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:
the key is technique, film choice, lens quality, visual accuity and composition.
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.
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
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.
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 ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?