Moving up from 35mm to Medium Format

Last year I got my first serious camera, a Canon entry level DSLR (XTi). A friend of mine who has been shooting film and d*****l for decades saw where I was going with my work, and loaned me a Mamiya C330. He spent a couple of hours with me over pints showing me how it work and how to use a hand held light meter. I certainly made a lot of errors with the first 2 or 3 rolls of film, but it gradually became second nature. Now the DSLR stays home most of the time. I now own 3 film cameras (one of them a 35mm SLR, the other a 35mm clamshell). If I know I'm going to have daylight or shaded daylight, I'll usually bring the TLR with me.

It has made me a better photographer! How? It forces me to slow down, consider my composition. I pay more attention to my exposure now. What's in the foreground? The background? When you know that you only have 12 shots before you have to sit down and change film, and there is more of a dollar figure that can be assigned to every shot, you tend to pay attention more.

Since the TLR became my primary camera, I've noticed that I take far fewer pictures now. Even with my DSLR! But this is not a bad thing. Far more of my images are now "keepers" because I'm not firing away with wild abandon. I'm lining things up, waiting for "the moment".

I love my C330 (and yes, it is "mine" now, no longer on loan!) and tend to prefer it. But it might be a bit of a leap for you. You might want to look at a MF SLR as your first MF camera. Maybe a nice 645 from Bronica, Mamiya, or Pentax? You can get into a decent Bronica 645 setup for $200-$300 easily.

For dog photography, 8 FPS and smoking fast AF is tough to beat, so 35mm has the edge here. Also for event photography, there no longer exists the natural advantage to MF with fast color films and it's smaller grain size with less enlargement, as this work for some years now has been severely trounced by the high ISO advantages of digital sensors--which is why wedding photographers are jettisoning this equipment en masse. MF tele and macro lenses add bulk and expense over 35mm without there always being clear advantages.

That all said, there are some astounding bargains out there and some wonderful niche uses where MF equipment yet reigns supreme. My Pentax 645N and 35mm f/3.5 were purchased last spring for little more than what your Nikkor 20mm alone would have cost me, and the camera weighs less than my F5 with a 17-35mm AFS. Great professional camera with superb matrix and spot metering, it's as quick to deploy as any 35mm SLR. Handholdable at f/11 and 1/15th sec with tack sharp results, it's actually more ergonomic, and has a better VF than any 35mm I've ever used (and that's going back 30+ years). The neg is nearly 3X the size of 35mm, more when printing and cropping for normal paper sizes is considered, which translates into no longer being grain-limited in resolving power with slow-speed transparency films. Newer formulation slow-speed MF E6 color transparency film is still widely available and relatively cheap.

My 17-35mm now more or less resides permanently on my D200 (as a PJ lens) and not my F5 (as my landscape lens).

i think that you might be a bit better photographer than you're letting on here...grin. i had a look at your website and i reckon a fuji GA645 (6x4.5cm) would be a perfect adjunct to your 35mm kit. i would use 35mm for action and the fuji for headshots and static portraits. the fuji's not much more than a glorified point and shoot with a quality lens....i think there is one model with a shortish zoom that would be perfect for your purposes. BTW you DON'T need a motor drive for canine portraits. you seem to have a good eye and i reckon you'd easily achieve a saleable image shooting single frame....and...gee...think of that big, rich, gloriously detailed print you'd be able to achieve out of a mf neg....there's no way in the world you'll get THAT with 35mm

wayne

I think it's a case of "horses for courses." No contest when it comes to shooting fast moving subjects like dogs, your F5 is a hands-down winner.
MF is not better, just different and a different experience. After using a variety of MF systems over the years I recently traded a Speedlight for a mint Rolleiflex TLR -- you can read the story and see picture examples on my blog.
I am as happy as the proverbial pig in mud.
I like the fact that I am limited to one lens and must therefore concentrate only on the picture. I like the fact that it is a square format and that I don't have to turn the camera on its side ever. I like the fact that there are only 12 exposures. This forces me to slow down and be absolutely sure everything is right before I press the shutter release. The result is 80% keepers or better.
I like the fact that there is no "blackout" when I press the shutter release and finally, as another poster said, it is inconspicuous for street photography.
I do not think you should consider it an "either/or" situation. Use and enjoy both. Good luck.

i kind of describe it like this to friends not familiar with photography

35mm is like a semi or full auto riffle (depending on which 35 we are talking) i can have it out and fire off a roll f 24 or 36 in just a few minutes. i generaly carry it around with me most of the time. for things that catch my eye or if i just want to burn through some film.

Mf (isolette or vigilant or Shanghi TRL) like a shot gun i make plans to take it out spend more time planning my shot i generaly have at least a general purpose to use it. but the final trophy if you will is bigger ie neg size so to me more worth the time.

LF (4x5) more like a muzzle loader or bow and arrow i take it out after careful planning and have chosen a subject or location takes more time to set up and take the shot. again the size of the prize makes all the extra effort worth it.

i live in the US midwest so this analogy works well with most of the people here.
just my 2cents

ford prefect said:

i kind of describe it like this to friends not familiar with photography

35mm is like a semi or full auto riffle (depending on which 35 we are talking) i can have it out and fire off a roll f 24 or 36 in just a few minutes. i generaly carry it around with me most of the time. for things that catch my eye or if i just want to burn through some film.

Mf (isolette or vigilant or Shanghi TRL) like a shot gun i make plans to take it out spend more time planning my shot i generaly have at least a general purpose to use it. but the final trophy if you will is bigger ie neg size so to me more worth the time.

LF (4x5) more like a muzzle loader or bow and arrow I take it out after careful planning and have chosen a subject or location takes more time to set up and take the shot. again the size of the prize makes all the extra effort worth it.

i live in the US midwest so this analogy works well with most of the people here.
just my 2cents

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I cannot help pointing out that I find this a downright horrible analogy.

As for format change, medium or large format to me at least are far superior to 35mm for most purposes. People often are concerned about weight, and there is obviously a question of personal physique. However, I lug my 8x10 up ad down mountains, use a caddy where I can, and my other cameras are not that small, either. My advice therefore: get a medium format camera from Ebay or so, and not the smallest format possible. Should you not like it, sell it again, but chances are that you will never look back, and just regret that you did not acquire your new outfit earlier.

ted_smith said:

Compared to most people on APUG I am a luddite photographer and have many more skills to develop before I move on from 35mm photography, not to mention the financial issues!

However, I am curious as to what the potential benefits are to moving to medium format. I currently use a 35mm Nikon F5. If I moved to medium format, how would be images differ using the same skill level as I have now? What is the difference between an image on medium format and the same image captured with medium format equipment?

Also, what medium format camera and lens are a good start for someone moving from 35mm to medium? Are Hasselbalds medium format, or large format?

Ta

Ted

Click to expand...

Hi,

Medium format makes it so you enlarge less for the same prints size, OR can print larger at the same print "quality".

It also gives you less depth of field than 35mm, at a given angle of view. This can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the shot. In practice, it often makes tripods a necessity if you want extensive D of F.

The main benefits are sharper and more grain free prints (in general). This is either good or bad, depending on what you want. When I want a "truly" sharp large print, I will shoot medium format or larger. This does not mean that 35mmm is not good enough for a lot of things. It just means that one tends to shoot differently with each format. Changing formats most certainly changes the way I shoot. I shoot more freely and loosely with 35, and shoot medium format more "formally". 35mm nails shots that I would have missed with 120/220, simply due to hand holdability and quickness...not to mention super fast lenses, which simply do not exist for medium format.

where as i have no problem with someone dissagreeing with me in general i do take offense to the fact that you give no reasoning for such a negative comment about a little analogy i made when your own post echos spme of my points
1. mf/lf superior quality
2. amount of weight to carry around in lf/mf vs 35mm

those were the basis of my analogy it would just be nice to add a little construction to your criticism not just a blanket statement that it is a "horrible" analogy
in fact although more wordy (and my point was to simplify my thoughts) a lot of the post here have also echoed the points i made.

now if your gripe is soely that i use fire arms as the hub of said analogy then what ever i guess you have your own predjudices to deal with if that is not the case i would like to know what makes it so horrible. i'm not trying to pick a fight here i just feel a little disrespect in the comment with no explaination if you have anythin more to add feel free to pm me about them and i will take them in for thought

i believe we are all have the right to our own opinion.

I take a 35mm clamshell in my pocket everywhere I go. I cannot take my TLR to work or to the grocery store, but I do take it with me anytime that I reasonably expect to be taking photographs. But for those times when I am not so equipped, I have the 35mm for those special moments.

I would much rather have had my TLR for this picture (BANDWIDTH WARNING - 3303 x 2103 image link). But I can't take it with me everywhere. So I'm glad I had the clamshell 35mm. It's better than nothing.

ford prefect said:

where as i have no problem with someone dissagreeing with me in general i do take offense to the fact that you give no reasoning for such a negative comment about a little analogy i made when your own post echos spme of my points
1. mf/lf superior quality
2. amount of weight to carry around in lf/mf vs 35mm

those were the basis of my analogy it would just be nice to add a little construction to your criticism not just a blanket statement that it is a "horrible" analogy
in fact although more wordy (and my point was to simplify my thoughts) a lot of the post here have also echoed the points i made.

now if your gripe is soely that i use fire arms as the hub of said analogy then what ever i guess you have your own predjudices to deal with if that is not the case i would like to know what makes it so horrible. i'm not trying to pick a fight here i just feel a little disrespect in the comment with no explaination if you have anythin more to add feel free to pm me about them and i will take them in for thought

i believe we are all have the right to our own opinion.

Click to expand...

Okay, my comment was perhaps somewhat rash: on second thoughts, I should have sent a private email to you, and not just written this sentence at the top of my comment.
I have no trouble with the factual statements you made, and I realize now that you must have felt my reaction to be strange and over the top, because you probably were just looking for a good way to elucidate your point.
So here is the reason you ask for: weapons are not neutral for me, but a huge bone of contention. To use their as-a-matter-of-fact handling in an analogy seems to me to attach a normality they do not, and should not possess. In other words, it seems to presuppose that such a handling is a normal cultural activity, whereas it is deeply exceptional to say the least.
I might say myself, for instance, that a paparazzo uses his camera like a gun, if I want to imply that he/she intrudes on other people and hurts them, but to compare photographic activities on the whole (which for me are artistic and contemplative) with gun slinging...I do hope you get my point. I apologize for any insult, I did not mean to pick a fight, but would nevertheless suggest that you do rethink the use of this analogy.

i understand your point from a cultural stand point sometimes i forget that this is an international community. where i am from guns are not viewed as implicitly evil and a large number of people use them recreationaly. that is why with people around my area this is an easy to grasp comparrison. we are fairly rual and often if for no other reason guns are kept in houses to protect pets and live stock from other animals.as well as hunting. i can see how in some parts of the world firearms are not looked at in the same light. thank you for explaining your position and i respect that.

Guns are just tools, nothing more. There is nothing evil about them, so long as they are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. An armed citizenry is one of our most cherished traditions.

Chazzy said:

Guns are just tools, nothing more. There is nothing evil about them, so long as they are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. An armed citizenry is one of our most cherished traditions.

Click to expand...

I think the poster's point is that while an armed citizenry may be one of *your* country's most cherished traditions (although I know for a fact that a significant number of Americans don't share that view), that isn't necessarily the case in other countries. The Internet is a world community, not an American community. (In fact, the owner of this website isn't American at all - he's a New Zealander.)

I think the analogy was reasonable and it didn't offend me, but I can see how it could offend some. I know the offense was not at all intended by him.