• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Who prefers 35mm SLR over all other kinds of cameras?

GaryFlorida

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
307
Location
Venice
Format
Multi Format
Do any of you prefer 35mm SLR over all others?

1. what you see is what you get.
2. interchangeable lenses
3. small but not too small
4. reliable, strong
5. cool looking, vintage, retro etc.
6. film available and reasonable priced
7. feature rich
8. accessories galore
9. very inexpensive now on used market.
10. Big enough film for nice size prints but not huge blow ups.

Im not saying I like them better than all others, Im just wondering if any of you do?
 
To be honest I have not 35mm for a few years now. I much prefer 120 and 4x5 over 35mm.
 
I prefer 35mm for 'street shooting'. But for serious work I'll pull out the RB67.
 
35

I love 35mm. A major news photo service I used to work for, and Life magazine, pioneered 35mm film for news photography. But you're gonna have to pry my larger formats from my cold dead hands -- my Rolleiflex, two Yashicamats, a 4x5 Crown Graphic, my 2x3
Crown Graphic. Did I mention some 127 cameras, a couple of Bilora Bella cameras (44 and 66)....
 
I like 35mm SLRs, and have happily used them for 40+ years.

But if I had a clear preference of one type of camera over all others, it would be far easier to decide each time which camera to use, and what would the fun be in that
 
I've used only 35's for 99% of what I do since 1973---it's too hard to work in real close handheld, since a tripod won't fit--inches, not macro, w/bigger stuff.
 
I prefer SLRs over anything else.
I do have some rangefinders and a 120 box camera, but don't use them often.
 
I love RFs to the point of disliking SLRs, but that took me time.
 
ya, I like 35mm, it has its moments! its usefulness, but I do like all others as well, they too, have their "moments".
 
35mm is good for snap shooting, though I find it wasteful. My preference is medium format folders for light weight and convenience, plus much larger negatives. My serious cameras are LF and ULF.
 
I use most formats, 1/2 frame, APS, 35, 6X6 6X9 and 4X5 with SRLs, rangefinders, viewfinders, scale focus. I find that each as it's own strengths and weakness, 35mm is portable, good with long lens, my favorite for casual travel (the purpose of the trip is not photograph) nature, sports or action. For street photography I prefer a rangefinder, city and landscape I usually use either MF or 4X5. Saying that if I was only allowed one system it would be 35mm.
 

So you would choose 35mm if you could only have one?
 
frank said:
Variety is the spice of life. I have various camera moods.
Click to expand...

+1. Or, perhaps more accurately in my case, I have different camera systems for shooting the various things that interest me: A Hasselblad system for shooting landscapes, nature and "artsy stuff"; a Leica system for street and candid shooting; and a Nikon system for just about anything/everything else. A preference...
 
GaryFlorida said:
So you would choose 35mm if you could only have one?
Click to expand...

Yep, overall 35 SLR is the most versatile, in the 60s while in college my professor called the 35mm SLR the jack of all trades the master of none. Well the by 70s the 35mm became the master of press, sports and wildlife.
 
PDH said:
Yep, overall 35 SLR is the most versatile, in the 60s while in college my professor called the 35mm SLR the jack of all trades the master of none. Well the by 70s the 35mm became the master of press, sports and wildlife.
Click to expand...

what about Pentax 6x7 or Pentacon Six? Wouldnt they be just as good for sports and wildlife? but better because of bigger flm area?
 
You can add an eleventh item to the list and that is economy of use.

However, 35 mm is demanding. Any sloppiness of technique is more evident in this format.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
You can add an eleventh item to the list and that is economy of use.

However, 35 mm is demanding. Any sloppiness of technique is more evident in this format.
Click to expand...

what do you mean? Do you mean because you can get 36 exposures on one $3 roll?
 
GaryFlorida said:
what do you mean? Do you mean because you can get 36 exposures on one $3 roll?
Click to expand...

Because the negative is little bigger than a postage stamp. That means that any errors in focus, camera motion, etc will be magnified more because of the increased magnification needed to get an enlargement to some standard size. What may look acceptable in a 4X6in. proof could be shown to be not quite up to standards in a 8X10 or 11X14 enlargement.
 
To the NEWBIES out there:

I started with 120 when I was 16 (1966). I 'decided' that medium format was always better than mere 35mm. My Minolta Autocord CDS 'proved' that. Then ... I began to 'notice' that I could not get close shots, or shots in low light without a tripod. But, I was superior to all the inferior photographers (and don't you forget that!).

In 1978 I tried a Canon AE-1 and this experience blew my socks off. I simply could not believe how an industry dedicated to maximizing the performance of the miniature format could achieve such noble attributes. I never looked back.

'35' does not do everything, but it does do more than one would first fathom. Listen: using Tri-X in medium format will NOT produce a better picture (no matter how much you enlarge) than TMX (ISO 100) in 35mm. Why do I compare ISO 400 with ISO 100? Because, with 35mm you have the advantage of almost TWO STOPS when it comes to equating depth of field (i.e., f8 in medium format approximately equates to f4 in 35mm).

To me, 35mm is the very best overall choice for photography. I am not denigrating the 'Ansel Adamses' out there who have their weighty tripods and time to kill capturing enrapturing scenics. They are to be marveled at. But for a single, simple determinant possessing all the admirable traits, 35mm is the way to go. (And to capture an AA style scenic is not unheard of, either). And SLRs with their inherently more precise framing and shear adaptability, and with the give away prices for those yesteryear cameras, they are the way to go, but you had better learn to work: cleanly, precisely, and carefully, if you want to garner all that 35 has to offer. No excuses, no reprieve. (And if you already have an SLR and think that you are clean, get yourself a magnifying glass and look closely at all the crevices in your camera back and you will be back, in horror, with a damp cloth to clean up your filth!!!)

(NB: Canon paid me $500 forty years ago to post this advertisement in 2015.) - David Lyga
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just get the right tool for the job.
 

I was asking Gerald what he meant by economy of use.

Gerald C Koch said:
You can add an eleventh item to the list and that is economy of use.

However, 35 mm is demanding. Any sloppiness of technique is more evident in this format.
Click to expand...


GaryFlorida said:
what do you mean? Do you mean because you can get 36 exposures on one $3 roll?
Click to expand...
 
GaryFlorida said:
what do you mean? Do you mean because you can get 36 exposures on one $3 roll?
Click to expand...

Yes

On my second comment 35 mm makes more demands on the photographer. Such things as focusing errors, camera shake, over-exposure, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register