Medium format size question

Gaz81

Gaz81

Messages
1,676
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
What is the most practical medium format size for general use?

6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8.....

What would/have would you use?
 
I'm not sure how you define practical, for me it comes down to what you like the look of, I prefer 6x6, just because I like the look of it and I like working in a totally mindset to my normal SLR.
 
Well, I just mean general use. Such as using it for a few different purposes but not just in a studio on a big tripod
 
Gaz81 said:
6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8.....

What would/have would you use?
Click to expand...

They are all good for various purposes. I have 6x 4.5, 6x6 and 6x7 and am currently building a 6x12 camera.

That's not much help to you but there isn't really a simple answer. The most general thing to say is that the larger the format, the better the quality but the weight (and price) goes up with format size too (there are some exceptions to that).


Steve.
 
Gaz;

from my experience :

6/4.5 cameras are usually smaller, hence easy to carry. Also they produce 15/16 shots per film, so more economic. But, it has a landscape and portrait orientation, so you have to turn the camera to take the portrait photo.

6/6 is a square photgraph - some love it. Its also supposed to be the best compromisebetween size, cost and quality.

Having played around with a few; I now use a Bronica 6/4.5; which is pretty nice.

However, I am looking for a more portable RF camera; but as usual, it costs a whole lot more money

Have a look at the vintage folding RF as well; some of them are supposed to be wonderful
 
I prefer 6x6 presonally, I like the square format as it is and if you need to you can crop it to portrait or landscape.

4 out of 5 of my MF cameras come in this format, with the exception being the RB67. To be honest I dont think the extra cm is worth the extra bulk over the hassie, but the hassie is more expensive as well.

All in all 6x6 is the best regardless of what anyone else says ;) square format FTW
 
I'd definitely go 6x6 no fiddling turing the camera on it's side for upright shots like 645. Most of them can be handheld too.

6x7 is great with the cameras that have rotating backs but for general use bulky as raathistle states, though if you were opting to get a rangefinder fuji or mamiya it would be worth considering.
 
I'm just getting back into MF and I'm favouring 6x6. I like the square format and like others have said there's no messing with potrait or landscape decisions.
 
I think square is an aquired taste, once you've aquired it, everything else looks like only half a photo..:LOL:

I think 6x7 and 6x8 are the most practical aspect ratios, everything else you'll need to crop loads off probably, this is more relevant to wet printing and enlargements..
 
True, 6x7 is good for wet enlarging, it's a shame square paper isn't available pre cut
 
Here's another question then...

With most folk like myself scanning, does the size of the frame make that much difference in the quality of the image? ei 6x4.5 v 6x7?

From the stand point of probably only using the image on-line etc.
 
Well, 645 is only a shade more than half a 6x8, I'd say in the battle for image producing real estate, the difference is significant.
I mean its nothing compared with 5x4, but 645 is the very smallest frame you can use and still call it medium format.
 
Gaz81 said:
From the stand point of probably only using the image on-line etc.
Click to expand...

If you are only using the image online then you may as well stick to 35mm. Or for that matter, use a 1 Mpixel digital camera.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It is from Ilford.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve, do you know where sells it though? The only one I could find listed was 10x10 vanilla MGRC, and ideally I want FB papers. It would be nice to print and not have to trim everything down to square and risk ruining it with my hamfisted cutting :)
 
I think ekimeno it may be a yes no answer to that one.

Think about it, you have a camera say 5x4 that you scan on a drum scanner which gives you say a 1.5Gb file. Then you reduce it to 800x600 pixels at 72dpi and say 200kb in size, then why not shoot solely for the web using low pixel digi or 35mm?.

If that is all you are going to do with your images, then Steve's comment I think is quite right also this link I think is relevant Rant about image size

Oh and back on topic I love 6x6 think 645 is to small and I now have a 6x9 to play with when I sort the light seals out
 
I understand that scanning reduces the image to pixels, but I am 100% sure that a scanned film shot looks miles better than a shot from a digital P&S camera. Therefore my assumption that Steve's comment was in fact a joke :)
 
ekimeno said:
I understand that scanning reduces the image to pixels, but I am 100% sure that a scanned film shot looks miles better than a shot from a digital P&S camera. Therefore my assumption that Steve's comment was in fact a joke :)
Click to expand...

I am wondering Ekimeno, why that will be correct if both the camera and the scanner uses same quality sensors and processing S/w ( and same size photo). Dont know the answer; but seems to me the result would be kind of similar. :)
 
ekimeno said:
I understand that scanning reduces the image to pixels, but I am 100% sure that a scanned film shot looks miles better than a shot from a digital P&S camera. Therefore my assumption that Steve's comment was in fact a joke :)
Click to expand...


Oh I agree a scanned image would be better than a P&S camera. I think Steves comment was tongue in cheek :) but I am never to sure with Steve :LOL:
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I am wondering Ekimeno, why that will be correct if both the camera and the scanner uses same quality sensors and processing S/w ( and same size photo). Dont know the answer; but seems to me the result would be kind of similar. :)
Click to expand...


The scan is a reproduction of a film frame, not the actual scene as recorded by a digital pas.
You have to be able to see a difference between a film frame and a digital frame.
The film frame will have anomalies, character, a "feel", whatever you want to call it, these would be recorded in a scan.
The digital frame will be clean, clinical and synthetic looking.
Both are now digital files, but look and feel completely different.
 
Oh, OK joxby...., I see your point.

BTW: I could never put my finger on what I liked about films and not about digital- I think your expression ' clean, clinical, synthetic looking' expresses it very well
 
ekimeno said:
That last comment was a joke, right? :cautious:
Click to expand...

No.

If you are only going to use an image on a web page, why would you need any more resolution than the page requires?

My comment was really a continuation of a comment I made in another thread about printing your images. About 85% of respondants stated that they only ever viewed their images on their monitors or digital frames. I thought it was funny that it was probably the same group of people who are always eager to get the new, increased resolution cameras as they become available.



Steve.
 
raathistle said:
Hi Steve, do you know where sells it though? The only one I could find listed was 10x10 vanilla MGRC, and ideally I want FB papers. It would be nice to print and not have to trim everything down to square and risk ruining it with my hamfisted cutting :)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. I have only ever seen it in an Ilford catalogue.

However, Ilford have a 'Direct to Dealer' service where you can call them, pay for your goods and they will send it out to the nearest participating dealer to you for you to pick it up.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/wheretobuy/buyilfordd2d.asp


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
No.

If you are only going to use an image on a web page, why would you need any more resolution than the page requires?

My comment was really a continuation of a comment I made in another thread about printing your images. About 85% of respondants stated that they only ever viewed their images on their monitors or digital frames. I thought it was funny that it was probably the same group of people who are always eager to get the new, increased resolution cameras as they become available.



Steve.
Click to expand...

Right - sorry, I didn't see the continuity, but do now. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top