Advantages of MF over 35mm

[paul ron]

Negative real estate is the main factor.. how much information you can cram in a given amount of space that will transalte into details.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I shoot both 35mm and medium format. For me, the larger the format the slower I work. So this is one aspect. As for print quality, the pay off is when you print larger than 8x10. I made an 8x10 print from my 35mm neg of Ankor Wat in Cambodia. I have a tough time distinguishing the quality some shots I made with my 120 camera. I shot 35mm Fuji Acros souped in Xtol. My Canon F1 I feel the most comfortable with and I tend to shoot more film than my Zeiss Super Ikonta IV.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's impossible to get the shallow DOF on 35mm that I can get with the Contax 645 at f/2 and still retain a really sharp image.

Think about what you're saying here. The Contax normal lens is 80mm? At f/2 that's a 40mm aperture. If you use a 50mm lens at f/1.2 you have the same depth of field, because that's also a 40mm aperture. Exactly.

 

[wiltw]

Think about what you're saying here. The Contax normal lens is 80mm? At f/2 that's a 40mm aperture. If you use a 50mm lens at f/1.2 you have the same depth of field, because that's also a 40mm aperture. Exactly.

^
Assuming 20/20 visual acuity for the observer,...

• 645 format 80mm f/2 focused at 10m has DOF zone of 1.15m
• 135 format 50mm f/1.2 focused at 10m has DOF zone of 1.02m

4.7" shallower DOF zone for the 135 format shot with those two lenses.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

^
Assuming 20/20 visual acuity for the observer,...

• 645 format 80mm f/2 focused at 10m has DOF zone of 1.15m
• 135 format 50mm f/1.2 focused at 10m has DOF zone of 1.02m

4.7" shallower DOF zone for the 135 format shot with those two lenses.

And that really matters in your pictures? 80/2=40. 50/1.2=41.6. In practical terms that's identical.

 

[Terry Christian]

Even at the smallest medium format negative size, 645, the quality difference between 35mm and medium format is apparent to me. The grain is minimized and the image seems so much more real, especially with a color negative. 35mm is still great for sheer convenience, though.

 

[Bill Burk]

I recall being told something to the effect... I think it was William Neill, or at least the day I was being taught this lesson I saw some of his chromes... The photographer showing 6x7 or 4x5 transparencies to the buyer, if the subject is the same, will win the sale over 35mm slides.

 

[lxdude]

Think about what you're saying here. The Contax normal lens is 80mm? At f/2 that's a 40mm aperture. If you use a 50mm lens at f/1.2 you have the same depth of field, because that's also a 40mm aperture. Exactly.

Well, pretty close: 41.66mm

 

[Andre Noble]

You can make mistakes and still have a presenatble 8x10 darkroom print with 6x7 medium format. 35mm has less margin for error.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

... but I was using this as an exercise to judge when to take a 35mm outfit out with me vs the heavier medium format. Really I was using it as a justification to myself and to my familiy why I was lugging around the RB67.

Have you considered a lighter camera? A TLR weighs two pounds, and a Holga weighs only 8oz. A nice Yashica won't hurt your pocketbook, and there are many for sale. The RB67 isn't exactly designed for toting around for snapshots.

But as for which format is "better," I think you already know that. 16x20 contact prints. Or a Minox. Something like that.

 

[georg16nik]

A compact medium format folder is the perfect compact camera for walks, hikes etc.. Any other medium format camera steals the joy, being outside, having fun...
Well, if the fun is taking photos then gazing at the enlargements.., then You already got Yourself the perfect RB67.
35mm is a fluid format, its cinematographic. It asks for skills. Large formats asks for big ego.

 

[sharris]

I like where this thread is leading. There are many reasons to ponder including technical, desired final printed format, subject matter, and realistic ergonomics / tradeoffs. It is helpful to consider the factors clearly in selecting a camera system for the shoot. The result is then proper alignment of selected system to final result and harmony between the photographer's intent and final result. And taking an extreme example, even if one encounters a 'target rich' environment armed with every conceivable option of a camera system, the disruption of going to different format and mechanics would likely produce a lower yield of keepers and detract from the zen like experience and flow. And isnt that part of the pleasure of photgraphy as well? In the end, whether having one reasonable system for your expression or many simply affords choices. But it is equally untrue that joy is derived from selecting the best technical solution as it is from having an abundance of systems from which to choose. Rather, as in most things, fulfillment often comes from the application of what you have in hand and appreciation of what is does. Let occassional twangs of perceived regret fade into the mist and seek peace.

 

[hdeyong]

I think what you're saying, is "Love the one you're with."

 

[xtolsniffer]

This is great, it's just what I needed which was the incentive to get out more with the RB67. Sure there are lots of times that 35mm will be more practical, but the sheer beauty of a 6x7 piece of film is hard to beat when you can get away with it.

 

[Bill Burk]

...fulfillment often comes from the application of what you have in hand and appreciation of what is does...

sharris,

This makes a lot of sense.

 

[LarryP]

If you prefer what you get with the rb use it every time you can and shoot 35 when you have too.I use Foma 100 in 35 and 120 both developed in diafine and there is a definite difference in tonality and grain. I can't call either one better but some shots are better suited for 35mm and some for my 645 , so I tend to carry both and shoot with one or the other sometimes both if I'm feeling indecisive.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

This is great, it's just what I needed which was the incentive to get out more with the RB67. Sure there are lots of times that 35mm will be more practical, but the sheer beauty of a 6x7 piece of film is hard to beat when you can get away with it.

Here's what you do. Cart an 8x10 around for 6 months. Then, when you go back to the RB it will feel tiny and light.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you prefer what you get with the rb use it every time you can and shoot 35 when you have too.

That is what it's all about. Use the equipment you need to use to get what you want. Everything else is trivial.
1. Make sure you can get the shot you want - adapt and pick the equipment you need to get there.
2. Then work to get the best print you can from whatever format you chose.
I'm convinced that it's photographers only who agonize over what camera format was used to make that gorgeous 16x20. It is the print that matters. If you were carrying an RB67 around and it prevented you from getting the shot you want, well, then you have no use for it no matter how much you love it.

Take a look at some masterful photographers and printers work from the 1950s, 1960s and so on, and see what they were able to do with 35mm at that time. AND, I mean go look at the real prints, not some shitty scans on the internet. Find a museum. Find a gallery. Modest equipment by today's standards, but superior craftsmanship. Much too much attention is paid to equipment these days, and not enough attention on things like printing skills.
I assure you that you will be able to move the same audience with a 16x20 from 35mm that you can move with a 16x20 from a 67 negative, as long as they're not grain peeping photographers - if you know what you're doing in the darkroom.

 

[pbromaghin]

Well said, Thomas.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Here's what you do. Cart an 8x10 around for 6 months. Then, when you go back to the RB it will feel tiny and light.

Heh, heh...

Even your 4x5 cameras and negatives will begin to feel like a miniature format.



Ken

 

[warden]

Maybe I'm an anomaly at apug, but I print for handholding images, small. My 35mm images are generally 5X7", and MF are printed to 6X6". If I'm feeling frisky I'll use MF to go all the way to 7X7".

Either camera format will make excellent prints for how I like to view and display images, so it comes down to fun. I use whatever is fun.

Even at these small sizes though, I see some difference between MF and 35mm, although it's hard to describe exactly what it is. They're just different, but that could have as much to do with lenses, tripod, film, etc as format.

 

[F/1.4]

Think about what you're saying here. The Contax normal lens is 80mm? At f/2 that's a 40mm aperture. If you use a 50mm lens at f/1.2 you have the same depth of field, because that's also a 40mm aperture. Exactly.

The key word is retain a really sharp image...The Canon 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 isn't anywhere near as crisp looking as the Zeiss 80mm

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I am with Thomas. People pay way too much attention to trivial factors when the important ones, like printing skill (or image content) are given little attention. Someone with skill and knowledge in the darkroom will make a better print from a 35mm neg than someone who is sloppy or inexperienced printing from a 120 neg. From my point of view, technical matters are more important n the darkroom but I prefer not to think about them when making images. I know I am not in the majority on this, at least not in the forum world.

These threads about negative size always remind me of macho truck people-i.e. "MINE is bigger than yours so I am more of a man!" Whoop-tee doo.

I don't care what camera anyone shoots with, the size of their negatives, etc., just show me the beautiful images. That is WAY more impressive than how big the film is.

 

[darkosaric]

With 35mm everything becomes more critical, because it's magnified more, so the it's absolutely critical that everything is perfectly aligned, that your negatives are optimal, and extra care must be taken at printing time, etc.

I am with Tomas also

When I used rolleiflex and other medium format cameras - I was getting nice prints without problem, and with 35mm I needed to get everything perfectly aligned, watch for every detail, use best enlarging lenses... But on the end I did sold my medium format cameras and kept nikons and leicas - final prints that I get with 35mm is more than satisfying for me, and medium format just did not worked for my style of photographing.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Thaks for the opinions everyone, this is a really useful discussion. I'm probably leaning more towards medium format now. I'm very fortunate to have had the time and cash to play with both. I've shot 35mm for perhaps 20+ years and medium format only four years or so, and still do 90% on 35mm. For me, it's a very different process. I'm not a naturally very creative photographer and I find the more measured approach to medium format helps me a great deal as I really have to think about every shot and look at all the possibilities. Looking back through a selection of my best prints there are very few that I couldn't have taken on medium format, and I think most could have been improved by having done so because I would have been more critical at the point of pressing the shutter. Of course I could just apply the medium format thinking to my 35mm shots, but I enjoy the process with the RB67. It is just a tool for getting the right composition/lighting/exposure etc, but it's a nice one.