35mm verses medium format

[Pioneer]

...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.

This is a fair assessment, but to me it goes further even than the resolution. It shows up in the tonal quality as well. MF photos just seem so much smoother with less work. And if you do not like grain, digital or film grain, then MF is a great compromise. 6x6 photos can be enlarged quite a ways before grain begins to show, even with high speed films.

 

[Takkun]

I struggled to find a comparable image for 35mm, but here's a good comparison of tonality with low-resolution scans on a small-scale reproduction: (i.e., your screen):

35mm (Nikon 50 1.8, HP5)


6x6 (Bronica 80mm on SQ, also HP5)



Click through for larger. But while the first is a more interesting image to me, the second just has a much smoother tone in the skin, and a lot more spatial separation (especially in the other images from that roll. You can't really see much grain in either. Both were lab developed (wish I knew what chemistry they used!) and lab scanned, and nothing done in post here, not even levels/curves.

However: for my sort of photography, I generally can't get a lot of strangers on the street to sit still long enough for me to focus and meter, or don't want to carry all the crap, and just plain have a problem focusing on a ground glass without my glasses.

Like Pioneer, my MF camera is beat up and held together with duct tape, but the images, provided I catch them in time, turn out with effortless technical quality.

As for digital, scanners are a rare and expensive bird. I'm personally considering repurposing my Nikon for a macro-copying of my 120 slides.

 

[Solinar]

People mention the difference in tonality between the two 35mm and medium format.

Truthfully, the difference in "smoothness" of the transition between dark and light areas of an image are not as apparent from scanned negs viewed on my laptop screen as it would be from printed enlargements from a traditional darkroom. What I'm saying is that on the web scans don't show the full resolution of either format very well.

With that said, the shadows on the skin of second photo appear to me to have a creamier transition from dark to light.

With regards to workflow: I normally shoot 6x9 in medium format where my workflow is to develop 2 rolls of film in a three roll tank. That's 16 exposures versus 36 for a single roll of 35mm.

While printing I tend to want to use every millimeter of the 24mm width of a 35mm negative, especially if 400 ASA film was used. With a 6x9 neg I have more wiggle room for a crop because that the width of the film is 56mm - but again try to keep the crop to a minimum.

With regards to cropping: There are four images of 35mm quality in every 6x9 negative.

Best Regards,

 

[mfogiel]

"Wburgess

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfogiel

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.

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."

Could you please elaborate on this?
Thanks
Marek

 

[Ronald M]

Slow films, around 11x, fast around 5x.

There is no point where a small format can perfectly equal a larger one.

 

[GarageBoy]

120 is soo beautiful
I do wish nikon/canon made a MF SLR
All of the MF cameras are a bit clunky to use

 

[gilgsn]

I'll second what most people say here.. I recently bought a Pentax 6x7. While I really like my Leicas, the 6x7 beats them hands down for image quality. Even with a beat-up V500 scanner the images look punchy and highly detailed. However it is a beast to carry around and very loud. I do plan on trying it for street photography, but I need to buy a grip for it and I am waiting for a large strap right now.. When walking with it, I need to change shoulders for my bag regularly. So, it is a matter of quality vs. portability. Look for the "Pentax 6x7 gas" thread... The images posted there are of stunning quality. I never got anything even remotely like it on a 35mm.

 

[shortstop]

I'll second what most people say here.. I recently bought a Pentax 6x7. While I really like my Leicas, the 6x7 beats them hands down for image quality. Even with a beat-up V500 scanner the images look punchy and highly detailed. However it is a beast to carry around and very loud. I do plan on trying it for street photography, but I need to buy a grip for it and I am waiting for a large strap right now.. When walking with it, I need to change shoulders for my bag regularly. So, it is a matter of quality vs. portability. Look for the "Pentax 6x7 gas" thread... The images posted there are of stunning quality. I never got anything even remotely like it on a 35mm.

Pentax 6x7 is a wonderful camera. I like it. It can be used for street photography, but Rolleiflex is the best for street shooting. have you noticed how the photos of Doisneau have become less beautiful after he stopped using the Rolleiflex and began using the Leica?

 

[mfogiel]

For 6x7 street, you should really limit yourself to Mamiya 7, Bessa III or Plaubel Makina, Pentax is best for portraiture in natural light, or landscape, but on a sturdy tripod.

 

[GarageBoy]

Or a Fuji GW670, or even a Bronica GS1

 

[Pioneer]

Ahh, they are all fun. Ask my grandson who is outside taking pictures of his legos with his Agfa Isolette. ISO 400 film, shutter at 200, aperture at f11, set the focus at 10 or 3 meters, set the shutter and shoot!

All it takes is $5, a few hours to clean out the old focus grease and lightly re-grease. A rough re-collimation using some wax paper, put it back together, and he is out and shooting. Those 3 tiny screws are the toughest part of the entire job!

It never ceases to astound me how good the negatives are from those old cameras.

 

[redisburning]

I found 4x5 and 35mm to be good companions and MF a poor compromise specifically because of the cameras themselves.

I just couldn't find a camera that worked for me in the format, regardless of how good the format or some of the lenses (Pentax 105/2.4, Mamiya 7 80/4) were.

35mm on slow film ended up being good enough for me, digital better still. 4x5 is nice when I want to enjoy the process. To me, MF never offered me enough as a package to justify its use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Up to about a 3x enlargement you should be able to get "contact print" quality quite easily: up to 5x if you're really good. Do the sums. From 35mm you're looking at 5x7 inches if you're really good; from 56x72mm, 11x14 inch.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

It depends on what comparisons you're making. For a given print size medium format offers smoother tones and is less effected by diffusion. The larger format also offers a narrower depth of field and so more control over focus. 120 is easier to process and print at home. Generally speaking the larger the negative is the more room one has to still come out with a good print despite errors made in exposure, developing, etc.

135 on the other hand offers deeper focus which is very useful for close up and macro work, as well as for shooting with long lenses. It also offers the convenience of more shots per roll and smaller cameras.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142838

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142838

It is a matter of opinion this discussion.
When I had a studio, in the 60's and 70's shooting mainly Fashion, Advertising and Publicity,
I used 120 format.First a Rolleiflex(borrowed) later made use
of Mamiya TLR.
I also had use of Hasselblad,Mamiya 67 and Koni-Omega.
I finally settled on a Pentax 6x7, a few lenses.
The happiest day when I traded it at Samys in LA for my M6TTL.
In a few weeks i'd shot more frames than the past 20 years,in the 6x7.

The large contacts were simply the best.
Using 120 cameras is not fluid as using 35mm.
Focusing on some 120 cameras is an ordeal that should be illegal.
The light is spread over a larger area.
It makes it dimmer.
My Pentax 6x7 a case in point.
Harder to get exact focus.
Depth of field shrinks real bad.

While my work was good, it was with 35mm that I really made waves.
Huge choice of lenses, easy to focus, small and portable.
A Leica M with a few lenses can be carried in jacket pockets.
2 rolls of 35mm film is about size of a single 120 roll.
72 exposures to 12.😀

Many of my friends became somewhat profound and serious.
Technical skills were more important than creative seeing.
I still use a Rolleiflex TLR.
I love the slowness, taking months to finish a roll..

I see stellar work here with those medium format cameras.
The cost of usage, the huge bag required if one uses a SLR,
with a few lenses.
The weight would kill me.

Print a few photos from each, of same scene and portrait.
Compare! It's not that easy to tell apart up to 11x 14".
The "creaminess" usually the only give away..

Looking for differences on a monitor a futile exercise.
Digital is unquestionably where it's at.
I don't have a Leica Monochrom,Phase One or even a DSLR.
I shoot with Point and shoot digitals for internet web sites.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

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 most certainly does matter.

 

[Stuart John]

I like 3 1/2 x 5 inch prints from 35mm and 6x6 to 8x8 inch prints from 6x6cm medium format negs. At those sizes I get the kind of tonality I like in my darkroom prints.

 

[helen.HH]

having tried the Mamiya 645e & mamiya 6 for a brief stint
my heart still belongs to 35mm....its good enough for me
particularly now shooting with 100 film... it's just Grand

 

[ZeissFan]

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.

I think that's one of the best comments that I've read in the 35mm vs. medium format discussion.

 

[znapper]

Well, whatever anyone "feels", it's a fact that 35mm has fewer "dots" to represent tones, compared to MF, which has fewer "dots" to represent tones than LF.

Meaning, the larger the format, you'll have a better rendition of tones, you'll have better resolution and the "grain" will become less and less apparent.

The discussion about the bodies are purely from a practical standpoint. Whether it's a Leica or a Goko 100 plastic pocket camera, Mamiya RZ pro or a LF camera, it's the lenses and the film that actually matter for the final outcome/print.

- Still, the lenses doesn't do anything else than improve the level of detail and contrast, it does absolutely nada concerning the ability for a film itself to resolve detail and/or grain-size and the film's ability to render tonal gradients.

Leica's and the optics are very nice, but it's still 'just' 35mm, most MF camera's with average optics, will create technically better negatives than any Leica you can pay (too much) for.

I can see a difference between MF and 35mm scans in web-resolution (1280*1024) for sure, the 35mm does have a much harsher gradation of tones and way easier to spot grain. Nothing wrong with it, but it is indeed a difference.
Using slow film, makes the difference less apparent grain-wise, but the smoother tones from larger formats are still apparent.