Multiple Photographic Formats - Why?

What you will find in this article:
- Canon EOS 50D camera and Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, 70-200mm f2.8 L lens reviews,
- Leica M7 and M8 cameras and Leica Summicron-M 35mm ASPH, Summicron-M 50mm, Elmarit-M 90mm, Tele-Elmar 135mm lens reviews,
- Hasselblad XPan II and 45mm and 90mm lens reviews,
- Hasselblad 501CM and 503CW camera reviews,
- Hasselblad Distagon 50mm FLE and 60mm, Planar 80mm, Planar 100mm, Makro-Planar 120mm and Sonnar 150mm, 180mm and 250mm lens reviews.
- 35mm, medium format,
- Canon, Hasselblad, Hasselblad XPan, Leica and Linhof photos.


Generally the three main photographic formats are basically categories according to the film type used: 135 (small format film and digital often referred to as 35mm); medium format (based on 120 roll film capturing image frames of 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17 and even now 6x24! cm) and large format (based on cut sheet film most commonly 4x5 and 8x10) mostly recognised by the near permanent connection of the camera to a tripod and the photographer having his head under a dark cloth much of the time.

These formats continue to exist today because they offer differing capabilities. While traditional film photography has been in rapid decline during the "digital revolution", there are now industry reports of some revival of medium and large format photography.

It is in the 135 format that I have taken up digital capture for reasons detaild in a seperate article.

In this article I describe the types of systems I use in each format and why I bother.

Here I should comment that the various formats and systems I use have specific attributes that compliment my technical purposes as well as how I see the images I am attempting to make.

The underlying principle is "different horses for different courses".

I use:

• 135 format auto-focus SLR (Canon EOS 50D) for convenience when automation, long focal length lenses and speed are essential (family occasions, events such as air shows);
• 135 format rangefinder (Leica M7 and M8) for my photography that requires compactness, discretion, superlative optics and fast lenses in low light imaging;
• 6x6 medium format (Hasselblad 501CM / 503CW) system. Probably my most used system for all serious photography where quality images benefit from film space and prints benefit from large negatives. There is also a certain desirable look that is achieved by the square frame, 120 film and Zeiss optics;
• 4x5 large format (Linhof Technika V) system as my preferred "artistic" landscape shooting system enabling magnificent resolution of lots of detail on 6x12 and 4x5 transparencies. I use this system for all "technical" photography like architecture which often requires movements of the film plane or lens board.

I must add here that I also shoot a 4th “unofficial” format represented by only one camera – Hasselblad’s superb panorama format XPan II, which produces a frame size of 1.8x 135 format frame using standard 135 format film. The XPan fits perfectly between 135 and medium formats.

Where does my heart lie?

Remembering that like cameras themselves, photographic formats are simply a tool - a tool to enable optimal capture of what you feel you are seeing.

For me 6x6 medium format has an unmatched "look" and quality - a look that results form the 6x6 square format, the way in which Hasselblad / Carl Zeiss lenses "see" the frame and how 120 film resolves that frame. It's hard to define that look - but it's there and absolutely captivates me, not just in the viewfinder but especially in larger prints. It provides a compelling creative environment in which to "work" (I'd hardly call this work!).

Of course Hasselblad's 6x6 cameras were never intended to limit the photographer to a square image; the square frame was simply the decided format because it would allow sufficient room for image cropping while retaining the larger film area advantage. It enabled a relatively compact medium format camera and the convenience of never needing to shoot frames vertically.

As I experiment with equipment that may be 60 years old or contemporary; simple or complex; cheaply made or superbly engineered and made, I am always reminded of three critical things:
• Equipment doth not make a good photographer;
• Different horses suit different courses;
• There is no one best camera;
• Film is not dead;
• Film is not better than digital capture - just a different horse...
• Types of cameras are part of a system and are best selected based on the whole system.



Every craftsman will tell you the same thing about the tools he uses to maximise his craft – the best tools inspire you through:
• their appearance – their design and overall appeal;
• their ergonomics – their feel and how at home your hands are when using it;
• their function – how that look and feel translates into users’ functional requirements;
• their features – how the functionality is used to perform the tasks you require.

Since the Japanese began to dominate the camera industry from the 1960s/70s on, they have mastered the art of developing and implementing an amazing array of features – but, often to the detriment of optimal ergonomics and intuitive functionality.

On the other hand the Europeans, and the Germans in particular (reflecting a manufacturing cultural difference seen in so many products today from cars to electric drills) take a different design approach. They keep the number of features to a minimum thus reinforcing how the user might use the primary controls. They understand how these controls can achieve the same effects offered by the specific “bells and whistles” features of their Japanese competitors.

It’s been well said (with which I totally agree) that at some point, the range of features offered on a camera can become more of a hindrance than an benefit to the user – distracting the user from “seeing what he is seeing”. This has become a key element of the Leica Camera Company’s marketing promotions of its superb MP and M7 rangefinder 135 format cameras.

What do I first reach for?

Reasonably enough some think it must be confusing to shoot in multiple formats, creating a real dilemma when one needs to hurry out the door and take a camera along too. But, I’m never ever confused in that way. Sure I have a starting point – the format and my core equipment in that format. It’s the way I’d love to be able to shoot everything – the format of first choice; where my heart and mind both lie and probably where my creativity is most passionate. So, my answer is 6x6 medium format and funnily enough that is bang smack in the middle of the all formats I shoot, but has absolutely nothing to do with that coincidence.

Medium format – 6x6 – (in my case Hasselblad V series) is my "first choice" format and tool set. It’s the first thing I instinctively reach for.

But in the blink of an eye I will consider critical format determining aspects of what I am about to go out and shoot:

• Speed and convenience – need for: compact and / or discrete equipment, auto-focus, tele-lenses, frame rate;
• Durability – need for water and dust resistance due to the environment;
• How the images will be used – need for very large enlargements; need for a certain “look” that only specific formats can provide;
• Specialist considerations – what I’m shooting and any need to unique attributes like: lens and / or back movements; ultra-fast lens performance.

When you’ve had experience in various formats and over time migrate among them, you become very instinctive about their place in your photography. There is very little “overlap” among the different formats – except of course for one common element – they all take photos!

To my eyes no image frame comes close to those produced on 120 roll film and especially when the image on the frame is produced through the superlative Carl Zeiss optics. There is a certain “look” that MF images produce, which opinion I know is shared by most MF photographers I know.



But why 6x6? The answer lies in the statement by Hasselblad's founder, Victor Hasselblad at the time he developed his first MF SLR camera – 6x6 offers the optimal mix of 120 film image size and camera body and lens size to best meet the demands of the working professional.

Sure 6x4.5 enables a “compact” MF SLR, but just not enough multiples bigger than a 135 frame; 6x7 certainly offers a frame size advantage, but at too high cost of equipment size – just handle a Mamiya 6x7 SLR to see for yourself. Victor Hasselblad never saw 6x6 as a restriction to a square creative format, simply a maximum practical frame size within which the photographer could work. I myself, like many others, see the 6x6 square as a superb creative format and have the confidence in knowing that should I ultimately crop the image significantly, the final image will still stand the test of significant enlargement.

My initial entry into 6x6 MF photography began around 15 years before I got back into it after about a 5 year break due to the demands of family and business life. When I returned to MF, it was with a far greater passion to exploit its maximum capabilities. I decided upon the Hasselblad 6x6 system, due to:

• Its use of Carl Zeiss lenses – unquestionably the pre-eminent MF optics;
• System flexibility;
• Equipment reputation for reliability;
• Readily available large used equipment market;
• Strong resale values;
• The superb overall design, ergonomics and functionality.

Day to day my first equipment preference is always to shoot Hasselblad 6x6. When I’m leaving to take photos anywhere I begin there. Ultimately I may leave with a 4x5 view camera or a Leica rangefinder simply because that choice is the optimal “horse for the course” on the day.


Why the other formats?

No, my stated passion for 6x6 does not mean I have no passion for the other formats I shoot – quite the contrary. I come back to the statement: “different horses for different courses”!

My choice is based on:
1. When any one or mix of: speed of shooting (how fast things happen around me and how fast I must react and how fast the camera must respond); flexibility and responsiveness; likely need for relatively fast use of flash in a variety of ways; and reaching subjects or picking out details with telephoto focal lengths are crucial to how, where and when I shoot, my must be a very capable 135 format SLR.

For me that is my Canon EOS 1v HS and some of Canon’s L series lenses.

2. When environmental factors such as: rain, dust, physically challenging activity etc are involved, my choice again must be the Canon EOS 1v HS system. It’s virtually indestructible and is built with moisture and dust resistant seals and other devices in every cavity and control.

In my opinion the EOS 50D offers – excellent robust body construction and ergonomics, materials and finish; every feature one could want; fast AF capability even in low light; intuitive and ergonomically excellent design; packed with every feature I could need; and matched by an excellent lens system. I thoroughly enjoy using this camera every time I pick it up. Testament to these attributes is the fact that I am at home with it even if I’ve not used it in 6 months!



The EF “L series” lenses are about as good as it gets in 135 SLR systems. One pleasing feature is the use of metal in the lens barrel construction. Canon’s optical designers also do a good job in balancing the mix of optical aberration corrections.

Whilst I am generally gadget resistant, the myriad of controls and features on the 1v are out of the way and quite intuitive to activate, unlike so many Japanese SLR cameras.

The ETTL flash technology is outstanding – never have I had an image where I have included any amount of flash that were not perfectly exposed.

3. If use of very fast optics; compact equipment size and weight; and superlative optical performance are the needs list, my choice is easy – something compact, easy to use, quiet and very high quality.

Leica's M7 and M8 and their market leading lenses are my first choice for such tasks - film or digital.

Like the Hasselblad it is a creative joy to use with its features and ergonomics never intruding on my main task of making images.

The M7 and M8, like all Leica-M camera bodies are masterpieces of engineering excellence matched by superb design and quality of finish. Functionally it is feature rich without a maze of electronic micro-chip driven gadgets to get in the way. They are a life-long investment supported by some of the most remarkable Leica lenses available in any format.

Now Carl Zeiss and Voigtlander have joined that fold - offering wide choice to users.

The rangefinder camera concept is a revelation uniquely enabling discrete no-fuss photography as well as outstanding image quality - arguably the very best in 135 format.

The stand-out benefits of using a rangefinder camera are: being able to see what you are seeing within a broader context of what is happening – while the 50mm framelines, for example, show you the image you are framing as well as the wider view outside the framelines, one can see the broader context of what is not in the frame and what might move into or out of it.

The rangefinder design and the resulting more “correct” proximity of the lenses’ rear elements to the film plane enable more accurate focusing and optical imaging.

The Leica-M lenses also ensure that images will be detail rich and consistent from axis to the image outer field. Even lenses I have that are nearly 40 years old produce truly superlative images (eg the Tele-Elmar 135mm f4).

For my general day-to-day photography the Leica M7 or M8 is the ideal carry-everywhere tool, depending upon my choice to shoot film or digital. I also have great confidence knowing that should I decide to make a large enlargement, the Leica lens produces images will take me further than most other 135 format cameras' images due to their high resolving power.

4. When the subject material requires more complex camera capabilities and the ability to change the relationship between the film plane and the lens, a large format view camera is essential.

Here I refer to shooting subjects that challenge the fixed positioning of both the lens and the film plane in "conventional" cameras. Whether the issue is the need to correct converging verticals in architecture photography, or the need to change the plane of focus in landscape photography, a view camera's adjustable back and lens standard is the ideal tool. of the subject such as converging verticals.



Equally when the highest possible resolution of a subject and its reproduction is essential, then the largest possible film frame is equally essential thus requiring minimal enlargement.

In such cases my choice is the Linhof Technika V view camera with its brilliantly engineered lens and film back technical movement capabilities.

This 30 year old masterpiece is capable of an extensive range of lens and film back movements.

Using this camera is a major experience. It highlights the complex optical and physical issues involved in converting a 3 dimensional scene into a 2 dimensional image!

The excellence of German engineering, design and construction employed in the Linhof is obvious as soon as you see and hold this magnificent camera.

Because large format is an "open" system, I’ve been able to select a range of superb German lenses at little cost that match the image quality and other attributes such as tonality of my other systems. These Schneider and Rodenstock lenses are, like their cousins from Hasselblad / Carl Zeiss and Leica, capable of producing breathtaking images.

So, my selection of the Linhof 4x5 camera is a very easy one for very specific circumstances.

5. In a similar way, if my task ahead involves the need for very wide angle shooting – in 135 or medium formats – I carry equipment that reflects the way I see such wide angle images.

This camera is the Hasselblad XPan II.. It is essentially a medium format camera that uses 135 format film. I’ve always been reluctant to use very wide angle lenses of say 21mm to 28mm in 135 format and 38mm to 45mm in medium format simply because I don’t generally find their images appealing and in at least 80% of the cases where I do use such a focal lengths, I crop the images – crop them to a panorama view! Logically this is where the XPan fits into my shooting and equipment.

As a rangefinder camera using 135 format film (1.8x the standard 135 format frame), the XPan is essentially a medium format camera. It’s also the perfect partner to my Leica M7 and Hasselblad 501CM / 503CW cameras – my very wide angle lens (just mounted to a body). The 45mmm lens provides an angle of view equal to a 25mm lens in 135 format. The 90mm lens provides a 50mm equivalent.

Yet again, another very fine instrument and one that has a very specific role in my systems.

Thus it should be clear that these products / tools; their photographic formats and their capabilities are very different horses for very different courses and involve little true functional overlap among each other.


Photos and text copyright of f8Vision