I'm not sure if I need it...

[redisburning]

I would rather stick with a good 35mm camera than use a mediocre medium format camera.

I tried out medium format at a time where I couldn't spring a Mamiya 7 or a Hasselblad or a Rollei and didn't like the results very much, even using velvia 50. It was, how to put it, not as good as I expected.

Now, the only way I could do it is to part with my M2. I wouldn't go as far to say I love the camera, as it's still an inanimate object, but I wouldnt give it up for any other camera.

Though, I suppose, one day when it is feasible, I will try a Mamiya 7 to see whether or not I change my mind. To me the 500 series 'Blads are great cameras but excepting the 80mm f2.8 it's not exactly my idea of a walking around camera and it asks for a tripod to get the results out of it that I think you would look for. And probably a lens support too.

 

[shadowfox]

Can you elaborate? I found ICE doesn't work with B&W. Something special about XP2?

Certainly, as Roger mentioned, Digital ICE would work on chromogenic C-41 film like Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2.

The only reason I prefer XP2 is because I can print it in the darkroom because I don't have to combat the orange base that the BW400CN has.

Quality wise, if you don't care about darkroom printing, they are equally stunning when scanned.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would rather stick with a good 35mm camera than use a mediocre medium format camera.

Very true indeed, but we're back to the 'quality threshold'. Even a very cheap MF camera -- a Lyubitel with its triplet lens -- can stack up very well against mid-range 35mm, and a 'mediocre' MF camera (by MF standards, that is, next to for example Hasselblad and Rollei), can be up there with very good 35mm. My Kowa/Six (inherited from my father in law) is far better than it has any right to be. For (say) an 11x14 B+W, I'm not sure a Leica is actually better in terms of tonality and sharpness. After all, 11x14 inch from the Leica is nearly 11x, and the Kowa it is about 5x (linear).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vics]

I shoot both 35mm and medium format. I use the 35mm when I need speed or convenience of size and metering. I use medium format when I can or want to slow things down. I don't think one replaces the other and they are different tools.

I agree. This weekend, I'll be snapping 35mm/Tri-X of the family at Thanksgiving. Then in April, we'll go to France for six weeks and I'll take the Rollei and Tri-X for the landscapes and architecture. MF is way more versatile for my money.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree. This weekend, I'll be snapping 35mm/Tri-X of the family at Thanksgiving. Then in April, we'll go to France for six weeks and I'll take the Rollei and Tri-X for the landscapes and architecture. MF is way more versatile for my money.

Hmmmm......... Way LESS versatile in my book, but what it does, it does better. Much like rangefinders.

Where in France will you be?

Cheers,

R.

 

[rbiemer]

Should I buy one just because I want it? Or I should stay with 35mm for some longer time until I am skill-wise prepared for it?
If I were to stay with 35mm, I want my Barnack back,seriously.

I don't think this needs to be an either/or question.
If you want another camera and it won't hurt you financially, then get it, I think.
And as for being "skill-wise prepared" for 35mm cameras; I'm planning on spending a long time doing that and am not sure I will ever be done with that learning process. I sure hope not, this is my main hobby and I expect it to keep me engaged for the rest of my life.
The mechanical skill is fairly straightforward, I believe, but the skill and ability to know what and, more importantly, why to make a photograph are, for me anyway, a much longer and more satisfying pursuit.
Rob

 

[Vics]

Hmmmm......... Way LESS versatile in my book, but what it does, it does better. Much like rangefinders.

Where in France will you be?

Cheers,

R.

Well, it's a personal thing I guess. I've done some portraits I'm very happy with using Rollei, some architecture I'm happy with, and some landscapes and seascapes I like too. With my Leica and Contax and Nikon F, I keep being reminded that they work best in close. With the Rollei, I even like doing macro sometimes

 

[gliderbee]

Hello Roger,

I didn't understood from the original post that he wants to buy back a camera he sold before.

I guess you understood I was talking about myself; me too, I have a lot of cameras (if I count everything, I go over 70 and I keep missing some when counting); most are seldom used.

What hinders me most is that quite some are functionally the same: e.g. Bessa R2, R3M, R2M, Leica M5, M6, CL are functionally the same camera: mechanical, manual setting of aperture and speed, built-in lightmeter. The same goes for Bessa R3A, R4A, Zeiss Ikon, Hexar RF: aperture-priority rangefinders.

My real problem is that when I go out with a camera, I keep thinking about "which one to take this time" .. as is said in French "L'embarras du choix".

Regards,
Stefan.

Or, of course, stupid enough. He now wants back the camera he sold. Wouldn't it have been smarter not to sell it in the first place?

I have quite a lot of cameras that I use very seldom, but when I want to use one of them... I've already got it.

I really don't think that either approach is smarter than the other. It's just a question of personality, and of how well you know yourself.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mathomas]

I love 35mm cameras, but I love 120 negatives even more. So, while I have a bunch of 35mm cameras, I tend to shoot my medium-format gear the most (Fuji GW690III, Fuji GA645Zi, Hassy 500c/m and 2000FCW). It's usually worth it to me though I haul extra weight and work slower.

...
6x6 is a pita to develop and scan. 12 pics per roll is limiting. For the size I want to print, 35mm quality is usually enough.

I find the opposite, but we all have our preferences. I love the big, fat easy-to-handle filmstrips that are relatively short that come with 120 development/scanning.

I cringe when I think of loading 35mm onto the tank reel, and all the slow painful scanning, and then the spotting of the files, because dust is so much more apparent on the wee negs. And having to do it over 36 frames. Yuck.

However, the pain I feel may be due to my own choices and habits (maybe I should self-load 12-exposure 35mm 🙂).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hello Roger,

I didn't understood from the original post that he wants to buy back a camera he sold before.

I guess you understood I was talking about myself; me too, I have a lot of cameras (if I count everything, I go over 70 and I keep missing some when counting); most are seldom used.

What hinders me most is that quite some are functionally the same: e.g. Bessa R2, R3M, R2M, Leica M5, M6, CL are functionally the same camera: mechanical, manual setting of aperture and speed, built-in lightmeter. The same goes for Bessa R3A, R4A, Zeiss Ikon, Hexar RF: aperture-priority rangefinders.

My real problem is that when I go out with a camera, I keep thinking about "which one to take this time" .. as is said in French "L'embarras du choix".

Regards,
Stefan.

Dear Stefan,

Oh, indeed, and I apologize for appearing quite so confrontational. It was meant as a simple counter-argument. Like you, I have far too many cameras, but mostly, I keep them because it's not worth the hassle of disposing of them. And because I might want them again...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Snacks]

I loved the fact that I could see the image in a contact print, and that prints just looked 'creamy' compared to those from 35mm negatives. On the other hand, I am selling my Bronica SQ-Ai on a well known auction site because my DSLR is dying and I'm after some kind of digital replacement (shameless advertising - item #200676906162). I'm holding onto a Zorki C and a Fed 2 for film.

 

[jawarden]

It depends. If you want a MF, just get one and have fun. If you make it a cheap one and then later decide to sell it, it'll hardly cost you a thing.

MF might be good for you if you print large. I found it didn't make a difference for me because I almost always print 8X10" or smaller. I did an experiment taking the same picture with 35mm and MF (a MF Yashicamat/Yashinon vs a 35mm Zeiss Ikon/Sonnar) and on a print it's really hard to see a quality difference.

35mm is just better for me, although a 6X6 Mamiya would sure be fun, whether I need it or not.

So if you want to print big give it a try. If you want to have fun without blowing a lot of money get a cheapie. If you're rich, get a better one. Or a few dozen better ones. It's all good. 🙂

 

[Shade]

Well need is a very biased term. As you didn't mention what kind of work will you be doing with your cameras, I assume you're a hobbyist and likes to take picture. Personally I think any point and shoot is all we need. Any disposable camera is all we need to take hood pictures. But what we want is an entirely different matter. The better cameras offer more features and gimmicks and sure, better quality as well, than those I mentioned. However, you should find out if you really want it. Afterall, we only live once.

 

[FrankS]

If you can afford to spend this kind of money on a hobby without harming your family, medium format is worth the expense. iMO

 

[Haigh]

I really think you shgould endelessly cruise the net and see what images you are consistently drawn to. This will determine what equipment you want. Just remember, there are great images being made out there from serious photographers and they use anything from P&S upwards. The best work I have ever seen on Venice Italy eg was done with a long outdated Sony Cybershot 5MP. Look at every image you can.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I really think you should endlessly cruise the net and see what images you are consistently drawn to. This will determine what equipment you want. Just remember, there are great images being made out there from serious photographers and they use anything from P&S upwards. The best work I have ever seen on Venice Italy eg was done with a long outdated Sony Cybershot 5MP. Look at every image you can.

Um.... No. Not unless the 'net is the height of your photographic ambition and sets the limits of your quality ambitions. The 'net is a great leveller and the differences between 35mm, MF, or indeed anything else are obscured partially or completely.

Cheers,

R.

 

[it'sawhat?]

I shoot both 35mm and mf (pentax 645) given that you seem to like smaller camera bodies and miss the barnac get the leica. That is unless you see an obvious lack of quality that the hassy would take care of. I love my P645 but am the first to admit it feels like a cinder block compared to a screwmount leica. OTOH i wouldn't swap it for leica because it does what I want the way I want.

 

[Cyriljay]

I think it is kind of a sickness due to the in confidence to change the cameras regularly. I kind of had this problem and moved in to several cameras untill I got my first Leica M6 . I owe it now for nearly 11years, every thing changed and that attitude stopped there. I learn to improved my skills , learn about making quality images through Leica. Then bought my Hasselblad and i really enjoy using it.

Recently I bought my M8 which is very different and have lot of issues as in focusing /crop-fractor/ back focusing / infrared problem etc. But now I learn about it and I kind of knowledge to control . I guess it is a good camera and I am not going to get rid of any thing I have now.😀

Just one thing more Digital is very clean and fast... Negatives are time consuming and have different issues..

 

[gho]

The sickness is called gear aquisition syndrome aka GAS. Here is an interesting article. The main tonus is: It is better to learn something instead of buying something.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

My advice: cut your stuff down to one camera and one lens and see what you can produce out of it. There is no magic bullet.

 

[John Robertson]

Stick with it, REALLY get to know your camera, by constantly chopping and changing you with NEVER get what you want. There is NO golden bullet which will solve all your ills.🙄
I have a feeling however that this is not what you want to hear.😛