Fabian
Established
I read an interview with Michael Martin, who shoots a lot in the desert and mainly landscape.
He uses Leica R equipment plus a mamiya 7.
The interesting part is that he uses the mamiya only if wants to crop for panoramic shots.
He shoots from the tripod mainly, and projects his slides in shows on huge walls.
I asked myself why he doesn't use the mamiya more often.
The only reason I could think of was that Velvia 50 only exists in 35mm.
Is that true?
Can any of you think of a reason to shoot with the smaller 35 mm instead of 6x7, if the difference in picture quality is as big as everybody states?
Maybe if you project slides that big the differnce between 35mm and 6x7 is neglecting.
Hope some of you can bring some light to this
Fabian
He uses Leica R equipment plus a mamiya 7.
The interesting part is that he uses the mamiya only if wants to crop for panoramic shots.
He shoots from the tripod mainly, and projects his slides in shows on huge walls.
I asked myself why he doesn't use the mamiya more often.
The only reason I could think of was that Velvia 50 only exists in 35mm.
Is that true?
Can any of you think of a reason to shoot with the smaller 35 mm instead of 6x7, if the difference in picture quality is as big as everybody states?
Maybe if you project slides that big the differnce between 35mm and 6x7 is neglecting.
Hope some of you can bring some light to this
Fabian
ChrisN
Striving
Velvia 50 was not available for a year or two (both formats) but is now available again. I would think that anyone whose work depended on that film would have a good stock in the freezer!
iml
Well-known
Maybe he just prefers the look of 35mm. Many people do. The desired look of a picture may not be all about highest resolution and finest grain, after all.
Ian
Ian
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
Why question it?
It will be a totally subjective preference.
I have the ability to shoot 35mm - 6x4,5 - 6x6 - 6x7 - 6x9 - 4x5(in) 5x7(in) and 10x8 (in)
For the best quality I should be using the larger formats, I still use 35mm more often.
It will be a totally subjective preference.
I have the ability to shoot 35mm - 6x4,5 - 6x6 - 6x7 - 6x9 - 4x5(in) 5x7(in) and 10x8 (in)
For the best quality I should be using the larger formats, I still use 35mm more often.
oftheherd
Veteran
Your question is interesting. I would guess convenience and expense as the most probably answers. 35mm slides are easier to use and much less expensive, both in initial cost and in slide projectors. And 35mm from tripods gives better and sharper than you might expect.
I remember my surprise on taking a slide of a large bullitin style board full of about 60 photo prints (mostly small maching processed color). All had captions. I put my Fujica ST 901 on a tripod and snapped away. Some time later I projected it and discovered I could not only read the captions, but easily. All the captions were crisp and sharp. Now enlarge that many times and the viewing distance will still give the appearance of sharp photos, if in fact they are.
I could be very wrong, and I don't get that part about panoramic. Do you know how he did that?
I remember my surprise on taking a slide of a large bullitin style board full of about 60 photo prints (mostly small maching processed color). All had captions. I put my Fujica ST 901 on a tripod and snapped away. Some time later I projected it and discovered I could not only read the captions, but easily. All the captions were crisp and sharp. Now enlarge that many times and the viewing distance will still give the appearance of sharp photos, if in fact they are.
I could be very wrong, and I don't get that part about panoramic. Do you know how he did that?
alternatve
Well-known
I think portability and ease of use plays a part as well.
I would like to use a MF set up, or even a 35mm SLR, but I use a cute little Leica IIIc with a folding lens that I can take everywhere.
I would like to use a MF set up, or even a 35mm SLR, but I use a cute little Leica IIIc with a folding lens that I can take everywhere.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Fabian said:
Yes, a simple one: Hhe does not care for the benfits of MF !
"Leica vs MF" is not the question, 35mm vs 120 would be correct. There are a bunch of makes who are on par with the Leica R optics. Tho beeing a top product it is not the 35mm reference level.
I myself have seen several professional slide shows of a travel photographer, shot on Velvia 50 and with Leica R Equipment, mostly on tripod, and projected to a size of about 7 to 11 feet, with Leica projectors.
The results were really surprising, much better than I had them expected to be.
BUT this does not change the facts, MF would have looked better anyway.
bertram
RObert Budding
D'oh!
MF provides much better quality when there is a decent amount of light. I shoot 35mm in low light. I love my Bronica RF645, but my fastest aperture is f/4. And I often stop down from there to get enough DOF.
I've used the Bronica in low light, but I need to use Delta 3200 when I could use HP5+ in my 35mm camera.
I've used the Bronica in low light, but I need to use Delta 3200 when I could use HP5+ in my 35mm camera.
FrankS
Registered User
One needs to actually see a MF slide presentation to believe it. It knocks your socks off!
Finder
Veteran
The other reason is he most likely packs mostly 35mm film because it is compact. He then takes much less 120/220 film for special situations.
Why don't you contact him and ask. He would know better then any of us.
Why don't you contact him and ask. He would know better then any of us.
R
RML
Guest
Finder said:
That was my initial reaction too. Instead of all of us speculating, why not get the answer from the horse's mouth?