I've been thinking of getting into medium format, is it worth it?

[Dash_be_trippn]

I've been into film photography for a while now and I was wondering if getting into medium format is a good idea? I've been looking at medium format cameras, and the Bronica S2A seamed like a good fit for me. Now that camera is very very expensive and I wanted to hear from people with more experience than me before I pull the trigger. Part of me is saying don't get it its just more money to spend a completely different kind of film I don't have. While another part of me is saying 6x6 looks incredible, film is getting more popular, and if its not my thing and If I keep it in good shape it should have a decent re sell value. Which one should I listen to? Or do I just need a slap on the wrist and a reality check on medium format film photography as a whole?

 

[Strodav]

I have a Mamiya 645 1000s that I bought in the 80s. I still use it today mainly with Kodak Tri-X 400 B&W film. I develop it myself in HC110 (Ansel Adams recipe) then scan to digital -> LrC or PS -> post or print. If you scan at a high enough resolution, the character of the film is preserved. I like the size of the negative as it captures more detail than 35mm film and is much easier to look at backlit compared to 35mm film. I do sometimes shoot color film (Ektar 100) or slide film. Slide film that size looks magnificent on a light table.

The Mamiya is just plain fun to use. It is completely manual. ISO comes with the film, aperture is selected with an aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed is set by rotating a knob, and focus is set with the lens focus ring looking at a split image prism on a horizontal piece of glass. There is a battery for the electronic shutter. I have a Pentax spot meter (and a Gossen Luna Pro) to help with exposure. You are not going to use a completely manual camera for action shots, but there is a great deal of satisfaction in shooting still scenes like landscapes, architecture, nature, and portraits. You are forced to take your time, which gives time to truly set up the shot worrying about exposure and composition.

Is it worth it? It’s a different creative tool with it’s own aesthetic. You either like it or not. Personally, I really like the results I get compared to the more sterile digital camera images. Digital camera noise is NOT the same as film grain, which gives the images much of their personality. I use Tri-X for it’s grain and it can be pushed to enhance grain. You can buy much finer grain films, like T-max, but then it looks more like digital. Color film has a grain structure, slides not so much, but they still have a different color space than digital. They just seem richer with more texture.

 

[cgw]

I've been into film photography for a while now and I was wondering if getting into medium format is a good idea? I've been looking at medium format cameras, and the Bronica S2A seamed like a good fit for me. Now that camera is very very expensive and I wanted to hear from people with more experience than me before I pull the trigger. Part of me is saying don't get it its just more money to spend a completely different kind of film I don't have. While another part of me is saying 6x6 looks incredible, film is getting more popular, and if its not my thing and If I keep it in good shape it should have a decent re sell value. Which one should I listen to? Or do I just need a slap on the wrist and a reality check on medium format film photography as a whole?

Seriously? Forget the Bronica. It's a 50 year-old camera with near-zero repair resources. It's a metal brick that's heavy and awkward. I had a beat-to-hell Bronica S I liked only for its Nikkor lens. When its shutter cocking gears failed, I pitched it but kept the lens. The focal plane Bronicas are over-priced relics now.

Unless you'll be processing/scanning/printing yourself, you need a lab, preferably local. Though it's claimed "film is getting more popular," I'm not seeing vanished labs making a comeback in response to the reported revival. Film isn't getting any cheaper, either. Without accessible lab services and film supplies, the fun can fade fast with mail-order.

I'd buy the newest MF gear you can afford. Do some research on repair resources for whatever make you choose. Frankly, I'd look into 645 system cameras from Mamiya, Pentax and Bronica. Try to find a kit with a prism finder(WLFs are near-useless on 645 cameras for portrait-oriented shots), a working film back and a 75-80mm lens--a rough 50mm equivalent in 35mm.

 

[webestang64]

Unless you'll be processing/scanning/printing yourself, you need a lab, preferably local. Though it's claimed "film is getting more popular," I'm not seeing vanished labs making a comeback in response to the reported revival. Film isn't getting any cheaper, either. Without accessible lab services and film supplies, the fun can fade fast with mail-order.

Agreed. Yes, peeps are shooting more film but no "new" labs here in St. Louis. Just our lab getting more film but mainly because we are the last one left.

 

[Soocom1]

The lab thing is the core problem and repair, but there are resources.
The problem with Med. Format film cameras, like all other film cameras is that they are not being made or really serviced anymore.

HOWEVER!!!


Being a MF and LF shooter, you cannot beat overall IQ because of the format size.

Sorry folks, but in photography, size matters.


The amount of detail that is captured by MF is in many instances 2-3 times of the detail caught on 35mm, or APS for that matter.


I have used a Bronica ETRS and SQ cameras along with Mamiya 645, and 67 systems.

If you go Bronica remember that the larger the area the less frames you get. So you have to go serious old school on film use and set up of the image.

I love MF so much I have two older MF digital systems in play. Despite their age, Phase on is still making backs, and Fuji has gone the route of the Fuji/Hasselblad X systems.

MF is not dead at all. Its really up to you on how much you want to spend. But its fun, and the quality of the image is obvious from the first clean print.

 

[480sparky]

If you shoot black & white, you'll have a gazillion options if you want to do your own developing. And you can do so without a huge cash outlay, especially if you already soup 35mm. If so, you're just the cost of dinner for two away from doing so.

Printing may be an issue however. If you can't set up a darkroom, even a temporary one, you'll need to send the negs out to a lab. To take full advantage of using all your options developing both the film and prints is ideal.

If you do have a darkroom, do you have an enlarger and if so, is it capable of holding 6x negs? If so, you'll simply need another carrier and (ideally) a lens for the larger negs.

 

[webestang64]

The problem with Med. Format film cameras, like all other film cameras is that they are not being made

Hasselblad does still makes a 120 film camera (H6X) but they are $8000 for the body/finder.

 

[Rickbb]

Hasselblad does still makes a 120 film camera (H6X) but they are $8000 for the body/finder.

He probably meant one that normal people can afford. Lol

 

[Rickbb]

And only you can determine if it’s worth it. But med format will without doubt make sharper poster size prints.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

So much depends on what you want to do. If it is a hobby and you like to experiment and tinker, I find a bigger format is easier to handle, view, and print. If you are going to shoot and have a lab do the work then the only difference is cost.

Of course gear, lenses, film etc. are more costly; bigger stuff bigger cost. Unless you plan to to make money with it, I all comes down to the fun factor.

 

[limr]

I agree that the Mamiya 645 cameras are fun to shoot and medium format can be interesting - the depth and the quality of the image differ, sometimes in subtle ways and other times in more obvious ways. The 645 ProTL was my first medium format camera, and I will admit that it took me a while to take to it, mostly because I was still treating it like a 35mm and things just didn't "click" for me at first.

Once it did, then I got totally hooked and expanded my camera selection. In this process, I found that I love the square format MF cameras. I can't explain it totally, but there's something about the square format that I just respond to more naturally and that fits the kind of shooting I prefer to do. I still like my Mamiya 645, but I'm more likely to default to one of my TLRs.

There are valid arguments for getting the newest equipment you can find. There's also an argument to be made for starting with the camera that makes you excited about trying out MF in the first place, no matter what any of us say about which camera is better or not. If you're thinking about it and the Bronica is what you have your eye on, there's only one way to find out if you're going to like it. And if you end up not being too crazy about the Bronica, maybe try something else. Just as with 35mm film cameras, there are different options, and it might take a few tries to hit on the thing that 'clicks' for you.

 

[IanG]

I'm another Mamiya 645 user, plenty around at reasonable prices, I bought mine to replace stolen Mamiya C33 & C3 cameras 38 years ago. Although I tend to use a TLR more these days alongside my LF gear, I also like the square format.

I have used Bronica S2a cameras but they wouldn't be my choice if moving to MF. As said earlier, size matters and these days I rarely shoot 35mm, largely because images from 35mm films don't sit well alongside those from 120 and 5x4 (or larger).

Ian

 

[petrochemist]

And only you can determine if it’s worth it. But med format will without doubt make sharper poster size prints.

+1
For slow moving subjects like landscape & portraits there is a distinct advantage to medium format, especially if you want to print big, but for sports & wildlife I'd say smaller formats are more suitable - just try finding a lens with a 500mm equivalent FOV for any 120 film camera!

 

[Dash_be_trippn]

Thank you so much for the feedback guys, I've definitely got a plethora of options. I'm definitely strongly considering a 6x6 or a 645, but who knows I might decide 35mm is enough for now. But as of right now I think I'll get a MF camera and a roll of tri-x and gold 200 just to get a feel for it and if things don't work out I'll pass it on to someone who'll enjoy it more than me, and hopefully I won't lose a lot of money in the process. Once again thank you so much for the response's, it's great to have a community to turn to, especially with something as niche as MF film photography.

 

[ac12]

Well, if you always wanted to, the prices on used MF gear is down where it is "affordable."
Back in 2005, I bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M + 80 + back, for less than what I paid for a new D70. Considering what they used to cost, that was a BARGAIN. So I finally had the camera that I thought I could never afford.

If you want to dip your toe into MF, there are the TLRs.

Just be aware that those cameras are OLD, and will in all likelihood need a CLA. So budget for that.
A camera that has been sitting in the closet for several decades, rather than being used, likely has dried out lube, and the shutter could be sticky.

And if you get bored with MF, there is 4x5 LF