clicker
Well-known
I am more comfortable handling a 35mm camera as I get older and I often wonder at what print size might I notice a major vast improvement using a medium format camera. Rarely do I print larger than 10x12". Also since I mainly shoot b&w, how would digital fit into the mix.
Thanks
Thanks
shortstop
Well-known
35 mm is beautiful, but when I print a negative of my Rolleiflex I seem to be in the place where I took the photo.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
At the 10x12" enlargement size, you'll see a bit of difference if you compare images taken with the same film stocks. Tri-X from a 35mm camera is very different from Tri-X shot in a medium format camera. The tonality and lack of grain in the medium format camera absolutely blow away anything you could produce with a 35mm camera. The only issue is one of convenience. 35mm is a little more portable and you get a lot more images per-roll.
I'm firmly wed to medium format now and absolutely love it.
Phil Forrest
I'm firmly wed to medium format now and absolutely love it.
Phil Forrest
mfogiel
Veteran
10x12' from 35mm is at least a 10 times enlargement - if you make this kind of print from 645, it is 5 times, and from a Fuji 690 only about 3 times and you can see the difference quite clearly, particularly with old style films. A Leica Monochrom with a sharp lens will give you a kind of detail that is bordering on LF, but from the prints I have seen, it does not look like film, so it is up to you to decide.
jcb4718
Well-known
I only use 35mm and the largest prints I have on my wall are about 1000mm x 650mm. The point is that for larger prints you have to stand back and this makes less important the loss of detail per square inch. In fact I hang these large prints on the upstairs landing wall so there is the staircase between the viewer and the print, so its viewed at the right distance. I think 8"x10" or A4 is where detail per square inch matters most. The print is enlarged but is comfortably viewed close e.g. hand held or in an album.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
35 is nowhere near to MF in terms of how it is recording the light.
Print size doesn't matter. For the same digital b/w is nowhere near analog.
Digital is perfect in terms of resolution of prints in medium size.
Print size doesn't matter. For the same digital b/w is nowhere near analog.
Digital is perfect in terms of resolution of prints in medium size.
Pioneer
Veteran
Lets just put it this way.
The 6x6 negatives from my ratty looking Ikoflex IIA are gorgeous when compared to the 35mm negatives from my $4,000 Leica when printed large, all things being equal.
But I can get photographs with my 35mm Leica that are difficult to impossible to get with my Ikoflex IIA. Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses and printing is only one of the many variables.
The 6x6 negatives from my ratty looking Ikoflex IIA are gorgeous when compared to the 35mm negatives from my $4,000 Leica when printed large, all things being equal.
But I can get photographs with my 35mm Leica that are difficult to impossible to get with my Ikoflex IIA. Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses and printing is only one of the many variables.
shortstop
Well-known
Some years ago I went to an exhibition of Walker Evans here in Rome. it was like to be there, in the place where the photo was taken. this is a prerogative only of photography. 35 mm serves to other types of photography. I personally think that the medium Format is a good compromise, if you want to have a light camera. Besides, I like the 120 the fact that you are not forced to do 36 pictures before developing the film.
hausen
Well-known
I am going through this exercise currently and have decided to exit most of my 35mm film gear. Bought my dream camera over the weekend a 903SWC and am going to only shoot 120 film now. 35mm now will be with Monochrom.
judsonzhao
Well-known
120 slide is way gorgeous if you look at them on a light box through loupe, that's a pure joy. Not saying 35mm slide are bad, it's just breath-taking when you put your eyes on a piece of 120 slides.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Only film 35mm I shoot regularly now is a Hexar AF.
All the rest is either DSLR or film MF.
I kept effing up in rangefinderdom and bailed out. I must have cycled through two dozen cameras and as much (high-quality!) lenses and I could not make it work to my satisfaction.
Now that a hog-sized hobby has literally turned into work, I chose quality over ergonomics and have ditched all Leica etc. gear.
It was a phase I had to go through, it seems now...
Shooting 90% digital but enjoying it more due to 10% film
All the rest is either DSLR or film MF.
I kept effing up in rangefinderdom and bailed out. I must have cycled through two dozen cameras and as much (high-quality!) lenses and I could not make it work to my satisfaction.
Now that a hog-sized hobby has literally turned into work, I chose quality over ergonomics and have ditched all Leica etc. gear.
It was a phase I had to go through, it seems now...
Shooting 90% digital but enjoying it more due to 10% film
Wburgess
Established
Utter rubbish! And that's from someone who has printed from a monochrome file and regularly wet prints 4x5 enlargements!
I do sometimes wonder if people convince themselves of things and post without actually having any experience of it!
As for 35mm vs MF. Horses for courses, but my purchase of a fuji rangefinder has really hit hard on my 35mm shooting.
retina777
Member
Tonality and sharpness are better at any print size with my Rolleiflexes compared with the Nikons. The ability to carry multiple lenses and the possibility of automated focus and exposure, however, will get you some shots that are lost to MF. Both have a place depending on the mission.
Ansel
Well-known
MF is better at any size but I find I am more likely to get the shot with my M6. The Hasselblad stays at home more often than not - its just not as portable or as fast to use.
For me the image comes first. Resolution, quality, etc. second.
At the end of the day Rober Frank produced better images than Ansel Adams, much as I love his work.
35 mm reigned supreme for decades for a reason: its good enough.
For me the image comes first. Resolution, quality, etc. second.
At the end of the day Rober Frank produced better images than Ansel Adams, much as I love his work.
35 mm reigned supreme for decades for a reason: its good enough.
ZeissFan
Veteran
You will notice the difference immediately. The tones will be richer, because there is so much more negative area. As good as 35mm is, having a large negative makes a noticeable difference.
bwcolor
Veteran
Go to Flickr and use appropriate search terms. I know that this isn't the same as viewing a print, but certainly a place to start. If I shoot Tri-X, then I might use Tri-X Leica to find 35mm samples. Tri-X and 645, 6x7, 6x6, 6x9 can provide MF. Just a thought.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I wish I could only shoot 6x6 but circumstances call for quick handling of 135 and fast f/1.4 lenses.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Same here, the only problem is 35mm is so convenient. Whether a Olympus 35RC or a small SLR you just can do more and faster. Sometimes you need AF which I try NOT to use, but sometimes........... I have a Pentax 6x7 which is great but it is hard to use even though the meter prism is very good. The Rollei is also not too bad to use but metering and focusing even after 40 years using it are/is not second nature.
Still, a 120 negative has something very sexy about it.
thegman
Veteran
The more I shoot medium format, the more I think I need never use 35mm again. Even for a carry around, happy-snapping camera, there are the Fujifilm autofocus 6x4.5 cameras. And there are old 6x6 folders like Zeiss Super Ikonta which make Leicas seem like large cameras.
As for print size, it's all opinion, and of course types of film. Ektar 100 in 35mm has about the same resolution as a 20MP FF DSLR, but in reality, you've got to do some pretty good scanning to get that resolution out of it. Medium format makes it much, much easier, and of course you can use faster/grainier films.
I think you can notice an improvement in even quite small prints, but once it's in a frame, on the wall, and you don't have your eyes 2 inches from it, then I think you can get away with quite a lot.
The way I see it is this, 35mm is capable of getting a lot of resolution, good enough for most people, but it can be a bit tricky sometimes. Medium format makes getting a load of resolution simple. With film, resolution drops off a lot when you get faster film, digital does not drop off so much, and it's more noise/lack of saturation than lack of resolution.
If you want high resolution easily, then digital is a pretty good choice. If you don't mind just a bit more effort, medium format film, for me, is a great balance of very inexpensive cameras and superb results.
As for print size, it's all opinion, and of course types of film. Ektar 100 in 35mm has about the same resolution as a 20MP FF DSLR, but in reality, you've got to do some pretty good scanning to get that resolution out of it. Medium format makes it much, much easier, and of course you can use faster/grainier films.
I think you can notice an improvement in even quite small prints, but once it's in a frame, on the wall, and you don't have your eyes 2 inches from it, then I think you can get away with quite a lot.
The way I see it is this, 35mm is capable of getting a lot of resolution, good enough for most people, but it can be a bit tricky sometimes. Medium format makes getting a load of resolution simple. With film, resolution drops off a lot when you get faster film, digital does not drop off so much, and it's more noise/lack of saturation than lack of resolution.
If you want high resolution easily, then digital is a pretty good choice. If you don't mind just a bit more effort, medium format film, for me, is a great balance of very inexpensive cameras and superb results.