Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Why do you use 35mm and not medium format?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:10 am    Post subject: Why do you use 35mm and not medium format? Reply with quote
It just striked me last night.. for all the experienced forum members. Why do you stay in the 35mm when the medium format is easier to resolve more details?

Is the camera cost? Is the development process different?
You would have your good reasons for using 35mm

Just a random thought Smile
Alex


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Last year i bought a bunch of 120 rolls, just for the reason you mentioned: more detail, great small-dof shots and so on....

But: i shot maybe 2 rolls! Why? A 35mm camera is easier to take with you. Especially a small compact. When on a stroll it's better to have a Minolta slr around my neck than some heavy TLR (in particular my Konica Omegaflex M).
Another issue is the lightmeter. All of my TLRs do not have a built-in lightmeter, so you need to carry the camera and a meter....

All in all: i do have in mind to really start using my MF gear! I love it, it just needs more time and patience! I'll get to it.... some day!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You may as well ask why use medium format instead of 10x8 or at least 5x4.

35mm is more portable, & more affordable in cameras/lenses/film ...
In addition my own MF cameras are antiques with fixed lenses that may not produce any improvement over my 35mm kit.
Compared to large formats both are significantly quicker to use, I suspect this will often be the case for MF vs 35mm too.

These days I shoot digital almost exclusively and have actually found myself using micro4/3 more than my APSC DSLR mainly for portability reasons.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me, it's not portability.I have an Agfa isolette foldable wich is as portable as any 35mm.
The problem is the lack of labs to develop 120 film in my country.The only one is 500 km away and the prices are high enough (around 5-6€for a roll without transport) . Do you manage this better ?
So I have three Rolls of test shots in my fridge for three years now undeveloped. Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
More of my 35mm work is for testing rather than serious shooting. It's more for economy as I bulk load 35mm and can run short test rolls through the camera and develop them immediately. Once I prove a concept in 35mm, I apply it to 120.

But I still, on occasion, strike out with the FM2n and a set of 4 primes just for the helluvit.

And sometimes, I want to shoot film, but using MF would be like hunting squirrels with a bazooka... I don't need all the perks of MF.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shoot both medium format and 35mm and I like both equally. But the reason why 35mm often gets the nod is about range and also magnification. For instance, regarding range I have from 17mm to 650mm lenses -- double that with a good teleconverter. Regarding magnification, I have several macro lenses for 35mm, all of which are excellent performers. I have one macro for my Pentax 67 -- the 135mm f/4 "macro" and it isn't even really a macro lens, just a close focus one that gets down to 1:4. Heck, most of my 35mm zooms with macro modes will get down to 1:4. I don't have any super wides or long telephotos for my 67 or my Bronica ETRSi, and my Yashica TLR has a fixed lens, so . . .

So when I'm taking out my medium format gear, I'm looking for different types of subjects that I might be looking for with my 35mm. Often I'm taking it out with a specific eye for high detail, and in that respect, medium format is very hard to beat.

So to answer your question, my answer is "I can't answer that because I use both and I use both for different reasons."


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

So to answer your question, my answer is "I can't answer that because I use both and I use both for different reasons."


I thought you answer the question rather well, giving several of the advantages of 35mm. Those advantages don't take away the advantages of medium format, like so much in photography compromises have to be made & selecting the right equipment for the job helps get the best results.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Except large format sheet film I use any format in parallel. Always depending on my needs.
The most versatile format is still 35mm but it has it's limits. If ultimate quality for large posters is the target, then 35mm is the wrong format. For everything else it is still the best compromise in terms of cost, weight of equipment and flexibility.
However, since the digital cameras are really good nowadays, the alternative use of 35mm films makes less sense for me. Only for few exceptions I would still prefer 35mm film over digital; e.g. the use of special RF lenses on FF or B&W photography.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like medium format and if I have a choice I use it, quality is lot more better than 35mm film after scan , a simple cheap Epson V500 provide almost same quality than $$$ Imacon scanner on 35mm film... but several 35mm film camera just joy to use and I really not mind even if film not developed LOL


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found I have been using my medium format camera more than my 35mm camera - mainly because it is a folder, and will actually fit in my pocket! I take my SLR and the folder, do most bits with the SLR, and then take a couple with the folder. I now also have a medium format system camera, but not taken it out yet...


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I think the basic answer is similar to digi ver film debate in that digital is so much more convenient...with film it's horses for courses and for best shots of more static subjects then MF and LF is far superior in quality to 35mm, but for quick action shots 35mm is far superior when the quality doesn't matter so much....also overall 35mm costs are cheaper per frame if money is an issue.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for many of the same reasons everyone doesnt use a 36mp sensor. first its because resolution isnt everything, and for many isnt even the main thing. i just sold the best resolving camera i ever owned, the rx1, in favor of using the lowly 6mp epson rd1 as my main camera. second is probably size. if we discount folders, mf equipment is huge and cumbersome. i still use it, but its very time/place soecific. third is probably developing convenience.

i found an excellent, at least for me, compromise i can suggest. i know some may differ, but i found the hasselblad xpan yields results that to my eye are as good as mf in a much more compact rangefinder package. plus theres the pano option that is just awesome.
tony


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:

i found an excellent, at least for me, compromise i can suggest. i know some may differ, but i found the hasselblad xpan yields results that to my eye are as good as mf in a much more compact rangefinder package. plus theres the pano option that is just awesome.
tony


That's an understatement! This camera was always far too expensive for me....

However, my middle format Fuji's, the G690BL incl. the whole set of lenses and the GA645 for more comfort are not bad either. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Well I think the basic answer is similar to digi ver film debate in that digital is so much more convenient...with film it's horses for courses and for best shots of more static subjects then MF and LF is far superior in quality to 35mm, but for quick action shots 35mm is far superior when the quality doesn't matter so much....also overall 35mm costs are cheaper per frame if money is an issue.


While I agree with you absolutely for the most part, I got to thinking about using 35mm for "quick action shots" and I realized that the way I have my Bronica ETRSi set up right now, it would work just as easily with quick shots. Attach the Speed Grip 2 or a winder to it, and it functions and feels pretty much just like a big 35mm with motor attached. Mine has an AEII metered prism, which provides Aperture Priority auto exposure if I want it, so that even can make things faster. So, yeah, I'd guess I'd have to say that, depending on the medium format rig, you can still have a camera that will be as quick and responsive as a 35mm. Well, maybe not 5 frames per second responsive, but 2 fps responsive, absolutely. Plus, and this is a really big advantage with the ETRSi as opposed to most other 645s -- flash sync at all speeds. Of course, this feature would also be available with the leaf-shutter Hassys and the Bronica SQ-series, both of which have prisms, grips and motors to make them more hand-holdable. And there's also the benefit with 6x6 cameras that you don't have to rotate them for vertical shots.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Well I think the basic answer is similar to digi ver film debate in that digital is so much more convenient...with film it's horses for courses and for best shots of more static subjects then MF and LF is far superior in quality to 35mm, but for quick action shots 35mm is far superior when the quality doesn't matter so much....also overall 35mm costs are cheaper per frame if money is an issue.


While I agree with you absolutely for the most part, I got to thinking about using 35mm for "quick action shots" and I realized that the way I have my Bronica ETRSi set up right now, it would work just as easily with quick shots. Attach the Speed Grip 2 or a winder to it, and it functions and feels pretty much just like a big 35mm with motor attached. Mine has an AEII metered prism, which provides Aperture Priority auto exposure if I want it, so that even can make things faster. So, yeah, I'd guess I'd have to say that, depending on the medium format rig, you can still have a camera that will be as quick and responsive as a 35mm. Well, maybe not 5 frames per second responsive, but 2 fps responsive, absolutely. Plus, and this is a really big advantage with the ETRSi as opposed to most other 645s -- flash sync at all speeds. Of course, this feature would also be available with the leaf-shutter Hassys and the Bronica SQ-series, both of which have prisms, grips and motors to make them more hand-holdable. And there's also the benefit with 6x6 cameras that you don't have to rotate them for vertical shots.


Indeed you could use MF for actions shots if you want to..it's all about what you prefer and what works for you..the press photographers in the old days had large cameras (can't remember what they were)...but I remember the TLR Rollei was popular with the press in the 60s in the UK.
But surely MF cameras are not in the same class for quick\action shots compared to say the Canon T90 or Nikon F100.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a story about 'quick actions' my best friend has amazing large format old wooden camera collection, he is best in rescue old cameras especially wooden box cameras. I did ask him to shoot with some of them to MFenses, he went out and after 2 hrs try and error did give it up Smile not even a single picture was born Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
35mm is lighter and faster. There are no (affordable) alternatives to your Minolta X700 and Olympus 35RC in medium format.

I have put a few B&W films through my extensive collection of cameras and developed them myself. With colour any errors can be costly. Colour processing of 120 is ridiculously expensive and you only get 8 or 12 pics on a roll.

In the 70's and 80's every minilab did 120 and price wise it was the same as, if not cheaper, than 35mm.

My local pro lab charges 7.46GBP for 36 exp dev and print, 120/12 is 12GBP - about 5 times more expensive per print.

Mostly its down to economy for me anyway
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1