Nick De Marco
Well-known
Very interesting reading - I have been considering this dilema too recently. I love leicas and rangefinders generally, in part because of their size and adaptability. On a recent trip abroad I could fit in my camera bag 3 rangefinders with 6 lenses and a large DSLR with 2 lenses. I have invested heavily in Leica and in my canon 5D with its lenses. te latter can produce very good quality prints at large enlargements and at 12.8MP beats 35mm, except its not film.
So I too have been thinking of getting more into medium format just for some stuff now and then. My preference would be for the Rollei 6000 series as their cameras seem so well made, that sries has all the functionality I would want, the lenses are great and even though you can't lug it around like a rangefinder its not much more weight than a DSLR. It is sooo expensive though - especially after I have spent so much on leica - and I doubt I would use it that often. I know I could pick up a Fuji PAS 645 cheap but is it really worth it?
So I too have been thinking of getting more into medium format just for some stuff now and then. My preference would be for the Rollei 6000 series as their cameras seem so well made, that sries has all the functionality I would want, the lenses are great and even though you can't lug it around like a rangefinder its not much more weight than a DSLR. It is sooo expensive though - especially after I have spent so much on leica - and I doubt I would use it that often. I know I could pick up a Fuji PAS 645 cheap but is it really worth it?
Finder
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
I don't think anyone has missed the big picture. This is simply discussing the relative merits for format in reference to image quality. We are not discussing which format has faster lenses. Nor which format is more portable. Since most of my documentary work is done on medium format including low-light work, a simple dismissal of medium format for that kind of work seems to be rather narrow.
Krosya
Konicaze
sherm said:
Great answers everyone - thank you very much. Keep them coming.
As far as MF goes - is film availibility a serius issue for MF? It's been a while since I bought some, so I'm not sure where things are on this. Although last time I checked - there was plenty where I am. I think I'll dig out my Ricoh TLR and put it to work.
dnemoc
Established
There is no doubt that about bigger negatives being better for enlargements, the grain doesn't get in the way of the sharpness issues; but then the case may be made for large format cameras with 11x14 negatives. And of course portability simply cannot be brought into the picture. Somewhere I read that Zeiss lenses for 35mm cameras achieve highest resolution. and resolution decreases as the size of the format that the lenses are supposed to match goes up. Generally MF lenses have characteristics completely different from that of 35mm cameras, and it is not limited to just the size of the negatives.
A few months ago I posted a query here regarding a MF equivalent of Leica, meaning which MF lens/camera combination gives the ``feel'' that is closest to the gritty picture quality that we usually associate with a Leica. Since then I got a Koni Omega Rapid + 58 Hexanon and put one roll through it; the negatives are very nice, and perhaps what could be called gritty. But it's not what I get from my 50 Summicron, it's different, and has its own uses. My Rolleicord takes good pictures, but I'll not use it for street even if by some miracle it was made as portable as a Fed 3; it's far too smooth for what I look for. Somebody else may find it just the right thing; for instance, look at Robert Doisneau's works---unparalleled, mostly shot with a Rolleiflex.
A few months ago I posted a query here regarding a MF equivalent of Leica, meaning which MF lens/camera combination gives the ``feel'' that is closest to the gritty picture quality that we usually associate with a Leica. Since then I got a Koni Omega Rapid + 58 Hexanon and put one roll through it; the negatives are very nice, and perhaps what could be called gritty. But it's not what I get from my 50 Summicron, it's different, and has its own uses. My Rolleicord takes good pictures, but I'll not use it for street even if by some miracle it was made as portable as a Fed 3; it's far too smooth for what I look for. Somebody else may find it just the right thing; for instance, look at Robert Doisneau's works---unparalleled, mostly shot with a Rolleiflex.
NickTrop
Veteran
Krosya said:
Order it on line. eBay, B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, Amazon, Ultrafine etc., etc., etc., What everyone else said is true. Negative size trumps "how much money you spend and who makes your 35mm lens". It's why I stick with cheap lenses and rangefinders in 35. I know I could spend thousands for incremental (silly, actually) improvements over my lowly Yashica GSN, Lynx 14e, Konica Auto S3 in 35mm and it won't even come close to what I can get out of my Kiev 60 with its 2.8/80 Biometar - about $150 worth of kit, in terms of image quality. The only possible horizon I might consider is a Barnack with a Summar... maybe, if I'm in the mood, if the price is right and that's not about "resolution" but the Summar look.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Nick De Marco said:
Through work (Natural Resources-related), I have access to a Rollei 6003 and several lenses. A very well designed and engineered camera that is capable of taking great pictures. Not small or cheap, but surprisingly portable especially when equipped with the optional hand grip. If you can raise the $$$$, go for it.
Jim Bielecki
GeneW
Veteran
I still remember that when I first got into photography, 35mm cameras of any type were called "miniature cameras". That pretty well sums it up.
Gene
Gene
ZeissFan
Veteran
I agree -- not even close. 35mm is great, but a 6x6 (or in some cases 6x9) negative really outdoes 35mm in terms of detail and tonality.
A 6x6 negative has 3,600 sq.mm. of emulsion.
A 35mm negative has 864 sq.mm. of emulsion.
The 6x6 negative has more than 4 times the area of a 35mm negative. Move up to 6x9 (5,400 sq.mm.), and the difference is more than sixfold.
While both mediums might record the same number of tones, the transition between each region will appear to be much smoother in the medium format negative.
Here's an example of what I mean. Click through to the Zoomify examples.
A 35mm negative could never provide this level of detail. We wish it could, but it can't.
A 6x6 negative has 3,600 sq.mm. of emulsion.
A 35mm negative has 864 sq.mm. of emulsion.
The 6x6 negative has more than 4 times the area of a 35mm negative. Move up to 6x9 (5,400 sq.mm.), and the difference is more than sixfold.
While both mediums might record the same number of tones, the transition between each region will appear to be much smoother in the medium format negative.
Here's an example of what I mean. Click through to the Zoomify examples.
A 35mm negative could never provide this level of detail. We wish it could, but it can't.
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
What's all this "expensive" peopel are talking about? I bought my Yashica A for 25 euro ( http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/search?q=yashica ). No, it's not a Rolleiflex but it will damn well give the same size negs, has a great lens, and will perform pretty damn good for such a cheap camera. Oh, and my daughter can handle it too. 
40oz
...
Krosya said:
I get my 120 film from the same places that sell 35mm Tri-X. I haven't found a place that sells Tri-X in 35mm and doesn't sell a full variety of 120. (but I'm still young
)In general, any place that services the serious amateur or professional will sell 120. And any town from ~15,000 on up will have a place like that, in my experience. So no, film availability is not a real issue for MF.
I think it's been covered to death already, but no, Leica is no substitute for MF. Although I have a friend who has an M6 and a Hasselblad, and he once said, "with my Leica, it's almost like I don't need medium format." But he then bought a 30D, three lenses, and fitted suitcase because, he told me, "I spend so much on film." :/ (he shoots three 120 rolls once or twice a month of his "model" friend) Fools come in all flavors and they sometimes are quite charming, but that doesn't make them right
Last edited:
40oz
...
Nick De Marco-
"in my camera bag 3 rangefinders with 6 lenses and a large DSLR with 2 lenses."
You could easily "lug around" a Rollei 6000 series if you can carry that much equipment on a quote-unquote "vacation." You are talking about a camera that you can palm. And hold steady. But I fail to see why that is the only option. If the money for the 6000 system is giving you pause, buy an older Rolleiflex or something. Same kind of mechanic, same format, same film, just one lens. And if you like it, you'll know where you want to go from there. A nice Rolleiflex shouldn't cost you more than a couple hundred bucks. If you decide to go whole hog and get the Rollei 600 system, you can either sell/trade the 'Flex or keep it for "old time's sake." If you decide you can do better with your Leica's and DSLR, you aren't out much money. If you decide the MF rangefinder is where it's at, again, the Rolleiflex won't hold you back.
The idea that you have to go in with both barrels blazing or go home is silly. Yes, it's better to jump into cold water than try to ease in, but when the water's warm, why not do it as you see fit? I've got a few MF folders, and they are a joy to use, return images that are inconceivable with 35mm, and cost a penny for the dollars I've spent on 35mm. Kind of a simple equation, IMHO.
"in my camera bag 3 rangefinders with 6 lenses and a large DSLR with 2 lenses."
You could easily "lug around" a Rollei 6000 series if you can carry that much equipment on a quote-unquote "vacation." You are talking about a camera that you can palm. And hold steady. But I fail to see why that is the only option. If the money for the 6000 system is giving you pause, buy an older Rolleiflex or something. Same kind of mechanic, same format, same film, just one lens. And if you like it, you'll know where you want to go from there. A nice Rolleiflex shouldn't cost you more than a couple hundred bucks. If you decide to go whole hog and get the Rollei 600 system, you can either sell/trade the 'Flex or keep it for "old time's sake." If you decide you can do better with your Leica's and DSLR, you aren't out much money. If you decide the MF rangefinder is where it's at, again, the Rolleiflex won't hold you back.
The idea that you have to go in with both barrels blazing or go home is silly. Yes, it's better to jump into cold water than try to ease in, but when the water's warm, why not do it as you see fit? I've got a few MF folders, and they are a joy to use, return images that are inconceivable with 35mm, and cost a penny for the dollars I've spent on 35mm. Kind of a simple equation, IMHO.
pvdhaar
Peter
The difference is always there between a 6x6 print and one from a 35mm negative. Not only when you're enlarging a lot, but even with sizes in the 4"x6" range. There's a tonality and creaminess in medium format that's unachievable by even the best 35mm optics.
There used to be an article on photodo that went into comparing a MF with a 35mm neg. They concluded that you could identify the same details in both. But what they sidestepped was the coarseness differences. And that's what never will go away.
That said, I recently sold my 6x6 MF system. Even though superior in sheer image quality, I always took the 35mm cameras with me on a walk for mere convenience. And that convenience was what gave me better pictures, despite them being lower quality.
Heck, I've switched to faster films recently, and I'm having loads of fun with the grainy stuff..
Picture: Bessa-T/50mm Hexanon on tmz3200..
There used to be an article on photodo that went into comparing a MF with a 35mm neg. They concluded that you could identify the same details in both. But what they sidestepped was the coarseness differences. And that's what never will go away.
That said, I recently sold my 6x6 MF system. Even though superior in sheer image quality, I always took the 35mm cameras with me on a walk for mere convenience. And that convenience was what gave me better pictures, despite them being lower quality.
Heck, I've switched to faster films recently, and I'm having loads of fun with the grainy stuff..
Picture: Bessa-T/50mm Hexanon on tmz3200..
Attachments
Turtle
Veteran
Great 35mm lenses allow you to make the best of the situation within the constraints of teh 35mm neg. MF blows 35mm away, period. Some say that MF/LF are nowhere near as sharp....but these people have never used a Mamiya 7 or Hassleblad! Granted, a slow fine grained film and the best 35mm lenses do allow for great results....but you can shoot thew same fmil on MF and get even greater detail. 35mm is ALL about hadling and convenience. if the shot is not gettable on MF for whatever reason and you have to use 35mm, then better lenses are, well, better. 35mm and MF=different beasts
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
MF beats Leica on two fields: one is DOF for portrait lenses, the other is detail due to negative size - the latter translates to reserves for cropping, and to smoothness of grays.
Gabriel is right that there are few fast lenses for medium format, but that only applies to shorter lenses. As soon as you get to the equivalent of 90mm or so 35mm lenses are maybe faster by a stop, but the DOF difference is eaten up by the negative size. DOF on a 180/f2.8 in medium format looks like a 120/f2 on 35mm; you can get that kind of lens, but not for Leica, and they're usually quite expensive.
Unfortunately here in Uzbekistan I don't have much with me here to illustrate that. That said, here's two pictures from the same 6x6 portrait shot:
(tight crop)
(1:1 from the scan)
That's from a Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar wide open, Kiev 88 on a monopod, Agfa Optima 100 film. (That's the first film I will actually miss.) I know that this is not a perfect setup, but it is the only thing I can afford - it's run me about 200 EUR all in all. It's the MF equivalent of a Zorki. If you don't need interchangeable lenses, it gets a lot cheaper, but then you don't get the gorgeous longer Sonnars. If you are prepared to spend the money on a Leica, a Rollei 6000 with 150/2.8 Sonnar will run circles around it. And I also know the scan isn't perfect, but here I don't have the disk with me, so these are from a somewhat crude 18MP overcompressed prescan JPEGs, hence the streak and blotchiness - since this is the equivalent of a blotchy C41 minilab scan, maybe it illustrates even better what reserves are there.
Gabriel is right that there are few fast lenses for medium format, but that only applies to shorter lenses. As soon as you get to the equivalent of 90mm or so 35mm lenses are maybe faster by a stop, but the DOF difference is eaten up by the negative size. DOF on a 180/f2.8 in medium format looks like a 120/f2 on 35mm; you can get that kind of lens, but not for Leica, and they're usually quite expensive.
Unfortunately here in Uzbekistan I don't have much with me here to illustrate that. That said, here's two pictures from the same 6x6 portrait shot:
(tight crop)
(1:1 from the scan)
That's from a Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar wide open, Kiev 88 on a monopod, Agfa Optima 100 film. (That's the first film I will actually miss.) I know that this is not a perfect setup, but it is the only thing I can afford - it's run me about 200 EUR all in all. It's the MF equivalent of a Zorki. If you don't need interchangeable lenses, it gets a lot cheaper, but then you don't get the gorgeous longer Sonnars.
If you are prepared to spend the money on a Leica, a Rollei 6000 with 150/2.8 Sonnar will run circles around it. And I also know the scan isn't perfect, but here I don't have the disk with me, so these are from a somewhat crude 18MP overcompressed prescan JPEGs, hence the streak and blotchiness - since this is the equivalent of a blotchy C41 minilab scan, maybe it illustrates even better what reserves are there.Attachments
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
sirius
Well-known
I guess medium format is the next icon that the DSLR with aim to topple now that their resolution has outpaced film...
mfogiel
Veteran
I think , what Magus refers to, could be partially found in this old article:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/leica/mp/
While I would generally agree that MF has lots of advantages over 35mm in terms of sheer image quality, there's a certain "sparkle" in 35mm images from top lenses, which is difficult to reproduce in MF unless you go with a few "mythical" optics, and you use careful technique too. This has been apparently found to be related to very high MTF values at certain frequencies.
FrankS
Registered User
mfogiel said:
I really would like to see an example of this.
Finder
Veteran
mfogiel said:
I would say that is the Leica urban legend. I see no ceratin "sparkle" in any format. MTF plots do not show it either. You certainly cannot take MTF as absolute performance of a lens. It is alway is relation to the imaging system AND the human visual system. Two things MTF ignores.
Sparrow
Veteran
Finder said:
Perhaps it would be better to say that by any objective criteria MF is clearly superior, and that by any subjective criteria it is, by definition, a matter of opinion. Would you agree?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.