If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 17, 2009

I shoot a large gamut of gear from 35mm RF to 11x14. I take the 35mm along with me on trips to have that grab-shot flexibility. The large format stuff does more duty locally and/or in the studio. I find it funny to hear all these folks talking about large format being better for enlarging - it certainly can be, but I think the majority of the large format folks I know are not doing enlargements, certainly not from anything bigger than 4x5. Contact printing is where it's at with LF - and a contact print will give you a very different experience of the image than an enlargement. In that regard, 35mm and even medium format are just too small to work - even 4x5 is quite dubious.

Pumal · Nov 17, 2009

Thank God I'm not a Professional Photografer. I much prefer Photography as a Hobbie and in that sense I have every equipment you can imagine, Darkroom and Studio, but I do not have deadlines or obligations. In my case to have all the formats is nice; because you are doing it for fun and curiosity. I have more than 200 cameras; all analoges. I gave my wife several Digitals and she plays with cables and Computers.

Mike1234 · Nov 17, 2009

OMG, William, that's some photo fetish you have. Good thing your wife shares some interest in it too.

Seabird · Nov 17, 2009

steven_e007 said:
I prefer medium format (and larger formats) because I do my own printing - and it is much easier and more user friendly, IMHO, to handle a nice big negative, where you can see what you are doing ...

...and there are some wet darkroom processes that are much more easily undertaken with 4x5 and bigger negs - eg unsharp masking etc.

Interesting discussion thus far. My own view is that its horses for courses. Vive la difference!

Regards

Carey Bird
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/index.html

Apertureman · Nov 17, 2009

I shoot 35mm most of the time. Now, I do not own any format other than the former, but it suits my needs and creativity extremely well!

Let us not point out at quality per se, because I can get pretty damn good quality prints from my 35mm for what I need it them for. Let's also keep in mind that it's not the equipment that takes pictures, but the photographer, taking into account that the films used for MF and LF are for the most part the same in 35mm.

When one puts up a photograph as their computer monitor background, there is no argument about resolution and quality. The resolution of the screen image is just right and of no poor quality for what it is made for. Let us consider 35mm photography for what it is meant for without comparing formats. All of it is beautiful and inspiring.

Darkroom317 · Nov 17, 2009

It depends what and where I am shooting. 35mm offers more flexibility in some situations. My Canon A series cameras have a lot of zoom lenses available for it that are not available for my RB67. I also can shoot a lot of different angles with my A-1 because of the weight and size as well as how many frames are on each roll. My main question is, is there a point using my Canonet 17 or my Argus 21 over my Rolleicord or my Voigländer Bessa when it comes to street photography?

Mike1234 · Nov 17, 2009

Bigger has more powerful impact... but smaller can sneak in unnoticed for a quickie shot.

MattKing · Nov 17, 2009

Lots of reasons. Two examples are:

1) Bulk loading; and
2) Projected slides.

I do have a medium format slide projector, but I only found one recently that made sense for me, and they certainly aren't as common or inexpensive as the 35mm projectors.

I think you will find that there are a lot of people who shoot 35mm and medium format and/or large format. This should tell you that when people have a choice, sometimes 35mm is best for them, in their particular circumstances.

I'll add one further reason - after 30+ years, my OM equipment and I fit well together .

Matt

zenrhino · Nov 17, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
Brutus (my EOS1N+PDBE1) + TS-E lens = 2.58kg
Zero Image pinhole = 360gm (!)

Olympus Epic Stylus (+ 36exp of Neopan) = 250g

You (et al) do make the cogent point, though. Sometimes you just need a small camera you can stick in a pocket, operate quickly and not have it be a big production. I love my Hassy, but I always carry my Canonet (or Stylus).

zenrhino · Nov 17, 2009

Darkroom317 said:
It depends what and where I am shooting. 35mm offers more flexibility in some situations. My Canon A series cameras have a lot of zoom lenses available for it that are not available for my RB67. I also can shoot a lot of different angles with my A-1 because of the weight and size as well as how many frames are on each roll. My main question is, is there a point using my Canonet 17 or my Argus 21 over my Rolleicord or my Voigländer Bessa when it comes to street photography?

The Canonet is very unobtrusive -- very quiet shutter, quiet winding, small body, focuses quickly. On the other hand, if you're looking down into your Rollei, you're not looking at your subject which has its advantages and you can really catch some people off-guard that way for great candids.

Joachim_I · Nov 17, 2009

MattKing said:
Lots of reasons. Two examples are:
2) Projected slides.

This is funny. For me, this was exactly the reason to start with medium format photography. In my opinion, there is hardly anything more impressive in photography than a projected 6x7 slide.

MattKing · Nov 17, 2009

Joachim_I said:
This is funny. For me, this was exactly the reason to start with medium format photography. In my opinion, there is hardly anything more impressive in photography than a projected 6x7 slide.

Joachim:

I agree - but 6x7 projectors are both hard to find, and very, very, expensive!

Matt

Rolleiflexible · Nov 18, 2009

df cardwell said:
There are always the Languid Interstices which must be accounted for.

Rolleis tend to exist in their own dimensions, wedged into the Liminal Thin Places of existence.

Hi Sanders. Want some Rum ?

You should be building that darkroom with me, you know.

oldnick · Nov 18, 2009

As it says many times in this thread, 35mm i use fast and light situations..street etc. and when there are no hurry and have time to think i'll get my Hassy 500CM

Erik Petersson · Nov 18, 2009

Please do not describe medium or large format as "better" in the vicinity of my collection of Soviet 35mm. I am afraid that these perfectly adequate cameras may start to malfunction out of spite.

Steve Smith · Nov 18, 2009

Erik Petersson said:
Please do not describe medium or large format as "better" in the vicinity of my collection of Soviet 35mm. I am afraid that these perfectly adequate cameras may start to malfunction out of spite.

Therefore proving the point. If they were clever they would work flawlessly to prove their superiority!

Steve.

Erik Petersson · Nov 18, 2009

Oh, they do not feel that they need to prove anything. What western camera have radio active lenses, after all?

Terence · Nov 18, 2009

If you're already using a tripod and not backpacking 20 miles or shooting fast moving subjects, MF and LF will give you a better neg to enlarge.

The argument that there are lots of MF and LF shooters producing mediocre work is equally true of 35mm. If I had to guess, I'd say there has been a MUCH higher percentage of mediocre work shot on 35mm than on MF or LF, simply because the demographic of 35mm was less concentrated with professional photograpers, good or bad.

Like anything, it's about having the right tool for the job. If you're shooting sports, or trying to conceal your actions from humans or animals, the smaller 35mm format is the way to go. Hiking 20 miles per day? Same thing.

But if you're looking to enlarge to 20x24, and not have very obvious grain from a common viewing distance, 35mm is just not going to fill the bill.

It sounds more like you're trying to justify your decision than make rational arguments.

Joe Grodis · Nov 18, 2009

Cost & Portability is a serious reality we can't overlook. I love my Mamiya 645pro but it's no fun to lug around all day for street photography, The RB-67 at 6lbs' is way out of the question for carrying around. Even my Bronica's with their fancy custom brackets are still beasts to take to the street. So, I got a Mamiya 7, the ultimate MF that's a joy to carry around but with used lenses going for $700+ it's joy stops there. Lately I've been carrying around a Contax ll, a Keiv-4 and a Zorki-3 with Ziess, Helios, Jupiter & Elmar. These cameras may be little but the final product is certainly VERY nice.

FilmOnly · Nov 18, 2009

Terence's final point is interesting. Indeed, justification is a relevant aspect. I would also add that it is good to review the opinions of others, especially those who are knowledgeable and experienced. Having never worked in MF or LF, it would be a significant change (and learning curve) for me. However, if it is worthwhile (and perhaps necessary?), then I might put forth the effort.

benjiboy · Nov 18, 2009

Besides what other members have written one thing I have to add is some people are more temperamentally disposed to 35mm shooting and are more disposed to reacting instantly to changing situations, whereas some photographers feel more comfortable with M/F, a more measured approach, and giving each exposure more consideration before releasing the shutter .

FilmOnly · Nov 18, 2009

This is yet another interesting perspective, Ben. Personality does seem to have at least some type of effect.

sangetsu · Nov 18, 2009

I have all 3 formats, and, as others here have probably said, each has it's own use.

For street and candid photography, the 35mm camera is pretty much unmatched. A quality camera, lens, and film will give you images that only the most expensive digital equipment can rival. These cameras are cheap (for the most part) quick to use, and are very convenient.

Large format cameras are for art. They are for those who like to take the time and effort to get a superb image. The detail and resolution of a well-taken large format picture cannot be rivaled. The amount of control over perspective makes large format photography ideal for landscapes and architecture.

Medium format photography bridges the distance between the 35mm and large formats. Medium format offers more potential for detail than 35mm film is capable of, while being much more portable than large format cameras. Film is much easier to load and process, and is still relatively easy to find.

As for myself, I go nowhere without my Leica or Olympus OM 35mm cameras. I use the medium format camera for landscapes in the nearby countryside, and the large format gear when I'm feeling ambitious and artistic.

To me, they are all fun. I have my large format gear packed into a backpack right now, and I'm planning to go and get some pictures of the fall foliage tomorrow (weather allowing).

Mike1234 · Nov 18, 2009

Please don't kill me but I would never go back to 135 simply because ((anyone offended by D-blasphemy please stop reading)) DSLR's are just too good to be denied these days. To me there's no point staying with film if you're going to shoot small. Okay... waiting to be banned now.

FilmOnly · Nov 18, 2009

Mike1234: brave and honest comments. I have to admit that I have also been tempted by digital--the D300/300s, to be specific. I love film, though. I also know so little about digital--especially in regard to aspect ratio--that I have simply avoided thinking more deeply about it. I do only full-frame photography, and so I gather digital would be a problem for me (although I do not know what advances have been made more recently).

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Pumal

Mike1234

Seabird

Apertureman

Darkroom317

Mike1234

MattKing

Moderator

zenrhino

zenrhino

Joachim_I

MattKing

Moderator

Rolleiflexible

oldnick

Erik Petersson

Steve Smith

Erik Petersson

Terence

Joe Grodis

FilmOnly

benjiboy

FilmOnly

sangetsu

Mike1234

FilmOnly

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency