medium format vs. 35mm, honest opinions.....

Brian Legge said:
Sure, if the lens is the limiting factoring. Shooting with faster film though, grain often limits the amount of perceivable detail. Once you hit that point, MF wins.

I can see your argument if we're talking about using a tripod with iso 50 or film but with 400, I don't think lens resolution is necessarily the gating factor.
Click to expand...

Lens resolution is a red herring. It's worked out using very high contrast ratios. i.e. 1000:1. In the real world your subject, in nearly all cases won't have alternating black and white lines with the sort of lighting needed to produce measurable 1000:1 lighting ratio. Infact the edge contrast of most details in your neg will have much much lower contrast. Maybe only 1.6:1 which is what Fuji use in their data sheets. So a film capable of 125 lpmm at 1000:1 is only capable of 50 lpmm at 1.6:1 contrast ratio. And that means the high resolution figures banded about don't exist in the real world. And your MF lens gets as much resolution on film as your small format lens does because thats all there is in the subject and thats all the film is capable of at those contrast ratios.
So the idea there is more on small format film to enlarge from is wrong in most cases.
 
bensyverson said:
For color, no way... Not at 5x7. In fact, you won't even be able to tell the difference between the iPhone 4 and medium format with 5x7 prints. Really, there is no reason to use any one camera over another if color 5x7s are your end product.
Click to expand...

I personally see quite a difference between the two when printed that small. I've even shown 4x6s from medium format stuff to non-photographers and had them first remark that they've never seen photographs look so clear and lifelike.
 
Sjixxxy said:
I personally see quite a difference between the two when printed that small. I've even shown 4x6s from medium format stuff to non-photographers and had them first remark that they've never seen photographs look so clear and lifelike.
Click to expand...
In color or B&W? If it's B&W it's perfectly understandable. If it's color, they were just responding to the DOF or some other image aspect.
 
I definitely see the difference between the two when I work in darkroom. You'll feel "wow that's THIN!" when you switch from MF to 35mm and try to get same print size. The projected image is way way darker with 35mm because it has to be elevated way far up compared to MF film. It's not necessarily a bad thing though. I do like the grainy, softer look of 35mm a lot with street stuff. They are just two (and more within MF) different formats that I can choose from. I don't think one is "better" than the other.
 
MF/LF cameras are way cooler ... have you ever seen a 35mm camera that looks as good as a Linhof Technika?
 
Last edited:
When I was wet printing, I had a much better-quality enlarging lens for 35mm negs than I had for 645/120. Still for B/W the tonal range in MF prints appeared better to casual viewers when enlarging, say, Delta 100 in both formats, and printing on the same grade papers.

Now that I'm doing hybrid work there's no question in my mind (or my wife & kids') that the V500 I use does a far better job on MF than on 35mm - both in terms of detail and tonal range, and yes - printed at 5x7.
 
I was finally able to scan and post a few images.

Leica M4



Fuji GA645



Leica M4


Fuji GA645


This is in no way a scientific test as you would notice the difference in the FOV/composition. AFAIK, these photos were taken within 5 minutes of each other and scanned similarly.

I intend to print these 4 photos tomorrow as I am very curious to see the difference (of lack thereof) between the 2 formats.

Comments and opinions are welcomed and encouraged.
 
Last edited:
jmkelly said:
Now that I'm doing hybrid work there's no question in my mind (or my wife & kids') that the V500 I use does a far better job on MF than on 35mm - both in terms of detail and tonal range, and yes - printed at 5x7.
Click to expand...

As I and others mentioned above, scanning or enlarging 35mm is *far* more demanding than MF. I have and regularly use a V500 and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. For 35mm, the V500 is just a bad joke. I only use the V500 for quick posts to Flickr, etc., and even then the stuff out of the Sprintscan is just vastly superior.

For pure resolution, most MF cameras are limited by their lenses (which are seldom optimized for shooting at wide apertures) but even more so by their lack of film flatness. But resolution pretty obviously does not account for the quality differences that we're talking about here. Indeed, some of the tonality benefits of MF are visible even with a Holga. No one (or at least no one who is sane) is going to argue that that's due to resolution!
 
Last edited:
Keith said:
It makes a big difference for the hybrid crowd ... those who scan then print digitaly.

If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point, Keith.

Bob
 
I did a similar test of small images last week.

Which is from a Nikon D90 (to remove scan issues) and which is from an uncoated 1950s 6x6 Ansco Speedex Special (V700 scan)?

dandy.jpg

Gardening5b-sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
Medium Format?
C'mon - everything about it from an IQ standpoint is noticeably, obviously, and clearly leaps and bounds better than 35mm and small, APCS, full frame (except low-light) digital.
So why doesn't everyone just shoot medium format? Why did 35mm replace "roll film"?
Medium format cameras are expensive
Medium format cameras eat film (that is, use a lot with ony 12-16 exposures per roll)
Meduim format cameras are large - except for folders.
- and most folders were Jurassic in terms of feature by the 60's
Medium format lenses are slower than their 35mm counter parts
Medium format lenses are big and expensive...
Medium format film is harder to get and more expensive to process...
Medium format slides were a rarity.

But - nothing tops medium format in terms of sheer image quality with cameras that don't have to be pretty much mounted on a tripod. Large format is a different animal alltogether.
 
bigeye said:
I did a similar test of small images last week.

Which is from a Nikon D90 (to remove scan issues) and which is from an uncoated 1950s 6x6 Ansco Speedex Special (V700 scan)?
Click to expand...

And which is on a flaky monitor?

There are big differences between good-quality wet prints, but all bets are off when you're talking about monitor pics and scans with a cheap scanner. Or even scans with a half-decent scanner off the best wet prints you can make.

Cheers,

R.
 
Use slow film and average viewer will not see a difference unless you put one next to the other. Keep in mine the small camera will be with you a lot more than a big one.

Todays slow films are so good I wish I could start again from 1958. That said, bigger is always better, tele lenses, car engines, and some other things.
 
FrankS said:
Based on my experience with traditional B+W wet printing of both formats, there is a noticeable difference even at that size.
Click to expand...


I am with Frank on this one, printing at that size the difference will be minimal. In my opinion printing at 5x7 the convenience of 35mm is preferable over the better iq of MF

Wim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom