Anyone here given up 35mm and gone MF only?

P

Paddy C

Unused film collector
Local time
4:19 PM
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
848
Every spring I get the itch to get new gear or make a change. So this could just be seasonal GAS talking.

Last year I sold my G2 kit and bought a ZI. In between I really thought hard about dropping 35mm film and going digital. I even looked at the Panny G1. In the end I've been very happy with the ZI purchase. But...

I'm not a street shooter. Nor am I really an impulse shooter. I use 35mm to document the things I experience. An event, travel, family and friends, etc. The rest of the time it sits. Although I like the results, love B&W, and like using the camera, the truth is that I'm not likely going to print any of these images (maybe the occasional one) and the process of shooting, developing, scanning (I have a crazy amount of scanning to do) has left me wondering whether shooting 35mm makes much sense for me. Whenever I have something specific in mind I use MF.

I've been contemplating selling the ZI and lenses and buying an E-LP1 or the upcoming Sony and a Mamiya 7II. This would give me a "modern" and portable MF option to go with my older MF gear and the digital for all the stuff I currently shoot in 35mm.

Just wondering if anyone here works with this sort of set-up or has made the move in the past and what you think of it. Half of my brain says it's rash and that I'll regret going this route. I would have to sell gear to buy new gear as I have placed myself on a strict budget this year.
 
I actually just did the opposite! Gave up MF to concentrate on 35mm. With that said, I may venture back into it again someday.
 
That's me, right there.

I use digital for work (MF on request, though people are generally disinterested in paying for your time) and MF for personal shooting. I was in Toronto last weekend to visit my grandmother on her birthday and it was really a perfect way to do things. I took three rolls (45 shots total, Tri-X in GA645) for the weekend and had fun rationing and picking my moments. Still have 10 shots unexposed, actually.

The only downer is a lack of film at local camera shops. Mail-order is your friend! There are some seriously good films out there that make MF worth it, even today. I'm eager to try processing/printing Ektar at home.
 
I am glad this question is brought up as I have been pondering this for some time. As I am not printing them and mostly scanning, I just find it very tedious to scan 35mm films and some rolls end up sitting for more than a month. With medium format, I do not shoot as many frames and the scanning part is actually pretty enjoyable.

Maybe I am not thinking this the right way. Any suggestions?
 
I dropped 35mm format for a little over a few months until I had to get something in 35mm format. Though I love the results of my Mamiya 7ii, the apertures are to limiting for low light work, thus the necessity of 35mm. I purchased a M4 for 35mm + Zeiss 50mm Sonnar, but am now considering selling the M4 for a M8 to make my work faster. I can't give up MF though, especially after getting an MF projector for slide film.
 
Since 3 months I'm selling my 35mm gear, last week I've traded Leica for Rolleiflex and I'm preety close to the end. Now I have GA645 + Rollei and it's very comfy, I hate processing and scanning of 35mm negatives.
 
I use my Hasselblad with 50, 80 and 150mm Zeiss lenses, and the fastest ones: all of them f/ 2.8, and they're great no doubt, but I couldn't stop using 35mm... For low light there's no comparison, they're so far away... And my wide Zeiss (50) alone with its filters, weigh more than my three rangefinders with three lenses on! My basic MF set, camera, three lenses, two backs and filters, are a huge burden.

And 35mm equipment can also give very high image quality, even for professional shooting.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'm about 80% medium format- Mamiya 7II, Rolleiflex, Hassy

about 20% 35mm.

Todd
 
While I haven't sold all my 35mm gear, it's definitely taken a back seat to medium format. It's a refreshing change to go out with my GA645 and occasionally the Mamiya 645E, having recently sold my Hasselblad - guess I'm not a square format kinda guy! Heck, I've even gone back to developing my own film just for medium format.
 
Haven't given up 35mm totally but Medium format probable accounts for about 90-95% of what I've shot over the past 6 months.
That being said now that I'm processing my own film and have some control over the conditions I'll probable be shooting a bit more 35mm but still a small percentage of what I shoot over all.
 
Pretty close, but still using the 35mm, but will use the 6x6 if situation allow. First got the Panny G1, then got the CL with equipped it with 3 lens, then sold the G1 and got a Rollei. Just love the square format, and the output of it is just amazing even scan by a flatbed.
 
Curious.

