A strange title, I admit, but somehow it describes my state of (photographic) mind at the moment. Not sure where and how to start, so let’s talk size first.

About size

With film, for photography (not cinema), there are basically three kind of formats: 35mm (or leica-format), medium format (ranging from 6x4,5cm to 6x17cm) and large format (4”x 5” and bigger). With film it is simple: the bigger the film, the better the quality.

As a wedding photographer shooting film I used the first two formats: 35mm with a Contax rangefinder and medium format with a Rolleiflex. The Contax for speed, the Rollei for (posed) portraits. Though I was very happy with the results from the Contax, the Rollei astonished me time-after-time. There is simply something special on medium-format which 35mm can not capture.

Enter digital. Formats were shrinked heavily: for consumer cameras a sensor about 65% the size of 35mm is used. For “professional” gear the sensor equals 35mm (nowadays called full frame, FF) and medium format is everything bigger than 35mm. Large format does not exist nor does the size of 6x6cm or bigger. We come close to a sensor of 6x4,5cm but with an enormous price. One could buy a small house instead. As with film, the bigger the sensor, the better the quality.

So, for both film and digital, bigger is better. I’d love to have a large-format film camera and take portraits with it. Sometimes I’d even look into a webshop for prices and so on, but living in Croatia leaves me without the possibility to buy big sheets of paper and get them developed. The latter I can’t do myself due to lack of space. Besides, it is probably not the most ecologically either. So no, large-format, no film, for me, pity.

When writing this, all my digital cameras have a small sensor. They deliver great results, full of detail and rich colors. We live in times were technology gives us so much for such a (relative) low price. Simply amazing. Yet, no matter how good my cameras are, they do have a small sensor and no matter the technology we have, there will always be a difference with a big(ger) sensor, simply due to the law of physics. And this difference, is a big one to me, the fall-off of sharpness, the amounts of detail and the tonality makes me that I miss a medium-format camera. Those never used and/or studied the results, will not understand this longing. So, here I am, wanting as big as possible, having the smallest available. In that sense, digital has not really been a way forward to me. Good thing of digital though, is that development goes fast, resulting in a big second hand market. One could buy a secondhand camera without the need to sell his/her house. Homecoming.

About format

With film, the Rollei had a square format which I adored for portraits. The square minimized my background so the sitter would get full attention within the picture. And whereas I used the Contax for reportage style, I really enjoyed looking through the Rollei and make a composition which fitted the square.

With digital one could set his camera to a square format, but when using a small sensor, it would result in an even less smaller image, and, in case one does not has live-view, looking through the viewfinder, you wouldn’t see square and therefore not compose as such. Of course, one could crop in photoshop, but it is simply not the same.

With one of my present camera’s (the xh1) I do shoot square, using it’s screen and live-view to make a composition and it works. However, I lose 1/3 of the original size by doing so and it leaves me a relative small file. But I can, a kind of back to basics. A wannabe back to basics as it is not yet as I would like.

About lenses

With the Rollei, I had two lenses only: the 80mm and a 150mm (or converted to FF, a 44mm and a 80mm). This was all I needed for my portraits. The Contax had more lenses, but the most used one was the 45mm. Obviously, 45mm is a sweet spot to me. Not only to me though, most films have been shot on 40mm, as it gives the most complete look within one lens.

Enter digital. My little sensor camera has a great 35mm lens which is really magical, however converted to FF 53mm, meaning almost 20% narrower than what I was used to. May be not much, but having found this out, at least I understand why I was switching lenses all the time recently: one was too wide, the other too narrow. It would be great to have 40+ lens. Back to basics.

Back to basics

So, here I am, a camera bag full of camera’s and a bunch of lenses. Two brands, meaning two kinds of post-processing; too many camera’s because - as an ex-wedding photographer - I’d like to have a back-up; and way too many lenses, simply cause I could.

All this distracts me. Sometimes, too many choices is not good, sometimes, being limited boost your creativity. I need to unload; push myself with one or two lenses, even go back to square? Homecoming, back to basics.

These thoughts are going through my head quite a while now. I started the unloading, sold off a bunch of gear already, but now it is time for the final move. Which size, which format and which lens?

The answers in short are: which size: simple, as big as possible (and payable), which format: square and which lens: FF converted it should be around 45mm and a portrait lens of around 85mm.

A more important question will be though: with ‘only’ the above, can I unload all the rest? Would I be able to give-up all the rest? A tough question. With medium portrait one creates images, however, I used to take many images as well: on diners, parties, with friends and on outings. Images one can take with a phone as well. May be I should leave the image taking to others. May be I should focus on creating. Could I sell-off the magical 35mm? It’s really, really great, and so is the 14mm. Both I will miss, the 35 cause of it’s magic and the 14mm cause of it’s width. Selling off would be tough, but to easy my mind, I should. Or may be I should give them to a friend, who will in return borrow me a camera if I need to take a picture.

I go back to basics. One camera, two lenses. The decision is easy, still, there is so much choice. One Camera, which one? 

PhaseOne has the best, but it fails my criteria ‘payable’. New, I need to sell the house, second hand, about half the house. They give a free lens though. They’re the best, but out of reach.

Hasselblad: two systems, the more traditional one and a portable one. The first is new slightly (around 15t€) cheaper than the PhaseOne,,  still far out of reach. Secondhand, for items around ten years old, they are getting payable. However, without lens. Lenses are expensive. The portable version is a kind of payable as well, however lenses are expensive and the future still not clear.

Fuji: my present brand. Makes cameras since ages, cooperated a lot with Hasselblad and has huge experience with medium-format. To me, they out-perform all other camera brands regarding colour management. They have the best colour. Simply as that. Their relative new digital medium format camera is backed up with quite some new lenses, meaning they are investing in the system. Prices are high, but, if I sell it all, I could afford a camera and a lens, may be two. And, not less important, portable.

Stop taking, start creating. 

Anybody wants to buy some camera’s? To be continued…