Is medium format your main format?

[MattKing]

Unless you are printing large, the technical capabilities of 35mm cameras are pretty close to the technical capabilities of most medium format cameras. The depth of field differences are basically a wash, when you consider the maximum apertures available for lenses.
I like darkroom printing from the larger negatives offered by my medium format cameras, and they are easier to scan as well. That being said, in the gallery shows and other presentations that I have had prints in, I've never hesitated to mix 35mm and medium format images.
There are characteristics of medium format cameras that appeal to me. I like working with waist level finders - the options available in 35mm cameras are frustrating at best. I also really like transparencies, and medium format transparencies are wonderful.
I have been using 35mm for 50 or so years. I have been using medium format for about 45 years. I hope to continue to use both for many more.
If you haven't a lot of experience with medium format cameras, I recommend spending some time using some. They can be really fun and satisfying, and if you end up deciding you prefer 35mm, you can probably sell the medium format cameras for close to what you paid for them.

 

[etn]

The depth of field differences are basically a wash, when you consider the maximum apertures available for lenses.

There are characteristics of medium format cameras that appeal to me. I like working with waist level finders - the options available in 35mm cameras are frustrating at best. I also really like transparencies, and medium format transparencies are wonderful.

^^ These are words of wisdom.
I would add that, in my case, I like MF aspect ratios (particularly square) better than the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm, which does not really resonate with me for some reason. I use 35mm mainly when I want to travel light, but I do not feel "at home" with it like I do with MF.

 

[etn]

I've been looking at images recently and wondering - what's better - investing in medium format or investing in high quality 35mm lenses? I feel that looking images taken with leica lenses I've seen, the sharpness and rendition is so good, it rivals even medium format and is probably sharper than medium format. Probably medium format beats it in detail for things like landscapes, though, but maybe not by much. However, not everyone can afford a Leica and even medium format is cheaper.

A low-quality MF lens will probably give better results than a high-quality 35mm lens, simply because the film area is that much bigger.

What about other factors such as:
- how do you like using a MF vs a 35mm camera (waist level finder, etc.)
- are you OK with the extra weight of MF,
- does your existing "infrastructure" (enlarger, projector, scanner, etc) support 35mm / MF, or do you need to spend money there too if you switch format?
- which aspect ratio do you prefer,
- a 35mm roll costs roughly the same as an MF roll, but you get 3x more pictures with 35mm,
- etc. etc. (thousands more questions)

From a camera cost perspective, there are low-cost as well as high-cost 35mm as well as MF.
Leica and Hasselblad (and a few others) are hyped but this does not mean the others are bad.
Zeiss ZM lenses are terrific (the 35mm 1.4 is comparable to the Leica Summilux Asph, for instance, at half the price but - here's the catch - twice the size)
Nikon, Canon and others also have terrific glass and a good body can be found for a couple hundred $.

At the end of the day, it probably comes down to which system you like to use more. (definitely MF in my case!)

 

[abruzzi]

^^ These are words of wisdom.
I would add that, in my case, I like MF aspect ratios (particularly square) better than the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm, which does not really resonate with me for some reason. I use 35mm mainly when I want to travel light, but I do not feel "at home" with it like I do with MF.

I'm the exact opposite here. I much prefer the wider aspect of 3:2 (1.5:1) and actively dislike square. (For me square's only use is to have the choice to crop later.) I would love (like some other's I've seen on the board) to have a modern system SLR in 6x9 format, but that never happened. Yes there was at least one, but its not easily available and not something I'd want to try to make work. The only 6x8 SLR I know of is the Fuji GX680, which while nice, is far too large for my purposes. So I have 6x7 SLRs (Bronica and Pentax) for bigger negatives, and 6x4.5 (Bronica) for portability. While I occasionally enjoy shooting ancient 6x9 folders, I could never rely on one as a primary camera.

 

[Pieter12]

I've been looking at images recently and wondering - what's better - investing in medium format or investing in high quality 35mm lenses? I feel that looking images taken with leica lenses I've seen, the sharpness and rendition is so good, it rivals even medium format and is probably sharper than medium format. Probably medium format beats it in detail for things like landscapes, though, but maybe not by much. However, not everyone can afford a Leica and even medium format is cheaper.

One of the aspects of image sharpness that is often overlooked is vibration, often caused by SLR mirror return. MF cameras are usually heavier and bulkier than 35--especially a 35 RF like a Leica--and can be harder to hand-hold. So despite the much larger negative, a steady 35mm shot with a good lens can be sharper. MF on a tripod, using mirror lock-up will beat 35 any day.

 

[Bormental]

The depth of field differences are basically a wash, when you consider the maximum apertures available for lenses.

Hehe... mounting the 85mm f/1.2L (over 1kg) on my Canon instantly turns it into a medium-format camera with a small format film inside.

But on a more serious note, it's not so much about the largest available aperture, it's about available light. Medium format needs much more light. As I moved up to 6x7, I have constantly been struggling with f/5.6 or even f/8 not being enough to get what I need in focus and not having enough light to stop down.

 

[Bormental]

One of the aspects of image sharpness that is often overlooked is vibration, often caused by SLR mirror return. MF cameras are usually heavier and bulkier than 35--especially a 35 RF like a Leica--and can be harder to hand-hold. So despite the much larger negative, a steady 35mm shot with a good lens can be sharper. MF on a tripod, using mirror lock-up will beat 35 any day.

I have no evidence to back this up, but the increased weight of a larger body should counteract some of the bigger mirror slap. I am actually quite impressed by the stability of Mamiya 645 Pro. My Fuji GF670 does not have a mirror, but because it is a much lighter camera I find evidence of a shake blur more frequently in GF670 photos.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hehe... mounting the 85mm f/1.2L (over 1kg) on my Canon instantly turns it into a medium-format camera with a small format film inside.

But on a more serious note, it's not so much about the largest available aperture, it's about available light. Medium format needs much more light. As I moved up to 6x7, I have constantly been struggling with f/5.6 or even f/8 not being enough to get what I need in focus and not having enough light to stop down.

I shoot Velvia 50 with an RB67 but alway with a tripod. Now I'm shooting Velvia 50 with my new 4x5. I shoot with Mirror Lock Up (MLU) on the RB67 always. Of course I shoot landscapes. (often around sunset, so it's pretty dark). Yet, because I stop down a lot to get more DOF, shutter speeds are very slow. But the tripod does its work. If I shot portraits I'd used a faster film like Portra 160 or 400. The colors are balanced better for people as well. Are you hand holding the camera? Do you use MLU?

 

[Pieter12]

I have no evidence to back this up, but the increased weight of a larger body should counteract some of the bigger mirror slap. I am actually quite impressed by the stability of Mamiya 645 Pro. My Fuji GF670 does not have a mirror, but because it is a much lighter camera I find evidence of a shake blur more frequently in GF670 photos.

Some of the blur in the lighter camera may be a question of ergonomics. A RF camera usually has the shutter release button on the top deck, meaning you are holding the camera up to your eye and push down to trip the shutter. A MF SLR (or TLR) has you holding the camera a lower level and you can brace it better, the shutter release usually being front-mounted and pushed toward you, inducing less motion.

 

[Luckless]

^^ These are words of wisdom.
I would add that, in my case, I like MF aspect ratios (particularly square) better than the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm, which does not really resonate with me for some reason. I use 35mm mainly when I want to travel light, but I do not feel "at home" with it like I do with MF.

I've also found 2x3 to be an awkward format to work with. Square and 4x5 work well in my mind. 4x5 offers 'a bit of difference' from square, enough to highlight that the framing isn't square, but any time that I've found myself wanting to capture something that's any less square than 4x5 then 2x3 comes out as 'not nearly enough' I guess?

Just part of that awkward range of ratios that don't feel all that compelling to me once you move 'a little past square', and doesn't seem to end till you approach near 2:1 or wider. Haven't really figured out why that is.

 

[Bormental]

I shoot Velvia 50 with an RB67 but alway with a tripod. Now I'm shooting Velvia 50 with my new 4x5. I shoot with Mirror Lock Up (MLU) on the RB67 always. Of course I shoot landscapes. (often around sunset, so it's pretty dark). Yet, because I stop down a lot to get more DOF, shutter speeds are very slow. But the tripod does its work. If I shot portraits I'd used a faster film like Portra 160 or 400. The colors are balanced better for people as well. Are you hand holding the camera? Do you use MLU?

Alan, I am pretty much the opposite. I like to shoot cityscape & street, usually 4-7pm i.e. when there's still plenty of light, but the shadows are somewhat pleasant. No MLU, always handheld. Shutter speeds from 1/125 to 1/1000s. I am annoyed by so many blurry shots with the rangefinder, I think it's my technique.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been looking at images recently and wondering - what's better - investing in medium format or investing in high quality 35mm lenses? I feel that looking images taken with leica lenses I've seen, the sharpness and rendition is so good, it rivals even medium format and is probably sharper than medium format. Probably medium format beats it in detail for things like landscapes, though, but maybe not by much. However, not everyone can afford a Leica and even medium format is cheaper.

MF provides a larger negative and therefore less grain and the ability to enlarge more than 35mm film. A byproduct of the larger negative is the ability to more severely crop and enlarge. AND the large negative is much easier to handle and if necessary touch-up. It is not worth worrying about the depth of field differences.

 

[Bormental]

It is not worth worrying about the depth of field differences.

Disagree STRONGLY. As a relatively fresh upgrader from 35mm to 120, this is by far the biggest impact on my photography. I explained above why. The short version is that medium format needs more light, so I often don't have enough to step down the aperture to get the desired DOF.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Disagree STRONGLY. As a relatively fresh upgrader from 35mm to 120, this is by far the biggest impact on my photography. I explained above why. The short version is that medium format needs more light, so I often don't have enough to step down the aperture to get the desired DOF.

No MF lenses need the same amount of light as 35mm lenses. Both follow the exact same laws of physics. Heck even digital cameras follow the same laws of physics.

 

[Bormental]

@Sirius Glass you could have just said "3+1=4" and it would also be true and also would have nothing to do with my statement. To get a photograph with the same FOV and DOF as a 35mm equivalent, you need more light on MF.

 

[MattKing]

If you are using medium format hand-held, you need fast film and excellent technique.

 

[MattKing]

@Sirius Glass you could have just said "3+1=4" and it would also be true and also would have nothing to do with my statement. To get a photograph with the same FOV and DOF as a 35mm equivalent, you need more light on MF.

I expect that you are encountering this because you are trying to limit yourself to slow film or shutter speeds that are too fast for street work.

 

[Bormental]

@MattKing yes and yes. I just think it would be unfair to newcomers (like I was) to brush this fact aside. One needs to rethink their choice of film (and improve hand-holding technique) for this type of photography (sample below) as they move up to medium format, because one will need more light when shooting medium format to produce a similar image.

 

[Pieter12]

If you are using medium format hand-held, you need fast film and excellent technique.

I shoot medium format hand-held with film rated at ISO 160, sometimes slower, on a regular basis. Photos come out crisp and sharp. But I use a tripod when possible to have more flexibility in choosing aperture and shutter speed combinations.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I almost always use ISO 400 film shot a box speed.

 

[Helge]

One of the aspects of image sharpness that is often overlooked is vibration, often caused by SLR mirror return. MF cameras are usually heavier and bulkier than 35--especially a 35 RF like a Leica--and can be harder to hand-hold. So despite the much larger negative, a steady 35mm shot with a good lens can be sharper. MF on a tripod, using mirror lock-up will beat 35 any day.

Hopefully on mirror return the image has been taken? ;-)

With 6x4.5, the mirror slap is less bothersome because the mirror is pretty close in inertial stiffness to 36x24 and only triple the mass.

But with 6x6 making a well dampened mirror mechanism is very hard for slower handheld speeds like 60 or down.

I find that with range and view finder medium format, it’s quite easy to go down to 30/25th of a second if you brace yourself for rotational shake of the camera around the x and y axis (translational shake is much less of a problem).
This to some extent can compensate for the slower speeds of medium format lenses.

 

[MattKing]

one will need more light when shooting medium format to produce a similar image.

Only if your film choice and technique forces you to use fast shutter speeds.
That example you posted appears to have been shot under conditions that would easily permit me to use T-Max 400 hand-held in my Kodak Tourist (1/100 fastest shutter speed) and obtain good results.
Here is a photo of a Kodak Tourist similar to mine, and somewhat similar to your Fuji:

 

[Bormental]

@MattKing you keep side-stepping the issue of needing more light. Fast film and technique are always there with any film. Medium format needs more light, that was my biggest hard-learned lesson. Nothing else about medium format was a surprise or even unusual.

The image above was zone-focused and the lens was closed down to f/16. To freeze motion I needed at least 1/250. Can't always have that luxury. On my Leica I only would need f/8 for that image.

 

[Luckless]

No MF lenses need the same amount of light as 35mm lenses. Both follow the exact same laws of physics. Heck even digital cameras follow the same laws of physics.

Maybe I need more coffee, but isn't the image you get from a MF with the same exposure rather distinct from that of what you would produce with a 35mm setup for 'the same amount of light'?

If I take a 50mm lens, focused to 10 feet, stopped down to f/10, and put a 645 behind it for one photo, and a 35mm behind it for the other, then I get two rather distinct images.

645 giving me around 15 feet total Depth of Field, vs 35mm's ~8, but with a much wider angle of view than the smaller capture area of the 35mm camera.

If I switch the 645's lens to an 80mm to more closely match the 35mm's field of view, and again focus to 10 feet, f/10 gives me a little more than 4 feet depth of field. I would either need to more light to stop down closer to f/16 to bring my total focus range or give up some room on my shutter speed.

For those who aim for the mythical hyperfocal, the 80mm lens at f/10 is out to around 46' with near focus starting at only ~22', vs the 35mm's 50mm f/10 lens ~28' hyperfocal and ~14' near focus.


It isn't an earth shattering large difference, but that's still a non-trivial difference when it comes to composition. The 80mm f/10 is losing out with its near focus being half again as far as the 35mm's, and needs another two stops of light to make up the difference.

And things don't really improve as you step up into the even larger medium format options.

 

[MattKing]

Medium format needs more light, that was my biggest hard-learned lesson.

Not in my experience.