Medium Format Film - Question

R

ruben

Guest
Hi

I use to go with two 35mm cameras, one with iSO 200, the other with Neopan 1600.

Now I have a Kiev medium format in transit, and I ask myself which of these two 35mm cameras should my new MF replace.

As you know the standard lens for MF max aperture is f/2.8. My Kiev 35mm lens max aperture is 1,5 (j-3). Therefore in order to reach the lower light levels the 35mm Neopan covers, I will have to either use ISO 3200 film, or whatever, and push the medium format film by two stops.

But Medium format film is bigger than 35mm film. So what's your opinion concerning low light levels ? MF with pushing, or 35mm Neopan without pushing?

This question concerns only the issue of obtaining the less grainy image.

Thanks

Ruben
 
HI Ruben, congrats on your initiation into MF film! You should remember that MF cameras are different than 35mm cameras, and one will not necessarily replace the other, because they have different strengths and weaknesses. A 35mm RF's strength is compactness, responsiveness, and useability in low light with available fast lenses. A MF camera can not compete successfully in those areas. MF's strengths lie in other areas such as rendering tonality and detail in images taken of generally more static subjects in higher light levels. One "adds" MF to existing 35mm gear without replacing 35mm gear on a one to one basis. All this will become apparant to you as you experience using your new MF gear. Have fun!
 
Keep in mind that on a MF SLR you'll have to fight the mirror and shutter vibration as well, so it'll lose a few stops' worth of low light capability through that as well. I don't really see one being a usable low light camera.
 
For low light MF I like Ilford Delta 3200 with DDX. And actually, f2.8 is considered fast, an advantage of the Kiev, along with very reasonable prices for MF lenses. Here's a low light sample using the Kiev 60, Arsat fisheye, and Ilford + DDX at 3200:
 

Attachments

  • Print5.jpg_web4.jpg
    Print5.jpg_web4.jpg
    264.9 KB · Views: 0
cmedin said:
Keep in mind that on a MF SLR you'll have to fight the mirror and shutter vibration as well, so it'll lose a few stops' worth of low light capability through that as well. I don't really see one being a usable low light camera.
Click to expand...

It is, actually, if you see the sample I posted. Granted I used a 30mm fisheye, and probably shot this at 1/30th at 3200.

Also, the Kiev 60s have mirror lock-up, so if Ruben's has it, and he uses it, mirror slap shouldn't be an issue . My camera doesn't have MLU but most/many do. Plus, it's a heavy, heavy camera not sure if mirror shake is as big a factor due to this.

Here are two more low-light Kiev samples using the fisheye and Ilford Delta 3200 developed in DDX:
 

Attachments

  • bocce_RFFweb.jpg
    bocce_RFFweb.jpg
    211 KB · Views: 0
  • Print7.jpg_web.jpg
    Print7.jpg_web.jpg
    228.6 KB · Views: 0
Ruben:

I suggest that you experiment with both sorts of film in your new Kiev. Which one is it? The Kiev 88 (like a Hassleblad 1000) or the Kowa 6? I have owned both and liked them quite a bit. I agree with what Frank said above; MF and 35mm are slightly different animals and you will need to get a feel for when you will use one instead of the other. As a practical matter, fast MF film is expensive and has a comparatively short shelf life.

For street shooting (noise-wise) the Kievs are pretty loud, but it is going to depend where you are. I was at the central bus station in Tel Aviv once and there was a guy doing street photography with a Rollei - toally silent in the context of the noise of the bus station. I just smiled at the camera and winked.

Ben
 
I find that I am able to use 400asa film in MF cameras and still get more pleasing technical results (grain, tonality, fine rendering of detail) with the larger 400asa negatives, compared to 100asa 35mm film. YMMV
 
cmedin said:
Keep in mind that on a MF SLR you'll have to fight the mirror and shutter vibration as well, so it'll lose a few stops' worth of low light capability through that as well. I don't really see one being a usable low light camera.
Click to expand...

Yeap, I was thinking about this too. It is not only the unability of going to slower speeds but also matching 1:1 the higher focal length of the normal, in my case 90mm

So where all these leave us ?: MF film and gear can surpass 35 film where 35mm film is already strong, but cannot compensate for when 35mm film is weak. :bang:


Cheers,
Ruben
 
I second the issue of the shutter vibration. On my (nice) Kiev 60 with the 80mm Biometar (which is a nice lens btw) I have to shoot at least with 1/125 to avoid blurry images. This is no RF camera. I lug it all around and find it not so large and heavy, esp. with the folding viewfinder. you might know the rule of thumb concerning shutter vibration: take at least the focal lenght of your lens as the shutter speed. if you're lucky you might obtain sharp pics with 1/60 but 1/125 takes you on the save side.

I would consider to exchange the 200 asa 35mm camera with the MF, and load it with a nice sharp 400 asa film (neopan for ex), or acros 100 in sunlight, you'll be much more satisfied with the results - nice tonality, sharp, grainless pics etc.

I think if you shoot low light grain is inevitable and ads to the subject. the difference between the formats shrink, because of the shutter problem and the slower lens speed. The pleasure of MF is rebndition and tonality, and you loose that to a certain degree with the contrasty 3200 asa films!

you could as well get yourself a speed graphic for lo light shooting, that sounds like fun!

enjoy the Kiev (which one is it, 60 or 88? the 60 is a lovely machine, but I strongly suggest flocking the inside against internal flare: google helps here!)

*michael
 
NickTrop said:
........Also, the Kiev 60s have mirror lock-up, so if Ruben's has it, and he uses it, mirror slap shouldn't be an issue . My camera doesn't have MLU but most/many do. Plus, it's a heavy, heavy camera not sure if mirror shake is as big a factor due to this.
Click to expand...

Nope, mine has no mirror lock up, but I have a few ideas to experiment with for quieting a bit the Kiev 60.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
FrankS said:
HI Ruben, congrats on your initiation into MF film! You should remember that MF cameras are different than 35mm cameras, and one will not necessarily replace the other, because they have different strengths and weaknesses. A 35mm RF's strength is compactness, responsiveness, and useability in low light with available fast lenses. A MF camera can not compete successfully in those areas. MF's strengths lie in other areas such as rendering tonality and detail in images taken of generally more static subjects in higher light levels. One "adds" MF to existing 35mm gear without replacing 35mm gear on a one to one basis. All this will become apparant to you as you experience using your new MF gear. Have fun!
Click to expand...


Hi Frank,
Actually since several years I have a full system + of Mamiya C-330. Too big, too uncomfortable. I also have Iskras, but I feel some shame to vent them with that accordeon.

The Kiev in transit is a 6c converted to 645. Therefore its standard Vega 90mm will be, according to my estimation, somewhat parallel to a 60mm lens in 35format.


Cheers,
Ruben
 
Ruben,
Get a tripod, and either a dead sharp slow film like Delta 100/Acros/Tmax 100 for landscape, or a "top tonality" film like Tri-X or HP5+ for portraits, the key being the tripod. This camera will not replace anything, it will help you make landscapes or posed portraits like you've never done before.
 
There is no magic bullet, but some gear is better/easier/more satisfying to use in some conditions, but not in all.
 
Rule of Thumb

Rule of Thumb

The rule of the thumb seems to be that you need to stop down two stops to reach the same DoF as on 35mm for lenses having the same field of view.

I think the best use of MF is when you want the additional "quality", that is either less grain or better resolution. Shooting in dim light is not one of the strong points of MF.

I would stick with 35mm for dim light and use your MF for more formal subjects, indoor portraits, landscapes, still lifes and the like.
 
mfogiel said:
Ruben,
Get a tripod, and either a dead sharp slow film like Delta 100/Acros/Tmax 100 for landscape, or a "top tonality" film like Tri-X or HP5+ for portraits, the key being the tripod. This camera will not replace anything, it will help you make landscapes or posed portraits like you've never done before.
Click to expand...



Ho, my friend, let's take it easier.

Yesterday, my nephew showed me his digital Canon 30d ? with its tremendous zoom 28~120 ? and both in terms of size and weight, my feeling is it's bigger and heavier than a Kiev 60 with a NON TTL PRISM, as mine in transit.

And if I am not wrong he does not have f/2.8, am I right ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
Ho, my friend, let's take it easier.

Yesterday, my nephew showed me his digital Canon 30d ? with its tremendous zoom 28~120 ? and both in terms of size and weight, my feeling is it's bigger and heavier than a Kiev 60 with a NON TTL PRISM, as mine in transit.

And if I am not wrong he does not have f/2.8, am I right ?

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Mmmmm... never held a 30d but I doubt it's anywhere near as big/heavy as a Kiev 60. You'll see (heh). However, it will take better pictures than anything 35mm.
 
Nick it was a digital Canon 30d with a zoom from the AF film era 28 to something like 120 or 135mm. When I held it my subjective feeling was the whole package well over 1kg. Ah, now I remember the zoom was IS (image stabilizer). Upon seeing such a beast I got quite a surprise.

I have held a Kiev in the far past. My subjective comparizon is that in terms of weight they are about the same. In terms of size, the Kiev would be some 10 or 20 mm wider, but its standard lens a bit thinner. Both are big beasts, not just the Kiev.

Upon my nephew saying "these are the sizes and weights of professional DSLRs", I can fairly assume his' is not the biggest digital combination around.

But, on the positive side I was very much surprised for good about the Canon low noise....



Now, the Kiev body only without prism is about 0,6 Kg, the lens about 0.5 kg and my big hope is that the NON TTL PRISM will not surpass 300 grams. If so we are totaling 1,4 kg.

How much is the weight of an OM + Winder + 35~105 zoom ? Quite close, if not the same.

What, haven't we ever held combinations of one and half kg? What's new ?
In my freelancing time I was carrying 4and half kg on me. What about that old Tamron zoom 60~300 for manual focus, weighting around 0,9 kg.

I confess that in the digital world I am the first ignorant. But what my nephew showed me, certainly is not one of those puppy cameras selling for $200 you put in your shirt's pocket. Pro cameras remain as big as ever.

About the Kiev 645 in transit, I think upon my own experience and what I get used to in the rf world, I will do the most to keep it with a single lens. Otherwise I will be starting a mess.

What really worries me is how fast I will manage to focus - Nothing like our beloved rangefinders !

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruben - I've been out this morning shooting in the forest with 2 Hasselblads and a CF tripod - I had a 50mm lens on one and the S Planar 135mm lens with the bellows on a rail on the other. After 5 minutes I was already swearing at myself for taking one camera too many... MF is not a joke in terms of weight, especially as soon as you put a lens different than "normal" on it.
 
mfogiel said:
Ruben - I've been out this morning shooting in the forest with 2 Hasselblads and a CF tripod - I had a 50mm lens on one and the S Planar 135mm lens with the bellows on a rail on the other. After 5 minutes I was already swearing at myself for taking one camera too many... MF is not a joke in terms of weight, especially as soon as you put a lens different than "normal" on it.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, upon thinking on this thread I don't think I may walk with two MF kievs 60, for their low light limitations in their competition with 35mm rfs.

As about the forest, was a thermus included ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
What surprises me most in this thread is that no one is saying:

YES, DSLRS WITH ZOOMS ARE VERY BIG AND VERY HEAVY !

Any volunteer ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom