I Hate Medium Format...

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.

I kindof agree, but I still love my RB67.

Jeff

 

[Roger Cole]

You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.

I don't obsess over it. I find that I get much better quality results much easier with medium format. I can get good print quality out of 35mm but it takes a lot more effort. So I actually do what you say - I use what gets me the shot, but I tend to use the camera that gives me the biggest possible negative while also getting the shot. The bigger negative gives me quality much easier, more options for cropping etc.

I do shoot some low light B&W in 35mm because I have faster lenses, and I shoot moving subjects more often - even though I have the AE prism for my M645 Pro, the 35mm is still faster handling with better lens selection. Sure print quality is secondary to getting the shot, but everything else is secondary to getting the shot. If you can't get it with MF, use 35mm of course - or Minox or digital or whatever. But if you can get it with either then other preferences come in to play.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here in one thread are several opinions I value highly:

Thomas Bertilsson has encouraged me to return to 35mm. Spend some time corresponding with him and he will convince you as well.

Ralph Lambrecht is right in my book... the jump in quality from 35mm to Medium Format is a significant one. Possibly all the jump you might ever need.

I'll use 4x5 because I enjoy making prints from the larger negative, but the step-up in quality is hardly visible. And Vaughn... of course you need 8x10 for Carbon printing.

On the foundation of those opinions, I am now completely neutral regarding format. It is very liberating to take any camera anywhere. Come back with the best you can get, and if you feel any room for improvement... take care of the mistakes you might have made.

And if you feel afraid to make a mistake listen to jnanian, who can help you shake off doldrums.

I have a 4x5 negative hanging to dry that I am afraid disappoints me - it is the exact same photograph as "Oak and Mistletoe, Black Diamond Mines" originally printed from a 110 negative. I took two shots, planning to provide a demonstration of the difference in quality between the worst I can do to the best I can do. Yet the branches and mistletoe in the 4x5 negative are unsharp and do not give me the delicious "fractal" effect that I had in mind. I really enjoy a black and white print which you can see details that appear infinitely fine. For the first time I understood the attraction of Red Dot Artar lenses (which I don't possess), because in this specific case, where I want extremely detailed branches, one of those lenses may have given me what I had in mind.

Fortunately for me, I take lessons like these as an opportunity to re-evaluate what is really important. And looking at the original print from 110 negative... I really like it as it is.

 

[Nuff]

You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.

I agree, use the best tool for the job at hand. I like using my 35mm slr. I wouldn't mind getting Leica M6 or M7 with 2 lenses. But that will have to wait a long while.
I also wouldn't mind getting Pentax 67 to go along with my hasselblad. But for now I'm pretty happy with what I have.

 

[mrred]

I returned to 35 from 120 for the following reasons.

1) My glass is better. I shoot nikon F6 / f100 and can take advantage of the current glass with vr. With age comes the reminder of my fathers shakes are hereditary.

2) I develop film much better. The format became less important.

3) My MF gear is getting older and has started to need repair. My F6 is still a current model and I even got it repaired (external flash fried some boards inside) at Nikon last year.

4) Neopan 400 and PlusX is gone in 120. I still have several 100' cans of both in 35.

5) I don't like being looked at like a hipster.

6) I still love my Zorki 4K

 

[Simon Howers]

It's a slippery slope I'm afraid. I ended up buying a new Chamonix whole plate camera.................................

 

[Roger Cole]

We're all over the place on format, clearly. And the bottom line is, if you're a pro use the tool you need to make money. If you do it for the enjoyment of it, use the one you enjoy using. For me that's all three (35mm, all MF, 4x5 and one day larger) but not equally for all things.

If/when E6 does completely go away I may give up 35mm entirely. Well no - I'll probably start reversal processing 35mm black and white.

 

[munz6869]

I hate all photography: with cameras, accessories, books, travel... I could have bought a racehorse or small yacht by now.

Marc!

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I don't think about film formats in terms of technical quality anymore. Instead I think about differences in the appearance of the outcome and the differences in handling.
For some subjects I prefer the grainy look of 35mm film. Others suits the smother appearance of MF better. Usually landscape. And for some the setup and handling of the 4x5 becomes an event in itself, influencing the stance of my subject (groups of people) in a certain way which, together with the three dimensional look of the prints, makes for the charm of the pictures.
But when it comes to darkroom work, I much prefer MF.

 

[VPooler]

I too, have gone that road. I was happy shooting 35mm but one day after having a few too many beers I bought an innocent-looking Kodak Brownie 120 camera off evilbay. Then came the folding pre-WWII Ikon, then I built a 67 medium format view camera just for the kicks. And then, only a few months later, came the lovely Crown Graphic and a few months later I bought a Rodenstock Grandagon as an offering for the LF gods. And now you might be asking, which format am I aiming for now? Well, I have a 8x10 camera in the making! This thing is addictive I tell you.

 

[baachitraka]

Its only printing for me. I am happy with 135 and 120. I may try LF pinhole one day, but now I find most of the joy in the printing and carrying simple gear.

 

[film_man]

I don't think any of my cameras can replace each other. There is a place for 6x7, 6x6 and 35mm otherwise I would have sold them all and kept just one. Yes it does generally start with "is there a reason why I would not take the RB67" everytime I want to shoot something and to be honest the Hasselblad probably gets the most use as I like the square format most but there are times when I just run around with the EOS 3 and the 40 and I just feel so free to do whatever I want.

 

[RattyMouse]

I returned to 35 from 120 for the following reasons.

1) My glass is better. I shoot nikon F6 / f100 and can take advantage of the current glass with vr. With age comes the reminder of my fathers shakes are hereditary.

2) I develop film much better. The format became less important.

3) My MF gear is getting older and has started to need repair. My F6 is still a current model and I even got it repaired (external flash fried some boards inside) at Nikon last year.

4) Neopan 400 and PlusX is gone in 120. I still have several 100' cans of both in 35.

5) I don't like being looked at like a hipster.

6) I still love my Zorki 4K

I totally disagree with point #2 above. Well developed 35mm film is in no way equal to the qualities that 120 film has (and vice versa).

 

[RattyMouse]

You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.

It's not just print quality that is part of the consideration. I happen to enjoy the shooting experience of shooting roll film far greater than 35mm.

My roll film cameras (Fuji's GF670, GF670W and GA645) have as good of lenses as any 35mm lenses that I own.

I enjoy having only 10 shots at a time. I shoot slower and more methodical.

I enjoy feeding a roll of film into the camera as well as wrapping up the spent roll.

I enjoy developing 120 film over 35mm.

My GF670W and GA645 cameras are very small and portable, much easier to travel with than my 35mm SLR.

All my GF670 and GF670W shoot absolutely silently. I can shoot in THE quietist conditions imaginable without disturbing anyone.

The viewfinders on my GF cameras are just beyond awesome. Makes my 35mm SLR viewfinder look like a little peep hole.

120 negs sc*n waaaay better than 35mm.

There's lots of reasons I choose medium format over 35mm before I even consider print quality.

 

[benjiboy]

With a 35mm camera you have to have a very good negative to enlarge it to a quality 20"X16"exhibition print, with a M/F camera you can enlarge every negative to 20"X16".

 

[baachitraka]

In my living room I am happy with seven 8"x10" prints from APX 100 135 negatives. Four in landscape and three in portrait orientation.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I found the same when I bought my RB67, I took the 35mm kit out much less often. I don't have the heart to part with it, and the compact nature of one Nikon FM3a and a 35mm f2 is still an attraction. 35mm is much better for macro as 1:1 on 35mm gives the same object size on the frame as 1:1 on 120, you just get more space around it. I love the look of printed monochrome MF, such creamy tones, but then grain in 35mm can be a real treat as well. Basically having two systems means that I do half the amount of photography on each as I used to.

 

[Arcturus]

For me, 35mm had been relegated to use in conditions where a weather sealed camera is needed, or for shooting slides. I find the print quality of 35mm to certainly be acceptable, but I don't like the 3:2 aspect ratio. I tend to mostly shoot 6x6 using old folders. I don't know why, I have newer "better" cameras with modern lenses, but I just like using antique folders for some reason.

 

[Snapshot]

Personally, I don't plan to give up on 35mm anytime soon but I find that the 645 system that I have has given me great pictures with very little compromise in portability.

 

[benjiboy]

In my living room I am happy with seven 8"x10" prints from APX 100 135 negatives. Four in landscape and three in portrait orientation.

I'm pleased to hear it, but 20"X16" exhibition prints in competitive photographic competitions are a different matter I can assure you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's not just print quality that is part of the consideration. I happen to enjoy the shooting experience of shooting roll film far greater than 35mm.

My roll film cameras (Fuji's GF670, GF670W and GA645) have as good of lenses as any 35mm lenses that I own.

I enjoy having only 10 shots at a time. I shoot slower and more methodical.

I enjoy feeding a roll of film into the camera as well as wrapping up the spent roll.

I enjoy developing 120 film over 35mm.

My GF670W and GA645 cameras are very small and portable, much easier to travel with than my 35mm SLR.

All my GF670 and GF670W shoot absolutely silently. I can shoot in THE quietist conditions imaginable without disturbing anyone.

The viewfinders on my GF cameras are just beyond awesome. Makes my 35mm SLR viewfinder look like a little peep hole.

120 negs sc*n waaaay better than 35mm.

There's lots of reasons I choose medium format over 35mm before I even consider print quality.

I am very glad that you put so much thought into it.

To me it's a matter of getting such good print quality up to 16x20" prints from 35mm that I just don't even think about any sort of gain in quality when I use 120. It doesn't seem relevant to me, especially with the kinds of photographs I make.

But I really love the grain. In combination with the superior resolution of my 35mm lenses (compared to my Hasselblad anyway, I know there are some Mamiya lenses that are slightly better) the actual quality 'behind' the grain is very similar.

What has become important to me is to treat all photographs within a series of pictures the same way, so that there is a consistent look. That's why I shoot nearly all abstract work with 35mm. Nearly all portraits I make are 35mm. Most landscapes are 6x6, because I really love the square format, and the waist level finder lends itself to landscape photography very well indeed. The Leica is what I use for walking around and spontaneous stuff, etc etc etc ad nauseum. I don't think the 35mm can replace my MF cameras, and vice versa. They complement each other.

 

[ToddB]

Absolutly.. However I will say the my FE does an amazing job and is a little quicker for street photography. MF..yhea, it's awesome. Those pin sharp images you get with compact dynamo's (Rolleiflex) just amazing.

ToddB

 

[mrred]

I totally disagree with point #2 above. Well developed 35mm film is in no way equal to the qualities that 120 film has (and vice versa).

I develop film better to the point where my sharper glass on 35mm trump what I have on 120 IQ. Look at my gallery.

 

[edcculus]

What I like MOST about MF is that I don't have to figure out how to make it through 36 exposures.