The Medium Format Advantage

The Medium Format Advantage

This entry is part 9 of 14 in the Film Photography Session
« PreviousNext »

This article will dive head-first into the world of medium format photography. We’ll take you through a basic introduction, then look at different cameras, film, scanners and processing techniques to give this type of photography a try!


Are You a Megapixel Junkie?

Do take advantage of affordable online printing to get poster-sized prints made of your dogs to hang over your mantle like a fine Rembrandt? Or maybe you just like to give great prints as gifts? Well then, I’ve got a surprise for you.

Digital photography is great, but when it comes to producing big, detailed images, nothing is better medium format film. Your camera may be 12, 15 or even 20 megapixels, but a medium format negative or slide can be 50 megapixels. In this tutorial, I’ll show you why this old format still reigns supreme and I’ll tell you how to get started inexpensively in the world of medium format.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Size Matters

In the world of film, size makes all the difference. Medium format film is over four times larger than 35mm film. There have a been dozens of film formats over the years. Remember APS, or Advantix, or 110? Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Only two formats have really survived; 35mm and medium format.

Medium format includes two distinct types. 120 film has a paper backing and can take twelve 6cm x 6cm images per roll. 220 film does not have a paper backing and can take twenty four 6cm x 6cm images per roll. Not all medium format cameras accept 220 film. The following photo was made on 120 film.

Medium Format Photography Tips

The Math

I don’t have a chalk board, so try to stick with me here. Let’s say the average brand new DSLR is 12 megapixels. In a normal 3:2 format, that translates to almost 4,300 pixels on the widest side of the image.

My cheap film scanner will scan a 35mm negative so the wide side is 6,300 pixels. This means that, in theory, a 35mm negative is 26 megapixels. But if you take into account the grain of different film speeds, it’s really not that large.

My cheap film scanner will scan a 6cm x 6cm negative at over 10,000 pixels across one side. That’s over 50 megapixels. There are a few digital backs and medium format-style digital cameras that can shoot 50 megapixel images, but they cost over $20,000 USD. The image below is a 100% crop of the previous image. You can actually count how many windows were in room by using the reflection in her eye.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Cost Analysis

If you know cameras, you’re probably laughing right now. What about film costs, you say? What about processing costs? What about scanning costs? Not to mention, a Hasselblad body alone can cost $3,000 USD.

Don’t worry. Let me break it down for you. There are a variety of great, fully functional medium format cameras available, new and used. I got a great deal on mine. It cost me around $250 USD. My Epson 4490 scanner, which scans 35mm and medium format, cost less than $150 USD. So, I have got about $400 USD invested. The $19,600 USD that I saved will pay for a lot of film and processing. Below is a photo produced with the very affordable Bronica SQ-A.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Getting Started

I’ve already mentioned some of things that you need to get started with medium format. You’ll need a camera, of which there are a wide variety. You’ll need film. You may need a handheld light meter if your camera doesn’t have one.

Another important thing to consider is that you’re going to need to find a place to process your film. If you live in a big city, there may still be a lab that does it. If you aren’t that lucky, you can do some online research and find a mail order processor.

Finally, you’ll probably want a scanner to transfer your negatives or slides to your computer. Below you can see how medium format film compares to 35mm film.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Cameras

The camera will be the biggest chunk of your investment. The first thing to consider is whether to buy new or used. This will mostly depend on your budget. In terms of new cameras, Hasselblad, Rollei and Mamiya all still make high-end medium format cameras. When looking for lower end cameras, consider Seagull or Kiev.

For used cameras, look for all those brands plus Zeiss, Yashica, Bronica and Moskva. Of course, there are also the inexpensive Dianas and Holgas as well. KEH, B&H, Adorama and Lomography are all good places to start looking for both new and used cameras of all types. The camera pictured below is a Zeiss Nettar 515-2 folder. It created huge negatives and can be obtained quite cheaply.

Medium Format Photography Tips

The TLR

There are several different types of medium format cameras. The TLR (Twin Lens Reflex) camera has two lens. One for focusing and one for taking the picture. These are the cameras you look down through the top of to see. These are the cheapest kind of “professional” cameras.

The main disadvantage to these cameras is that they have a fixed lens, meaning you’re limited to the one focal length lens the camera comes with. Seagull (inexpensive) and Rollei (very expensive) still produce these cameras. Used Yashicas can be found easily for a good price, and Mamiya produced the only interchangeable lens TLR. Below is my Yashica 635, which has the ability to also shoot 35mm film with a special adapter.

Medium Format Photography Tips

The SLR

We all know what an SLR (Single Lens Reflex) cameras look like. They are the most prolific and common type of advanced camera available. But medium format SLRs can look a lot different. Depending on your budget, I would look at a Bronica or Hassleblad SLR. The Bronica is what I purchased.

When buying a kit, you’ll need to buy many pieces because the systems were designed to be highly customizable. My kit (lens, body, viewfinder and film back) was very affordable. Hassleblads on the other hand are infamous. They are highly sought after and expensive. They are also the only cameras that have ever been to the moon. Below, you can see my $250 USD Bronica SQ-A kit complete with an 80mm lens, waist level viewfinder and 120 film back.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Buying and Processing Film

Unlike 35mm film, bulk loading is pretty much out of the question. So you’ll be buying single rolls of film. The SLRs with interchangeable film backs make specific backs for 120 and 220 film, so make sure you get the right film for your back.

If you have a different kind of camera, then be sure to check the inside for film compatibility information. If there isn’t any information available assume that it uses 120. Most 35mm film types are also available in 120/220. So pick what you’re comfortable with. A 400 ISO color negative is usually a good place to start.

As I mentioned before, getting medium format film developed can be a challenge. If you’re shooting black and white film, I would suggest developing the film yourself. There’s a great tutorial on this site about developing Kodak T-Max film.

Developing color film can also be done at home, but the temperature tolerances need to be tighter. Most developing labs will be able to send out medium format film for you, but it will cost quite a bit. Sending the film yourself will save you quite a bit of money. So doing some online research will really pay off.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Scanning Film

In order to scan your film, I would highly suggest getting a flatbed scanner with a light in the lid. There are several models from several different manufacturers available. There are dedicated film scanners that accept medium format film, but they are really expensive.

The flatbed is a solid option and will yield wonderful results. The Epson 4490 that I own will allow you to scan film strips up to 12 cm long, meaning that it will accept negatives from some of the more interesting medium format cameras. Just look for flatbed scanners that are labeled “photo” or something similar. It should be pretty easy to determine whether it will scan film or not. The image below is an extra long 6cm x 9cm negative produced by the Zeiss camera pictured above.

Medium Format Photography Tips

Conclusion

In terms of value, it’s really hard to beat a good medium format film camera for clarity and resolution. Because the demand for film cameras has fallen so dramatically, used cameras can be obtained for a fraction of what they cost new.

And the fact that companies are still dedicating resources to produce new versions of some of these cameras is a testament to the quality and desirability of the images they produce. If you don’t mind the size, there is really no other way to get so much bang for your buck.

Medium Format Photography Tips

  • http://www.thedphoto.com Diana Eftaiha

    wow! thats probably the most interesting article ive read in a long time. i actually searched ebay for some used medium format cameras youve mentioned and they are quite CHEAP!!

    thanks for a great post

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/theclubhousekid the clubhouse kid

    excellent arguments!
    the only problem is developing (specially in smaller cities or in the South American jungle, like in my case).

  • http://tylerwainright.com Tyler Wainright

    I’ve been wanting a cheap TLR for some time now. I may have to pull the trigger and pick one up. Problem for me is finding a quality lab that won’t laugh at me when I ask to have some 120 film developed.

  • http://myporttownsend.com/ michael

    I’m not knocking medium format. My first serious camera was a Rolliflex TLR and it made great photos, of much higher resolution than a 35mm. What I have to take issue with is your too simple math.

    Yes, you can get high resolution with an inexpensive scanner, especially converting a 2 1/4 inch format iamge. However, flatbed scanners seldom handle the gamut that a modern digital sensor can. And film has grain. Magnify an image, as you’re doing with your scanner and you magnify the grain. Also, can you color calibrate your scanner? Chances are no, or not very well. Again, here’s a point where you’re going to lose quality in your image.

    Now if you want to shell out some serious money for your scanner, you can (mostly) get past these issues, but I’ve never seen an inexpensive scanner that gives the absolute image quality of a modern digital camera.

    You offer a fun idea. The old cameras are elegant pieces of machinery. But unless you’re willing to get you photos professionally scanned by a top lab, you’re not going to realize the extra resolution and you’re still going to sacrifice color range and accuracy.

    • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
      Author

      I found that quality of my Epson 4490 scanner to be more than adequate. I shoot with a Nikon D700 full-frame SLR when I use digital, and the resolution doesn’t compare. The color range, as you said, may be slightly better with the digital camera.

      But the advantages of the set-up far outweigh the disadvantages in terms of image quality. The scans have far better dynamic range because film has far better dynamic range. When shooting the E-6, the colors are often better than when using my digital camera.

      If you spend $500 dollars a medium format set-up, and $500 on a digital camera, the digital camera won’t stand a chance. And that’s the point I was driving at. When working on a budget, medium format film is a way to produce high quality prints that could have come from a much more expensive kit.

      When comparing digital cameras in the $3000 and up range to medium format, then the debate gets more complicated.

      • Tom Fish

        You have a good point here, but ever thought of combining the two?
        i know a lot of people make prints of their 35mm film using a DSLR, utilizing it’s far superior sensor, and with a bit of fiddling wouldn’t it be possible to do the same with medium format?
        it might have to be a bit of an interesting rig, but still..
        I know it kind of nullifies the medium format budget argument using a DSLR, but in case people have that option, maybe it’s worth mentioning/trying?

      • Andrew Molitor

        FIlm has more dynamic range?

        This simply isn’t true. A modern digital sensor will deliver at least 12 stops, 14 or more at the high end (at lower ISO settings, of course). Film is traditionally considered to be about 10-11 stops, and frequently gives you rather less.

        I say this as a guy who shoots film pretty much exclusively.

        • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
          Author

          Andrew, again, you’re referring to the dynamic range of digital cameras in a very high price range. The modern D90 (which is still $1000 camera) has 12 stops of dynamic range at it’s lowest ISO settings. Which I think is a bit overstated.

          The thing you are not considering is that for the most part this range leans heavily to the shadows. Highlights on almost all digital cameras are very prone to being clipped. This isn’t the case with film, the highlights gradually fall off instead of getting chopped.

          There have been claims (and I think they are probably a bit overstated as well), that black and white films can have a dynamic range of 14-17 stops.

          The other issue is that cameras around the $500 mark have even less dynamic range than that. Check out the chart at the bottom this page to see comparisons of dynamic range of digital cameras – http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90IMATEST.HTM

        • James

          tsk tsk. noob.

  • janosh

    But how much do you spent on film and developing the film? Take this into account when you do the maths …

  • Andrew Molitor

    The closeup of the child’s eye is nice, but if you pull it out and fool around a little bit, you’ll see that it’s not as impressive as is described. For instance, just down-res it by a factor for 4 (from a 600×600 image to a 150×150) and you’ll see that you’ve lost no actual detail — the result looks slightly chunkier, sure, but are there any details you can see in the original that are lost in the down-rezzed version?

    If you want to get technical, then you can up-rez the 150×150 back to 600×600, and subtract it from the original. The difference is pretty much nothing. Some noise goes away, basically.

    If you go down much further, you actually do start to lose real information, So, by my estimate, the 10,000×10,000 scan of the little girl is very very close, visually, to a 2500×2500 scan, so suddenly the
    100megapixel image feels a lot more like 6 megapixels. Gulp!

    The lesson here is that while medium format CAN deliver absurdly high resolution images, it frequently doesn’t perform as well as one might calculate naively. I shoot 6×7 a fair bit, and I’m pretty careful, but I feel that I am doing quite well to get 90 dots/mm on the film, which translates to about the equivalent of 34 megapixels. Note that if I shoot at, say, f/16 or higher, the inherent limits of optics will limit me to 16 megapixels (equivalent) or less. My camera is excellent, but it still does not hold the film PERFECTLY flat, so the focus is slightly off, here and there.

    The result is that my estimated 34 megapixel (equivalent) is a goal, which I rarely reach.

    • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
      Author

      Andrew, I think your calculation of 34 megapixels is probably a more practical and functional calculation. My goal with this article was to simply inform people that medium format film in a lot of way is still superior to a lot of digital cameras, especially considering the value of used medium format cameras.

      As for blowing up the low-rez version and comparing it to the shot of the eye, instead of focusing on the reflection in her eye, look at her eye lashes.

      I was curious, so I did the same experiment you did, and suprisingly, you could make out a lot of the detail in the reflection even in that rezzed-down 600 pixel version. But her eye lashes vanish in the low-rez version. It’s sort of spooky…. lol.

      • Andrew Molitor

        I agree with your point, completely. I adore medium format, and I spend a lot of time and a fair amount of money messing about what it.

        My only complaint is that your pixel-peeping is dubious. See:

        http://www.molitor-design.com/home/rez

        for the images I constructed (note: I don’t see her eyelashes vanishing, when I scaled down and back up, not sure what you’re seeing) and some commentary.

        • http://shaneparkerphoto.com shane

          I too enjoy medium format, it’s very ‘romantic’ to me. However, I also find myself in agreement with Michael Reichman on the subject of pixel peeping and couldn’t help but be slightly annoyed at this entire article in that context.

          With that said, I appreciate the article simply because it does introduce medium format to those not familiar with it while providing some decent information about the format… and that’s a good thing.

          Like someone else said though, you gotta take into account film/developing costs as well as the time commitment, this isn’t as cut and dry as the writer hints at.

          • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
            Author

            Andrew and Shane – I’m apologize for the article on appealing to you. I examined your article, and while I do see your point, there is something that I can point out that you haven’t considered.

            Her eye is not exactly in focus because the lens was set at f/2.8, and considering that I was shooting that 60th or possibly 30th of the second, there is probably some camera shake in there as well. The photo in your post was was made with a wide angle lens, which inherently has more depth-of-field, not to mention your lens probably doesn’t go to f/2.8.

            You can download the original file at http://ckpj,com/mallory005.jpg

            Be warned – it’s a 50mb file.

            Maybe you’ll be able to find an area with more detail.

            There are two other things that need to be considered as well:

            First, that 6mp digital camera obviously has some in-camera sharpening going on.

            Second, the lens I shot that photo with was an 80mm f/2.8 Bronica PS lens. Lens design and coatings have come a LONG way since that lens was produced.

    • james

      I agree. I fiddled a bit, downsizing the eye such that the full image dimensions would roughly match the output of my 4.7MP Sigma DP2. Even downsampled that far, the Sigma was sharper and had better image quality and I saw no significant loss of information in the image from the medium format film.

      In my opinion, the little Sigma produces more quality image information in its modest 2640×1760 pixel files than you have in a 10,000×10,000 pixel flatbed scan of medium format film. And if you upsample the Sigma file with a good interpolation algorithm like that of Genuine Fractals to match the medium format scan’s pixel dimensions, you end up with not only a similar amount of real information, but also much higher acutance. And you can’t really properly sharpen that soft scan. You will just be hugely enhancing the visibility of the noise, which is finer than the real image information.

      I have been thinking of going to film, maybe medium format or even 4×5, but I am frustrated by the problem of scanning the film decently. Medium format film drum-scanned might beat most DSLRs, but who can afford to drum scan every image? And how many can afford a Nikon 9000 medium format film scanner, which itself will only produce scanned output roughly equal to a good DSLR? Sure, the claimed resolution would make it seem better, but the results are quite soft. It doesn’t yield 4000DPI of real, quality pixel-level image information.

      Even large format film scanned on an Epson V750 won’t really produce results that beat a good full frame DSLR for resolution and sharpness. The scanner is claimed by the manufacturer to scan at something crazy like 6400dpi, but based on my research, it only yields about 1000DPI of real, quality pixel-sharp information comparable to the pixel level output of a good DSLR. 5 inches times 4 inches times 1000 DPI is only a 20 MP image. That can be beat by a Sony SLT-A77 with an APS-C sensor! Sure, there is much more information on the 4×5 negative or slide itself, but good luck getting it onto your computer without spending a fortune! Drum scanning a 4×5 runs around $100 most places for a single frame! If you are doing BW, you can develop and maybe even print with an enlarger at home for a modest sum. But color is another matter.

      The argument that you can get better resolution for cheap by using film is just not true anymore. There are other valid reasons for choosing film though. For me, the appeal of film is something rather feely and hard to put numbers on. Something seems soulless about digital. Maybe it is just missing a sense of nostalgia like we have with film.

  • Pablo

    Forgot to mention the Pentax 645d (Digital medium format). :)

  • http://www.philipharper.info/ Philip

    I taught myself Photography on digital which was really handy to learn about ISO,Aperture, Shutter Speed etc quite quickly, and cheaply but now I’m going the other way into film, purely for the craft and quality side of things. The quality is far far far superior on Medium Format which really has to be experienced for yourself. You can pick up used medium format cameras on eBay fairly cheap too, I got a Mamiya m645 + 4 lenses for £300 from the states too. or get a lovely Holga for £29!

    Do it, it’s much more fun. Digital has its place, but Film is so much more hands on and the results are infinitely more satisfying.

  • http://i3mphotostock.com Claire

    For those of us only familiar with the DSLR this is a really useful and interesting article. I am going to keep a lookout for some of the models mentioned and maybe experiment a little.

  • Jebby

    Good article though Large Format Photography is even more impressive and there is less debate as to it outperforming a DSLR. It’s also much less accessible and even more pricey to get involved in. I like medium format though. You get the benefit of shooting film yet it’s much easier to get quality at least equal to a modern DSLR than shooting 35mm film.

  • David

    Hi Cameron,

    I appreciated the clarity of your article, although, as some have suggested, you ought to include the cost of film and processing into the economics. Having said that, if you are comparing medium format film to a full frame DSLR then the total cost of ownership will probably stack up in favour of the used medium format camera.

    However, my point is that I have been experimenting with a 35mm SLR photography and I am still not completely won-over by the quality of the digital images I have received from the lab – largely because of the colour saturation. My films have been processed by a competent local camera shop, rather than a pharmacy/supermarket; and the resultant scans provided on CD. I asked them to provide TIFF files – about 18mb – 22mb file sizes. Could I expect better quality digital files by scanning myself with the Epson 4990 or equivalent, if I went medium format? I know this is confusing formats, but I wouldn’t want to move to another film format and be disappointed again.

    I should add I shoot mainly ISO 200 speed film.

    Kind regards, David

  • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
    Author

    David,
    The different between medium format and 35mm is huge when it comes to clarity and resolution. As for saturation, if you’re not getting enough with 200 ISO film in 35mm then you won’t get it with medium format. But I would suggest trying a different film, possibly Kodak VC film (vivid color). It comes in both 35mm and medium formats. You will also find that scanning the negatives yourself will give you a lot more control over how your images look. You can put a lot more contrast in an image when you’re doing your own scanning.
    ~Cameron

  • Darimondé

    So Cameron, you wrote this article over two years ago and you know what bothers me the most, is that as usual somebody has to turn this into a debate about digital resolution.
    Please people, his article is about value. Bang for the buck. Return on investment. Not film trumps digital under all conditions. And for the digital users, resolution is not everything when it comes image quality. No really, it’s not.
    One of the many reasons many of us continue to use or have begun using film is that it is a different experience and the cost of entry is very inexpensive. I recently bought myself a complete Mamiya RB67 Pro for $300. There IS NO digital camera in THAT price range that can create the SAME image quality in a raw format that is guaranteed viewable in twenty plus years by the good old mark 1 eyeball.
    As for the cost of developing, I cut out the middleman and develop my film at home. Here’s a link to the youtube video that got me started on that:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeNIwJGHjSA
    Here’s the kit: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1181-Arista-Rapid-E6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Pint
    Shoot all day, see it that night. Cheers

    • http://ckpj.com Cameron Knight
      Author

      Thanks for the supportive comment Darlmonde. I just recently did a portrait shoot with my Bronica SQ-A. It is a serious camera for serious work!

  • Hennie de Lange

    I still own two twin lens reflex Mamiya bodies, C220 and C330. Have lenses 80mm, 180mm and 250mm.
    I am a hoby photographer and I can not justify the expense of a full frame DSLR. The MF Mamiyas I collected over time and allows me when the occasion calls for it to deliver images of real quality.
    Comparing film with digital is a bit illogical because it really is a different medium. The availability of MF kit at reasonable prices create oprtunity for everyday folk to experience photography that 20 years ago would have been the reserve of serious pros. This does not detract from the exelent oportunities in the digital medium. I enjoy both.Cameron thanx for your article, despite the contraversy.

  • Marc

    Thanks for the article.

    A few years ago I went back in film photography, first buying myself a decent 35 mm Nikon equipment and then TLR (YashicaMat). I like film a lot since I’ve been using BW lab 25 years ago. Until recently the film also was most affordable entry into more serious photography. But lately, the prices of second hand digital equipment are so low that very soon the debate of cutting costs in favour of analog photography equipment are/will be obsolete. Only thong left will be the specificity and characteristics of the photography medium.