After shooting MF for a couple weeks, does shooting 35mm seem silly?

[Vickko]

After shooting MF for a couple weeks, does shooting 35mm seem silly?

Such tiny negatives, how can you possibly get a decent image off of that?

I had a Leica CL out today. Felt like a toy, after shooting a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex for the last two weeks.

And you know what, shooting a waist level finder would have made more sense today, since I was shooting my son at his play group. So much easier to "get down to his level" with a Rollei. And the Rollei would have been appropriately non-distracting (compared to the sound of a Hasselblad).

And lens speed wouldn't have made much difference either, f2.8 for the Rollei compared to f2 for the CL. The Rollei don't shake 🙂

 

[craygc]

Depends what you shoot... I have that same thought intermittently after developing a roll of 120 then realise that for a lot of fast, candid, documentary styles of shooting, MF cameras are just not (operationally) fast enough and nor are there enough frames on a roll. And, for 'reasonable' size prints 135 negs are fine... I often like to carry both formats and then be very selective about what I feel is going to be worth putting on the large neg.

 

[Bingley]

I've been shooting a lot recently with my "new" (to me) Rolleicord III, and reveling in the glory of 120 negatives. But this evening I'm scanning some TMax 100 that I shot over the weekend w/ my M2 and a couple of lenses, and I'm thinking ya know that's not bad either.

 

[maddoc]

120 for portraits and 135 for anything labeled "documentary" does it quite well for me.... 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

Actually it can be the other way 'round, depending. 🙂

 

[jan normandale]

I prefer MF to 135 because I want prints minimum of 8/10. With 135 I shoot knowing that 8/10 is my maximum print. So for a magazine article, family printed 4/6 photos .. I haul out the 135. Everything else MF, except when it's LF.

How about MF after shooting a couple of 4/5's..... ;D

 

[matt_mcg2]

Medium format, particularly in a TLR, is the sweet-spot for me. I've tried 5x4 and it's not for me. I have some great 35mm cameras, and they take decent pictures, but for compact all-in-one performance, it's a Rollei, every time. I suppose I shoot about 60% Rollei, 40% various 35mm cameras or digital.

I do miss having access to longer (50 - 135mm 35mm equivalent) lenses on MF as I don't currently have a medium format SLR, and sometimes I want a camera I can put in a jacket pocket, but for everything else, Rollei + 120 is perfect.

 

[Vics]

I spent some time with my Rollei last week, and looking at the prints I was pretty blown away. After looking at those beautiful prints for a couple of days, those pictures just looked kind of lifeless to me. Now I'm back to my M3 and looking for some action!

 

[mfogiel]

There is an advantage in image quality with MF cameras, and it is an obvious advantage, but for many types of photography 35mm is just good enough, and often it can get you the types of photos that MF would not be able to get. Shooting with a film like APX 100 or Acros, you can easily get 30x50cm prints that look beautiful, and a hint of grain can actually make them prettier.

 

[thegman]

For me, kind of. But I know it's in my head. You can find example online of 35mm film showing at least as good resolution as a 20MP full frame DSLR at low ISO. Portra 400 may not be quite that good, but it's close. But none of us would consider a full frame DSLR silly, well maybe we would.

But I know when I first shot medium format (Mamiya 7), I knew 35mm would have trouble justifying it's place for me. I don't shoot enough for 12 vs. 36 shots to be an issue, I don't need fast lenses, and I don't need speed. I do need portable, but my Super Ikonta is smaller than my Leica M3.

As it's turned out, I'm selling all my 35mm gear to purely go medium format, and maybe large format if I feel I have the time.

I know it's in my head more than anything, but medium format just feels more right for me now.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I enjoy using different formats; currently I use everything from 9x11mm (Minox) to 58x85mm (Zeiss Ikonta). Different approaches provide different results, which I enjoy.

 

[ssmc]

Nope - horses for courses.

Of course there is a very definite image quality benefit to MF but so many kinds of photos don't really benefit from the extra resolution, or need more frames between roll changes, or more fps, or longer lenses, or less weight/size... you get the idea.

I have to admit that there is a certain form of "specialness" (I know that's probably not a word) that I feel when I shoot MF - you only get 8-16 shots per roll, they all cost $$$, so you better make 'em all count! And you *know* you'll see stuff in the results that just wasn't visible to the eye when you took the shot.

However, when I need to shoot rocket launches, it's out with the 7D + 135/2L, blasting away at 8fps until the buffer is full! (I know this is not a 35mm setup but you could get similar results with an EOS 1V, power booster and a 200mm lens).

When hiking with a fast-moving group who aren't really "into" photography, in difficult terrain, it'd have to be 35mm if I was shooting film (e.g. B&W) - there just aren't enough shots on a roll of 120 and it's much easier and faster to change 35mm. Plus, scrambling around rocks requires (for me) as compact and light a setup as possible to get the weight close to my body, so 35mm wins again.

But, you can't deny the "look" of MF...

Wait, where was I going again? 😉

 

[SakamakuAme]

I carry Mamiya 7 and 35mm P&S. I love both cameras, since they take very different pictures.

I personally consider all 135 (includes Leica) as lovely low fi cameras ( it does not mean all 135 are not serious cameras).

 

[jsrockit]

Such tiny negatives, how can you possibly get a decent image off of that?

Luckily we have 80 years of 35mm history to tell us that it is possible to get a decent image from this format.

 

[zuiko85]

You think 24X36mm is small? I shoot 35mm half frame! Now that is small.

But yeah, I agree, 6X6 is nice, you can even see the contact print without too much strain. I guess it is just a size and weight issue with me. I also like the easy close up with my 35mm SLR. Can't get that with my Yashica D.

I also don't print too large with my 35mm full frame, usually 6X9 inch on 8X10 paper. With my half frame I stick to 6X8 inch on 8X10 paper.

 

[Damaso]

You could say the same after shooting 4x5 or 8x10, no? I find these arguments silly. I've made 30x40" prints from 35mm tri-x that looked fine - to me. If you are a grain snob go for medium or large format but the history of photography is replete with "good" prints made from 35mm.

 

[bsdunek]

I use everything from my Minox to my Mamiya Press 23. I do love to enlarge those 2X3 negatives, but also enjoy the challange of the Minox or 110 negatives. Depends on what the situation is. To me, nothing is silly (well, maybe if you want to do wall murals from the Minox)

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

well, maybe if you want to do wall murals from the Minox

I'll bet someone has! 😀

 

[filmfan]

For some subjects, I have found that i prefer the look of 35mm film when printing 11x14 and 16x20 in the darkroom over 6x7.

 

[zuiko85]

You could say the same after shooting 4x5 or 8x10, no? I find these arguments silly. I've made 30x40" prints from 35mm tri-x that looked fine - to me. If you are a grain snob go for medium or large format but the history of photography is replete with "good" prints made from 35mm.

Make as big a print as you want or can with 35mm. I don't think this is just about 'how big can you print?' Kodak made 30 foot transparency's from 35mm Kodachromes. they were stunning viewed from 75 feet away. But for the rest of us it is easier to get more information from a bigger 6X6 negative. That and a smoother tonality. As for grain, well I have nothing against grainy, gritty reportage shots. Capa's D-Day landings coverage being a good case in point.