Forsaking 35mm for MF?

[Roman]

Well, I started out with 35mm (first a Zorki 4, then a Pentax SLR, which quickly turned into a few Pentax-SLRs, then a Konica C35, which multiplied into a few 1970s RFs, then a Zorki 6, which multiplied - you guessed it - into a few FSU RFs).
Then I got my first YashicaMat, and was instantly hooked on medium format - so much more detail, so much finer gradations, so much easier to print in the wet darkroom. Over the years I got a few MF folders, and Pentacon Six and Kiev 60 bodies and lenses for them. When I finally got fed up with lugging those heavy metal beasts up and down mountain slopes (I was still doing 90% landscape photography at that time), and had some spare money, I got a full Mamiya 645 system.
A few months after that, I kind of started losing interest in landscapes though, and started working more and more with my Kiev rangefinders; finally got fed up with their viewfinders, and got a Bessa R, and through looking for info on that, I found RFF, and it has been downhill ever since - now I own 2 Leicas (CL, M2), a bunch of lenses for those, and heaven't been using the Mamiya 645 Super for 8 or 9 months.
I recently kinda rediscovered MF through my TLRs, and got a Rolleiflex 3.5 C, when I saw a really inexpensive one.
Now, I like to use them both; I love the square 6x6 format for its harmony and balance, and love to use TLRs for city walks, taking pics of light & shadow, details of stuff, etc. I love the print quality I get from that big negs, love peoples' positive reactions to the camera, I love WLF viewing and composing on that big matte screen.
And I also love using my RFs - when the light is getting dimmer, or indoors in artificial (low) light, where due to quasi-lower DOF and lack of fast films in 120 size, the TLRs are not that practical to use without flash; and I love the RFs when I need a wide-angle (rarely) or short tele (quite often) perspective. And of course, the CL is so much more convenient to drop into a bag or jacket pocket than the Rolleiflex, for non-photographic outings.

I'd say, it is not a decision between either MF or 35mm, I like to have both options available for their specific qualities.

Roman

 

[Solinar]

The funny thing about TLR's is 1.) with exception of the Mamiya C33, they are rather light-weight for their size and 2.) as Roman mentioned, people are pretty forgiving of them. Many folks have forgotten how capable they are and therefore don't take them too seriously..

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I went on a MF buying/shooting spree recently, in the last year I've bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F, Rolleiflex 2.8E, YashicaMat 124G, Iskra and I alread had a Hassy and Yashica 635 TLR.

Untill recently I hadn't used my Leicas or other RF's for a while. I dug out my M4-P the other day, I was amazed at how light and portable, quick to focus and a joy to use it was.

I agree with the others, pack the 35mm stuff away for a while, use the MF and when you need the 35mm it'll be there. You never know, they might even re-kindle some old flames next time you use 'em.

Todd

 

[CZeni]

The first time I saw a 6x7 negative I was stunned. When I saw a 6x7 'chrome I *knew* I was in trouble...or I should say my Nikon kit was in trouble. I then tried to do it on the cheap - folders, an old Yashicamat, etc. I then tried and bought a early Pentax 6x7 - great camera but the finder was not eyeglass friendly. A buddy showed me a Koni-Omega - rangefinder! With nice eyeglass friendly finder! Great glass! Easy to load! The backs are a bit wonky, but otherwise great! I accumlated about a half dozen of the things - they're cheap enough so why not? Even ended up with Dante Stella's Omegaflex which soon became my favorite MF camera.

Then the local shop got in a Pentax 67-II. Better finder than the old 67, a real built-in useful meter, and that same great Pentax glass. And the digital onslaught has driven the prices down to merely high ($1200) vs astronomical ($2200 a couple of years ago). I bit. I love it. Easy to handle, reliable film transport, a meter for the lazy fool in me. And medium format! A good scan of a MF negative yields butter smooth images. I use it a LOT.

And my Nikon SLR kit? The hoarder in me keeps it; uses it for shooting action...no point in selling it as it won't pull any real money now. I use my 35mm rangefinders for shooting in low light (most of my shooting, actually) but the big Pentax and its big negatives rule. Frankly, if I had a darkroom I'd probably go 4x5...

 

[DougK]

Wow, I never expected this much feedback from my question. Thank you all for your thoughtful responses, it really helps to get opinions from others who've been this way before.

After quite a bit of reflection (and reading), keeping my fingers in multiple formats sounds like the best plan. I think I'll at least try to reduce the amount of gear I have in each format to what I actually use on a regular basis, so for those of you who were hoping for a massive garage sale, I may still post a few items.

Oh and david b, you REALLY didn't have to tempt me with the XPan II. I'd been doing quite well on avoiding GAS attacks lately, thank you very much, until you mentioned that camera... then I immediately started counting my pennies 🙂.

 

[david b]

Sorry about that Doug. But I think the Xpan is a truly amazing camera. 35mm when you want and medium format when you want. Too bad I sold my "Xpan I" this morning. I would have given you a sweet deal.

No matter, you really should consider the camera.

 

[DougK]

That's OK, it doesn't usually take much to start me drooling over gear.

 

[sf]

my two cents

my two cents

in categories:

645 manual focus : Mamiya 645E, hands down.
645 AF : Contax 645 hands down, Pentax 645nII if you want low cost (the pentax
does not have removable backs though, which is a major sacrifice)
6x6 SLR : Hasselblad, small, durable - but buy a metering prism finder
6x6 RF : Mamiya 6 or Fuji 645zi
6x7 SLR : Mamiya RZ (really bulky, heavy, loud - but have revolving backs - nice)
6x7 SLR : Pentax 67 : yikes - really heavy, loud, bulky. Not worth it. Tough as nails.
6x7 RF : Mamiya 7 series, Plaubel Makina is better built
6x9 : Fuji 6x9 Rangefinders - no metering, difficult focusing, huge, not worth it.

Bottom line : buy a Mamiya 645E if you want low cost SLR, great optics and manual focus is OK. Buy the Mamiya 6 if you want the RF.

Buy the Contax 645 if you want AF SLR.

Buy the Mamiya 7II if you want a rangefinder with big negatives.

 

[DougK]

Shooting landscapes with my GA645 a couple of weeks back was what sparked this whole issue in my mind. Not having interchangable backs really doesn't bother me all that much. I've also toyed with the idea of trading in my MF gear and some 35mm stuff I don't use for a field camera for my "serious" landscape and then stay with 35mm for general.

So many options... it's wonderful and daunting at the same time.

Right now my camera fund is near zero so the whole question will remain somewhat academic for a little while but again I thank you all for your valuable advice, I've definitely got a lot to ponder.

 

[Iskra 2]

Cameras are sorta like golf clubs aren't they? 🙂 You always can use another club(camera) for a certain shot...... and if it is logical to have a bag full of clubs for the golf course, then a bag full of cameras is OK. Right? 😀

My first 6x7 was an old RB which is a handfull to carry around. Then I picked up an Iskra 2. Big difference in portability. Try an MF folder and see how it fits in your "bag". 😎

Don't be surprised if there's a 4x5 in your future. Big negatives are addictive. :angel:

 

[varjag]

I actually skipped the 4x5" part, going now straight to metric 13x18. It's just so much cheaper here; plus, I found a 19cm x 120m spool of aerial film to cut sheets from 🙂

Medium format is a good compromise, and I love shooting it myself. OTOH all justifications of MF over 35mm apply to large format as well: smoother tones, lesser grain, bigger enlargements, slower work, increase in cost, weight and bulk.. 🙂 If you do most of fast-paced work in 35mm and considering MF for scenery or still life, why not go straight to the larger formats? A TLR or an MF folder gonna be far more portable, but you can't build a system around them; and once you move into MF SLR land you quickly lose cost and weight advantages over large format.

 

[JasonC]

I think 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5... etc. all compliment each other. I usually carry 2 different formats w/ me. The larger format for shots that I have time to do. The smaller format for grab shots. Recently I am playing w/ a 3 lbs Gowland all move 4x5 and a C-1 8x10. The Gowland is a lot lighter than my clam shell field camera, but the 8x10 is a beast. 8x10 chromes are just AMAZING.

Jason.

 

[RObert Budding]

When my love for MF was in full bloom I shot a documentary project on it. After a month my right hand was permenantly numb because the strap from my bag was digging into my shoulder so much. I also had a spell of probably not unrelated back trouble -if you are going to do a lot of location shooting with heavy equipment there may prices to pay other than financial ones

This is exactly why I decided to add a MF rangefinder to my arsenal.

Robert

 

[RObert Budding]

Another camera to consider is the Mamiya 645 Pro TL - i bought mine from KEH. You get interchangable backs and a choice of prisms. The prices now are amazingly good.

Robert