120 vs 35mm film

[Jedidiah Smith]

Honestly, if you're printing 8x10? I am willing to bet with good technique, most people - those on this forum and myself included- would not be able to pick the MF shot or the 35mm shot from say a basket of 10 held at arm's length. Nose in the print? Yeah, if you belong to APUG, you are probably one of the .01% of the population that could tell them apart. Your normal audience? Not a chance. I have learned that people's eyesight is just not that good and/or they just don't care about technical aspects of a photo, if they like the subject matter. Just wow their socks off with whichever kind you like to shoot.

I have done these kinds of tests in a former life when I was obsessed with sharpness and that sort of thing. I have shot 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 negs and color positives. 11x14 or 11x17 is where "great 35mm" starts losing out, and at 16x20 and upward, there is no comparison, the larger neg walks all over 35mm. However, that is not to say you cannot make larger prints with the 35mm format if that is what you choose. You can make excellent 16x20 enlargements, and depending on the capture, occasionally a 20x30 that will stand up to reasonable scrutiny with the right film and subject matter. In the end, I chose to stay with 35mm myself for reasons other than sharpness - ala "Galen Rowell type" reasons. There is such thing as "good enough" to get the shot where you're going; otherwise we'd all be lugging around 8x10 view cameras! (And some here do)

Bottom line is that for the money you want to spend, and the enlargement size you want to make, why would you not consider a decent 35mm RF? Quick, small, very sharp and fast lenses; and you can always save up for a bigger MF system later!
You can develop your T-Max 100, Plus-X 125 or even ATP 1.1 or whatever slow speed film you choose to have in your 35mm RF to give more grey scale...go for a developer that minimizes grain and brings out the mid range tones, not one for absolute sharpness or highest contrast. If you do this, and let's be honest, you would more than likely have to shoot a 400 speed film in the MF RF for similar shutter speeds, the difference at 8x10 print size is going to be negligible. In fact, it's going to be so negligible, that you're going to get all kinds of questions, like "what digital camera did you use" to "what a nice printer you have!", to "what film was that"...hardly anyone is going to ask you..."now, let me see, was that MF or 35mm"?

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

I just returned from my first trip to Italy...and settled, much to my dismay, with 35mm...will not be printing any of it. Why? Lack of detail...

Jim, I see you are normally an LF guy. Well, quite right the 35mm is lacking in detail compared to sheet. However, unless something went very wrong, or you were shooting fast film, what is it about your 35mm shots that you don't like? I've seen some nice shots come from 35mm in Italy...obviously not going to look like sheet film, but still - used within its context, I am sure you could get some prints to turn out to your liking!??? :confused:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Jim, I see you are normally an LF guy. Well, quite right the 35mm is lacking in detail compared to sheet. However, unless something went very wrong, or you were shooting fast film, what is it about your 35mm shots that you don't like? I've seen some nice shots come from 35mm in Italy...obviously not going to look like sheet film, but still - used within its context, I am sure you could get some prints to turn out to your liking!??? :confused:

Rubbish. 35mm can be printed to 500mm tall by a corresponding width; the key is technique, film choice, lens quality, visual accuity and composition. Nothing to do with "this format vs that format". You will get outstanding results if you invest in skill and technique, very high quality lenses, an understanding of visual arrangement, film and printing. I've printed A3 prints from Kodachrome 200 slides from an Olympus XA. If photographers are only going to print to A5 or A4 with whatever camera then debate sharpness and detail, they may as well hang up their kit and take up model building. There is much more to photography than detail, detail, detail. I emphasis skill and knowledge over time. And printing is what makes the image that makes the grade.

 

[steven_e007]

One thing the OP didn't mention was whether he intends to shoot hand held? I presume so, if he specifies a range-finder.

I find MF outperforms 35 mm on a good tripod, but because the lenses have quite a bit longer focal length for the same angle of view, they can be harder to hold steady hand held. Camera shake is probably one of the biggest factors in an unsharp picture and so if hand holding the bigger format can often end up less sharp, if you are not careful... If the OP wants sharpness sharpness sharpness no matter what, then a Hassleblad bolted to a 10 ton concrete block might be the way to go... but sharpness sharpness sharpness whilst strolling around Paris in your shorts and sandals is maybe a job for a 35mm range-finder?

The other thing the OP doesn't mention is whether he will process and print himself or send then to a lab? I much prefer MF over 35mm - not because of sharpness or image quality, but because a large negative is much more user friendly in the darkroom. You can easily see what is on it, dust and other defects are less of a problem - it needs less enlargement so enlarger vibration, lens aberrations and distortion are also less than with 35mm. Obviously a skilled worker can get superb results from 35mm - but I personally just enjoy using the bigger negatives much more

 

[MattPC]

the key is technique, film choice, lens quality, visual accuity and composition.

I absolutly agree. And for those of us lacking (or more accuratly, learning) in any of those areas, and/or printing 8x10's from 35mm (with it's differing aspect ratio/cropping and tiny, tiny view finder), MF appears to hold a promise of improvement. And then there's the already mentioned darkroom handling benefits, all good stuff for a hobbyist processing only a few films a month.

I'm enviously eyeing TLR's for the finder. Autocord's in particular. Light enough for my existing tripod, format fits my enlarger, cheap enough (barely) and good enough (by reputation at least).

MattC

 

[bblhed]

I didn't see anyone mention that with Medium Format you can produce contact prints that are large enough to be called photos.

 

[Bateleur]

I always considered that 8x10 was the limit for a 35mm negative until I took the plunge and made a 16x20 from a 400ISO 35mm negative. I was taken aback - certainly the grain was apparent but the sharpness some how compensated (my opinion). Therefore 35mm in my opinion should not be underestimated, 120 has advantages we all know that but 35mm is no slouch.

 

[bblhed]

I project my 35mm slides onto a 40" screen and they look fine from a few feet behind the projector. Remember, a huge part of how large you can print a photo is intended viewing distance, remember movies are projected off 35mm film and a movie frame is far smaller than a photo frame.

 

[coolhoosier]

Not being able to afford a full format (approx 35mm) digital SLR, and also a longtime fan of film, I started looking for good deals in MF cameras, RF or SLR.

I now have two Russion knock-off Hasselblads (6X6). Both take excellect photos that will blow away the output of a digital camera in terms of depths of color and detail. But they aren't the easiest to set-up and there are some rules that must be followed regarding shutter speed settings only after advancing the film, etc.

My latest acquisition is my prize. It's a Koni-Omega Rapid M. It's in excellent condition and is easy to use (though heavy) and its 6X7 format provides outstanding detail and overall quality.

My specialities are landscapes, formal portraits, and still lifes. The 6X7 is good for this although the RF design makes precise framing of still lifes a bit difficult.

I was lucky. The Rapid M is my number one camera now.

 

[michaelbsc]

Well, everybody wants sharp, sharp, sharp.

As Maris pointed out to someone a few years ago, the sharpest lens in your camera bag is the tripod. Certainly it isn't the most convenient to use, but the results speak for themselves even at large enlargement.

 

[Grif]

One thing the OP didn't mention was whether he intends to shoot hand held? I presume so, if he specifies a range-finder.

I find MF outperforms 35 mm on a good tripod, but because the lenses have quite a bit longer focal length for the same angle of view, they can be harder to hold steady hand held.
QUOTE]

I found just the opposite was true for me. Nikon F vs C33 with grip and waste level finder. Whether or not it was just the film size and lack of magnification on the prints, I found I could shoot about one stop slower on the C33 with a "normal" lens.

 

[36cm2]

I found just the opposite was true for me. Nikon F vs C33 with grip and waste level finder. Whether or not it was just the film size and lack of magnification on the prints, I found I could shoot about one stop slower on the C33 with a "normal" lens.

If I'm not mistaken, the C33 is a TLR that uses a leaf shutter system, while the Nikon F is an SLR. The ability to shoot one stop slower on the C33 may be due to the lack of mirror slap vibration experienced with the F, particularly at certain shutter speeds.

This raises a good point, though. Many variables impact results, including film size, tripod use, camera type (rangefinder, tlr, slr), film type and speed, shutter speed, time available to shoot, speed and convenience of camera use, etc.

While I love the ease of 35mm, I've relegated it to quick family pics and convenience-driven situations. I use MF for serious work where other people are around and/or involved. I use 4x5 when it's just me, nature and time hanging out. Heck, I'm likely to use 8x10 for that soon if that Chamonix keeps staring at me online.

Suum cuique (to each his own). Enjoy whatever you're shooting and shoot whatever you enjoy.

Leo

 

[steven_e007]

One thing the OP didn't mention was whether he intends to shoot hand held? I presume so, if he specifies a range-finder.

I find MF outperforms 35 mm on a good tripod, but because the lenses have quite a bit longer focal length for the same angle of view, they can be harder to hold steady hand held.
QUOTE]

I found just the opposite was true for me. Nikon F vs C33 with grip and waste level finder. Whether or not it was just the film size and lack of magnification on the prints, I found I could shoot about one stop slower on the C33 with a "normal" lens.

Well, yes, actually I've found that true, too, with my C330. The ergonomics of a big chunky waist level TLR and the leaf shutter do help with reducing shake compared with some other cameras - but I was thinking of two similar cameras, if the OP is comparing a 35mm rangefinder with a MF rangefinder, both with similar styles and shutters, the longer focal length of the MF camera is going to mean shake is a bigger problem, I reckon, all else being equal.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

What can I get for around $200 ?

I've been looking for a MF RF for a little bit now.
While there ARE some affordable ones, I can't help
but think if I should just go for a 35 mm RF.

If it's hardly (or maybe even not at all), a 35 mm
RF is definitely the way to go. In that case, what
can I get for around $200.00 ?

As I've recently just learned, that the image quality,
or the ease of use, or advanced features aren't the
highest priority, but the price is the ONLY THING
THAT MATTERS, here's what I would suggest,
since this camera hasn't been mentioned.

Look for an Olympus XA with an A-16 flash.

This camera is:

Aperture Priority, with a Manually set ISO, with a
+1.5 exposure Backlight switch,

By having a manually set ISO, you can compensate
for B&W & Color Negative mislabeled ISO's.
DX won't allow you to do this.

Featuring a 35 mm 6 element, ( planar type ),
f 2.8 lens, the lens can deliver 11 x 14's,
( I've done it ),

A slightly powerful flash with a Leaf Shutter which
will synch up to the maximum 1/500th sec shutter
speed, of the camera,

While the A-16 flash takes only 2 AA batteries, but
if you use Lithiums it's O.K., but just don't keep
the batteries in the flash, when you're not using it.

Also, the flash only has settings for ISO 100 & 400,
but this can be worked around & is not significant,

Completely Manual RF split image focusing but with
a Hyperfocal Focus Setting at f 5.6 @ 5 ft,
when it's needed, ( and it works, I can tell you ),

By size will fit in a Large Cell Phone Holster,