[rdenney]

Touché but 4x5 is large, not medium format. Back in the day, undergrads attending Brooks Institute of Photography were required to have a large format camera. Every spring after graduation, there was always a fire sale of 4x5 and 5x7 Toyos, Horseman, and even Sinars in Santa Barbara. For many, lots of regret....being required to own large format for their course work.



With that said, they learned a ton that someone without yaw, pitch, tilt, swing, elevation controls would know nothing about.

My point is that I would never go all in on any format. I have always liked Ansel Adams’s answer to the question of which was his favorite format: “The largest one I can carry.”

Medium format is a compromise—something of the sense of endless detail that one can get from large format, with something of the convenience of small format. The Pentax sort-of fits that role in the digital pantheon. It doesn’t have the deep image-management capability of a view camera (the technique of which Brooks clearly believed was essential to the craft of photography—and I’m disinclined to disagree), which one might get using a high-end digital back on a medium-format view camera. But for subjects not needing all those capabilities, it approaches the perception of endless detail difficult or impossible to achieve with small format.

But it’s less convenient than small format. To someone whose previous biggest camera was a full-frame DSLR, a 645z will be a beast, and they will yearn for the forgiveness of image stabilization on most lenses. For me, though, it’s the more portable alternative to the Pentax 67. And it’s far more convenient because it bypasses the processing and scanning steps.

It was also the alternative to the Canon 5Ds, which is the latest potential replacement for my now elderly 5D. That will be next, but probably not until something disables the 5D altogether.

There are times, though, when the soul demands self-flagellation, and I still have the Sinar for those occasions. I don’t think I could have made this photo with any medium-format camera, simply because of the need for a 10x loupe to check focus over the whole frame:


(Sinar F2 4x5, 90mm Super Angulon, shifts, swings and tilts all used, 16 seconds at f/45)

Rick “firmly, but pleasantly, in the ‘I would regret it’ camp for the question at hand” Denney

[LFLee]

I’m just enjoying the 645Nii (as a prelude maybe to a Z one day) with 120 f4. I’ve a lot to learn still, but am not feeling as keen on the K3, my best DSLR currently. I may try to rent a Z and see what it is like, but I honestly don’t want to have APSC, full frame (nothing yet) and medium format (just the Nii, 6x7 and a Kodak folder for now). I get the size and weight that’s my but the IQ is worth it (to me anyway).

Just curious if anyone went MF and regretted it or longed for downsizing.

Thanks,
Troy

The Z is smaller than film MF, you will not be satisfied.

[jtkratzer]

Interesting read here. I recently moved into the 645 film system and just acquired a 6x7 MLU. Similar feeling/questions about 35mm and two medium format systems, knowing at some point I’d like to try 4x5. I have 35mm stuff that has sentimental value that I’ll never let go, but I really don’t need an LX, KX, KM, MX, ME Super, free ME in rough cosmetic shape, ZX-30, ZX-5.

[tuco]

On a historical note, 4x5 use to be considered medium format way back when and what we call small format was called tiny format.

[Alex645]

On a historical note, 4x5 use to be considered medium format way back when and what we call small format was called tiny format.

Iʻve never seen that reference. Can you post one? Iʻve always known >/= 4x5 as LF, 120/220 roll films as MF, and </= 35mm as small format.

[tuco]

Iʻve never seen that reference. Can you post one? Iʻve always known >/= 4x5 as LF, 120/220 roll films as MF, and </= 35mm as small format.

Well, I read it in some old circa 1940's literature. It wasn't online material to give a link. Perhaps Google can help you.

[kaseki]

tuco: I expected your answer to be that you were an apprentice of Mathew Brady.

[rdenney]

Iʻve never seen that reference. Can you post one? Iʻve always known >/= 4x5 as LF, 120/220 roll films as MF, and </= 35mm as small format.

I don’t think that was a universally held view. But I do think pre-WWII photographers who used, say, 8x10 Deardorffs or Kodak 2-d’s thought of press photographers who were using 4x5 Speed Graphics or Super D’s as being in a different category. For them, 8x10 was the standard large format view camera, and 4x5 was a compromise format for the weak of limb or fleet of foot. The real rise of 4x5 view cameras seemed to happen about the middle of the last century. The Technika came out in 1946, and was a press camera with back movements, making it the first technical field camera. The Norma came out in 1947, and the Graphic View was introduced as Graflex’s first 4x5 view camera in 1941. Lesser cameras like the Newton Nue-View also came out in the 40’s.

I’m sure there were 4x5 bed cameras before that time, just as there were whole plate, 5x7, and a range of other sizes. But 4x5 cameras were more associated with different use cases for which a true view camera is designed.

At the Large Format Photography Forum, the definition is nominally 4x5 or larger. But we recognize that all such categorizations are posterizing a smooth continuum.

Rick “useful only for defining non-photographic boundaries” Denney

[Alex645]

Well, I read it in some old circa 1940's literature. It wasn't online material to give a link. Perhaps Google can help you.

As the term "Medium Format" is a relative and not technical term, I can imagine a few folks with a different definition than others. But I haven't seen that reference, even with 'googling' although if I did hard enough, there is everything on the net both fact, fiction, and editorials.

And although Wikipedia is not 100% factual, the consensus there is that, "Generally, the term applies to film and digital cameras that record images on media larger than 24 by 36 mm (full-frame) (used in 35 mm photography), but smaller than 4 by 5 inches (which is considered to be large-format photography)."

I could imagine these terms evolving since the introduction of various rolls films. Your reference from the early 40's may be the Graflex Speed Graphic format 2.25''x3.25'', which was a miniature version of their 4x5" camera and was considered medium format.

[tuco]

The Brownie was a popular camera for everyday people. It shot 6x4 postcard film. So you're average Joe was shooting larger than 4x5 back when. I have some postcard negatives my grandparents took and they were not as you say photography enthusiasts at all.

[Alex645]

The Brownie was a popular camera for everyday people. It shot 6x4 postcard film. So you're average Joe was shooting larger than 4x5 back when. I have some postcard negatives my grandparents took and they were not as you say photography enthusiasts at all.

That's cool, but I've never seen that particular model. All the Kodak Brownie models I've ever seen and known were shooting either 117 or 127 film (2.25" square or 2.25 x 3.25").

What was the specific model Brownie that shot 6x4" postcard negs?

[tuco]

That's cool, but I've never seen that particular model. All the Kodak Brownie models I've ever seen and known were shooting either 117 or 127 film (2.25" square or 2.25 x 3.25").

What was the specific model Brownie that shot 6x4" postcard negs?

They said it was a popular Brownie camera when I asked what took them. The negatives measure 3.5 x 6 inches and the image area is a little less. I'll have to do some digging to see what was around then.

[rdenney]

As the term "Medium Format" is a relative and not technical term, I can imagine a few folks with a different definition than others. But I haven't seen that reference, even with 'googling' although if I did hard enough, there is everything on the net both fact, fiction, and editorials.

And although Wikipedia is not 100% factual, the consensus there is that, "Generally, the term applies to film and digital cameras that record images on media larger than 24 by 36 mm (full-frame) (used in 35 mm photography), but smaller than 4 by 5 inches (which is considered to be large-format photography)."

I could imagine these terms evolving since the introduction of various rolls films. Your reference from the early 40's may be the Graflex Speed Graphic format 2.25''x3.25'', which was a miniature version of their 4x5" camera and was considered medium format.

I have to tell you that press photographers considered the 2x3 Graphic to be "small format", and 35mm Leicas and Contaxes were "miniature cameras". You've read the literature from that time, I'm sure. The 2x3 Graphics were called "Baby Graphics", after all. Then, there was the in-between size--quarter plate, or 3-1/4 by 4-1/4, and press photographers probably (note use of speculative adverb) thought that was "medium format". A very handy size for putting contact prints into an album, actually. But Rolleiflex was the only game in town for a commonly available, high-quality camera that used 120 roll film, so the term "medium format" had not come into being. At that time, consumer cameras (box Brownies) used 120 or 620 film (which is the same size. They called those cameras...cameras. That was the most common default size. It wasn't until the 50's and 60's that 35mm became ubiquitous enough to become the default, and then we needed a way to describe how much bigger cameras that used 120 roll film were. The guys that taught me photography 45 years ago usually referred to 35mm as "miniature", even when holding a brick of a Nikon F with that enormous prism (well, enormous for a miniature camera ). They had learned their terminology in the 40's and 50's, when a working pro, plying his trade doing group photos and the like, used 4x5 Graflex cameras. When I was a kid, the commander of my Civil Air Patrol squadron was a working pro, and I learned stuff that 13-year-olds can learn. His gig camera was a Crown Graphic. But he brought a screw-mount Leica on trips with us. Great photos--but lots of flare. His lenses were uncoated, probably from the 30's. That was his hobby camera. Several of us were getting into cameras at that time, and all we could think about was an SLR--the mark of serious photography. He laughed at us. "How can you do serious photography with a miniature?"

I came to the same conclusion only a few years later, when in college I knew that if I was going to get pay photography gigs, I had better be sporting a camera that was bigger and more technical looking that Uncle Harry's Spotmatic or Yashica Mat-124. The Mamiya C3 was that camera for me, plus a potato-masher flash.

Wikipedia is just what one guy wrote that is sufficiently unchallenging not to compel another guy to replace it with something different. On the Large Format forum, we've had endless threads debating the different ways it might be done. Some argue for area--6x17 has more of it than 4x5, so it must be large format. Some argue for packaging--sheet film is large format and roll film is medium format (nevermind that 2x3 and 6x9 are nominally the same size). Some argue that if you can fill the dimensional capability of a large-format camera, such as 6x12 does with 4x5, it must be large format (but then there's the Brooks Veriwide). Some even argue (apparently with little knowledge of the breadth of camera designs out there) that large format is a view camera (with a little grace towards certain press cameras, but there it gets sticky) and fixed-body cameras are medium format. Fact is, when wanting to claim some marginal format is large format, the temptation is to find a way to define that something into the fold. We landed on 4x5 in full recognition that it was entirely arbitrary, based (just like that Wikipedia author) on what would draw the least fire. But draw fire it still did.

Of course, pursuant to your point, nobody these days argues that 4x5 is NOT large format. But the point being made was that it wasn't always that way. And who can resist a pointless but entirely fun history discussion?

Rick "indulging an excuse to take a quick trip back down memory lane" Denney

[Silent Street]

"Some argue for area--6x17 has more of it than 4x5, so it must be large format."

120 film was once known as large format.

[dadipentak]

I’m just enjoying the 645Nii (as a prelude maybe to a Z one day) with 120 f4. I’ve a lot to learn still, but am not feeling as keen on the K3, my best DSLR currently. I may try to rent a Z and see what it is like, but I honestly don’t want to have APSC, full frame (nothing yet) and medium format (just the Nii, 6x7 and a Kodak folder for now). I get the size and weight that’s my but the IQ is worth it (to me anyway).

Just curious if anyone went MF and regretted it or longed for downsizing.

Thanks,
Troy

I bought a used Z and some lenses a while back. I was really impressed and learned a lot but eventually realized I was out of my depth: it demands a more deliberative shooting style. Part of that is the fact that MF gear is big and heavy and just not suited to my casual walk-around style.