can use them on 5x7 too and no need to sell and buy new lenses.
Largeformat cameras is be easier to fix if they break. Try to fix a Mamiya 7 if you drop it.
couldn’t agree with you more, use my RZ67 for ‘faster’ stuff like portraits and have just started using the Intrepid for landscapes
For me while traveling and hiking, medium format provides the best compromise of all factors
Film cost of ~$5 US per 4x5 color photo, ~$0.80 US per 6x6 color photo, or ~$1 US per 6x7. Each photo on large format better be perfect. On medium format it is not awful to expose 2 frames of the same scene.
Medium format is not ideal handheld, but unlike large format, it is plausible.
The way I see it, if all you need is 1 perfect photo, large format is the way to go, otherwise medium format is much more user friendly
For some reason, I can not reach your website. What do you think about Bronica GS -1 and its 100mm lens?
@2:26 I was aware that many large format lenses do not resolve as well as medium format or small format lenses. However, I thought the high-quality large format lenses were equal in quality or superior in quality to small and medium format lenses.
Have not heard it be explained so well. Thanks Nico.
Thanks! I do try to break it down as much as possible.
On single or dual baffled cameras. Of what ever formate size. The risers allow you to, raise and lower. The lense and or the rear optical sight glass independently. ( Depending on wether the camera system is single or dual baffled. ) The raising and lowering is to center the subject matter. In both the lense and rear sight glass. Shift moves the lense and or rear sight glass. Either to the left or right for purposes of centering. Tilt allows you to tilt the lense and or. The rear sight glass independently backwards or forwards. By doing this you put the subject matter into. Alignment and or proper portion. Example a tall building, you don't want the top. Of the building to come out looking wide. And the bottom normal more. Do you want the bottom looking wide. And the top normal. Then you have your swing, swing is either to the left or right. Swing is also used for alignment and perspiration control.
I shot with a 4 x5 press camera and a 30lb tripod which was great for studio work where you might need a large negative or outdoors where I had the ability to choose the subject matter, which wasn't sports photography. My preference was 135mm with zoom lenses for general photography and med. format Mamiya 645 for the professional photo assignments weddings, street, product, still life. What I liked about the 645 was I could use it like a 135mm camera with a pentaprism finder with a built-in light meter gives me a much larger negative for image quality when using fast grain films. The hard part I had with medium format film in the 80s-90s was finding everyday photo labs to process and print colored film as most were set up only to print 135mm or other consumer size films. Having my own darkroom help with that issue of what I could print.
This was very insightful!
Thank you for the video.
For me, a big advantage of medium format is still the price to keep shooting and portability on long hikes.
I currently shoot only digital aps-c and some 35mm film, but have been willing to get something bigger for landscape shots specifically.
Thanks!
if i want to just walk around casually shooting handheld, i'll use a large format slr or rangefinder. :P
Yup, go big or go home!
Modified my comment. What’s the “correct” way to use a 4x5 camera (intrepid 4x5 mk4, to be specific) with 6x7 film back if I want to get a wide angle of view?
Will cover this soon. But just in case feel free to send it to the Super Film Support site for archival (bad memory).
@@NicosPhotographyShow Thanks! Really looking forward to that.
Hey. It's quite vague how you described resolution for lenses. Spatial resolution is a complicated subject because the ability of a lens to resolve detail is affected by aperture, distance from the center, focusing distance, light frequency and many other factors. Usually lens sharpness is abstracted in what are called MTF charts and theoretically all lenses should have one. In general, LF sharpness rolls off with the distance from the center, but they are usually very similar to MF lenses in the space domain of a MF lens. Of course, this is quality dependent and most of the time results are never straight forward. There are no clear cut winners here.
Therefore, when you say that LF cropped to 6x7 is worse than regular 6x7 --- is completely dependent on many factors, including what part of the film you crop :)
Like I said, Im no expert but that was the impression I had from what I have read and heard over the years.
