Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

[Yashinoff]

I recall disk cameras being unwieldy compared to 110 cameras - the flat shape wasn't good for holding. Overall most 110 cameras were smaller I'd think too.

 

[Alan Gales]

Kodak 110 cameras and disc cameras were shaped differently. Disc cameras fit better in your pocket. As for holding, the disc cameras were more like using a cell phone to take pictures except you looked through a tiny hole.

In my opinion disc, 110, and 126 were all crap. Back then you could buy the hugely popular and cheap Canon Sureshot 35mm and blow them all away.

 

[Diapositivo]

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.

In a SLR the viewfinder is aligned with the lens and is more or less in the centre of the camera. When you raise a SLR to your hear it covers the entire head. The subject doesn't see any eye of the photographer.

In a RF typically the viewfinder is on one side of the camera. When you raise it it only covers half of your face, and leaves one eye free, and the nose visible. The subject sees the nose, one eye, and probably the mouth of the photographer, while with a SLR almost the entire face is covered.

It might be that for this reason the photographer with a RF is less conspicuous. For the gut, the instinct so to speak, he's raising "half a camera" to his eyes (or at least, it appears "half" because it covers only half of the face).

Rationally this shouldn't make any difference. It's obvious that both are taking a picture. But somewhere in the gut if the camera is bigger and it covers both eyes (and most of the face) it is obvious that the photographer "menaces" to take a picture. If the camera is smaller and the photographer goes on looking at the scene then probably "also the images is going to be smaller..." or it's a snap or it's not really being taken. The gut is not very rational.

 

[removed account4]

The flip side: medium and large format images have vastly superior tonality. They just look better!

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

John- tell us how you really feel!

 

[baachitraka]

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

True. I am amazed by looking at the photographs posted by Wolfgang Moersch on Facebook since most of them were shot with Holga 120N.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

Thank you.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Pentax made a couple of 110 SLRs with interchangeable lenses, flashguns and an optional motor winder. The lenses were pretty good (apparently the 24mm standard lens wasn't particularly wonderful, but the others don't embarrass themselves even now). The main problem with 110 seems to have been that the film wasn't held as flat as it needed to be for the best results, so you tended to get images which weren't evenly sharp across the frame.

Sure, if you put anything in the hands of someone with a good eye for an image you'll get great results. But equally there's a reason why the big names don't use a cheap fixed-everything toy compact for their serious work. There's a balance between your skill and the abilities of the kit.

The wonderful thing with 35mm SLRs is that providing the body is light-tight, the shutter speeds accurate, and either the light meter is accurate or you have a handheld one, you can get the same results whether that body is a £250 pro-grade classic model or a £10 consumer-level model which someone found in Grandad's wardrobe and stuck on ebay. Put a good lens on the front of either and you've essentially got the same tool, it's up to you to make the best of it after that. That's why I'm always telling newbies to film to get hold of a Pentax P30, P30n or P30t - they're cheap, solid, simple cameras which can use any K mount lens. Stick a Pentax 50mm on the front and you won't find better for twice the price.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

Well put!

If the equipment is a distraction, you're doing something wrong.
Ideally the equipment will be transparent, you won't even be thinking about it when composing an image. Equipment should not intrude.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The wonderful thing with 35mm SLRs is that providing the body is light-tight, the shutter speeds accurate, and either the light meter is accurate or you have a handheld one, you can get the same results whether that body is a £250 pro-grade classic model or a £10 consumer-level model which someone found in Grandad's wardrobe and stuck on ebay. Put a good lens on the front of either and you've essentially got the same tool, it's up to you to make the best of it after that.

Isn´t that the case with LF as well? ;-)

 

[PentaxBronica]

Well yes, but you tend to have to spend rather more for larger formats (and there's no such thing as a consumer grade MF body - they're all pro-grade!)

 

[fmajor]

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

Well said!!!! Probably one of the most accurate statements ever made in regard to photography or, dare i say, most *all* pursuits!!!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well yes, but you tend to have to spend rather more for larger formats (and there's no such thing as a consumer grade MF body - they're all pro-grade!)

You're forgetting all those mid-century folders (and box brownies!) that shoot 120/620 in 645 and 6x6 (and even some 6x9) formats. An Agfa Isolette, Billy or Clack was NEVER a pro camera And even the more complex ones like the Voigtlander Bessa II, Zeiss Ikon, and the Soviet equivalents like the Moskva were not aimed higher than serious amateurs when they were new.

 

[zenrhino]

i have seen plenty of crap LF images, ULF images PT/PD images, Metal Images, Glass Images &c
... just like i have seen crap images from every other format and process.
nothing is superior, format size has nothing to do with the quality of images made by it ...
all it has to do with is the ego and superiority complex of the person using the format + process they hope will exhume their lack of talent into the halls of history.

equipment is a distraction.

Preach on.

I don't give a rat's ass what the format is -- it's just part of the tool you use to get the image in yr head into someone else's line of sight (be it on a monitor, in a print, etc).

Plus, each format (and tool in that format) has some very distinct advantages/disadvantages. Learn these, and you will be the master of every format.

So objectively, if you want portability and lots of auto-everything (and don't get me wrong, I use an F5 precisely for the excellent metering and autofocus at the speed of thought), use 35mm. But don't expect the sort of detail you'll get from 8x10 or even 6x6.

 

[zenrhino]

Well yes, but you tend to have to spend rather more for larger formats (and there's no such thing as a consumer grade MF body - they're all pro-grade!)

I might point out the Holga, Diana, etc.

Except that they're not even good enough to be consumer grade.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Equipment is a distraction if you let it. If you're chasing it as some kind of silver bullet, then you're more likely a gear whore or a dilettante. But if it is merely the tool required to produce the desired result, then there's nothing wrong with it. Yes, there's plenty of soul-less dreck made with every format, in every medium. But by the same token, don't go bashing work in other media just because it was produced via a tool/process/etc that doesn't make sense for you. Bash it if it truly is soul-less dreck. There's probably a lot more shite being made with Holgas than with 12x20 cameras, if only on a statistical basis because there's a lot more Holgas out there and the film for them costs a lot less, and they're 'hip' now so a lot of folks who don't know their f-stop from a hole in the ground are playing with them. Don't pick up a tool because using it will give you a cachet - use it because it does what it does and you want to do what it lets you do. A Hasselblad won't make you a better photographer for being a Hasselblad; however, it will if it gets out of your way and enables you to work more efficiently/effectively to communicate the ideas you want to create.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think one thing is for certain; if people would instead focus all the attention they focus on their equipment, on just becoming better at using the tools they have and improving their skills, there would be more good photography in the world.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I might point out the Holga, Diana, etc.

Except that they're not even good enough to be consumer grade.

Perhaps if the consumers are all pre-school.

 

[zenrhino]

If you're chasing it as some kind of silver bullet, then you're more likely a gear whore or a dilettante.

I'm not sure I agree here. If the equipment you use doesn't produce the result in your brain then of course you're going to think about some other equipment. You're not going to get screaming facemelter guitar solos out of a bajo sexto, even though technically they're still guitars any more than you'd get 15fps sports shots from an 8x10 setup.

But if you want that Sally Mann/Alec Soth/Paul Graham sort of look you're just not going to get it from your dad's hand-me-down OM-10 no matter how good your concept and execution are.

Maybe, just maybe, there's someone who started off saying "Ok, to get that awesome color palate and detail, I have to start off using 4x5/8x10." I've never met one of them, though.

And that's to say nothing of people who rotate through different gear because they're looking for a 35mm/6x6/whatever setup that feels invisible in their hands. People talk about Leicas that way. Could/Should/Would people just accept whatever gear is in their hands and make great photos? Engh. Anyone who's met me knows that I'm not going to be comfortable in a size 36 jeans or size 7 shoes. Why not find something that fits?

Now if/when someone gets to the point where casting about for gear takes the place of making photos? That's another issue, a pathological one that should be remedied with a prescription of one full day off, five rolls of film, and $15 for beers or coffee to be had throughout the day while making photos.

 

[removed account4]

one problem is that people are too busy
trying to copy other people's style instead of
using a camera, any camera, and finding their own style.

i certainly couldn't care less about someone else's tripod holes
or techniques or gear to make images " just like them "
it isn't the equipment that makes the images, its the thing under the hood.

and forums and online communities don't help much.

its kind of laughable ...

 

[cliveh]

What an interesting thread.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What an interesting thread.

Oh, you're just saying that because you started it...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm not sure I agree here. If the equipment you use doesn't produce the result in your brain then of course you're going to think about some other equipment. You're not going to get screaming facemelter guitar solos out of a bajo sexto, even though technically they're still guitars any more than you'd get 15fps sports shots from an 8x10 setup.

But if you want that Sally Mann/Alec Soth/Paul Graham sort of look you're just not going to get it from your dad's hand-me-down OM-10 no matter how good your concept and execution are.

Maybe, just maybe, there's someone who started off saying "Ok, to get that awesome color palate and detail, I have to start off using 4x5/8x10." I've never met one of them, though.

And that's to say nothing of people who rotate through different gear because they're looking for a 35mm/6x6/whatever setup that feels invisible in their hands. People talk about Leicas that way. Could/Should/Would people just accept whatever gear is in their hands and make great photos? Engh. Anyone who's met me knows that I'm not going to be comfortable in a size 36 jeans or size 7 shoes. Why not find something that fits?

Now if/when someone gets to the point where casting about for gear takes the place of making photos? That's another issue, a pathological one that should be remedied with a prescription of one full day off, five rolls of film, and $15 for beers or coffee to be had throughout the day while making photos.

Of course the old "why use a hammer to do a screwdriver's job" still applies- If you want to capture "decisive moment" type shots, or "street" photos, you're not going to get the results you expect with an 11x14 portrait camera. You might surprise yourself with what you do get if you try it with that 11x14, but I think that kind of photography requires a very self-aware photographer who is creatively open to serendipity. And the same goes the other way - if your goal is to make 6-foot tall prints of grand landscapes where you can count the ear-hairs on the deer that happens to wander through the background of the shot, you're not going to get there from here with a 35mm point-and-shoot. But you might make some landscapes that are breathtaking in their own way when printed 5x7 inches.

What I was specifically addressing in my comment, though, was the mentality of "my pictures will be BETTER if I only have camera/lens/format/tripod abc etc". Your pictures will NOT be more like Ansel Adams' if you go buy an 8x10 field camera and a 14" Commercial Ektar lens. Your pictures won't even necessarily get any better at all if you go buy that 8x10 field camera, unless you use the discipline and rigor such a camera requires to slow down and think about each frame you expose and why you want to expose it and if it's worth committing to film in the first place. And you really ought to be thinking long and hard about why you want your pictures to look like someone else's pictures in the first place. What I wanted to learn from Ansel Adams was rigor and technique; I learned it and added it to my repertoire and moved on. I want any landscape/streetscape/portrait/abstract that I take to look like a Scott Davis, not an Ansel Adams. Call it ego if you want to, but I don't want people to mistake my work for anyone else's.

 

[MattKing]

I want any landscape/streetscape/portrait/abstract that I take to look like a Scott Davis, not an Ansel Adams. Call it ego if you want to, but I don't want people to mistake my work for anyone else's.

Scott:

How about Andreas Gursky?

Just once

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Scott:

How about Andreas Gursky?

Just once

He might not have fauxtoshoppe.