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

[Ian David]

Have a look at for instance: "So the poor quality of some systems and formats is fine, as long as we can decide to use or not to use them."

Exactly my point.
If a 35mm (or smaller) camera is the only feasible tool for a particular job, it is not a "poor quality system" in that context. It is in fact the best system in that context.

 

[df cardwell]

You'll find i'm not.
Have a look at for instance: "So the poor quality of some systems and formats is fine, as long as we can decide to use or not to use them."

So, how do you compare a portrait made by 35mm on EI 400 film,
at 1/60 @ f/2.8, with, say, an 85mm lens ?

How does 6x7 compare, in simple detail, to the inferior smaller film size ?

Let's make it easy. To match the depth of field and image proportion, 6x7 will have to shoot a 48 x 72 image, and a 165 ish lens, with a 30mm aperture, or f/5.6.

To shoot at f/5.6, you need to expose the shot 1/15. So, if you're betting your mortgage payment that you're coming home with a high quality image, are you REALLY going to shoot 6x7 instead of 35mm ?

Since 35mm TMY2 makes grainless 11x14s, and CAN make grainless 16x20s if you know what you're doing,
and since an 85mm lens can record all the fine facial detail you will need in a great portrait at f/2.8,
what does the 6x7 offer you beside 4 times the image movement and camera motion ?

How about shooting a 50mm lens at 1/15 @ f/1.4 with 400 film ? A portrait like that paid MY mortgage this month. You WANT to try to shoot 6x7 at f/2.8 at 1/4 ?

If you make the assumption that you want to use the best equipment for the job at hand,
you may well find that a 35mm can outperform other formats for sheer technical capability in some conditions,
and in some conditions, 35mm is inferior.

Context is what matters. In a few circumstances, a cellphone will outperform an 8x10, or a Hasselblad.

If this isn't a viable argument for you, well, so be it.

 

[Mike1234]

TMY2 "grainless 11x14's"... I doubt that and it's not just about grain but resolutuon too.

 

[FilmOnly]

df cardwell: what an argument. You have convinced me. I cannot imagine a stronger agrument than the one you present...including the caveat in regard to your mortgage payment. I am happy to be a 35mm enthusiast, and I doubt all the MF and LF talk will bother me anymore. I thank you for your analysis.

PS: I was just out (not more than three hours ago) hunting for a nice train shot. The sun got low, and my choices became very limited. I had my FE and a 35/2.8 AI. With the light fading, I decided to go for a blur shot. As I heard the horn blare (finally), I metered with my Sekonic and the FE, and determined that f/3.4 (a half-stop from wide open) and 1/60 would be the best formula. The train, indeed, was moving quite fast--I had to run to get to my spot--and, after taking the photographs, I gather I made the right decisions. In this situation, as in a number of others, there is no way MF or LF gear could have helped. As far as I can tell, MF or LF gear would have only been a hinderance. I only wish I had my 50/1.8 AIS along, as I could have gotten a better angle, and, with its extremely short barrel length, could have had an even steadier hand at 1/60th.

 

[df cardwell]

TMY2 "grainless 11x14's"... I doubt that and it's not just about grain but resolutuon too.

You never know what's possible until you try.

No, that isn't quite right.

You never know what is possible until you absolutely MUST perform.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Low light with a non-static subject is definitely one area where smaller formats have the edge, no question.

Being able to work quickly with one camera or another, to me, seems just to be a matter of practice, as well as factors other than format. I like my 5x7" Press Graflex for chasing my toddler and his friends around, for instance, because it's an SLR with rack-and-pinion focusing. I was using my Bronica S2a for that purpose and realized after a while that it was quicker to focus with the bellows than with a helical, and then I started using a chimney finder instead of a waist-level or a prism, and what I'd done was to convert it into a medium format version of the Graflex, so it made perfect sense to use a camera originally designed to work that way and get contact-printable negs to boot.

 

[df cardwell]

"I like my 5x7" Press Graflex for chasing my toddler..."

Brilliant !

 

[Sirius Glass]

You'll find i'm not.
Have a look at for instance: "So the poor quality of some systems and formats is fine, as long as we can decide to use or not to use them."

Good point. But when one wants a sharp image, one needs a sharp lens. Just one of many factors needed.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

So, how do you compare a portrait made by 35mm on EI 400 film,
at 1/60 @ f/2.8, with, say, an 85mm lens ?

[...]Context is what matters. In a few circumstances, a cellphone will outperform an 8x10, or a Hasselblad.

If this isn't a viable argument for you, well, so be it.

Dan, you appear to miss the point: in the quote, i do say that context matters.
I do quote myself for no other reason than to let Ian know what he missed.

I will not argue the entire thing once again, but it's there. Don't worry.

 

[Q.G.]

Exactly my point.
If a 35mm (or smaller) camera is the only feasible tool for a particular job, it is not a "poor quality system" in that context. It is in fact the best system in that context.

And that's exactly the way of thinking i was arguing against.

When you can make do with a low quality tool, it may be best suited for the job, but it still is a low quality tool.

 

[Ian David]

And that's exactly the way of thinking i was arguing against.

When you can make do with a low quality tool, it may be best suited for the job, but it still is a low quality tool.

Yawn...

The OP's question was "If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?"

The very simple answer is: MF and LF are not better in all contexts. We bother with 35mm because in some (if not many) situations it is the better (or only) tool for the job. In other words, no matter how "good" they are, there are things that MF and LF (or the Hubble telescope) cannot do. If 35mm did not exist, those jobs would either not get done or would not get done as well.

Trying to introduce objective concepts of "high-" and "low quality tools" is not really helpful here.

 

[Perry Way]

I don't think it is possible at this point to provide any objective information that hasn't already been presented.

So that pretty much reduces things down to subjective opinion.

Quite honestly, after giving the time necessary to obtain the gear, compose and shoot medium format and large format, I have very little use for 35mm. There is something about the whole lengthy process of shooting larger sizes. It forces you to be way more methodical and contemplative. And that, for me, is king. I enjoy the experience of pausing to consider the composition beyond sighting in a viewfinder with built in spot meter.

If speed is what you're after, then ditch film and just shoot digital, okay? That's my two cents.

To make it three cents, I'm trying to sell my two 35mm kits (Minolta and Canon). I never use them anymore. On the very rare occurrence that I shoot 35mm, I much prefer now to use my point and shoot Voigtlander Vitessa or my point and shoot Minox. Both have excellent optics and maybe these might be fighting words but I think they are actually deriving better results, more consistently, than any 35mm SLR I ever laid my hands on. I really dig that Voigtlander. It cost me a whopping $8 plus shipping on eBay. Hardly anyone considers point and shooters a worthy foe, but at this point I swear by mine. It rocks!

Anyone want a very decent Canon or Minolta kit?

 

[2F/2F]

Anyone want a very decent Canon or Minolta kit?

What kind of Canon kit?

 

[Chris Nielsen]

I'm a 35mm shooter and proud of it! Having said that I do a little 6x6 from time to time and looking forward to 4x5 when I can afford it, but right now I am happy doing 35mm. It suits me very well, I like the speed of 35mm, I love my F5's matrix meter, and I enjoy saving money buying bulk film. Yeah, I know that bigger formats can be better, but since I don't often go beyond 8x10 I think the advantages might be lost on me a little. I would like 4x5 for the movements, mainly, but when I look at my 8x10's from 35mm Acros and FP4 I just don't see anything that terribly wrong with them. My b&w prints from 35mm are so far beyond what I was getting from d*gital that I'm just happy going and shooting. I know my gear, I'm happy with it, I'm getting results I like, isn't that what matters?

 

[Mike1234]

There's nothing "wrong" with 135. It's a great format. It just doesn't do everything, as some want to believe, and it has its advantages as other formats do. For instance my experience tells me that making "grainless" 11x14 prints from 135 isn't possible but then I tend to inspect closely. I do this because everything I've ever printed people usually move in close to see fine detail and comment on said details... they don't stay back five or ten feet from the prints.

All this said, I agree that the latest DSLR's are the way to go vs. 135 film. Eventually digital will take over larger formats too but for now MF quality digital is far too pricey and LF quality digital is not even here yet.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What if someone loves printing 35mm negatives? I know I do. I use Foma 400 film, which exhibits gorgeous, beautiful random grain. It's sharp too. 11x14 prints look amazing to my eyes. It's not about grain or sharpness, it's about tonality. Tonality will scream at you to pay attention to it from across a room.

Cartier-Bresson prints are grainy. So what? Grain size is not the foremost quality of any of his work. It's the genius composition, the context of a situation, juxtapositions, studies in shape and form.
35mm, baby! Would his pictures be better if they were shot with a medium format camera?

It is interesting to challenge the notion of 'bigger is better'. Is a 60" television better than a 32"? Is an Audi A6 better than an A3? Is a Deardorff better than a Hasselblad? Is a Hasselblad better than a Leica? Depends on the circumstance, doesn't it? The circumstance can involve any number of preferences and facts.

It's something you can have a personal opinion of, but that's the extent of it. What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me and vice versa.

I hated shooting 4x5. It did not work for me at all, and I really don't miss the larger negative. Not even a bit.

 

[Q.G.]

Yawn...

The OP's question was "If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?"

The very simple answer is: MF and LF are not better in all contexts. We bother with 35mm because in some (if not many) situations it is the better (or only) tool for the job. In other words, no matter how "good" they are, there are things that MF and LF (or the Hubble telescope) cannot do. If 35mm did not exist, those jobs would either not get done or would not get done as well.

Trying to introduce objective concepts of "high-" and "low quality tools" is not really helpful here.

Yawn indeed.

After having told you (after you could have read it yourself) that i do not discount context, you still think i do, and that i'm "trying to introduce objective concepts".

Sure, sometimes a 35 mm camera is the best tool for the job. But it still can't do what (note: a comparison, i.e. relative, fundamentally different from "objective") larger formats can.
You trade one thing for another.

You can poopoo that by saying that "sharpness isn't everything". You can also be aware of that, and ask yourself what the OP asked: why do you bother?

But i'm beginning to explain that once again, and i promised i wouldn't.

 

[Erik Petersson]

My 35mm kit does what I want it to do. Hence - it is the best tool for me. I don't see that any other definition of "best" would be helpful.

 

[papagene]

If you let someone else define what is best or better for you, you might as well throw your camera in the trash and give up. Just my $0.02 worth.

gene

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree with gene

 

[Ian David]

If you let someone else define what is best or better for you, you might as well throw your camera in the trash and give up. Just my $0.02 worth.

gene

Exactly. Major parts of the context that determines whether a particular camera, or lens, or format, or subject, or whatever, is the right one for the job are what the photographer wants to achieve and what the photographer enjoys using.

Ian

 

[Ian David]

But i'm beginning to explain that once again, and i promised i wouldn't.

QG - is your leg trapped under this dead horse?? Why else would you keep beating it so?

 

[Mike1234]

Because he hates that darned horse.

 

[Q.G.]

Because he hates that darned horse.

That's exactly it.
Or rather, the people who think they are still riding it.

 

[Ian David]

That's exactly it.
Or rather, the people who think they are still riding it.

The poor old beast I am talking about is the one you were riding, and it fell down a couple of pages ago...

(By the way, there is no law against owning two or more cameras in various formats, including 35mm. That way you will have the best tools for the various jobs that you may need to do.)