I think there are some things you are missing here:
1. The Mamiya has interchangeable backs so you could bring multiple backs of you want to change film between shots.
2. Roll film is way cheaper and honestly if you are new to film photography you'll make a lot less mistakes with medium format. I think it's good to build confidence before jumping up.
Other than that I do agree with you on level of control with large format. But you should have everything else nailed down (metering for zones, understanding composition, lighting) before you jump into adding the complexity that large format brings.
Hasselblad has its Arcbody.
Yup and Flexbody. I was more talking the general cameras, there are many examples of MF with movements but the idea was to compare "fixed" MF to LF.
@@NicosPhotographyShow Thanks, and agree. no comparison when it comes to the movement possible with LF.
One of my cameras, I feel, gives me the best of both worlds. I have one of the Shen Hao 6x17 view cameras.
I get the convenience of roll 120 film, and with two film backs, I can keep one loaded with color and the other with B&W for whatever presents itself best.
But with the camera, my model has ALL of the movements, so that gives all of the flexibility you described of the general LF camera systems.
It's not cheap, but so far, is well worth it and I really LOVE the unique panoramic view it gives. You can put ND filters on it and do long exposure panos that you simply cannot do with a digital camera with stitching of images.
And if nothing else, it uses LF lenses, so, if I want to buy a LF camera, the lenses will be interchangeable with the Shen Hao pano camera.
Give this a look....it gives a wonderfully unique perspective of the world.
4:36 In love with these Sopelana buildings
Me too.
Outstanding analysis! Thank you so much.
Thank you!
Thanks for another interesting video. I was thinking about the same question. I have several medium format cameras, from a simple Zeiss 6x6 Ikonta to a Kiev 6tl to a Mamiya C220. My medium camera of choice is the Mamiya C220 partially because I have a complete system of interchangeable lenses and partially because it is really quite light especially compared to its stablemate C330. While somewhat bigger than a Rolleiflex it is really not that much heavier and of course so much more flexible. Last year, I finally decided to take the large format plunge and picked up a Busch Pressman Model D, which is sometimes called an American Technika. It is all metal, much smaller than a Graflex, has a revolving back, the same lenses as the Graflex and more movement though not as many as the Technika. Surprising when folded up it is not really all that much bigger than the C220, but of course heavier. It is really fun to play around with the lens movements and the details in the photo literally come alive, especially when printed using my 4X5 Beseler enlarger. As a press camera, it has a coupled rangefinder, which I surprised myself by using more often than the ground glass. Not every photo requires lens movements. One final thought related to your excellent comment on development. A large format negative can easily be developed in a tray, which will allow customizing your development solution and time. AND with B & W negatives, after a certain period of time you can turn on a green safe light and inspect the negative to see if you are happy with negative density. I find this extremely useful and has saved many a shot. Again, thanks for your excellent narrative.
always great info. Love you're passion for photography Nico. Cheers!
I agree about medium format as I have often thought when I have set out for a particular photo, hiked all the way there, and set up one of my medium format cameras “wouldnt it be better if I was just shooting large format? Wouldn’t I rather capture this one picture as best as I can and not have to worry about the rest of the roll?” That said some of the best photos I’ve ever got were things that came to me out of nowhere and if I was shooting large format I’m not sure I would have the foresight to prepare for them. Also I like to get a couple of variations of the same photograph on a roll of film which wouldn’t be financially viable for me on sheet film. So yeah maybe taking the time to learn what kind of photographer you are is key.
Beastttt
I would like to try roll film on a large format camera. I can't get the native 4x5 sheets developed here where I live. 😑 Unless I do it myself which is also a lot of effort and cost. However, the whole shift possibilities in large format are of course extremely attractive for me as an architectural photographer. 👍 Someday you'll get me to do it Nico 😄
Doing it yourself does not have a lot of cost
Great presentation. I actually started MF with a 6x9cm view camera to have all of those shift and tilt controls, and I used multiple roll backs to deal with film changes and different developing times. I shot mostly landscapes, and what I found over time was that the swings and tilts to adjust plane of focus commonly were little used and could be managed with depth of field. On the other hand, setting up and breaking down the view camera with all of its separate parts consumed a lot more time. This left me approaching each possible shot with a question: Is this likely to be worth the time and effort? After a few years, I bought a Pentax 67 system, which takes the same photos without a sizable amount of management baggage. Note that with both systems, I mostly used a tripod, roll film, and separate metering of the scene, so those presented no differences. So, If I were regularly making 20x24 inch prints, I'd look as large format, if 16x20 or less, then MF, and if only scanning to social media and digital presentation, I'd go digital or use 35mm, since that process will wash away the quality distinctions of the large film formats.
Brilliant explanation of MF v LF Nico.
I'm really interested in exploring the movements aspect of film photography, but I'm pretty sure I will never need a negative as big as 4x5
Therefore I'm saving up for a fuji GX680III from Japan. It's also 4:3 which is my favourite aspect ratio.
I know it's a beast, but so are field cameras and at least the film costs wont be quite so high.
Right now my main MF camera is the GW690, which I really like, but I'm not sure rangefinders are my thing. I might switch it for a pentax 645
I've been shooting MF for years, mostly with a Mamiya 6. I've taken it around Asia twice, taken it backpacking, around town for street portraits, etc, and it's never let me down. But...like many, I'm interested in LF, too. In my case, 4x5. But I obviously can't do as much with it (a Chamonix), and am currently exploring and working on what LF's limits are for are for me. Unlike with 135 vs 120, it's not just a matter of, what camera should I take? You have to know beforehand what camera you intend to take and use, and plan the trip/outing/shoot accordingly. They're different tools for different things (but with a bunch of overlap).
Love your format and work. Can i add a vieuw considerations?
Consideration 1: I love the work flow with the fujica GX680. Medium format fits better with my scanner and darkroom. With 4x5 i only can do contact prints.. So medium format added better to my work flow.
Consideration 2: price of camera's, film and de means to process the film/sheets.
Consideration 3:Versatility , with a Fujica GW690 (for example) you can do both handheld and 95% of your landscapes needs.
Consideration 3:The best camera is the one you have with you because of that the Fujjica GW690 (for example) gets the most use en makes the best pictures for me.
.
Great vid. I'll get into large format one day. For now I'll stick with medium format.
Great video as always Nico!
Nico I need a "stunning" lens for my hasselblad but it's gotta be wider than the 80mm t*
I wish I could take the plunge into large format but I am not sure as yet, and then the question of how to get it scanned, and loading film holders etc. I love what I see with larger format but don’t have the courage. I have been toying with the idea of getting a Horseman 69, which would give me view camera options but in medium format. So many decisions!
Hi Nico, I just got an rb67 and am looking for a tripod capable of holding it steadily. What do you use yourself?
not to interfere but i use a manfrotto 290 with my rb67 and it works very well i would even use it with my shen hao 4x5 if i were backpacking my gear the 290 fits very well in an average backpack
@@billhackley3540 Thanks Bill, you're not interfering at all.
@@ThePhantomStarfish an after thought of sorts, i always use a cable release on the 290 and the 055 manfrotto i have as well. may be just fine without, but just so you have all the info i can give
Look inward.....bingo!!
Great content, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I would love to shoot 4x5 and larger, but I love to print my pictures. Not all and not all the time :) but to have enlarger for 4x5 or 8x10 is just almost imposible in home environment. I know about Intrepid enlarger set which might be a route I would take.
But yea that is big advantage of MF, the ease of printing :)
I have a 4x5 Beseler and a Simmons Omega B22 enlarger (35mm and 2 1/4 x 2 1/4). There really isn't all that much difference in actual space between the two. Remember with a 4x5 enlarger you can develop everything from 35mm to 4x5 so you only need one enlarger. I am lucky though. I have a 100-year-old house that has coal room. Lots of cleaning made it a perfect darkroom but it isn't all that large and I do have two enlargers set up.