Re: MF Definition (Re: Silly Question?)

["Paul A. Lehman" <palehman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Erker wrote:
> 
> >You know, I was wondering about that.  What exactly makes it medium format?

>   I'm not a historian but from what I've read
> the definition of MF has changed over time.
>snip
> Greg

Greg's observation is pretty good. Let me toss in a few cents
worth.

In the early days film sizes were in "Plate" dimensions, such as
full plate, half plate, down to ninth and twelfth plate (or "Gem"
size). This refers to dags, tintypes and glass plate photography.
A "full plate" is close to being around 5x7. Anything bigger was
called a "Mammoth Plate" such as  11x14.

Then came a profusion of sizes, which also differed between
Europe and the US. For example our 4x5 was similar to the 9cm x
12cm Euro, but not an exact match. There was also the Postcard
size format that was very popular for many years. The 102/620
size film actually dates back to the early 1900's in some Kodak
box cameras (although in different film size numbers and names).
The very first Kodak cameras produced a circle picture about 2.5"
diameter.

When 35mm cameraas came along they were referred to as
"Miniature" format cameras. Later, in the 1940s-60s you could buy
1/2 frame-35mm, and 8 or 16mm film cameras.

The MF designation is a relatively modern definition when 35mm
cameras became the "standard" consumer size. It has always been
my opinion that anything larger then the standard 35mm image size
(longer or wider) up to but not including 4x5 is "MF". 4x5 and
larger is "LF" or large format.

Paul A. Lehman