Quality 35mm or average medium format??

[Scrambler]

At 1:1 crop (assuming same film and same scan method) wouldn't the level of detail be relatively the same, if not favor 35mm given that 35mm lens can be capable of higher resolution?
Put another way... I have a Bronica ETRSI with both 120 and 35mm backs. If I shot a roll of 120 and a roll of 35mm using same film and same lens, then scanned both rolls using the same scanner at same output resolution, 1:1 crops of those scans from both formats should carry the same level of detail.

Thats true.

The issue would be getting a MF scanner which was as good with 35mm as the best 35mm scanners are.

But doing optical enlargement...

The 1:1 crop above is nowhere near grain level scanning.

 

[narsuitus]

...i was wondering if i could get some opinions on wether it is better to use a 35mm rangefinder with a high quality lens OR a quality medium format rangefinder camera for making prints that would ether go into a portfolio book or 12 inch prints. Most of my work consists of lifestyle photography; which includes portraits and landscapes, i like to stick with rangefinders and flash is also a tool i often use (so leaf shutters are pretty nice).

I could use either to obtain the high quality images you desire. However, if I were limited to use only one, I would use the medium format rangefinder.


Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[jsrockit]

Get a really nice 35mm SLR and a really nice MF.

 

[Huss]

At 1:1 crop (assuming same film and same scan method) wouldn't the level of detail be relatively the same, if not favor 35mm given that 35mm lens can be capable of higher resolution?
Put another way... I have a Bronica ETRSI with both 120 and 35mm backs. If I shot a roll of 120 and a roll of 35mm using same film and same lens, then scanned both rolls using the same scanner at same output resolution, 1:1 crops of those scans from both formats should carry the same level of detail.

No because I am scanning them at the same detail and size.
The scan size is something like 6000 by 4000 pixels for both images.
As the 35mm image is much smaller, showing a 1:1 from that scan will show a far greater level of enlargement to maintain the same size as what that same scan size from a 120 piece of film.

Or think of it this way. The 35mm film needs a greater level of enlargement to fill that scan size as it is a smaller physical image.
The 120 piece of film, being much bigger than 35mm, needs a far lower level of enlargement to fill that same scan size.

Try it out.

 

[Swift1]

No because I am scanning them at the same detail and size.
The scan size is something like 6000 by 4000 pixels for both images.
As the 35mm image is much smaller, showing a 1:1 from that scan will show a far greater level of enlargement to maintain the same size as what that same scan size from a 120 piece of film.

Or think of it this way. The 35mm film needs a greater level of enlargement to fill that scan size as it is a smaller physical image.
The 120 piece of film, being much bigger than 35mm, needs a far lower level of enlargement to fill that same scan size.

Try it out.

So you are effectively scanning the medium format at a lower dpi, and so the 1:1 crop has less magnification. That isn't an equal comparison, but it does highlight the benefit of medium format, ie it requires less magnification. Because it requires less magnification, medium format film gives the appearance of better tonality and better resolution. If you view each at the same magnification and same viewing distance, the tonality and resolution should be about the same.

 

[Huss]

So you are effectively scanning the medium format at a lower dpi, and so the 1:1 crop has less magnification. That isn't an equal comparison, but it does highlight the benefit of medium format, ie it requires less magnification. Because it requires less magnification, medium format film gives the appearance of better tonality and better resolution. If you view each at the same magnification and same viewing distance, the tonality and resolution should be about the same.

Yes I guess that sums it up. As the 120 image is bigger it requires less magnification for the same result, resulting in a higher quality looking print.
Same as if it was printed optically.

Bottom line, a smaller negative cannot compete against a larger one.

 

[Swift1]

Yes I guess that sums it up. As the 120 image is bigger it requires less magnification for the same result, resulting in a higher quality looking print.
Same as if it was printed optically.

Bottom line, a smaller negative cannot compete against a larger one.

Totally agree
Like they say in the muscle car world, "there's no replacement for displacement"

 

[charjohncarter]

Could always go for a medium format folder. Won't weigh you down, can get coupled rangefinder equipped models, and many have excellent lenses. And a folder feels somewhat like using a 35mm rangefinder. Not some mad flipped image TLR nonsense.

I have four folders, I'm not sure I need them all. In fact I'm sure I don't need them all. BUT before I bought them I used a Rolleiflex TLR and just saw how much better the things I wanted captured were with the Rollei. So, as I didn't like hauling the Rollei around I got all these folders. They are more compact but really just as slow moving as the TLR. Now I put up with both; 35mm and 120.

 

[mich rassena]

I know you said you don't want a TLR, but have you considered using a Mamiya C series TLR with an accessory prism finder? For me, the major annoyance of TLRs is the reversed image, which is corrected by the finder.

There are a large variety of lenses available, most are excellent, and the whole system isn't terribly expensive (at least compared with Leica gear).

For a truly versatile and inexpensive medium format rangefinder system, my recommendation is the Mamiya press. It takes Graflock backs giving you a lots of choice of format, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, or even 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film. The lenses are great, and you have the option of getting some very wide lenses, like 65mm. The camera allows even more advanced usage with a ground glass back, offering rear tilt and macro focusing.