One medium format feature I love is something that the Pentax unfortunately lacks. That is the ability to have multiple film backs, and swap them mid-roll. So you can go out with multiple films loaded, and swap between them depending on what you think works best for the shot.
For much less than the cost of a Pentax 67, you can get an RB67. *Fast* lenses aren't in the cards for this camera (f/4 is about the limit), but mirror lockup and (intentional) double exposures are, along with switching from B&W to color between two frames. Format versatility with the same body, too; my RB67 has film backs for 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and even 6x9 (though there's a lot of blank space at the ends of those frames). There were motor drive backs, 220 backs (I've got a couple of the latter), and it's easy to run 35 mm film with 3D printed adapters. Plus, all those film backs can be used on my 2x3 Century Graphic as well, because they're compatible with the 2x3 Graflok mount. There were Polaroid pack film backs, and now there are Instax backs -- and if you really want to be old fashioned, you can use 2x3 sheet film (once again, with the unexposed space at the ends of the frame), though at present there are only a couple B&W emulsion choices in 2x3. Also, I can choose between a waist level viewfinder like a Rolleiflex, a chimney viewfinder, or a prism (head up, looking at your subject with the other eye). The latter two were available with a built-in light meter, too. It's not 4x5 (never mind 8x10), but I can pack a lot of versatility in a (fairly heavy) camera backpack...
@@SilntObsvr I owned an RB67 for a short time. While I loved the images I got from it that thing was a beast, weighing about 8 lbs. with the prism finder, hand grip, lens back, and lens. Having that grip didn't help, that thing got too heavy to hold very quickly. Definitely a studio camera (which is what it really is meant to be).
@@SilntObsvr The RB67 is my film camera of choice, though I do have many others too for when I want something smaller. Yes, it weighs a lot but as a heavy equipment mechanic I'm used to handling tools like 10 kilogram sledge hammers and 16 kilogram impact wrenches so the 3 kg Mamiya is not too bad. :) It's just so versatile and the image quality is so good.
I'm one of those weirdos who print big darkroom prints sometimes, and the difference is pretty huge. The resolution is just on a completely different level. That being said, I like both 35mm and 120 for big prints, they're just two completely different looks.
@@naeemdouglas_ I mean the title is clickbait-y but tbf just because he hates it doesn't mean everyone else should too. his opinion is his opinion and everyone shoots and prints differently
@@heatonizeI agree. It’s okay to not enjoy medium format film. Variety makes the world go round. But there is a difference in resolution. Period. Full stop. That’s the point I’m making. For example, if I push to 3200 on black and white film, the medium format will have noticeably less grain and higher resolution compared to 35mm.
I actually like that 120 has less photos, I don't get out to shoot a lot but want to explore photography. But 35mm means I've left rolls in my camera for months because I haven't finished the roll yet. But 8 6x9 photos in my box camera? 12 6x6 in my new Agfa Isolette? Much easier to finish the roll and try a new film.
Just viewing a larger film size compared to 35mm in the real estate available on a computer screen has got to have better resolution. Also 15 shots per roll on a 645 format suits me better than 36 on a 35mm roll - I always seem to need to hurry up and finish the roll so I can develop it and get at the pictures I really want.
Came here to say this as well. When my scans are uploaded to my computer, the resolution is INSANEEEEE from my Mamiya RZ67 ii compared to any of my 35mm cameras
I think "resolution" argument is a catch-all that is often incorrectly used. The larger negative size basically allows for a finer record of shades (or, if you prefer, also usually used incorrectly: tones). A Holga will record a range of tones beyond anything a 35mm or digital camera can, even though the resolving power of its lens is terrible, and the "resolution" of medium format is wasted on it. Recording detail, it's whatever. Digital can do that. Recording the subtlest differences in highlights and shadows is another matter, and its where medium format shines, particularly if you're making prints. And you don't even have to be making big prints. An 5x7 print from a Brownie will blow any digital camera out of the water in this regard. This is something that often gets lumped into "resolution" (and yes the two are linked, but they are not specifically the same thing) but then you wonder why a cheap toy camera using 120 makes images that are worlds better than a cheap digital camera, and well, there it is.
It's funny, it's not uncommon for me to go out shooting with 3 cameras. A digital, a 35mm, and a 6x7. Almost every single time I get my best photos from the Pentax 6x7. Idk what it is
I'm so glad you brought up the point about the print number leaching from the paper onto the negative. I got some Agfa Optima 100 expired a year or two ago for a good deal. I was excited about the colors that came out, even being 15 years old, but I was suddenly seeing these floating ghostly numbers in bright areas of the negative. So frustrating. The only other expired film I've used is some Kodak Plus-X, but I think it was cold-stored prior to getting it and it's worked great. I've done both flatbed scanning and DSLR/mirrorless scanning, and I tend to like the former for 120 format and the latter for 35mm. But all of it is kind of a pain. Scanning and achieving proper color inversion is by far the most tedious and unpleasant step in the entire process of shooting film for me (color negative being the hardest to get right). One other comment about the Pentax 67 lenses - they are some of the best glass out there for any system. I actually used my 120mm macro lens for my 67, adapted to a Pentax K-1 DSLR, to scan negatives shot on the 67. Talk about a snake eating itself! But the results looked great - that thing is sharp as a tack. While I may eventually sell my 67 and 645 Pentax bodies, I'm hanging onto the lenses for the day I eventually get a medium format mirrorless system like the GFX.
Enjoy analogue for whatever reasons you want. I do shoot medium format and then camera scan it, it's fucking great. Stevie Wonder could tell the difference between an 80mp drumscan of a 6x7 negative and something entirely digital.
I can agree that 12 frames on a 120 roll is sometimes a bit limiting but at the same time it's also a good thing as I usually also bring a 35mm SLR in addition to my rolleicord iii and use it as a light meter and as a second camera as a way to take more relaxed kind of photos compared to thinking through what subject I would like to spend my 12 6x6 frames on. As for the camera scanning aspect I find it more giving for me to use my home made setup and not having to wait forever if I used a flatbed scanner. The only times I had back paper bleeding into the negative frame thing was with hopelessly expired rolls that I shot as a fun challenge, and in those cases I also shot with a 35mm SLR so that I would have some good frames to bring home and know that the day wasn't wased because the 120 roll turned a bit tlodark and a bit of a mess! Keep up the good work!
For me, 35mm is fabulous for run and gun, I just want to document my life type stuff, and for that, I literally use a point and shoot and bulk load good old Ilford HP5+. For a little more serious, but still want something small and light stuff, It's still 35mm, but a Leica CL instead. For images that I'm purposely making (i.e. art, formal portraits, etc). It's either 120 roll film, or 4x5, or 8x10 sheet film. For me, it's less about many of the common arguments you hear, and more about just having a nice big negative that will have little if any granularity, and loads of tonality. That and it lets me get into loads more esoteric and interesting lens choices.
Most of the medium format cameras that you see used today (such as Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica) were designed as studio cameras, so no wonder they are heavy and cumbersome to hold in the field. I love my Fujifilm 645i, which is basically a point and shoot camera, as well as my Fujica GW690 (aka Texas Leica) and my Rolleiflex. They are great for taking them along and just deliver. And as for film costs: Ask yourself how many keepers you get from a 35mm film? And how many from a 120 film?
Although I started out with a Nikon F2A + motor drive, the inadequacy of the 135mm in the darkroom, able to switch film type in mid-roll and wishing for the Polaroid Back option drove me into buying a Hasselblad 500 C/M as well. Best decisions I have ever made in buying these two cameras, since they accompanied me throughout my 45 year journey. Of course, different experience in different continuum.
When I decided to get back into film photography there were two deciding factors: 1. Some of the cameras I lusted over back in the day could be bought for a fraction of what they had been. 2. Film was so much better for handling dynamic range (digital has since improved, but still not quite as good as film). Resolution wasn't so important. The main reason I don't do so much medium format is because of my scanning equipment. I use a plustek which only does 35mm. When I need to scan 120 I use my old Canoscan 8800F, but it doesn't focus as well as it used to for some reason. So I shoot 99% 35mm and I love it, but I would never sell my old 120 folders because they are quite lovely to behold. Great video.
Thank-you for a great objective video. I regularly toggle between 120, 135 and digital as are items I like for each. If an item is no longer bringing you joy don’t fight it and do what makes you happy.
After 12 years of digital film, particularly 120 brought back something lost in the chase for clean, sharp, instantly visible digital.... FUN. If I wanted the medium format look with a sensor even close to that of my RB67, I'd be looking at over 60 grand in a hassie plus a couple lenses. My RB kit 10 years ago... body, couple lenses/ backs, wlf about $800. As someone who had my own professional darkroom, my dads before the war, in 1959, the fun of creativity in film developing and the numerous film stocks is also that 3 letter word... Fun When I watch a movie shot on film, like Oppenheimer, it feels like you could walk into it. The 6 element lenses, not 14 or 22 element modern lenses, have 3d rendering, and off the chart microcontrast for b&w work. But it's horses for courses. If I want auto focus with back button focus, dead on matrix metering, 1/8000 shutter, 5 fps power winder, all my nikon/zeiss glass working from 8mm fish, 15-30 zoom, to 300 mm for run and gun/ super fast reaction street and ttl flash, I pull out the nikon f6.
Great video. My "finding my camera" journey has been an expensive one & enjoyable in the hole, but have recently solidified on my Rolleiflex 3.5f and Hasselblad 500c/m for 6x6 work and for 35mm a Canon F1 Original and an EOS1V HS. I sold all the rest bar two Canons which I donated to the new film section of my camera club.
I've only ever shot 120 and 220 film when I worked for Americana Portraits in 1998 and for Lifetouch in 1999-2000. It was very diffrent to shoot with compared to using my Minolta 35mm SLR. I still have a roll or two of 120 laying around unopened that are still sealed and never used and expired probably by 2001.
I love to use many formats from 110 to 6x9. I haven’t got the pockets yet for large format that’s when you will just be burning money lol but medium format gives me something that 35mm cannot and it’s the TLR a big bright view finder. My favorite is my yashica-12 and it has a light meter, perfect size to walk around with all day and not have to worry about using an external light meter or light leaks from shotty film backs. At the end of the day, use whatever makes you want to go take photos and just enjoy the process.
Not mentioned are the 2X longer focal length lenses used with medium format, which can help separate the subject from the background (portraits). This applies to medium format digital cameras as well. As for photo enlarging, 35mm prints OK up to 5x7 but grain becomes pronounced above that size, which may be OK if grain is one of the features of the print. 120 crops and prints far larger without pronounced grain. As far as cameras go, a Polaroid pack film camera with a 3D printed back and 120 cartridge works very well, has auto exposure, folds up neatly into a small package, takes nice photos (with its 3 element glass lens), and can be had for under $50
Thanks for the comment! The Darkroom Cookbook is a definitive source for information, I highly recommend it, and in it it says that given a solid lens, you can easily print a sharp 8x10 or bigger. Also, the thing everyone forgets is viewing distance. Only photo snobs have their nose up to the glass.
The t-grain 100 iso films in 35mm do print quite big thank you very much - try something around A3 size or 16 x 12 - without grain becoming pronounced , never mind a feature. Plus, if we are talking about leaving tripods at home and just doing handheld photography, I can use that 100iso t-grain film in my trusty 35mm camera with it's fast image-stabilised lens a lot more easily and in a wider range of lighting conditions than you can using a 100iso t-grain film in your Pentax 645. The tripod toting large format camera guys will always opt for the slower fine grain films where they can and admittedly they have absolute mastery when it comes to producing prints that are, for all intents and purposes, grainless.
Hey Azriel, you make good points. wont say you're wrong, because its nice people in the community have different viewpoints and a lot of what you said makes sense. However, just looking through flicker groups on medium format you can clearly notice an image depth that isn't present in both 35 and digital. i can always notice good medium format away from dig or 35mm. For me its undeniable. The light meter thing is annoying, but I'm so deep in this film world, that I usually carry a small light meter with me or rely on sunny 16. Anyhow, great video
4:45 can't be worse than the 1987 Ilford XP1 I tried shooting... The backing paper and film were disintegrating, and left a sticky mess on my camera's rollers...
You can get a Hasselblad H1 with a lens and film back for two or three grand. That gives you the full modern autofocus and auto-metering experience. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for though; still pretty expensive.
I would dispute the title statement, although I largely agree with the observations made in the video. Frankly, if my image making goal was to post such to YT or Instagram, I'd probably sell all of my MF gear and most of my extensive 35mm Nikon system and just go to digital. I shot 35mm with one SLR and one 50mm lens exclusively from around 1962 to about 1976. I did this because that was all I could afford. I shot landscapes/cityscapes, mostly in B&W. My end product was exhibition prints in sizes 11x14 and 16x20. Making a high quality 16x20 from a 35mm frame before T-grain film is almost an art form, but it can be done. I got tired of the darkroom stress of this process, so in 1980, I started buying medium format equipment. (I could afford a lot more by then.) After several other choices, I ended up shooting Pentax 67 since 1985. I get those exhibition quality prints almost automatically, although I attribute part of that to the skills I acquired squeezing everything but the oink out of 35mm negatives. I watch YT videos comparing one film or camera against another, wondering if the maker fails to appreciate that when the image is posted on YT, after being distilled through what is charitably called "post-processing", that comparison is as bogus as a three dollar bill.
It's not so much higher resolution as it is smaller apparent grain and primarily spatial rendering. The most extreme version of this would be in large formats, of course. I find even 645 is still favorable vs. 35mm in this regard. But again, viewing in the vacuum of phones/screens, the effect is certainly reduced. But then again, isn't that just cheapening all photography? I find the Pentax 67 cameras to be a little unfulfilling, much like the vaunted Mamiya 7. The 10 shots thing on a camera built like a 35mm feels incongruous to me because 35mm is more about mobility and speed, opposite of what I look for in 120. I find the best budget experience of 120 to be Bronica ETR series cameras. AF and even auto exposure are definitely not going to come affordably in MF, though. Still, I find people should work most with what works best for them. If that's 35mm for you, then run with that, for sure.
If you want QUALITY images ... then medium format absolutely does NOT suck - It only sucks for the weight involved, the cost involved, the weight of the equipment if you have an SLR, and the general all around inconvenience. Otherwise, it's QUITE wonderful.
@@AzrielKnight - Quality can indeed be achieved with a 24 megapixel camera, or even a 35 mm camera. What you need is damn good high quality film, properly exposed, and damn good printing. Similar for digital, but with a somewhat different set of parameters. RAW of course is best, but extremely few people do exclusively RAW, and then spend hours in front of a computer with Photoshop. Most of us print maybe 90% of images in a 4 by 6 inch print for personal use, and for professional use you might print an occasional 20 by 24 inch print. But prints way beyond that size are seriously rare unless you're a commercial photographer, or unless somebody wants a truly wall sized family portrait hanging in the living room. I had a medium format camera. Good enough for 99% of whatever. The number of people using an 8 by 10 camera even way back in the day was quite seriously low. Even Ansel Adams used just a medium format camera or a 4 by 5 on most occasions. Yes, there are all kinds of quality, of course, but most of us do NOT need the best of the best on a majority of occasions.
Allot of the points you make could be applied to digital vs film. While you're right that scanned medium format displayed on the internet/phone are no better than 35mm, and that medium format is suited toward making prints, you don't need to print 16x20 to notice the difference. You can see the difference in a 5x7. What medium format give you is the ability to shoot higher speed film and still have very little grain. HP5+ in medium format makes prints that look better than PlusX from 35mm. You need shoot technical pan at low iso with a fine grain developer to get a MF look. Also there are MF cameras with AF well under $5000. Take a look at the Pentax 645N and NII, or Mamiya 645 Pro, amount others. A 645N with 75/2.8 FA is about $1000-$1200. But, again, the reason to shoot MF is really for printing enlargements. One other factor is the fun of shooting MF. What 35mm camera is esthetically comparable to shooting with a Rolleiflex?
I have actually stopped shooting color 35mm film, I shoot 35mm black and white for street photography. I use color and black and white medium format (Bronica SQ, RB67 and GW690) for indoor stills and some landscape, I also shoot 4x5 for landscape, but not often. For color 35mm equivalent, I use my digital SLR. Many reasons here, color film is expensive, for me it’s a pain to wait for 36 images to be scanned and I just don’t see the advantage over digital color. As far as printing, I can print up to 11x14 with good resolution. If I want to go beyond that, then it’s medium format or large format. But honestly, it’s not often that I make massive prints. Another issue, with medium format 6x6 square, the largest Square that I can pull out of it is 13” x 13” (realistic size 12”x12”) that’s not a large print, and pre-cut square paper is very hard to find nowadays. I agree that I probably hold onto my medium format gear because if I sold it, I will end up paying more to buy it back and the condition may not be as good. If there is one medium format camera that I really like, it’s the GW690, the 6x9 gives a large negative, good form factor and the ratio is close to 35mm. Then finally, I never got into the DSLR scanning, my thought has been, the image is only as good as your DSLR resolution, then there is the converting each image to a positive.
I use my Fuji xt20 for scanning and it can get the grain which is the most resolution you can get out of film Converting in Photoshop is simple and I save a lot of money not having to buy a scanner and save a lot of time scanning I can scan an entire roll in just a few minutes
I really like the square format ! In my bag there is always a foldable 6x6 camera loaded with BW film. lacking Autofocus metering etc is not a problem for me
As an avid medium format shooter, I wholeheartedly agree with all your points regarding the two formats. You asked 'What should I do to find out if MF is right for me' to which I say, it's not about the format, it's about the shooting experience. Medium format cameras have the most diversity and variety. Switching to medium format allows you to experiment with various camera designs. I'm a huge fan of waist-level finders when it comes to MF. I totally understand why you went with the Pentax 67 [familiarity] and I also understand why you've had a negative experience with MF [a Pentax 67]. I think that MF cameras are much too big and heavy to work well as a traditional SLR. When the weight and size go up, those classic ergos fall right apart. Waist-level is nice. It allows you to cradle the camera in a comfortable body position. And this is not just a dig on the 67. I've shot with one and didn't like it, yes, but I also own a Keiv 60 and it suffered from the same issues. I love my Rolleicord III TLR, it's weightless and great for popping around city streets and throwing in a hiking bag, living here in Alaska. I love my RB67, a behemoth for sure, but it has a huge support system and is easily modified due to simple designs and large working areas. [I am a fan of DIY] All this to say, I still shoot a ton of 35mm because sometimes medium format is too big, too heavy, and I don't want to shoot $70 worth of film just to capture my weekend adventure. 35mm is plenty enough quality and the cameras are so intuitive. But if you just NEED TO KNOW, pick up a TLR, I think you'd enjoy that experience much more. Coming from 35mm, I think a smaller and lighter camera could make all the difference. Unless you hate 6x6....then yeah, maybe best to avoid MF altogether.
I bought a Mamiya C33 this year with a 105mm lens for $150 in near mint condition I used to have a C220 50 years ago and the experience is like a time machine taking back to those days I enjoy the experience of slowing down and taking MF almost more than the results
I dipped my toes into medium format w/ a Bronica ETRs as 645 was the format to get the most out of a roll. Of course, we know Bronica's large frame spacing makes 15 vs 16 exposures. In reality, it's large compared to 35mm and I don't find myself using it often.
I've had a few issues with medium format. - scale focus for 6x9, I like the format, but just don't get on with scale focus and very approximate framing - I enjoy using TLRs, but I just don't seem to get on with 6x6 square format. - prices/availability of the cameras I'd like to try are just way out of my range On the other hand, I've recently gotten a half frame Pen FV, and it's an absolute joy! The lenses are lovely, I've got extension tubes for proper macro, and in all honesty, with fp4, the increase grain size really isn't an issue (even hp5 isn't really /that/ bad). The main problem is how long it takes to take 80+ shots.
In 6x4.5 there are several autofocus TTL camers available : Mamiya 645 AFD, Pentax 645N (and 645N II), Contax 645AF, Fuji GS645, and Rolleiflex 6008AF (6x6). They all have superb lenses. Because they are less talked about, they are all way below 1000 $ while still giving you a superb negative.
I've seen a few people chime in on the pentax, but thanks for mentioning the others. Edit: Must have been awhile since you checked prices as the Mamiya is over 3k and so is the rolleiflex.
I usually limit myself to using yashica TLRs and 6*6, but have to admit it's getting pricier and definitely am considering square format more in digital these days
I’m looking into getting my first medium format camera, and I have my reasons to get a system separate from 35mm. I’ve often realized it takes me a long time to finish a 35mm roll, having limited shots is actually welcomed. I wish I could get rolls of Portra in 24 exposures so they could be cheaper and so I could finish and scan faster. My dedicated 35mm scanner is brutally slow. Even though I’m happy with the results, scanning at the highest effective resolution takes about 2-3 hours to finish half a 36 exposure roll, that is absolutely ridiculous (it was a $500 scanner too, the PrimeFilm XAs). Lastly, I actually dislike grain in color film more and more. I don’t hate it, but shooting 400+ ISO film on 35mm sometimes has distracting grain, and ailing that issue on a medium format negative is extremely appealing to me. I like the tones, colors, and highlight retention much more in film than the grain. That being said, B&W film grain is more than welcomed with open arms 😏. I’m hoping to buy a medium format camera this summer, probably sometime in July. I would not scoff at 645, but 6x6 and 6x7 is what I’m hoping to get myself.
Since you mentioned failing meters and AF :) Mamiya 645 Pro (non AF) with the standard 80/2.8 can be had for under $1000 all day. I paid around 600€ for my 645 Pro with the metered prism and two film backs. There are also Mamiya 645 AF models that can shoot analog and digital with their swappable backs! You can pick up a kit for well under 3 grand, more like 1-2000€ last time I checked.
I also have a 6x7 with the metered prism. It underexposes by 4/3 stops, so I have to set the iso dial accordingly. But even after doing that, it can be a pain focusing with the matte focusing screen...
My opinion with any format of film is whether it has a look to the shots you want. There's much said about the "medium format look", and if you don't care about that, then there isn't much point in using the format, for all the other downsides you mention. A few years back i sold off my Bronica SQ-Ai set up, i loved the images from that thing, they looked like nothing else, but i just couldn't be arsed to use the damn thing, so it sat there in a drawer, and i'd rather sell it off and let someone else use it. The only medium format camera i have left is a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash, partly for aesthetics, but also it has quite a unique look to shots. It's all personal really, for me the only film format i now care about is 35mm B&W, because it's pretty much the only one i can't really replicate digitally in a satisfactory way, and it's easy to shoot.
Well put. I think there are people out there though that have not shot with MF and feel like they need to. I hope they see my video and realize it's not necessary.
I agree, that is what I do with 35mm, shoot black and white, I just can’t relocate the black and white with my full frame DSLR. I don’t see any clear advantage of shooting color 35mm film, my digital does that very well and a whole lot cheaper.
Wow, I disagree with just about everything you have said about the "bad" of medium format. Resolution? We only use that term because of the age of digital cameras. Actually it's line pairs. 16x20 with a 35mm frame? Good luck. Auto-focus? Built in Light Meter? Auto advance? Sounds like you don't want to have to think at all. Just shoot digital. It's the same bs i hear from people leaving film to start shooting digicams. They want the film look but don't want to have to put any work into it. Less shots per roll? yes. But I get more keepers from medium format than from 35mm. If you are just shooting a kids birthday party in the back yard than 35 is your roll but if you want to shoot photos that you can print big and that people might want to buy than no. I do enjoy shooting all formats but if I see something cool while out with my 35 I generally return with a medium format or large format camera so I can do it justice. Regarding scanning. Yes it's a pain. But for those of us that care more about quality than quantity there are steps one can take to pull maximum quality out of a flat bed scan. Unless it's 35mm, then you are screwed because the best flat bed will still be crap at scanning 35mm. All in all it just sounds like you don't like shooting film anymore because it's too hard. Fine, shoot digital. I apologize for the rant but to hear you, of all people, talk about how much a pain shooting film is, kills me. You are one of the people that got me hooked on film and developing in the first place. Oh well, you won't be the first person I've seen realize film is just too much, and you won't be the last. I'll be honest, I am very close to unsubscribing because of this video. boooo.
"Wow, I disagree with just about everything you have said about the "bad" of medium format." yeah it's almost like we're different people with different tastes. :) " Auto-focus? Built in Light Meter? Auto advance? Sounds like you don't want to have to think at all. Just shoot digital. " Are you forgetting film invented all these features? Also, I do shoot digital....like, a lot. Plus I never said auto advance. " Less shots per roll? yes. But I get more keepers from medium format than from 35mm." The format doesn't make you a better photographer. " If you are just shooting a kids birthday party in the back yard than 35 is your roll " actually it's my phone. "But for those of us that care more about quality than quantity" it's not about quantity. ". All in all it just sounds like you don't like shooting film anymore because it's too hard. " Just because I'm not giving a hand job to every aspect of the film community? Oh please.... "You are one of the people that got me hooked on film and developing in the first place. Oh well, you won't be the first person I've seen realize film is just too much, and you won't be the last. I'll be honest, I am very close to unsubscribing because of this video. boooo." Then I regret creating someone who can't handle any criticism of any aspect of the community and would rather you don't stick around. If the goal is to just love it all and not question anything then you really missed the message I have been putting out for seven years.
Why I love mediumformat is my shooting procedure. When I´m on a daytrip or so 12 frames of 6x6 are usually enough. I just don´t shoot more. So it is like bringing your V8 once in a while for a fun trip and enjoy the big block.
Great video. I wanted to disagre, but you made valid points (expired film leaks & number bleed thu). Been using medium format more for portraits, because last year on a hike the bulk of carrying a P67 hit me. 😀
I love my GX680 but out of practicality my GW690 gets the most use il love it! for medium format its a nice size try getting one. Bonus it's 6x9 the best of both your camare's and convenient
Ageeed! It’s seems to be the best of all worlds as far as mediums format goes, good handling, great optics and aspect ratio with the best resolution available on medium format.
One advantage I cherish is being able to look at the image on the groundglass with both eyes. (Fujifilm GX680) I also like the quality, details and fine grain. Works for me.
I use MF for low light to offset Delta 3200 grain. I also use it when I target printing bigger than 12x18. I have a Bronica ETRSI made in 2003 and a late 80s GW680. My print size justifies keeping both. I don't have a LF because... I never print that large. I use pixel shift camera conversion, same process for all formats, with a Kinetronics Staticvac, so no dust. Tethered shooting -> Adobe BR -> Negmaster BR Inversion -> DxO Photolab -> apply my saved profile. Done in minutes. I get it - if you're futzing with slow scanning and cursing at film holders, for me alone that would be enough to push me to opt for 35mm when I go to grab a camera. Also, if The camera doesn't have the features you really want it to have then that is also enough to push you toward grabbing a camera that does. If one camera weighs a whole bunch and is a pita to lug around, that is also on its own, enough to get you to grab a different camera. For me, my medium format cameras have the features I need and they have their exact use cases. I also have eliminated the scanning pain point. From there, I don't really worry if I use them all that often, because when I need them for a particular use case, I definitely need them, and I know I would be headed back to the interweb to acquire new ones if I was short-sighted enough to sell them. I think I shot maybe six rolls through my GW all of last year. Maybe another 8 or 10 through my Bronica. But when those shots pop up on the photo frames, or when I look at the prints I made from them, I know I use the right tool for the job and 35 mm would not have worked. I guess what I am saying is, perhaps the best course here is to pursue cameras that have the features you want and a scanning method that isn't annoying? Pentaxn645N, Fuji GA645, etc. And If you are simply not printing sizes that warrant medium format or you don't need it to mitigate high ISO grain in low light, then I would not blame you a bit for moving away from the format. One last tip for your Epson. Find the optimal scanning height for your bed. Purchase two sheets anti-Newton ring glass 8x10. Use physical shims in the frame of the scanner to raise the scanning bed plus one Newton ring glass sheet to that exact optimal height. Tah-dah! You can now lay your film directly on the scanning bed surface sandwiched between the Newton ring glass and no more fussing with film holders. You'll get about 2,700 DPI, and I could see no image degradation, and in fact because they are sandwiched the frames were far more uniform in their scanning quality. KHB Photografix is where I got ANR glass. Add to that the Silverfast scanning speed improvements where it scans all frams in parallel, and it's a huge improvement - three strips in parallel. There are UA-cam vids on tweaking the bed height, but none included the ANR glass trick.
personally for me, Autofocus is something I don't need and auto exposure is something I can live without. The resolution is also noticeable imo with extremely grainy films like Delta 3200 which feels too grainy on 35 but looks fine on 120, though I don't think I'd tell with my usual of XP2 for instance.
3/31/24 I remember seeing a lot of your pics in the video at the end in your other videos. I think a lot like you on what camera format I should be using. I have used every format from View camera, Speed graphics various formats, med format with twin Lenses Yashica Mat 124, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 645, Pentax 135, Konica 135, Olympus 135, Polaroid BW/Color instant prints. All had it use in place and time depending on the tech avaiable. Now a lot of what I use is digital with Sony, Olympus, Nikon with various sensor sizes, I still find that the film camera lenses are useable on my digital cameras some even with AF. I agree with you the Pentax is a monster of a camera that is why I ended up balancing my film photography with a Mamiya 645 and Konica T cameras, both offer lighter weight and carry light meters for exposer, along with my Minolta Maxium cameras with AF and Auto exposer like digital cameras. The tech I have I keep since its all paid for and like you said you never might no if you were to use it again. For down sizing your collection when you own to many then i can see sell or passing on to a person wanting to learn film . Plus all the stuff I still have for a Darkroom , 2 -4x5Omega Enlargers and 1 2x2 (135mm) Omega enlarger, Trays, film tanks, 135mm bulk film loaders. To me Med format or any other size camera & film have all their pro and cons. Enlarging on a part of a larger negative is a lot better for images than smaller negatives usually.
I don't really understand the point about having film in the fridge. If you don't enjoy shooting it, what's the point of holding onto it? Especially with prices like they are.
Also many of the Kodak pro film were stored refrigerated even when they were available fresh. I think of Vericolor III ISO 160. Loved that film for weddings...blacks with texture and whites with detail.
medium format cameras are too expensive and so easy to break if they have electronics. personally I'd either get a baby graflex or Graflex slr to shoot 120 simply because of the freedom of large format lenses and fully mechanical bodies that won't break on you with stress.
@@mikafoxx2717 great press lenses but I found the bodies to be too chunky for my liking and too many obscure accessories. personally I'd probably go the route of 3D printing a body for mamiya press lenses
It's impossible to even get Ultrafine Extreme film anymore, in 35mm or 120. Ultrafine online stopped selling it a couple years ago. Now, there is only Ultrafine Finesse, which is primarily only available in bulk rolls, and I heard has less dynamic range. UFX 400 used to be my go-to, cheap black and white film, till it was discontinued.
This should be great :D Inserting processed 120 into Epson trays ☠️ Also, the only conceivable way for me to shoot 120 is vía holga. So, I do. I held a broken hasselblad body once. That was pretty cool, I guess. Also your channel is criminally underrated as usual.
I shoot medium format and 35 mm. Medium format for the “serious” shots and 35 for the casual ones. On the light table the 120 negatives below away the 35. I have 2TLRs, a Rolleicord and a Yashica. Probably overpaid for the Rollei, $525, but it is beautiful.
6/10/23 I can agree somewhat with you on the minuses of medium format with the now digital world we live in, but prior to that when it was a film world most serious photographers upgraded from the 35mm world to something of medium format or larger as to the higher quality of a well exposed negatives or lenses. Most pro or studios photographers went medium format in the studio and pro preferred the higher $$ end 135mm if shooting to earn their living. I know you have the Pentax large format, but also had the Mamiys 645 for a while, which I still own 2 original bodies with extra lenses that provide great quality negatives like the examples you showed in the video. To me medium format is just another tool in the tool box based on ones needs as digital is now the prefered format for most in shooting and editing. Like consumer camera like Kodak and Polaroid were the king of the film era (now smartphones) that lasted for a extremelly long time. We now adapt our tool box with everything digital and smartphone for casual shooters. The benefits of the larger format do make you a better photographer if you stick with it , unlike the shoot and spray of manner shooters of digital cameras of today. If you want to be a serious photograher of any means you to will embrace the past , present and future to be a better one, you can never stop learning along the way.
it's more expensive per shot because it's a larger format, do you really need in camera metering or auto focus? Use a hand held meter (which are more accurate anyway) and focus manually. 120 is a bridge between 35 and 4x5, so you shouldn't really be using it for high speed situations, especially considering the frame count per roll. Camera prices are mixed. I personally use a Kiev 60 which is still pretty cheap, but I can understand those wanting wide formats and that being pricey. For me it's not really the resolution increase, but the scale increase. The bigger the film gets, the bigger everything feels. Also the depth of field feels and looks different. Perhaps that's a subjective opinion, but if you compare the same photograph made on 35 and 120, the 120 shot will FEEL different, not just resolve better. The same goes if you jump to 4x5, to 8x10 etc etc not the resolution but the feeling you get. However, your point about degradation is true. The bigger the film, the more obvious defects become. I have had a string of bad luck recently with 120 films having the anti-halo layer not dissolve properly in dev (specifically Foma and Rollei RPX) but there are ways around stuff like that. Every format has its purpose, I still shoot 35 but only in unique cameras, like the X-Pan and Pen FT. Or in something like a rollei 35 for everyday bits and pieces.
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. But I recently tapped into medium format with two vintage cameras, and the size of the negative, the dynamic range, the beauty of the shades and the quality of the prints even only at 8×11 size is really a step above. I will certainly try to expand my medium format experience and equipment in the future. But again: personal preference. P.s.- I don't scan negatives. Ever. Only home or lab prints.
I would prefer having the option of being able to print it at 20x24 than being limited to only small prints by shooting something with 35mm film. Also, I prefer being limited to 12 shots a roll. Sometimes it takes months to finish 36 exposure on 35mm. I would also recommend shooting with something like a Zeiss 534/16 rather than a Pentax 67 when traveling.
If my only concern was print size I'd shoot digital exclusively and I can limit myself to 12 shots by bulk loading my rolls too. I'll take a look at that zeiss but I'm not much of a square shooter. Thanks!
What I love about medium format and I cannot replicate with 35mm is shooting with a waist-level viewfinder, yes i know some 35 mm camera do have waist-lever viewfinder but it's so small, and also with my Bronica you can change film without having to finish it first
A good image is a good image or capture. The format means so very little to capturing a good image. No one really cares about the camera format in the long run. Only other photographers or gear heads. They tend to look more at the technicals of the image instead of the actual image and its story.
I wish 220 film was still as readily available as 120. Also, hard disagree on the 35mm vs. 120 digitizing with a camera. There is a ton of options and what I've chosen in a system where they are equally easy to digitize.
For me the interesting thing that larger formats have is that they're bigger the actual frame os bigger and the visual character of that is impressive. But i mostly agree with you, i havent hard the chance to shoot professional 120 cameras and the ones i own are 100 year old relics that whilst they still can take pictures lets admit that the lo-fi look they offer just doesnt justify the cost of shooting
I'll tell you why 120 film sucks. I found a really neat hack posted somewhere, that showed how you can load 2 rolls onto one Paterson reel (4 films per 1 litre tank) Worked great for TMax400. Worked great for E100. Just tried it with Kodak Gold 200 and because the film is about half the thickness, the rolls started moving over the top of each other during agitation. Now I have 2 rolls that have only been developed at one end. The other rolls appear ok because they were emulsion side out but they still might have marks on them. *sigh* On the other hand though, its not so much 'higher resolution' but the fineness of the grain when you compare shooting film like TMax400 shot in 120 vs 35mm. I know I'm turning into a snob just typing this but after shooting 120 for a while now, find the 35mm looks like it's been rendered in gravel.
My plan for economical 120 shooting is to get a Pentax 645 with a 220 back and buy the 220 film for Shanghai which to my knowledge is the only company still making it. But at 645 220 gives you 30 shots of medium format a roll
I like medium format only for special landscapes. I have a coupel folders for a hike, but their old triplet lenses arent very sharp from the center even stopped down. I shoot kodak gold in a mamiya super 23 I got for a deal. Shoot 6x9 and scan with a 20 dollar thrift store cacon 9000f flatbed scanner. Sometimes i just want the archival factor. I shoot with a 12 megapixel canon 5D digital, its enough resolution for almost anything. I get about that much from 35mm as well with a thrift store plustek 3600dpi 35mm film scanner. I use a pair of EOS Elan 7's, one for colour and one for black and white. I only really need 35mm for 8x10 or 11x14 prints. At least you can tell its film by the grain. I think with medium format, you better go big or go home. Nick Carver's about the only pwrson I know that shoots medium format and uses 100% of it's capacity.
This comment is a bit late, but one 120 camera you seem to be overlooking is the Pentax 645. The original had 'all the auto modes' and a cool 80s red LED screen readout. Later models evolved the user controls and added AF. The last model was a digital. All years (except the D digital specific lenses) are backwards compatible. No changeable finders, but you could get a rare 70mm film back. Also, you can get lens adapters for Pentacon 6 / Kiev and Hasselblad (?!) lenses. Also, 15 shots per roll on Kodak Gold 200 makes it almost cheap. Remember, the 6x7 is basically a 60s camera (the 67ii could be argued not). The 645, straight out of the 80s. And rather affordable. Maybe MF still sucks, but less so with a 645.
my 35mm stuff generally gets more likes than my mf stuff, but when I'm out shooting and I have a tlr with me, people are genuinely more interested in that than say any of my 35mm SLRs.
Yes medium format is a fun challenge. I shoot with an early model Pentax 6x7 and with a Yashica A and a 128 G Mat TWR. I get some gorgeous pics but not every frame. Lab developed color and home developed B/W. Epson V600 scanner. Fun , would be the best to describe this effort. (I shoot mostly 35mm film because it is easier. Yes I shoot digital also.
Maybe you should try a Pentax 645 they have an AF version and you get 16 frames, the negative size is still quite a bit better than 35 mm for tonality and if you want 16x20 sized prints with no effort.
It didn't take long after returning to film that I kind of believed medium format would be in my future. My underlying thought is more practical and may ultimately keep me from purchasing a 120 film camera. This realisation is as follows: I know what I want. I don't want to do what I have to do in order to use it. Yes, 645 I'm looking at you.
I do agree most of the MF cameras themselves are pretty inferior compared their 35mm counterparts. Although I can see an IQ difference between the two formats. As they say there's no replacement for displacement (sensor size).
Wow, reading through this comments section .... or should I say Medium Format community forum. What a bunch of freaks. No 35mm photographer these days should feel insecure about the size of his negative, or feel negative about his size - it's not that small really. Pshhh.. I mean, just before the advent of digital cameras, had they not started rolling out aps-c film cameras? Not that I ever bought one. So they obviously thought film had progressed enough technically to the point where that could be done. So, when you think about it, if that analogue "march of progress" had continued uninterrupted by these funny little digital things, most holiday snappers would be out there right now in 2024 with their super-slinky aps-c film cameras, pharmacy prints would still be a thing and us 35mm dinosaurs would be calling 35mm "professional format" or something dead distinctive like that. This stupid comments section is a sad commentary on the male psyche, not photography.
Shoot whatever is fun for you. I shoot both digital and film. Each has it's best use case and purpose. I shoot film for fun, if I shot it for work, it sure wouldn't be fun.
I agree with many points (cost, cameras, bulk loading and so on), but not on all of them. The argument of that nobody cares about the negative resolution can be extended to the whole analog medium itself. At the end of the day, nobody really cares if you shoot digital or analog. On the flip side - if you enjoy the analog process or like to pixel peep 6x9 negatives, that's fine. You should not seek validation for things you like in others, in my opinion. Just do what you like. Contact printing 8x10 Large format is also kind of point less, it's very expensive, and you basically gain nothing to an enlarged 35 mm negative. But that does not mean that large format or the process itself is bad or sucks. I also don't understand the point of your argument why it's not valid to take a digital image of a negative? In your analogy, recording your tape to a CD is perfectly fine in my opinion. CD Audio quality is so high you pretty much create a perfect copy, at least for human ears. What's wrong with that? Sharing your images digitally is the most convenient way, sending out prints from a whole roll to everybody who might like to see it is not feasible. Also, how this only relevant for medium format and not 35mm? Sorry for the rambling, but I do think there is something to be gained from medium format. I do enjoy the pixel peeping, I like adapting 35mm for panoramas in to my medium format cameras. I enjoy the waist level view finders, on 35 mm waist level finders are so small it's not possible for me to get accurate focus most of the time. I like having the shallow depth of field and the sharp images at the same time. So, in my opinion, Medium format does not suck
"The argument of that nobody cares about the negative resolution can be extended to the whole analog medium itself." 100% and in my first draft, I actually mentioned that. "You should not seek validation for things you like in others, in my opinion. Just do what you like." To a point. To never ever bounce your creative endeavours off anyone is just as damaging as caring too much. "Contact printing 8x10 Large format is also kind of point less, it's very expensive, and you basically gain nothing to an enlarged 35 mm negative. But that does not mean that large format or the process itself is bad or sucks." It sure does if you're avoiding the gear, frustrated and unfulfilled. A hammer isn't a hammer unless it's in someone's hand. "Sorry for the rambling, but I do think there is something to be gained from medium format." That's awesome! "I do enjoy the pixel peeping, I like adapting 35mm for panoramas in to my medium format cameras." That's awesome too! "So, in my opinion, Medium format does not suck" It doesn't. But there re things that suck about it for me, and it prevented me from using it, and people who may be thinking about using MF for the first time need to hear the other side because we as a community far too often just praise it all blindly. Some of it, is better than the rest. The only thing that truly matters is "are you getting the images you want?"
Stop wasting your time on color negative film in medium format. The only thing you need is medium format projector. This is where medium format shines. No scanning, no prints. Just sit down maybe with a bottle of wine and watch your slides for your own enjoyment. Simple as that.
I've been really enjoying my Pentax 645. Bulky, but not as much as the 6x7. Aperture priority shooting is a breeze. An okay 15 shots per roll. Decent lenses that are relatively cheap. A few flaws: It's from 1984, which means its electronics are destined to die. It's from the "people love pushing up/down buttons to change settings" era of Pentax design. Lastly, 6x4.5 isn't really big enough to start getting a significantly different look from 35mm. Overall, I find the process of shooting, developing, and printing 120 to be much more satisfying than 35mm. Not scanning though, that experience is awful.
120 rules! No wait, 4x5 rules. They both rule. Autofocus is for wimps 😜Get yourself a Doomo S meter for the cold shoe and your metering is sorted. Oh and I think you just need to go square, that'll change your outlook.
I disagree. Medium format film is $1 to $2 dollars cheaper than 35mm film. 35mm cameras have gone up in price as well. I never had any problems with expired 120 film. Yes I do like the backing paper in the image. The reason I schoot film. Unpredictability . If you photoshop your film photos what's that? Get it right in the camera the first time. As my late Uncle used to say. He was also a photographer.. You must have great expired 35mm film if all your photos are perfect. Film and developing 35mm film is expensive so what do you do? R.I.P. Marie Fredriksson.
This is not true. When printing a 6x6 negative to a 8x10 or 16x20, the negative area used is the same as a 645 negative. Unless you print a square image you're not using the full 6x6 negative. You loose nothing when printing 645 in a rectangular 4:5 ratio print. What you gain from 6x6 is the square format only. Btw...I love your site and look forward to each and every post.
First I thought it was a clickbaity title but it seems you actually mean it. So, 2023 is almost over, how did it go? That said, looking a the pictures you showed at the end of the video, maybe MF isn't the right thing for you. I you mostly enjoy taking snaps, well a P67 won't make it. But before ditching that joy of a camera maybe you should try to renew your practice some way or another, take a workshop, commit to a personal project, do something out of your comfort zone. Or just use your phone 🙃. OK, that last one was for jesting.
The reason I haven’t gone into MF is because I don’t have a scanner for that. And even if I upgraded my Plustek to something that is capable of MF the resolution isn’t that much higher if I don’t get something super expensive.
One medium format feature I love is something that the Pentax unfortunately lacks. That is the ability to have multiple film backs, and swap them mid-roll. So you can go out with multiple films loaded, and swap between them depending on what you think works best for the shot.
For much less than the cost of a Pentax 67, you can get an RB67. *Fast* lenses aren't in the cards for this camera (f/4 is about the limit), but mirror lockup and (intentional) double exposures are, along with switching from B&W to color between two frames. Format versatility with the same body, too; my RB67 has film backs for 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and even 6x9 (though there's a lot of blank space at the ends of those frames). There were motor drive backs, 220 backs (I've got a couple of the latter), and it's easy to run 35 mm film with 3D printed adapters. Plus, all those film backs can be used on my 2x3 Century Graphic as well, because they're compatible with the 2x3 Graflok mount. There were Polaroid pack film backs, and now there are Instax backs -- and if you really want to be old fashioned, you can use 2x3 sheet film (once again, with the unexposed space at the ends of the frame), though at present there are only a couple B&W emulsion choices in 2x3.
Also, I can choose between a waist level viewfinder like a Rolleiflex, a chimney viewfinder, or a prism (head up, looking at your subject with the other eye). The latter two were available with a built-in light meter, too.
It's not 4x5 (never mind 8x10), but I can pack a lot of versatility in a (fairly heavy) camera backpack...
@@SilntObsvr I owned an RB67 for a short time. While I loved the images I got from it that thing was a beast, weighing about 8 lbs. with the prism finder, hand grip, lens back, and lens. Having that grip didn't help, that thing got too heavy to hold very quickly. Definitely a studio camera (which is what it really is meant to be).
@@SilntObsvr The RB67 is my film camera of choice, though I do have many others too for when I want something smaller. Yes, it weighs a lot but as a heavy equipment mechanic I'm used to handling tools like 10 kilogram sledge hammers and 16 kilogram impact wrenches so the 3 kg Mamiya is not too bad. :) It's just so versatile and the image quality is so good.
I'm one of those weirdos who print big darkroom prints sometimes, and the difference is pretty huge. The resolution is just on a completely different level. That being said, I like both 35mm and 120 for big prints, they're just two completely different looks.
Right! it's much easier to shoot high speed medium format than low speed 35mm when trying to make large prints of equal resolution.
I also pointed out the differences, but instead of enlightenment he just dug in harder to what he believes. Meh. Wutareyougonnado?
@@naeemdouglas_ I mean the title is clickbait-y but tbf just because he hates it doesn't mean everyone else should too. his opinion is his opinion and everyone shoots and prints differently
@@heatonizeI agree. It’s okay to not enjoy medium format film. Variety makes the world go round. But there is a difference in resolution. Period. Full stop. That’s the point I’m making. For example, if I push to 3200 on black and white film, the medium format will have noticeably less grain and higher resolution compared to 35mm.
I actually like that 120 has less photos, I don't get out to shoot a lot but want to explore photography. But 35mm means I've left rolls in my camera for months because I haven't finished the roll yet. But 8 6x9 photos in my box camera? 12 6x6 in my new Agfa Isolette? Much easier to finish the roll and try a new film.
Thanks for the comment! I bulk load and can put as few shows in a canister as I want.
Just viewing a larger film size compared to 35mm in the real estate available on a computer screen has got to have better resolution. Also 15 shots per roll on a 645 format suits me better than 36 on a 35mm roll - I always seem to need to hurry up and finish the roll so I can develop it and get at the pictures I really want.
Came here to say this as well. When my scans are uploaded to my computer, the resolution is INSANEEEEE from my Mamiya RZ67 ii compared to any of my 35mm cameras
I think "resolution" argument is a catch-all that is often incorrectly used. The larger negative size basically allows for a finer record of shades (or, if you prefer, also usually used incorrectly: tones). A Holga will record a range of tones beyond anything a 35mm or digital camera can, even though the resolving power of its lens is terrible, and the "resolution" of medium format is wasted on it. Recording detail, it's whatever. Digital can do that. Recording the subtlest differences in highlights and shadows is another matter, and its where medium format shines, particularly if you're making prints. And you don't even have to be making big prints. An 5x7 print from a Brownie will blow any digital camera out of the water in this regard. This is something that often gets lumped into "resolution" (and yes the two are linked, but they are not specifically the same thing) but then you wonder why a cheap toy camera using 120 makes images that are worlds better than a cheap digital camera, and well, there it is.
It's funny, it's not uncommon for me to go out shooting with 3 cameras. A digital, a 35mm, and a 6x7. Almost every single time I get my best photos from the Pentax 6x7. Idk what it is
I'm so glad you brought up the point about the print number leaching from the paper onto the negative. I got some Agfa Optima 100 expired a year or two ago for a good deal. I was excited about the colors that came out, even being 15 years old, but I was suddenly seeing these floating ghostly numbers in bright areas of the negative. So frustrating. The only other expired film I've used is some Kodak Plus-X, but I think it was cold-stored prior to getting it and it's worked great.
I've done both flatbed scanning and DSLR/mirrorless scanning, and I tend to like the former for 120 format and the latter for 35mm. But all of it is kind of a pain. Scanning and achieving proper color inversion is by far the most tedious and unpleasant step in the entire process of shooting film for me (color negative being the hardest to get right).
One other comment about the Pentax 67 lenses - they are some of the best glass out there for any system. I actually used my 120mm macro lens for my 67, adapted to a Pentax K-1 DSLR, to scan negatives shot on the 67. Talk about a snake eating itself! But the results looked great - that thing is sharp as a tack. While I may eventually sell my 67 and 645 Pentax bodies, I'm hanging onto the lenses for the day I eventually get a medium format mirrorless system like the GFX.
Awesome comment. Thanks! A medium format lens on a digital camera. Where did you getbthe adapter?
Enjoy analogue for whatever reasons you want. I do shoot medium format and then camera scan it, it's fucking great. Stevie Wonder could tell the difference between an 80mp drumscan of a 6x7 negative and something entirely digital.
I can agree that 12 frames on a 120 roll is sometimes a bit limiting but at the same time it's also a good thing as I usually also bring a 35mm SLR in addition to my rolleicord iii and use it as a light meter and as a second camera as a way to take more relaxed kind of photos compared to thinking through what subject I would like to spend my 12 6x6 frames on.
As for the camera scanning aspect I find it more giving for me to use my home made setup and not having to wait forever if I used a flatbed scanner.
The only times I had back paper bleeding into the negative frame thing was with hopelessly expired rolls that I shot as a fun challenge, and in those cases I also shot with a 35mm SLR so that I would have some good frames to bring home and know that the day wasn't wased because the 120 roll turned a bit tlodark and a bit of a mess!
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comment!
For me, 35mm is fabulous for run and gun, I just want to document my life type stuff, and for that, I literally use a point and shoot and bulk load good old Ilford HP5+. For a little more serious, but still want something small and light stuff, It's still 35mm, but a Leica CL instead.
For images that I'm purposely making (i.e. art, formal portraits, etc). It's either 120 roll film, or 4x5, or 8x10 sheet film. For me, it's less about many of the common arguments you hear, and more about just having a nice big negative that will have little if any granularity, and loads of tonality. That and it lets me get into loads more esoteric and interesting lens choices.
Most of the medium format cameras that you see used today (such as Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica) were designed as studio cameras, so no wonder they are heavy and cumbersome to hold in the field. I love my Fujifilm 645i, which is basically a point and shoot camera, as well as my Fujica GW690 (aka Texas Leica) and my Rolleiflex. They are great for taking them along and just deliver. And as for film costs: Ask yourself how many keepers you get from a 35mm film? And how many from a 120 film?
Rolleiflex 3.5f Zeiss. Light, quiet, under 2 grand, has a meter, will give you that Zeiss pop and shine you can’t get with ANY other lens on film.
Although I started out with a Nikon F2A + motor drive, the inadequacy of the 135mm in the darkroom, able to switch film type in mid-roll and wishing for the Polaroid Back option drove me into buying a Hasselblad 500 C/M as well. Best decisions I have ever made in buying these two cameras, since they accompanied me throughout my 45 year journey. Of course, different experience in different continuum.
When I decided to get back into film photography there were two deciding factors: 1. Some of the cameras I lusted over back in the day could be bought for a fraction of what they had been. 2. Film was so much better for handling dynamic range (digital has since improved, but still not quite as good as film). Resolution wasn't so important. The main reason I don't do so much medium format is because of my scanning equipment. I use a plustek which only does 35mm. When I need to scan 120 I use my old Canoscan 8800F, but it doesn't focus as well as it used to for some reason. So I shoot 99% 35mm and I love it, but I would never sell my old 120 folders because they are quite lovely to behold. Great video.
Thank-you for a great objective video. I regularly toggle between 120, 135 and digital as are items I like for each. If an item is no longer bringing you joy don’t fight it and do what makes you happy.
After 12 years of digital film, particularly 120 brought back something lost in the chase for clean, sharp, instantly visible digital.... FUN. If I wanted the medium format look with a sensor even close to that of my RB67, I'd be looking at over 60 grand in a hassie plus a couple lenses. My RB kit 10 years ago... body, couple lenses/ backs, wlf about $800. As someone who had my own professional darkroom, my dads before the war, in 1959, the fun of creativity in film developing and the numerous film stocks is also that 3 letter word... Fun When I watch a movie shot on film, like Oppenheimer, it feels like you could walk into it. The 6 element lenses, not 14 or 22 element modern lenses, have 3d rendering, and off the chart microcontrast for b&w work. But it's horses for courses. If I want auto focus with back button focus, dead on matrix metering, 1/8000 shutter, 5 fps power winder, all my nikon/zeiss glass working from 8mm fish, 15-30 zoom, to 300 mm for run and gun/ super fast reaction street and ttl flash, I pull out the nikon f6.
Great video.
My "finding my camera" journey has been an expensive one & enjoyable in the hole, but have recently solidified on my Rolleiflex 3.5f and Hasselblad 500c/m for 6x6 work and for 35mm a Canon F1 Original and an EOS1V HS. I sold all the rest bar two Canons which I donated to the new film section of my camera club.
I've only ever shot 120 and 220 film when I worked for Americana Portraits in 1998 and for Lifetouch in 1999-2000. It was very diffrent to shoot with compared to using my Minolta 35mm SLR. I still have a roll or two of 120 laying around unopened that are still sealed and never used and expired probably by 2001.
I love to use many formats from 110 to 6x9. I haven’t got the pockets yet for large format that’s when you will just be burning money lol but medium format gives me something that 35mm cannot and it’s the TLR a big bright view finder. My favorite is my yashica-12 and it has a light meter, perfect size to walk around with all day and not have to worry about using an external light meter or light leaks from shotty film backs. At the end of the day, use whatever makes you want to go take photos and just enjoy the process.
Amen!
Not mentioned are the 2X longer focal length lenses used with medium format, which can help separate the subject from the background (portraits). This applies to medium format digital cameras as well.
As for photo enlarging, 35mm prints OK up to 5x7 but grain becomes pronounced above that size, which may be OK if grain is one of the features of the print. 120 crops and prints far larger without pronounced grain.
As far as cameras go, a Polaroid pack film camera with a 3D printed back and 120 cartridge works very well, has auto exposure, folds up neatly into a small package, takes nice photos (with its 3 element glass lens), and can be had for under $50
Thanks for the comment! The Darkroom Cookbook is a definitive source for information, I highly recommend it, and in it it says that given a solid lens, you can easily print a sharp 8x10 or bigger.
Also, the thing everyone forgets is viewing distance. Only photo snobs have their nose up to the glass.
The t-grain 100 iso films in 35mm do print quite big thank you very much - try something around A3 size or 16 x 12 - without grain becoming pronounced , never mind a feature. Plus, if we are talking about leaving tripods at home and just doing handheld photography, I can use that 100iso t-grain film in my trusty 35mm camera with it's fast image-stabilised lens a lot more easily and in a wider range of lighting conditions than you can using a 100iso t-grain film in your Pentax 645. The tripod toting large format camera guys will always opt for the slower fine grain films where they can and admittedly they have absolute mastery when it comes to producing prints that are, for all intents and purposes, grainless.
Hey Azriel, you make good points. wont say you're wrong, because its nice people in the community have different viewpoints and a lot of what you said makes sense. However, just looking through flicker groups on medium format you can clearly notice an image depth that isn't present in both 35 and digital. i can always notice good medium format away from dig or 35mm. For me its undeniable. The light meter thing is annoying, but I'm so deep in this film world, that I usually carry a small light meter with me or rely on sunny 16. Anyhow, great video
4:45 can't be worse than the 1987 Ilford XP1 I tried shooting... The backing paper and film were disintegrating, and left a sticky mess on my camera's rollers...
oh geez!
You can get a Hasselblad H1 with a lens and film back for two or three grand. That gives you the full modern autofocus and auto-metering experience. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for though; still pretty expensive.
I would dispute the title statement, although I largely agree with the observations made in the video. Frankly, if my image making goal was to post such to YT or Instagram, I'd probably sell all of my MF gear and most of my extensive 35mm Nikon system and just go to digital. I shot 35mm with one SLR and one 50mm lens exclusively from around 1962 to about 1976. I did this because that was all I could afford. I shot landscapes/cityscapes, mostly in B&W. My end product was exhibition prints in sizes 11x14 and 16x20. Making a high quality 16x20 from a 35mm frame before T-grain film is almost an art form, but it can be done. I got tired of the darkroom stress of this process, so in 1980, I started buying medium format equipment. (I could afford a lot more by then.) After several other choices, I ended up shooting Pentax 67 since 1985. I get those exhibition quality prints almost automatically, although I attribute part of that to the skills I acquired squeezing everything but the oink out of 35mm negatives. I watch YT videos comparing one film or camera against another, wondering if the maker fails to appreciate that when the image is posted on YT, after being distilled through what is charitably called "post-processing", that comparison is as bogus as a three dollar bill.
It's not so much higher resolution as it is smaller apparent grain and primarily spatial rendering. The most extreme version of this would be in large formats, of course. I find even 645 is still favorable vs. 35mm in this regard. But again, viewing in the vacuum of phones/screens, the effect is certainly reduced. But then again, isn't that just cheapening all photography? I find the Pentax 67 cameras to be a little unfulfilling, much like the vaunted Mamiya 7. The 10 shots thing on a camera built like a 35mm feels incongruous to me because 35mm is more about mobility and speed, opposite of what I look for in 120. I find the best budget experience of 120 to be Bronica ETR series cameras. AF and even auto exposure are definitely not going to come affordably in MF, though. Still, I find people should work most with what works best for them. If that's 35mm for you, then run with that, for sure.
If you want QUALITY images ... then medium format absolutely does NOT suck -
It only sucks for the weight involved, the cost involved, the weight of the equipment if you have an SLR, and the general all around inconvenience. Otherwise, it's QUITE wonderful.
This is a tired old argument because if quality was all that mattered, everyone would shoot 8x10 large format.
@@AzrielKnight - Quality can indeed be achieved with a 24 megapixel camera, or even a 35 mm camera. What you need is damn good high quality film, properly exposed, and damn good printing. Similar for digital, but with a somewhat different set of parameters. RAW of course is best, but extremely few people do exclusively RAW, and then spend hours in front of a computer with Photoshop. Most of us print maybe 90% of images in a 4 by 6 inch print for personal use, and for professional use you might print an occasional 20 by 24 inch print. But prints way beyond that size are seriously rare unless you're a commercial photographer, or unless somebody wants a truly wall sized family portrait hanging in the living room.
I had a medium format camera. Good enough for 99% of whatever.
The number of people using an 8 by 10 camera even way back in the day was quite seriously low. Even Ansel Adams used just a medium format camera or a 4 by 5 on most occasions. Yes, there are all kinds of quality, of course, but most of us do NOT need the best of the best on a majority of occasions.
Have you made a decision? Do you want to get rid of any of your B&W or E6 Fujichrome in 120/220?
Drop me a line on Instagram, I have sold my Pentax 6x7 and have some film to unload.
Allot of the points you make could be applied to digital vs film. While you're right that scanned medium format displayed on the internet/phone are no better than 35mm, and that medium format is suited toward making prints, you don't need to print 16x20 to notice the difference. You can see the difference in a 5x7. What medium format give you is the ability to shoot higher speed film and still have very little grain. HP5+ in medium format makes prints that look better than PlusX from 35mm. You need shoot technical pan at low iso with a fine grain developer to get a MF look.
Also there are MF cameras with AF well under $5000. Take a look at the Pentax 645N and NII, or Mamiya 645 Pro, amount others. A 645N with 75/2.8 FA is about $1000-$1200. But, again, the reason to shoot MF is really for printing enlargements.
One other factor is the fun of shooting MF. What 35mm camera is esthetically comparable to shooting with a Rolleiflex?
Good points against 120. But the gorgeous images speak for themselves. Great videos!
I have actually stopped shooting color 35mm film, I shoot 35mm black and white for street photography. I use color and black and white medium format (Bronica SQ, RB67 and GW690) for indoor stills and some landscape, I also shoot 4x5 for landscape, but not often. For color 35mm equivalent, I use my digital SLR. Many reasons here, color film is expensive, for me it’s a pain to wait for 36 images to be scanned and I just don’t see the advantage over digital color. As far as printing, I can print up to 11x14 with good resolution. If I want to go beyond that, then it’s medium format or large format. But honestly, it’s not often that I make massive prints. Another issue, with medium format 6x6 square, the largest Square that I can pull out of it is 13” x 13” (realistic size 12”x12”) that’s not a large print, and pre-cut square paper is very hard to find nowadays. I agree that I probably hold onto my medium format gear because if I sold it, I will end up paying more to buy it back and the condition may not be as good. If there is one medium format camera that I really like, it’s the GW690, the 6x9 gives a large negative, good form factor and the ratio is close to 35mm. Then finally, I never got into the DSLR scanning, my thought has been, the image is only as good as your DSLR resolution, then there is the converting each image to a positive.
I use my Fuji xt20 for scanning and it can get the grain which is the most resolution you can get out of film
Converting in Photoshop is simple and I save a lot of money not having to buy a scanner and save a lot of time scanning I can scan an entire roll in just a few minutes
I really like the square format ! In my bag there is always a foldable 6x6 camera loaded with BW film. lacking Autofocus metering etc is not a problem for me
As an avid medium format shooter, I wholeheartedly agree with all your points regarding the two formats. You asked 'What should I do to find out if MF is right for me' to which I say, it's not about the format, it's about the shooting experience. Medium format cameras have the most diversity and variety. Switching to medium format allows you to experiment with various camera designs. I'm a huge fan of waist-level finders when it comes to MF. I totally understand why you went with the Pentax 67 [familiarity] and I also understand why you've had a negative experience with MF [a Pentax 67]. I think that MF cameras are much too big and heavy to work well as a traditional SLR. When the weight and size go up, those classic ergos fall right apart. Waist-level is nice. It allows you to cradle the camera in a comfortable body position. And this is not just a dig on the 67. I've shot with one and didn't like it, yes, but I also own a Keiv 60 and it suffered from the same issues. I love my Rolleicord III TLR, it's weightless and great for popping around city streets and throwing in a hiking bag, living here in Alaska. I love my RB67, a behemoth for sure, but it has a huge support system and is easily modified due to simple designs and large working areas. [I am a fan of DIY] All this to say, I still shoot a ton of 35mm because sometimes medium format is too big, too heavy, and I don't want to shoot $70 worth of film just to capture my weekend adventure. 35mm is plenty enough quality and the cameras are so intuitive. But if you just NEED TO KNOW, pick up a TLR, I think you'd enjoy that experience much more. Coming from 35mm, I think a smaller and lighter camera could make all the difference. Unless you hate 6x6....then yeah, maybe best to avoid MF altogether.
I think that if you're certain on the SLR ergos, a range finder, like ones from fuji, might also be a good option for you.
I bought a Mamiya C33 this year with a 105mm lens for $150 in near mint condition I used to have a C220 50 years ago and the experience is like a time machine taking back to those days I enjoy the experience of slowing down and taking MF almost more than the results
I dipped my toes into medium format w/ a Bronica ETRs as 645 was the format to get the most out of a roll. Of course, we know Bronica's large frame spacing makes 15 vs 16 exposures. In reality, it's large compared to 35mm and I don't find myself using it often.
I've had a few issues with medium format.
- scale focus for 6x9, I like the format, but just don't get on with scale focus and very approximate framing
- I enjoy using TLRs, but I just don't seem to get on with 6x6 square format.
- prices/availability of the cameras I'd like to try are just way out of my range
On the other hand, I've recently gotten a half frame Pen FV, and it's an absolute joy! The lenses are lovely, I've got extension tubes for proper macro, and in all honesty, with fp4, the increase grain size really isn't an issue (even hp5 isn't really /that/ bad). The main problem is how long it takes to take 80+ shots.
In 6x4.5 there are several autofocus TTL camers available : Mamiya 645 AFD, Pentax 645N (and 645N II), Contax 645AF, Fuji GS645, and Rolleiflex 6008AF (6x6). They all have superb lenses. Because they are less talked about, they are all way below 1000 $ while still giving you a superb negative.
I've seen a few people chime in on the pentax, but thanks for mentioning the others.
Edit: Must have been awhile since you checked prices as the Mamiya is over 3k and so is the rolleiflex.
I usually limit myself to using yashica TLRs and 6*6, but have to admit it's getting pricier and definitely am considering square format more in digital these days
I’m looking into getting my first medium format camera, and I have my reasons to get a system separate from 35mm. I’ve often realized it takes me a long time to finish a 35mm roll, having limited shots is actually welcomed. I wish I could get rolls of Portra in 24 exposures so they could be cheaper and so I could finish and scan faster. My dedicated 35mm scanner is brutally slow. Even though I’m happy with the results, scanning at the highest effective resolution takes about 2-3 hours to finish half a 36 exposure roll, that is absolutely ridiculous (it was a $500 scanner too, the PrimeFilm XAs). Lastly, I actually dislike grain in color film more and more. I don’t hate it, but shooting 400+ ISO film on 35mm sometimes has distracting grain, and ailing that issue on a medium format negative is extremely appealing to me. I like the tones, colors, and highlight retention much more in film than the grain. That being said, B&W film grain is more than welcomed with open arms 😏. I’m hoping to buy a medium format camera this summer, probably sometime in July. I would not scoff at 645, but 6x6 and 6x7 is what I’m hoping to get myself.
Since you mentioned failing meters and AF :)
Mamiya 645 Pro (non AF) with the standard 80/2.8 can be had for under $1000 all day. I paid around 600€ for my 645 Pro with the metered prism and two film backs.
There are also Mamiya 645 AF models that can shoot analog and digital with their swappable backs! You can pick up a kit for well under 3 grand, more like 1-2000€ last time I checked.
Sweet, thanks for the tips!
I also have a 6x7 with the metered prism. It underexposes by 4/3 stops, so I have to set the iso dial accordingly. But even after doing that, it can be a pain focusing with the matte focusing screen...
Focusing is also such a pain with the vintage Soviet Lomo Lubitel. I seem to never get it in focus 😑
ugh
My opinion with any format of film is whether it has a look to the shots you want. There's much said about the "medium format look", and if you don't care about that, then there isn't much point in using the format, for all the other downsides you mention. A few years back i sold off my Bronica SQ-Ai set up, i loved the images from that thing, they looked like nothing else, but i just couldn't be arsed to use the damn thing, so it sat there in a drawer, and i'd rather sell it off and let someone else use it. The only medium format camera i have left is a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash, partly for aesthetics, but also it has quite a unique look to shots.
It's all personal really, for me the only film format i now care about is 35mm B&W, because it's pretty much the only one i can't really replicate digitally in a satisfactory way, and it's easy to shoot.
Well put.
I think there are people out there though that have not shot with MF and feel like they need to. I hope they see my video and realize it's not necessary.
I agree, that is what I do with 35mm, shoot black and white, I just can’t relocate the black and white with my full frame DSLR. I don’t see any clear advantage of shooting color 35mm film, my digital does that very well and a whole lot cheaper.
Wow, I disagree with just about everything you have said about the "bad" of medium format. Resolution? We only use that term because of the age of digital cameras. Actually it's line pairs. 16x20 with a 35mm frame? Good luck. Auto-focus? Built in Light Meter? Auto advance? Sounds like you don't want to have to think at all. Just shoot digital. It's the same bs i hear from people leaving film to start shooting digicams. They want the film look but don't want to have to put any work into it. Less shots per roll? yes. But I get more keepers from medium format than from 35mm. If you are just shooting a kids birthday party in the back yard than 35 is your roll but if you want to shoot photos that you can print big and that people might want to buy than no. I do enjoy shooting all formats but if I see something cool while out with my 35 I generally return with a medium format or large format camera so I can do it justice. Regarding scanning. Yes it's a pain. But for those of us that care more about quality than quantity there are steps one can take to pull maximum quality out of a flat bed scan. Unless it's 35mm, then you are screwed because the best flat bed will still be crap at scanning 35mm. All in all it just sounds like you don't like shooting film anymore because it's too hard. Fine, shoot digital. I apologize for the rant but to hear you, of all people, talk about how much a pain shooting film is, kills me. You are one of the people that got me hooked on film and developing in the first place. Oh well, you won't be the first person I've seen realize film is just too much, and you won't be the last. I'll be honest, I am very close to unsubscribing because of this video. boooo.
"Wow, I disagree with just about everything you have said about the "bad" of medium format."
yeah it's almost like we're different people with different tastes. :)
" Auto-focus? Built in Light Meter? Auto advance? Sounds like you don't want to have to think at all. Just shoot digital. " Are you forgetting film invented all these features? Also, I do shoot digital....like, a lot. Plus I never said auto advance.
" Less shots per roll? yes. But I get more keepers from medium format than from 35mm."
The format doesn't make you a better photographer.
" If you are just shooting a kids birthday party in the back yard than 35 is your roll " actually it's my phone.
"But for those of us that care more about quality than quantity" it's not about quantity.
". All in all it just sounds like you don't like shooting film anymore because it's too hard. " Just because I'm not giving a hand job to every aspect of the film community? Oh please....
"You are one of the people that got me hooked on film and developing in the first place. Oh well, you won't be the first person I've seen realize film is just too much, and you won't be the last. I'll be honest, I am very close to unsubscribing because of this video. boooo." Then I regret creating someone who can't handle any criticism of any aspect of the community and would rather you don't stick around. If the goal is to just love it all and not question anything then you really missed the message I have been putting out for seven years.
Why I love mediumformat is my shooting procedure. When I´m on a daytrip or so 12 frames of 6x6 are usually enough. I just don´t shoot more. So it is like bringing your V8 once in a while for a fun trip and enjoy the big block.
Great video. I wanted to disagre, but you made valid points (expired film leaks & number bleed thu). Been using medium format more for portraits, because last year on a hike the bulk of carrying a P67 hit me. 😀
I love my GX680 but out of practicality my GW690 gets the most use il love it! for medium format its a nice size try getting one. Bonus it's 6x9 the best of both your camare's and convenient
Ageeed! It’s seems to be the best of all worlds as far as mediums format goes, good handling, great optics and aspect ratio with the best resolution available on medium format.
As someone who loves medium format, you make some fair points.
lol, thanks :)
One advantage I cherish is being able to look at the image on the groundglass with both eyes.
(Fujifilm GX680)
I also like the quality, details and fine grain.
Works for me.
I use MF for low light to offset Delta 3200 grain. I also use it when I target printing bigger than 12x18. I have a Bronica ETRSI made in 2003 and a late 80s GW680. My print size justifies keeping both. I don't have a LF because... I never print that large. I use pixel shift camera conversion, same process for all formats, with a Kinetronics Staticvac, so no dust. Tethered shooting -> Adobe BR -> Negmaster BR Inversion -> DxO Photolab -> apply my saved profile. Done in minutes.
I get it - if you're futzing with slow scanning and cursing at film holders, for me alone that would be enough to push me to opt for 35mm when I go to grab a camera.
Also, if The camera doesn't have the features you really want it to have then that is also enough to push you toward grabbing a camera that does.
If one camera weighs a whole bunch and is a pita to lug around, that is also on its own, enough to get you to grab a different camera.
For me, my medium format cameras have the features I need and they have their exact use cases. I also have eliminated the scanning pain point. From there, I don't really worry if I use them all that often, because when I need them for a particular use case, I definitely need them, and I know I would be headed back to the interweb to acquire new ones if I was short-sighted enough to sell them. I think I shot maybe six rolls through my GW all of last year. Maybe another 8 or 10 through my Bronica. But when those shots pop up on the photo frames, or when I look at the prints I made from them, I know I use the right tool for the job and 35 mm would not have worked.
I guess what I am saying is, perhaps the best course here is to pursue cameras that have the features you want and a scanning method that isn't annoying? Pentaxn645N, Fuji GA645, etc. And If you are simply not printing sizes that warrant medium format or you don't need it to mitigate high ISO grain in low light, then I would not blame you a bit for moving away from the format.
One last tip for your Epson. Find the optimal scanning height for your bed. Purchase two sheets anti-Newton ring glass 8x10. Use physical shims in the frame of the scanner to raise the scanning bed plus one Newton ring glass sheet to that exact optimal height. Tah-dah! You can now lay your film directly on the scanning bed surface sandwiched between the Newton ring glass and no more fussing with film holders. You'll get about 2,700 DPI, and I could see no image degradation, and in fact because they are sandwiched the frames were far more uniform in their scanning quality. KHB Photografix is where I got ANR glass. Add to that the Silverfast scanning speed improvements where it scans all frams in parallel, and it's a huge improvement - three strips in parallel. There are UA-cam vids on tweaking the bed height, but none included the ANR glass trick.
That's a great reason to use MF!
personally for me, Autofocus is something I don't need and auto exposure is something I can live without. The resolution is also noticeable imo with extremely grainy films like Delta 3200 which feels too grainy on 35 but looks fine on 120, though I don't think I'd tell with my usual of XP2 for instance.
3/31/24 I remember seeing a lot of your pics in the video at the end in your other videos. I think a lot like you on what camera format I should be using. I have used every format from View camera, Speed graphics various formats, med format with twin Lenses Yashica Mat 124, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 645, Pentax 135, Konica 135, Olympus 135, Polaroid BW/Color instant prints. All had it use in place and time depending on the tech avaiable. Now a lot of what I use is digital with Sony, Olympus, Nikon with various sensor sizes, I still find that the film camera lenses are useable on my digital cameras some even with AF. I agree with you the Pentax is a monster of a camera that is why I ended up balancing my film photography with a Mamiya 645 and Konica T cameras, both offer lighter weight and carry light meters for exposer, along with my Minolta Maxium cameras with AF and Auto exposer like digital cameras. The tech I have I keep since its all paid for and like you said you never might no if you were to use it again. For down sizing your collection when you own to many then i can see sell or passing on to a person wanting to learn film . Plus all the stuff I still have for a Darkroom , 2 -4x5Omega Enlargers and 1 2x2 (135mm) Omega enlarger, Trays, film tanks, 135mm bulk film loaders. To me Med format or any other size camera & film have all their pro and cons. Enlarging on a part of a larger negative is a lot better for images than smaller negatives usually.
I don't really understand the point about having film in the fridge. If you don't enjoy shooting it, what's the point of holding onto it? Especially with prices like they are.
Saving film for special occasions after it expires or is discontinued is one good reason.
Also many of the Kodak pro film were stored refrigerated even when they were available fresh. I think of Vericolor III ISO 160. Loved that film for weddings...blacks with texture and whites with detail.
medium format cameras are too expensive and so easy to break if they have electronics. personally I'd either get a baby graflex or Graflex slr to shoot 120 simply because of the freedom of large format lenses and fully mechanical bodies that won't break on you with stress.
I use a mamiya press super 23. Much like a graflex but a little more streamlined as it's 60's.
@@mikafoxx2717 great press lenses but I found the bodies to be too chunky for my liking and too many obscure accessories. personally I'd probably go the route of 3D printing a body for mamiya press lenses
It's impossible to even get Ultrafine Extreme film anymore, in 35mm or 120. Ultrafine online stopped selling it a couple years ago. Now, there is only Ultrafine Finesse, which is primarily only available in bulk rolls, and I heard has less dynamic range. UFX 400 used to be my go-to, cheap black and white film, till it was discontinued.
Man. That sucks.
This should be great :D
Inserting processed 120 into Epson trays ☠️
Also, the only conceivable way for me to shoot 120 is vía holga. So, I do. I held a broken hasselblad body once. That was pretty cool, I guess.
Also your channel is criminally underrated as usual.
lol, thanks for the comment :)
Have you considered the Pentax 645? Autofocus lenses and, most likely, all the automation you'd want.
Lots of people mentioning it and I'm considering it. The one complaint I hear though is that the negative isn't big enough to justify medium format.
@@AzrielKnightI agree with your statement, 645 wasn’t a big enough jump in size from 35mm for me.
I enjoy 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9.
I shoot medium format and 35 mm. Medium format for the “serious” shots and 35 for the casual ones. On the light table the 120 negatives below away the 35. I have 2TLRs, a Rolleicord and a Yashica. Probably overpaid for the Rollei, $525, but it is beautiful.
6/10/23 I can agree somewhat with you on the minuses of medium format with the now digital world we live in, but prior to that when it was a film world most serious photographers upgraded from the 35mm world to something of medium format or larger as to the higher quality of a well exposed negatives or lenses. Most pro or studios photographers went medium format in the studio and pro preferred the higher $$ end 135mm if shooting to earn their living. I know you have the Pentax large format, but also had the Mamiys 645 for a while, which I still own 2 original bodies with extra lenses that provide great quality negatives like the examples you showed in the video. To me medium format is just another tool in the tool box based on ones needs as digital is now the prefered format for most in shooting and editing. Like consumer camera like Kodak and Polaroid were the king of the film era (now smartphones) that lasted for a extremelly long time. We now adapt our tool box with everything digital and smartphone for casual shooters. The benefits of the larger format do make you a better photographer if you stick with it , unlike the shoot and spray of manner shooters of digital cameras of today. If you want to be a serious photograher of any means you to will embrace the past , present and future to be a better one, you can never stop learning along the way.
I still print in the darkroom and I find 35mm gives acceptable results up 30x40cm.
I believe it.
it's more expensive per shot because it's a larger format, do you really need in camera metering or auto focus? Use a hand held meter (which are more accurate anyway) and focus manually. 120 is a bridge between 35 and 4x5, so you shouldn't really be using it for high speed situations, especially considering the frame count per roll. Camera prices are mixed. I personally use a Kiev 60 which is still pretty cheap, but I can understand those wanting wide formats and that being pricey. For me it's not really the resolution increase, but the scale increase. The bigger the film gets, the bigger everything feels. Also the depth of field feels and looks different. Perhaps that's a subjective opinion, but if you compare the same photograph made on 35 and 120, the 120 shot will FEEL different, not just resolve better. The same goes if you jump to 4x5, to 8x10 etc etc not the resolution but the feeling you get. However, your point about degradation is true. The bigger the film, the more obvious defects become. I have had a string of bad luck recently with 120 films having the anti-halo layer not dissolve properly in dev (specifically Foma and Rollei RPX) but there are ways around stuff like that. Every format has its purpose, I still shoot 35 but only in unique cameras, like the X-Pan and Pen FT. Or in something like a rollei 35 for everyday bits and pieces.
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. But I recently tapped into medium format with two vintage cameras, and the size of the negative, the dynamic range, the beauty of the shades and the quality of the prints even only at 8×11 size is really a step above. I will certainly try to expand my medium format experience and equipment in the future. But again: personal preference. P.s.- I don't scan negatives. Ever. Only home or lab prints.
Me: Here's a video about my personal preferences.
You: I guess comes down to personal preferences.
;)
@@AzrielKnight indeed 😄👍🏻
I would prefer having the option of being able to print it at 20x24 than being limited to only small prints by shooting something with 35mm film. Also, I prefer being limited to 12 shots a roll. Sometimes it takes months to finish 36 exposure on 35mm. I would also recommend shooting with something like a Zeiss 534/16 rather than a Pentax 67 when traveling.
If my only concern was print size I'd shoot digital exclusively and I can limit myself to 12 shots by bulk loading my rolls too. I'll take a look at that zeiss but I'm not much of a square shooter. Thanks!
@@AzrielKnight the Zeiss 525/2 does 6x9 😉
What I love about medium format and I cannot replicate with 35mm is shooting with a waist-level viewfinder, yes i know some 35 mm camera do have waist-lever viewfinder but it's so small, and also with my Bronica you can change film without having to finish it first
There's 35mm cameras with swappable backs too.
A good image is a good image or capture. The format means so very little to capturing a good image. No one really cares about the camera format in the long run. Only other photographers or gear heads. They tend to look more at the technicals of the image instead of the actual image and its story.
Amen!
I wish 220 film was still as readily available as 120. Also, hard disagree on the 35mm vs. 120 digitizing with a camera. There is a ton of options and what I've chosen in a system where they are equally easy to digitize.
I think if 220 was regularly available, I would have far fewer complaints.
For me the interesting thing that larger formats have is that they're bigger the actual frame os bigger and the visual character of that is impressive. But i mostly agree with you, i havent hard the chance to shoot professional 120 cameras and the ones i own are 100 year old relics that whilst they still can take pictures lets admit that the lo-fi look they offer just doesnt justify the cost of shooting
I'll tell you why 120 film sucks. I found a really neat hack posted somewhere, that showed how you can load 2 rolls onto one Paterson reel (4 films per 1 litre tank) Worked great for TMax400. Worked great for E100. Just tried it with Kodak Gold 200 and because the film is about half the thickness, the rolls started moving over the top of each other during agitation. Now I have 2 rolls that have only been developed at one end. The other rolls appear ok because they were emulsion side out but they still might have marks on them. *sigh*
On the other hand though, its not so much 'higher resolution' but the fineness of the grain when you compare shooting film like TMax400 shot in 120 vs 35mm. I know I'm turning into a snob just typing this but after shooting 120 for a while now, find the 35mm looks like it's been rendered in gravel.
My plan for economical 120 shooting is to get a Pentax 645 with a 220 back and buy the 220 film for Shanghai which to my knowledge is the only company still making it. But at 645 220 gives you 30 shots of medium format a roll
Smart! I've used one of those, but it wasn't for me.
I like medium format only for special landscapes. I have a coupel folders for a hike, but their old triplet lenses arent very sharp from the center even stopped down. I shoot kodak gold in a mamiya super 23 I got for a deal. Shoot 6x9 and scan with a 20 dollar thrift store cacon 9000f flatbed scanner. Sometimes i just want the archival factor. I shoot with a 12 megapixel canon 5D digital, its enough resolution for almost anything. I get about that much from 35mm as well with a thrift store plustek 3600dpi 35mm film scanner. I use a pair of EOS Elan 7's, one for colour and one for black and white. I only really need 35mm for 8x10 or 11x14 prints. At least you can tell its film by the grain. I think with medium format, you better go big or go home. Nick Carver's about the only pwrson I know that shoots medium format and uses 100% of it's capacity.
This comment is a bit late, but one 120 camera you seem to be overlooking is the Pentax 645. The original had 'all the auto modes' and a cool 80s red LED screen readout. Later models evolved the user controls and added AF. The last model was a digital. All years (except the D digital specific lenses) are backwards compatible. No changeable finders, but you could get a rare 70mm film back. Also, you can get lens adapters for Pentacon 6 / Kiev and Hasselblad (?!) lenses. Also, 15 shots per roll on Kodak Gold 200 makes it almost cheap. Remember, the 6x7 is basically a 60s camera (the 67ii could be argued not). The 645, straight out of the 80s. And rather affordable. Maybe MF still sucks, but less so with a 645.
What about image stabilized lenses? Can you get any for a camera like the Pentax 645? Auto-focus isn't a great advantage, but IS sure is.
my 35mm stuff generally gets more likes than my mf stuff, but when I'm out shooting and I have a tlr with me, people are genuinely more interested in that than say any of my 35mm SLRs.
whenever I shoot MF, i found that i take more time to assess the scene, as each shot is worth a lot more in terms of $$$
A valid point and at the same time I don't need a camera to slow me down anymore. I just relax and shoot.
Yes medium format is a fun challenge. I shoot with an early model Pentax 6x7 and with a Yashica A and a 128 G Mat TWR. I get some gorgeous pics but not every frame. Lab developed color and home developed B/W. Epson V600 scanner. Fun , would be the best to describe this effort. (I shoot mostly 35mm film because it is easier. Yes I shoot digital also.
I don't shoot much medium format either. My rb67 is buried in my closet in that pelican case I'd have to dig out
You haven't considered getting rid of it?
Maybe you should try a Pentax 645 they have an AF version and you get 16 frames, the negative size is still quite a bit better than 35 mm for tonality and if you want 16x20 sized prints with no effort.
Lots of people suggesting that. I may look into it, thanks!
I can only imagine what you would say about large format! I probably ought to consider shooting one of the miniature formats some time this year... 😉
I just don't have the patience for large format.
It didn't take long after returning to film that I kind of believed medium format would be in my future. My underlying thought is more practical and may ultimately keep me from purchasing a 120 film camera. This realisation is as follows: I know what I want. I don't want to do what I have to do in order to use it. Yes, 645 I'm looking at you.
Try Kyiv-60. Awesome camera
Medium format is just better and has a look that gives me pleasure.
The solution for you is a digital medium format model.
Nice shots.
I like to occasionally use my folders. Just so deliberate.
I do agree most of the MF cameras themselves are pretty inferior compared their 35mm counterparts. Although I can see an IQ difference between the two formats. As they say there's no replacement for displacement (sensor size).
Wow, reading through this comments section .... or should I say Medium Format community forum. What a bunch of freaks. No 35mm photographer these days should feel insecure about the size of his negative, or feel negative about his size - it's not that small really. Pshhh.. I mean, just before the advent of digital cameras, had they not started rolling out aps-c film cameras? Not that I ever bought one. So they obviously thought film had progressed enough technically to the point where that could be done. So, when you think about it, if that analogue "march of progress" had continued uninterrupted by these funny little digital things, most holiday snappers would be out there right now in 2024 with their super-slinky aps-c film cameras, pharmacy prints would still be a thing and us 35mm dinosaurs would be calling 35mm "professional format" or something dead distinctive like that. This stupid comments section is a sad commentary on the male psyche, not photography.
Shoot whatever is fun for you. I shoot both digital and film. Each has it's best use case and purpose. I shoot film for fun, if I shot it for work, it sure wouldn't be fun.
Solid point.
Yeah, 120 DSLR scanning sucks massive ballz tbh :/
I agree with many points (cost, cameras, bulk loading and so on), but not on all of them.
The argument of that nobody cares about the negative resolution can be extended to the whole analog medium itself. At the end of the day, nobody really cares if you shoot digital or analog. On the flip side - if you enjoy the analog process or like to pixel peep 6x9 negatives, that's fine. You should not seek validation for things you like in others, in my opinion. Just do what you like.
Contact printing 8x10 Large format is also kind of point less, it's very expensive, and you basically gain nothing to an enlarged 35 mm negative. But that does not mean that large format or the process itself is bad or sucks.
I also don't understand the point of your argument why it's not valid to take a digital image of a negative? In your analogy, recording your tape to a CD is perfectly fine in my opinion. CD Audio quality is so high you pretty much create a perfect copy, at least for human ears. What's wrong with that? Sharing your images digitally is the most convenient way, sending out prints from a whole roll to everybody who might like to see it is not feasible. Also, how this only relevant for medium format and not 35mm?
Sorry for the rambling, but I do think there is something to be gained from medium format.
I do enjoy the pixel peeping, I like adapting 35mm for panoramas in to my medium format cameras.
I enjoy the waist level view finders, on 35 mm waist level finders are so small it's not possible for me to get accurate focus most of the time.
I like having the shallow depth of field and the sharp images at the same time.
So, in my opinion, Medium format does not suck
"The argument of that nobody cares about the negative resolution can be extended to the whole analog medium itself." 100% and in my first draft, I actually mentioned that.
"You should not seek validation for things you like in others, in my opinion. Just do what you like." To a point. To never ever bounce your creative endeavours off anyone is just as damaging as caring too much.
"Contact printing 8x10 Large format is also kind of point less, it's very expensive, and you basically gain nothing to an enlarged 35 mm negative. But that does not mean that large format or the process itself is bad or sucks." It sure does if you're avoiding the gear, frustrated and unfulfilled. A hammer isn't a hammer unless it's in someone's hand.
"Sorry for the rambling, but I do think there is something to be gained from medium format." That's awesome!
"I do enjoy the pixel peeping, I like adapting 35mm for panoramas in to my medium format cameras." That's awesome too!
"So, in my opinion, Medium format does not suck" It doesn't. But there re things that suck about it for me, and it prevented me from using it, and people who may be thinking about using MF for the first time need to hear the other side because we as a community far too often just praise it all blindly. Some of it, is better than the rest. The only thing that truly matters is "are you getting the images you want?"
Stop wasting your time on color negative film in medium format. The only thing you need is medium format projector. This is where medium format shines. No scanning, no prints. Just sit down maybe with a bottle of wine and watch your slides for your own enjoyment. Simple as that.
Nah.
If slide film wasn't like $30 bucks a roll, I'd be on board with that.
I've been really enjoying my Pentax 645. Bulky, but not as much as the 6x7. Aperture priority shooting is a breeze. An okay 15 shots per roll. Decent lenses that are relatively cheap.
A few flaws: It's from 1984, which means its electronics are destined to die. It's from the "people love pushing up/down buttons to change settings" era of Pentax design. Lastly, 6x4.5 isn't really big enough to start getting a significantly different look from 35mm.
Overall, I find the process of shooting, developing, and printing 120 to be much more satisfying than 35mm. Not scanning though, that experience is awful.
Yeah I've shot the 6x4.5 ratio and it didn't deliver a significant difference over 35mm.
No replacement for displacement
Agree with every point you made.
Thanks :)
I love the MF work... I think you should do more!
I'm about to actually :)
120 rules! No wait, 4x5 rules. They both rule. Autofocus is for wimps 😜Get yourself a Doomo S meter for the cold shoe and your metering is sorted. Oh and I think you just need to go square, that'll change your outlook.
Thanks for the comment. Though I do hate square :) I also don't mind looking like a wimp if it means getting tac sharp focus.
Pentax 645 solves most your issues: more frame on the roll, AF, metering is there, kindof cheap
The negative is a bit small for MF TBH.
@@AzrielKnight LOL 2:47 :D
It's the same negative area you use when printing an 8x10 from a 6x6 negative. 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 are all medium format.
i need to shoot more 120 stuff.
I disagree. Medium format film is $1 to $2 dollars cheaper than 35mm film. 35mm cameras have gone up in price as well. I never had any problems with expired 120 film. Yes I do like the backing paper in the image. The reason I schoot film. Unpredictability . If you photoshop your film photos what's that? Get it right in the camera the first time. As my late Uncle used to say. He was also a photographer.. You must have great expired 35mm film if all your photos are perfect. Film and developing 35mm film is expensive so what do you do? R.I.P. Marie Fredriksson.
Medium format camera with autofocus and auto exposure for less than $5K? Easy! Pentax 645N or 645Nii.
While I don't disagree, 6x4.5 isn't going to give huge prints.
This is not true. When printing a 6x6 negative to a 8x10 or 16x20, the negative area used is the same as a 645 negative. Unless you print a square image you're not using the full 6x6 negative. You loose nothing when printing 645 in a rectangular 4:5 ratio print. What you gain from 6x6 is the square format only. Btw...I love your site and look forward to each and every post.
Pentax 645 nii
medium format in name only :)
First I thought it was a clickbaity title but it seems you actually mean it. So, 2023 is almost over, how did it go? That said, looking a the pictures you showed at the end of the video, maybe MF isn't the right thing for you. I you mostly enjoy taking snaps, well a P67 won't make it. But before ditching that joy of a camera maybe you should try to renew your practice some way or another, take a workshop, commit to a personal project, do something out of your comfort zone. Or just use your phone 🙃. OK, that last one was for jesting.
FUJIFILM GA645ZI
oooOOOOooo. I'll keep this one in mind.
The reason I haven’t gone into MF is because I don’t have a scanner for that. And even if I upgraded my Plustek to something that is capable of MF the resolution isn’t that much higher if I don’t get something super expensive.
Solid reasoning.