Anyone try MF and go back to 35mm?

[zozur]

Hello
Many people go from 135 film to 120 and I read many good words about it - about tonally, quality etc.
Is there are people who are disappointed by medium format and prefer 135?

 

[baachitraka]

I shoot both the formats. Its all about the convenience.

 

[munz6869]

Whenever I shoot 35mm, I miss Medium Format. Whenever I shoot Medium Format, I miss Large Format, etc... Convenience is the determinant.

Marc!

 

[darkosaric]

I did. I had rolleiflex, folder cameras, holga, diana... on the end i sold everything except diana that i use sometimes. 35mm pluses are more important for me than larger negative.

 

[Dr Croubie]

In one area I have, well kinda.
I shoot a lot of local poetry gigs, the darker the better and everyone wears black. I tried a 50/1.4 Tak, an EF 85/1.8 and 100/2 on my eos 3, wide open and Delta 3200 at 1/60s developed for ei6400. I got some thin but decent shots, but they didn't look much good enlarged over 8x10, if that.
So I went for bigger format, got an 80/1.9 and mamiya 645AF, the fastest/cheapest MF lens available (because I'll never afford a Contax 80/2 or Hassy 100/2). Enlargements looked better from 645 vs 135, a lot better. But being poetry and the 645AF being a rather loud camera with its wind-on motor, I quickly gave up on it (and the eos 3 wasn't too quiet either).

Now my go-to camera for those gigs is a Bessa R3A and Nokton 40/1.4. I know people whinge about Bessas being louder than Leicas, but it's the quietest camera I've ever used. Tack-sharp wide open (within the confines of Delta 3200 grain), definitely beats the other lenses at f/2 (where I was shooting them, the Takumar loses a lot of sharpness opening up from f2 to f1.4 so I kept it at f2), plus I can handhold it steady at 1/30s. So I only develop at ei3200 now and enlargements look a lot better, a lot more keepers, less thin negs, and more shadow detail (as in, it's not >95% black on the print).

But in all other respects, bigger is better, as long as I'm driving and I can take the 8x10 strapped to the back seat...

 

[Neal]

Dear zozur,

It seems to me that it is not a matter of displacement but augmentation. A few years back I added an M645 but it has not replaced 35mm.

Neal Wydra

 

[Slixtiesix]

After shooting 35mm I made the step towards 4x5 some 10 years ago but it was too impractical for me. Then I stepped into MF and never looked back. The ideal compromise between ease of use, money (for film and developer) and quality.

 

[anfenglin]

In my opinion, comparing 35mm with MF is rather difficult. Yes, it's film, but 35mm and MF both have their own advantages and disadvantages. With 35mm I have the possibility to use quite small cameras with great finders and lenses, also I tend to use it when I don't care about how many pictures I want to take or when I want to take pictures of my daughter.
For picture quality and calmness I use MF, my Rolleicord III or the Fuji GA645. When shooting my 'cord I use an external light meter and I'm fully concentrated, with 35mm I tend to get snap happy. The Fuji is pocketable and a great travel camera, although I tend to take the Rollei instead. These days I shoot MF 90% of the time. 35mm started to bore me.
It really depends on you. I wouldn't want to go back to 35mm, I would always miss MF.

 

[Nathan King]

I tried medium format and went back to 35mm. I loved the image quality from 645 and 6x7, but became tired of feeling like a pack mule every time I left the house with a camera. If you want a reasonably deep depth of field you had better pack a tripod too, unless it's the middle of the day and sunny. The largest I print is around 9x13, and 35mm does just fine at that size.

 

[gone]

If you have the right glass and expose and develop your film correctly, you won't give up much to medium format in terms of image quality, but your enlargements will be smaller. There's a lot more convenience when you use 35mm cameras too. It's hard to beat a 6x6 neg though, especially if you like square format. It's just not always practical to shoot.

I loved my R3A and R2A Bessas too. But an M7 would have made me happy as well :]

 

[MattKrull]

It seems to me that it is not a matter of displacement but augmentation. A few years back I added an M645 but it has not replaced 35mm.

This.
645 systems are cheap enough that I can justify having one and using it only rarely. But when I do use it, the results are completely worth it. More so since I started enlarging. It isn't just the quality, but the ease of printing. I only print 8x10, and while there definitely a quality difference, it isn't the end of the world. But getting a really good print from 35mm takes a lot of work for me, while getting just as good a print from 645 is darned near effortless. As nice as 35mm equipment is, I have no plan to leave my MF behind.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello
Many people go from 135 film to 120 and I read many good words about it - about tonally, quality etc.
Is there are people who are disappointed by medium format and prefer 135?

I like MF for its quality and 35mm for its flexibility and speed

 

[removed-user-1]

I love large negatives, and still shoot medium and even large format sometimes. But over the years, I have found that 35mm fits my "photographic habits," for want of a better description. I like to wander around with my camera, on foot. I've done this with 8x10, 4x5, and a Mamiya RB67, but I find that my "seeing" is more in line with a handheld camera, and that's much more convenient with a rangefinder or my trusty Nikon F3. Perhaps my favorite medium format camera was the Fuji 645 rangefinder I used to carry everywhere. Best of both worlds! People tell me the motorized F3 is a large, heavy camera and I just roll my eyes...

Anyway since I almost never print larger than 8x10" and prefer slower films, the only thing I miss about larger negatives is being able to make nice contact prints (there's nothing like a really nice 8x10 contact print... sigh).

 

[removed account4]

i had a yahsica from 1984-90 and when i was broke, needed rent $ and sold it.
i got a 4x5 about a year later, and a roll back.
i never really warmed back up to mf, except for the roll back.
was given a lubitel, used it 2 or 3x
eventually i landed a mamiya 6iv, and used that folder mainly
because it was handheld and i was trapped in a car with a boatload of 120 film.
it met an untimely death 300 rolls and about a year later and really haven't ever gone back to MF since.
i still had 120 film so began taping a roll back to the back end of a 5x4 graflex slr ( d series )
i was told not to, because the focus would be off and other nonsense ( as usual the nay-sayers were wrong )
and i used that with hundreds of rolls of film.
over thepast IDK 5-10 years i have had a few other MF cameras, a helga, couple of box cameras, itallian bencinis even a rolleicord but never did more
than use them a handful of times ( well, the sureshot box a little more, its a family heirloom ) ...
to me at least, if i am going to go through the trouble of only having 9 or 12 exposures i might as well
use the LF camera, and a roll back brass, old or lf lenses or just ... the LF camera.
i haven't found much usefullness otherwise for medium format other than gas.
tonal rendition and quality for me at least has never been much different than 35mm ..

 

[rowghani]

If you have the right glass and expose and develop your film correctly, you won't give up much to medium format in terms of image quality, but your enlargements will be smaller. There's a lot more convenience when you use 35mm cameras too. It's hard to beat a 6x6 neg though, especially if you like square format. It's just not always practical to shoot.

I loved my R3A and R2A Bessas too. But an M7 would have made me happy as well :]

I have to disagree with this one. I used a summicron for a while and now only shoot MF and the quality is much better all the time regardless if its 6x45 or 6x6. Even when I print BW in the darkroom the amount of detail is much more and also the smoothness of the tones is very apparent.

Im a huge MF fan because i find I struggle to get through 36 exposures and like the idea of shooting 10-15 shots and having them developed. Also I do agree that another factor is that you have so many formats to choose from. 35 mm is always the same rectangle.

 

[ToddB]

Since I got a Leica M3 last year, I've had that and a Rollei in my bag. Been happy with both.

Todd

 

[georg16nik]

...Also I do agree that another factor is that you have so many formats to choose from. 35 mm is always the same rectangle.

Just to name a few...

• 24 × 36 mm
• 24 × 24 mm
• 18 × 24 mm
• 12 × 24 mm
• 6 × 24 mm

 

[Ian Grant]

When I look at 35mm prints I want to shoot MF or LF, my TLRs have largely replaced my 35mm cameras and I rarely use the format these days, I prefer the more contemplative way of working with LF and graet MF the same way.

Ian

 

[DannL.]

I switch back and forth as often as I change my underwear. It has nothing to do with film, and everything to do with the results. One of those results is . . . "Did I enjoy using that equipment?". So, my arsenal consists only of cameras the I "enjoy using" and that give "good results".

 

[shoot6x7]

This weekend I loaded Reala and Kodak 100UC into a couple of backs for my 501c/m and then one roll of 100UC into a Double stroke M3 with a goggle-less 50 dual-range Summicron.

Both cameras are a joy to use and I wouldn't want to let either one go. To get the best out of a 'blad you do need a tripod. The biggest issue though is the number of shots you're going to make in an outing. These days 10 or 20 shots from my Mamiya 7ii will be more than enough, but 36 is usually a struggle these days.

 

[rbultman]

I switch back and forth as often as I change my underwear. It has nothing to do with film, and everything to do with the results. One of those results is . . . "Did I enjoy using that equipment?". So, my arsenal consists only of cameras the I "enjoy using" and that give "good results".

+1


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hello
Many people go from 135 film to 120 and I read many good words about it - about tonally, quality etc.
Is there are people who are disappointed by medium format and prefer 135?

You are overestimating the movement. Few, not many.

I do have bunch of MF, one LF and one 8x11 cameras with matching enlargers. Simply, because I like, need something different once in awhile.

If you like still life and have people willing to sit for long time in front of the camera, yes, MF is offering noticeable by few tonality and declarable by some quality.
But if you will show to the regular "end user" LF, MF and 135 portrait - 90% will not see the difference. So, it is almost strictly among us.

Here is nothing MF and LF will do, what I can't do with 135 in terms of good looking 5x7 and 8x10 darkroom print. I'm not gearhead who is obsessed with sharpness, nor I'm wall posters printer.
This Sunday night I just printed 5x7 on very old Agfa-Brovira 117 #4 from HP5+ in FED-2 with J-3 on it. And every time I print (on 5x7, 8x10) from this old camera lens combo it looks as amazing as 6x6, 4x5 camera print, if not better.

Cheeers, Ko.

 

[Agulliver]

I know I haven't contributed much here yet but I thought I would chip in.

For me, it does come down to convenience and cost. 35mm film costs a little more in B&W, but all other associated costs are lower. If I shoot 120, I go through developer and fixer quicker but they are cheap so it's no big deal. But I have the facility to scan or make traditional prints from 35mm and not with 120, so I need use of a professional lab. The gear is of course bigger and heavier. Have you tried assembling a Kiev 6C on a transatlantic plane with the intention of shooting out of the window? Honestly, people think you're a terrorist!

With 35mm I can carry around a nice body and lens alongside my DSLR or two 35mm bodies loaded with different films.

So 120 is a bit of a luxury for me, something I do occasionally. Most recently with a Rolleicord at work, and I am attempting to work out a way of using the DLSR to "scan" the negatives.

 

[MattKing]

My postcards for the current round and the next round of the APUG Postcard Exchange were shot on 35mm. But regular participants will most likely know that my postcards often originate on medium format too.

Spending time (and effort, and money) using medium format tends to increase my appreciation for those things that 35mm is really good for. Including most recently auto-focus and built-in flash.

The larger negatives from medium format endear me to it the most, but the big viewscreens do too.

 

[benjiboy]

I've been using both formats for so long I can switch between them without thinking.