Musing dropping 35mm for MF

I acquired a Fuji GF670W a few months ago. Loved it so much I bought a Fuji 690111, and then a Fuji 645zi a couple of weeks ago. The difference in the quality of the negs compared to 35mm is stunning. I bought a MF enlarger 6 months ago but it still needs enlarger lenses. Really looking forward to printing MF negs in hopefully a couple of months. As for 35mm I still have my G1 and 28 and 90 lenses as well as various Canon bodies and lenses. Some of the Canon gear might be getting sold soon though.
 
If you feel digital can replace your 35mm needs, then I say go for it. You have thought it through a bit, it would seem, and feel that it would suit your style of shooting.

Myself, digital could not replace what 35mm gives me, which is smaller, lighter simpler bodies, and the rangefinder experience. On paper, it would sound like a good idea for my shooting, but in practice know it would fall flat. In fact, if I can get my act together, I would love to hike up my b&w shooting & wet printing, and simply round out the gaps with digital and colour.

At the end of the day, it is really all about image making, and if medium format and digital allow you to capture and output the images you want to be making, that is the right path.
 
Just realised it is the new Bessa you referred to. That really is a lovely camera, and imagine if the lower shot volume per roll in 120, and the cost of the camera and film costs are not an issue, then go for it.
 
thegman said:
Low light is not much of a concern for me, especially as Delta 3200 is available in 120, and the grain is less of an issue compared with 35mm. Also, I just don't do much non-tripod stuff at night.

I'm happy with a flatbed for scanning, always found my V700 or 9000f more than enough.

I think I'm all but decided on this now...

Garry
Click to expand...

Funny - I've been mostly shooting Medium Format and now I'm eying a Nikon RF. Yes, I've shot Delta 3200 in 120. The problem is that the shallower DOF forces me to use fast films sooner than I would in 135. So, for me, 35mm still makes sense for low light shooting (when don't want digital).
 
same feelings here. addicted to MF film. I have been planning to drop the 35mm film gear for a while but cannot seem to get up to doing it.

some more food for thought that others can relate to. most labs and mail order labs I used to use for C41 developing are either closing or increasing their prices. Mpix is going to stop film developing service by end of 2012. I used to use Walmart for 120/220 processing but their prices have increased and rumor is that they are not returning the negatives. Oh well. I have started doing C41 and E-6 processing at home for my 120/220 rolls. I don't mind scanning the large negatives. In contrast, I am discouraged to develop 35mm because of the sheer number of frames to scan.

The only reason to hold on to the 35mm film gear for me is to shoot slides and get them mounted by Dwaynes by using the Fuji mailers. I wonder for how long though.
 
Okay, lugged a Hasselblad 203FE around all morning.

It is a lot of weight.

That is the one downside, and where 35mm is superior.

Vick
 
thegman said:
I am surprised about the lack of discussion here for a brand new MF folding range finder, you'd think it would get more attention than it does.
Click to expand...

There are certainly threads on it. However, it is very expensive compared to many older cameras on the used market. Once a camera goes over the $1000 mark, it seems to go into a category that many aren't comfortable with.
 
Anyone here left 35mm behind just for MF?
Click to expand...

Practically yes, I haven't shot any 135 for several years now. But not to the point that I would get rid of all my 135 gear.

This year I came to the conclusion that it isn't going to see much use but I still want a 135 setup in stock. Just to hedge against which type of film becomes obsolete.
 
For the last few months I've lived somewhere that I have zero interest in photographing "street" type stuff and that actually made me think I could get by just fine with a Mamiya 7 with a 65 or 80mm lens. My shooting was far less frequent and I'd be lucky to shoot half a roll in a day or two rather than the usual hour of walking around.

Now that I'm moving somewhere else I'm glad I didn't make the trade. 35mm works better for places that I'm more inspired 🙂
 
I went thru this same process maybe about a year ago after I got my x100..

Digital APS-c is good enough for all my color work. Not really quite there yet w/ b&w images but close.

The tonal quality in 120 b&w negatives and larger is what keeps me shooting in mf cameras. I have not gotten to the point of selling off my 35mm gear.. I still use it for b&w as well, just that mf is my preferred medium...

My favorite mf cameras are all folders... Voitlander Perkeo, Bessa II, and the Fuji gf670...

Gary
 
Interesting thread indeed. I myself shoot only MF - mostly Mamiya 6 and TLR (and a little 4x5") and seriously consider a 35mm camera. I have used Zeiss Ikon with a few lenses for 3 days and can only say that it is a large difference to MF - even when compared to a rangefinder.

I am also considering of getting a decent digital camera instead of 35mm film one. I do prefer the look of film, but it just takes too long to get even 'normal' vacation photos developed, scanned and processed (even basic PP takes time) to be able to give them to family.

For me the game changer could be fully analog darkroom (I do not have an enlarger yet, only developing and contact printing). Then a 35mm camera would make sense to me for BW as the look would be different.
 
I have migrated to medium format for it's image quality the last couple years, still have my MP and M3 with a few lenses, just haven't used them much lately. I do have a D700 for when I need more frames. I really like the images I get from my Mamiya 7II, Hasselblad, and Rolleiflexes. I just can't part with the Leicas yet, but yes I really like the results form the medium format cameras I use.

Todd
 
I agree 100% it's a courageous product to release, Cosina and Fujifilm have my utmost respect. When everyone was talking about the demise of film years ago, who could have predicted that we'd see brand new medium format folding range finder?

I'm in the UK, so maybe the situation is a bit different here, but I have no more trouble find 120 development and film than 35mm. I order and develop online, it's easier, cheaper and not even much slower.

funkydog said:
Lovely camera. Nothing wrong with it. Would love to have one. Courageous of the manufacturer to actually want to be this business while other long established MF camera makers have dropped out.

Difficult to justify the expense when lots of used MF SLR/RF stuff is going for a song these days. Besides, there's the Moskva 5. Cheeeeeep folding rf 6x9 with 6x6 mask.

The other problem is film and labs. The situation is bad enough with 35mm, it's worse with 120. Many labs have gone digital and outsource their C41 processing. Turnaround can take a week. Having a house full of refrigerated film and paper is no comfort when E6 and C41 goes the way of K14 some day.

Methinks you're very brave giving up 35mm and going into MF now.
Click to expand...
 
I use film for 'set-piece' pictures and digital for impromptu snaps. (If you're a good photographer, call set-piece "art" photography. I'm not a very accomplished 'artist', so let's just label it by the process, instead of the results, shall we?)

Much prefer MF to 35mm for set-piece work and digital post is well suited to snaps. So, most of my set-piece pictures are MF and snaps are digital.

-Charlie

PS: I love small 120 folders. The only reason I didn't buy the Bessa III/667 was its large size. There are old folders that fit in a back pocket and that is very, very useful.
 
I prefer the 10/12 shots per roll. Means I can easily change film for the evening. I dont really find I need more than 10 considered shots during the day. Oh, and its more compact and lighter than my D3100 DSLR which I chose as it was the smallest and lightest DSLR. Seems lighter than the M9 I used to have and the rangefinder is much better.
 
I am film only, some 120 but mostly 35mm. Love the way it looks, love the whole handling, waiting for the film results, love the portability of the cameras (my Rolleiflex is light. I wouldn't want to do street photography with, say, a Pentax 67), and the feel of and operation of the metal bodies. That's where the old stuff shines. I am thinking about selling some of my more expensive 35mm bodies, though, while they still fetch relatively good prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
WJJ3
WJJ3
J
Looking for a square-frame brightline viewfinder. Any 126 cameras out there have a decent finder I can adapt/cannibalize?
2
Replies
20
Views
507
justins7
J
P
Which camera for 28 and 50mm?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
7K
Beemermark
Beemermark
S
Normal price for leica m2
Replies
13
Views
683
Freakscene
Freakscene
8
Want Would You Say Are Sharp 35mm Films?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Back
Top Bottom