Do You Shoot 35mm and MF?

[dglickstein]

When I switch to MF from 35mm should I keep my Canon gear?

 

If you shoot both 35mm and MF, how do you lug both sets of gear

around? Do you just work out of the car or hike with a one body or

two bodies at a time?

 

Why should I keep both formats? Is there a good reason?

 

I am asking so I can decide whether to keep my L lenses and 2 EOS3

bodies or trade them in for some money--I do not know if they will

ultimately just be collecting dust.

 

Thank you in advance for your advice.

 

dG

[sionnac]

I do - but I choose the camera for the day, I don't bring both. If you don't need the cash, why not keep both? Unless there's an extra body you won't use... seems like the more you use both formats, the easier it is to decide which one will suit your project.

[dan_fromm2]

Why are you planning to move up in format? What do you expect to be able to do with MF gear (and WHAT system?) that you can't with your Canons, or to do better than you can with your Canons? Is there anything your Canons can do that the MF kit you might get can't?

 

I mean, you know what you're about, we don't. It isn't fair of you to ask questions that require us to read your mind.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I use 35mm less and less. I almost always reach for my Mamiya 645 instead, even to shoot my kids playing soccer. It really does handle like a large 35mm SLR. But my kids are young, so I can still keep up with the action if I anticipate the play.

 

The future? Well, I may need AF as the kids get older and faster. But by then, DSLR's will be less expensive and I'll probably go that route.

 

YMMV.

Robert

[dglickstein]

Cash may be an issue. I'm looking at an H2 plus lenses with film back right now and later a digital back. But I would take a serious hit on the value of the lenses.

 

Dan--I'm planning to move to MF for several reasons that I outline in this post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ds8k But basically, I'm looking for more film surface area and a migration to larger digital sensor size. I beleive replacing a back as a way of moving from film to digital (or from color to B&W) is the right design as opposed to having to upgrade the entire body every year or so. Digital is my future, that's clear.

 

Robert--I worry that I will be shooting like you, 645 more and more when I switch. If that's the case, why keep the 35mm?

 

dG

[bueh]

As a classic camera user I can happily say that I use both formats in all kind of cameras. Only for some special events or when I feel the need to run quick test rolls through newly-acquired cameras I lug two cameras around. One has to learn to make decisions. I like the handling of 35mm rangefinder cameras, but also enjoy medium format SLRs with waist-level finders. For serious stuff and assignments there is always my Mamiya RZ67 (grainless 50x60cm prints rock!).<p>

Having a nice 35mm system can be useful if need to take many pictures fast with a camera you have lots of experience with, i.e. a friend needs some small portrait photos but cannot decide what to wear, how to pose etc.. I use an old Nikon F801 with an excellent Tokina macro lens for occasions like these -- one or two rolls give me lots of pictures to choose from and can be shot in short time, especially when using the internal motor drive. So keep one Canon body and maybe up to three lenses -- those you shoot the most pictures with and maybe one with an extreme focal length you won't find / can't afford in MF.

[david_henderson]

I kept my Canons and lenses when I first moved to medium format but I didn't and don't use them. I guess three things happened. First I was very taken by the MF process and in particular the size and proportions of the image through the finder. Second I started selling prints- and before the days of LightJets etc MF gave me a huge advantage in quality and I just didn't want to sell big R types from 35mm. Thirdly I recognised that the only things I wanted to do that my MF slr was bad at was to operate with lightweight gear that I could handhold sometimes and make a small number of panoramics. A medium format rangefinder meets those needs at a higher quality level than 35mm.

 

I think you should decide on this after you get the medium format camera. There are aspects of this decision that you won't be able to think through until you're aware of any need you have beyond the MF kit.

[john bond]

I was in a similar set of circumstances about three years ago. I kept my 35

mm. Then, I bought a digital SLR and have not used the 35 mm since. There

are some real advantages of medium format over 35 mm and in many cases,

advantages over affordable digital cameras. If you are already taking the

plunge into digital, then I am not sure that 35 mm will be that usefult to you.

[ben conover]

Yes keep your gear, you can use longer lenses with 35mm.

[paul_sauer]

It really depends on the kind of shooting you do. I like to have a camera on me all the

times as I walk around city streets, so I'll have an Olympus XA or a Nikon FM with a 35mm

f2 lens. I'll use 35mm when I want to use an extreme WA or telephoto that I don't have on

my MF bodies. These cameras are usually loaded with tri-x film for its look and versatility.

 

But that said, when I PLAN to photograph, it's usually the Minolta Autocords or Fuji GW

690III. The look is too good compared to 35mm.

 

Film cameras are selling for nickles on the dollar, so you may just want to hang onto your

Cannon.

[disneyry]

I've switched almost completely to MF. I don't shoot a great volume, so the savings in the film cost isn't a big deal. The only 35mm that I still use is an ancient Leica that was my Grandfather's, no way am I getting rid of that.

[norman_wijaya]

Keep the lenses, sell the bodies, that way you can graduate to 35mm digital when the price is right in near future. Lenses should keep their value while film bodies quickly turns into paperweight if digital 35mm keep progressing the way they are.

[roman_sonnleitner1]

I use both fornats for street shooting - I prefer to use my Rolleiflex (or 'cord or YashicaMat), but also carry a Leica CL or M2 in case I need a wide-angle or tele lens (only about 20% of my shots, though). The rangefinders also come out when the light gets to low for using the 'flex safely.

 

But I presume since you use 2 modern SLRs, you porbably do rather different kinds of shots - i you use those for general shooting, like travel and stuff, a MF SLR system might make them obsolete, unless you need to work really fast (e.g. sports), need really long (sports, wildlife) or short (usually not availbale in MF) lenses, or want to do a lot of macro work (possible, but more difficult due to 'lower DOF' in MF - and please don'T start a big discussion about how MF DOF is the same - almost everybody knows what is meant with that...).

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

It's difficult to use 35mm gear once you get used to larger negs. I've even purchased a Bronica RF645 as my carry-everywhere camera. And I've sold off most of my 35mm gear, except for my Contax IIIa, and it, too, may go, but not yet). I keep it because sometimes I need fast lenses. And the 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar is a superb lens.

 

But we'll see if I use the Contax much during the coming year. But in the mean time, I'm paring down the Contax kit and selling all lenses except the 50mm.

 

Robert

[donald_brewster]

Horses for courses. Which camera always depends on what you are going to shoot. Some things demand 35mm, like sports, and some things demand an 8x10. Since this is the MF digest, I assume you'll get a lot of MF answers -- and I'll add to the list. It is what I grab for the most. While the other formats don't exactly gather dust, MF is the workhorse for me.

[35mmdelux]

Each camera has its strengths. I use one kit at a time. There is no way I would part with my 'blad nor my Leica. Sometimes I do carry both, each with 1 lens depending on my task. I'll carry one in a small Domke w/ wide strap while using the other. This way they're both easy to carry.

[dan_fromm2]

Well, I shoot 2x3 with a couple of little Graphics and 35 mm with Nikons.

 

For shots, especially close-up, of moving subjects there's no substitute for an SLR, and all of my SLRs are Nikons. In addition, I haven't run out of KM yet. There's no 120 film like KM.

 

My shortest lenses for the Graphics see a wider angle of view than the shortest lens I have for the Nikons. Other things, most of all emulsion, equal, big negative beats small. 47 SA sees the same view on 2x3 as a 21 on 24x36, makes an image 2 1/3 times as large. The only way to beat that is shoot a larger format ...

 

But if you're going to go digital, why spend money you won't be able to recover on MF gear?

 

Lastly, I greatly respect A. A. Blaker, author of Field Photography, Applied Depth of Field, and other useful books. In Field Photography, he makes the point that a move up in format is hard to justify unless the film's linear dimensions are at least doubled. From 24 x 36, go to nothing smaller than 48 x 72. That's longer and lower than 6x7. 6x9 is better. In Al's scheme, a move from 35 mm to 645 or 6x6 isn't worth it. And although a 6x9 tranny looks pretty punk next to a 4x5, a 645 tranny (1/2 frame 6x9) looks even punier next to a 6x9.

 

Good luck, don't look back,

[charles_stobbs3]

I am a very occaisonal user of mf and find getting film to a procesor and picking up the results to be very inconvenient. Unless you intend to do your own processing you should check out the possibilities in your area before making a decision.

[robert_potts1]

Yes I do. I use 35mm for hand held candids and macro. I use it for lenses 400mm and longer. I use medium format for landscapes. I have a rangefinder medium format that is easily used with a second system whether it is my 645 SLR or the 35mm. There are applications where I could also use digital or large format, but I just don't have that kind of money. A complex system is necessary for the efficient harvesting of images. I hope you can find something that works for you.

[randall cherry]

I used 35mm film for many years for my mostly landscape and street photography hobby. I moved to MF format (TLR's and Mamiya 7) when digital caused the MF gear prices to fall.

 

I sold all the 35mm film gear except for keeping one Nikon FM body and zoom lens for the sake of nostalgia. The large film area from a MF negative or tranny makes looking at 35 film feel like wasted effort to me.

 

Now, I use the MF gear when I am trying to do "serious" work, and a digital P&S for all the fun snapshots. The digital P&S fills the void left by the 35mm film gear, and produces exceptionally good 8x10's. I haven't shot 35mm film in many years.

 

Also, the digital P&S is so small and light that it is no problem carrying it with me when I am out with the MF gear.

 

To me, the combination of the digital P&S and the MF gear is like having the best of both worlds in one photo bag.

 

--Randall

[PatrickMP]

<P><EM>I am asking so I can decide whether to keep my L lenses and 2 EOS3 bodies or

trade them in for some money--I do not know if they will ultimately just be collecting

dust.</EM><BR>No, sell me your Canon L lenses, and embrace the world of medium

format.<img src="http://www.d26.net/offsite/icon_mrgreen.gif" />

<p>Seriously though (well, I was serious about selling me your gear too.. but..), when I

shoot, I pick the best tool for the job. My MF gear consists of a full RB system, and I use

that at home in my mini-studio for shooting still life. If I have to do Macro work, my

Pentax wins hands-down b/c I have a bellows and several close-focus accessories for it;

plus, TTL metering is great for macro as you don't have to worry about bellows

compensation, etc.

<p>I recently picked up an EOS-3 body (no lenses yet) because I've been shooting sports

and car race events. While my Pentax gear is varied and great overall, I found AF would be

very beneficial in this particular circumstance.

<p>It's not a question of "which format is better", it's a question of "which tool is best."

<p>Cheers,<br>-Patrick

[dglickstein]

I have to say thanks to everyone for the advice. Your words have helped. I definatly see that 35mm is good for some photography and MF for other types. I didn't know if I would get a better trade in price if I traded in when I purchased from my dealer.

 

I think I will take a wait and see approach and not trade in immediately if at all. Thank you again.

 

dG

[mtk]

Hi Derek! I am a camera collector/photographer so I feel your dilema!

I recently purchased a NEW Minolta Maxxum 70. It focuses fast, is light and has all the bells and whistles I need/don't need. I basically use a 35-105 and a 100-300 zoom. For my sons soccer/tball games and snowmobile racing, it is fabulous...I also have a Nikon F with the prism finder and the 1.4 50 lens. WAY COOL camera, takes great pics and is a real conversation piece, but after luggin' that badboy around for a day, I really appreciate the lightweight 35.

I have a full traditonal darkroom that I now use almost exclusivly for my pair of Mamiya M645's...BW with MF and Plus X makes fabulous prints! Virtually anything on my wall is BW/MF. Above posters are SO RIGHT when they say once go with the big neg, it is very hard to go back to the little one. I also have a Yashica GSN rangefinder in absolute new condition I like using when we have family functions,street pics etc. I also have 6 other SLRS, one TLR and I more rangefinder...Like the other posters have said, really depends on what you personally want for pictures....plenty of weapons, sometimes hard to pick out what is best....And then, yes, toss digital into the mix just for good measure! Have Fun! Mark

[stewart_s]

I have an EOS 3 and bought a Hasselblad 500. I find that I use the Hasselblad for most purposes now, but the EOS with 28-135 IS lens is a fantastic travel camera, and with 100-400 IS L is a great wildlife camera. My advice is - wait six months. If the film in your EOS now is still in it then, sell it! (the camera, not the film).

[flying_tiger]

After getting my Hassy with a few Zeiss lenese, I still keep my EOS 3 with three "L"s and Nikon FM2n with 105/2.5 AIS. I'm a film shooter and keep different systems for different purpose.

 

MF is for slow-paced landscape, macro, portrait sessions. 35mm AF is for sports(F1 racing, U.S. open tennis) and P&S (outings, casual travel, etc.) and FM2n as backups.

 

But most of the time, I shoot Hassy 503CW because I like the flow of MF and the end results (35mm is just no comparison). Rarely shoot my EOS 3- 16 rolls for Formula 1 racing and 10 rolls for U.S. Open.

 

That's it for the past year. Whereas I shot almost 100 rolls in 120 format.