From digital straight to MF?

[Ronald M]

Do not know about high iso or if important, but at nominal iso 35mm film is not better. You would be lucky to tie.

Medium format film, probably only slightly better.

I would suggest Nikon D800/850 will be better than film smaller 4x5. Should you decide to go LF, buy decent , not some 1960 camera and lens.

There is a reason 35mm is displacing MF and LF today even for pro use.

Always consider making panoramas. I have seen beautiful panos from Leica M8 at 20 x 30.

 

[flagellum]

I'd suggest doing 35mm simply because it's a lower investment, lower stress option. Cameras are cheap and plentiful (Leicas notwithstanding), 35mm developing is much more common than 120, and a dedicated scanner for 35mm gives really good quality for fairly cheap (without having to mess around with finnicky flatbeds, a jury-rigged DSLR scanning setup or ridiculously overpriced dedicated 120 scanners).

I'm currently adding 6x6 to my 35mm setup and have found the transition pretty stressful. No labs near me that will develop color 120, so I have to mail out my negatives. The cheapest 120 scanners that can put out quality equivalent to my 35mm-only Plustek start at around $750 new and go up from there. Not to mention the increased price of film and processing, which makes me more hesitant to experiment compositionally (an oft-overlooked counterargument to the fact that MF slows you down).

I've found that MF cameras and image quality are great, but the logistics around getting your film shot, processed and digitized can really dampen the experience. 35mm is a much easier and more fun entry point that gives you plenty of room to just have fun and experiment, IMO. Start with 35mm and move up to MF once you start to find it limiting.

 

[Spanik]

Stay away from the "must have names" to keep the bank balance sane. Get a camera and try it out to get the feel. Move on if necessary (it never is, but it always seems).

The most important point for me is what kind of film is still available and what can I have developed, what do I have to develop myself. 135 has more film choices, but how many of them are really different and not the same film in a different box? Getting 135 developed is easy. 120 has fewer types of film and a bit less easy to get developed. 4x5 has not much to offer in film types and if you can get it developed, look at the price first and swallow (hint: 6 euro for a single 4x5 where I live).

 

[karateisland]

Thank you to everyone who offered advice! I am learning quite a bit from this discussion, and I bet it will be very useful to people like me in the future.

For what it's worth: I decided to start with 35mm.

As I've mulled over the choice, I've come to agree that its useless to ask about "higher quality" or "better" when talking formats--to me at least. Much more useful is the ability to articulate the aesthetic qualities I value in a photograph, and find a kit that enables me to make use of those in my own work.

I can say that I love the balance of optical sharpness and organic (chaotic) film grain that one gets from a rangefinder loaded with 35mm film. I also love the pristine clarity of MF shots. On balance, either 35mm or MF would make me happy.

However, the relatively lower cost of 35mm would offer more opportunity for experimentation with less worry about wasting frames. That seals the deal for me.

I think I fell into the trap of convincing myself I needed to pick the perfect lens and camera right off. It helps to remember that virtually every photographer changes their working kit over time, as they learn their craft and preferences. Since this is true even for the legendary photographers who famously used a single camera/lens combination for long stretches of their careers, I realize that I won't be any different. There's plenty of time to try out MF later if I still want to do that.

So, TL;DR: I am on the market a Minolta CLE with a 40mm Rokkor, and I'm slowly saving to purchase a MF format camera later in the year (maybe a Mamiya 6?). If the CLE convinces me that I don't want MF, afterall, there are plenty of ways to spend that money on more lenses!

Either way, it's clear that I can't really lose by picking a camera to start with, and seeing what happens. The choice may be different for a different photographer, but this works for me!

 

[roscoetuff]

FWIW, I started back from digital with 35mm. I think there are more entry points to film with 35mm and the gear can be less expensive. Doesn't have to be of course, but there are lots of excellent cameras that aren't slobbered over by collectors and you can pick them up at good prices.

I'd also agree with KoFe on the idea of 35mm as a fast(er) format, but only to a point. 'Cause it's not that MF is for technocrats per se - unless by this he means that with MF you are going to have to work ON your technique both in shooting and developing 'cause there's a lot fewer crutches to lean on. Truth is I think you will learn more with MF or you'll give up as MF really forces you to up your game - or at least it does for me, and sometimes I blow it (still). I think it is a harder format, and there can be more gearhead frustrations, but hard can be good, build character, and ultimately make you a better photographer. Better than 35mm? Hmmmmmm. Hard to say. But I do believe that MF will make your 35mm better in the same way that film will improve your digital output.

But if you do get into MF, and if you persevere with it long enough to let produce some great images, you will have less of a quality give-up coming from digital to film than you may find with 35mm alone. I do believe that one of the temptations of 35mm to try to address this involves chasing the wrong way... often (and especially among the Leica crowd) chasing the perfect lens.... which can mean spending a lot of $'s, when the answer is really to switch to MF, use a tripod, or focus your 35mm on producing the sort of images that make you happy - no matter what the nitpickers say. Ultimately... have fun and carry the camera with you. KoFe's MF is now a folder? Picked up one myself recently for much the same reason - but I'm not giving MF the heave-ho so much as on the contrary, wanting to shoot it more often.

 

[karateisland]

For anyone reading this thread because they had the same question I did, here's a quick recap of how things shook out.

After reading all the helpful responses on this thread, I bought a Minolta CLE and an M-Rokkor 40mm lens. I found that I enjoy nearly everything about it: carefully selecting my film stock for the subject matter, lining up a shot and hoping I got it right, getting my scans back from the lab and picking out the one or two shots per roll that feel like keepers.

I loved it so much that I invested a small windfall into a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 lens, a camera that has always intrigued but intimidated me. The connection was instant and very strong. I find the Rolleiflex offers everything the CLE did, but more so: It’s more beautiful (objectively!), the experience of using it feels more magical, the results are even more swoon-worthy, and my hit rate with Tri-X in 120 is much higher than any film stock in 35. The cost per keeper is actually lower with the Rollei.

Given how much I love the Rollei—and the fact that my favorite consumer color 35mm film stocks are dead or dying—I’ve all but stopped using the CLE over the past few months, favoring a digital/medium format combo instead. Why? I believe that this gives me the best of all worlds.

To my eye, the results I get from the CLE are not different enough from the X100F results to warrant the extra work it requires. And the X100F offers some clear benefits in terms of usability: It’s roughly as small and light as the CLE, but it eats darkness for breakfast. I had forgotten how liberating it can feel to take pictures at ISO 6400. And for those who think that digital cameras inspire careless picture taking, I can verify what one helpful poster said earlier in the thread: With the right mindset, I can use my X100F just as slowly and deliberately as a film camera.

Then, when I want the film experience (and that sweet, sweet Tri-X look) the Rollei hits the spot much better than the CLE, and offers results that I like better.

The digital/MF combo is also wonderfully small. I bought a Zing neoprene bag and use it to store whichever camera I'm not using: When conditions aren’t ideal for using 120 film, I just pop it in my backpack and dig out the X100F. That means I can have my Rollei and my X100F on me and ready to go in nearly any situation.

I can still see myself using the CLE in some situations. I love carrying a 35mm camera when traveling, and the CLE is great for this. However, since I'm learning that I'm a one focal length kind of guy, I’m toying with the idea of selling/trading for a Contax P&S, which might be an even better fit! I'd love a G2, of course, but I'm not made of money.

TL;DR: I bought a 35mm camera and quickly moved on to a Rolleiflex. The 35mm hasn’t seen much use since. Still, no regrets. As always, your experience may be different, so jump in to film anywhere your heart leads you and you can’t go wrong.

 

[karateisland]

FWIW, I started back from digital with 35mm. I think there are more entry points to film with 35mm and the gear can be less expensive. Doesn't have to be of course, but there are lots of excellent cameras that aren't slobbered over by collectors and you can pick them up at good prices.

I'd also agree with KoFe on the idea of 35mm as a fast(er) format, but only to a point. 'Cause it's not that MF is for technocrats per se - unless by this he means that with MF you are going to have to work ON your technique both in shooting and developing 'cause there's a lot fewer crutches to lean on. Truth is I think you will learn more with MF or you'll give up as MF really forces you to up your game - or at least it does for me, and sometimes I blow it (still). I think it is a harder format, and there can be more gearhead frustrations, but hard can be good, build character, and ultimately make you a better photographer. Better than 35mm? Hmmmmmm. Hard to say. But I do believe that MF will make your 35mm better in the same way that film will improve your digital output.

But if you do get into MF, and if you persevere with it long enough to let produce some great images, you will have less of a quality give-up coming from digital to film than you may find with 35mm alone. I do believe that one of the temptations of 35mm to try to address this involves chasing the wrong way... often (and especially among the Leica crowd) chasing the perfect lens.... which can mean spending a lot of $'s, when the answer is really to switch to MF, use a tripod, or focus your 35mm on producing the sort of images that make you happy - no matter what the nitpickers say. Ultimately... have fun and carry the camera with you. KoFe's MF is now a folder? Picked up one myself recently for much the same reason - but I'm not giving MF the heave-ho so much as on the contrary, wanting to shoot it more often.

Wow, what are the chances that someone would revive this dormant thread at the same time I'm posting an update?

Thank you for the insight. I also find it true that MF keeps me on my game. Hitting a shot properly with a meter-less Rollei is not easy, and I blew most of the shots on my first few rolls. Then I hit one exactly as I wanted, and it all felt worth it. I feel that the Rollei is a tough but fair teacher that is making me a better photographer.

 

[leicapixie]

Reality check is that scanning film is tedious and gives a poor quality unless one has access to an Imacon drum scanner.
I used Medium Format in the 70's and 80's for Fashion and portraits.
I love 35mm BW film still developing in kitchen.
My results are truly mediocre compared to digital.
Time has moved on, digital so much more convenient!
One can shoot color, BW, sepia whatever at touch of button.
No risk of a color lab and indifferent quality control.
Every copy the same.
I travel only with digital.
Experimenting with Medium format, get a Rollei or better and heavier Mamiya c series.
Inexpensive, very easy to use, not easy to carry esp. the Mamiya.
Compare your digital to film.
Film looks different but in my case, if I was again a pro, no longer worth it!

 

[Larry Cloetta]

.....gives a poor quality unless one has access to an Imacon drum scanner.......

whoa. A brisk slap in my face so early in the morning. I thought I was doing fine, but am only doing poorly. Dang.

 

[Mjd-djm]

I started off on digital and went straight into MF and loved it. However, after a while I tried 35mm and found I preferred it. It’s quicker, easier, more cost effective, camera bodies and lenses are smaller and lighter, but most important of all the scale of grain just looks better to my eye. In digital you have noise instead of grain, and with MF the grain is much finer. You can actually see the evolution of my journey on Flickr, finally ending up with 35mm.

 

[karateisland]

Edit: already posted update a month ago. Sorry!

 

[Ronald M]

Buy a working metered film slr. They are cheap. Resell as required. Nikon Ai and AiS lenses can be later used Nikon DSLR.

My opinion is film has no or not much advantage over digital. Home processing is almost required.

120 film is hard to find, harder to get commercially processed. 120 in a quality is marginally better than 800 series Nikons. Quality MF are still expensive. Cheap stuff not worth the effort.

Been there, done all this. Darkroom is still open for 35 mm monochrome, Leica and Nikon. Do it for fun and nostalgia, not for qualty jump.