Medium format questions from 35mm user

[2F/2F]

I think your possibly-objective point got lost somewhere in that sea of definitely-subjective attitude, SFC.

 

[narsuitus]

I live in Texas but have not yet visited Palo Duro Canyon.

However, when I do, here is what I may take:

Film (if still available)
Daylight color; low speed
Fuji Velvia 50 (slide) (great for green)
Fuji Velvia 100 (slide)
Kodak Ektachrome E100vs (slide) (great for orange and red)
Kodak Gold 100 (print)
Kodak Portra160VC (print)
Fuji Realia 100 (print)
Fuji NPC 160 (print)
Ilford Pan F+ (B&W)
Kodak Plus X (B&W)

Cameras
Fuji GSW690 with 65mm lens
Fuji GW670 with 90mm lens
Canon G11 compact digital

Filters
Polarizing filter
Graduated neutral density filter
Graduated warming
Graduated tobacco
Warming filter to reduce blue cast of open shade
CC10M or CC 20M filter to reduce green cast of tree shade
Soft focus filter

Support
Tripod (heavy)
Cable release

Misc.
Handheld exposure meter
Depth-of-Field chart
Sunny 16 Rule
Cardboard mask (to cover lens when needed during a long exposure)
10x eyepiece magnifier
String (to tie branches out the way) (12 feet of nylon parachute cord)
Equipment case
Plastic bag to protect equipment from unexpected rain (heavy duty trash bag)
Lens tissue & fluid
Towel for drying wet equipment
Toothbrush to remove sand from equipment
Empty 120 spool
Compass, global positioning device, map, matches, food, water, cell phone, sunscreen, insect repellant, and other survivalist stuff when far from civilization

 

[Jos Segers]

For alomost 30 years I used to work with 35 mm (Pentax MX and LX and a range of prime lenses like 85mm/2.0), mostly in B&W, with good results on films like Tech-Pan, T-max 100 and Pan F. Only 3 years ago I switched to MF (Pentax 67II) with the expectation of getting sharper and crisper images. Unfortunately the quality of my prints have not improved.
The limiting factor seems te be the lower quality of the medium format lenses. Less punch and a relative low contrast.

I wonder if anyone has had the same experience?

 

[Sirius Glass]

For alomost 30 years I used to work with 35 mm (Pentax MX and LX and a range of prime lenses like 85mm/2.0), mostly in B&W, with good results on films like Tech-Pan, T-max 100 and Pan F. Only 3 years ago I switched to MF (Pentax 67II) with the expectation of getting sharper and crisper images. Unfortunately the quality of my prints have not improved.
The limiting factor seems te be the lower quality of the medium format lenses. Less punch and a relative low contrast.

I wonder if anyone has had the same experience?

Frankly no. I have had quite the opposite result and have experienced better sharpness, better contrast and overal more "snap" or "punch" in medium format. But then I am using Zeiss optics in Hasselblads. Hasselblad did not become a "prime mover", pun intended, by producing lower quality medium format lenses. Sometimes to get the quality desired, one must invest in the better equipment.

 

[Rick A]

Kodak tourist II modified for 120 and sunny 16 rule. Thats all you need to become enamored with medium format. It's a folder, doesn't take much space, and fairly light weight for the size. It would easily fit in withyour 35mm gear and give you quite a surprise when developed. The 6x9 negative size is on the small end of large format and the large end of medium format.

 

[Pupfish]

I shot 135 format exclusively for more than a quarter of a century. Now I shoot 645 and 4x5 too. Sharpness isn't the only reason to change formats, and not always the most compelling reason. The choice of higher ISO films or color negative films that retain resolution and low granularity would be reason enough to consider MF or LF.

The very best of 35mm can be very good indeed. I've recently made a 32x48" print from a 35mm Astia 100 transparency that bears face-to-print for a museum exhibit. To do that, I had to pull out all the stops including an 8K dpi drum scan, etc.

In my wet darkroom enlarging experience, I never felt the desire to push 35mm much beyond 16x20 for a whole host of reasons. Reciprocity failure at such enlargements when printing masked Ilfochromes made the format cumbersome. Hybrid printing blows through that, but this really isn't the right forum to discuss it...

But then too, the very best of MF can be pretty spectacular. I've got a Pentax 645 lens, the 35mm SMC-A f/3.5 that seems as sharp as any that I've got and I own some rather exotic glass (including macros and APO teles).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Educate yourself!

Compare a 50mm Zeiss Planar for 35mm and an 80mm Zeiss Planar for 120, and you will see that resolution is inferior in the 80mm.

Shooting comparable quality lenses in both formats will yield surprisingly similar results, and some may actually prefer what they get from 35mm. See this link:
Dead Link Removed
Make sure you read it - educate yourself - and then come back to discuss. This is real, hard data regarding resolution of various formats in direct comparison, using first class equipment and a logical approach.

And, Pentax lenses are generally thought of as being second to none in terms of quality.

 

[Pupfish]

Thomas, not all situations lend themselves to Tech Pan. When shooting 135 format, film resolution limits are common with just about any other emulsion.

For instance, with color films that probably can't resolve more than 60-80 lp/mm in 1:5 contrast lighting, the properties of aesthetically-pleasing light itself will frequently be the bottleneck-- not lens resolution.

Often there are hard limits to what can be resolved due to the required f/stop, and diffraction limits. MF does start to hit these limits sooner because to get adequate depth of field with longer focal length lenses, smaller apertures are often required.

Chasing ultimate resolution can be something of a moving target. I like 645 for use with wide angle lenses being the sweet spot between film resolution and lens diffraction limits in the f/11-f/16 range.

Yet another reason to consider MF beyond mere resolution is that even though resolution of prints may be equivalent to more exotic lenses in 135 format, the viewfinders of SLRs like the Pentax 645N or NII are much more expansive and can improve "seeing". For me, some of the choice of using MF boils down to such ergonomics. (That said, the best 35mm cameras are pretty good in this regard, too. I really like my trusty old Pentax LX, and the Nikon F5 is no slouch, either. The APS-C DSLRs are rather pathetic and lead to poor manual focusing performance and eyestrain.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I replied with my experience. I can also state that my circa 1935 Certo SuperSport Dolly folding 120 camera with a Zeiss lens was head and shoulders above the Mamiya C300 with the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lens that I also owned.

Maybe I do not have enough experience in your mind to make an informed decision, shucks, I only have five decades plus experience.

Frankly, most of the published material on photography that is not in respected scientific journals are too poorly done to waste my time reading. Two exceptions that come to mind are Ralph Lambrecht's and Ron Mowrey [PE]'s published work.

Lets revisit this subject when you have as much photographic and remote optical sensor design experience as I do.

Steve

 

[baachitraka]

Very nice article indeed. Now, I am not really worried about formats anymore. Wish, I could invest more in lenses from now on.

Compare a 50mm Zeiss Planar for 35mm and an 80mm Zeiss Planar for 120, and you will see that resolution is inferior in the 80mm.

Shooting comparable quality lenses in both formats will yield surprisingly similar results, and some may actually prefer what they get from 35mm. See this link:
Dead Link Removed
Make sure you read it - educate yourself - and then come back to discuss. This is real, hard data regarding resolution of various formats in direct comparison, using first class equipment and a logical approach.

And, Pentax lenses are generally thought of as being second to none in terms of quality.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I replied with my experience. I can also state that my circa 1935 Certo SuperSport Dolly folding 120 camera with a Zeiss lens was head and shoulders above the Mamiya C300 with the 65mm, 80mm and 250mm lens that I also owned.

Maybe I do not have enough experience in your mind to make an informed decision, shucks, I only have five decades plus experience.

Frankly, most of the published material on photography that is not in respected scientific journals are too poorly done to waste my time reading. Two exceptions that come to mind are Ralph Lambercht's and Ron Lowery's published work.

Lets revisit this subject when you have as much photographic and remote optical sensor design experience as I do.

Steve

Steve, I'm just saying that there's a flip side to each coin, and what I'm trying to show is that bigger isn't necessarily better. Sometimes a bit of controversy is needed to get people to think outside the box. It isn't personal, just trying to throw you and everybody else a curve ball. Duck if you want, or try to catch it.

What I like about this article is that the writer used Hasselblad's test facilities to make his examples. What's wrong with this article as a scientific journal? How is it inferior? I find it well written, to the point, and above all methodical and logical.

I only have a little over one decade's worth of photographic experience, by the way. Does that make me a schmuck?

 

[MaximusM3]

Frankly no. I have had quite the opposite result and have experienced better sharpness, better contrast and overal more "snap" or "punch" in medium format. But then I am using Zeiss optics in Hasselblads. Hasselblad did not become a "prime mover", pun intended, by producing lower quality medium format lenses. Sometimes to get the quality desired, one must invest in the better equipment.

Maybe because you haven't used a Leica with a 35mm, 50mm Summilux aspherical or 135 APO mounted on. The limiting factor there, as far as resolution and sharpness, is film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I like about this article is that the writer used Hasselblad's test facilities to make his examples. What's wrong with this article as a scientific journal? How is it inferior? I find it well written, to the point, and above all methodical and logical.

Most non-scientific publications have research without the proper controls, without scientific sampling, and lots of preconceived notions that the writer wants to prove hence setting up the research to provide the answer that they wanted in the first place. Photo magazines publish results that pleases the manufactures whose support they depend on.

I have not had the time to look at that particular article.

I only have a little over one decade's worth of photographic experience, by the way. Does that make me a schmuck?

No, "just trying to throw you ... a curve ball."

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Most non-scientific publications have research without the proper controls, without scientific sampling, and lots of preconceived notions that the writer wants to prove hence setting up the research to provide the answer that they wanted in the first place. Photo magazines publish results that pleases the manufactures whose support they depend on.

Isn't it interesting then, that this independent tester has used Hasselblad's test facilities, to test a 50mm Zeiss Planar (for 35mm) against an 80mm Zeiss Planar (for 120 cameras, like Hasselblad), and proven that 35mm can, from a couple of technical aspects, be basically equal to medium format? It would be in Hasselblad's best interest to prove that the MF lens would simply smack the 35mm lens around!

If you want to raise your opinion about technical articles regarding photography, maybe you would be better off if you didn't dismiss it until you at least read it? I too find that there is way too much drivel out there to basically care. But once in a while I run across something worthwhile, and this is one of the best researched and written articles I have ever come across.

Now, the bottom line. What I'm really trying to say is that there is less difference, in terms of ultimate print quality, between 35mm and medium format than most people care to believe or admit.
Great 16x20 prints (and larger) CAN in fact be made from well produced 35mm negatives.

Personally I don't really care that much about print quality. A lot of other things about photographs are a lot more important. Resolution, grain, contrast, diffraction, etc - it all bores me to tears.
But, I want to be a messenger to tell people that you can make large prints from 35mm negatives that are good enough to hang in museums and prestigious collections world wide. Why isn't it, somehow, good enough for us?

- Thomas

 

[ntenny]

Steve, I'm just saying that there's a flip side to each coin, and what I'm trying to show is that bigger isn't necessarily better.

Heaven knows I don't want to help start any format wars, but I don't think "bigger isn't necessarily better" follows from the article you posted. To me, the results seem to be that, strictly in resolution terms: (1) all other things being equal, bigger is better for the obvious reasons; (2) lenses generally are not equal, which diminishes the advantage of larger formats in practice; and (3) the remaining difference can be substantially overcome with a combination of film choice and technique. But I don't think anybody disputes any of those points, do they?

The single most interesting thing in the article, I think, is the adjacent images taken from 4x5 TX and 35mm TMX---they're much more similar than different, really, which speaks very highly of the resolution capabilities of TMX!

But, of course, not everything that one might chase in a system is resolution, and I think the three TMX images in the paper actually show that. The differences are smaller than might be expected---but to my eye, anyway, they're much greater than the MTF chart would suggest ("the difference in resolution is almost gone"). Probably this is one of those situations where the human eye and brain conflate graininess with loss of resolution; strictly speaking, the separate lines in the test pattern are *there*, but I look at them and what I see is "those lines are all fuzzed up together", even though if I peer harder and think about it I realize that the light/dark/light/dark pattern is actually pretty clearly distinguishable.

It's an interesting article, both for the myths it punctures ("more area equals more resolution, full stop") and for the limitations of its methodology (the classic complaint about photodo.com; everything is reduced to an MTF except for the "real world" examples, which are huge enlargements of test patterns).

-NT

 

[vpwphoto]

Too many self-important self aggrandizing comments about accomplishments in this thread.
Tom for someone who says "not to get hung up on equipment" what is with you comment about Pentax lenses???
Anyone who has been around very long know that even Hasselblad and Mamiya to name a few "hand picked" lenses for the likes of NASA, Annie Leibovitz, to name a few.
Each format can do things and obtain a look that the others can't with less effort in making a small format look big or a big format look small.
THis thread has gone so far from the original post....
..... I may have had my fill.

I keep a full stable of equipment of all sorts and pick what is best to do a particular job... nobody is going to be able to blow me smoke as to why 35mm can do the job of MF or vice versa. If I am assigned and aerial shoot, I grab the MF, if I am assigned sports it's 35mm... unfortunately for APUG 85% of my assigned work is done with a Nikon D700 and the rest with Hasselblad and Leaf Aptus. That is the reality, film is for the very high end assignments and personal projects.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Heaven knows I don't want to help start any format wars, but I don't think "bigger isn't necessarily better" follows from the article you posted. To me, the results seem to be that, strictly in resolution terms: (1) all other things being equal, bigger is better for the obvious reasons; (2) lenses generally are not equal, which diminishes the advantage of larger formats in practice; and (3) the remaining difference can be substantially overcome with a combination of film choice and technique. But I don't think anybody disputes any of those points, do they?

The single most interesting thing in the article, I think, is the adjacent images taken from 4x5 TX and 35mm TMX---they're much more similar than different, really, which speaks very highly of the resolution capabilities of TMX!

But, of course, not everything that one might chase in a system is resolution, and I think the three TMX images in the paper actually show that. The differences are smaller than might be expected---but to my eye, anyway, they're much greater than the MTF chart would suggest ("the difference in resolution is almost gone"). Probably this is one of those situations where the human eye and brain conflate graininess with loss of resolution; strictly speaking, the separate lines in the test pattern are *there*, but I look at them and what I see is "those lines are all fuzzed up together", even though if I peer harder and think about it I realize that the light/dark/light/dark pattern is actually pretty clearly distinguishable.

It's an interesting article, both for the myths it punctures ("more area equals more resolution, full stop") and for the limitations of its methodology (the classic complaint about photodo.com; everything is reduced to an MTF except for the "real world" examples, which are huge enlargements of test patterns).

-NT

I think I agree with you in every thing you say. Obviously there will be differences between a 35mm negative and a 4x5 negative, I'm not contesting that. What I want to bring forward is that 35mm can be surprisingly good, and films like TMX is definitely playing a big part in that.

I just get an itch, almost an allergic reaction, when people dismiss the 35mm format, as if it isn't capable of brilliant prints, even at large sizes, when in fact it is fully capable of doing that.
Will a 20x24 from 35mm versus 120 look the same? Absolutely not. The print from 120 film will most likely look most pleasing in a direct comparison. But yet again, somebody else might prefer the print from 35mm, depending on what we value in a print. Or, like me, some people probably won't even care, and will instead look at the print and decide whether they like it or not, irrespective of some difference in print quality.

 

[vpwphoto]

I only have a little over one decade's worth of photographic experience, by the way. Does that make me a schmuck?

Yes... sort of.
At 15 years I knew much more than at 10... it's an inverse square principle of education and experience and doing. I'm working towards my 40th in the image making profession now, full time self supporting with a camera for more than 25 and the first 15 were the learning years.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Too many self-important self aggrandizing comments about accomplishments in this thread.
Tom for someone who says "not to get hung up on equipment" what is with you comment about Pentax lenses???
Anyone who has been around very long know that even Hasselblad and Mamiya to name a few "hand picked" lenses for the likes of NASA, Annie Leibovitz, to name a few.
Each format can do things and obtain a look that the others can't with less effort in making a small format look big or a big format look small.
THis thread has gone so far from the original post....
..... I may have had my fill.

I keep a full stable of equipment of all sorts and pick what is best to do a particular job... nobody is going to be able to blow me smoke as to why 35mm can do the job of MF or vice versa. If I am assigned and aerial shoot, I grab the MF, if I am assigned sports it's 35mm... unfortunately for APUG 85% of my assigned work is done with a Nikon D700 and the rest with Hasselblad and Leaf Aptus. That is the reality, film is for the very high end assignments and personal projects.

I raised my point because I happen to think that 35mm as a format is truly capable of making grandiose large prints.

It's besides the fact that I am bored to tears with tech talk like this, but I somehow wanted to do the 35mm format justice, instead of being dismissed as 'inferior'.

All I really care about is the print.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes... sort of.
At 15 years I knew much more than at 10... it's an inverse square principle of education and experience and doing. I'm working towards my 40th in the image making profession now, full time self supporting with a camera for more than 25 and the first 15 were the learning years.

Experience counts for a lot. In now way, shape, or form, have I declared myself an expert. All I have claimed is that 35mm can make great large prints.

Somehow that makes me self important and a sort of schmuck.

 

[vpwphoto]

It's all good... not sure where anyone said 35mm is inferior to anything... it's just about the job that needs done and the assurance of getting it done. You can't take a sports car very far offroad... nor a Jeep to go very far and fast.

But Tom, Nobody needs you to chime in about the virtues you find in 35mm every time someone inquires about using a larger negative for whatever reason them want to.

OK... I re-read the first post and see Tom's point about making a nice big print isn't a reason for switching formats.

I agree too the at Tripod in almost all cases (with cable release) can make great strides in sharpness... even at higher shutter speeds!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

But Tom, Nobody needs you to chime in about the virtues you find in 35mm every time someone inquires about using a larger negative for whatever reason them want to.

And why is that? Am I not allowed to toot the horn of 35mm when somebody asks whether they should get a medium format camera or keep the 35, asking if it's worth his time?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But, I want to be a messenger to tell people that you can make large prints from 35mm negatives that are good enough to hang in museums and prestigious collections world wide. Why isn't it, somehow, good enough for us?

- Thomas

I have two 24"x36" color prints from full frame 35mm in my living room. The difference starts to come in if the negative needs to be strongly cropped before printing.

I learned to crop before taking a photograph because I shot 35mm slides for decades. I can and did remount some slides in glass so that I could crop them but it is an nusiance. Therefore I crop to the format of the camera that I am using with rare exception. If the format aspect is not right for the composition, I will use a different format.

Steve

 

[tkamiya]

My comments sort of relates to point 4 in the original questions.

One thing most people don't consider when comparing 35mm to MF is that depth of field is much smaller when shooting larger format cameras at comparable lens focal length. For example, if you have a certain DOF with 50mm lens using 35mm film, to get the same angle and DOF using 645 format, one will have to use 80mm lens and close the aperture 1.5 stop or so. This is not exact but approximate. When this is done, assuming same ISO for film, your shutter speed has to go down 1.5 stops.

Why is this important? I just ran into this few weeks ago. With MF cameras, we don't get fancy image stablization, etc that we (I) get accustomed to in 35mm equipment. When shutter speed is already marginal in 35mm setting, going MF will definately require tripod - otherwise, camera shake blurr becomes an issue. I was shooting portrait using my 645 - to get the appropriate DOF, I closed down to about f/5.6. I was using 150mm lens. Shutter speed then was 1/30 or 1/60. NO TRIPOD. I didn't realize it at the time of shooting. STUPID ME. I only got few usable images out of 3 rolls of 120.

I originally decided to take my 645 body because I wanted a higher quality image. Duh... had I taken my 35mm gear, combination of higher shutter speed and image stablized lens, I would have had no issue with shakes.

Something to keep in mind.... even if you don't shoot portrait.

On the side note, I have been pleasantly surprised with the quality of images I can print from 35mm film - even using Tri-X400. I printed 16x20 equivalant (cropping was involved) and it was pretty good.

On the other hand, I have problems with tiny contact sheets that 35mm images will yield. 120 is much better in this aspect. Also, dust and scratches are less of problem becasue of magnifications.

I'm undecided as to which format is more to my liking.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm undecided as to which format is more to my liking.

The right format for the situation. That is why I shoot 35mm single frame, 35mm, 120 and 4"x5". However the OP is about a 35mm user going to MF.