medium format or 35mm (for me)?

[Pupfish]

I'd side with Keith here, what is it about 35mm you find lacking? The best work in 35mm still beats sloppy MF work. Is it a handicap due to film resolution limits? The old rationale for MF is pretty thin these days, and that was negative films didn't have good enough resolution in 35mm for larger prints than 8x10. #2 argument in favor was leaf-shutter lenses for daylight-balanced flash sync speeds. These are mostly moot points nowadays.

But I own and enjoy a medium format camera, a recent purchase. 645 still has a sweet spot for ultimate resolution using the best wide angle lenses and scanning to print. It also has great utility for darkroom prints between 16x20 and 20x24 as there's less light loss than from 35mm (reciprocity thing), defects and dust get enlarged less, too.

It introduces format constraints like a smaller DOF than 35mm for the same view. There are far, far fewer lens choices at the extremes. There are almost no fast lenses at all.

 

[fontmoss]

Thanks Dann theres actually a great shop called fotocasion, an incredible range of kit sadly expensive compared to the UK (which is pricey next to the States)

Keith, thats the dream! I figure it'll be probably 6 or 7 years before i can lift my head and buy a lovely lovely camera-by then i might even know what i want!

pupfish, a very good question. really i dont have enough experience of either format hence my thread here but i thought (was led to believe by the evil interweb?) that 35mm produces a quality of texture superior to digital but inferior in both detail and 'feel' to MF, was i completely wrong? I wanted something to shoot portraits traditional and candid that would stand out not just for lighting and composition but also something in the feel and texture of the print, i thought that MF offered much more of that than 35mm? ultimately if 35mm offers a lot or indeed a lot more than digital then it will be just fine.

 

[keithwms]

Look, theoretically you can get jaw droppingly high-res photographs via MF. I have seen MF results that rival LF, I kid you not. But resolution should be the least of your concerns when you are working on a budget. Don't go down that road, not yet. Know that there are prints from 35mm that are just as effective, or even more so, than what you'll get with a $5000 Sinarhof with a $5k apo Schneidagon XXL.

Listen, I have seen a whole lot of stale MF/LF crap (and produced a fair amount myself) in which it is clearly apparent that the gear was limiting, even though it is theoretically among the every best.

On your budget, and given your time constraints... why half-ass MF when you can whole-ass 35mm.

 

[sanking]

I'd side with Keith here, what is it about 35mm you find lacking? The best work in 35mm still beats sloppy MF work. Is it a handicap due to film resolution limits? The old rationale for MF is pretty thin these days, and that was negative films didn't have good enough resolution in 35mm for larger prints than 8x10. #2 argument in favor was leaf-shutter lenses for daylight-balanced flash sync speeds. These are mostly moot points nowadays.

In my experience there is a significant difference in print quality in going from 35mm to medium format, all other things being equal. And I would turn your comment around to the tune that from what I have seen the sloppiest medium format work often easily beats 35mm.

Print size is the most important factor in my opinion. MF is going to easily produce prints with finer grain and more detail in any size over 8X10, and maybe even in 8X10. The difference in image quality between 35mm and MF from a 16X20 B&W print is so great that it is clearly obvious to almost everyone.

In my opinion there is still a lot of rationale for MF film because in pure image quality it still easily beats the best DSLR, even in color, whereas any 12mp or higher DSLR easily equals or beats 35mm. All things being equal of course.

Sandy King

 

[mcgrattan]

I shoot a fair bit of both medium format and 35mm and I'd go with MF, every time, if I was looking for an adjunct to a dSLR. The dSLR already does the things that a 35mm slr does and it does them in a similar way. I still shoot 35mm film because I like my 35mm cameras, and I like the look of film in general, but a 35mm slr just doesn't offer enough to make it the first choice supplement to an existing dSLR setup.

I'd go with MF not particularly for print size -- I print from 35mm, digital and MF at roughly the same print sizes -- but because there's something about how MF renders tones, and the way in which the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas in the image looks that I simply can't get (regularly) from 35mm or digital. Medium format just has a different look.

Is it always better? No. Is it always the right tool for the job? No.

But if you are looking for something different to accompany an existing small-format SLR type camera [a dSLR] then I'd go with something that isn't another small-format SLR type camera: they are just too close in look, spec, user experience, etc. I'd do that because it's fun to shoot different stuff, and because it's nice to experiment with different ways of working, and because MF just looks different from 35mm.

 

[fontmoss]

but because there's something about how MF renders tones, and the way in which the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas in the image looks that I simply can't get (regularly) from 35mm or digital. Medium format just has a different look.

ok much better explanation of what i keep saying is feel and texture! yeah you're on the money but keith's words ring true-cheap ass MF v bad ass 35mm, with those stakes where do you go?

EDIT: this is what ive sent a couple of folk from another forum, i think i have narrowed down the criteria

Further to my endless threads i wanted to ask you a question, hope you don't mind. In your opinion, does the quality, and by that i mean the texture and feel, of 35mm far outrank that of digital? Within my budget I think a bronica ETRS offers a good medium format entry but even then it's not ideal-not square (not sure why that should make a difference but it does) and with a 70/80mm lens rather than the 150/180 i would want. So i think 35mm will tide me over until such time as i can afford the leap to MF unless the difference between digital and 35mm is not so great in which case i would aim for a bronica and change the lens when i could afford to.

 

[Q.G.]

ok much better explanation of what i keep saying is feel and texture! yeah you're on the money but keith's words ring true-cheap ass MF v bad ass 35mm, with those stakes where do you go?

The same way Keith (!) went: MF.

 

[keithwms]

35mm film does not far outrank digital if your sole criteria are resolution and tonality.

However...

If you consider the various personalities of the films, the multitude of output methods (including straight digital), the lessons a 35mm film camera can teach you, and the fearless ways that you can use a little film camera... well then things start to look a bit different.

It's true that larger format gives better tonality, better in focus/out of focus transitions etc. But this does not necessarily say anything about the effectiveness of the photograph. Nor does it take into account where the O.P. is at this point in terms of financial and time resources. I could've just as easily said that nothing beats the tonality of a 20x24" contact print. Uh yeah, but... so what? An effective photograph is much more than the sum of technical elements.

The same way Keith (!) went: MF.

...after I had the time and money to do it right.... and I still shoot 35mm quite often- film and digital.

 

[mcgrattan]

I don't actually agree with Keith. I've taken shots with cheap cheap cheap medium format cameras [Lubitels and the like] that have a look that I don't get from the best 35mm cameras/lenses I own. I think I do understand what he is getting at -- bad photography is bad photography, medium format isn't going to imbue your photos with genius, and 35mm is still capable of producing wonderful wonderful images -- but I don't agree that cheap medium format isn't a worthwhile alternative/adjunct.

You don't need to spend a lot of money to get a reasonable TLR -- a Yashica, Rolleicord, Mamiya Cxxx or similar -- and the prices on medium format SLRs like the Bronicas, Mamiya 645s, Mamiya RBs etc are falling all the time. I've been offered both a Mamiya RB67 with standard lens and film back, and a Bronica ETRSi with standard lens, prism finder, waist level finder and accessories for £200 pounds in the past few months. I spent the money on a Rolleiflex instead because I like TLRs, but if I'd wanted an MF SLR* I wouldn't have had to go nuts with money to get one. I might have had to wait around for a month or two to find one at a price I liked, but they are out there.

* I actually sold my other MF SLR because I prefer the Rollei.

Cheers

Matt

 

[fontmoss]

the criterion is not so much straight out resolution as much as the feel and texture, the general loveliness film brings to an image which digital lacks (for me)

in the end you're right, money and skills are the far greater factors and 35mm or MF im going to have fun

EDIT:

medium format isn't going to imbue your photos with genius

well my flickr is there for all to see.....(qualifying statement: only had an slr for 6 months!)


double EDIT: um ill have that bronny if its still around

 

[keithwms]

Honestly I think that the output workflow e.g. handprinting to matte fiber, (split)toning, using alt processes etc. is going to do much more to distinguish your work from digital than the format choice. Traditional film output is inherently more individual... regardless of format. And you can do nutty things with 35mm; I sometimes shoot 35mm slides and dupe them to 5x7 tmax for contact printing. Just go expeirment and explore. And enjoy.

P.S. It is true that excellent MF all-in-ones (folders etc.) come up for much less than your budget for the bronnie. You just have to keep your eyes open and ask around.

 

[mcgrattan]

Further to my endless threads i wanted to ask you a question, hope you don't mind. In your opinion, does the quality, and by that i mean the texture and feel, of 35mm far outrank that of digital?

I don't think 35mm outranks digital in terms of quality, at all, any more. Assuming you are talking purely about resolution, low light capability and so on.

I still shoot 35mm because I like the way film looks. It's different rather than better. FWIW, 99% when I am shooting 35mm I shoot black and white, because I think that's where there's still something to be had from 35mm in terms of a particular aesthetic. With colour, I usually reach for my dSLR.*

That said, I think really good compact 35mm cameras -- smaller SLRs, rangefinders, high-end autofocus compacts -- offer a nice package of compactness and quality. I've gone travelling recently with just a small but good quality 35mm camera and some film and not missed my dSLR.

Bear in mind that if you do want to go with 35mm and a 'portrait' length lens, that decent lenses in that focal length -- whether in SLR or rangefinder -- aren't necessarily cheap.

Matt

* although saying that, I shot some 35mm colour print film over New Year and loved the results.

 

[fontmoss]

well the 35mm route would be black and white with an 85mm f2 lens, same budget as for the bronica. Better is the wrong word for sure but if i can shoot 35mm and see an inherent quality (not resolution) that is missing in my digital stuff then ill be happy. If a cheap MF is going to give me that by the spade but for the same sort of cash then that would be the choice.

 

[Q.G.]

...after I had the time and money to do it right.... and I still shoot 35mm quite often- film and digital.

For convenience sake, i guess.

Your beef was with the assertion that MF delivers much better quality.

 

[keithwms]

This thread isn't about us, it is about the needs and the resources of the O.P.

 

[Q.G.]

Indeed.
And 35 mm just does not deliver the quality he needs.

 

[keithwms]

No, it doesn't deliver the 'quality' you think he needs. There is a big difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since you are coming from the digisnap world of machine gun shooting, you need to learn to slow down and compose the photograph and learn when to follow the exposure meter and when to compensate to exposure meter reading.

MF will give you both of these plus the better tonality. The large viewing screen is a major plus!

35mm will give you some of the two, but it will not have you spend time thinking about the composition because the screen is smaller.

These thoughts must be balanced against what you can buy-beg-borrow-steal [availabililty] and cost.

I shoot 50 rolls of 36 exposure and 25 rolls of 120 a year of black & white and color. I find that after 50 years of photography which was almost exclusively 35mm, that I prefer the MF now.

Steve

 

[narsuitus]

Over the years, I have shot 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5inch, and 8x10 inch film.

I no longer shoot 6x6 and I have never shot 645.

If I were starting from scratch, I would select a 645 (Pentax, Mamiya, and Contax would be my first choices) and would probably never need any other film camera.

If I were already shooting with Nikon digitals like you are, I would get a Nikon film camera so that I could share the lenses.

 

[bagdad child]

I quit digital photography (eos 400d) a year ago and made the leap straight to medium format film and the Pentax 67. This was a very good decision as I had to learn everything from the beginning and doing so vastly improved my photography. Especially helpful to become a better photographer is the process of slowing down and thinking about every exposure which is most likely to happen if you choose medium format. Since I got started with medium format I have aquired about 30 cheap old film cameras, both a few more medium format cameras and a stockpile of old 35mm rangefinders. All the cameras are very exciting to use. Some days I use my Yashica Electro or Oly 35RC and just slip the camera in my pocket while on other days I lug around my Pentax 67 with 4 lenses, filters, finders, lightmeter, extension tubes and my 6 pound wooden tripod. My advice is to choose a system and don't look back. Just enjoy the learning experience and then you can move into another format whenever you like. There is really nothing like 'higher quality' of one format over another one in photography, it's only about your photos and what emotions they create in people.

Best of luck and blessings!

 

[Robert Budding]

I haven't read every post in this thread . . .

I'd suggest that you decide what size prints you intend to make first. You can get very good 8x10 prints from a 35mm neg. But you will see better tonality, even at 8x10, with larger negs. Low light? Choose 35 mm because you can shoot at wider apertures and still get decent DOF.

 

[StorminMatt]

Has anyone taken a look at the prices of used 35mm cameras these days on craigslist? They're pretty dirt cheap. In fact, I even got lucky and picked up a Canon EOS 3 body with a cracked prism (but which works fine otherwise) for $25. And I've picked up a perfectly working Elan or two for around $40-$50. Lenses cost more, but I already had those for my DSLR. So if you already have a DSLR, simply get a film body that uses the same lenses. Regardless, with prices like these, why agonize over whether you should shoot 35mm or MF? Go buy yourself a good, used, MF system and then spend a few pennies more for a 35mm camera. It's not like buying both is going to break the bank.

 

[aparat]

I suggest you get the Nikon F100. It will be very easy for you to transition into. You will then have to focus to getting to know your films, development, printing, etc. Have fun!

 

[ntenny]

Since you are coming from the digisnap world of machine gun shooting, you need to learn to slow down and compose the photograph and learn when to follow the exposure meter and when to compensate to exposure meter reading.

I think this is the best argument anyone's made in this thread.

The technical arguments about image quality are really beside the point, I think; with all due respect to the OP, *no* one is so good after six months (or six years) of photography that the technical limitations of 35mm are the main restriction on the quality of their results. People have made entire careers' worth of superb photos in 35mm---to say "35mm is inadequate for me", you pretty much have to be willing to say "I'm a better photographer than Andre Kertesz"!

But the point about the pacing of the process---that's important. You *can* learn to see carefully and work slowly with 35mm, but I agree it's easier with MF. I'm a fan of TLRs, personally, and they're certainly the cheapest way to get into quality MF. (To be fair, I learned the basics of photography using one when I was a kid, so the TLR gestalt is burned pretty deeply into my brain.)

The downside is that it's harder to find someplace that will process 120 for you; but the upside of *that* is that it's a reason to develop your own B&W, with all the virtues and frustrations of doing so.

But who says you have to pick just one? A Rolleicord or Yashica TLR *and* a manual 35mm SLR shouldn't break the bank, I would think.

-NT

 

[fontmoss]

My advice is to choose a system and don't look back. Just enjoy the learning experience and then you can move into another format whenever you like.

yup. prob sound advice and what keith has been saying to some extent.

*no* one is so good after six months (or six years) of photography that the technical limitations of 35mm are the main restriction on the quality of their results.

not really what i said but ok, 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.