jaffa_777
Established
I have just been reading the old Leica vs medium format thead and agree with most that bigger real estate = better quality regardless of lense quality. But 35mm usually equates to speed as well, with MF usally being a lot slower.
I have dual Mamiya 6's which are great and but considering something smaller and faster for lower light work.
I have been thinking when is it better to switch to 35mm with say tri-x and a 50mm 1.4 over using 6x6 with a 75mm 3.5 and neopan 1600 or delta 3200? Is the medium format still going to give better results even though the grainer film? Or would you rather be shooting on a summilux 50mm 1.4 with some tri-x?
I have dual Mamiya 6's which are great and but considering something smaller and faster for lower light work.
I have been thinking when is it better to switch to 35mm with say tri-x and a 50mm 1.4 over using 6x6 with a 75mm 3.5 and neopan 1600 or delta 3200? Is the medium format still going to give better results even though the grainer film? Or would you rather be shooting on a summilux 50mm 1.4 with some tri-x?
sleepyhead
Well-known
For me, a 6x6 negative always gives a print with better detail and tonality than a 35mm negative, regardless of grain. But of course, the camera must not shake during exposure, so that's where the faster 35mm combo will help you.
I guess you have to just experiment for yourself.
I guess you have to just experiment for yourself.
iml
Well-known
Fast 120 film is considerably less grainy than fast 35mm film.
Ian
Ian
jaffa_777
Established
So would shooting delta 3200 at 1600 (like most people recommend) in 120 be better than shooting tri-x or HP5+ in 35mm with superior leica optics?
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Leica optics are not so superior as to make up for what you call "real estate". It's one thing to compare the performance of 120 and 35 mm at the same linear magnification and another to compare large prints -- say, 20" x 30" -- made from the two. This is probably what Ian means in practical terms.
markinlondon
Elmar user
iml said:
I'd have to disagree with that, Ian. HP5+ is as grainy as, er HP5+ in whatever format. The difference comes with the degree of enlargement required to produce a print of the same size. For 35mm an 8" wide print is an 8x enlargement, for 6x6 the same 8" wide print is around 3x.
Edit: I've just realised Mukul made the same point above. More coffee needed.
mfogiel
Veteran
There can be some good reasons to shoot 35mm over MF, but to my mind they are either linked to the wider max aperture/bigger dof, or to better portability. If you want top results from 35mm you should use very fine grain sharp film like a microfilm, or Delta 100/Tmax 100, but this can compromise hand- holdability, so an option could be XP2 - this shot has been made at the optimum aperture and 1/2000 speed, take a look, including the largest version:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1054376120/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1054376120/
Wimpler
Established
I think medium format with high speed film is better then 35mm with ISO400 film (yes even when it has a leica lens in front of it). The final image will certainly be sharper, and I think it will have less grain.
pvenables
Established
I had much the same thought this week when I saw a Bronica RF645 on ebay.
Even if you only make normal-sized prints I'd have thought you'd see better quality in MF no matter what film you used. I have a 5 by 7 print of my wife from my old Rolleicord [on Delta 400 I think] which has more pleasing tonality, sharpness and "look" than anything I've ever got from 35mm.
With a 35mm rangefinder you gain access to a huge range of [mostly small] lenses and have something you could carry around more easily than the Mamiyas - but even with XP2 or a similarly sharp, fine-grained film, I shouldn't expect miracles !.
Paul
Even if you only make normal-sized prints I'd have thought you'd see better quality in MF no matter what film you used. I have a 5 by 7 print of my wife from my old Rolleicord [on Delta 400 I think] which has more pleasing tonality, sharpness and "look" than anything I've ever got from 35mm.
With a 35mm rangefinder you gain access to a huge range of [mostly small] lenses and have something you could carry around more easily than the Mamiyas - but even with XP2 or a similarly sharp, fine-grained film, I shouldn't expect miracles !.
Paul
jaffa_777
Established
ok, so it's maybe good news for me. I can save some money on camera gas and buy lots more faster film instead. The mamiya 6's aren't leica m's in size, but they are portable enough on the street, and thats good considering they are medium format. Paul, the bronica 645 looks way good. Amazingly good lens is that 65mm with beautiful bokeh, unlike my mamiya 75mm.
So whats your favorite fast film in 120 for bw and colour? Has anyone pushed the new provia 400x to 800?
So whats your favorite fast film in 120 for bw and colour? Has anyone pushed the new provia 400x to 800?
RichardB
Well-known
The larger the negative for a given print size, the better the tonal range. It is all in what you want to end up with. If you want large prints with excellent tonality, you need large format. If tonality is not the objective, 35mm can produce large prints. One of my favorites I have is 30x40 from a tri-x 35mm negative which appeared in both newspapers that i worked for. A larger neg would have yielded a better print but I would not have been able to capture the low light of the chess match with my medium format camera at that time.
I would not use high speed film in a medium format camera but would use 35mm with a 1.4 aperature and something like tri-x ot TMax 400. Hi Speed films were great for newspaper work where the grain was not objectionable but always yielded lousy prints no matter what.-Dick
I would not use high speed film in a medium format camera but would use 35mm with a 1.4 aperature and something like tri-x ot TMax 400. Hi Speed films were great for newspaper work where the grain was not objectionable but always yielded lousy prints no matter what.-Dick
pvenables
Established
If you want to use fast film, Jaffa, I've heard great things about Tri-X developed in Diafine, rated at 1000-1600. If you only want to use a 35mm and 50mm on your camera, the Bronica looks amazing value - aperture priority and manual, matrix metering, and no bigger than a Nikon F100. The camera and two lenses in mint condition were going for £650 on ebay, I think. A Leica and one 1.4 lens, whether a 35 or a 50 would cost you a fair bit more than that. If you do your own developing I would seriously consider the Bronica. Or a Mamiya 7...
Paul
Paul
V
varjag
Guest
Jaffa, just give it a try and see if it works for you.
I used to give much significance to the popular opinion that any MF will run circles around any 35mm, until I figured it wasn't quite true. First is the lens speed tradeoff that you pointed out: what good your big neg is if you have to shoot at 1/30 - 1/60?
Then, there is MF and there is MF: a Lubitel (assuming it was brought to working order) or Super Ikonta generally no match to a good 35mm setup. On the negs you will see that detail disappears long before it bumps into grain barrier, order of magnitude difference, meaning whatever real estate is there it is simply wasted.
Then, all resolution you need for most practical purposes you can have on Tmax 100 or Delta 100. My 35mm scanner, maxing out at (lab test measured) 3800dpi cannot extract all the detail that my very modest lenses put on 24x36mm in TMX.
Sure MF would clearly do better job at printing murals, but I never ever met an amateur who ever printed a single mural. And for deliberate, slow work requiring huge prints, a proper large format setup is more suitable anyway.
I do see the difference in tonality between the formats, but to me it is not significant enough to choose MF. Your priorities can be different so, try yourself.
I used to give much significance to the popular opinion that any MF will run circles around any 35mm, until I figured it wasn't quite true. First is the lens speed tradeoff that you pointed out: what good your big neg is if you have to shoot at 1/30 - 1/60?
Then, there is MF and there is MF: a Lubitel (assuming it was brought to working order) or Super Ikonta generally no match to a good 35mm setup. On the negs you will see that detail disappears long before it bumps into grain barrier, order of magnitude difference, meaning whatever real estate is there it is simply wasted.
Then, all resolution you need for most practical purposes you can have on Tmax 100 or Delta 100. My 35mm scanner, maxing out at (lab test measured) 3800dpi cannot extract all the detail that my very modest lenses put on 24x36mm in TMX.
Sure MF would clearly do better job at printing murals, but I never ever met an amateur who ever printed a single mural. And for deliberate, slow work requiring huge prints, a proper large format setup is more suitable anyway.
I do see the difference in tonality between the formats, but to me it is not significant enough to choose MF. Your priorities can be different so, try yourself.
iml
Well-known
Aye, that's what I meant, and should have said. I was speaking relative to a given enlargement size.markinlondon said:
Ian
Last edited:
waileong
Well-known
Sharpness
Sharpness
Sharpness is a function of accurate focus, not format. Grain is a function of the film.
Sharpness
Wimpler said:
Sharpness is a function of accurate focus, not format. Grain is a function of the film.
Finder
Veteran
waileong said:
Not really true. Permissable circle of confusion is a format issue and therefore format and sharpness is related. Grain is a function of film but how much the grain is enlarged does make a diffierence to the appearance of the image and so format does matter as well.
As far as the posters question where does granularity and format converge is not a simple question and needs to be tested. You have the issue of differences in optics and changes in the characteristic of the film which is not simply a change in grain size. I have shot 800 ISO film in my medium format cameras and I am not sure I would rather shoot 400 ISO 35mm film instead. I don't think there is a simple equivalency going on, but images seem to lose a certain contrast and tonal range over 400 ISO that a lose of resolution with 35mm seems to be a good price to pay to retain those film charateristics.
waileong
Well-known
Sharpness
Sharpness
There is only a single plane of sharp focus, so from that point of view, sharpness is not a function of format. In fact, I would say that, with greater propensity for camera shake, the likelihood of MF pictures appearing less sharp is higher than 35 mm. But that's a camera shake issue, not a focusing issue.
My post was referring to the above.
Of course, beyond the focal plane, there are varying degrees of acceptable "sharpness" behind and in front of the focal plane. Hence the depth of field, which leads to the circle of confusion.
Again, 35 mm has greater DOF at all apertures against MF at all equivalent focal lengths. Hence at the same aperture, enlargement and same viewing distance, the 35 mm pictures will have a larger portion of the picture acceptably sharp. This is particularly evident when taking MF portraits (150mm and above) at F2, F2.8 or F4, where it is easy to see DOF is so shallow that one eye could be in focus while the other is out.
Wai Leong
===
PS I think CoC is not directly linked to format, it's linked to viewing distance, enlargement size (which is linked to format) and the eye's resolution (which has been standardised for comparison, although we know some people have better eyes than others).
Sharpness
There is only a single plane of sharp focus, so from that point of view, sharpness is not a function of format. In fact, I would say that, with greater propensity for camera shake, the likelihood of MF pictures appearing less sharp is higher than 35 mm. But that's a camera shake issue, not a focusing issue.
My post was referring to the above.
Of course, beyond the focal plane, there are varying degrees of acceptable "sharpness" behind and in front of the focal plane. Hence the depth of field, which leads to the circle of confusion.
Again, 35 mm has greater DOF at all apertures against MF at all equivalent focal lengths. Hence at the same aperture, enlargement and same viewing distance, the 35 mm pictures will have a larger portion of the picture acceptably sharp. This is particularly evident when taking MF portraits (150mm and above) at F2, F2.8 or F4, where it is easy to see DOF is so shallow that one eye could be in focus while the other is out.
Wai Leong
===
PS I think CoC is not directly linked to format, it's linked to viewing distance, enlargement size (which is linked to format) and the eye's resolution (which has been standardised for comparison, although we know some people have better eyes than others).
Finder said:
Last edited:
jaffa_777
Established
All good input and opinions here. Really enjoy this forum!
As most people here have caught on, I think the debate is not between formats, but; faster speed lens on smaller, lesser grain film vs slower speed lens on larger, higher grain film.
Finder, you bring up a good point about higher film speeds losing tonal range. Like you said, it probably needs to be tested. I have some shots on HP5+ shot at 800 on 6x6 and I was very impressed. But with the aperture I was using, I think I could have also been shooting fp4+ on 35mm with a large aperture lens. Now it would be interesting to compare those two shots (if I had them) at similar enlargements and see if there is an advantage to anyone.
As most people here have caught on, I think the debate is not between formats, but; faster speed lens on smaller, lesser grain film vs slower speed lens on larger, higher grain film.
Finder, you bring up a good point about higher film speeds losing tonal range. Like you said, it probably needs to be tested. I have some shots on HP5+ shot at 800 on 6x6 and I was very impressed. But with the aperture I was using, I think I could have also been shooting fp4+ on 35mm with a large aperture lens. Now it would be interesting to compare those two shots (if I had them) at similar enlargements and see if there is an advantage to anyone.
Turtle
Veteran
I would pick the one that gives me the handling I want. Delta 3200 can be really impressive on a MF neg and would probably be finer grained than TriX or HP5 35mm at a given eprint size, but I cannot say without testing. Again, handing is a major factor. As for teh rest you would have to test it. assuming one rates Delta 3200 at 1600 and TriX at 400 (what I would do if not pushing anything) you have a two stop difference. This equates approx to the two stop difference in DOF between a nominal 50mm and 100mm lens, right? Dunno....
Finder
Veteran
waileong said:
Well, if the coc is not related to format, why does the minimum relative aperture decrease with the increase in format? Digital P&S have a minimum aperture of f/8 or f/11. 35mm, f/22, 4x5, f/64, 8x10, f/128. coc DOES change with format as what is considered "sharp" (a subjective quality) is a matter of the angular resolution of the human eye and, as you pointed out, "sharp" will be different for different folks.
This is why there is not one plane of focus, but a small range where an image will be "sharp," termed "depth of focus." This is also dependant of relative aperture. At f/64, a 35mm frame will be soft no matter how hard you try to focus.
"Sharpness" is a subjective quality. Format impacts it.