clcolucci58
Established
Started with 35mm last year when I got back into the photo game then bought a Mamiya 645 and fell in love with medium format. Just thought I see what folks here at RFF thought themselves. I shoot strickly B&W film.
35mm vs Medium Fomat
- Thread starter clcolucci58
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 5K
hausen
Well-known
With my recent purchase of a Hasselblad Arcbody + 35 and 45mm Rodenstocks I think the mojority of my immediate future will be MF🙂
Johnmcd
Well-known
When I started using MF, I thought I would never use 35mm again. The negs were just too good. But 35mm keeps on surprising me. In a similar way I thought that I would never shoot 400 iso in 35mm, just 100 or 125. But the last roll of Delta 400 in DDX knocked my socks off.
So I carry both. The MF I tend to use for the large detailed scenes and the 35mm for the 'doco' type stuff, especially low light wide open portraits. And having a few extra shots on the roll doesn't hurt.
Having said all that, I just bought a GF670.
35mm : M3, M4, OM1, OM 2
6x7 : Mamiya 7 (GF670)
6x6 : Bronica SQA (GF670)
Cheers - John
So I carry both. The MF I tend to use for the large detailed scenes and the 35mm for the 'doco' type stuff, especially low light wide open portraits. And having a few extra shots on the roll doesn't hurt.
Having said all that, I just bought a GF670.
35mm : M3, M4, OM1, OM 2
6x7 : Mamiya 7 (GF670)
6x6 : Bronica SQA (GF670)
Cheers - John
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Rolleiflex 2.8F for portraits and Leica MP with 35 lux pre asph and 50 Sonnar for everything else, damn! I don't need anything else!
Pioneer
Veteran
I am shooting way more 35mm this year, not because I think that 35mm is any better, just because it is almost always far more convenient. When I do shoot a roll of medium format it is usually with one of my TLRs. Again, they are not necessarily better than any other camera, just small and handy.
My motto this year has been a camera in the hand is worth more than several on the shelf at home.
My motto this year has been a camera in the hand is worth more than several on the shelf at home.
Sylvester
Well-known
I print 11x14 in darkroom or upload on the web.
I found medium format was overkill for me. Prefer the more compact camera.
I found medium format was overkill for me. Prefer the more compact camera.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I find that it takes me a long time sometimes to get through a roll of 36 frames in 35mm film. Although, if I'm shooting action, I do take advantage of the motor drives in my main 35 cameras (F3, F2, M7 with Motor M). Even my LTM cameras do have the Leicavit, for just such an occasion. For action, 35mm cameras are very handy. The SLRs excel at macro and telephoto pictures too.
Otherwise, if I'm going to bother setting up a tripod, I pull out the Rolleiflex or other medium format camera. The large frame size gives technically great results. Having only 8 (6x9cm) or 12 frames per roll of film allows me to finish a medium format roll quickly.
Otherwise, if I'm going to bother setting up a tripod, I pull out the Rolleiflex or other medium format camera. The large frame size gives technically great results. Having only 8 (6x9cm) or 12 frames per roll of film allows me to finish a medium format roll quickly.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I use lots of different formats, but in the main I use a Rolleiflex. Yet last month I bought a 35mm camera (Nikkormat EL) for casual shooting, beach, kids, travel etc.
The Leica has 35mm lens and B&W film I only put 5-6 films a year though it, Nikons and Rollei get used more.
It's not quality reasons though I guess its more use driven, portraits and landscapes 4x5 and MF casual photography 35mm.
The Leica has 35mm lens and B&W film I only put 5-6 films a year though it, Nikons and Rollei get used more.
It's not quality reasons though I guess its more use driven, portraits and landscapes 4x5 and MF casual photography 35mm.
thegman
Veteran
For me medium format relegated 35mm to my 'holiday' camera, i.e. snapshots and when I want higher volumes of shots. Otherwise, I could easily just stop using 35mm. There are great, modern medium format cameras every bit as compact and easy to shoot as a Leica, so unless I want a fast lens (almost never) or higher numbers of shots (only on vacation), then medium format is all I need.
furbs
Well-known
If I'm shooting something with a specific intention I'll use my Mamiya 7, but for day-to-day the Leica works well enough. It's a lot easier to shoot certain things with the smaller 35mm camera as well.
Oh, and where's the poll? 😉
Oh, and where's the poll? 😉
Ansel
Well-known
I use both. They each have their uses and benefits. So often things get stated as a shootout between one thing and another on the Internet, in forums such as this, but life isn't like that. Life is more like, this AND that... not this VS that...
swifty63
Fiat lux
I don't even have a 35mm camera, I only shoot 6x6 with a Mamiya 6. Wet printing on 12x16 paper, loving it!
furbs
Well-known
Honestly, the Mamiya 7 has tempted me more than any other camera to get back into wet printing. The resolution on those Mamiya rangefinder lenses is incredible.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Mablo
Well-known
I do like big negatives just as much as the next guy and my personal favourite camera must be a Rollei TLR but after a thoughtful self reflection I've decided to stick mainly with 35mm gear.
edge100
Well-known
This is precisely my experience. The Mamiya 7 is my "slow" camera, and the one I'll take if I know I might want to print the image very large. The Leica is my choice for everyday. As compact as the Mamiya is, it's still far larger than the Leica.
Lflex
Lflex
Expired - removed
craygc
Well-known
If you shoot film and scan and post-process images (time & storage), you soon learn that many shooting environments just make more sense with 35mm film. Yeah, those MF negs are wonderful and the results are great but if you need speed, volume, compactness, or even gritty results, 35mm works very well.
My main medium format cameras were/are Mamiya 7IIs, however, I recently picked up a mint Pentax 645N with a couple of lenses. Quality is a good step up from 35mm, and not that far under 6x7, delivers 16 frames on 120 film, has auto-focus and, as its not a system camera, is a little more compact than other 645 cameras.
My main medium format cameras were/are Mamiya 7IIs, however, I recently picked up a mint Pentax 645N with a couple of lenses. Quality is a good step up from 35mm, and not that far under 6x7, delivers 16 frames on 120 film, has auto-focus and, as its not a system camera, is a little more compact than other 645 cameras.
Turtle
Veteran
I love MF when it suits the goal. I love it considerably less when trying to work quickly, up close. Quality is great, but the image matters more and with documentary work I find anything involving moving people at less than about 20 feet is much better suited to 35mm due to DOF issues and fewer film changes.
thegman
Veteran
In terms of actual volume (i.e. how much water would it displace), a GF670 might be a touch larger than my Leica M3 + Summarit, but in terms of portability I think the GF670 folds up a bit smaller, and was easier to carry in the man bag. The Zeiss Super Ikonta was a lot smaller than my M3, but I guess that would not count as 'modern'. I expect a Plaubel Makina 67 or Bronica RF645 is comparable too, but I've never used those.
You could put a collapsible lens on the Leica to make it yet smaller though. From my own particular cameras though, the M3 + Summarit f/1.5 is not any smaller than a couple of a medium format cameras I've owned.
Cheers
Garry
