medium format or 35mm (for me)?

[fontmoss]

Now this is a cross forum post really so Ive posted it here and also in 35mmas I expect the answers or at least the bias to vary.

Im new to photography, 6 months in almost and 6000 photos so as you can probably guess Im a digi user. BUT i want to try out film. Initially it was as an experiment and something to dabble in before i go back to uni in september but even in the course of my searching its taken on a life of its own and im now looking for something long term (although i havent actually taken a film shot yet)

So im looking at a nikon 35mm FM2n manual camera with 85mm f2 lens or a cheap medium format set up possibly a bronica. I know each forum will have its own ideas about what i need but im also guessing some of you have 35mm and medium format.

Im thinking of using it in different application to my digi SLR which is always with me for low light or interesting stuff where i might rattle off a few shots to find 1 or none are worth keeping. Instead it would be a sort of portrait camera not in a strictly posed sense but a camera where i can garner a lot more texture and feel than with my digi camera. Confusing? My flickr is here for an idea of what i like to do. Favourites may show more clearly what i would like to do.

Cost is an issue but id be looking to self develop by the end of the summer and hopefully use darkroom etc at uni. Potential repairs are a possible issue. Portability-can i lug around a medium format or indeed would i want to. Interchange of lenses-with the nikon i can use lenses i have for my digi.

Anyway through in your tuppence/cents worth as to which you feel is a better plan.

 

[Q.G.]

There's no way round it: size matters.

MF (while still not being very big) is the perfect compromise between size and practicallity.
Image quality is high enough for most typical applications.

35 mm is way too small to deliver real quality.
But in the olden days was very easy to use (that was before the 35 mm cameras became even bigger and heavier than many MF cameras).

LF produces much better quality. But is a lot less convenient.
Small compact cameras like the Linhof Master Technika are great. But still not nearly as nice to use as most MF cameras.


Of the MF formats, there is none that does not deliver the MF punch.
A Bronica or other 4x6.5 will already show a significantly better image quality than any 35 mm system.
The difference between 6x4.5 and the largest non-panoramic MF format 6x9 is also detectable, but much less big than that between 6x4.5 and 35 mm formats.


So my advice would be to get into MF, and 'build' a system. At used market's prices of today, not too hard.
You already have the digithingy for when convenience matters more than quality.

And when you have collected a nice MF set, consider adding LF ...

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I agree with Q.G. Since you already have a digi camera why not go for MF. There is a lot of information on MF out there and check the prices on KEH. BTW welcome to APUG!

Jeff

 

[fontmoss]

thanks guys, the difference between the digi and MF is both its weakest and strongest points. someone on the 35mm forum suggested my stuff wouldn't benefit from MF so stick with 35mm but like a moth to the light MF is a strong lure

 

[Prest_400]

If you have a nice lab or place to send your 120 film, go to MF directly.
I have to pass by 35mm before MF, just because I don't have any lab that processes 120 film and getting MF gear when I started was just a bit strong investment; Also, I didn't have many photography experience, and mistakes in 35mm cost less than in 120.

 

[fontmoss]

mistakes in 35mm cost less than in 120.

hmm thats something to think about too.

 

[Ian Grant]

My feelings are the same as Q.G. & Jeff go for medium format possibly a 645 as they handle in much the same as a 35mm/Digital SLR, an advantage is 15 on a roll of film as opposed to 12 with a 6x6 and less with a 6x7.

A quick look at your Flickr site indicates you would need a reasonable degree of flexibility and 645's have that, but don't rule out a TLR like a yashicamat or Rollieflex, many of us use MF for a high proportion of our work the increase in quality over 35mm is substantial and worth-while. I'd be happy using a 645, or 6x6 (TLR or SLR) to shoot images similar to those you've linked to.

Ian

 

[keithwms]

35 mm is way too small to deliver real quality.

I completely disagree. And frankly I am shocked that such an uninformed opinion would ever be uttered by a photographer.

(And I have 6 MF cameras and another 6 LF, so I am not that guy who shouts "Leica" in knee-jerk fashion)

There is simply no substitute for 35mm for some work. I tend to go to smaller formats for longer focal lengths while going to LF for wides, but... one of the biggest strengths of 35mm is its versatility. There's damn near nothing that can't be shot well with 35mm, so it's an excellent learning platform.... as well as a professional tool of choice for many of the world's finest photographers.

I also question the general notion that 35mm isn't "big" enough for good prints. That is complete rot. What, everything has to be blown up to poster size? You want irony: now that I shoot mostly LF, almost all of my b&w prints are contact prints, 8x10 or smaller!

Fontmoss, you have to find your way through all the free internet-opinion crap and experiment. It is fun to find out for yourself and you will learn a lot on the way. You may well find that MF is the ticket for you, who knows. You may wind up with a gx680, you may wind up with 35mm Zeiss Ikon, but as long as you're shooting what somebody else thinks you should shoot, you're not shooting for yourself.

And you may well find, like I did and many many other people have found, that every camera is a unique tool with its own strengths and limitations. There is no be-all/do-all camera (although a well-designed 35mm body like an F100 is, in my opinion, just about the closest thing to that). As you progress, your tool preferences may become more specialized... or they may not. You have to find your own photography.

I guess I am always mystified by these "what should I buy" threads. You know what, the very best way to go about this is with completely blind naïvete: get a bunch of different bodies in your hands, shoot em, play with em, enjoy the learning experience at your own pace. Get to know people nearby who have different gear and borrow, experiment. Enjoy. And by the way, there's never been a better time to try a bunch of different film bodies.

 

[fontmoss]

i think cost is going to kill the MF dream guys. even if get a cheap (£200-£250) bronica set up it'd have a 80mm lens and i really want something along the 150mm lines. 80 is similar to what i use with digi but really i want to use MF as a portrait weapon. Similarly even if home develop then scanning negs or printing would mean investing more cash than for 35mm.


EDIT: just seen your post keith, i think folk in this forum particularly see MF as a route to some really big prints and i can see their point. I know each camera has their own special strengths but as im living in madrid right now then my access to kit is limited but the catch 22 is that when i move back to the UK then my free time evaporates. Really the point of this 'what should i buy' (and i understand your frustration about these posts) is whether 35mm can deliver an image that contains more detail and a greater texture than digital or whether to look at MF to really see a difference in those types of qualities. If money wasnt a factor then id go MF but sadly it is.

 

[keithwms]

*Borrow*

Try.

Save.

Then buy.

 

[fontmoss]

yeah but as i said, i cant borrow. a friend back home has a lovely hass but no one i know here has a digital SLR never mind MF, its a totally different kettle of fish here with photography being much more expensive than the UK.


EDIT: and when i get home and can try then Ill be heading to med school and my free time will disappear

 

[Mark Fisher]

If you have no film experience, I'd get a 35mm with a 50mm and an 85mm. Doubly important over the next few months if you don't have access to a darkroom since processing is so much easier with 35mm. Now, 35mm will not give you the fine detail you may get with medium format, it is better learning tool. Plus, 35mm B&W has its own unique look (grain!) that you can't get in digital. Medium format may be what you get eventually, but 35mm will be a better transition and learning tool.

 

[keithwms]

What do you mean you can't borrow. Borrowing happens all the time between apuggers!! Take a deep breath, look around, find your local experts. Oh and I guarantee you will find some film enthusiasts at med school (or around any academic setting).

 

[mwdake]

and mistakes in 35mm cost less than in 120

Not in my world.
When I use 35mm I tend not use up the whole roll with what I want and start just taking shots of anything so I can finish.
15 shots in my 645 or 10 in my 6x7 seems to be a good balance of number of shots for an afternoon outing somewhere.

 

[fontmoss]

sorry keithwms i mean i cant borrow where i live (Madrid) as i dont know anyone sporting a MF (and to be honest my spanish isnt as good as it should be) and photography here seems to be much more of a small, expensive hobby. Im certain there will be lots of opportunities at uni but im going to be laden with work and tbh i envision photography taking a back seat for a while. i thought it would be nice to use a film camera over the next few months where i have lots of free time.

ill have a search for apuggers near me though.

good point mwdake but i think markfisher may have hit the nail on the head: 35mm might not be MF but its going to be closer than digital output and be easier to get a handle on

 

[keithwms]

EDIT: just seen your post keith, i think folk in this forum particularly see MF as a route to some really big prints and i can see their point. I know each camera has their own special strengths but as im living in madrid right now then my access to kit is limited but the catch 22 is that when i move back to the UK then my free time evaporates. Really the point of this 'what should i buy' (and i understand your frustration about these posts) is whether 35mm can deliver an image that contains more detail and a greater texture than digital or whether to look at MF to really see a difference in those types of qualities. If money wasnt a factor then id go MF but sadly it is.

I suspect that an F100 may be the ticket for you. Shoot a fine grained b&w film (try tmax and fp4+ first), consider the relative strengths & weaknesses of the various developers, and consider also your print method. If you are scanning then.. honestly scanning is typically not kind to b&w 35mm. If you do go with 35mm b&w then by all means enlarge it traditionally. It's easy. And you'll love the look. Guaranteed.

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Fontmoss, I just bought a Pentax K1000 and a 50mm lens for around $40 and some change. I havent got it in yet because I just bought it like the day before yesterday. do they have Ebay or an Ebay-like site in Madrid where you can get something inexpensively? (or maybe flea markets or something? Do they even have flea markets in Madird?)

 

[fontmoss]

i was thinking a FM2n body with 85 f2 lens with ilford hp5 film? I like manual stuff and playing with the body in a shop yesterday i liked it a lot.

thanks for the replies btw keith, appreciated

 

[fontmoss]

wgibson-ebay isnt a prob, i have family in the Uk and can get stuff posted here plus im on UK photo forums. 2nd hand doesnt really exist in a big way here in any field, cars etc are only marginally cheaper than new! still dont understand why and ive been here over a year.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, fm2n is very fine too. Excellent choice. Just do it. Spend your time on your imagery and your printing, not on obsessing over the the format. If you need a format change then it'll happen in due course, when you have the time and resources to do it properly. Til then, get that fm2n... and maybe a holga

I'd not recommend hp5+ for starters though, I'd recommend fp4+ and tmax, tried as a pair. One of the very first forks in the road that you encounter, when new to film, is traditional vs. nontraditional grain, thus I recommend shooting the pair, comparatively. They'll give you two quite different looks, but both quite fine grained... almost regardless of dev. In other words you can't really eff 'em up even if you are new to it. Over time you will learn that how much grain you get with the faster films like hp5+ is more variable, depending on your dev technique and the developer.

 

[dougjgreen]

If you're headed to med school, you might as well wait on the Medium Format. Once you're a doctor, you'll have no problem affording a Hasselblad and a set of nice lenses. They are only going to get cheaper over time. But it might still be lots of fun to spend 80-150 Euro on a nice TLR to get some learning in under your belt.

 

[fontmoss]

Spend your time on your imagery and your printing, not on obsessing over the the format

tell me about it! i hate being in front of a screen but i always want to get the most appropriate kit for what i do, did the same when bought my fuji s5 pro. great camera, cheap and ideal for what i do (with digital)

 

[fontmoss]

Once you're a doctor, you'll have no problem affording a Hasselblad and a set of nice lenses

by then ill be ancient and tired, def too old to carry a medium format...

 

[keithwms]

by then ill be ancient and tired, def too old to carry a medium format...

lol!

Hold on, let me testify. There is hope at the end of the road!

I went through grad school and postdoc not being able to afford anything but a digital p&s! And a little 35mm film body which I never used because I couldn't afford the processing. Let's just say that you take a vow of temporary poverty in my field!

When I finally was on faculty salary, at the still reasonable age of 30, I went to town on the film cameras. I mean it, I went to town. First the F5, then the leicas, then various fuji MF RFs, then I went on a tour of just about every MF film body in existence. KEH and I were in weekly correspondence. I tried all manner of things, eventually settling on a mamiya 6 for my MF RF, an rb67 pro SD for my closeup/macro, a crown graphic for my 4x5 adventures. But every month more money appeared in my bank account and the KEH site was still there.... so, more cameras. So now I have something like 25. They all have different purposes, or so I claim.

Med school is going to keep you busy, and it should. But you are going to blink twice and you will have whatever you want.

 

[DannL]

When I lived in Spain I took much of film work to Foticos (fotico.com) just for simple 35mm processing, with nothing special. I checked their website and they still do "Revelado Analógico" which I assume is just 35mm at the least. But, alas the nearest to Marid is located in Teruel. That would be quite a drive.

So, I'm going reach here and point you to this website for Photoinstant. Supposedly they still do some analog. Click on the Localización icon (top right) to see a map. Then click the map to get the arrows to show. Or try the contacto icon (top right). It states that they do "Todos los formatos", which could mean many things.

http://www.photoinstant.es/fotografia/Revelado-analogico-y-digital.html

I'm going to suggest 35mm for the (possible) ease of getting lab processing in your location. And it's easier to hide a 35mm camera under your coat or car seat.

You may find other labs in you area by typing "Revelado Analógico Madrid" on a search engine.

Ciao!