View Full Version : Forsaking 35mm for MF?
These might be "different strokes for different folks" questions, bear with me while I set the scene and then I'll ask.
I was surveying my camera shelf tonight in preparation for the fall color season and I was struck by the realization that even though I've made some very nice shots with my 35mm and digital gear, I never really feel like I do justice to the scene or that I'm in tune with my equipment. In contrast, it seems like every time I pick up my MF gear and head out I move into a whole different zone: I'm way more focused on each shot, I "see" much more clearly, and my hit rate goes through the roof.
I've also had this nagging feeling that I simply spend too much time/effort/money on gear and that I'll never really be as good as I can be unless I simplify my gear and focus on mastering one or two cameras and one film format.
As a result, I'm seriously contemplating moving over completely to my MF gear, keeping my Stylus Epic (or my Nikon digital) for those times when extreme portability is required over raw image quality, and then ditching the rest of my 35mm gear.
Now here come the questions: has anybody else here ever had these feelings and made this kind of move? Were you completely satisfied afterwards or did you regret it afterwards and wind up buying back into 35mm? Am I crazy or might I be on to something? Or are you just salivating over the potential flood of gear I might be releasing into the marketplace :)?
I've been chasing this issue around in my head for a while now and I would welcome all honest opinions and thoughts before I make my decision.
I did kind of the opposite thing.
I went from 35mm to a Hasselblad and a Pentax 67.
Then I bought a Mamiya 7II and love it but the love affair did not last. I am not sure why.
So I sold it and bought an Xpan and I am madly in love. It's been this way for about 5 months now and I haven't used my 503 in quite a while.
If you can, borrow or rent the medium format camera you are thinking about before you buy one. I will say, having two different formats is a good thing.
Gabriel M.A.
09-28-2005, 20:42
I know how you feel. But I don't "move" or "migrate". I adopt. I use film and digital 35mm, SLR and rangefinder, film MF, SLR and rangefinder, and I am contemplating 4x5 LF photography.
I think it's like with languages. Once you learn another one, you don't just "drop" the other one; whether you keep practicing them it's up to you.
Unless you are extremely dissatisfied with your 35mm gear, I'd say, keep it. Maybe you'll find out that after using MF gear that it's not for you, who knows?
Just don't go nuts over it! ;)
Am I crazy or might I be on to something? Or are you just salivating over the potential flood of gear I might be releasing into the marketplace :)?
That last thought has crossed my mind (wiping my keyboard right now). But there's some truth in this. The cost of MF and the fact you only get 8 6x9 shots per 120 roll means I don't waste _any_ shots, and probably work twice as hard to "get it right", and the scene has to be "MF worthy". See the other thread we have going about LF chromes... at over $5- per shot, the hit rate better be _really_good_.
OTOH, there's shots that I'd never take with MF or LF, such as trying to capture "that decisive moment", the "fleeting expression", "funny face", "dumb look" etc. With 35mm and digital, I'm often just shooting for the fun of it, and not expecting works of art and hoping to learn something.
wlewisiii
09-28-2005, 20:59
Def going the other way. 4x5 is my reason for photographic life.
There is something that can not be explained about being over a light table with a loupe even if it's with a neg.
We won't begin bringin chromes in here as I know da*n well how far up the creek sans paddle I am with them already...
Damned if I do, damned if I don't... ;)
William
zeos 386sx
09-28-2005, 21:06
The Xpan is the salvation of some photographers. Some people just don't "see" in any of the standard formats.
David B is right - borrow or rent first and keep the equipment you already have.
I would suggest that you get some cardboard and cut out holes that are proportional to the different film sizes (include panorama) and about the same size as the prints that you normally make. Go outside and find something interesting to look at. Start framing it through the different holes. If you find one frame to which you keep coming back - over and over - that is your format. If you find you can comfortably frame the scene through several different formats then you probably just need to spend more time with the cameras you already have.
Best wishes...
Note: Kin Lau is talking about the 6x9 format on 120 film. 6x6 will give you 12 shots, 6x4.5 will give you 16 shots, and 6x7 will give you 10 shots. Double these numbers if you use 220 film.
When using a roll of 24 exposure in my Xpan, I get 14 shots. Plenty for me. A little more than from my Hasselblad 503cw.
The xpan has been my salvation. I have shot a lot of 35mm over the last few months. More now than ever and that is because of the xpan and it's format.
It is a medium format camera that uses 35mm film. You might consider one of these before going to medium format film.
(I made some large prints (5.5"x14") from my xpan negs. I even used Ilford HP5+, and I am very pleased.)
Thanks all for the comments so far, please keep 'em coming. I should have mentioned in my original post that I currently own and use two TLRs (a Seagull 4A-109 and a Lubitel 166U) along with a Fuji GA645 and a Holga. I've put a fair amount of film through all the cameras except the Holga (which I bought because it was basically a good deal on five rolls of film :)), so I've some experience with 6x6 and 6x4.5 formats.
Listen to Gabrielma's advice! Love affairs often don't last, or at least they grow less intense. And that's the moment you'll be looking around you for new love affairs. Keep your current 35mm and digital gear. Only start selling after a year IF you find that you really don't use it anymore.
back alley
09-28-2005, 21:24
i've done it both ways.
i went from 35mm to medium format and now back again.
i had a few canon slr's and small small rf cameras then sold it all and bought a couple of mamiya 6's with a couple of lenses.
i loved the 6 and was happy for like 10 years.
but then i got tired of carrying a bigger camera, got tired of the darkroom and sold it all and went straight to rf.
sometimes i miss the 6...
joe
Depends a lot on what you shoot. I shoot lit portraiture with 67 and almost everything else with 35mm. Think about the pictures you would like to make and then list what you'll need to do it.
Selling gear just usually leads to regrets and reduced flexibility! If you choose not to use a selection of your stuff, how about packing it away in an out-of-the-way corner wrapped securely in plastic bags, and just ignore it for a while.
Yeah, I hear you on the use of MF... I'll sometimes wonder why I'd consider using the smaller gear at all; if the shot is worthy, it's worth the larger film size! But 35mm stuff does have some desirable attributes too!
I think the main problem with med format is the size of the cameras. With 35mm you can have just a single SLR, and it's portable and flexible enough to be used in a studio as well as on the street.
With MF, it's either this or that and nothing in between. You won't be lugging a 6x6 SLR through the streets for grab shots.. and a rangefinder doesn't give you the flexibility for close up/tele/polaroids.
I did at a certain point sell of my 35mm AF-SLR gear and bought a 6x6 Bronica SLR. It became quickly clear that although it's a splendid system, it's also a backbreaking one. After a short while I complemented it with some 35mm format gear again (rangefinder). I also learned that doing macro with 6x6 is a lot more difficult than with 35mm due to the magnification required to fill the frame.
If I were to do it all over again, I'd do it the opposite way: a medium format rangefinder for on the road, and a small format SLR for macro and specialty stuff..
From high school onwards I've used both 35mm and medium format. I like MF for slow, deliberate work, especially landscape, nature and semi-formal portrature. OTOH, I feel like a different kind of photographer when I carry a 35mm, especially a rangefinder. Lightweight, tripodless, and free to follow any fancy that takes me. My choice of which to use often depends on my mood. You might want to hang on to your 35mm gear awhile longer. Six months from now your mood might shift towards street shooting and you'd miss your gear.
Gene
What has been said.
I think maybe it's not a good idea to get rid of ALL your options from a given format. I've found myself switching to MF, then 35mm RFs, then SLRs and back again in these last years and I've always enjoyed and learned something new.
That said, if you have some redundant equipment playing in the same league, it couldn't hurt to get rid of something in order to help you get something else to play in the new MF league...
OTH, reading your current MF equipment, I think you're already pretty good served :)
I believe you can have more than one love in photography or better yet, one should have more than one tool to paint with.
Medium format becomes like a fine brush when I feel I want to slow down and shoot for enlargements. I absolutely love the richness in tonality of the format. Another benefit, especially with 6x9, is that I can get my results back that very evening after the shoot. With 35mm I often have to wait a week to finish the roll.
35mm is for when I want to cover more volume in a day or for when I want to shoot hand-held in low light. Also, the smaller camera is often less intrusive in a social setting.
With regards to volume, my large developing tank either holds two rolls of 120 or 3 rolls of 35mm. The difference being 16 to 24 exposure in 120 versus 72 35mm exposures in the same chemistry and same developing time.
My digital is my spray can. I've done 400 shots or more in a day with the digicam.
Caveat emptor: Too much medium format worship can lead to a love of large format photography. It is not a bad thing, but not one you can always do while traveling with friends and family.
RObert Budding
09-29-2005, 02:33
I'm in the process of paring down my 35mm gear because I am shifting strongly towards MF. You just can't match the larger negative with 35mm, no matter what lenses you use. That said, I won't sell all of my 35mm gear. There are times when a really compact camera is needed. Or when only a really fast lens will do.
So, how versatile is MF? Well, I have used my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to shoot my kids playing soccer, which is pretty fast-paced. The thing really does handle like a large 35mm SLR. Granted, I may need AF when they get older and faster (now ages 6 and 9), but so far I'm pleased.
I'm also adding a MF rangefinder (the Mamiya SLR is pretty loud and noticable) - a Bronica RF645 kit 45mm, 65mm, and 100mm lenses is on the way. I know that, at times, I will miss the faster 35mm lenses that I love, so I'll still keep some 35mm gear. That's the part I haven't sorted out yet (maybe a Contax G1 or G2). But first I'll get used to the RF645 and then determine what I need in 35mm. And who knows, I might even add a DSLR for sports shooting (gasp), even though I really love darkroom work.
Robert
When my love for MF was in full bloom I shot a documentary project on it. After a month my right hand was permenantly numb because the strap from my bag was digging into my shoulder so much. I also had a spell of probably not unrelated back trouble -if you are going to do a lot of location shooting with heavy equipment there may prices to pay other than financial ones
Well, I started out with 35mm (first a Zorki 4, then a Pentax SLR, which quickly turned into a few Pentax-SLRs, then a Konica C35, which multiplied into a few 1970s RFs, then a Zorki 6, which multiplied - you guessed it - into a few FSU RFs).
Then I got my first YashicaMat, and was instantly hooked on medium format - so much more detail, so much finer gradations, so much easier to print in the wet darkroom. Over the years I got a few MF folders, and Pentacon Six and Kiev 60 bodies and lenses for them. When I finally got fed up with lugging those heavy metal beasts up and down mountain slopes (I was still doing 90% landscape photography at that time), and had some spare money, I got a full Mamiya 645 system.
A few months after that, I kind of started losing interest in landscapes though, and started working more and more with my Kiev rangefinders; finally got fed up with their viewfinders, and got a Bessa R, and through looking for info on that, I found RFF, and it has been downhill ever since - now I own 2 Leicas (CL, M2), a bunch of lenses for those, and heaven't been using the Mamiya 645 Super for 8 or 9 months.
I recently kinda rediscovered MF through my TLRs, and got a Rolleiflex 3.5 C, when I saw a really inexpensive one.
Now, I like to use them both; I love the square 6x6 format for its harmony and balance, and love to use TLRs for city walks, taking pics of light & shadow, details of stuff, etc. I love the print quality I get from that big negs, love peoples' positive reactions to the camera, I love WLF viewing and composing on that big matte screen.
And I also love using my RFs - when the light is getting dimmer, or indoors in artificial (low) light, where due to quasi-lower DOF and lack of fast films in 120 size, the TLRs are not that practical to use without flash; and I love the RFs when I need a wide-angle (rarely) or short tele (quite often) perspective. And of course, the CL is so much more convenient to drop into a bag or jacket pocket than the Rolleiflex, for non-photographic outings.
I'd say, it is not a decision between either MF or 35mm, I like to have both options available for their specific qualities.
Roman
The funny thing about TLR's is 1.) with exception of the Mamiya C33, they are rather light-weight for their size and 2.) as Roman mentioned, people are pretty forgiving of them. Many folks have forgotten how capable they are and therefore don't take them too seriously..
Todd.Hanz
09-29-2005, 04:07
I went on a MF buying/shooting spree recently, in the last year I've bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F, Rolleiflex 2.8E, YashicaMat 124G, Iskra and I alread had a Hassy and Yashica 635 TLR.
Untill recently I hadn't used my Leicas or other RF's for a while. I dug out my M4-P the other day, I was amazed at how light and portable, quick to focus and a joy to use it was.
I agree with the others, pack the 35mm stuff away for a while, use the MF and when you need the 35mm it'll be there. You never know, they might even re-kindle some old flames next time you use 'em.
Todd
The first time I saw a 6x7 negative I was stunned. When I saw a 6x7 'chrome I *knew* I was in trouble...or I should say my Nikon kit was in trouble. I then tried to do it on the cheap - folders, an old Yashicamat, etc. I then tried and bought a early Pentax 6x7 - great camera but the finder was not eyeglass friendly. A buddy showed me a Koni-Omega - rangefinder! With nice eyeglass friendly finder! Great glass! Easy to load! The backs are a bit wonky, but otherwise great! I accumlated about a half dozen of the things - they're cheap enough so why not? Even ended up with Dante Stella's Omegaflex which soon became my favorite MF camera.
Then the local shop got in a Pentax 67-II. Better finder than the old 67, a real built-in useful meter, and that same great Pentax glass. And the digital onslaught has driven the prices down to merely high ($1200) vs astronomical ($2200 a couple of years ago). I bit. I love it. Easy to handle, reliable film transport, a meter for the lazy fool in me. And medium format! A good scan of a MF negative yields butter smooth images. I use it a LOT.
And my Nikon SLR kit? The hoarder in me keeps it; uses it for shooting action...no point in selling it as it won't pull any real money now. I use my 35mm rangefinders for shooting in low light (most of my shooting, actually) but the big Pentax and its big negatives rule. Frankly, if I had a darkroom I'd probably go 4x5...
Wow, I never expected this much feedback from my question. Thank you all for your thoughtful responses, it really helps to get opinions from others who've been this way before.
After quite a bit of reflection (and reading), keeping my fingers in multiple formats sounds like the best plan. I think I'll at least try to reduce the amount of gear I have in each format to what I actually use on a regular basis, so for those of you who were hoping for a massive garage sale, I may still post a few items.
Oh and david b, you REALLY didn't have to tempt me with the XPan II. I'd been doing quite well on avoiding GAS attacks lately, thank you very much, until you mentioned that camera... then I immediately started counting my pennies :).
Sorry about that Doug. But I think the Xpan is a truly amazing camera. 35mm when you want and medium format when you want. Too bad I sold my "Xpan I" this morning. I would have given you a sweet deal.
No matter, you really should consider the camera.
That's OK, it doesn't usually take much to start me drooling over gear.
in categories:
645 manual focus : Mamiya 645E, hands down.
645 AF : Contax 645 hands down, Pentax 645nII if you want low cost (the pentax
does not have removable backs though, which is a major sacrifice)
6x6 SLR : Hasselblad, small, durable - but buy a metering prism finder
6x6 RF : Mamiya 6 or Fuji 645zi
6x7 SLR : Mamiya RZ (really bulky, heavy, loud - but have revolving backs - nice)
6x7 SLR : Pentax 67 : yikes - really heavy, loud, bulky. Not worth it. Tough as nails.
6x7 RF : Mamiya 7 series, Plaubel Makina is better built
6x9 : Fuji 6x9 Rangefinders - no metering, difficult focusing, huge, not worth it.
Bottom line : buy a Mamiya 645E if you want low cost SLR, great optics and manual focus is OK. Buy the Mamiya 6 if you want the RF.
Buy the Contax 645 if you want AF SLR.
Buy the Mamiya 7II if you want a rangefinder with big negatives.
Shooting landscapes with my GA645 a couple of weeks back was what sparked this whole issue in my mind. Not having interchangable backs really doesn't bother me all that much. I've also toyed with the idea of trading in my MF gear and some 35mm stuff I don't use for a field camera for my "serious" landscape and then stay with 35mm for general.
So many options... it's wonderful and daunting at the same time.
Right now my camera fund is near zero so the whole question will remain somewhat academic for a little while but again I thank you all for your valuable advice, I've definitely got a lot to ponder.
Cameras are sorta like golf clubs aren't they? :) You always can use another club(camera) for a certain shot...... and if it is logical to have a bag full of clubs for the golf course, then a bag full of cameras is OK. Right? :D
My first 6x7 was an old RB which is a handfull to carry around. Then I picked up an Iskra 2. Big difference in portability. Try an MF folder and see how it fits in your "bag". :cool:
Don't be surprised if there's a 4x5 in your future. Big negatives are addictive. :angel:
I actually skipped the 4x5" part, going now straight to metric 13x18. It's just so much cheaper here; plus, I found a 19cm x 120m spool of aerial film to cut sheets from :)
Medium format is a good compromise, and I love shooting it myself. OTOH all justifications of MF over 35mm apply to large format as well: smoother tones, lesser grain, bigger enlargements, slower work, increase in cost, weight and bulk.. :) If you do most of fast-paced work in 35mm and considering MF for scenery or still life, why not go straight to the larger formats? A TLR or an MF folder gonna be far more portable, but you can't build a system around them; and once you move into MF SLR land you quickly lose cost and weight advantages over large format.
I think 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5... etc. all compliment each other. I usually carry 2 different formats w/ me. The larger format for shots that I have time to do. The smaller format for grab shots. Recently I am playing w/ a 3 lbs Gowland all move 4x5 and a C-1 8x10. The Gowland is a lot lighter than my clam shell field camera, but the 8x10 is a beast. 8x10 chromes are just AMAZING.
Jason.
RObert Budding
09-30-2005, 06:26
When my love for MF was in full bloom I shot a documentary project on it. After a month my right hand was permenantly numb because the strap from my bag was digging into my shoulder so much. I also had a spell of probably not unrelated back trouble -if you are going to do a lot of location shooting with heavy equipment there may prices to pay other than financial ones
This is exactly why I decided to add a MF rangefinder to my arsenal.
Robert
RObert Budding
09-30-2005, 06:33
Another camera to consider is the Mamiya 645 Pro TL - i bought mine from KEH. You get interchangable backs and a choice of prisms. The prices now are amazingly good.
Robert
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.