medium format or 35mm (for me)?

Q.G. · May 23, 2009

fontmoss said:
the point really was whether 35mm offered a nice tonal/quality of print advantage over digital work or if stepping up to the MF mark was a better decision, a question few have addressed thus far.

Many have, in fact.
The answer is a resounding "stepping up to the MF mark is a better decision".

Mark Fisher · May 23, 2009

Q.G. said:
Many have, in fact.
The answer is a resounding "stepping up to the MF mark is a better decision".

You will definitely see a significant difference in medium format if you do your own darkroom prints (or have someone print them for you) particularly in black and white. Honestly, though, with good technique, a modern film like Acros, a tripod and a prime lens you can get 35mm 8x10 prints that are pretty close to medium format. Anything bigger and there is really no contest.

For me, 35mm is about hand holding with Tri-X and loving the grain. Medium format and large format are (for me) about tonality and texture. If I were you, I'd just get both and find out what makes you happy and then sell the other one. You won't lose much by getting both and you'll be able to see what you like.

keithwms · May 23, 2009

fontmoss said:
...the point really was whether 35mm offered a nice tonal/quality of print advantage over digital work or if stepping up to the MF mark was a better decision, a question few have addressed thus far.

35mm definitely does offer a fair tonal/quality/individuality advantage over digital... if you do your own b&w printing. But don't think of this as digital vs. film, it's not. You may well find that digital has its place beside your film work. Several of us have alluded to sharing lenses between bodies, and that is a strategy that many of us use.

It's also not 35mm vs. MF, or X vs. Y.... After you are out of med school and have all the money in the world and extra time and have tried a bunch of cameras from holgas to gator-skinned hassies, you may well settle on one tool that really works for you. But nobody here can say what that tool might be (even though they may think they can).

Look, it's going to take time and individual experimentation. You can't just download and implement others' advice and then expect to develop your own individual photography. The good news, as an amateur, is that the experimentation is heaps of fun and it's done on your own schedule.

firecracker · May 24, 2009

keithwms said:
35mm definitely does offer a fair tonal/quality/individuality advantage over digital... if you do your own b&w printing. But don't think of this as digital vs. film, it's not. You may well find that digital has its place beside your film work. Several of us have alluded to sharing lenses between bodies, and that is a strategy that many of us use.

I'm with you on this totally.

fontmoss · May 24, 2009

thanks guys, yeah many have answered the question QG but equally some have thrown in advice that doesn't really sit with the original points.

I dont mean to set it up as 35mm v digital or v MF, they are all valid forms for me and it's really a question of which will offer certain aspects at certain price points, a question keith has repeatedly answered. id like the contrast MF would bring to my digi set up but i think if im being sensible then a 35mm camera offers more flexibility with lenses and costs but will still give me a different feel to my digital work.

Q.G. · May 24, 2009

I don't think that many of us, if anyone at all, has treated this as a 'vs', or 'either or' question.

You asked for "a lot more texture and feel than with my digi camera", and the many answers pointing you towards MF pointed you towards exactly that.
That's why i said that many have indeed answered your question. "Stepping up to the MF mark is a better decision".

There are other considerations, yes. Most importantly the money it all costs.
And it's perfectly o.k., of course, to spend less because you can't spend more. We all too often have to find a good compromise between what we want/need and what we can have.
The answer to the "lot more [etc.]" question however does not change because of that. Hence the also often given 'upgrade later' answers.

fontmoss · May 24, 2009

Ok i think ive reached a decision.

Im going to have a look for a cheap bronica SQB or ETRS for a little while (possibly in vain) ideally a SQB with 150mm lens but really something to get me started for around £200/250. I'm not going to break the bank to go MF but it is something that i think will work for me, i have a fixed short lens which i use 90% of the time on my DSLR which ill continue to use for low light candid stuff and also a f2.8 50-150 lens which is handy for portrait stuff with the digi. My thinking is that the MF offers something different, not that 35mm wouldn't but that MF is radically different and i can add to as and when i need to. It will be something I will take a long time to learn to use but ive found somewhere in the UK that processes a roll of 120 for the same price as 35mm although if time permits i will try and develop stuff myself.

If it transpires that my budget won't permit a MF then I will look to get a manual 35mm set up, im sure ill get a huge kick out of any film format but MF has a powerful lure. Thanks for everyone's help and feel free to add more ideas.

Chazzy · May 24, 2009

fontmoss said:
Ok i think ive reached a decision.

Im going to have a look for a cheap bronica SQB or ETRS for a little while (possibly in vain) ideally a SQB with 150mm lens but really something to get me started for around £200/250. I'm not going to break the bank to go MF but it is something that i think will work for me, i have a fixed short lens which i use 90% of the time on my DSLR which ill continue to use for low light candid stuff and also a f2.8 50-150 lens which is handy for portrait stuff with the digi. My thinking is that the MF offers something different, not that 35mm wouldn't but that MF is radically different and i can add to as and when i need to. It will be something I will take a long time to learn to use but ive found somewhere in the UK that processes a roll of 120 for the same price as 35mm although if time permits i will try and develop stuff myself.

If it transpires that my budget won't permit a MF then I will look to get a manual 35mm set up, im sure ill get a huge kick out of any film format but MF has a powerful lure. Thanks for everyone's help and feel free to add more ideas.

Now that you have decided on medium format (wise choice, given your desire to get something that you can't get from digital), I hope that you will give some thought to which format you want.

There are three kinds of brains: brains that see the world in squares, brains that see the world in rectangles, and a small group of those who can easily move back and forth between squares and rectangles. It would be to your advantage to find out how your brain is wired. Personally I find 6x6 format to be frustrating, because immediately I am thinking about the problem of how to crop the image. I just don't think in terms of square composition. But you may be different. Think before you buy!

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2009

Chazzy,

My brain came in the more flexible model. When I pick up 6x6 I see square compositions that I may crop to rectangular. When I pick up 35mm I see rectangular compositions that I may crop to square. It really has to do with seeing what the camera sees.

Perhaps you can get an upgrade and solve your problem ... or maybe just get out there an shoot a bunch of rolls of 6x6 so that you too can learn to see both.

Steve

Steve Smith · May 24, 2009

I have nothing to add to this at the moment other than to welcome you to APUG.

Note to others: We have been having a similar conversation on another forum!

Steve.

paul_c5x4 · May 24, 2009

fontmoss said:
Im going to have a look for a cheap bronica SQB or ETRS for a little while (possibly in vain) ideally a SQB with 150mm lens but really something to get me started for around £200/250.

fontmoss, I would avoid the SQ-B and SQ-Am models - The SQ-B is a low cost variant and lacks metering through the prism.

The SQ-Am model features a built in motor drive - Great if you want to shoot at 1.5 frames per second, else just extra weight to hang round your neck.

If you can find one, the SQ-Ai is probably the best of the SQ range.. Come to think of it, I know of two for sale locally. PM me with your email addy and I'll dig out the details for you.

Steve Smith · May 24, 2009

Chazzy said:
There are three kinds of brains: brains that see the world in squares, brains that see the world in rectangles, and a small group of those who can easily move back and forth between squares and rectangles. It would be to your advantage to find out how your brain is wired.

I don't know if that is true but it makes sense to me.

I have rectangular format and square format cameras but I don't think about format when using them. I just go for the best composition (in my opinion!) in the viewfinder.

I'm building a panoramic camera at the moment. I wonder if my brain will work with that!

Steve.

fontmoss · May 24, 2009

Hi Steve!

Well it's done. Went over budget a bit but £270 posted has got me a bronica SQA with grip, 150mm lens and back. Lets hope it works ok and i can figure out how to use the thing!

EDIT: damn just seen your post paul, lie and tell me they're more expensive

paul_c5x4 · May 24, 2009

fontmoss said:
EDIT: damn just seen your post paul, lie and tell me they're more expensive

I'll let you know after I've seen the guy on Wednesday. In the meantime, you may want to read this thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

fontmoss · May 24, 2009

mate, regardless of what he says-tell me he wants 350 a piece.

that link is slightly scary but all part of loving an older woman.

oh god i just referred to a camera as a woman.

paul_c5x4 · May 24, 2009

fontmoss said:
that link is slightly scary but all part of loving an older woman.

oh god i just referred to a camera as a woman.

Find a good one to start with, and it will last you a lifetime, get a bad one, and there is always ebay. At least the camera will only snap when *you* push the right button

Shaggysk8 · May 24, 2009

Congrats on the purchase fontmoss, if you can I would develop your own film sooner rather than later, its a lot cheeper and more satisfying

fontmoss · May 24, 2009

thanks shaggy, developing is the aim but a tiny flat in madrid and an imminent move mean it's not going to happen for a while though

k_jupiter · May 24, 2009

It's a complex thing and you have been given some good advice. If you swing with the FM2, the 85 is a nice piece of glass, I would mate it with the 35mm 2.0 AI lens, not the 50mm.

In my world, if I want what I use to shoot 35mm with, I normally now grab the GF's digital (I don't own one myself). The FM2 sits in the cupboard most of the time. To be honest, her Olympus digi takes as good a photo as my Nikon does or better.

If I am going out for serious work, the MF stuff comes out, my Mamiya 645 handles just about as well as a 35mm with better results. When I get very serious, the rb67 and tripod are summoned. Sometimes I pull out the C220 and shoot square. And when I get in that crazy, go make art mood, the 8x10 is prepped and ready to shoot (B&W only).

So lots of thoughts. If I were you? If you really want to shoot film, get the Nikon set up with those two lens. They will take you a long long way.

tim in san jose

phelger · May 24, 2009

I work with both 35mm (Leica MP) and 6x7cm (Mamiya 7II) (and incidentally digital).
having seen your presentation of images on flickr - really superb work - I wonder why you feel the need for something else!
One answer could be that you want real paper enlargements - 16x20 f.ex. which is a good format to hang on a wall. I've never been able to obtain such an enlargement from digital photos on paper with a surface and structure I like. Therefore I stay with the conventional procedure because the paper result is clearly superior.
If my assumpton is right, and having seen your excellent portfolio, I would rather think that you would be well-served with a 35mm system. I can't help thinking that nothing else can beat the Leica lenses - clarity, acumen, sharpness, contrast - it is all there, and at a horrendous price!
however, Voigtländer make some excellent camera bodies at reasonable prices, and they are compatible with Leica lenses (M mounts).
As to the Medium Format, my feeling is that it is more specialised. Personally, I use it for making poster size landscape photography; for official portraiting; sometimes for still life and for other studio shots (of which I do extremely little).
Hopefully you'll find your way - remember: the technology can easily get in the way of the creative process.
good luck
peter

Ian David · May 24, 2009

Congrats on getting into MF! Probably the most interesting thing now will be to see how you like the process of dealing with film. Even if you had gone down the 35mm route, this process would still have been a significant change from digital (irrespective of the question of whether there is any difference in image quality). I love the film process, and don't like the digital process which just leaves me cold. If film gives you the sh*ts for some reason, well you can sell the Bronica for close to what you paid and you'll be back where you started. If you love film, well you will probably want to have both a 35mm and a MF anyway - so doesn't matter which you started with.
Processing your own film is part of the fun. Even in a small flat, it is very doable and pretty inexpensive to get set up.
Ian

fontmoss · May 25, 2009

thanks for your very kind words phelger, although im not sure you and k jupiter realise ive bitten the bullet and gone for a medium format. Partly because it is so different from the digi and i am drawn both to the film process, the square format and hopefully the printed result. thanks for your input, im sure as keith has said here in due course there will be more formats and cameras to follow when time and money permit. i just hope i can put them to good use.

k_jupiter · May 25, 2009

Musta missed that post. You will be happy. I love shooting square, but I also love hauling the 645 around as well as the rb.

You're sunk now. *L*

We wish you good light.

tim in san jose

paul_c5x4 · May 27, 2009

fontmoss said:
EDIT: damn just seen your post paul, lie and tell me they're more expensive

Hey fontmoss - Just got back from town. The Bronica kits I had in mind have all been sold, but while hanging around for another fix, one more turned up.

Complete with 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm lenses, speed grip, spare back (maybe two), pro-shade, prism finder (and WLF).. Around the £400 mark.

fontmoss · May 27, 2009

wow thats a pretty good deal (SQA?) but ive paid for mine and should arrive next week. thanks though

medium format or 35mm (for me)?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency