Anybody gone fully from 35mm to 120?

I prefer 120 and gave up 35mm few times.
I see myself going back to 35mm rangefinders for portability end spontaneity of use.
I like to keep a camera in my bag all the time. Even Oly XA is fine.
I am now considering a small 6x4.5 folder for that use instead of a 35mm.
 
@Ansel
I have too many, but lately I have found some joy shooting very compact cameras - Bessa R4A or Pentax ME Super.
 
In the late 1960s I sold all of my 35mm gear and went totally MF. First with the Kowa Six. I traded the Kowa in for a Mamiya RB67. I used the RB67 for a number of years. Magnificent camera but very large and heavy. I also started some 4x5 work during that time. After carrying the RB67 around for weddings and places like Yellowstone, I sold it and the 4x5 in 1973. I purchased a Nikon F2 which became my primary camera. I later found a used C330 that was eventually destroyed in an accident. I do miss the larger size of MF now and then. I have been able to resist MF GAS. Truth be told, I don't think I will ever own any MF gear again.

Mike
 
@ Phil F NM : interesting explanation, thanks. When I shoot my Rolleiflex I see a difference in the print compared to similar photo shot with a 35mm camera but I was not able to explain it in a rational way. Your post gives me a more exact view on it. Time now to try the toy that Santa brought me a few days ago: a Zeiss Ikonta!
robert
 
I'm now down to one 35mm camera, that I'm keeping for sentimental reasons only !

There is only one way I would go back to 35mm film photography, wich is finding a great deal on a Pakon F135 scanner !
 
It was only 35mm until I switched to digital, something that came somewhat late in the game for me. After a few years of shooting digital, I'm now shooting mostly medium format film.There are applications for which I like 35mm or the Sigma DP3M. I don't have a difficult time envisioning travelling only with 120 equipment, however. I'll have a wet darkroom set up for black and white in about a month, and at that point I may well just use 120 for a while and see how it goes.
 
Last edited:
MF and LF years now for personal...

MF and LF years now for personal...

I'll keep this short which will surprise everyone who's read my posts Before.

I quit shooting 135 about fifteen years ago to go MF, all formats.

Only 135 film I have purchased, has been to test 35mm camera's I buy to sell on eBay. Been doing that for 15 years now with great results.

Have done digital over the last 10 years about 25% of my personal shooting.

Just sold the last digital I hope to own, and shipped it away three days ago.

Have two Travelwide 4X5's coming from the Kickstarter project this last year.

Shoot personally Fujica GL 690 6X9

Would consider going back to 135 like going to half frame, or 16mm/8mm spy cams.
 
My first film-Camera was a EOS 3, because I use the EOS-System and thought it would be a good a idea to get a fullframe camera. My digital camera at that point a was APS-C-based camera. After a few rolls, I sold it. Than I got a ZEISS NETTAR 6x6 folder. After developing the first roll I started loving MF. Since the ZEISS NETTAR has no light metering or focussing-system I wanted to have a camera that included all this. The Contax 645 found its away to me with 3 lenses: 35mm, 80mm and 140mm. At this point, I learned a lot more about photography and stopped worrying about ISO and so on. At this time I got my tripod and loaded with Velvia 100F this camera was fun - I think it was the best SLR I ever owned. During the Photokina 2012 I played a lot with Linhofs and Sinars and all the GF-stuff and soon I decided to go for a larger format. But this decision was difficult and as a result I sold my Contax 645 and got a Mamiya 7 with again three lenses: 43mm, 50mm, 80mm. I'm addicted to 21mm in Smallformat or 90° of view. The Mamiya 7 is not as advanced as the Contax 645 is, but it has a larger format and good (excellent) image quality.

The decision to switch to 120 was pretty easy for me. 120 gives me a lot more image quality. The size and weight of my equipment negligible for me.
Keeping in mind, that one roll of 135 Provia 100F costs 10.70€, one roll of 120 Provia 100F about 6€, a pack of 5 rolls 29.50€. I usually buy packs of 5 rolls.
With my Mamiya 7 I get 10 shots per roll. You could say, that 10 shots is few compared to 36 shots on 135, but in landscape photography 10 shots is just enough for one scene including some exposure compensations. So I can finish my work on one scene and change rolls more often and this lets me change my setup for each scene. With 135 and 36 shots the film remains much longer in the camera.

So 120 is not cheaper in the costs/image ratio but in the costs/area ratio. Im also more capable of dealing with the lesser number of shots.

EDIT: My only 135 camera is a Contax G2. I won't sell it because for me it is a unique camera. I wish Canon would learn a few things from this camera, especially looking at the EOS M
 
J. Borger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a T3 always in my backpack. The negatives are indistinguishable from those obtained with the Nikkor. a bit 'sharper. my favorite is a MF 3.5 f.
 
Re: 35mm vs 120

Re: 35mm vs 120

I sold my Leica M2 and M6 because all that I was using was my Mamiya M6 and Rolleiflex 3.5F. I keep a Retina IIIc for special occasions, but when I want the best, most portable handheld image possible, nothing compares to medium format. The Leicas were wonderful machines, but I do not miss them.
 
Planning

Planning

My photography challenge this year will be - less digital and more YashicaMat 124G and Rolleicord!
 
Not yet. I use Olympus OM, Olympus 35SP rangefinder, Nikon FM3a, Nikon FE2, and Mamiya 6. The Mamiya unquestionably gives better image quality, but I still use 35mm more because most of my photos are candids where speed is important, or require more than 12 shots at a time, or require long lenses. If 220 film were more available, the 24 shots available would be more convenient. The Mamiya gets used for landscapes and setup shots.
 
I will be going (also) MF soon. I have lots of 120 film (slide) in the freezer and a scanner that can handle this format but just can't find any decent Mamiya 6 here in Europe. Really annoying. I've considered Hasselblad and Rollei but want RF for now.
 
I truly enjoy shooting medium format but I could never see me abandoning 35mm. There are too many awesome films to use and too many great cameras and lenses to use.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138779

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138779

I see things very differently.
I did pro photography, mainly newspapers, magazines.
I also did Fashion, Publicity and Advertising.
I moved to the streets, to record a nation in transition.
History was happening! I needed 35mm.
I was often given Assignments not because I made the best prints,
the most detailed or best tonal range.
I made dynamic, exciting images.
120 Film is sedentary.
The quality is there. In bucket loads.
135mm is superb for capturing moments and movement.
Digital easily replaces both, again my opinion.
Peter S has shown some really nice stuff with an X2.
Getting a hernia carrying MF or huge white lenses, is not needed.
I am retired. I can no longer carry a Mamiya RB/RZ rig and lenses.
My Pentax 6x7 with a few lenses had a bag, i almost could sleep in, if emptied.
My Leica-M is still used regularly.
My main camera, used everyday and on the few gigs, a Point and Shoot digital.
Oh! I still have a Rollei Automat.It has film in it.
Another few more months, I will have finished the roll!
 
I have a lot of 120 gear and love it, am trying to get a 4x5 point and shoot rig together between kids and jobs. Love the bigger negatives, BUT---

I have laid in a large supply of Panatomic-X film, mostly in 135 format. The experience of shooting this film-- my choice for greatest consumer product ever-- will keep me on 135 till it is all gone. FX135 + Olympus XA is an unbeatable combination for its physical size to image quality ratio.

It's also the best 125 asa film I've ever used when pushed 2 stops. Gonna try 250 and see what happens.

A guy on another forum said that when he ran out of FX135, he had to go to 4x5 to get the quality he wanted. I agree.

--nosmok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom