Agreed! As I started doing color, I've been shooting 100% Ektar thinking that it's the most neutral (because everyone says that Portra is too opinionated). I assumed that by simply reducing saturation I'll make Ektar look better. And while that's how it played out, I discovered that Portra is by far more interesting film! Not only I love the color character it brings, I also find it much easier to scan and tinker with. It gives you better default look. I haven't done any measurements, but I suspect it has more dynamic range and is less prone to strange color shifts.
Is medium format your main format?
-
A
- Thread starter GarageBoy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 - 210mm lens + finder
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-SW 75mm 1:4.5 Lens in Copal 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Makro Symmar HM 5.6/120 in Copal No. 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
Want to Buy Graflex RB 4x5 (Auto or Tele) with longer bellows extension
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
Agreed! As I started doing color, I've been shooting 100% Ektar thinking that it's the most neutral (because everyone says that Portra is too opinionated). I assumed that by simply reducing saturation I'll make Ektar look better. And while that's how it played out, I discovered that Portra is by far more interesting film! Not only I love the color character it brings, I also find it much easier to scan and tinker with. It gives you better default look. I haven't done any measurements, but I suspect it has more dynamic range and is less prone to strange color shifts.
I'd try to decide on what kind of camera to get first. TLR, SLR, etc? What kind of photography do you shoot mainly? Landscapes, portraits, etc? What do you intend to do with the photos? Print? How large? Web? etc?
Once you have the camera, you can always try different films to decide.
Then I would scan with the V550 you have and see if it's sufficient. Take it in steps. Camera. Film. Scanner.
DSLR scanning can be great, but it can also be clunky. This isn't a hybrid thread, so I won't go into details, except to say that while I do DSLR scanning, I'm still looking for something to make the process less time intensive, and am considering a v850 or similar, at least for larger than 35mm.
I decided for the GW690 back in 2014 because it was (still?) best bang/buck option per film format size. Despite trading a flash I haven't actually used on it.
Shoe mounted meters like the raveni labs seem an interesting option to make shooting with the Fujis a bit more convenient. It's slower than 35mm, but it can be fast to shoot through rolls with it! Just much more reloading action.
GW670 is just a masked down version, as you'd be carrying the body and lens that covers 6x9. If you're not concerned about the "gas mileage" of 8 vs 10 shots a roll, get the 6x9.
35mm is a great EDC option, more so if a smaller camera type.
I remember there was a page comparing 35mm, 645 and 6x7 Tmax 100. Couldn't find it again. T-Grain films in 35mm level up the field a bit against MF.
Still, the Medium format is my large camera, so it gets the title of "main"
[QUOTE="Prest_400, post: 2305156, member: 30439"35mm is a great EDC option, more so if a smaller camera type.[/QUOTE]
I'll second that. I can carry a folder on a daily basis, and have done, but with just the slightest bit more "stuff" I can carry a 35mm RF, two extra lenses, cable release, a couple filters, spare film, and keep a lightweight tripod in my car.
No way could I do that with my RB67 -- there's not even a place to safely store the camera, never mind bag with film backs and lenses, when I'm at work, and the tripod that will hold it is several times the size and weight of the light one that does fine with my Kiev 4.
No comparison on images -- the Kiev has some very good lenses, but so does the RB67 and its smaller negatives are still two and a half times the area of 35mm (big ones are more like four and a half). But a camera you can have with you is better than a better one you had to leave home.
I'll second that. I can carry a folder on a daily basis, and have done, but with just the slightest bit more "stuff" I can carry a 35mm RF, two extra lenses, cable release, a couple filters, spare film, and keep a lightweight tripod in my car.
No way could I do that with my RB67 -- there's not even a place to safely store the camera, never mind bag with film backs and lenses, when I'm at work, and the tripod that will hold it is several times the size and weight of the light one that does fine with my Kiev 4.
No comparison on images -- the Kiev has some very good lenses, but so does the RB67 and its smaller negatives are still two and a half times the area of 35mm (big ones are more like four and a half). But a camera you can have with you is better than a better one you had to leave home.
Are you sure? I have a nice blue "Golla"-brand bag where my RB67 plus one extra lens fits just nicely, and is easy to carry. I mean, not harder to carry than a F2 + 4 lenses.
Exactly, I agree. And, as you know, if it's an electronic camera, even better!
XD
Right now, I have just about enough space on my workbench to put my Kiev 4 (50mm f/2 Jupiter 8 mounted) in its everready case, plug a small nylon bag with my Jupiter 12 (35 mm f/2.8), Jupiter 11 (135mm f/4), two rolls of film, two 40.5 filters in their plastic cases, a couple spare caps, and a cable release (there's room for more film, but not much point in carrying more than a couple rolls spare). I couldn't even store my RB67 with 90mm lens in that space, never mind a bag with the camera, mounted lens, and an extra lens. And that's the only place here to keep a camera (mostly) out of the dirt and oil. Did I mention I repair power tools? Dirt, grease, oil, and metal shavings are everywhere, and there's no real security (short of locking everything in my locker, where it's not available to me on short notice).
I wouldn't even want to bring an electronic camera into this environment. My camera and everything in the bag could be replaced for under $200 -- an RB67 with a single film back and one spare lens would be about three to four times that (depending on the lens and overall condition). That Golla bag probably cost as much as this whole kit.
I agree, it's a little bit worrying to carry around an expensive camera, or to leave it in your car. Better to be worry free, sometimes. But I really do think that the image quality of medium format can really be amazing and worth using sometimes.
I thought about buying a folder, but they seem very delicate and break easily. They do look really cool though and are really compact. So I'm looking forward to getting my TLR, seems a good compromise between size/weight of an MF SLR, although the IQ seems to be a little bit less than modern MF SLRs or rangefinders.
I thought about buying a folder, but they seem very delicate and break easily. They do look really cool though and are really compact. So I'm looking forward to getting my TLR, seems a good compromise between size/weight of an MF SLR, although the IQ seems to be a little bit less than modern MF SLRs or rangefinders.
Medium format makes up the largest part of my photography.
I work with it as a nice happy medium balance between cost and visual impact. It really isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things, but its visual distinctiveness from what I can produce with my digital gear is an additional step beyond the look and feel I could do with 35mm film.
The large negatives are also just pleasing to work with, and I can make some very lovely 6x6 contact prints from them, while 35mm negatives feel like they're descending into 'too small for anything but very specific projects' kind of thing.
Going the other direction into large format land its non-trivial increase in costs, as well as the rather sizable drop in ease of use. While I greatly enjoy getting the 4x5 out, the time needed per photograph makes it far harder to justify for more casual outings.
I work with it as a nice happy medium balance between cost and visual impact. It really isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things, but its visual distinctiveness from what I can produce with my digital gear is an additional step beyond the look and feel I could do with 35mm film.
The large negatives are also just pleasing to work with, and I can make some very lovely 6x6 contact prints from them, while 35mm negatives feel like they're descending into 'too small for anything but very specific projects' kind of thing.
Going the other direction into large format land its non-trivial increase in costs, as well as the rather sizable drop in ease of use. While I greatly enjoy getting the 4x5 out, the time needed per photograph makes it far harder to justify for more casual outings.
Looking at my collection of negatives it's definitely medium format my negatives are 90% 6x6 square.
It's not mainly a question of cost (though that's there), it's weight and space. My RB67 with 90mm lens is slightly larger than my Kiev 4 plus the bag with lenses, filters, film, etc. -- and easily weighs twice as much, if not three times. And I can't grab just the body with mounted lens and leave the bag on my desk when I go to break or lunch -- I'm hauling all that weight, all the time. But yes, as I mentioned earlier, MF wins on negative content -- a 6x9 is close to six times the area of a 35mm negative.
The folders I've carried fairly regularly were inexpensive eBay items, usually with shutters I cleaned myself. Folders aren't that fragile, especially when closed. It's basically a metal box in that condition. Yes, a drop on concrete will dent the housing, but the "delicate" state is when the bed is open and lens/shutter extended. And it's normally closed to carry or sit on a desk, so the delicate condition really only occurs when you're actively using the camera.
For a daily carry I've used my Agfa Isolette II a bunch. Lacks modern features but performs well. Small enough to slip into a jacket pocket or even Khaki pockets. As Donald Qualls wrote, not fragile at all in the close state. Folders can be a great bang for the buck MF cameras.
I shoot MF and LF when I go out specifically to shoot thoughtful pictures. For ad hoc pictures, my cellphone is fine. How many important pictures will you miss if you left your large camera home or in the office when you go to lunch?
Before I switched to working from home, I was typically carrying a C330f, usually with a 250mm lens, sometimes the 80mm, to the office specifically as something to lug along for a stroll during lunch as an excuse to get away from my desk.
If the goal is to plan to do photography, then you bring the tool you enjoy the most that's still halfway reasonable to lug along.
When I take my Hasselblad, they go with me. I do not leave them in the car unattended. EVER!
Ditto, and I question I use (which I have today) is, if I take this shot (MF/LF) would I print it and derive into a project?
Exactly. I've taken my GW690 to work a couole times this week, and had the after work shooting. Does work ok as it's relatively light.
Just to bring a challenge into the discussion. An older folder with a simple f3.5 triplet vs a 35mm SLR with a 50 1.8 double gauss, the optical difference might mean that aside of tonality, the MF may not have that much if an advantage. Put T grain film into the 35mm and there are 1-2 stops of wider aperture, and the format can kick some punch.
My Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera and my Wirgin Auta (both 105mm f/4.5) are both lighter than any of my M42 bodies with 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar mounted, and both cameras have a history of producing high quality images. Not sure a 6x9 shot with a triplet (even at f/8 to f/11) is any better than a 35mm with fine grain, high sharpness film (like, say, CMS 20 II) -- though I can shoot hand held at f/11 on ISO 400 and get images about as good as what the Super Takumar can make on ISO 20 super-fine film (and Fomapan 400 doesn't need special developer to do its best). IOW, medium format gives me, on fast film, what 35mm can just about do on slow film, and doesn't weigh any more if I use a folder.
Then again, 8 frames on a roll of 120 isn't cheap to use -- at film cost only, that's just over fifty cents a frame, with the cheapest film available (almost double that with top-end Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji).
That's one reason my Wirgin Auta usually has the masks in, giving 16 on a roll instead of 8. My Daiichi Zenobia is an even better choice for 6x4.5 (significantly smaller/lighter), or will be again once I get the everready case restitched -- the camera has no strap lugs, so it's fully dependent on the case.
One telling point: even though my Kiev 4 is the camera I carry every day (because of size/weight even with three lenses and some filters), that and my Rollei 35 are the only 35mm I've shot since resuming film photography a few months ago -- and if/when the next stimulus check comes out, I'll be shopping for an actual Contax II or IIa, to have a repairable/serviceable body that can use the lenses I already have for this system. However, I'll also be shopping for a Mamiya M645 1000s, an MF SLR that won't wear me out to carry. That, I could take to work (since my Kiev already goes on lunches and breaks with me, only the bag with extra lenses stays at my desk).
Yes, I'll probably searching for a Rolleicord if/when the next stimulus check comes. I'm not sure how much they go for these days, but seems cheaper then rolleiflexes. Maybe a Yashica if I can't find one for a decent price.
It's a shame how the Japanese models seem to be cheaper/more plentiful/ better working than the German models, since I like the German lenses, but if they produce similar images I might have to go for one.
It's a shame how the Japanese models seem to be cheaper/more plentiful/ better working than the German models, since I like the German lenses, but if they produce similar images I might have to go for one.
The Yashica TLRs had two different lenses -- as I recall, the Yashinon was a triplet and the Yashikor a Tessar type, but I could have that backward. The Tessar type is as good as any Tessar; the triplet is a pretty normal triplet -- which still isn't a bad lens if you can stop down to f/8 or smaller (and some are good at wider apertures). From what I've been seeing, though, the Yashica TLRs have gone up a lot, too. I used to see them under $100, now they're $300. Tempting to suggest looking for "off brand" TLRs -- there were a bunch of "never heard of it" models on eBay recently, probably someone selling off a collection, but apparently there were a lot of nearly identical TLRs, maybe built for rebranding in the same factory, that look a lot like Rolleicords or Ricohflexes. I've seen them going under $200.
I shoot 35mm and medium format because each format has its advantages and disadvantages:
35mm: compared to medium format, longer telephoto range, more shots per roll, lighter to lug around hiking or exploring (Konica Autoreflex T2 and Motor-1, Konica III rangefinder)
Medium format: better image quality (Pentax 645 original manual focus system, Yashica Mat 124)
35mm: compared to medium format, longer telephoto range, more shots per roll, lighter to lug around hiking or exploring (Konica Autoreflex T2 and Motor-1, Konica III rangefinder)
Medium format: better image quality (Pentax 645 original manual focus system, Yashica Mat 124)
Yashikors are 3-element lenses and Yashinons are 4-element
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.
@brainmonster MF gathers more light and offers shallower DOF. This creates the specific look so many people adore. You can get close by using longer 35mm lenses and "zooming out" with your feet, but it's annoying. Sharpness is the last thing I care about. In fact, it's my biggest problem with my medium format cameras (due to increased mirror shake and longer FL)
The Rodenstock Heligon on my small format Kodak Retina IIc is sharper than the Voigtländer Heliar on my E-Bessa 6x9, but the 6x9 format makes up for it and the grain is smaller from the larger format, plus that the Heliar has it's character. Bormental mentioned the shallower DOF, which is important as well. Both the Heligon and Heliar are normal lenses, but the Heligon is a 50 mm and the Heliar a 105 mm.
What is better? Both, or neither. For a landscape in fog, I would prefer the Kodak Retina with a film with distinct grain. Tri-X, perhaps. The results would be sharp, and the larger grain would add "detail" for the eyes in the fog, that otherwise would have looked too smooth and boring. For the same landscape without fog, the E-Bessa in 6x9 would give more details in the landscape itself, and the Heliar lens adds a little more "air" in the landscape.
Personally I prefer older classic cameras from the 1910s to the 1950s, and normal lenses, so I enjoy high quality cameras that don't cost me a fortune.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |