John Lawrence
Well-known
Almost all my work used to be MF. The reason for this was that the old pro photographer who taught me always said that the quality was better. After working with him for a few months, I realised that the big advantage MF had for him (and me in those days) was the ability to crop and make good 10 x 8 (or larger) prints. Many a job was saved because of this!
Lilserenity
Well-known
I'm not a pixel peeper but I can tell the difference between 35mm and MF.
I use a Mamiya C330F TLR from time to time and with the 55mm wide angle, prints of 8x10 and over exhibit particularly exquistite detail in landscapes. I just love the detail I get from a roll of PanF or TriX in the Mamiya, it is definitely in terms of image quality better than 35mm. The downside is the weight of it, especially when hiking up steep ascents.
That said thought, I have an EOS 3 and a Leica M2, both 35mm and sometimes I love the quirkiness of 35mm lanscapes, it has a character all of its own and sometimes pin sharpness isn't that flattering. That said, I've shot tripod mounted Velvia at ISO 32 and PanF at box speed and for 35mm, the results are stunning and I have made 16x12 prints from PanF coupled with a sharp 50mm lens and been very pleased with the sharpness of the results.
I do tend to find though the best portraits I've done are with the Mamiya and 80mm lens with Tri-X.
The only thing that stops me shooting more with it is weight and that's the beauty of 35mm, much maligned, much torn apart and disected as naff and dead, but I still love seeing the sequence of pictures on a roll of 36exp, tells a story in a way I sometimes find 120 doesn't. Not sure why that is!
I use a Mamiya C330F TLR from time to time and with the 55mm wide angle, prints of 8x10 and over exhibit particularly exquistite detail in landscapes. I just love the detail I get from a roll of PanF or TriX in the Mamiya, it is definitely in terms of image quality better than 35mm. The downside is the weight of it, especially when hiking up steep ascents.
That said thought, I have an EOS 3 and a Leica M2, both 35mm and sometimes I love the quirkiness of 35mm lanscapes, it has a character all of its own and sometimes pin sharpness isn't that flattering. That said, I've shot tripod mounted Velvia at ISO 32 and PanF at box speed and for 35mm, the results are stunning and I have made 16x12 prints from PanF coupled with a sharp 50mm lens and been very pleased with the sharpness of the results.
I do tend to find though the best portraits I've done are with the Mamiya and 80mm lens with Tri-X.
The only thing that stops me shooting more with it is weight and that's the beauty of 35mm, much maligned, much torn apart and disected as naff and dead, but I still love seeing the sequence of pictures on a roll of 36exp, tells a story in a way I sometimes find 120 doesn't. Not sure why that is!
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have a 'blad but don't use it too often but when I do the machine prints from the lab really blow me away. Quality wise the Leicas can't compete but horses for courses. Speed and portability are pluses but also compromises.
FrankS
Registered User
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
Yes, of course MF is more fun. Nothing better to make you feel like a camera geek when everyone else is walking around with dSLRs and you have a MF camera!
And MF doesn't necessarily have to be slow - if you have a modern AF camera like a Fuji GA645 it is just about as easy as any modern camera - which is not to say that you wont take more time to compose, be more selective about what you shoot etc.
Also, for those who claim 645 isn't appreciably bigger than 35mm ( thankfully we haven't had any here yet) just do the math - assuming the dimensions of 645 are 60 mm by 45 mm (I realize actual image size is probably smaller) you get an area of 2700 square mm. Assuming 35mm has dimensions of 24mm by 36mm you get an area of 864 square mm. That means that 645 is more than three times larger than 35 mm. Of course that didn't stop me from getting a 6x9!
And MF doesn't necessarily have to be slow - if you have a modern AF camera like a Fuji GA645 it is just about as easy as any modern camera - which is not to say that you wont take more time to compose, be more selective about what you shoot etc.
Also, for those who claim 645 isn't appreciably bigger than 35mm ( thankfully we haven't had any here yet) just do the math - assuming the dimensions of 645 are 60 mm by 45 mm (I realize actual image size is probably smaller) you get an area of 2700 square mm. Assuming 35mm has dimensions of 24mm by 36mm you get an area of 864 square mm. That means that 645 is more than three times larger than 35 mm. Of course that didn't stop me from getting a 6x9!
Last edited:
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
All the reasons above apply to me. Also, as a gearhead, the variety of types of medium format cameras are really fun -- TLRs, folders, oversize 35mm SLR types, and the interchangeable back SLR styles. All are very enjoyable to use and can give great results.
benlees
Well-known
I have a lot more fun using a TLR than with most of my other cameras. I find it a bit tricky so it slows me down, although I still seem to waste film, despite more concentration on composition and such. I think a 645 is next for me; could use the extra shots on the roll! Maybe Mamiya or Pentax as both are relatively affordable and allow for some good old lens swapping.
kuzano
Veteran
Many good reasons here, so won't rehash
Many good reasons here, so won't rehash
Personally, when I am carrying MF my hit rate for keepers goes up. I take more care.
Regarding shot count per roll..... When I take out my GA645Zi loaded with 220, I get 30-31 shots per roll. I get autofocus, metering (aperture preferred or manual), I get manual focus over-ride, and I get a 55-90 zoom (roughly 38-75 eq to 35mm).
I am carrying a camera that is marginally larger than 35mm, but not exceedingly so. I get 3 times the neg area of 35mm. I am carrying better glass than almost every 35mm I ever owned.
My pictures are often also better because I tend toward a monopod, or even a tripod when shooting Medium Format. I tend toward rangefinders or leaf shutter cameras, for no mirror slap.
And, when I have had my wheaties and am feeling particularly robust, I pick up my GSW690III for the "Big Shot".
I know we are supposed to answer this poll disregarding print size, but the 3X and 6X increased size of both of the formats I use translates into some huge advantage in printing enlargements. And that's without the discussions of increased tonality and IQ often found with MF lenses.
Many good reasons here, so won't rehash
Personally, when I am carrying MF my hit rate for keepers goes up. I take more care.
Regarding shot count per roll..... When I take out my GA645Zi loaded with 220, I get 30-31 shots per roll. I get autofocus, metering (aperture preferred or manual), I get manual focus over-ride, and I get a 55-90 zoom (roughly 38-75 eq to 35mm).
I am carrying a camera that is marginally larger than 35mm, but not exceedingly so. I get 3 times the neg area of 35mm. I am carrying better glass than almost every 35mm I ever owned.
My pictures are often also better because I tend toward a monopod, or even a tripod when shooting Medium Format. I tend toward rangefinders or leaf shutter cameras, for no mirror slap.
And, when I have had my wheaties and am feeling particularly robust, I pick up my GSW690III for the "Big Shot".
I know we are supposed to answer this poll disregarding print size, but the 3X and 6X increased size of both of the formats I use translates into some huge advantage in printing enlargements. And that's without the discussions of increased tonality and IQ often found with MF lenses.
ferider
Veteran
I rarely go beyond 10x14 these days, and 35 is easier to scan, so the Hassi stays on the shelf. No advantage to me at that size, optically, and much harder to use for available light.
Roland.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
I see plenty of support for the tonality advantage regarding MF film. The weight can be a negative factor if you want to be traveling light, unless you stick to one lens for the MF camera.
As for the scanning difficulty for MF film, Dwayne's Photo does an OK job on MF scans. I have tried with two flatbed scanners ...
I agree with the opinions that MF usage can result in better care in making photos. I am about to leave to the mountains for some family quality time, and I will take one MF camera with me for the "just in case" situations where a MF film may capture more details than a 35mm camera [with excellent lenses].
The MF images that I took inside the Damascus grand mosque with the XLSW showed a lot of details in available light and with a wide angle lens.
As for the scanning difficulty for MF film, Dwayne's Photo does an OK job on MF scans. I have tried with two flatbed scanners ...
I agree with the opinions that MF usage can result in better care in making photos. I am about to leave to the mountains for some family quality time, and I will take one MF camera with me for the "just in case" situations where a MF film may capture more details than a 35mm camera [with excellent lenses].
The MF images that I took inside the Damascus grand mosque with the XLSW showed a lot of details in available light and with a wide angle lens.
mh2000
Well-known
I shoot it mainly because I like some of my old MF folders. I do tend to come home with a much higher percent of "winners" when I only have 8 exposures per roll.
my problem is that my Coolscan V gives better scans from a 35mm negative than my Epson 4990 does from 6x9 120 negatives... so in reality I get no advantage shooting MF... other than the enjoyment from shooting the cameras.
I guess I could make the arguement that the negatives hold a lot more information than my 4990 can get off, so I could get drum scans done for important images... I just live with 35mm quality...
my problem is that my Coolscan V gives better scans from a 35mm negative than my Epson 4990 does from 6x9 120 negatives... so in reality I get no advantage shooting MF... other than the enjoyment from shooting the cameras.
I guess I could make the arguement that the negatives hold a lot more information than my 4990 can get off, so I could get drum scans done for important images... I just live with 35mm quality...
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
I'd love to see those.
kuzano
Veteran
The cost factor??? in processing and scanning...
The cost factor??? in processing and scanning...
Perhaps my choice does not make sense. I do not do my own processing AND I do not do my own scanning.
I send my MF film for processing. Maybe I pay too much in some peoples view. It costs me postage. It costs me $4.95 to process a roll of 120 regardless of how many images for a strip process. On the scans, I get a high density scan to CD for the roll for $9.00. I pay $1.50 to sleeve the roll.
I've tried the scanner route and it's way too fiddly and time consuming, with the added down side that I have never been able to match the scanning of the processor I use. It is not something I am even interested in bringing in-house a second time. I got my old 35's scanned and may not scan again, unless I win the lottery. I used a 4990 and a V500. The V500 sufficed for the 35mm.
Yes, my last roll cost me $15.45, plus postage for processing and 8 very good scans. I estimate that as being a good value considering my time saved. Turnaround time is a week. If that's too long to wait, I'll switch to digital. OH Wait, I already did that, twice.
The cost factor??? in processing and scanning...
Perhaps my choice does not make sense. I do not do my own processing AND I do not do my own scanning.
I send my MF film for processing. Maybe I pay too much in some peoples view. It costs me postage. It costs me $4.95 to process a roll of 120 regardless of how many images for a strip process. On the scans, I get a high density scan to CD for the roll for $9.00. I pay $1.50 to sleeve the roll.
I've tried the scanner route and it's way too fiddly and time consuming, with the added down side that I have never been able to match the scanning of the processor I use. It is not something I am even interested in bringing in-house a second time. I got my old 35's scanned and may not scan again, unless I win the lottery. I used a 4990 and a V500. The V500 sufficed for the 35mm.
Yes, my last roll cost me $15.45, plus postage for processing and 8 very good scans. I estimate that as being a good value considering my time saved. Turnaround time is a week. If that's too long to wait, I'll switch to digital. OH Wait, I already did that, twice.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Last edited:
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello Raid:
Like others, I've no option in your poll as I develop my own negatives. Scan or wet prints are destined for sizes greater than 6"x9".
yours
FPJ
Like others, I've no option in your poll as I develop my own negatives. Scan or wet prints are destined for sizes greater than 6"x9".
yours
FPJ
raid
Dad Photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
You need a decent 35mm scanner, Raid. "just in case"
Roland,
I have been using a Nikon Coolscan III so far when I do my own scanning. I have to admit that getting commercial scans is easier.
pevelg
Well-known
Exactly. I love the look of MF shots. I have a Hassy now to replace my Mamiya 7. I love taking all that time to make the shot right.
V
varjag
Guest
Without top-class technique, processing and scanning, all the advantage of MF over 35mm remains theoretical.
With wet printing the difference is readily visible of course.
With wet printing the difference is readily visible of course.
mirrored
Established
I want to point the attention that in small format have generally done more most interesting new works. We can think about 8mm in movies and small videocameras later - and it's just same in photography.
Of cource you can have different opinion, but easy handling and low shooting prise have certain influencies.
And who doesn't be proud, when they come to tell you should use bigger format? If bigger is in your desire or not.. When you can say shortly what you want say, it's wonderful. In poetry too.
Of cource you can have different opinion, but easy handling and low shooting prise have certain influencies.
And who doesn't be proud, when they come to tell you should use bigger format? If bigger is in your desire or not..
When you can say shortly what you want say, it's wonderful. In poetry too.
Last edited: