Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

Bill Burk · Oct 6, 2012

Diapositivo said:
You can always have a compact 135 camera with you. There is no Minox, Rollei 35 or Yashica T3 in MF.

The Bessa II and Ikonta can always be with you. I sometimes wish there was some stretch-format 127. I think that could have been really cool. A vest pocket folder is convenient.

But to stay on topic and point out where 35mm has the advantage... These spring cameras have their "bellows" which introduces dust that must be retouched on negative. And that requires a microscope. They also are hard to find filters/lenshoods for. And they need accessories like filters and lenshoods because I am shooting black and white and fighting flare.

35mm bodies rarely introduce flare in the optical path. The chambers of 35mm are pretty well baffled and flocked. Lenses too, for the most part, offer better freedom from flare. (Compared to the vintage systems, not Hasselblad).

35mm bodies have more reliable shutter speeds than the vintage folding cameras too.

PentaxBronica · Oct 6, 2012

I agree that 120 is harder to deal with.

I can process negatives easily using a dark cupboard (I just covered all the light leaks in a large cupboard with duct tape on the inside, it isn't big enough for an enlarger but a roll of film, the dev tank and I will fit with no problems). However, the enlarger I have doesn't handle 120 film and attempting to scan it with a flatbed scanner was something of a dead loss, with weird colour casts and huge files which were very time consuming to do anything with.

I'm now thinking in terms of making a support frame to hold 120 negatives flat, so that I can put them on the front of a softbox and "scan" them with my DSLR and a macro lens on a tripod. If I ever see a broken 120 film back going cheaply I may well buy it and see if I can turn it into something like those little slide viewers - swap the pressure plate for a piece of ground glass and a light source behind it.

georg16nik · Oct 6, 2012

Bill Burk said:
The Bessa II and Ikonta can always be with you. I sometimes wish there was some stretch-format 127. I think that could have been really cool. A vest pocket folder is convenient.

But to stay on topic and point out where 35mm has the advantage... These spring cameras have their "bellows" which introduces dust that must be retouched on negative. And that requires a microscope. They also are hard to find filters/lenshoods for. And they need accessories like filters and lenshoods because I am shooting black and white and fighting flare.....

The true Voigtländers 6x9 Bessa RF, I and especially II are engineered so good that unless there are pinholes on the bellows.. dust is simply not an issue.
35mm shutter speeds are hardly more reliable than vintage MF folders, there aren't many reliable technicians to set them right, thou.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 6, 2012

cliveh said:
I was wondering how many advantages 35mm has over MF/LF, such as depth of field, rapid change of position for composition and perspective, quick recognition and exposure, unobtrusive action, to name but a few. Perhaps others could add to this list?

When I'm using one of my Nikons, the number of mind-numbingly stupid questions I get asked is far fewer than when I use a 4x5 or 8x10.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 6, 2012

agw said:
The only thing 35mm isn't good at is producing large negatives. Apart from that, there's something for every occasion, given the wide variety of 35mm gear available. Fast AF and motor drive for action, light&compact for travel, whatever; you name it - it's there.

Yes!

I had to use large format for a couple years before I realised just what a great job 35mm does do!

Jim Jones · Oct 6, 2012

The misconception that 35mm cameras have more Depth Of Field than large format has been repeated so often that it is rarely disputed. However, in any format with equal angular coverage and image viewing distance, the DOF is determined only by the entrance pupil. For example, a 50mm lens at f/2 has identical DOF as a 8" lens at f/8. The small format does have an advantage in a faster shutter speed for DOF equal to the larger camera. The larger grain in 35mm cameras may also mask its DOF limitations. A large view camera has swings and tilts that give it the advantage of focus plane adjustment that are available only with expensive tilt and shift lenses on 35mm cameras. This can extend its apparent DOF.

Most of the reasons for preferring 35mm over larger formats also apply to preferring digital over 35mm.

elekm · Oct 6, 2012

Portability, ability to shoot more photos, stealth factor, wider range of affordable lenses.

However, more isn't always better.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 6, 2012

Jim Jones said:
Most of the reasons for preferring 35mm over larger formats also apply to preferring digital over 35mm.

Blasphemy!! When they come out with a DSLR which is compatible with my pre-Ai Nikkor lenses, is not battery dependent, is made without plastic, will be useable in 50 years, and gives me a negative I can stick in an enlarger - then I'll get a DSLR. It doesn't look good....

lxdude · Oct 6, 2012

Jim Jones said:
The misconception that 35mm cameras have more Depth Of Field than large format has been repeated so often that it is rarely disputed.

It is Depth of Field for equivalent Field of View that is greater.
80mm for 6x6 compared to 50mm for 135 format, etc.

mopar_guy · Oct 6, 2012

Diapositivo said:
You can take 38 pictures without changing roll (the light or the occasion changes just while you are changing the roll, but that nuisance happens much more often with MF).

Well, actually I can use my 250 exposure film back and get 250 frames without reloading.

The equivalent in medium format would be a 70mm back.

Advantages for 35mm are motor drives, fast lenses, lens options, cost of film, cost of equipment, size and handling.

Sports/action photography, travel, lower end are all areas where 35mm has the advantage.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 6, 2012

mopar_guy said:
Well, actually I can use my 250 exposure film back and get 250 frames without reloading.

The equivalent in medium format would be a 70mm back.

Advantages for 35mm are motor drives, fast lenses, lens options, cost of film, cost of equipment, size and handling.

Sports/action photography, travel, lower end are all areas where 35mm has the advantage.

You can do that with 9" roll film and a Fairchild 9x9 aerial camera.

mopar_guy · Oct 6, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
You can do that with 9" roll film and a Fairchild 9x9 aerial camera.

How much does that weigh?

E. von Hoegh · Oct 6, 2012

mopar_guy said:
How much does that weigh?

Well, the roll of film is about 40 lbs. I don't know for the camera.

wiltw · Oct 6, 2012

lxdude said:
It is Depth of Field for equivalent Field of View that is greater.
80mm for 6x6 compared to 50mm for 135 format, etc.

Jim Jones actually was correct...50mm lens (2.1* frame height) on 135 format at f/2 focused at 100' has DOF zone of about 200'; 190mm lens (2.1* frame height) on 4x5 sheetfilm at f/8 focused at 100' also has DOF zone of about 200' !!!

It is just that most folks think of 'lens of same angle of view' at 'same f/stop', rather than at 'same aperture diameter (in mm)', when they shoot.

The comparison of 'DOF zone' is a rather simplistic comparison, however, as there is no consider of how OUT OF FOCUS the background will be, and that is related to the FL (greater FL = greater blur of the distant out-of-focus background)

lxdude · Oct 6, 2012

wiltw said:
Jim Jones actually was correct...50mm lens (2.1* frame height) on 135 format at f/2 focused at 100' has DOF zone of about 200'; 190mm lens (2.1* frame height) on 4x5 sheetfilm at f/8 focused at 100' also has DOF zone of about 200' !!!

It is just that most folks think of 'lens of same angle of view' at 'same f/stop', rather than at 'same aperture diameter (in mm)', when they shoot.

The comparison of 'DOF zone' is a rather simplistic comparison, however, as there is no consider of how OUT OF FOCUS the background will be, and that is related to the FL (greater FL = greater blur of the distant out-of-focus background)

Right. Just talking about practical application of what Jim said. That is, DoF of a 100mm lens at 2.8 is the same whether it is on a 35mm camera or a 6x7 camera. But the 100mm on 6x7 is the 'normal' lens, while a 50mm on the 35mm camera is the 'normal'. So for equivalent FoV the 35mm camera will have greater DoF at a given f/stop. And that's what people should understand, not just that "35mm has more DoF".

wiltw · Oct 6, 2012

And to illustrate the effect of longer FL on background out-of-focus blur quantity, both nearfield b/g and far field b/g, here are two similarly framed shots, both at f/4 (the way most photographers think -- not 'aperture' size) with the 1' deep DOF vs. 2' deep DOF zone, and comparing how the near- and far-field background is blurred for each. Larger format, then smaller format...

lxdude · Oct 6, 2012

A great illustration of how it's not just about the "zone of sharpness".

MattKing · Oct 6, 2012

The relationship between depth of field and format size becomes way more interesting when one starts doing close-up/macro work.

Dismayed · Oct 6, 2012

cliveh said:
I was wondering how many advantages 35mm has over MF/LF, such as depth of field, rapid change of position for composition and perspective, quick recognition and exposure, unobtrusive action, to name but a few. Perhaps others could add to this list?

Just a different set of trade-offs. That's all.

Bill Burk · Oct 7, 2012

I found another advantage 35mm has over MF... When you go away to a friend's ranch for the weekend and bring an MF without an empty take-up spool... You have to improvise a darkroom to unspool one of your fresh rolls of film and pack it in foil...

With most 35mm the takeup spool is permanently affixed.

removed account4 · Oct 7, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I found another advantage 35mm has over MF... When you go away to a friend's ranch for the weekend and bring an MF without an empty take-up spool... You have to improvise a darkroom to unspool one of your fresh rolls of film and pack it in foil...

With most 35mm the takeup spool is permanently affixed.

i can see that being a great advantage.

another one i found was when running for a bus
and the 35mm leaps out of the pack and slams bottom plate
on concrete, the camera still works fine for 20 years with a little
duct tape holding the top plate down .. and with a MF TLF when it rolls on the ground,
from less than 3 inches there are troubles, way more troubles than a few pieces of duct tape can fix ...

Bill Burk · Oct 7, 2012

jnanian said:
...and with a MF TLF when it rolls on the ground,
from less than 3 inches there are troubles, way more troubles than a few pieces of duct tape can fix ...

Sorry to hear that... I've been lucky with *my MF TLR, nothing bad has happened to it since it fell in the chicken soup...

*If it hadn't fallen in the soup, my mom's cousin wouldn't have given it to me, so technically this is why it's mine.

removed account4 · Oct 7, 2012

at least you know the camera won't get a cold

not worried about my tlr ..
its all good. and hopefully will be as good
as good can be once zack does his camera-fix voodoo on it

TheFlyingCamera · Oct 8, 2012

I've recently fallen in love with MF TLRs (I have one Rollei now, and a second on the way as a backup camera for the first). There's something about waist level shooting that makes such a big camera relatively inconspicuous (well, Rolleis aren't that big in the grand scheme of MF cameras) that is only equalled by 35mm rangefinders. I haven't figured out yet why a 35mm rangefinder raised to your eye is less conspicuous than a 35mm SLR - they're both in front of your face, and pointed directly at the subject. Once the exposure is taken, there's an obvious difference in the noise level with the mirror slap and the (probable) film advance motors kicking in.

As to advantages of 35, they've been pretty well covered - ability to work handheld, speed of operation, compactness, relative low cost, variety of lenses, built-in automation. I don't always see the relative gain in DoF as a plus though- I LIKE being able to blow-out foreground and background and just concentrate my focus on my main subject. And the lenses that are available for large format cameras just don't have analogs for 35mm. They never made a 3 1/2" Verito in any 35mm mount, or a Cooke Portrait with the knuckle-duster soft-focus adjustment. And you're forced to develop all 36 frames with the exact same time and temperature and developer chemistry - so inevitably there will be some frames that would have benefitted from altered processing that won't get it, or you sacrifice every other frame on the roll to the needs of the one frame.

Diapositivo · Oct 8, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
They never made a 3 1/2" Verito in any 35mm mount, or a Cooke Portrait with the knuckle-duster soft-focus adjustment.

Minolta made the 85/2.8 "Varisoft", a lens with spherical aberration control, which I imagine can be used for the kind of results the Cooke Portrait would deliver.

Dead Link Removed (scroll down to the Varisoft lens).

Not a cheap lens though

Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

Bill Burk

PentaxBronica

georg16nik

E. von Hoegh

E. von Hoegh

Jim Jones

elekm

E. von Hoegh

lxdude

mopar_guy

E. von Hoegh

mopar_guy

E. von Hoegh

wiltw

lxdude

wiltw

lxdude

MattKing

Moderator

Dismayed

Bill Burk

removed account4

Bill Burk

removed account4

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Diapositivo

Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency