I'm looking for a little info. A photographer at my wedding also used
what I thought he said was a large format camera, the pictures that
turned out were developed 5X5. Was this larger or medium format? I'd
like one of these cameras, don't really know why, kind of turning into
a collector of cameras. Been looking for the differences in these
cameras as well. thanks.
B-Worthey
Colin_D - 28 Dec 2006 23:06 GMT
> I'm looking for a little info. A photographer at my wedding also used
> what I thought he said was a large format camera, the pictures that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> B-Worthey
The print size is no indicator of negative size. Medium format cameras
are usually considered to be those that use 120 roll film. Large format
cameras use film 5x4 inches or bigger. I very much doubt he was using a
5x4 camera for a wedding, more likely a MF camera like a Rolleiflex or
Hasselblad, or one of a number of 6x4.5 cameras, all of which use roll film.
Colin D.

Signature
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
B-Worthey - 29 Dec 2006 00:45 GMT
> The print size is no indicator of negative size. Medium format cameras
> are usually considered to be those that use 120 roll film. Large format
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Colin D.
I believe he may have been using a Hasselblad, now that you mention it,
and I believe the prints he gave us were indeed a 5X5. This was not
the only camera he used, he used that one for more of the candid shots.
All turned out really good, we were impressed.
B-Worthey
B-Worthey - 29 Dec 2006 01:49 GMT
> The print size is no indicator of negative size. Medium format cameras
> are usually considered to be those that use 120 roll film. Large format
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
I re-read your post and my reply, I see what you are saying now about
the size of the print, film, etc. Forget what I said about the print
size then. I believe the camera he was using was a Haselblad camera.
B-Worthey
Andreas Gugau - 28 Dec 2006 23:16 GMT
B-Worthey schrieb:
> I'm looking for a little info. A photographer at my wedding also used
> what I thought he said was a large format camera, the pictures that
> turned out were developed 5X5.
I'd say 6x6. If the camera was bigger than a sixpack beer, large format
is also possible.
Andreas

Signature
Fotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/
Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/
Pat - 29 Dec 2006 03:06 GMT
If is was a Hasselblad, it was probably something like this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=5499
There are, arguably, the best cameras ever built. Everything in the
whole line is first-rate. They've done everything and have gone
everywhere. It was/is the camera you take with you when you
absolutely, positively have to capture the images with no excuse and
possibly no way to fix anything that breaks (such as when the nearest
repair shop is a hundred-thousand miles, more or less.
http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000014.jpg
They are still used and have digital versions as well.
Get one if you can. As long as film exists, you won't regret owning
one.
Maybe Randall can add more.
> I'm looking for a little info. A photographer at my wedding also used
> what I thought he said was a large format camera, the pictures that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> B-Worthey
Gerald Place - 29 Dec 2006 18:18 GMT
Inches or centimetres?
Large format would be 5x4 inches plus
Medium 6x6cm:
I suspect this is what you mean. Look for Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad if
you're flush. Or a used Yashica Mat would be very inexpensive and get you
started (or Mamiya C330...)
Gerald
> I'm looking for a little info. A photographer at my wedding also used
> what I thought he said was a large format camera, the pictures that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> B-Worthey