120 - The Step Beyond

With the swing away from "bird at the nest" and similar wildlife portraiture towards behavioural wildlife photography, the increasingly automated 35mm camera took over from the old stalwart Hasselblads et al. in the 1970s. But 120 design has been progressing too. The modern 6x4.5 (15 or 16-on) SLR cameras from Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Contax and now Hasselblad are automated, fairly quick to use, and some are relatively inexpensive compared to the bigger 6x6 and 6x7 cameras - comparable in cost with top line 35mm gear. Bronica made a 6x7cm SLR without the bulk and awkwardness of the older 6x7 designs from Mamiya and Pentax, though it is an expensive system.

In 6x6cm, the Rollie is now highly automated. The time-honoured Hasselblad has been quietly modernised, too, and even the earlier models are still beautiful cameras with superb lenses. As age doesn't seem to weary them, Blads retired from commercial life can now be picked up 2^nd hand for about the same price as up-market 35mm gear. Hasselblads have always been a favoured wildlife and closeup camera because their mechanism is faster than other 120s. They go off with a snap usually only found in 35mm cameras.

[CQs]

As mentioned in the general article on camera types, normal 120 rollfilm cameras can be used to advantage for the kinds of general photo subjects which don't demand extremes in magnification, perspective or depth of field. There is a choice of single lens reflex, twin lens reflex (a separate but identical viewing lens shows the viewfinder image on a ground glass screen) or rangefinder designs with a separate viewfinder. A variant of this is the zone-focussing and autofocussing cameras from Fuji. Only the SLRs and TLRs can be taken that step further into the realm of wildlife and closeup nature photography. Before taking this plunge into 120 wildlife, though, there are some points to understand.

This rears its ugly head as soon as you try to use 120 for wildlife. For a shot suitable for a 300mm lens on 35mm format, you need a 500mm lens on 120 (and maybe an extension tube). The smaller depth of field and more camera and subject movement caused by the higher magnification combines with usually a slower lens and consequently a slower shutter speed. Result: a large, unsharp waste of film! The harsh reality is that a sharp, fine-grained 35mm transparency is better than a soft or grainy 6x6cm tranny any day.

I well remember many years ago showing some work to Jean-Paul Ferrero, the late great wildlife photographer and founder of Auscape International photo library. They were wetland birds shot with a fast 400mm on 35mm, and a slower 500mm on 6x6cm. He accepted the 35s for the library collection, then placed his lupe on the 120s and simply said "What's the use of a soft two-and-a-quarter?".

Take a closeup example: a flighty insect with macro-flash. On the 35mm you get within range with a 105mm micro, leaning forward with the lightweight gear, to fill the frame, focus through the bright viewfinder at f2.8 (or let the autofocus do it!) and fire, knowing that the depth of field at f22 will pull in head and legs.

Try it again on 120 - the macro lens, at 120-140mm, necessitates too close an approach to fill the frame, risking flight of the subject. You need a 180mm lens to fill the frame at the same working distance, 3 large extension tubes or a bellows, making the gear heavy and unbalanced, and the viewfinder is getting dark! You are on f16 wishing you had more powerful flash guns, and wondering if everything will be in focus, or anything at all now that your arms are wobbling.

Suffice to say 120 wildlife or field closeup photography is not easy. It is something you do to go that extra mile, to produce special work (and a competitive edge), and knowing that you might not get anything because you just can't shoot 35mm and 120 at the same time.

[CQs]

120 gear is expensive. Every new lens or gizmo will be a major purchase. The gear really does need to pay for itself, and is designed and built to do so cranking out studio product shots, portraits and wedding albums by the hundreds, year in, year out. Not by one-off wildlife masterpieces!

120 film is expensive. Each 120 roll of film costs about the same to buy and process as a 35mm roll of 36 - but you get 10 shots on 6x7cm, 12 on 6x6cm, and 15 or 16 on 6x4.5cm, instead. So a 6x6cm frame costs 3 times as much to produce as a 35mm image. When you consider the shooting ratio with wildlife and closeup (subject movement, camera shake, bracketed exposures etc), shooting 120 can get very expensive. Too expensive to experiment with, which in turn can stifle your work.

A difficulty forgotten by all except camera manufacturers is how to keep a piece of flexible material perfectly flat in the film gate during exposure. That's why the original emulsions were on glass plates, but then George had to change that and everyone since has gotten to like the convenience of flexible film - until it doesn't sit flat in the camera. This problem is worse in 120 film because it is thinner but larger than 35mm. The paper backing of 120 probably doesn't help either, introducing a second layer into the equation. Sheet film (5x4 inch etc) is on much thicker, stiffer plastic.

Those mysterious out-of-focus patches in an otherwise sharp image are the result of improper film flatness. It is much more common than realised, even in 35mm. Photographers just see an out-of-focus centre and say "Oh well, I missed that one". If a closer look reveals that the edges are sharp but the middle isn't, it may not have been your fault.

Back to the start.