Thomas78
Well-known
Hello,
do you think that using MF for available light does make sense ?
At fist I thought: Yes, because with the larger format, grain would not be such an issue as with 135.
But you have to keep in mind that in MF you don't have as fast lenses as with 135 and to get the equal DOF with 6x9 as with 24x36 you will need ot go about two steps slower in aperture.
To compensate for the slower lenses you need a faster film, e.g. 6400 at MF instead of 1600 at 135 and at this point I think you have lost any advantage of the larger format.
So now I think that MF would not give you any advantage in low light situations - contrary using both at good daylight with a normal speed film of the same iso rating.
What is your experience/opinion ?
do you think that using MF for available light does make sense ?
At fist I thought: Yes, because with the larger format, grain would not be such an issue as with 135.
But you have to keep in mind that in MF you don't have as fast lenses as with 135 and to get the equal DOF with 6x9 as with 24x36 you will need ot go about two steps slower in aperture.
To compensate for the slower lenses you need a faster film, e.g. 6400 at MF instead of 1600 at 135 and at this point I think you have lost any advantage of the larger format.
So now I think that MF would not give you any advantage in low light situations - contrary using both at good daylight with a normal speed film of the same iso rating.
What is your experience/opinion ?