Why would scanning 35mm be more of a problem than MF or LF? The scanner does all the work of scanning, no matter the format. Post Processing? Shouldn't be worse unless you are really enlarging greatly in 35mm. Then maybe you used the wrong format for the photo.

Mind you I like MF, and I am trying to get into LF slowly. But each has its place. Once you have the gear, unless your style of shooting has changed so radically that one of those formats is no longer within your style, why not keep them all and use them for what gives the best advantage?

The same for new gear in MF. Unless what you have doesn't do what you want it to do, why change? I could see wanting to move from 645 or 6x6 to 6x7 or 6x9, or even vice versa perhaps. Otherwise, if your old gear is working right, why change.

Maybe I am just looking from my own possibly unusual perspective. I like my Super Press 23 and my folding MF. I have no need for new MF gear (unless another folder :D) The same for my 35mm. My Fujica and Yashica do me well for SLR, and the Kiev 4am are good for RF. But as I said, maybe it's just me.
 
If you aren't going to print your images (and while I can sort of understand this, on another level it makes no sense to even have a camera if that's the deal), why WOULDN'T you just use digital?
 
Thanks for the input. Interesting to hear the opinions and experiences.

A few responses...

I've come to realize that I don't ever shoot much in low light. I do imagine that I would miss the F2 or even the F1.2 that I have access to using my ZI, but when I think about how much I really use them it's not that big a deal.

Scanning 35mm is a problem on two fronts:
1. Time because of the amount of negatives to scan because you take a lot of shots.
2. You need a good scanner. Currently, my V700 produces lovely results (to my eye) when scanning MF, but soft and not useable for anything but web results when scanning 35mm.

I also don't believe in the "you must print images" for film photography to make sense argument that comes up from time to time.

Keep in mind my original post. I've found that 35mm gets used almost entirely for casual shooting. I shot 96 exposures of 35mm Tri-X over two weeks at Christmas while visiting family. I still haven't edited and scanned them! And even if I had a darkroom and was into wet printing, realistically, how many of those would I even really want to print? They aren't "wall worthy" IMO. They're just a document, a memory. And machine prints of B&W look like crap.

With MF I'm shooting to print, not just shooting to capture.
 
Paddy C, I'm in a similar situation as yourself. I have several 35mm setups that do not get used as often as they should! For the last 6 months or so, I've used MF almost 80-90% of the time shooting, usually tethering a 35mm point-and-shoot at the same time. That's about it! I also usually shoot when traveling or at family functions, trying to record what's going on.

On the more deliberate shots, I'm more than likely to use MF than 35mm, though that may change. I've also thought of just venturing into digital, give up 35mm for the majority, instead. But have not brought myself to do so yet! I'm also starting to learn how to wet print and develope film at home, but the learning curve is quite steep, so, we'll see how that goes.

Just glad to see I'm not alone in feeling this way about format/cameras/GAS!
 
There are too many 35mm cameras that I enjoy using to abandon it completely. That, and the size/portability and convenience advantages of the format. I definitely prefer MF and some LF if possible, but its so easy to carry a 35mm camera with me all the time.

I typically don't print any bigger than 8x10, and 35mm works fine for that. Of course, bigger certainly is better.
 
Gave away my old Minolta stuff as I was using my Mamiya 6 almost exclusively. But bought a Bessa R4a with lenses as the Mamiya is just too heavy for trekking.
 
I would love to shoot nothing but medium and large format but there are definitely some barriers to doing so!

Cost and lack of fast lenses are two major factors for me.
 
If I had to scan film I would give up on film all together. Fortunately I have access to a lab in Portland, that does C-41 or E6 and TIFF scans onto a CD for 8.50, 120 or 35mm a roll. However I went through a similar internal debate a few months back, and went to the G2, because my Mamiya 6 lenses are not that fast, and I wanted an almost point and shoot, but got a good deal on a G2 setup and frankly enjoying the lenses and Porta 160NC. Anyways, I know your debate, my other thought was that my GH1 or a Canon 5D MkII or a D700 have almost as good as image quality at 35mm, with 120 film and my Mamiya 6 - that camera produces significantly better images than anything digital. Until sensors surpass what I can get from the Mamiya 6, I am keeping it. However I am tempted to use the G2 until the 5D MKIII comes out and leave 35mm all together.
 
I've swung back and forth several times,
including a long foray into LF,
but I keep ending up with 35mm.
At this stage of my life,
I'm unlikely to go big again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top