Old 08-25-2016   #41
joeswe
Registered User
 
joeswe is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 403
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #42
Lucadomi
Registered User
 
Lucadomi's Avatar
 
Lucadomi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 200
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.
__________________
Rolleicord Va /Bessa R2/Super Ikonta

™Revolutionary action might be unnecessary, but revolutionary thought is indispensable, and, as the outcome of thought, a rational and constructive hope." B.R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #43
DKimg
Registered User
 
DKimg's Avatar
 
DKimg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 155
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.
__________________
DK
www.DKimg.com
Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar
Pentax 67ii / Zeiss 110FE F2
Fuji GX680 / EBC 180 F3,2

eBony-cameras RW45
Rodenstock 150mm Apo-Sironar-S
Zeiss Planar 135mm f3,5 T*

Ansco LF 8x10 / Kodak Ektar 203" f6,3
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #44
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKimg View Post

-Personally I find it easier to develop and scan Medium format film. I despise scanning 35mm film, unless I'm drum scanning...
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
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #45
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
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.
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #46
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 66
Posts: 1,178
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #47
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #48
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,114
WHAT!!

Never, ever sell a Rollei.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #49
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktmrider View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #50
divewizard
perspicaz
 
divewizard's Avatar
 
divewizard is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 841
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.
__________________
RFs: Olympus 35SP & Wide-S, Fuji GW690, GSW690ii, & GS645S, Mamiya 6, Wollensak Stereo 10

Chris Grossman
diver.net
GoberianBlue.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #51
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 66
Posts: 1,178
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #52
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
No medium format regrets for me! MF is the sweet spot balancing quality and convenience.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #53
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKimg View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #54
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 756
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #55
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post

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.
There is no M645 80mm f/2 (only f/1.9 or f/2.8), so he might be using a adapted lens...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #56
it'sawhat?
Registered User
 
it'sawhat? is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 165
You seem unsure about 645 being 'big' enough figure out how big big enough is . It's pretty much a personal choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #57
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,700
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #58
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,237
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.


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)


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.


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
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #59
easyrider
Photo addict
 
easyrider is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 512
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #60
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjlapier View Post

As for 645 negs similar to 35mm--huh? Put both on a light table and you'll see the difference.
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
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #61
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,053
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.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #62
Kent
Finally at home...
 
Kent's Avatar
 
Kent is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 48
Posts: 1,684
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.
__________________
Cheers, Kent
_______
Main Cams: Leica, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Canon
Main Lenses: Leica, Nikkor, Voigtländer, 7artisans, Meyer, Sigma, Pentax, Tamron, Rokkor etc.
Click me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #63
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 442
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #64
papaki
Registered User
 
papaki is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 95
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #65
DKimg
Registered User
 
DKimg's Avatar
 
DKimg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
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
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.
__________________
DK
www.DKimg.com
Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar
Pentax 67ii / Zeiss 110FE F2
Fuji GX680 / EBC 180 F3,2

eBony-cameras RW45
Rodenstock 150mm Apo-Sironar-S
Zeiss Planar 135mm f3,5 T*

Ansco LF 8x10 / Kodak Ektar 203" f6,3
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #66
DKimg
Registered User
 
DKimg's Avatar
 
DKimg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
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.
__________________
DK
www.DKimg.com
Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar
Pentax 67ii / Zeiss 110FE F2
Fuji GX680 / EBC 180 F3,2

eBony-cameras RW45
Rodenstock 150mm Apo-Sironar-S
Zeiss Planar 135mm f3,5 T*

Ansco LF 8x10 / Kodak Ektar 203" f6,3
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #67
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,179
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2016   #68
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by JChrome View Post
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
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-27-2016   #69
xia_ke
Registered User
 
xia_ke's Avatar
 
xia_ke is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine
Age: 40
Posts: 192
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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Bronica (1 of 1).jpg (133.1 KB, 39 views)
__________________
flickr

"A good photograph is one that makes the viewer so aware of the subject that they are unaware of the print."- Kodak
"...if you find afterwards that you made a mistake, the price of the film and chemicals was...tuition!" - greybeard
"The hard part isn’t the decisive moment or anything like that – it’s getting the film on the reel!" - John Szarkowski
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-27-2016   #70
xenohip
Registered User
 
xenohip is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 69
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2016   #71
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenohip View Post
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?
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
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2016   #72
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,154
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-11-2016   #73
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by xia_ke View Post
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!
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #74
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 406
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #75
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,520
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.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #76
LukeBanks
Registered User
 
LukeBanks's Avatar
 
LukeBanks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Posts: 82
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #77
besk
Registered User
 
besk is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Carolina (USA)
Posts: 451
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #78
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 159
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #79
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,572
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2017   #80
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,345
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.
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.