chut
Luceat Lux Vestra
I've been shooting 35 mm film for many years and am considering making the jump to a medium format rangefinder.
I'd like to ask those of you who use both formats for street and/or travel photography, how do you decide which format to use when you're about to go shoot or take a trip?
I know that the main advantage of 35 mm is the number of exposures you can take before having to reload film, as well as the relative economy on film. On the other hand, MF gives you a bigger negative and smoother tonal gradations.
I'd like to hear your different decision processes when choosing between these two film formats.
I'd like to ask those of you who use both formats for street and/or travel photography, how do you decide which format to use when you're about to go shoot or take a trip?
I know that the main advantage of 35 mm is the number of exposures you can take before having to reload film, as well as the relative economy on film. On the other hand, MF gives you a bigger negative and smoother tonal gradations.
I'd like to hear your different decision processes when choosing between these two film formats.
Avotius
Some guy
I used to do street photography with a Mamiya 6, I loved the concept of shooting square negatives with lots of image quality and with a relatively compact camera that had really damn good lenses. In the end I moved back to 35mm though because the Mamiya 6 was build like a deck of cards and they kept falling apart on me and I happened to know the Mamiya 7 was made even worse then the 6 and did not like 645. I really miss the Mamiya 6's lenses though, that 75 3.5....best I have ever used.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
If you've got the money, go for the largest negative you can afford. 645 is a nice compromise and Fuji has a couple of fixed lens rangefinders with nice lenses. The lenses tend to be slower than in 35mm (think f:4) but the image quality is good. In 6x6 there are Rolleiflexes (fixed lens), Mamiya TLRs (on the heavy side), YashicaMats (think lighter weight Rollei), the now-discontinued Mamiya 6 and various older fixed lens folders (think Zeiss Ikonta B). In 6x7 there are Fuji (fixed lens); Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 and so on. You really need to think about how you shoot, what speed lenses you need, how much weight you want to carry, whether you'll have a safe place to store your gear if you don't plan on carrying it all every day and so on. I went to Japan with a couple of Leicas and a Fuji 645 (too much weight). I went to Italy with a Nikon F4 and a Pentax 67 and several lenses (too much weight). I went to Taiwan with a couple of Leicas and a Nikon D3 (too much weight). Notice a trend? I keep saying that I will head off with the equivalent of one camera and one lens. But then I think "back up body." and then I think "Imagine photographing Venice in 6x7." And before you know it, I need a sherpa. Sitting here with no plane tickets in my pocket, I can rationally state: "If I was going to do it, I'd take a single MF camera with a non-interchangeable lens (think, Fuji RF, Rolleiflex or Zeiss folder)." Good luck with your choice and have a good, safe trip.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I use Alpa and Leica. The Leica is smaller, lighter, faster handling and requires far fewer film changes (unless I use 70mm on the Alpa -- 53 exposures). The styles are completely different because I use the equivalent of a 21mm lens on the Alpa, zone-focused, so a lot depends on what style I want.
Of course with the Alpa the body is just a spacer so two lenses + two backs means that unless the body is stolen, I have the back-up.
I've used other MF cameras for street photography but frankly the only other sensible choice for me (unobtrusive, near silent) is a TLR (Rollei or similar, not a great big Mamiya), and I don't like any TLRs very much. Admittedly I've never owned a modern Plaubel Makina, though I have had the original, and SLRs (Hasselblad's not bad), and RFs (Graflex XL, Mamiya-Press, adapted Polaroid 600SE, Linhof Technikas...)
Cheers,
R.
Of course with the Alpa the body is just a spacer so two lenses + two backs means that unless the body is stolen, I have the back-up.
I've used other MF cameras for street photography but frankly the only other sensible choice for me (unobtrusive, near silent) is a TLR (Rollei or similar, not a great big Mamiya), and I don't like any TLRs very much. Admittedly I've never owned a modern Plaubel Makina, though I have had the original, and SLRs (Hasselblad's not bad), and RFs (Graflex XL, Mamiya-Press, adapted Polaroid 600SE, Linhof Technikas...)
Cheers,
R.
rickp
Well-known
hasselblad SWC with viewfinder and a small, handheld meter? physically small, not too heavy, marvelous results, and enormous depth of field = minimum focusing.
cheers
rick
cheers
rick
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Street photography, like I see it is most of the time a very dynamic/action thing.
35mm is king here. any MF for close shooting of people is too cumbersome and slow compared to small format. It also brings way too much attention on you. (I love small RFs for being so discreet)
35mm is king here. any MF for close shooting of people is too cumbersome and slow compared to small format. It also brings way too much attention on you. (I love small RFs for being so discreet)
sanmich
Veteran
I should have explained my opinion a bit more:
for street photog, I like the 2x3 ratio, and most of the time, I like a landscape frame direction. 645 RF are standing and would require constant twist of the hand, 6x9 are well er.. not super small. That leaves me with reflex 645 or a Mamiya 7 which I find too squarish for my taste. Also, the greater DOF of 35mm lenses (equivalent of course) allow for faster shooting.
Another point: when I move in where the light requires 1/30 @f/2, I keepon shooting...
Try that with the f/4 lenses on MF.
Really, I too was tempted, but I decided that for that kind of job, 35mm is king.
But, I am really tempted by a folder 645 or 6x9 as somthing I have "just in case" I have enough time to shoot slower something that deserve a larger neg..
Good luck!
for street photog, I like the 2x3 ratio, and most of the time, I like a landscape frame direction. 645 RF are standing and would require constant twist of the hand, 6x9 are well er.. not super small. That leaves me with reflex 645 or a Mamiya 7 which I find too squarish for my taste. Also, the greater DOF of 35mm lenses (equivalent of course) allow for faster shooting.
Another point: when I move in where the light requires 1/30 @f/2, I keepon shooting...
Try that with the f/4 lenses on MF.
Really, I too was tempted, but I decided that for that kind of job, 35mm is king.
But, I am really tempted by a folder 645 or 6x9 as somthing I have "just in case" I have enough time to shoot slower something that deserve a larger neg..
Good luck!
oftheherd
Veteran
I am not what I would call a street photographer. But to me, the idea conjures up some aspect of stealth. That, along with interchangable lenses, is why I always think it is often done in 35mm.
In MF, I just don't see that as being as stealthy (if that really is to be sought) with larger MF cameras. I have a Mamiya Super Press 23 and I love it, but it is big and heavy. Granted it has those nice big 6x7 negatives.
I would agree with Mr. Hicks that the Rolleiflex cameras aren't taken as seriously, that is, noticed as much. But mine isn't that light either. But looking down at the ground glass, and especially if using a shutter release, makes it stealthy.
Most any of the non RF folders in MF aren't taken seriously either in my experience. Everybody knows they are an old camera. Therefore, they can't be anything to worry about. "Say fella, does that old camera really work?" Yeah, sometimes. They tend to be small and light to carry as well. No interchangable lenses, not as many shots per roll, but for that reason, you must pay more attention to what you are photographing and should get better shots.
In 35mm I would consider a fixed lens RF such as the Yashica, Canonet, or Olympus cameras.
But as I said, what do I know about street photography?
In MF, I just don't see that as being as stealthy (if that really is to be sought) with larger MF cameras. I have a Mamiya Super Press 23 and I love it, but it is big and heavy. Granted it has those nice big 6x7 negatives.
I would agree with Mr. Hicks that the Rolleiflex cameras aren't taken as seriously, that is, noticed as much. But mine isn't that light either. But looking down at the ground glass, and especially if using a shutter release, makes it stealthy.
Most any of the non RF folders in MF aren't taken seriously either in my experience. Everybody knows they are an old camera. Therefore, they can't be anything to worry about. "Say fella, does that old camera really work?" Yeah, sometimes. They tend to be small and light to carry as well. No interchangable lenses, not as many shots per roll, but for that reason, you must pay more attention to what you are photographing and should get better shots.
In 35mm I would consider a fixed lens RF such as the Yashica, Canonet, or Olympus cameras.
But as I said, what do I know about street photography?
mcgrattan
Well-known
Something like a Fuji GS645S isn't much larger than a 35m rangefinder and, in operation, it's exactly the same. You can use one exactly like a 35mm rangefinder. It's smaller than many 35mm slrs.
I find mine at least as easy to use as my Leica -- the Fuji has a built in meter and a parallax corrected finder for a start.
oftheherd
Veteran
Have you held a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 non-RF? Long enough for 6x9 of course, but rather thin and light. As to f/2, that is good for sure, but f/3.5 which many MF have is only 1 2/3 stop. If you are shooting ISO 400 or 800, that will do in more situations than you might think.
btgc
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
I know how handles a folding 6x9. I agree that for a slow/static picture, they may be ok but there are huge drawbacks as I understand it:
1- how fast can you scale-focus carefully enough?
2- dynamic phot often involves being close, the % of rejects with a non RF 105mm lens can be quite high, or let say this in other words: what's the point of shooting a 6x9 if you are out of focus?
3-if you want good film flatness, it seems that you need to advance the film just before shooting. Might be ok for statics, I gotta try to do this quickly with the small red window trick.
4- change your film every 8 shots....I can shoot 8 shots in a few seconds with 35mm, just to get that special one where things do fall in place just right.
Don't get me wrong, these seem to be wonderful cameras for certain things, I just don't think street photography is one of them.
Kinda shooting studio with an olympus pen
Just my 2 low value cents,
Tuolumne
Veteran
I find almost all MF cameras to have too slow lenses once it starts to get dark. F4 - f5.6 just doesn't cut it at dawn, dusk and under heavy clouds. That's the biggest problem for me. Still , try a Fuji GA645zi. Zoom lens, very compact, great images, auto everything with manual over rides.
/T
/T
stefan_dinu
Established
I think the new Fuji/Bessa will be a nice tool for street.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
My Mamiya 7II is holding up nicely. But I haven't tried to drive any nails with it yet.
chut
Luceat Lux Vestra
Ben, that's exactly the thought process that I'm foreseeing myself faced with. When you're traveling, you're deciding between having a reasonably light gear bag, but also you want to have just enough equipment to get the best shots you can. I'd imagine one Leica with two, maybe three lenses and a Mamiya 7 with an 80 lens would be a great kit to have while traveling. One could shoot primarily with the Leica, and whenever you happen to come upon something that's 'worth' shooting in MF, you could bust out the 6 x 7.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I have used my Mamiya 7 for "street" in India, Cuba, Mexico, and to some extent, in Bolivia. I have not seen any problems with build quality. Using 220 film, changing film is not a big hassle. That said, some of the comments have mentioned factors you need to be a aware of: slower lenses, more squarish format, etc. How much these factors concern you is something you need to decide. If the squarish (6x7) format is a concern, you might want to look at Mitch Epstein's book on Vietnam, for which he used the 6x9 Fuji rangefinder.
In each case when I have used the Mamiya, I also had a 35mm camera with me, whether it be an Olympus SLR or compacts like the Stylus or Contax T2, T3. I often used these in lower light situations, or when I wanted to work faster.
In each case when I have used the Mamiya, I also had a 35mm camera with me, whether it be an Olympus SLR or compacts like the Stylus or Contax T2, T3. I often used these in lower light situations, or when I wanted to work faster.
chut
Luceat Lux Vestra
Thanks for all the comments and suggestions so far.
Sevres, I don't mind the more squarish format of 6 x 7, in fact I find it quite interesting and challenging. One of my favorite travel photographers, Frederic Lagrange, who shoots for Travel + Leisure, Conde Nast Traveller and GQ, uses a Pentax 67 and I love what he's able to do with the format. I noticed that most of his shots are vertical in orientation. I read somewhere that the 6 x 7 format is preferred by magazine photo editors as its aspect ratio fits very well into a magazine page.
Sevres, are there any downsides to using 220 film?
And yes, packing a Contax T/T3 backup in the bag will give you almost all the advantages of having 35 mm, in case packing a Leica M kit proves to be too heavy.
Sevres, I don't mind the more squarish format of 6 x 7, in fact I find it quite interesting and challenging. One of my favorite travel photographers, Frederic Lagrange, who shoots for Travel + Leisure, Conde Nast Traveller and GQ, uses a Pentax 67 and I love what he's able to do with the format. I noticed that most of his shots are vertical in orientation. I read somewhere that the 6 x 7 format is preferred by magazine photo editors as its aspect ratio fits very well into a magazine page.
Sevres, are there any downsides to using 220 film?
And yes, packing a Contax T/T3 backup in the bag will give you almost all the advantages of having 35 mm, in case packing a Leica M kit proves to be too heavy.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I was looking at some Martin Parr photos today. The New Brighton ones, which I think are 'street'.
He used a 6x7 camera and doesn't come across as hiding or being stealthy, just using the camera to document the British at leisure.
He used a 6x7 camera and doesn't come across as hiding or being stealthy, just using the camera to document the British at leisure.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
There's tradeoffs to both.
35 mm typically gives you the speed of use, depth of field and often grittiness that are traditionally associated with street shots.
Med format does give better tonal range, but up close a shallower depth of field.
Mamiya 7II
Rolleiflex 2.8
both work well but the medium format takes a little more attention to focus,
my 2 cents
Todd
35 mm typically gives you the speed of use, depth of field and often grittiness that are traditionally associated with street shots.
Med format does give better tonal range, but up close a shallower depth of field.
Mamiya 7II
Rolleiflex 2.8
both work well but the medium format takes a little more attention to focus,
my 2 cents
Todd