Advantages of MF over 35mm

hello, I haven't been on a forum in over a decade so I hope my etiquette is ok.

 

I have been shooting a d800 for sometime now and I primarily do portraits for gallery work. I shoot with speed lights using a yongnuo wireless trigger. I recently started to use my F100 to shoot some during the portrait sessions. I really like using the film camera and to me I like the finished product better. Less editing involved and it led me to look into MF. (Personal preference I know)

 

Next year I want to shoot two galleries (those who survived and overcame suicide attempts, and refugees [i live in Japan]) What I'd like to do is shoot one if not both of those galleries entirely on film. (Mostly b&w, scanned digitally, of course some post processing etc.)

 

So long story short, I have heard that there is a particular "look" to MF, with the only examples I have seen being online. I have never even held a MF photo in my hand, not even a MF camera.

 

I am on an extremely tight budget (once I buy this I'm done with equipment purchases for a long time), I am looking at a Mamiya 645 af 80mm 2.8. Prints will be from A3 size up to 20x30 being the largest. I know there are subjectivness (sp?) in all of this but is the MF "look" and/or quality worth the jump over from 35mm and the ¥¥ or $$?

 

I think I'm headed down a rabbit hole I shouldn't be in, but I do want to step up my game. Talent and story can translate into any format, I know. But as a "fine-art" portrait photographer, is the MF camera a must have?

 

Thanks for listening to my ramblings, I hope I've provided you with enough info. Thanks in advance for any feedback or direction.

645 is the minimum film format that can challenge the image quality of digital. 35mm can't. It's just not big enough.

 

However, I'd warn against buying one of the plastic bodied Mamiya 645 cameras (Super, Pro, ProTL or E). In my experience they have appalling reliability issues.

 

The old metal bodied Mamiyas, OTOH, are built like tanks and go on forever.

 

Personally though, I've never seen the rationale of shooting film to scan it. The end product is a digital file that you might just as well have shot directly with a digital camera. Add grain in PhotoShop and nobody can tell the difference.

 

"But as a "fine-art" portrait photographer, is the MF camera a must have?"

 

- Only in the eyes of a snobbish few that think making the process more complicated somehow makes it more worthy or "arty".

Edited September 29, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Thanks for the feedback!

Yeah I think I'm leaning towards MF. Though I know there is some inevitable digitization that has to go on before print I don't think it's enough to rule out shooting some MF.

 

(I may end up answering my own question if [and it seems} MF is indeed that much better than 35mm) I've printed (at a shop) and then scanned the same negative and the outcome in my opinion was great. Granted I'm sure the shop is using the same process roughly as I am... no darkroom work here. I try and print photos as much as I can and I can definitely tell film from digital in my photo albums and I like it more.

 

I use "fine-art" lightly, I live in an area where people are boasting being licensed or certified pro-photographers... I needed a title (for where I'm at) and just a visual to give you all in hopes it might help of what I'm looking for in an end result.

 

Though with that said it does seem that MF is worth lying aside the D800 for a few shoots. If I enjoy my 35mm that I get back it seems I'll definitely be able to tell a noticeable difference in quality and look of the MF. Though I'm not silly enough to give up my DSLR... that D850 is still on my dream sheet...

 

Thanks again for the advice!

I enjoy shooting MF and shoot all three of the major formats(645, 6x6, 6x7).

 

With that said, as Rodeo Joe says you need 645 to even start being competitive, and IMO on the basis of technical image quality alone I find that I need 6x7 to beat my D800.

 

There are also other considerations that come with the format. For single person portraits(anything from head shots to full body) you are set in terms of lens focal lengths. A typical MF lens for 645 or 6x5 set might be 50mm, 75-80mm, and 150mm(although you can certainly go outside). This roughly approximates 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm on a 35mm camera. You can typically get as short as 40mm(which puts you somewhere in the 24mm range) and as long as about 500mm. The widest 6x7 lens I know of is the 45mm for the Pentax 67 system, and Mamiya makes 50mm lenses for all of their systems. There again, the longest is 500mm, which is roughly a 250mm equivalent on 35mm.

 

I too am not a fan of some of the modern high-tech MF cameras. Unlike 35mm, I find AF in medium format to not be that useful. The speed is roughly equal to my N4004 focusing my AF-D 80-200 2.8, or in other words agonizingly slow. A typical waste level finder combined with the pop-up magnifier is fast and accurate.

 

In addition, I'm not a fan of focal plane shutters, which I think the late Mamiyas use. My experience is admittedly limited to early Bronicas, but they are loud, vibrate a lot, and have atrociously low sync speeds. The "Hasselblad 500 model" that's in wide use by a variety of systems in different formats of a leaf shutter in each lens is admittedly more complicated but I find it to be overall nicer to use despite the lower maximum shutter speeds and lack of an instant return mirror.

 

I really, really love the Mamiya RB67 system. The optics are outstanding and it's built like a tank. Unlike the Compur shutters in Hasselblads, I also find that the Seiko shutters hold their time very well.

 

For 645 and 6x6, I gravitate toward Bronica equipment. The ETR series is 645, and the SQ series is 6x6. I'd suggest an ETRS and SQ-A body, respectively. Zenzanon lenses are also excellent, and you get electronically timed Seiko shutters. Accessories are plentiful and cheap.

 

With that said, I really shouldn't mention this but if you want a nice, fairly complete 6x6 Bronica S2a system you might take a peek on Ebay(US).

If you are tripod based, then I would recommend the Mamiya RB or RZs, simply because they are the biggest practical format and allow native relatively close focusing and have rotating backs. I had a Hasseblad system which are also good, but on a tripod I would choose Mamiya. If you are handholding then 'blads or Bronica 6 x 6 are probably easier. If I was just shooting for myself, for the pleasure of it, I would go 645 and would go Mamiya 645, or Bronica ETR. They shoot much more like a 35mm and have faster lenses. I agree with Rodeo about the relative technical merits of digital, and I sold off my MF kit years ago. However, using film can be considered to be a marketing advantage, if you know how to pitch it, but unless you are printing yourself, or paying an top-class lab to print them for you ($$$) then I don't feel MF film does offer much over a good, full frame digital kit. The "special" nature of film may make you stand out though: but you need to make sure the special quality is manifest. Medium format lenses will have less depth of field versus 35mm for any given angle of view: this is usually what people mean by the "medium format look". You can mimic this by using a fast lens on a full frame camera.

You can mimic this by using a fast lens on a full frame camera.

 

Not really.

 

Aside from getting into the nitty-gritty about COC size and enlargements, fundamentally DOF comes down to the aperture ratio and magnification ratio.

 

When filling the frame with a given subject, you are always working at a higher magnification ratio in MF than in 35mm, and the difference is dramatic enough that it will usually offset the 1-2 stop aperture advantage that a typical 35mm prime gives over a MF lens of equivalent FOV.

Hate to say this but 645 and 6x7 can't challenge the 36 or 45mp dslrs anymore. But I still shoot MF anyway because it has a unique look and it makes you use your brain composing and taking your shot.

If your happy with 12x18" prints or smaller the new fine grain films will still produce good results in 35mm.

35mm has the advantage of being more portable than MF, but MF will do a better job (and often require a tripod for lenses longer than 135mm).

Shoot what ever you enjoy.

Thanks, it seems that there are merits to shooting MF. I'm glad to hear that the RB67's (and the Bronica ETRs) are the way to go, they seem to be far less expensive. Question though, can I use my Yongnuo wireless trigger to set off my speedlights on either one of those bodies? I've heard some conflicting stories whether or not that is possible. I'll just use the D800 as a heavy lightmeter!

 

Thanks everybody, I'm glad you all are persuading me to spend money. Seriously though, without getting my hands on one and I tried renting one but no one carried it I was burned out on google trying to figure out the advantages over digital or 35mm. I know one will not replace the other, but I think it will allow me to break away from the DSLR and offer something new. And I do want to be able to look at a photo I took by film hanging in the gallery rather than a digital file, even if the film was scanned and printed. (solely personal preference of course)

 

Thanks all!

I'm not sure how the Yongnuo triggers work.

 

I've used a small flash on the camera to trigger optical slaves on lights. More recently, I've been using some ancient Quantum radio triggers to trigger my studio lights, although they will also work on anything where you can rig a PC cord.

 

The RB67 cameras have a cold shoe on the side. I have a speed grip for my SQ-A that has a hot shoe, but my ETR speed grip lacks one(I'm not sure if the ETRS or ETRSi speed grip adds one). With a cold shoe, you will need to put your strobe or trigger in it then run a PC cord to the lens(RB67) or body(Bronicas). The little Vivitar flash I(I forget the model, but it's an two-level, two cell auto thyristor flash) use has a built-in PC cord that disconnects the hot shoe on the flash when it's used. On other hot shoe flashes or triggers, you'll need to tape off the bottom of the cold shoe. Alternatively, if you're using something without a PC cord, there are little blocks with rails for a cold shoe on the bottom, a hot shoe on top, and a PC cord out the side.

 

Whatever you use, just remember that you're taking a step back in flash technology with MF. If I'm handholding my SQ-A, I often use a Metz 36CT3. This is a nice little auto-thyristor flash that's more flexible than the venerable Vivitar 283 and also is about a stop more powerful(and Metz is somewhat more honest about GNs than most Japanese makers). A good Vivitar 283 is fine also if you want a basic auto flash. Otherwise, if you want to go off camera and/or have multiple flashes you're back to GN calculations or using a flash meter.

 

For at least a little bit longer, too, you also have the Polaroid option to check flash exposure, and it's still something I do(sparingly) for important stuff. All major systems, including the ETR and RB67, have a Polaroid back option that works with peel-apart pack film. There's still a decent amount of stock of Fuji FP-100C out there. Given the film situation, Polaroid backs are often quite inexpensive.

I have pc syncs on my flashes so I should be good there, and of course I can use the on camera to trigger the others. I know there is some witchcraft involved with working with the flashes and sync speeds and what have you. But that's the fun part.

If the flash trigger connects to a PC port, it will work on any camera with that connection. If it needs a hot show, not many MF cameras are compatible. You can tell by looking at the show whether it is hot or cold.

 

The only advantage of MF over 35 mm is the larger image size, by about 2x. This means you can make bigger enlargements before grain becomes objectionable. In terms of resolution, MF film is about on par with a 24 MP digital camera. MF is much more restricted than 35 mm with regard to lens availability, but then wide/normal/medium tele is enough for most applications, including portraits and landscapes. If spending $20 for 12 images floats your boat, then have at it.

 

A 645 camera handles like a 35 mm camera - mainly eye level (with options). An RB or RZ is a 3# brick the size of a shoe box - perfect for hiking and events - NOT!

If the flash trigger connects to a PC port, it will work on any camera with that connection. If it needs a hot show, not many MF cameras are compatible. You can tell by looking at the show whether it is hot or cold.

 

Cold shoes are easy enough to turn into hot shoes https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyJrs1pvN1gIVAl6GCh0wDg-OEAQYASABEgJHR_D_BwE&is=REG&m=Y&sku=1130423

 

With that said, the ONLY hot shoe I've encountered is-like I said-the speed grip for my SQ-A.

My Mamiya RB67 pro is not only built like a tank, it weighs as much. But it can be synced to 1/400, the fastest shutter speed on my lenses. I use the sync cord to connect my AB cyber commander in the cold shoe to the lens. I will be picking up an 850 after the first of the year and will be curious to see if the tonal gradation is equal. I belonged to a photo group in CA and it was heavily mf or 4x5 film til about 4 years ago and the old guys all made the transition. There is an enjoyment of the difference in making an image with an RB67, than with digital. It is also a step back in time connecting you with our predecessors in photography. I think there is a different feel to an image on film even if scanned. It's like climbing into a sports car from the 60's or 70's and using a clutch and 4 speed gear box. Cranking that shutter lever on the RB is like the snick, snick of a gear shift lever on an MGB that Road and Track used to say, fell readily to hand. Haven't done a heel and toe double clutching coming into a turn at speed since the 70's.

It's like climbing into a sports car from the 60's or 70's and using a clutch and 4 speed gear box. Cranking that shutter lever on the RB is like the snick, snick of a gear shift lever on an MGB that Road and Track used to say, fell readily to hand. Haven't done a heel and toe double clutching coming into a turn at speed since the 70's.

 

Well, I drove my 1970 MGB to work every day this past week(taking advantage of the nice, clear weather) and I might get motivate and take it and the RB67 out this afternoon for a combined pleasure cruise/photography trip.

 

That reminds me that I need to also snug up the jam nut under the shift knob. I guess it might be a sign that you're driving a bit too vigorously when you're rowing the shifter through an S-curve and the knob starts unscrewing in your hand :)

Ben, put down that top and enjoy. Instead of an mgb hard top or porsche 914, in 1970 bought a 1970 240 Z that I raced the next 3 years. I still love the exhaust note of a jag xke. Sweet. Let's see some photos from that drive. I have a small print from 1966 standing beside an MGB with the rally number 54. Car 54 where are you?

Ben, put down that top and enjoy. Instead of an mgb hard top or porsche 914, in 1970 bought a 1970 240 Z that I raced the next 3 years. I still love the exhaust note of a jag xke. Sweet. Let's see some photos from that drive. I have a small print from 1966 standing beside an MGB with the rally number 54. Car 54 where are you?

 

I took the top down a few weeks ago, and it's most likely down through November. It's enough trouble to put up and down that it tends to stay up or down for a long time.

 

When I bought the car, it actually came with an ancient(albeit replacement) top that wasn't on the car. My parents gave me a new top for Christmas the year I bought the car, but it was another 6 months before I had it installed. I'll tackle most anything on the car myself, but cutting and sewing that big expensive piece of vinyl is not one of them.

 

I went with tan for the top. Black would have been the original color, but I'm really attracted to the combination of British Racing Green and tan.

 

I use a full tonneau(a thing of the past for convertibles these days) when I don't have the top up.

 

In any case, here's a photo taken back in the spring one day when I was leaving work and I thought the light looked interesting. This was taken with a Speed Graphic on some long-expired Velvia. I used a bit of forward tilt to keep all of the car in focus.

 

The dynamic range of MF film seems to be greater than the same emulsion in 35 mm. This is particularly noticeable in shadow detail. I think this is due to the thinner backing, and relatively less grain for the same subject, owing to the image size. I used this to good effect working for a newspaper in the old days. With photoengraving, very little should be pure white or pure black. The goal was an open look, mostly mid-range.

Ben,cool. I spent the day at the beach shooting 600 and 1000 mm on digital for power boat races leaving with a sunburn and some shots. Here's a couple of the sporty items I shot.

Bob, are you trying to show MF is not appropriate for action sports?

Ed, I re read my response and don't see how you concluded that. What exactly made you think that?

 

Ben, BRG is classic. I believe British Leyland sold the jag with that color and the tan top. I did not have as much fun as you did with that 4 speed and RB. I am still suffering with a nasty sun burn, that modern rig weighed a ton, the lens alone is 10 lbs plus beefy tripod and gimbel head, left me literally bruised and sore from hauling it up and down the beach a mile and unlike having a handful of quality images, I had to plow through nearly a thousand yesterday. I will think of you and that MG when I pull out the RB for a portrait shoot this weekend. You made me realize I haven't driven a 4 speed in decades. Using the RB is like driving one. A wonderful piece of equipment that although decades old has it's own special pleasure in it use and results. That is sort of an Avedon like contradiction with the modern camera and boats I was with the same day. Enjoy that wind in your hair.

The image to which I refer is decidedly not sharp. The second on is okay, but no cigars as far as action shots go. Hammers come in all sizes, and not all nails are the same. Use the right tool for the job. MF is great for landscapes, portraits, even closeups. I wouldn't take it out of the case for a boat race or football game.

Ed, got a message" I am ignoring content by this member??" Your original post dropped off at my end too? Is this some kind of moderator thing. I just clicked on the message and your message came up. It says the image you refer to is not sharp. As Stieglitz said, it is not supposed to be. They aren't meant to be realistic, journalistic shots. As a winner and judge of professional competitions, I appreciate your feed back. I looked at your images. and yours are all sharp and well exposed but that is not my style and is why I like Stieglitz so much. Had a lady tell me that using Photoshop wasn't real and we shouldn't use it. She actually became abusive. She claimed to know how to use it. I shoot to my vision, not just trying to ape what is in front of me. For example, I'm sure Ben gets a great deal of vibration out of that sports car. The first day I changed springs and shocks in my race car, I got car sick. Those race boats are shaking insanely hitting wakes, chop and fortunately, not the pair of dolphins whose fins I got in one shot as they were looking in the direction of a passing raceboat, and that shaking is probably good for self winding watches. But like a timex, it had better be able to take lickin and keep on tickin. So minimally sharp and then only the windshield. You are absolutely right, MF has it's uses. But although my longest mf lens is a 135 equivalent, don't be surprised if I don't try it for unconventional things. I tend to push the limit of my gear and when in charge of the PPA mentor program I taught those pros, they had better distinguish themselves from uncle harry who can get sharp and well exposed with his cell phone or camera from costco or why would anyone want to pay them. Now your message is gone completely? What is up with that? Anyway, keep shooting.

My message is still there. Did you "unlike" me or something. I wasn't trying to be nasty. That's the kind of results I would expect with a long lens in MF. Action pictures are usually expected to be sharp. Artsy is okay in this venue, but I wouldn't expect racing fans to appreciate the effort.

I have been with a local camera club for more than 10yrs now, and they tend to focus on competitions. Yeah .. equipment were never an issue, I think someone's smartphone image was a winner once. I've found it was the shot, and the post processing and even intentional blurring with the camera. For planned stuff I shoot medium format film now, no more 35mm film other than b/w film ie street style. I am also looking at getting a premium compact digital it does the spontaneous images so much eaiser. That still said, TriX and HP5+ are the more popular b/w film choices right. I wouldn't imagine them to be more IQ.

 

And ... with cropping. At my club it's not unheard of that people discard 70% of their pixels because by cropping that is a better composition / stronger image.