Bill Clark
Veteran
I have done the reverse.
Gone from 120 to 35mm!
Gone from 120 to 35mm!
Noll
Well-known
A couple years ago I was going that direction but a had a few realizations along the way.
In terms of overall IQ I am far more scanner-limited (Epson V500) than negative-size limited. Especially with B&W film, there is more detail there than I'd ever thought. I find it easier to use a macro lens and digital camera to scan 35mm than 120 on a flatbed. Below is a cheap 35mm film (Arista Edu 100), camera-scanned somewhere around 5000-6000 dpi and a 100% crop:
This is more detail than I could pull off with my V500 on a 6x6 cm negative, and I suspect might compare well to the output from a Monochrom
. Of course, if I did the same procedure on a 120 neg, stitching 8 images together, I'd be looking at potential for wall-sized prints (but that's not nearly as easy to pull off).
I use MF for when I want to be really "serious" - especially with color, but quite often the quality of 35mm is more than good enough, cost is lower, and more convenient than MF. How many 24" x 36" prints are we all making anyway?
In terms of overall IQ I am far more scanner-limited (Epson V500) than negative-size limited. Especially with B&W film, there is more detail there than I'd ever thought. I find it easier to use a macro lens and digital camera to scan 35mm than 120 on a flatbed. Below is a cheap 35mm film (Arista Edu 100), camera-scanned somewhere around 5000-6000 dpi and a 100% crop:
This is more detail than I could pull off with my V500 on a 6x6 cm negative, and I suspect might compare well to the output from a Monochrom
. Of course, if I did the same procedure on a 120 neg, stitching 8 images together, I'd be looking at potential for wall-sized prints (but that's not nearly as easy to pull off). I use MF for when I want to be really "serious" - especially with color, but quite often the quality of 35mm is more than good enough, cost is lower, and more convenient than MF. How many 24" x 36" prints are we all making anyway?
hamradio
Well-known
I'm now finding myself moving away from my medium format gear, to a 4x5 setup.
A slippery slope, it is.
A slippery slope, it is.
hamradio
Well-known
A couple years ago I was going that direction but a had a few realizations along the way.
In terms of overall IQ I am far more scanner-limited (Epson V500) than negative-size limited. Especially with B&W film, there is more detail there than I'd ever thought. I find it easier to use a macro lens and digital camera to scan 35mm than 120 on a flatbed. Below is a cheap 35mm film (Arista Edu 100), camera-scanned somewhere around 5000-6000 dpi and a 100% crop:
What exactly is the rig you're using? A piece of frosted glass behind the negative, a strobe of some sort firing behind the glass, and a DSLR with macro lens? This seems like it may be a decent option in my quest for 35mm scanning that isn't crap; the results from my Epson 4490 flatbed on 35mm are frustrating at best.
Noll
Well-known
I posted about my setup in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133031
One thing I didn't mention there is that it's crucial to use a small mirror to be used during setup to make sure that the camera sensor is parallel to the film. It works great to align the center of the lens in the center of the viewfinder.
Markus
Established
Interesting to mention digital cameras: In the past years I got a camera with 36x24mm sensor and I would say that the ImageQuality concerning image resolution is on a comparable level. So with film I moved to 120 and digital I moved to 35mm
besk
Well-known
I love MF, 4X5, and 5X7 but have found that I am more likely to have a compact 35mm camera with me when a photographic occasion arises. My usual camera of choice is a Leica IIIf.
Going out to specifically take photos is another matter - then it is almost always a 4X5. Medium format is inbetween.
So, for me at least, it is a matter of convenience. I just can't give up 35mm.
Going out to specifically take photos is another matter - then it is almost always a 4X5. Medium format is inbetween.
So, for me at least, it is a matter of convenience. I just can't give up 35mm.
Last edited:
sircarl
Well-known
I started using a Rolleiflex more and more over the past five years, have added a Bronica SQ since then. I love the square format and the negs, and for the candid street photography I like to do, the Rollei is a perfect stealth camera. In the end my Leica R gear was just sitting on the shelf most of the time, so I sold it on eBay last month (at a surprisingly good price). Whenever I need a smaller format camera in the future, my Leica IIIf should do the trick, and I just bought a digital Panasonic G6 as well to cover all the bases.
besk
Well-known
I also have a Rolleiflex and have considered it as my carry camera in the past. It is easy to have with you all the time. And faster to put into play than folding MF cameras. Maybe I should also consider carrying it.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Thanks again for the additional input into this discussion. I ended up with a compromise:
I switched to RF medium format as my main film camera, and carry a small film or digital "P&S" (Contax T3 - sooo good yet so small and Leica X2 - ibid) alongside it, for 35mm FOV, AF, ISO flexibility (not being able to switch film I find to be the main drawback with MF, particularly when travelling) and spontaneous work. That gives me large flexibility with small overall size.
There is also the G1 and 21mm in my arsenal - I leave that for dedicated wide angle work. I am hesitant to use MF here, because I use WA for dynamic work and the aspect ratio of 135 works better here for me...and that lens is just so good with unreal resolution.
Thanks again!
Peter
I switched to RF medium format as my main film camera, and carry a small film or digital "P&S" (Contax T3 - sooo good yet so small and Leica X2 - ibid) alongside it, for 35mm FOV, AF, ISO flexibility (not being able to switch film I find to be the main drawback with MF, particularly when travelling) and spontaneous work. That gives me large flexibility with small overall size.
There is also the G1 and 21mm in my arsenal - I leave that for dedicated wide angle work. I am hesitant to use MF here, because I use WA for dynamic work and the aspect ratio of 135 works better here for me...and that lens is just so good with unreal resolution.
Thanks again!
Peter
GarageBoy
Well-known
I'd like to get into MF more
After seeing MF slides, 35mm slides make me go "that's it!?"
I do love 35mm fast handling
Quick follow up shots, not worry about reloading
After seeing MF slides, 35mm slides make me go "that's it!?"
I do love 35mm fast handling
Quick follow up shots, not worry about reloading
DrTebi
Slide Lover
I agree, projected medium format slides are stunning.
The only problem is, that projecting anything larger than 6x6 can become very expensive and/or cumbersome.
Which, however, did not stop me from trying
If you stick with 6x6, it doesn't have to be expensive. The Rollei P66 is quite good. And after I replaced the stock lens of mine with a Schneider-Kreuznach 150mm 2.8 HFT AV Xenotar, heaven opened its doors!
mwoenv
Well-known
Why give up any format? MF and 35mm each have strengths - medium format is better for detail and making larger prints but not as good for telephoto work, taking lots of images, and weight to be lugged. It's nice to use both, depending on the situation.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I have mostly gone the reverse, from 120 to 35mm.
The 120 medium format cameras I own are pretty large. 35mm cameras much smaller and more easily taken along where ever I go. I can use a small bag for what I need when making photos with 35mm. And haven't yet gotten scrutinized by the TSA with my 35mm stuff.
For the size prints I make 35mm works fine, especially when using the modern day T-grain films like TMX 100/Delta 100 or regular slow speed film like Pan F plus.
Truth be known, if I need to make large prints I have digital with full frame sensor.
My 2 cents! Or maybe it's only 1 cent!
The 120 medium format cameras I own are pretty large. 35mm cameras much smaller and more easily taken along where ever I go. I can use a small bag for what I need when making photos with 35mm. And haven't yet gotten scrutinized by the TSA with my 35mm stuff.
For the size prints I make 35mm works fine, especially when using the modern day T-grain films like TMX 100/Delta 100 or regular slow speed film like Pan F plus.
Truth be known, if I need to make large prints I have digital with full frame sensor.
My 2 cents! Or maybe it's only 1 cent!
Red9Dwarf
Red Dwarf
I just sold my Linhof technical IV 4x5 3 lens system camera so that I could concentrate on 120. Mamiya 7 is my new landscape and travel cam! Zeiss Super Ikonta IV is my daily shooter & carry cam. But I still carry my Retina IIIc loaded with different film! Both use the same MXV Synchro Compur shutter with EV exposure setting which I prefer! Well I always have my Contax T in my pocket for backup! But I sold twelve 135 cameras on fleabag last month, so I'm cutting down really I am!
NY_Dan
Well-known
For film I'm mostly all 120. I do like 35mm a lot -- the problem is I can only carry so much, there is only so much time to shoot, and scanning 120 is easier and yields bigger files. Also, 120 is easier to handle in terms of loading on a reel -- and knowing I have less exposures, makes me edit more before shooting.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Until twenty-plus years ago my professional work was mainly with 5x4 inch (MPP) and 120 (Rollei, Hasselblad). My personal work was - and is - entirely 35mm (principally Leica).
With decent 120 cameras now so available and reasonable I have just bought a Rollei 6008 Integral after having tried out a 6006.
35mm with my Leica will always remain something really special for me... a film M is the one camera I feel in tune with, but I’m going to enjoy time with a 120 once again.
With decent 120 cameras now so available and reasonable I have just bought a Rollei 6008 Integral after having tried out a 6006.
35mm with my Leica will always remain something really special for me... a film M is the one camera I feel in tune with, but I’m going to enjoy time with a 120 once again.
Prest_400
Multiformat
For 5 years I wanted to go MF, and finally do with a Fuji 6x9.
I never got myself much into 35mm, with just an OM1 and a 3 lens kit. Did want to decomission it for a while, but the last roll I shot (Portra 400) was quite sweet. I still have frozen elitechrome, so probably will use it for side projects.
I'm moving a bit away from digital, leaving just the phone for that and towards film for my personal photography.
Then the issue with 120 is that it is costly! I do shoot slower so it compensates it. What I didn't quite like of 35mm was the 36exp which ended being too much for me.
I never got myself much into 35mm, with just an OM1 and a 3 lens kit. Did want to decomission it for a while, but the last roll I shot (Portra 400) was quite sweet. I still have frozen elitechrome, so probably will use it for side projects.
I'm moving a bit away from digital, leaving just the phone for that and towards film for my personal photography.
Then the issue with 120 is that it is costly! I do shoot slower so it compensates it. What I didn't quite like of 35mm was the 36exp which ended being too much for me.