Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

[cliveh]

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?

 

[Paul Howell]

High speed motor drives. Wider range of lens, superwides to super teles.

 

[ezwriter]

Since i hike in, first off is the weight. My RZ67 is HEAVY, compared to my Nikon 35mms. Plus u have to set up the tripod, take exp
reading, its a whole diff ballgame.
Also u get 36 exp instead of 10. More lenses and assc. Way cheaper. Film more available. I just bought roll of 35 TriX at CVS drugs. They
prob last carrried 120 in 1965 , if at all!

 

[IloveTLRs]

35mm film is available in bulk rolls (B&W, at least.) That's always been a deal maker for me.

 

[Klainmeister]

Beautiful grain. Sorry, but I like grain. I just printed a 11x14 of a scene from a few months ago on Ilford Fiber last night and the grain was subtle and beautiful. God did it come out well. Really makes you appreciate proper tool use.

 

[MaximusM3]

Getting the shot or not getting the shot..but you already knew that, Clive Seriously, that relates mostly to LF though, as most MF cameras are pretty nimble (ok, not a Mamiya RB/RZ67 maybe). Oh, and yes, GRAIN! Grain is beautiful.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I did a double-take on this thread title thinking it was the recent one circulating about the advantages of medium format over 35mm.

I took a nice vacation trip a few months ago and must have had 4-35mm cameras and 3 medium format cameras and a big box of film for each format. Interestingly, I only shot a few frames of 6x6 at one event and the rest were made on 35mm (either slide film in my OM-2 or B&W in my ME Super). Now I'm trying to figure out why I didn't shoot more medium format. Was it because my 35mm cameras are faster, lighter and easier to use? Or was it because I figured most shots didn't warrant the larger negative size? A combination of both reasons? I don't know, but given the choice of the two formats, I chose 35mm so there must be some advantage to that format for was I was doing.

Dave

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Dispite the bulk and limitness of 120 film, I really like MF. I wouldn't give up my RB67 or Rolleiflex for anything.

Jeff

 

[Peter Schrager]

for the life of me can never make a decent print w 35mm...but mf no problem !!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Klainmeister]

for the life of me can never make a decent print w 35mm...but mf no problem !!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I share the opposite problem....

 

[batwister]

That you can make more pictures, cheaper. If you're starting out, going straight to medium format or indeed LF, means your development (creative) is somewhat slower - you're simply making less pictures. Slowing down is an important part of maturing as a photographer, but a preliminary period of unabashed experimentation is really important first. Some people skip this stage and expect bigger frames = better results. When these pictures don't satisfy them, they turn to the zen system thinking it's a shortcut. We now see each format as having their own creative pros and cons, whereas in the pre-digital age, photographers progressed through formats as their results started to justify a need for a 'bigger canvas'. Ansel Adams started with 35mm, so did Paul Strand. As did many of today's big names, like Kenna. I think there's still a lot to be learned from this restraint of "I'm not ready for LF yet". But also, if you're making great pictures from the get-go with a 35mm, like Bresson or any number of people, changing format could inhibit what makes your work great - namely, a certain spontaneity. You have to understand your sensibility before choosing a format, not just shoot the biggest you can afford.

 

[Wade D]

Portability and less film cost are the big factors for me. A few weeks ago I went to Balboa Park in San Diego and had 2 cameras, an SRT101 & XD11, plus a Gossen meter around my neck. One with color and the other B&W. There were a few positive comments to my liking.
If I had taken my Crown Graphic, dark cloth and tripod it would have drawn a huge crowd, as has happened in the past. Of course it's hard to focus and compose while being asked tons of questions.
So I guess discreet is another reason. Blending in more with the crowd.

 

[Chrismat]

I like the portability of 35mm although I think I am a better photographer with medium format. They're both great, I don't think I could use only one or the other.

 

[John E Earley]

Ease of macro work. You can accomplish the same thing with larger formats but the 135 format due to it's compactness makes it much easier.

 

[bdial]

It's not quite so true now, but lenses for 35 cost less than those for many MF systems, and there are many more choices.

Back when, I was frustrated at affording Hasselblad glass, and traded the camera, some backs and it's 80mm lens for a new F3 and 3 Nikkor lenses. Though more recently, I bought another Hasselblad, and since then have barely touched the F3.

 

[MattKing]

No need for backing paper, and each roll comes with its own handy storage container

Oh, and for most of my shooting life, Kodachrome

 

[MaximusM3]

Can't get a great print from a good 35mm negative? Got to learn how to print
This is a print I own, 16x20, shot and printed by Vivian in 1955. Tri-X, and 777. The print is staggeringly beautiful and a testimony that if you know what you're doing, 35mm is plenty fine. http://www.thelionheartgallery.com/Artwork-Detail.cfm?ArtistsID=694&NewID=3488

 

[removed account4]

hi clive

i love shooting 35mm
and the only real mf format i have
i always do something dumb and it is in the shop
maybe its a greater power telling me to just use larger or small ?

i have a graflex slr and a delmar box though, my favorite LF cameras

they are nimble ) except for instant reloading and rapid fire, although the "bag mag" is pretty fast...
i shoot like i am using 35mm no matter if it is 35mm or lf anyways. life is to short to worry about
the cost of film, so i shoot and don't worry about it. i think that is the main problem with people who use LF
it is more about them conserving 20¢ or 1$ and "zenning out" and taking their time.
if i had to take 1/2 hour to compose and wait for perfect / ecclesiastical lighting every time i made an exposure
i might as well take up crocheting ... i don't really see the point of spending 30 mins + / exposure.
it helps that i buy expired film &c and i realized there is no such thing as perfection a long time ago
otherwise i would be chasing magic bullets like a sheepdog chases cars ..

i like grain too, that is why i use coffee and print developer to process everything i do _

 

[tony lockerbie]

It's all about immediacy, which is the forte of 35mm. Sure, you have to be much more careful in the processing, but it is still capable of amazing results. Also, the format has been developed to the enth degree, both film and hardware, and the cameras and lenses are the best of any format. I love all formats and you simply cannot beat large format for creamy tonality, however 35mm still has a major place in my everyday shooting.

 

[2bits]

jnanian,
Well said! Sums it all up!

 

[agw]

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.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Higher shutter speeds, built in (spot) meter, AF. Of course, some MF cameras have these features too (Contax 645, Rollei 6008AF), but they are rare and expensive. Most 35mm are smaller and lighter, though there are some really compact MF cameras too. For most 35mm systems, there are also fast lenses available that can´t be had in MF/LF.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

the hasselblad system is like a black hole that eventually sucks very photographer in at least once, and never let's them go again. i love mine. it's also the one my kids are interested in as far as inheritance goes. go figure. i brought them up right anyway. who knew?

 

[cjbecker]

I like 35mmm because I can send a roll off and get beautiful 4x6 back.

 

[Diapositivo]

A serious scanner for 135 is affordable while a serious scanner for 120 is difficult to find and very expensive to buy.

You can walk with two or three 135 bodies without trailing a cart.

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

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).

You can take pictures without appearing "professional" when you need not to draw attention.