35mm or MF ?

[Rogier]

It just crosses my mind.
If one wanted to find an affordable solution for hybrid photography (shoot film process digitally)

Witch would be better. Shoot 35mm and scan with something like a Microtec film scanner.
Or shoot MF and scan with an Epson V500?

 

[35mmdelux]

What would be its ultimate purpose? I have and use both depending of the purpose of the shoot.

 

[venchka]

I don't know the cost difference, but you may want to look at the Epson V700 or a nice used Epson 4990. You never know when you might take a liking to large format. Also, I think the 4990 & 700 can hold more small negatives at one time. Loading negatives is a pain. Get a scanner that holds a bunch at one time.

 

[bmattock]

Witch would be better. Shoot 35mm and scan with something like a Microtec film scanner.
Or shoot MF and scan with an Epson V500?

Which would be better for what?

 

[Rogier]

Well My thought is than rather attempting to get the resolution from the smaller source it might be just as good if not better when scanning from a larger format. With a scanner in the same price range.
I am not concerned about film cost. I am stugling to fill a roll of 35mm film. Cost pet shot it not the issue. For larger number of snapshots I have the LX3 but for more serious / creative work that might I prefer film.

 

[mfogiel]

I think the best route is to get a good film dedicated scanner, barring this, you will get better resolution from MF on a cheap scanner than from 35mm, however in the final analysis it is better to shoot with russian lenses and scan on a top scanner than shoot with top lenses and scan on a flatbed.

 

[Rogier]

Hmm that makes sense.

 

[Rayt]

I went from a Nikon 9000ED to a Canon 8800 flat bed and needless to say there is a huge quality gap. If you do decide to go the MF route then the use the flat bed for proofs but ultimately send out the edited negs for professional scanning if that's your ultimate goal. For web or small prints I think the flat bed will do.

 

[Chris101]

The choice of film format should be determined by a range of factors, the scanning hardware being just one of those. How and what you shoot is much more important.

 

[maddoc]

My old Rolleiflex 3.5E and a Epson V700 scanner give better results than a 50mm M-Hexanon (the "sharpest" lens I have) + Nikon Coolscan 4000ED.... If I would have the money, I would go for a Coolscan 8000 (or 9000) for MF.

 

[thomasw_]

Better yet, don't bother scanning for digital printing as that is not as visually delicious as a wet print. There are some who prefer the aesthetics of digital prints, but those few are definitely a minority. The only reason I scan is for posting to the web, and a v700 or like flatbed scanner is great for that.

 

[Rogier]

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing your insight.

As for wet v.s. digital printing is a different topic but surely related!
I am affright that there will never be a darkroom in our house. Will probably end up printing digital. Kind of inspired by the Piezo conversions of Epson printers. But that's for later 🙄

My old Rolleiflex 3.5E and a Epson V700 scanner give better results than a 50mm M-Hexanon (the "sharpest" lens I have) + Nikon Coolscan 4000ED.... If I would have the money, I would go for a Coolscan 8000 (or 9000) for MF.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have both a dedicated 35mm scanner (Konica Minolta) and a flatbed for MF and LF (Epson 1680). Both are very good, but not the very best. Quite honestly I prefer the results from the dedicated 35mm scanner to MF scanned on the Epson; 35mm scanned on the Epson really is pretty indifferent. I do however like scanned 8x10 inch...

Cheers,

R.

 

[ruby.monkey]

If you were to choose a small format camera then why not just go digital?

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you were to choose a small format camera then why not just go digital?

Unless you're wet printing I'd be inclined to agree.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rogier]

I have a Canon 5D with good "L" lenses. Also a Panasonic LX3 witch I greatly enjoy. But there is something about film and the camera's involved with it. Shoot more thoughtful and therewith less. Also the feel and look of the image is much different. If it was for me. I would keep the LX3 for the majority of shots. And possibly a Mamiya 7 for the more serious work.

Just getting my feet wet in film (again) and loving it!

 

[bwcolor]

I'm grappling with these topics in that I'm getting back to film after a long absence. It really was the realization that I should either sell my equipment, or use it.

So, I've been out shooting my Mamiya 7s and Contax G2 systems with various films. What is clear is that I can carry my Contax all day..every day. My 1DMKIII is a great camera, but I don't/won't carry it. So, I'm thinking 35mm for mostly traditional B&W, but I would not consider shooting 35mm without knowing that I was going to have a quality film scanner. I've not yet sorted the Mamiya side of things, but i think this will be a question of do i carry the Canon, or the Mamiya? I see them filling the same nitch, with the Mamiya doing a better job of more static images and the Canon being a better player when shooting moving objects, like my kids.. So, I started this film thing expecting to sell the worthless 35mm and shoot the medium format for quality results, but I think that i'll be shooting more 35mm B&W than either digital, or the MF. It really surprises me to say that , because I started with the sense that anything that I could do in 35mm could better be done in digital. I no longer believe this.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I have a Canon 5D with good "L" lenses. Also a Panasonic LX3 witch I greatly enjoy. But there is something about film and the camera's involved with it. Shoot more thoughtful and therewith less. Also the feel and look of the image is much different. If it was for me. I would keep the LX3 for the majority of shots. And possibly a Mamiya 7 for the more serious work.

Just getting my feet wet in film (again) and loving it!

I think I understand what you mean about the cameras, although a lot of it is down to self-dicipline. I only scan my negatives, and what I've found is that digital is perfect for my small-format needs, for all that I prefer using my film cameras; but medium format and larger is where film really shines.

I do find that using my Leica M3, Olympus OM-2N, or Nikon F2, is a far more satisfying tactile experience than going out with the Pentax K20D, but I can't really say that I get any better photos with them at the end of the day. Nowadays I'm more likely to pick up the Pentax 645N or Rolleiflex SLX as a walkabout camera, or even my Mamiya RZ67 if I'm feeling particularly manly, and leave the Leica at home.

 

[venchka]

I recently sold a 16x20 print from a 6x7 HP5+ negative developed in Xtol 1:3 (some of us can make the combination work) scanned with an Epson 4990. I was pleased with the print. My client was more than pleased.

YMMV

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

In my experience even the best 35mm scan can't compare with MF on a decent flatbed.