MF Blows Away 35mm

I have seen results of my Fuji 6x9 printed at 13x19 compared to a 4x5 same shot, and the difference was minimal. I mean really very very minimal.While the difference at same size print from the 6x9 with my Leica M was very obvious. What size print do you have to go so 4x5 start really showing. I mean for the ease of use of the 6x9 rangefinder handheld, compared to the LF, was not worth shooting 4x5 at that size ( never mind the camera movements).

Ilford PanF+ in 35mm can approach medium format print quality in 8x10 or 11x14. Approach but not surpass.

 

IMHO, 35mm comes into its own for mobility and flexibility. Medium format can approach 35mm in these regards, depending on the system used. Again, approach but not surpass.

This is a well known fact. The larger negative size means that less magnification is required to achieve a certain size print. If you really want to be impressed...try MF transparencies!

 

But, the important question is "Why use 35mm?"

 

There was a time when everyday cameras (even the cheap snapshot cameras owned by ordinary people) were MF. Those were the days when professionals used Large Format and 35mm were known as 'miniature' format.

 

What was discovered is that 35mm represented a good compromise between quality and cost. Yes, the negative was smaller but that meant getting 24 (or 36) shots on a roll as opposed to only 11 or 12 with a 6x6 MF camera.

 

35mm still represents a good cost alternative to MF so long as you realize that you ARE giving up some quality in the bargain. For many people, the compromise was acceptable.

Peter: I will not be carrying with me lots of photography equipment. I will keep it light. I know that I am not supposed to check in camera stuff or film, but I wondered if 120 film is more affected than 35mm film. due to its paper wrapping. I guess, it is not. Thanks for the tip.

 

Stephen: Thanks for sharing your experience. That's good to know.

I use both MF and 35mm. I use the latter because I have too much depth of field with my MF gear for some of the selective-focus shooting I enjoy. If Mamiya would come out with some really fast lenses for their rangefinders (my other two MF cameras are fixed-lens) -- my 150mm is f/4.5!, then maybe that would be ok, but I haven't found anything affordable that'll replace 50/1.2 and 85/1.5 lenses from 35mm.

I had a good day-off from work today. Shot 4x5, 120 and 35mm :)

 

Each have their uses. What I mean to say is that its great that 4x5 has so much more detail than 35mm but it doesn't help much following a fast-moving bird! MF isn't so hot for macro IMO unless you have movements because you quickly run out of depth of field. For my macros, its normally 35mm or on the absolute stillest of days, something worth trying with 4x5.

What's interesting is the discussion of macro and micro contrast in Anchell & Troop's The Film Development Cookbook. There's also the quality loss enlarging up to the desired print size. What it comes down to, IMO, is that you can't get MF or LF quality just by putting slower fine grain film in a 35mm camera. One of the nicest shots I ever took was with an antique Tessar stuck on a 4x5 Calumet with a cardboard lens board. Film was Ektapan. Nothing super hi tech, but I've never even come close to the tonal quality or resolution using 35mm. Approached it in 2 1/4 square, but still not equaled.

>>"Lee Shively , may 20, 2005; 09:41 a.m.

 

>>Ilford PanF+ in 35mm can approach medium format print quality in 8x10 or 11x14. Approach but not surpass.

IMHO, 35mm comes into its own for mobility and flexibility. Medium format can approach 35mm in these regards, depending on the system used. Again, approach but not surpass."

 

Ahh yes, but what about Ilford PanF+ in 120 format! I have never used this film - I purchased a roll a few weeks ago to try it. Can't wait!!!

Robert-

 

Lots of on-line retailers carry E-6 kits. Here are a few:

 

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=1002

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=e6+bath+kit

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatItemDetail&ac.item.itemNo=KP02680&ac.cat.CatTree.detail=y&type=PRDINDEX

 

Good luck...just keep your temperatures correct and you'll be fine.

 

Dave

"Ahh yes, but what about Ilford PanF+ in 120 format?"

 

There is that. It's actually my favorite film in 120 format.

I used to use Velvia ASA50 (rated at ASA40)in the 6x9 format. I could easily get very sharp 20x30 prints. Details can be seen clealy.

"How about that 20x30 polaroid camera, Tito! It blows away your 4x5 camera" Raid Amin.

 

#1- It is not a 4x5 but an 8x10 camera.

 

#2- I'm glad you found your epiphany concerning MF. I found it in 1956. Or is it just suggestions for your travel?

 

#3- The 20x30 Polaroid camera was made to order for an individual. Difficult to be moved around, and it is just for studio work. The Polaroid 20x24 which I saw in Cambridge can be moved but not without difficulties.

 

#4- Before you start mocking me, I advise you to look at 8x10 contact prints on AZO paper like I have...the shadows are Open, Textured highlights, and Luminous grays in between; the essence of the Zone System, and best of all, I do my own processing. I don't do color and or B&W C41 process. The only color I do, consists of 8x10 Polaroid tranfers. Beautiful like a painting. "TRY IT, YOU'll LIKE IT".

 

#5- For family "snapshots", I would grab any color disposable camera.

I started with 35mm 6-7 years ago and I put a lot of film through that camera to learn the basics. At the time, I was unaware that MF was still around. My parents had TLR's and Polaroid land cameras when I was very young, but the last I had heard at the time was that the film was no longer available. If it weren't for that, I would have started in MF instead of 35mm. (Technically they were right - 620 film had been discontinued, just that no one mentioned 120 film was the same size as 620 and I didn't dig too deeply into what film was available at the time)

 

Anyway, while I was in the photo store one day, they had a Bronica ETRc in the case that they had gotten on a trade in. I asked to take a closer look at it and once I looked down through the chimney finder, I knew this was the answer to the 35mm problem - that prints from 35mm looked terrible when enlarged over 8x10 inches. It wasn't long before I had an ETRSi kit. About a year later, I hadn't touched my 35mm camera and I was in the market for a Pentax 67II. It was expensive, but the camera performs with almost the same flexibility as the 35mm system used to.

 

This year I started getting into 4x5. I'm not as blown away with LF as I was with my MF gear, but it does remove one more limitation. In MF, to get the really large prints I like, I have to use nearly the entire frame, In 4x5, I have liberal cropping options and I can still get the big print if I want. The only drawback being the time it takes to setup a shot and a loss of spontaneity. As a result, my MF gear still sees a bit of use, while my 35mm only sees 1 roll/year, if that.

 

Hope you enjoy your new found systems.

Thanks Dave. Bob.

I just convert my Polaroid 110a to 120 roll film and get excellent

6x12 actually 52x104 mm panorama pictures.

They blow away the panorama pictures of hasseblad X pan.

Now I almost finish my next project, and I will have a Polaroid multi format camera which has 4 formats 6x12; 6x9; 6x6; and 6x4.5

Interesting and excellent MF.

Minh Nguyen

Tito: I did not aim at mocking you. I would not do this. Please accept my apologies if my comment suggested this.

 

"Before you start mocking me, I advise you to look at 8x10 contact prints on AZO paper like I have"

There is just no substitute for square inches :)

However, there are certain shots that are easier to get with an auto-everything 35mm camera, e.g. children as compared to 4x5 (try doing that ala 40's journalist!). And given that there are no 400mm equivalent lenses in medium and large format (unless you have a really long bellows!), long teles are just not available in larger formats and for tose that are there, the camera becomes so unwieldly.

Minh: Your project cameras sound very interesting indeed. have you posted photos of the camera and the resulting images here on PN. If not, I encourage you to do so. Great idea!

Ah, but 35mm does have advantages when you actually WANT loads of grain for effect. There's not much portability advantage over a Rolleiflex, but quite a lot of a flexibility advantage. As ever, horses for courses. But my 3.5F will be the last camera I would consider giving up.

I think that my 35mm cameras are much easier to carry compared to my Rollei. Not when carried in a bag, but when hung around neck by strap, the Rolleis can be a bit ungainly. <p>Well worth it for the image quality though :-)

Well, 35mm gives you all sorts of flexibility and portability, 4x5 gives you superb quality with swings and tilts to control almost any situation. Medium format gives you a bit of each, and is a very good compromise.

No problems Raid. Have a nice trip, and bring us a lot of pictures!

 

Lloyd, you are right as there is no 35mm 400 lens equivalent on a LF. But, once you apply the movements and expose the negative in a flawless way and do the same while developing, you will get a 4x5, or a 5x7, in which case you can crop any portion of it at will. For my 8x10, I just like a contact print.

Hi, I like to think I can be flexible with my photography, so I use both 35mm and 69 formats. However, there is my rational side telling me, why compromise? lose the 35mm system. I find higher resolution (pun) in medium format, and when using Tech-Pan, it blows 35mm away.

 

There are many fine lenses available to my Nikon F4 that I lust after, especially the 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikor. Perhaps a large format camera would cure my procrastination. I am very interested in the more deliberative ways people use their cameras and imaginations.

 

Cheers.