My first medium format venture was a P6x7 in the 1970s, which immediately became a favored rig. I've used 35mm and smaller formats since then, but MF always has had its charms. So there came Fuji GS645, GA645, GW670, Bronica RF645, P645NII, P67II... And I recognize the hassle of film availability, development, scanning, etc. So avoiding that, my latest medium format is digital, with the Leica S. At only 30x45mm, it's smaller than most other medium formats, but the quality and feel are there, in a smaller package for easier carry.
Kent
Finally at home...
No regrets. But then, I never switched completely. MF has always been a parallel system for me.
I would surely regret if I completely gave up on 35mil, because I would miss the higher portability and convenience.
I would surely regret if I completely gave up on 35mil, because I would miss the higher portability and convenience.
jamin-b
Well-known
The only way I found to have 6x4.5 convenience (16 exposures) together with light weight, easy and fun to use set up on a manual focus camera has been a Rolleiflex T with the 16 exposure mask together with a Rolleilux hood attachment for metering., For me, this is the sweet spot between MF and 35mm. The only drawback is you are pretty much locked into landscape mode.
papaki
Established
Another option is the tinny little Zeiss Ikonta 521/16. It cannot get to the optical performance of my Rolleiflex T, but it is quite portable and handsome.
My only complain with it is the a bit hard to press shutter button.
My only complain with it is the a bit hard to press shutter button.
DKimg
Established
In most cases, it's not easy to scan 35mm film because the film is so narrow and it curls too much. I mentioned I don't mind drum scanning 35mm because I have to wet mount the film onto the drum, so with lots of practice, the film actually is 'flat'. But all that work for 35mm is still a headache, and that's my reasoning to shoot digital as suppose to 35mm.
With Medium Format, Most films can stay relatively flat, especially your 400 speed films.
As far as scanners... I have a few. Back in Florida I have the Epson V750 and two PMT Drum Scanners. Here in China I have Epson V600 and have access to Flextight X5 and Fuji Frontier.
DKimg
Established
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.
Haha! True True! I could never justify the price of a pakon or a Frontier/Noritsu scanner. If I'm already spending so many hours developing and scanning, I might as well jump to a quality that I feel satisifed... Just my personal preference.
shawn
Veteran
I shoot mostly digital (XPro2, Coolpix A and RX100III). For MF film I use a Monitor, Medalist or Mamiya Six. For 35mm I have too many options.
Shooting MF I had a RF645 (awesome camera) and GS690II but rarely used them as I preferred to shoot the Kodak Monitor and Mamiya Six. The process of using the folders was just more fun and they were easier to bring along due to the small size and weight. Quality was certainly there on those big negatives that I develop at home.
However, I rarely use MF due to the workflow of scanning the negatives. It is time consuming to scan a roll of 6x9 on my LS8000 with glass carriers. The convenience of scanning an entire roll of 35mm in a couple of minutes on a Kodak/Pakon 135+ is wonderful.
Shawn
Shooting MF I had a RF645 (awesome camera) and GS690II but rarely used them as I preferred to shoot the Kodak Monitor and Mamiya Six. The process of using the folders was just more fun and they were easier to bring along due to the small size and weight. Quality was certainly there on those big negatives that I develop at home.
However, I rarely use MF due to the workflow of scanning the negatives. It is time consuming to scan a roll of 6x9 on my LS8000 with glass carriers. The convenience of scanning an entire roll of 35mm in a couple of minutes on a Kodak/Pakon 135+ is wonderful.
Shawn
wjlapier
Well-known
Definitely apples and oranges. Different film size, film type, and ISO. I wasn't really making a point but rather sharing two "similar" photos from a MF camera and a 35mm camera.
Not sure the Nikkor is multicoated--
Looked and found it was single coated.
xia_ke
Established
xenohip
Established
I took a lot of incredibly sharp, incredibly dull pictures on various MF cameras. Then again I am a Delta 3200 kind of guy. YMMV.
MF has film flatness issues.
MF is a depth of field hog.
The two are related.
If any aspect of technique is not just right (even very slight focus error), the advantage is lost.
If you are shooting at f11 all the time, and 1/250 or faster to tame the shutter, then you need a tripod or ultraspeed film. Where is the spontaneity in the former case? Where is the advantage in the latter case?
MF has film flatness issues.
MF is a depth of field hog.
The two are related.
If any aspect of technique is not just right (even very slight focus error), the advantage is lost.
If you are shooting at f11 all the time, and 1/250 or faster to tame the shutter, then you need a tripod or ultraspeed film. Where is the spontaneity in the former case? Where is the advantage in the latter case?
JChrome
Street Worker
I've yet to have film flatness issues with any of my MF cameras. Mostly, I have film flatness issues with my scanners.
If you use a tripod, you lose spontaneity. If you use ultraspeed film, you will get an increase in grain. But since the film size is larger, grain size won't matter as much. These aren't surprising. But this doesn't take away from the advantages of higher tonality, increased resolution etc.
You mentioned, "YMMV" and it certainly varied for you. For me, I still enjoy enough to shoot with my 35mm on very rare occasions
Range-rover
Veteran
No regret's here, I went on a tear getting a few 6X6 medium formats and it's
so different to digital, I really like it. The color the sharpness and the depth in
the photos compared to 35mm is startling at times.
so different to digital, I really like it. The color the sharpness and the depth in
the photos compared to 35mm is startling at times.
unixrevolution
Well-known
The only medium format regret I had was that I sold off my medium format gear. I shall regret no longer though! Just got this beauty in the mail today
I recently bought an S2 myself. Definitely no regret here!
znapper
Well-known
Let me poop in the nest by saying that I have only one regret regarding MF and that is buying a Hasselblad 503CW with the 80mm f2.8 Planar.
Why?
Can't nail focus with that one, I even changed out the focus-screen to a Acumatte-D (without an annoying split-screen), it really is hit and miss.
Also, the lenses have such long throws that it takes a fair amount of turning just to get them into the ballpark, it doesn't help that the focus on the lenses are very hard to turn as well.
The 50mm (can't remember the name) CF T* something is very hard to work with, as it has inherent barrel-distortion, quite difficult to get a straight -anything- with it.
So, I regret that indeed. (still have it, rarely use it).
Still have a bunch of 35mm that I shoot regularly with,from zorki's, to Leica's to the Canon 1v.
And I have a bunch of (other) MF cameras; Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS, Rolleiflex 2.8F, Mamiya RZ 67 pro II, Bessa II 6*9 folder and a Yashicaflex.....and a Moskva V (with a crooked field of focus, so it's for display only).
I did look at 6*4.5, but, apart from convenience of the size of the cameras and the increased quality in the bigger negative, compared to 35mm, it's not that interesting for me. My Automat is tiny and delivers 6*6 so...
I would never go back to anything, I shoot multi-format (apart from LF), to each it's purpose.
Why?
Can't nail focus with that one, I even changed out the focus-screen to a Acumatte-D (without an annoying split-screen), it really is hit and miss.
Also, the lenses have such long throws that it takes a fair amount of turning just to get them into the ballpark, it doesn't help that the focus on the lenses are very hard to turn as well.
The 50mm (can't remember the name) CF T* something is very hard to work with, as it has inherent barrel-distortion, quite difficult to get a straight -anything- with it.
So, I regret that indeed. (still have it, rarely use it).
Still have a bunch of 35mm that I shoot regularly with,from zorki's, to Leica's to the Canon 1v.
And I have a bunch of (other) MF cameras; Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS, Rolleiflex 2.8F, Mamiya RZ 67 pro II, Bessa II 6*9 folder and a Yashicaflex.....and a Moskva V (with a crooked field of focus, so it's for display only).
I did look at 6*4.5, but, apart from convenience of the size of the cameras and the increased quality in the bigger negative, compared to 35mm, it's not that interesting for me. My Automat is tiny and delivers 6*6 so...
I would never go back to anything, I shoot multi-format (apart from LF), to each it's purpose.
benlees
Well-known
I love 6x4.5. The negs are WAY bigger than 35mm, but you get some flexibility with 15-16 shots per roll. You can get some seriously good cameras for $300US. Rangefinder or an SLR, you decide.
If you print they fill the paper better than other formats. An all around versatile size.
I also like 6x6 and 6x7. Very easy to get a cheap but awesome 6x6 camera.
If you print they fill the paper better than other formats. An all around versatile size.
I also like 6x6 and 6x7. Very easy to get a cheap but awesome 6x6 camera.
LukeBanks
Established
Sold my trusty RZ67 a couple of years ago and I regret losing use of 6x7 format, I didn't realise how much I loved it over others until it was gone. That said, the sale payed for my dream R3A set up that I could not live without now, and I sure know which would be easier to replace at this point in time.
35mm - great for walks and most use, sometimes too small for final prints.
6x4.5/6x6 - not enough of a gain for my taste over 35mm (Hasselblad 6x6 the exception)
6x7 - my dream format, lots of detail without the hassle of 5x4 dark slides etc.
5x4 - impractical for my style of photography
(5D mkii - only really used for commercial gigs, digital just isn't my thing for personal work)
As soon as the funds are there I'll be replacing the 6x7 format in my bag, but this time with a more manageable Mamiya 7. A bag with my R3A loaded with b&w film sat next to a Mamiya 7 loaded with colour Portra would leave me needing a cold shower!
35mm - great for walks and most use, sometimes too small for final prints.
6x4.5/6x6 - not enough of a gain for my taste over 35mm (Hasselblad 6x6 the exception)
6x7 - my dream format, lots of detail without the hassle of 5x4 dark slides etc.
5x4 - impractical for my style of photography
(5D mkii - only really used for commercial gigs, digital just isn't my thing for personal work)
As soon as the funds are there I'll be replacing the 6x7 format in my bag, but this time with a more manageable Mamiya 7. A bag with my R3A loaded with b&w film sat next to a Mamiya 7 loaded with colour Portra would leave me needing a cold shower!
besk
Well-known
I like medium format and have had and still have several types. However, for my purposes I have always found that 35mm or large format cameras will work better.
IMO, the thing that MF excels in is portraiture - which I don't do much of.
IMO, the thing that MF excels in is portraiture - which I don't do much of.
J enea
Established
I just view them all as a tool to use depending on the job. 35mm is great for the casual walk or hike. small enough to fit in a pair of cargo shorts along with a few lenses and many rolls of film. its meant to capture the moment. I know that a wet print in 35mm will not be as good as a MF neg, but i have many 11x14 35mm prints that are great, but only because i had a camera to take the shot. so for me portability has its benefits. i also use 35mm to scout out new landscape locations. 36 shots per roll means carrying fewer rolls compared to 120 rolls. if I find a shot I like I can then go out with a MF camera and hopefully retake the same shot with the larger neg.
for MF, I found that there is a big difference going from 35mm to a 645 neg when printing, especially at 11x14, my most common print size. grain for me is never an issue, but its the tonality (and thats the reason I shoot film over digital, tonality) that makes the difference. not needing to enlarge a negative over 8x makes the print sparkle in my mind. I shoot all sizes in MF, 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 and they all have their uses.
maybe i have too many cameras, but since they are so cheap why not? you can get systems, more than one, for the cost of a high end 35mm digital. and if they dont work out for you you can most likely get all your cash back. so buy one or two or three and try em out. if they dont work for you, sell them and consider it a rental. i prefer shooting 6x7 as i love how it prints, but my pentax 67ii is just not really a handheld camera, so i have others for handheld. so now you can have handheld cameras, like the fuji rangefinders or the mamiyas and tripod cameras like the pentax 67. all produce negs that will give results that are just draw dropping when you have you workflow maximized.
so for me 35mm and 120 are used based on the situation. I just see them as toosl and which tool is best for this project.
for MF, I found that there is a big difference going from 35mm to a 645 neg when printing, especially at 11x14, my most common print size. grain for me is never an issue, but its the tonality (and thats the reason I shoot film over digital, tonality) that makes the difference. not needing to enlarge a negative over 8x makes the print sparkle in my mind. I shoot all sizes in MF, 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 and they all have their uses.
maybe i have too many cameras, but since they are so cheap why not? you can get systems, more than one, for the cost of a high end 35mm digital. and if they dont work out for you you can most likely get all your cash back. so buy one or two or three and try em out. if they dont work for you, sell them and consider it a rental. i prefer shooting 6x7 as i love how it prints, but my pentax 67ii is just not really a handheld camera, so i have others for handheld. so now you can have handheld cameras, like the fuji rangefinders or the mamiyas and tripod cameras like the pentax 67. all produce negs that will give results that are just draw dropping when you have you workflow maximized.
so for me 35mm and 120 are used based on the situation. I just see them as toosl and which tool is best for this project.
stompyq
Well-known
Regrets? I keep thinking of selling my Leica M4. Even if it's the smoothest Leica I own (this is now my 3rd Leica M4). Compare that to my beat up pentax 6x7 and Rolleiflex 2.8E none of which I can even think of selling. The Rolleiflex has about 40% edge separation on the taking lens but still, produces incredible results compared to the Leica. So no. No regrets at all. After shooting with 4x5 velvia for 5 years almost exclusively I can tell you MF is the perfect sweet spot. It doesn't help that there are cameras like Rolleiflex's too
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I always shot 35mm until a few years ago when i bought a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and then an Ikoflex Ib. I shot MF alongside 35mm for a year or so until i sold the MF cameras. I did like the pictures from the larger negative but it is not very convenient when i am doing street photography.