35 mm vs 120 street photography

Sevres, are there any downsides to using 220 film?
Click to expand...
Aside from it being harder to get, no.
Before my trip to India (1998, I think), there had been postings in some forums about a lack of sharpness when using 220. This was challenged by other posters, and I, myself, have never found that to be a problem.
 
I'd say it's really a matter of preference. I have come to use medium format on the street all the time because I just love the increased quality I get from the bigger negative.

And so what if I only have F4? So I'm losing what against a fast 35mm lens - a stop or two at best? I'll shoot 400 instead of 100 or push 400 to 1600 in processing. Two stops won't make or break you the way I see it. In fact, I make things worse by always shooting a yellow filter which takes yet another 2 stops away, and I have yet to feel constrained. Sure I get some thin negatives from time to time, but they always print out fine with extra work.

It's true though, shooting 120 ups the stakes in terms of economy - but it's worth it. You've been shooting 35 for years and you know what to expect - spice things up a bit and give medium format a go! My feeling is that if you have honed your vision on 35, medium format is not a big step up in terms of how you see - especially in 645 - the results are just generally more striking, as are the mistakes 🙂

As far as 220 goes, it's getting pretty hard to find. I wouldn't shoot it anyway because it doesn't hang well in my "film dryer" (a plastic garment bag from Wally World) - it touches the ground.
 
I am just packing for 10 days in Paris. (M3, 35mm-1.4, 50mm-1.4, 90mm-2.8; Fuji GS645S; and D-Lux 3 digital). Way too much weight. I am thinking about adding a Praktica w 28mm as well. The Fuji GS645S locked up on my trip to Panama, so it seems like you need at least one backup. However the Fuji is only about $350, and weighs about the same as the M3.
 
For me, the main problem with the Bronica RF645 as a street photo camera is the shutter lag by a tiny fraction of a second. Try it...set your shutter speed to 1/15, press the release and observe the leaf shutters; there is a very small lag. For street photography a split second counts and I've missed several pictures because of this. Otherwise it's a superb camera.
 
35mm is more flexible. as roger says, smaller, lighter (smaller lenses too), more DOF, fewer film changes etc.

My Mamiya 7II is not built like a deck of cards at all....

The RF645 is infinitely better as a street cam though. Much faster lens changes, better exposure comp, better metering, better ergonomics.

I use the 35mm RF when things move fast and use the Mamiya 7 when I am doing more scenic street work from more of a distance or at a slower pace. Remember that to get the same DOF as 35mm on 6x7 you need to close down two more stops, which means 400 film in place of 100. Still, I get 'better' quality from 400 on 6x7 than 100 on 35mm, by far, but thats not what it is about.

35mm means you can carry a camera and a few lenses with no bag and no hassle. Even an RF645 with small lenses resulting in the need for a bad or large puches as the RF645 lenses are still 2-4 times the size of M lenses.

Horses for course - I use both. Depends on where I am going.
 
I do a lot of street photography, and it turns out I am using my beloved RF645 less and less. It's a great camera, but as others have said, the vertical orientation, slower lenses, limited exposure range, slightly greater shutter lag, and greater visibility (to your subjects) all make it somewhat cumbersome for street shooting. I suspect there would be similar problems with any other medium format camera. I can't even imagine doing street photography with a TLR, unless you are asking your subjects to pose!
 
Personally, I think Turtle sums it up reasonably well for myself. For the images I keep, which means scan, which means at 4000 dpi, which for 6x7s means around 185MB for B&W and 3x that for colour I tend to choose the format based on what and how Im shooting.

Street style shooting for me, in the main, just doesnt suit nor warrant the larger format. Overall size, speed of use, speed of lens, DoF, more frames and general portability are what I want in a street environment. Most of these images will never be printed (there are a lot) and of those that do get printed, even fewer will be framed and hung.So 35mm does well here for me.

For me, MF is a more thought out shooting format/style. Im looking for good subject matter, good composition and good lighting. I take time and plan its use. And, rarely do I carry the 2 formats simultaneously. Either Leicas and my Fuji Klasse W or a couple of Mamiya 7s and my Fuji Klasse W. The Fuji doesnt count 😀 its just the camera I carry when Im not carrying a camera.

Also, nothing to do with the thread but just an excuse to post the picture - phone cam. Im moving apartments and emptied the (dedicated) freezer on the weekend. So now you can see my concerns are about chemical availability, not the film for the foreseeable future...
Maybe I can work out a financial derivative based on the underlying asset of film ....hmmm :bang:
 
I don't think successful street photography requires a large negative. I don't even think it needs to be in focus let alone very sharp or has very high resolution. The Mamiya is great for travel photography but that is not the same thing.
 
I agree with Rayt,

You can shoot street photographs with anything, and there is no set rule for what the images should look like. About the only thing that makes street photography is the obvious stipulation that one is out "in the street" making photographs.

Throughout photo history one can find "street work" made on rangefinders, SLRs, TLR's, and view cameras. It's not about what you're using to make the images.
 
craygc said:
Also, nothing to do with the thread but just an excuse to post the picture - phone cam. Im moving apartments and emptied the (dedicated) freezer on the weekend. So now you can see my concerns are about chemical availability, not the film for the foreseeable future...
Maybe I can work out a financial derivative based on the underlying asset of film ....hmmm :bang:
Click to expand...

As an aside, I don't think some of the local photo stores here even stock that much b&w!
 
dshfoto said:
I am just packing for 10 days in Paris. (M3, 35mm-1.4, 50mm-1.4, 90mm-2.8; Fuji GS645S; and D-Lux 3 digital). Way too much weight. I am thinking about adding a Praktica w 28mm as well. The Fuji GS645S locked up on my trip to Panama, so it seems like you need at least one backup. However the Fuji is only about $350, and weighs about the same as the M3.
Click to expand...

I just packed for 10 days in Paris. I took an M6, M7, CV 15mm, ZM 35, and a 50mm summicron. And a butt ton of film. It went well. I wasn't planning on carrying both cameras everyday, but most days I did. I did color in one with the 15mm, and B&W in the other with either the 35 or the 50. In the evening, I'd cut it down to one camera in a little bag. I also only took about 8-10 rolls of film with me per day and left the rest back in the room.

I personally like 35mm for street and/or traveling. It made for a fun versatile kit without killing me. Though that new Bessa/Fuji folder looks like it could be fun...
 
I love bringing my MP for travel -- stealthy candid shooting, 36 exposures per roll, fast and sharp lenses, light and compact, what's not to like?

However, I got greedy and thought I needed bigger negatives so I got a Mamiya 7II. Well, while the Mamiya 7II is worth it for those shots I need the larger negative (like for the 16x20 printing class I am taking), I gave up on reloading every 10 shots, slow lenses, and small DOF!

I got to thinking, what I really needed for travel and candids are composition and the right moments, not bigger negatives 😀

At the end of the day, I realized why HCB, Erwitt, Alex Webb etc. got great photographs even with the "low quality" of 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom