[APML]: Medium Format

[joneil@obs.empath.on.ca (Joseph O'Neil)]

  There have been a few messages about medium format, and using one 
myself, here is my 2 cents worth.

  They are simply wonderful.  On the surface, they appear more expensive, 
but I bought my Mamyia C330 outfirt used for less money than a 
"comperable" outfit in Nikon body and lenses new would cost.

   They are heavy as a general sule, but I find you get used to that 
quickly.

   The film seems more expensive - an average of 10 to 12 exp per roll vs 
36 for the same price, but I have found that the quality of my pictures 
has gone way up and I waste less film.

  I should point out that i use my equipment for daytime just as much as 
astro-photos, so I am looking at this from both sides.

 With 35mm film, I usually buy it in 100 ft /30m bulk rolls.  In that 
size, I had the tenency to shoot film like a shotgun - blast away and 
haope you take something good.

  Medium format for any avenue of photography makes you stop and think.  
The result, picutres turn out better.

  Except for soem of the newer, very expensive bodies, thankfully most MF 
cameras are manual and mechanical - perfect astro cameras.

  Lenses are generally slower - F2.8 is pretty fast in medium format.  
However, I can shoot all my MF lenses wide open, and get sharper star 
images than my 35mm Nikkor lenses, even stopped down Nikkors.  I can tell 
you why - but some other day.

  Lenses are expensive - less choice than 35mm.  However, I find good
lenses for astro-photo in 35mm increasingly hard to find, whereas almost 
all MF lense I have used work great.  As for cost - agian, these things 
are relative.  Right now in a locla camera store there are two used 
lenses for sale I would love to own.  Therre is a used 500mm Tessar (for 
Hassleblad) for $3500 CDN, and  used 400mm Nikkor for about $4000 CDN.   
The Nikkor is larger in clear apature, and faster - F4 vs F8 if I 
remember - but I would love to try out that Tessar.  Hassy lenes are 
often sharp enough to shave with.  

 Oh - you will  hear owners of MF cameras complain about this lens not 
being quite as sharp as they would like, or some other complaint - but it 
is like listening to Porche owner complaing his car is .002 seconds 
slower than his Ferrari in the 0 to 100 run.  Remember - all things are 
relative.

    Film choices are less than 35mm, and new films in 35mm often take a 
year to come out in 120 size.  Soem never make it at all.  I cannot prove 
it,a nd many people will say I am crazy, but I am beginning to beleive  
that the overall quality of 120 film is slightly superior to most 35mm 
film.  This is just form expereince.  I can shoot something with my 
Mamyia and with my Nikon, both using the smae brand of film, and even 
taking into account  the larger negative, things "look better".  

  For example _ I find it is easier for me to manipulate the negative 
during development wiht 120 as opposed to 35mm.  Subtle changes in 
strengths of development, developing techniques, etc, all seem to work 
better in 120 for me.  No scientific prrof here - just a gut feeling.

  Anyhow, if anyone does decide to go medium format, my advice is to make 
use of it for vacation, daytime and family photos too.  You will never 
regret it.
joe