Medium format questions from 35mm user

pharmboycu · Jul 11, 2011

Hi everyone--

I'll preface this by saying that I've used the search and read extensively on these posts. The questions I have are not meant to be rehashes of old issues.

In a month or so, I have an opportunity to go to Texas and visit the Palo Duro Canyon, my second trip there. This time I plan on carrying my 35mm cameras.

Not being boastful, however, I can see some improvement in my photography since I started shooting again. My goal is to capture an image that I like well enough to make a large size print of and hang on my wall.

At this size (roughly 16 X 20 or so), from what I read I'm lead to understand I'm at the verge of when it becomes better for image quality to move to medium format film. I may be mistaken, however, at least that's the understanding I presently have-- I'm right there at the brink.

1) Is this actually correct? At this print size it would be better to move from 35mm to medium format?

2) I do not currently own a medium format camera. In searching the various threads I've seen recommendations for Yahsicas, Rolleiflexes, Fujis, etc. Is there a particular model that would be well suited for someone in my situation-- who knows the basics of 35mm photograpy but has yet to work with medium format? I'm interested in the Fuji 6X9, but they are cost prohibitive at this point.

3) I don't know of any place that rents medium format cameras. If there is such a company, would the rates be expensive enough that it would be better to buy one outright?

4) What, in general, can I expect in comparing 35mm to M.F. with regards to the way the film behaves, special precautions, idiosyncrasies, etc. Also, are there any special precautions needed when carrying a M.F. camera or 120 film through an airport? Theoretically, I imagine it would be okay-- at least that's what everything I read says, however, I wanted to ask those with experience for a real world answer.

5) Do any of you veterans have any insight into shooting at Palo Duro? I'm interested in any stories, suggestions, or sample pictures ya'll might be willing to share.

Thanks for being willing to share with a newbie!

John

David Brown · Jul 11, 2011

John: there is no absolute answer. It's a bigger camera (usually), and a bigger negative. All other things being equal, this should give you more "quality" in a 16x20 print. However, things are rarely "equal" and there are several other variables. You can explore meduim format fairly cheaply; and remember, you can almost always sell a used camera for what you paid for it if it doesn't work out.

However, I would not recommend trying out a totally new camera (to you) and a strange film format on a picture taking trip. Use your 35mm that you are familiar with in Palo Duro and wait until you are more experienced with medium format before taking it on the road for important pictures.

Airports - film is film.

Alex1994 · Jul 11, 2011

I am no expert myself, but I can vouch for having a good reliable camera that you know well. If you buy an MF camera on a budget that hasn't been repaired, it is likely to be a little temperamental.

Re. airports: same advice and precautions as for 35mm apply. DO NOT put it in hold luggage, only in hand baggage. More than 5 passes through the scanner could be bad for the film.

Yes an MF camera will give more detail - but is it worth sacrificing the practicality and convenience of the 35mm you know for? Viewing distance is important: if you will be looking at print from a few metres away, 35mm will be just fine.

jeffreyg · Jul 11, 2011

A medium format negative is obviously larger than a 35mm so the amount of enlargement is less. For landscapes you would probably want a wide-angle lens. I would guess that with some searching you could find a camera and lens for about what it would cost to rent.. If you are developing your own film and have tanks you would need different reels. The chemistry would be the same. Airports should not be a problem. I take the film out of the boxes and outer wrapper and place the rolls in a Ziploc bag and ask for a hand check. I have also put it through the carry-on x-ray with no problems (never put your camera or film in checked luggage). I have never been to Palo Duro but have been to and photographed in other Southwestern canyons. Most likely you will also need a hand-held lightmeter and a decent tripod. Try Google Earth and other web sites to get an idea of where you will be going. Hope this helps.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

pharmboycu · Jul 11, 2011

David Brown said:
John: there is no absolute answer. It's a bigger camera (usually), and a bigger negative. All other things being equal, this should give you more "quality" in a 16x20 print. However, things are rarely "equal" and there are several other variables. You can explore meduim format fairly cheaply; and remember, you can almost always sell a used camera for what you paid for it if it doesn't work out.

However, I would not recommend trying out a totally new camera (to you) and a strange film format on a picture taking trip. Use your 35mm that you are familiar with in Palo Duro and wait until you are more experienced with medium format before taking it on the road for important pictures.

Airports - film is film.

Thank you very much for the reply. I think that's the advice I needed to hear-- one month is not enough time to become comfortable with a new camera or new format.

I will continue to read and investigate medium format knowing that someday I might try it out, but not on this trip.

My thanks again--

John

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 11, 2011

Medium format looks better than 35mm WAY before you get up to a 16x20. An 8x10 looks better in medium format, an 11x14 from medium format blows away 35, and a 16x20 almost always looks crappy from 35mm unless you take heroic measures when shooting (tripod, ultra-slow fine grain film, mirror locked up, etc.)

jeffreyg · Jul 11, 2011

Once you start printing 2 1/4 negatives you will be hooked. If you are getting one regardless... take both. If you are confident and proficient with the 35mm, the medium format should not be difficult to become used to.

Jeff

Jeff Kubach · Jul 11, 2011

You might consider a Mamyia RB67, even though a little on the big and heavy side, it is the best bang for the buck. For wide angle get the 50 or 65.

Jeff

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 11, 2011

I went from 35mm to 120 to 4x5 to 5x7. Then I went back to 120 and now I'm shooting mostly 35mm again.

A 16x20 from 35mm will only look like crap if you don't know what you're doing. I know this, because I print that size from 35mm and I'm completely satisfied with my print quality, and I have very high standards. Would you believe me if I said I make virtually grain free 16x20 prints from 35mm Fuji Acros of TMax 100? Most people won't.

Resolution from a TMax 100 negative, shot with quality 35mm equipment, will be roughly the same as that from 120 format equipment (and this is mainly due to lens design limitations of medium format equipment). What is different is going to be in terms of grain and smooth gradation of tonality. Here the bigger negative will have an advantage due to less enlargement factor for the same size print. I like grain, so for some subject matter 35mm actually yields a better print than 120 film will.

If you go to a place where you love to photograph, I argue it's best to use a camera and format you are familiar with. You enter a lot of unknown factors if you bring a camera and format you are not used to. You can still get a beautiful 16x20 print from your 35mm equipment.
Explore a medium format camera nearby, learn how it works, and how the processing works, before you take it somewhere to make important photographs.

- Thomas

martyryan · Jul 11, 2011

The biggest improvement you can make in your final output will be to use a tripod, with the "better" 35mm films with care you can make fine 16x20 prints.

Marty

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 11, 2011

pharmboycu said:
At this size (roughly 16 X 20 or so), from what I read I'm lead to understand I'm at the verge of when it becomes better for image quality to move to medium format film. I may be mistaken, however, at least that's the understanding I presently have-- I'm right there at the brink.

1) Is this actually correct? At this print size it would be better to move from 35mm to medium format?

You have to be careful when you talk about "image quality." I have seen 16x20 printed out of 35mm that were astonishing because the whole image was coherent with the technical properties of the medium, if that can make sense. In other words: if you want to have a lot of gradations between black and white at a large size, then you need medium format or LF. If your style is much more high contrast, then you're better off with a smaller format.

For a smooth gradation pictorial style, I find that 35mm stops being good at 5x7. Above that, you need MF for the same effect.

pharmboycu said:
2) I do not currently own a medium format camera. In searching the various threads I've seen recommendations for Yahsicas, Rolleiflexes, Fujis, etc. Is there a particular model that would be well suited for someone in my situation-- who knows the basics of 35mm photograpy but has yet to work with medium format? I'm interested in the Fuji 6X9, but they are cost prohibitive at this point.

3) I don't know of any place that rents medium format cameras. If there is such a company, would the rates be expensive enough that it would be better to buy one outright?

These two questions might answer each other together. I don't know where you live, but in my neck of the woods, you go to a camera store, walk to the rentals corner (just behind the tripods, on the left!) and you ask the clerk for help. If you are in a small town or far away from metropolitan centres, then you will need to drive into town to rent. MF rentals are usually system cameras: Hasselblad, Mamiya RB/RZ, Pentax 67. These cameras can be rented because they were once the bread and butter of professionals, and those who did not own an entire kit could rely on their rental store to patch the holes when necessary. You will not find Rolleiflexes, Fuji RFs, or exotic items for rental due to the same reason. On the other hand, you may find 6x17 panoramic gear or tilt/shift 6x9 camera setups, since those are most often used as specialty tools for architectural photo.

Note also that you might find a rental place on your way to Palo Duro if you Google around. That way you check it, pick a camera, go shoot the canyons, and bring the film back home.

When it comes to acquiring MF, there are two schools of thought: go cheap and light, figure out if you like it, then upgrade; go top of the line right away, and trade if you prefer a different system.

I still consider that a fixed-lens TLR like a YashicaMat, a Rolleicord, or an Automat Rolleiflex is the best way to fall in love with MF. It's as light as 35mm, won't break the bank, and though you may not have interchangeable lenses, you have image quality that will last a lifetime should you stop the adventure right there.

Going beyond that means that you are serious in your investment. Full kits are not prohibitively expensive anymore, but most MF system cameras are SLRs, and heavier. The exception would be RF cameras, but the only light kit with interchangeable lens available new (Mamiya 7) isn't cheap either.

In MF, my "notebook camera" is a Rolleiflex MX-EVS, and my "pro kit" is a Mamiya TLR system because I only print up to 6x6 on my enlarger and I don't have the money for a Hasselblad. Weight and bulk-wise, the TLR kit isn't that far from an SLR kit, but it was cheaper.

pharmboycu said:
4) What, in general, can I expect in comparing 35mm to M.F. with regards to the way the film behaves, special precautions, idiosyncrasies, etc. Also, are there any special precautions needed when carrying a M.F. camera or 120 film through an airport? Theoretically, I imagine it would be okay-- at least that's what everything I read says, however, I wanted to ask those with experience for a real world answer.

Never put any film in checked luggage. Change film in subdued light. Sacrifice a roll to understand how to properly remove the film from the paper backing if you are developing yourself. Keep some scotch tape or masking tape in your camera bag: those adhesive tabs sometimes break. If you can find canisters for 120 (Adox used to make them) from online vendors, get them.

Make sure you practice how to load properly your camera: depending on the model, it may be simple or excruciating the first time. Read the instruction manual (or get it online): many MF system cameras have interlocks that you must heed properly.

Learn how to hold the camera properly (ergonomics aren't as streamlined as that of the canonical 35mm camera). Getting an accessory grip+prism sometimes helps with handheld operation, though it adds in weight.

Shoot some slide film, at least to validate your exposure (you do know how to use a handheld meter, do you?), and perhaps one day to project! If you get a camera with interchangeable backs, do try at least a variety of B&W + colour films.

If you print your own photos, you will need a new enlarging lens that matches with your film format. MF affords you a little bit more space for expansion/contraction at the developing stage than 35mm if you desire.

There you go! I've never been to Palo Duro, so that's the only thing I can't help you with, but since it's landscape, I would suggest you rent a camera with at least two lenses: wide and long. Wide for when you're close to the rocks, and long for when you're trying to isolate a particular detail from the grandiose scene. Skip the normal, unless you're taking family snaps as well.

SFC · Jul 11, 2011

"a 16x20 almost always looks crappy from 35mm unless you take heroic measures when shooting (tripod, ultra-slow fine grain film, mirror locked up, etc.)"

These aren't what I'd call heroic measures--just good technique, and i'd certainly use them with my Hasselblad for scenery. I haver VERY sharp and grainless 35mm photos of 13x19.

vpwphoto · Jul 11, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
A 16x20 from 35mm will only look like crap if you don't know what you're doing. I know this, because I print that size from 35mm and I'm completely satisfied with my print quality, and I have very high standards. Would you believe me if I said I make virtually grain free 16x20 prints from 35mm Fuji Acros of TMax 100? Most people won't.

Grain isn't bad unless you think it is bad...
..... it's also about viewing distance a 16x20 or larger print is usually intended to be view from some distance. Iv'e made acceptable/great large prints from grainy 35mm for decades. I also make contact prints from 5x7 for a reason.

vpwphoto · Jul 11, 2011

SFC said:
"a 16x20 almost always looks crappy from 35mm unless you take heroic measures when shooting (tripod, ultra-slow fine grain film, mirror locked up, etc.)"

These aren't what I'd call heroic measures--just good technique, and i'd certainly use them with my Hasselblad for scenery. I haver VERY sharp and grainless 35mm photos of 13x19.

To many people think they are heroic photographers!
Especially here....

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 11, 2011

vpwphoto said:
Grain isn't bad unless you think it is bad...
..... it's also about viewing distance a 16x20 or larger print is usually intended to be view from some distance. Iv'e made acceptable/great large prints from grainy 35mm for decades. I also make contact prints from 5x7 for a reason.

You saw my comment about liking grain, right? I don't mind grain, in fact I like it, I embrace it, and sometimes accentuate it. I make 16x20 prints from 35mm Delta 3200 processed in Rodinal because I like grain.

But most people don't believe that an almost grain free 16x20 from 35mm can be done, and I claim that you can get very close to medium format quality in a 16x20 print, if every step of the process is done very carefully and with precision.
The fact that we can have both extremes of nearly grainless and grainy as hell, and everything in between, from such a versatile medium, is very rewarding!

BetterSense · Jul 11, 2011

Medium format is always better than 35mm, unless you need the speed (both in terms of light and in handling). However, I would not just buy a medium format camera and take it on a trip and rely on it. It takes a certain amount of time to become comfortable with a new camera system, and until you truly are comfortable with the new system, you may well make better photos on 35mm.

vpwphoto · Jul 11, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson;1208008 But most people don't believe that an almost grain free 16x20 from 35mm can be done said:
People need to spend time looking at great photography in museums and galleries and stop messing about and talking about heroics here. I have scene many high quality large prints from small negatives... why do I need you or anyone here at APUG to convince me of that..... sorry we have a 110 F. heat index here.. and APUG discussions are wearing on me.

André E.C. · Jul 11, 2011

There's a learning curve obviously, yet, take a tripod and slow down...

Do your thing, learn the camera and have fun.

pbromaghin · Jul 11, 2011

Pharmboycu - I recently did this same upgrade and also started playing with a new 35mm. Definitely leave the MF camera home for something important like this until you have put a good amount of film through it. Having spent the past 4 months ruining film, last week I was going to photograph the military funeral of a close friend's father, took the trusty old Minolta and got almost all keepers. As much as I would rather have used MF, that wouldn't have happened except with a camera I've been using for 10 years.

I'm in the start cheap and then upgrade crowd. When just starting out, there are too many important choices to make with too little knowledge of the format.

2F/2F · Jul 11, 2011

Hi,

A 16x20 is possible with 35mm, but it will certainly be sharper with medium format. To get the most out of 35mm, use a tripod and mirror lockup, use the sharpest film you can, and if you can, shoot with a nice-quality fixed focal length lens. Even low-end fixed-length lenses will generally outperform most zooms in terms of distortion and sharpness. I'd recommend Fuji Reala or Kodak Porta 160 if you want to shoot color negs, and T-Max 100 or Ilford Pan F if you want to shoot black and white. (To go to the extremes of the 35mm format with b/w, shoot Rollei ATP 1.1 downrated, and develop it in a super-low-contrast developer like POTA.)

If you like the idea of a 6x9 rangefinder, but find the Fujis too expensive, you might try a 2x3 press camera, such as a Mamiya Press (Standard, Super 23, or Universal), or a Graflex Graphic camera (Speed, Crown, or Century 2x3 models). They are cheap, versatile, well built, and will give you shots of a very high technical quality.

The main thing to expect IMO is that you will have less depth of field at a given composition and aperture. So be prepared to lengthen your exposures if you want to regain that D of F. This means using a tripod a lot of the time (which you really ought to be doing anyhow for best sharpness).

Another thing to expect is that you may blow through a lot of film when first coming from small format. Hopefully you consider the costs of doing this, and start to become more careful with selecting your shots and exposing them well. One example is that a lot of people learn to bracket in sets of three shots with 35mm. But if you do that when shooting 6x9, you have used up nearly half of your roll on one shot! And you'd better hope you really like that shot, when you consider the costs of the film and development. With 35mm, it is easier to justify "crap" shots or snapshots. I have nothing against these types of shots as a rule, however, it is much harder on the pocketbook to shoot this way with larger formats.

Another very cool thing to expect is that you can use faster films, and they will look much sharper and less grainy than they do in 35mm format (at the same print size). Loading some Fuji 400 or 800 color negative film or Delta 3200 into my medium format cameras has allowed me to shoot a lot of stuff hand held that is really subject matter best suited for small format. It is great to be able to shoot small format subject matter in low light hand held, but get better sharpness, and not have oodles of grain. It increases your shutter speeds, while at the same time giving you more sharpness and less grain than if you had shot the same thing with 35mm. Don't get stuck to the idea that medium format = tripod 100% of the time. It is also a good way to get lots of technical quality into a hand held shot.

I think medium format is the ideal format for me. It uses roll film, and quality SLR systems that are not really all that different than 35mm are common, so it is very convenient and pretty affodable to shoot. You also get lots of film stocks to choose from – more than with 4x5, though less than 35mm. Yet it gives you much more quality than 35mm, and up to a certain print size, it will not even be that distinguishable from large format, which is much more of a process and expense to shoot.

So, I say you go for it. And since you are leaning toward a 6x9 rangefinder, I'd pick up a cheap Mamiya Press camera to start.

Ottrdaemmerung · Jul 11, 2011

I really can't offer much that hasn't been said already, but indeed medium format is rather different than 35mm -- as different as large format is to medium format. And going on a trip probably isn't the best time to be trying out a new camera system.

If you want to merely try playing around with an extremely inexpensive medium format camera so you can dip your toe in the water, and if you don't want to expect absolutely professional results right off the bat, then I'd suggest a cheap new Holga 120N for 6x6, or a vintage Agfa Clack for 6x9. Neither is going to rival the cameras above, but both would give you a way to explore medium format a little without heavily investing in gear or knowledge.

Hikari · Jul 11, 2011

You can make nice 20" prints from a 35mm negative.

derwent · Jul 11, 2011

I made the medium format switch a while ago now and never looked back until recently when I picked up a couple if old Contaflex 35mm SLRs which j have been playing with lately.
When I started shooting 120 the camera with 35 in it sat for over three months without firing a shot.
It really is that addictive...

Although the per shot cost is higher, my rate of keepers per film went up immediately. My cost per keeper is not much higher and he extra quality is worth every penny.
I got a Rolleicord Mk V with a fresh CLA and it hasn't missed a beat. What messes with these is sitting on a shelf with no use and the 40 year old oil gumming up. CLA does wonders and makes them run like new if they haven't been abused with bent backs or the like.

I have also done some shooting with a Pentax 645 and if you are coming from 35mm and thinking of using medium format for everyday photography then one of these or a Mamiya 645 would be great. Not too heavy and auto exposure for snapshots and a rectangle format.
I do quite like shooting in square though and often compose to suit rather than cropping.

I usually use a tripod when I can but with a TLR it's surprising how steady you can brace them so I often go out with the Rollei loaded with Ektar 100 usin it handheld for street photography or just while walking the Botanical Gardens etc in my lunch break. I have even handheld it at 1/4 second which wasn't sharp but not blurry either. Handheld medium format is quite feasible.

It you use a paterson tank there is a size that holds one 120 or two 35mm and the spool is adjustable.
I am still setting up my darkroom proper so I haven't printed any yet, but 120 scans much nicer than 35mm.

I would say if you are even slightly contemplating medium format then get a cheap TLR or 645 or rent something even and take it along. Do your 35mm stuff but run a couple of rolls through the other as well, get home and compare results. Nothing to lose and everything to gain!!!

SFC · Jul 12, 2011

To many people think they are heroic photographers!
Especially here....

No, the problem is that people, especially those coming from digital and used to auto-everything and IS have gotten lazy. They think that plain and simple good photographic techniques are too much trouble, or perhaps like Ken Rockwell, think that using a tripod is "unprofessional" (according to a recent post by him). A MF camera will NOT make up for poor technique. For scenic photography I almost always use a tripod, cable release and mirror pre-release. If you aren't prepared to go to these lengths, don't waste your money on a MF camera and expect great results.

BTW--someone recommended a Holga. What a freakin' waste of money for someone who is looking for quality.

ntenny · Jul 12, 2011

SFC said:
A MF camera will NOT make up for poor technique.

In a sense, of course, it will---the effects of camera shake, for instance, are intrinsically smaller on a bigger negative! I take your larger point, but it is sort of true that larger formats are more forgiving wrt technique.

To pick it up by the other end, as others have said you *can* get superb large prints out of 35mm, but it requires a really perfect combination of materials, technique, and process. Many of us, myself included, frankly aren't that good; I'd love to be able to say I could produce a 35mm negative that would make a good 16x20 print, but if I'm honest with myself, fat freakin' chance. The bar for a MF negative that can print that large is much lower---you can be a mere human being and still be able to produce that negative!

-NT

Medium format questions from 35mm user

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency