35mm vs Medium Fomat

wallace said:
I love those big square negatives from my Rolleicord, Autocord and Perkeo,
but I am frustrated by the results I get when scanning them with a flatbed scanner. That's why I continue to use 35mm cameras and an affordable film scanner....

Thomas

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47154683@N00/
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is the irony of MF film in 2013: extracting maximal detail is either impossible (flatbed), cumbersome (optical printing), or expensive (dedicated MF film scanner). For those of us using a flatbed for MF, the increase in resolution over a 35mm neg scanned with a decent (and affordable) 35mm film scanner isn't huge.

This has prompted me to consider selling my Mamiya 7 OR to buy a much better MF film scanning rig. What shall I do????
 
edge100 said:
Agreed. This is the irony of MF film in 2013: extracting maximal detail is either impossible (flatbed), cumbersome (optical printing), or expensive (dedicated MF film scanner). For those of us using a flatbed for MF, the increase in resolution over a 35mm neg scanned with a decent (and affordable) 35mm film scanner isn't huge.

This has prompted me to consider selling my Mamiya 7 OR to buy a much better MF film scanning rig. What shall I do????
Click to expand...

I have found that the resolution I can get out of a 6x7 negative on an Epson V700 is way beyond what I've ever seen out of 35mm. With the BetterScanning glass holders, I find the resolution plenty for me.
 
That's my experience too even the Epson Flatbed V500 with 120 is more detailed than any 35mm
So while the flatbed won't get maximum detail from a 120 neg is will (can) give enough resolution for nice sharp 12x16 size prints, you'll need low speed 35mm film and drum scans to outperform 120 from quite modest set-ups.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134564

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134564

i am really a 35mm person when i shoot film..
i actually have a love/hate relationship with my Rolleiflex!
i take forever to finish a roll.Yes 12 exposures.
i get hi rez scans and have a success rate that is almost unbelievable. Fabulous contacts that can be given as copies.
Size wise in volume not much bigger than a Leica.
Only accessories, a lens hood, a yellow filter for B/W.
A roll of film. That's it.Really portable.Full flash synch..
i was told when i began photography in late 60's to work with,
medium format. I thought i knew better.Uphill ride.
In my Studio it was Mamiya c models plus Rollei.
Later a Pentax 6x7 which i personally found too big and heavy.
If you have a chance to "try" a medium format, DO IT!
 
Photo_Smith said:
That's my experience too even the Epson Flatbed V500 with 120 is more detailed than any 35mm
So while the flatbed won't get maximum detail from a 120 neg is will (can) give enough resolution for nice sharp 12x16 size prints, you'll need low speed 35mm film and drum scans to outperform 120 from quite modest set-ups.
Click to expand...

I think Margus, in his excellent thread on drum scanning compares a drum scan to a flatbed (I think it was a V750), and while the drum scan was a lot sharper, I'm not 100% sure it actually picked up any more detail. The detail was clearer, certainly, but I'm not sure if the flatbed truly lost any information. Either way, it was still extremely high resolution, and if full frame DSLR is good enough, then I think medium format scanned on a flatbed is easily good enough.
 
thegman said:
I have found that the resolution I can get out of a 6x7 negative on an Epson V700 is way beyond what I've ever seen out of 35mm. With the BetterScanning glass holders, I find the resolution plenty for me.
Click to expand...

Agreed, when you're comparing flatbed 120 scans to flatbed 35mm scans.

That's not my point.

The Plustek 8100i gives me 3600 dpi of real resolution, while a V700 gives maybe 2000dpi. This, of course gives more resolution than the Plustek owing to the larger negative, but the difference is not huge. The ~2x larger linear dimensions of 6x7 are negated by the ~2x lower linear resolution.

There's still a difference, and I can see it even with an optimized 9000F. But the REAL difference is much larger than what the flatbed results suggest.

The proof is in the prints, of course. My MF prints are better than my 35mm prints (and a lot of that is down to the awesome mamiya 7 glass), but not overwhelmingly so (with the sole exception of grain visibility, which is far lower on MF).
 
edge100 said:
Agreed. This is the irony of MF film in 2013: extracting maximal detail is either impossible (flatbed), cumbersome (optical printing), or expensive (dedicated MF film scanner). For those of us using a flatbed for MF, the increase in resolution over a 35mm neg scanned with a decent (and affordable) 35mm film scanner isn't huge.

This has prompted me to consider selling my Mamiya 7 OR to buy a much better MF film scanning rig. What shall I do????
Click to expand...

Cheap, easy, quality - pick two...swifty63 isn't alone in enjoying those MF optical prints.
 
edge100 said:
Agreed, when you're comparing flatbed 120 scans to flatbed 35mm scans.

That's not my point.

The Plustek 8100i gives me 3600 dpi of real resolution, while a V700 gives maybe 2000dpi. This, of course gives more resolution than the Plustek owing to the larger negative, but the difference is not huge. The ~2x larger linear dimensions of 6x7 are negated by the ~2x lower linear resolution.

There's still a difference, and I can see it even with an optimized 9000F. But the REAL difference is much larger than what the flatbed results suggest.

The proof is in the prints, of course. My MF prints are better than my 35mm prints (and a lot of that is down to the awesome mamiya 7 glass), but not overwhelmingly so (with the sole exception of grain visibility, which is far lower on MF).
Click to expand...

I understand your point, I was comparing my V700 scanning 6x7, 6x6 and 6x9 negatives to my Canon FS4000US 35mm scanner. It's hard to quantify in numbers how much better the V700 was, but I was pretty blown away first time I saw it. My V700 was benefitted by BetterScanning ANR glass though.

Incidentally, my first medium format scans with the V700 were of shots taken with a Mamiya 7 too.
 
My experience too just a little V500 vs dedicated 35mm Minolta just no contest.
I can't quantify it either, not without doing test's but just from experience the flatbed with 120 trounces 35mm with any dedicated scanner I've used
 
35mm and MF are different tools I mostly use MF but for certain situation 35mm is the better choice. Incidently I often use MF cameras in photographic fields that are dominated by 35mm and vice versa. e.g Sports with MF and Landscape with 35mm
 
Photo_Smith said:
My experience too just a little V500 vs dedicated 35mm Minolta just no contest.
I can't quantify it either, not without doing test's but just from experience the flatbed with 120 trounces 35mm with any dedicated scanner I've used
Click to expand...

It may be down to the inherent differences of the larger format. DoF is certainly smaller for a given f/stop, and grain is much less apparent. I have an A3+ print of a MF Velvia 50 scan hanging in my office which is completely grainless, unless your nose is right against the glass. None of my 35mm Velvia scans have that level of low grain (and Velvia is a famously low-grain film).

So there are certainly benefits to MF, I'm not denying that. And I'm not getting rid of my Mamiya 7. If anything, I know that I do have that detail on my negatives and chromes, and it can be extracted if I'm willing to put in the work/expense. It's simply that the differences between 35mm vs 6x7 chrome scans, for instance, and the same images on a light table with a good loupe, there's no comparison; the MF scans are better than the 35mm scans, but the chromes themselves are MUCH better than 35mm. A lot is being left on the table, so to speak.
 
edge100 said:
It may be down to the inherent differences of the larger format. DoF is certainly smaller for a given f/stop, and grain is much less apparent. I have an A3+ print of a MF Velvia 50 scan hanging in my office which is completely grainless, unless your nose is right against the glass. None of my 35mm Velvia scans have that level of low grain (and Velvia is a famously low-grain film).

So there are certainly benefits to MF, I'm not denying that. And I'm not getting rid of my Mamiya 7. If anything, I know that I do have that detail on my negatives and chromes, and it can be extracted if I'm willing to put in the work/expense. It's simply that the differences between 35mm vs 6x7 chrome scans, for instance, and the same images on a light table with a good loupe, there's no comparison; the MF scans are better than the 35mm scans, but the chromes themselves are MUCH better than 35mm. A lot is being left on the table, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although I found the drum scan compared to V700 post:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2168479&postcount=9

I think the V700 acquits itself very well. The drum scan is clearer, without a doubt, but I'm not sure if it's actually picked up very much more detail at all. I mean, what detail can be made out on the drum scan, but not the V700? Like I say, the drum scan certainly looks better, but I don't think the V700 is as far behind as one might expect.
 
Ill take 135 over 120, thank you.

I found the vast majority of 120 cameras to be unpleasant things. I like the results, but none of the cameras themselves did it for me. And Ive had more MF "systems" than 35mm ones (so, a good handful of each).

Besides, I like the 35mm aesthetic. So when I feel like I want less grain and more sharpness, I just go all the way to 4x5.
 
FWIW, I do not think there are any 120 cameras out there as compact and easy to shoot as 35mm.

3.8x more film changes (6x7 has 10 frames, but my Leicas have 38 per roll).
With the lens extended, the 120 cameras are bigger and not as quick to use.
The 35mm cameras have much more DOF and easier to shoot quickly for zone focus work (by a mile when things come close).

Sure, there can be some overlap between systems, but I do not really regard one as a substitute for another. They compliment each other.

120 prints beautifully, but for a lot of subjects, resolution does not matter much and a 35mm camera still makes a stunning image out to 24" or even 30".
 
thegman said:
Perhaps, although I found the drum scan compared to V700 post:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2168479&postcount=9

I think the V700 acquits itself very well. The drum scan is clearer, without a doubt, but I'm not sure if it's actually picked up very much more detail at all. I mean, what detail can be made out on the drum scan, but not the V700? Like I say, the drum scan certainly looks better, but I don't think the V700 is as far behind as one might expect.
Click to expand...

The V700 scans are good, no question, but look at the detail in the trees and in the balconies on the buildings. The drum scan is clearly picking up more detail.

Now, whether it's picking up so much more detail to make a difference in anything but a billboard-sized print is a different question. There is clearly a range of output sizes for which different formats do not hold any advantage for one scanning method vs. another. For example, for a 600 x 400 pixel web image, a cheap flatbed and a drum scan will be identical. Eventually, the drum scan pulls away, but whether one needs the detail captured in a drum scan is another matter, too. My major output size is books and A3+ prints.

At book size, 35mm from my Plustek and MF from my 9000F are very, very similar, with the MF holding a VERY minor advantage, particularly in shadow detail from slides (negs are not an issue).

At A3+ size, the MF starts to pull ahead more convincingly, but again not as much as I would hope, or as much as the difference between the film on a light table. The biggest difference at this size is the absence of grain; 35mm scans of, say, Portra 400 are starting to show a good amount of grain, while MF scans are still grainless (partly because the 9000F can't resolve grain...).

Again, I'm not selling my Mamiya because I know that the film has the detail, and I can always go back and re-scan or print optically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jaredangle
Longevity: Makina 67 vs Fuji GF670/Bessa III
Replies
14
Views
397
TenEleven
TenEleven
S
Mamiya 6 vs Konica Pearl 3
Replies
11
Views
2K
Stargazer63
S
Murdoc1905
Fujica GL690 Panoramic conversion
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
shawn
S
WoodallP
Bangkok camera browsing suggestions requested
Replies
3
Views
141
WoodallP
WoodallP
A
The Quadrant Model of Gear vs Output
Replies
10
Views
920
Guth
G
Back
Top Bottom