Medium format: I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who...

dougbev3 Loc: Pueblo, Colorado

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have and still enjoy shooting medium format, as well as large format. The latter being my preference. Like yourself, I also have a Nikon F and couple of Nikkormats and one Nikomat. My medium format cameras are Hasselblad and Bronica, two models of the latter. I also use an Koni Omega Rapid.

For me it's not a would I do it again, it's a matter of continuing on using them.
--Bob

dougbev3 wrote:

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

dougbev3 wrote:

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

Just to clarify, are you talking film or digital?

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

I too have several Nikon bodies and lenses. I have owned one medium format camera, and that was a Zenza Bronica 2 1/4 SQ. film camera. The digital version is way too expensive for me now. When I had that camera I was doing my own processing and printing, and the larger negative made it easier to correct blemishes etc., but now with digital, it is not for me any more, but some of the most striking photographs that I have taken were with that camera. It would be a major move to go to Medium format, but if you are aware of the added costs, and can justify them, then I am sure that you will be happy with that choice.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I have a Hasselblad 501CM, with a 105 F3.5mm. and a 40mm F4 CFLE. Both are superb lenses, and I use them for Landscape and general work. I use the 40mm for close ups of static aircraft. With Fuji film, they are superb, and different entirely from digital. Both types are required in this digital age, and both complement each other, but neither can replace the other ! Horses for courses again...

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

dougbev3 wrote:

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

Of course I would do it all over again! I never stopped using medium format and if I had the dough, I'll do it in digital as well!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

My question as well. Film vs digital is a whole other discussion. I bought a MF Mamiya 645 film camera and lenses but didn't get much use out of them. MF cameras have a 0.7 crop factor compared to 35mm film or FF dslrs, so the available lenses give you about the same field of view as dslr lenses at the short end, and less magnification at the long end. I have considered buying older 22MP MF digital cameras on ebay but couldn't see the value compared to a comparably priced FF dslr. Plus I wouldn't buy another camera with anything less than 4K video.

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Just to clarify, are you talking film or digital?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Bobspez wrote:

My question as well. Film vs digital is a whole ot... (show quote)

As an alternative, consider the venerable Mamiya RB67 - you can shoot as a 6x7 or smaller based on the film back used (such as a 6x4.5). Certainly bigger and heavier than a 645, but a nice sized negative which can be digitized if you want to manipulate digitally. I’ve seen a complete RB67 ProS body, back and lens in the $250 range, and lenses are VERY reasonable, which is a BARGAIN if you want to shoot film. As mentioned previously, the larger negative is much easier to handle, less subject to dust (since it requires less enlargement for a given sized print) and has substantially higher resolution than 35mm film. A large percentage of portraits, class/yearbook pictures and sports teams were recorded by this workhorse during the film era. I still use mine and it’s very similar in weight to my 5D3, grip and a 70-200.

CO

LensRentals.com rents Fuji, Hasselblad, and Pentax medium format digital cameras. I've rented from them numerous times. They're very good.

dougbev3 Loc: Pueblo, Colorado

As much as I would like to go digital, it is most likely too costly. So I would shoot film. I think I would shoot a shot with both cameras ( at first ) just to compare.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

dougbev3 wrote:

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

For me, I wouldn’t bother.
I’ve shot I few time but didn’t shoot the kind of stuff people used it for, like weddings.
So I either shot 35mm or 4x5 but not in between.
Today, I shoot 50mg FF, or again, I’d go 4x5 but skip the MF.
I never cared for the square format. Always seemed to waste a lot of space since I never framed square.
Just me!
SS

Bipod

dougbev3 wrote:

I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?

Advantages:
* more than twice the resolution of 35 mm
(even at smallest frame size, 6 x 4.5 in. = 56 x 41.5 mm, area is 2.7 times that of 36 x 24 mm frame)
* therefore, can make bigger enlargements (or stand closer)
* choice of up to 8 frame sizes (depending on the camera)
* can contact print a decent-sized image
* less diffraction at small apertures (f/22 is sharp. f/32 is usable)
* therefore,better for pinhole photography (than 35 mm)
* convenience of roll film
* convenience of daylight tank

Disadvantages:
* Cost per exposure
* Use more developer, fixer, etc.
* Lenes larger in diameter an therefore more expensive, heavier
* Larger and heavier camera
* To make enlargements requires a big enlarger
* Roll film forces you to use the same development
time for entire roll
* Fewer choices of camera make/model
* Fewer film choices

I would say it's worth it if:
* You plan to make enlargements bigger than 8 x 10"
* You like making contact prints (or don't own an enlarger)
* You want more depth-of-field (without excessive diffraction)
* You are bored with 36 x 24 mm aspect ratio

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I shot briefly with a simple Yashica, but the color shots I got were very sharp.

Largobob

For me, getting back into medium format was an "itch" dating from back when I started into photography. Throughout the years (I am 70 now), I have shot everything from sub-miniature (think spy camera) to large (8x10) format....and of course DSLR. I no longer have a darkroom or any interest in wet processing. There are several good companies (I use TheDarkRoom.com) that process most types of film, and will scan/print the negatives for you. I also purchased an inexpensive flatbed scanner (Epson V600) to digitize my negatives. So I can have the benefits of larger negative size, with the ability to process the digital images to my liking.

The larger online camera vendors (B&H, Adorama, etc) carry a nice variety of fresh film in many types and speeds. For me, shooting MF film is a lot like smoking a pipe....it can be a lot of work but it sure is soothing.

Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan

I bought a hasselblad 500c the year I graduated from high school. Traveled through Europe with it an 80mm and 250 mm. Best images I ever made. Darkroom is now in storage but I’m thinking of starting it again at age 65