Medium Format Regret?

I honestly don't understand all this "went to xxx only to come back/never to come back/should I move to xxx/will I regret xxx?" and so on kind of threads.

Of course it is nice if one has found "his/her" format and needs nothing else. Congratulations.

But this kind of "should I move to xxx?" talk sounds as if it was forbidden to own/use a 35mm and MF and/or LF setup at the same time and use each of them for their unique strengths? Where is this law written? Sorry, I don't get it.

Quality film gear is so cheap nowadays that it shouldn't be problem for most of us to try MF without having to sacrifice his/her 35mm kit (or the other way round). Try MF and see if you like it (e.g. see if you find an application in your personal style of photography to make use of the different format), if you like it keep, if not, sell it, most likely without a loss, period. Really no need in IMO to turn this into some kind of separation/divorce drama! 🙂
 
Since I got a dedicate scanner I enjoy 35mm again, without printing too large. MF is still on another level. But I tend to use both. 35mm wins for portability and simplicity. MF is best when you have a little more time.You only get 12 shots in a 120 roll with 6x6. At the end no regrets. I have more regrets when I spend too much on overpriced 35mm lsetup.
 
I think this really goes down to if you develop/scan your own film. But besides that, there is a difference between 645 and 35mm negatives in terms of quality and resolution. Relatively speaking, if you're looking for 'less' visible grain, go with the 645.

Few reason why I prefer Medium format over 35mm format:

-Personally I find it easier to develop and scan Medium format film. I despise scanning 35mm film, unless I'm drum scanning...

-A wide variety of Medium Format cameras with the choice of different frame size. That's where you'll have to experiment around. Personally 6x6 fits my work well, or 6x9. But for people who needs the extra frames, 645 is my go-to. It's a great balance between quality and price per frame.

Call me crazy but I don't think I'll use much 35mm film. Don't get me wrong, I love film but digital nowadays have surpass the resolution of 35mm film.... So when I want to shoot something quick and easy, I may shoot with my Sony A7ii. Everything else, I'll shoot with Medium or Large Format. There's more fun and thrill in the results.
 
DKimg said:
-Personally I find it easier to develop and scan Medium format film. I despise scanning 35mm film, unless I'm drum scanning...
Click to expand...

DK,

Could you elaborate on this some more. This is interesting to me. What scanner do you use?

I agree with what you say about digital's resolution. I'm at a point where I am thinking of culling down my 35mm and concentrating more on my medium format and starting to scan on a Nikon LS-8000 I just acquired.

Thanks in advance.

Cal
 
My personal medium format history:

Got a Yashica 635. Loved it. Still have it.

Got a Kodak Medalist. Despite the pain-in-the-ass of 620, I do love that camera.

Got an RB67. I was already shooting 4x5 at the time and didn't think it was worth the hassle. Let it go.

Got a Pentax 645. At this point I will say that I don't think, for me, the difference between 645 and 35mm was worth the hassle of a separate camera system, especially since I had the 6x6 and the 6x9, and large format.

I got rid of the 645, and got a 6x7. I always wanted to try one. Great big negatives, built-in metering, 35mm-like handling. This was the camera for me. And it was equally at home on a tripod for landscapes. Love it!

Just got a Mamiya C330 as well. I love the camera, but I already liked TLRs, an this is just more of the same, and a system cam, as well.

Personally I like moving up-format when it comes to MF. A 645 has a lot of convenience to overcome compared to a 35mm, for not a huge amount of benefit, especially when I have bigger formats laying around. Your mileage may vary. Results not guaranteed. Void where prohibited.
 
I am still thinking about 35mm vs mf. Obviously, the results show up in the final print and mf has the definite advantage here. However, 35mm has advantages in the size of the camera and amount of film you can carry.

MF vs 35 goes back years. In high school, I wanted to shoot 35mm while my photography instructor insisted I use a Graflex 4X5. Both formats have advantages.

To some extent, it is a similar debate about digital vs film (at least about the convience, technology, equipment) etc.
 
Never sell off Leica gear for another format.
Never.
Get a reasonable priced Med. Format, one lens.
Lack of depth of field a major problem,
unless one wants the look of Noctilux at f4..
The extra cost of films and processing is serious.
Use it for at least one year.
Then consider going that way.
When I used Medium Format, there was no digital.
It was Fashion, Publicity and Advertising.
Weddings, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs/Birthdays and Confirmations,35mm only.
When digital arrived I went small, point and shoot.
I have never bothered with larger cameras.
I have my Rollei and a few rolls left.
When they are finished, probably sell.
 
ktmrider said:
Well, I have been shooting the past week with both the Pentax 645N and the Mamiya 645. I could get spoiled by the 645N as I have never had an auto exposure/autofocus camera. The Mamiya is outfitted with a 80f2 manual lens. I don't mind the manual focus but it does not even have auto aperture so must be closed down manually before shooting.
Click to expand...

All Mamiya 645 bodies do auto-aperture and unless you use the 50mm shift or the 500mm mirror the lenses do as well. So either you have a defective body or defective lens.
 
I shoot many sizes of film and digital. There is no format or camera that is best for all situations. Here is what I use regularly.

I shoot Olympus 4/3 digital underwater. I use my Nikon D750 for action and low light. I use a Olympus TG-4 small sensor digital for wet environments. I also use my iPhone because I almost always have it handy and it does great panoramas.

35mm:
I use point and shoots because I like to use them, especially my Olympus Stylus 100 WIDE (mju-III WIDE 100) since it zooms to 28mm and it fits in my pocket.

I use my Olympus 35SP because of the awesome lens and it is just a joy to use.

I like my Nikon film SLRs for portraits, since grainy black and white is very kind to us as we age.

645:
I use my Fuji GS645S and GS645W since in good light the quality is just better than my full frame SLR, and they are very light weight.

6x6:
My Haselblad and Maymia cameras have the sharpest lenses I own. I also like that I can change backs and film types on the fly with the Hasy.

6x7:
I love my Pentax 67II for portraits and landscapes. The built in meter is as good as the one on my Nikon F4. However it requires a tripod or monopd for sharp photos and is just a beast to carry around. However great lenses for this camera are a bargain.

6x9:
My first medium format camera was a Fujica GW690 which got me hooked on medium format. My Fuji GSW690II is my go to camera when I go to my annual car show.

I always keep a camera with me. The one(s) I take on any given day change, but I always have fun using them.
 
Neither Mamiya body or lens is defective. It is an older manual lens which lacks any electronic contacts. It does not talk to the body in any manner. The shooting aperture must be set prior to releasing the shutter.

If I decide to go with the Mamiya, I would buy a couple modern lenses so the autofocus and auto exposure functions would be restored. However, with the present lens it does not do these things. The Pentax does.
 
DKimg said:
I think this really goes down to if you develop/scan your own film. But besides that, there is a difference between 645 and 35mm negatives in terms of quality and resolution.
Click to expand...
Agreed on that, except that 35mm is excellent at being 35mm. Having the classic 35mm rendition and look.
I relapsed on 35mm because I wanted a classic look akin to a travel photography editorial I saw and for the advantages of the format. Got an F80 for cheap and off it goes.

But scanning, well. It depends of what. From what I've heard Pakons are a bliss for 35mm, it goes through easy. Dedicated scanners can be alright. And I've a flatbed but it's loo little too slow and too much effort at the end. At the end externalization to a lab gives quite nice files and allows me to have a hand at the trendier looks in town. 😀

At the end is is how much (Enjoyment-PITA)/frame there's in the workflow. Scanning & editing 6x9 is another matter for me.

At the end I know that I'll just work around whatever is available. That's a point when the tools are a help for an end and not the end being the tools.
I used to have a lot of regret before, but I evolved over that and appreciate whatever goes. Decent phone camera does a lot to have something at least.
 
I love 645, but it's so much more hassle to get developed and scan, that I have to admit it sits in its bag and doesn't get used nearly enough.
 
The negs from the GS645 are amazing IMO.

I've shot many different MF cameras and found the Fuji's about right for me. Hasselblads too bulky and heavy. Same for Mamiya and Bronica's that have similar bodies. Actually, I have a Mamiya 645 that just sits in a drawer. The GS645 is so small and light I can add it to my Leica M6 kit and not notice it much.

As for 645 negs similar to 35mm--huh? Put both on a light table and you'll see the difference.

GA645

2016-04-10-0009 by wjlapier, on Flickr

Leica M6/Nikkor S 35/2.5

2016-04-26-0024 by wjlapier, on Flickr
 
Like Chris Livsey says, you don't have to go fancy when moving up-format. My three 645 cameras are pretty basic, with scale focusing. Two of them are really close in design, as the Zenobia is a clone of the Ikonta 520/Ikomat, with a couple of improvements.

17232743516_0d5881b3bc_z.jpg

Side-By-Side Zenobia-Ikomat 1 by P F McFarland, on Flickr


A sample from the Zenobia (still have to do some work on the Ikomat)

17256978762_09bf9a4ae8_z.jpg

Quiet Course by P F McFarland, on Flickr


The third camera (which I've yet to get a photo of) is a Bencini Koroll, and has removable masks to convert it to 6x6 if you want to use the whole frame.

You can't get more basic than one shutter speed (1/50), one aperture (f11), a yellow filter and hood with T-Max 100.

5495441117_7fb7a6b2f7_z.jpg

00800001_1 by P F McFarland, on Flickr

And like others have said, either you go with one format and stick with it, or use all the formats available as needed. I myself like to use everything (well, except for that nasty 110 or 16mm).

And my dream 645 would be a Bronica ETRSi system.
PF
 
For years I was a Rolleiflex guy. Still have my MX but it hasn't seen action in a long time. I have someone who wants me to use it for a portrait. It will likely be B+W. Also had a brief fling with a Crown Graphic. Great negatives but hard to justify in the digital world. Surprised that no one mentioned the Graphics.
 
wjlapier said:
As for 645 negs similar to 35mm--huh? Put both on a light table and you'll see the difference.
Click to expand...

Is that 35mm F2.5 multi coated? From the old school looks of it - no. In that case, comparing those two shots is a bit like apples and oranges IMHO. Of course the Fuji's modern, 645 lens will blow the doors off any single-coated lens. Modern 35mm glass will look much better. Will it compete with the Fuji 645 glass? Depends I suppose. But you don't have to sell me on that Fuji glass. I love it for my 4x5s and my 6x9s. I've heard great things about the 645 lenses and I'm know they are superb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Fujifilm GFX100RF - fixed lens RF style medium format camera!
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Godfrey
Godfrey
ChrisPlatt
Kodak Plus-X film, expired 20 years ago: worthwhile purchase?
Replies
14
Views
1K
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
8
Want Would You Say Are Sharp 35mm Films?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Freakscene
Freakscene
P
Beseler Enlarger 23C II Advice
Replies
4
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
James Evidon
Eastman Vision 3 250 D problem
Replies
0
Views
402
James Evidon
James Evidon
Back
Top Bottom