Can't give up 35mm....

[Shawn Rahman]

Does anyone else have MF or LF setups that are collecting dust because (heaven forbid) you just like 35mm better?

My Mamiya setup (Pro TL, 3 wonderful lenses) always gives me great results, but it sits unused for most of the time. My usage ratio of 35mm to 645 in terms of film is about 20:1. I don't necessarily think it is because the Mamiya is just slightly more cumbersome. I think I just understand 35mm better somehow. I really want to use my MF setup more, but I always seem to go for my Nikons.

Has anyone made a similarly unsuccessful jump from 35 to MF or LF?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Can't say that I have, Shawn. I like the 35mm format, and it's entirely possible to get great results from it. I think I have come to a place where I look beyond the format and just 'see'. I guess the longer I'm doing this, the less important the camera seems to be. I just grab whatever's convenient, it seems, or what camera type corresponds to what I have in stock for film.

My view.

- Thomas

 

[Shawn Rahman]

Can't say that I have, Shawn. I like the 35mm format, and it's entirely possible to get great results from it. I think I have come to a place where I look beyond the format and just 'see'. I guess the longer I'm doing this, the less important the camera seems to be. I just grab whatever's convenient, it seems, or what camera type corresponds to what I have in stock for film.

My view.

- Thomas

I really like your response, Thomas. Thanks. I understand you and also find myself mostly not caring what format I use - until, that is, I think about the gear that is wasting away. I'll also from time to time take stock of what film I have in the fridge and try to choose based on that.

Thanks for the response!

 

[Russ - SVP]

I'm not from the "bigger is better" camp. I get just as much enjoyment from a beautiful 8x12" print, as I do from a large print from an 8x10" negative. Yes, it's about seeing, and capturing that on film. The 35mm films and lenses are just so good nowadays, that I don't feel compelled to shoot medium or large format, to produce beautiful snaps or prints.

"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit."

Kiron Kid

 

[jasonjoo]

I have a Canon EOS 3 with 17-40L and 70-200 f4 IS lens that just doesn't see too much use. Well, I haven't been out shooting as of late, but most of the time I'm out shooting, I'll grab my Rolleiflex before the the 35mm setup. I feel like I'm still in the honeymoon phase with the Rolleiflex, but man, it's a fine camera!

I'm considering selling the 35mm setup to help fund a Hasselblad setup or maybe even an LF setup. Still, it's proving very hard for me to part with the 35mm setup. I could easily sell off the 35mm gear for $1600+, but it's just too darn convenient for me to do so.

Decisions, decisions!

Jason

 

[Terence]

I'm still stuck in the "bigger is better" crowd. I still shoot 35mm, but when I print, I always end up going for the MF stuff. The tones and detail are just too engrossing.

 

[jd callow]

i love 35mm cameras and th eneg proportions, but really dislike the small neg.

 

[Mark Antony]

I've always been a big 35mm fan, and have several.
But recently I bought a Fuji RF 6x7 and since I bought it I've only used my Rollei 35 (fits in my pocket) a few times, my Leica once and my Nikon SLRs, hardly.
I find the Fuji only a little bigger than an SLR, but the negs give lovely tonal range, when you see Tri-x Neopan or HP5 in MF you end up using 35mm only when you need the flexibility of a system cam or small size for carry about.
I love Delta 3200 in MF, could just be a 'honeymoon' effect as noted above, but somehow I feel I'll use both depending on what subject matter.
Mark

 

[Nicole]

I've been shooting more 35mm than MF lately and am really enjoying the freedom. The neg size does not bother me.

 

[Vonder]

My life is recorded on 4x6 machine-made color prints, shot with 35mm cameras. There are few enlargements made from those negatives, although they are certainly capable of being enlarged. There are a few negatives I would like to jumbo size, but for the most part, there's plenty enough "memory" in the 4x6 print.

 

[elekm]

I move back and forth between the two formats, often selecting the format for what I'll be shooting that day.

 

[removed account4]

i've been shooting quite a bit of 35mm half frame lately.
i like the way a roll of film seems to take forever to finish,
and that it is lightweight compared to a big bulky graflex slr.

 

[stillsilver]

I still shoot with my 35s but Ive stopped buying film for them. I mostly use MF (and I just bought a LF that I'm playing with). I find I don't like handling the small negs in the dr after using lots of 120. When the 3mm film is used up then I'll have to make a choice about their fate.

Mike

 

[IloveTLRs]

I've been shooting 35mm for a few weeks now, but I still use 120 at times. It depends on my mood. I find cameras from both formats to be fascinating: Rolleiflex, Trip 35, XA series, Leica, etc, etc.

 

[mikebarger]

I haven't shot more than 5 rolls of film through my F3 in the last 4 or 5 years. After some time of using the Hassy I thought moving to 4x5 would be that much better. If I shoot 35mm now, It's generally something I think I need the 18mm perspective.

I was wrong about the 4x5, once in awhile I drag the Sinar F out to play with it but I still just plain enjoy using the Hassy.

I'm going to try and make an effort to use the Sinar more this summer to see if it's the camera type or the format that gives me issues. I think it's the monorail in the field. Maybe I need a field camera 4x5 I do enjoy the slow speed of 4x5, and I like the darkrooom side of it, maybe it is the camera.

Mike

 

[PhotoJim]

It's all about the right tool for the job.

I strongly prefer having bigger negatives.

That having been said, sometimes it's far more convenient to shoot a smaller format because of handling considerations or lens needs. For example, shooting candid photographs of my three-year-old niece is far easier with a Nikon in 35mm than it is with a Bronica in 6x6 or a Calumet monorail in 4x5".

I shoot three formats and I find my photography is different with each of them. No one of them replaces any of the others.

 

[JBrunner]

Very interesting. FWIW although I still make them when the occasion demands, these days 35mm negs drive me nuts. It's like working on a micro scale model. That's just me though.

 

[dynachrome]

I have and use many formats but the 35mm SLR cameras get used the most. They are versatile and with the new films capable of very high quality enlargements. When thinks warm up a little more I will start shooting more with the 6X4.5, 6X6 and 6X7 formats.

 

[23mjm]

I could never give up 35mm but I also would not want to limit myself to it either! 35mm is the only format for shooting sports, I shoot a lot of cycling and rock climbing and the 35mm is the best choice. Speed, rapid shooting, auto-focus, and lens selection, hands down 35mm is the best there. But for pretty( ) pictures I like MF or LF. LF has the highest quality and MF (645) has a good trade off between speed of shooting and image quality. That's why I own 2 35mm's, 2 645's, a 6X6, a 6X7, and a 4X5. With probably the 645's the most used followed by 35mm 6X7 and then the 4X5---number of shots, not time used. I spend the most time shooting 4X5 because I am sooooo slow with it.

 

[kram]

After getting some top notch Zeiss ZM and ZF lens, yes I seem to be shooting more 35mm than MF. (Reminder must use LF more). However, I seem to shoot only colour on MF and B/W on 35mm + LF. The depth of colour on prints from MF is great.

 

[ntenny]

I have some 35mm cameras that I really like, but I don't like the small negatives, and I find the squiggly little strips a pain to work with in the darkroom. I haven't quite figured out how to resolve this dilemma yet.

Also, the percentage of "hits" is so much lower with 35mm that I find it sort of frustrating. It's the psychology of having too many shots available on the roll, I think; it's so much easier to just burn a frame on something that's ill-thought-out that, well, I do.

Possibly the solution is to go around shooting those cameras with no film in them, but I can't even do that with the Ikonta 35!

-NT

 

[waynecrider]

I shoot mostly 35mm now after forays into MF and LF. My photography has become more of a hobby and record for my older years (but Alzheimer's or dementia will take care of that) then an important statement or a sale which I'm it interested in doing. The whole bigger is better thing only lasts till your bed ridden or dead and in the ground, then it's just something else to be gotten rid of by your relatives or the State if you die childless like me. The rest is shoe boxed or put into an albumn where it's seen once a year if lucky. The thing that's more important is serving God, family and friends. Camera format is not one of them, so bigger and better is meaningless except for people who sell camera stuff. May as well travel small and light.

 

[firecracker]

To me, 35mm camera, whether it's SLR or RF, is almost like part of my body, so it will not go away. But the mid-format camera is a different experience; it's more like an instrument I really have to learn to use...

 

[copake_ham]

Does anyone else have MF or LF setups that are collecting dust because (heaven forbid) you just like 35mm better?

My Mamiya setup (Pro TL, 3 wonderful lenses) always gives me great results, but it sits unused for most of the time. My usage ratio of 35mm to 645 in terms of film is about 20:1. I don't necessarily think it is because the Mamiya is just slightly more cumbersome. I think I just understand 35mm better somehow. I really want to use my MF setup more, but I always seem to go for my Nikons.

Has anyone made a similarly unsuccessful jump from 35 to MF or LF?

Yes, more or less.

I've bought a few MF cameras and related gear etc. I keep meaning to "embrace" the format but my "go to" gear remains 35mm.

I'll keep trying to "get into" MF - but there's something about the spontaneity of 35mm that keeps it my main format.

Besides, I look at it this way: So long as someone is making film - they'll make 35mm.

So it could wind up being the "survivor" format.

 

[frdrx]

I regard my Pentax 645 a good friend, but the Contax RTS II is my first and last love, who has taught me the passion. Although I admit that 6x4.5 slides easily outshine it, I don't think I'll ever stop shooting 35 mm slide film (assuming an indefinite supply of it), one of the reasons being that I find the small format much better suited for macro photography of plants. An S-Planar mounted on a Contax loaded with 135 Velvia delivers all the quality I want. I shoot a lot of Fomapan R, which sadly isn't available as roll film, which is another reason why I won't give up the 35 mm frame.