Anybody gone fully from 35mm to 120?

P

Peter_S

Peter_S
Local time
4:30 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
847
Hi!
There was a discussion about this before, but I am curious about the current view on this. Has anybody gone more or less fully 120 from 35mm film?

I used a Leica M & Zeiss Sonnar so far. Not a bad combination at all, really, but I often wished I had larger negatives, less harsh in focus-oof-transitions and I never quite got over selling the Rolleiflex. The look and "feel" of the images what I had looked for, the handling unfortunately not so much.
So now I am using a GF670/Bessa III...and I am tempted to go, more or less, all 120. The negatives are just so much easier to work with, and using the camera and format is pure joy. I can use my favorite film, FP4+, without notable penalties in sharpness and resolution.

35mm Leicas feel harder and harder to justify in times of rising film prices and the advance of digital, and tie up a lot of money; also the little X2 and Contax T3 (here 35mm shines – the size-weight-film format ratio are perfect) do remarkable jobs at covering the spontaneous, every-day and quick side of my photography, in a very small sizes. Plus, the GF670 fits where the M6 + lens does not.
I plan to use MF for reportage/documentary, mainly portrait and environmental portraits, but also landscape and mountain photography - in the latter field it has fully convinced me already, there is no way back to 35mm. Even the scans from my Epson 4990 are so good- I cannot wait to see the Hasselblad scans.

Less images per roll may or may not a problem. I am mostly concerned about not being able to change films and hence ISO, but in reality I always have the Leica X2 and Contax T3 with me too (backups) and they can take care of that. My feeling at the moment is that 35mm is best with compacts (T3, T, etc) and extreme wide-angle (<=21mm).

In the end, I want to shoot less, use (and develop) less and get more...if that makes sense. I know this is individual, I am just curious if somebody has done the transition and how they feel about it.

Best,
Peter
 
I have not shot any 35mm since I replaced my too-heavy to carry Hasselblad system for a Mamiya 6 with its three lenses. The Mamiya 6 rangefinder is something I can carry everywhere and can easily handhold, so 35mm is kind of obsolete for me. The Mamiya blows away 35mm for image quality.
 
i do not know if i made a complete transition, but i did not shoot 35mm for a year now. My main camera.s are Contax 645, Hasselblad and Mamiya 7.
I already sold my Leica gear and invested it in Contax and Hasselblad.
I still have a Nikon F3 with 3 lenses but am consisering to sell it for a Contax T2 or T3, for the reasons you mention.

Since i shoot less with 120 i print all my pictures on fiber in the darkroom these days and skip the scanning. Getting my own enlarger this year for almost nothing was the best investment i made in a long time.
For darkroom printing i still think 35mm is valid, because you can get a very different look with it, but i will not go back to scanning 35mm.
 
I sold everything in 35!

Use a plaubel makina 670 and it is easy to carry fun to shoot and I love the negs and print them.

Sometimes I take a look at M7 bodys, so nice but in the end I wouldn´t use them so

Best
 
Even though I still use 35mm for macro, everyday snaps shots at gigs etc I have been using 120 and larger formats for years as primary tools.
It's not really (just) about image quality for me but more about the way of working.
I see you already have a Fuji 6x7, I had one of those also and never really felt it had the right feel. Mostly I use a pair of Rolleiflex cameras I like the square format and the WLF but if you like wide angle a Hassie superwide is a nice option.

I don't feel the need to give up 35mm though; all my cameras have purpose.
 
I use both 120 (Hasselblad) and 135 (Leica M6). I also regret selling my Rolleiflex 2.8f whiteface!! They are both essential.

Film prices have gone up lately but not prohibitively so. And in general I do not find film photography to more/less expensive than digital, but I much prefer the results from film particularly as I develop and print my own work. I love seeing my work printed and framed. A fine print has a beauty to behold that is unique to the medium.

If you want cheap then Aldi is cheaper than Waitrose but ....

At the end of the day if you are just wanting images for viewing on a computer then digital is very attractive and fast. The micro 4/3 cameras seem to have hit the sweet spot of late.
 
Hello and thanks to all for the good replies and opinions.
Film prices are one driving factor - but in the the sense that MF seems worth it, particularly when looking at digital FF or MF alternatives. The X2 hit the sweet spot for me, digital I am content.

I shoot with print (magazines mainly, single-double spreads) in mind - and here I found film to be the medium I can work with more easily (and enjoy more in general) even when using hybrid, and I think MF will be easier here than 35mm.

Oh well, no rush, but nevertheless a decision I want to make soon.
 
If you're shooting for publication, obviously MF is the ticket, but it's all a compromise. I love the look of my MF stuff. Tri-X w/ 120 is just gorgeous. However, I found that the type of photos I can get w/ 35mm are more important to me. Gave up using RF's because I like to shoot portraits, and it's better for me to see what the camera is seeing and have more accurate framing. A RF is fun for daily toting around because it's small and light, but something like a Nikon FG w/ a 50 and an 85 2.0 lens is lighter and possibly smaller than an M3 w/ just one lens, especially if it's a DR. So you'll have to weigh what type of photos you're after. If I shot a lot of landscapes it would be 120 film. For everything else I like a 35m SLR because I get shots, especially of people, that you're just not going to get w/ a MF camera.. The ability to change lenses quickly is a big plus as well. I'm shooting mainly Leica R glass on Nikons and it is pretty neat. I also only shoot B&W. If I shot color it would be different story and digital is fine for that. There, the choice is mainly RF or SLR. Don't forget, w/ 6x6 you only have 12 images on a roll, vs 36 w/ 35mm, so while you'll have your less-shooting thing covered, you'll also be developing more to get less images.
 
I still like 35mm for a lot of shots. But I got a Yashica 124 MAT G back in the 70s because I also felt the siren call of larger negatives. There is much to be said for them.

Just be careful. Now I like 6x6 folders, 6x9 folders, and 9x12 folders. :D
 
yes, it makes sense...

yes, it makes sense...

"In the end, I want to shoot less, use (and develop) less and get more...if that makes sense."

I feel in a similar position, my M7 is not used so much since a few month ago I started to photograph more and more with my (father's) Rolleiflex.

I do not make a point of image quality but I like the slower process. And similar to you I have always in my bag the Leica X1 for interiors with low or difficult light situation. It' seems me a good combination!

I do not feel having made a 100% transition (too many 35mm cameras?) but I like that way to photograph. Of course it depends as well on the kind of project I'm shooting for (even if I'm a pure amateur I prefer to work on projects).

Last week I entered in a good shop to evaluate in my hands two ineresting for me cameras: Fuji xe2 and Nikon DF: I went out with a beautiful Ikon Exakta 6x6 ;)

robert
 
I now use MF (6x9 and 6x6) almost exclusively for recreational (landscape, townscape, vintage equipment) photography. Digital compact point & shoot has taken over the family snapshots from 35mm. But I'm hanging on to the Rollei 35 and Ilford Advocate for the pleasure of them.
 
Very much completely 120 since I started with film again. The 135 is only used for a few specific camera's, a Viewmaster and a Fed Stereo. Otherwise it's only 120. Mostly because I don't have to fill 36 exposures before I see something of them. These days it can be hard to fill even 16 at an event.
 
I use 35mm for the convenience and the lens speed. I love my Mamiya 7, but at f/4 at its fastest, I'd have to push every film by 3 stops to get the same shutter speed as f/1.4 on my MP. That negates the advantage of the larger negative. I have f/2.8 glass on my Hasselblad, but that's a much different shooting experience than either the Mamiya 7 or the Leica.

That said, when light is adequate, I bring out the Mamiya or the Hasselblad preferentially over the Leica.
 
I would say 90% 120 !

I still enjoy shooting expired film on old 35mm cameras just for fun ! It has a certain look and charm ! It's so cheap so why not !
 
The shots I just got back from my Mamiya 645 w/ T-Max 400 made me wish it was all I shot. The 45mm lens that I bought here just blew me away. It is just too damn big to carry around all the time. And my IIIf is just fun to work with. Everything has a place in my photo world.
 
I started with analogue photography with a 4x5" camera (which I do not have anymore), but I mostly shoot 6x6 (now Mamiya 6). I did try 35mm (Konica S3, Bessa R3A, Zeiss ZM) and while it was fun it did not suit the photography I like doing most.

120 is no complete replacement for 35 though - low light is where 35mm shines - as well as the portability. But I rather use digital in those situations.

For the future it will be for me: 120 + digital mirroless (right now Nikon V1)

I do have Xpan since recently, but that is a bit different story.
 
Thanks again - seems like several went down this path. I will always carry a smaller 35mm as backup (T3 or Minilux), so some of the 35mm convenience would still remain. I guess best will be to attemp one project with MF, and then see. Indeed my concern is low light.
@Robert: Yes, a while ago in Tokyo I went to a Fuji store to check out the then new X-Pro 1, and almost walked out with the GF670...had I had more money at the time.
 
I really don't consider it is an either/or prospect for me concerning 120 format versus 35mm. Obviously better photo quality can be achieved via the 120...but sometimes I enjoy getting out there with my Zeiss Ikon ZM.
 
I've gone back and forth with formats over the years. Using the Ilford 3200ISO film in the Fuji 6x9 cameras is very liberating because then you can shoot a large negative with an overgrown Leica style camera. But I've also circled back to manual 35mm cameras after using compact point and shoots a lot because with the P&S you tend to shoot too quickly and not understand what you're doing, whereas with a manual SLR or Leica you slow down and think more.

But I do a lot of large format and digital as well. I think I'll almost choose a camera based on how the shooting pace needs to be, and often you want to slow things down. After all, if you wanted to shoot very quickly and with reliable automation then you'd use something like a Nikon F5 or a pro DSLR like a D3s and you'd be able to do 100s of photos in a few seconds. There is a place for that kind of shooting too... simply shooting children playing is very similar to high caliber action sports, you do better with a fast camera and sometimes "spray and pray" works better than careful consideration.

There have been times that I either sold or put away gear and forced myself to use only one camera/lens for a period of months and that works very well for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom