Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
I would have to guess that most macro work with film cameras is done with 35mm equipment. There were systems like the Nikon Multiphot and the Polaroid MP-4 which allowed macro work to be done with more convenience on 4X5 film but this was often copy work. If you are limited to a magnification of not greater than 1:1, any subject which is 24X36mm or smaller should probably be done with 35mm equipment. With a rigid set-up and fine grain film you can enlarge the 35mm slide or negative quite a lot. A subject which is 24X36mm and which is shot at 1:1 will provide the same usable space on the slide or negative on 35mm film as on the film of any larger format. To gain any advantage in image quality by using medium format equipment you would need to shoot the same subject at 2X or 3X. This is much more difficult to do with medium format equipment. I have plenty of 35mm macro equipment but my medium format SLR cameras are all Bronica ETR/SQ/GS-1 models and the bodies have no shutters. If I had a Pentax 6X7 I might make my own extension tubes in different lengths and attach enlarging lenses to them. This would work on a coy stand or with a strong focusing rail.
Silly ideas. You don't know that I shoot 2x3, or why.

Short answer, to get closeup shots of, e.g., flowers with good detail in the main subject and a reasonable amount of its surroundings in the frame. With 35 mm one can get one or the other, not both.

It is tempting to shoot 2x3 above 1:1 and sometimes it makes sense, but the real rewards for moving up in format are in the range 1:4 to 1:1. But 645 is only half frame 2x3, looks pretty punk in comparison. And 2x3, which I like, is pretty punk in comparison with 4x5.