Nikon F6 or Move to Medium Format

[jonathan_bernheimer]

<p>Hi,<br /> I have gone back to shooting film after several years of digital. I have a question about the image quality of 35mm film versus medium format and whether it would make sense to buy an F6 as opposed to say a Pentax 645N. I am interested in printing my photos to about 11 by 14 inches or maybe a bit larger. From reading other posts I have found that many people think 11 by 14 is about the max to print 35mm (although I realize there are many variables in the printing equation). Are any professional photographers still using 35mm? I realize many still use film, however do most use medium format?<br /> Also, I recently read an article on Ken Rockwell's web site where he said 35mm was an "amatuer format". However, he also says that 35mm has the same image quality as a 25 megapixel digital camera. And aren't there plenty of pros using less than 25 megapixel cameras (even for fine art stuff). So, what's the deal? Also, haven't some of the best photographers on the planet (like Steve McCurry) used 35mm for there work? (Including for his famous picture of the Afgan girl)? I guess I'm just trying to see what other people are using for high quality work where IQ is important (knowing that the answer will be different to an extent on what you shoot - landscapes etc.).<br /> Thanks for any info.<br /> jmbern1</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>In my opinion at least, people who call 35mm an "amateur's format" have a real problem distinguishing their proverbial ass from their elbow. In my opinion, a lot of what Rockwell states falls squarely in that category. Over the years a lot of what he has said does not have a lot of credibility with me because of patently stupid statements like that. Some of the greatest photographs ever taken were in this "amateur's" format.</p>

<p>That being said, you have to look at what you want most out of film. 35mm, for the most part, often offers more in convenience than medium format. You have a greater selection of lens focal lengths. But if quality is your foremost requirement, I would go with medium format. You will definitely see a difference in the formats at 11 x 14. With the overehelming popularity of digital nowadays, you can find both used 35mm and medium format film camera equipment at great prices. Whether you want to print them directly via the silver halide process or scan the negatives and print them digitally, I am sure you will be very pleased with the results.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>My vote goes for Hasselblad 500 C or CM with 80 Planar f2.8 from the '60's and 70's and A12 back with matching numbers insert to housing or cheaper still, a Rolleiflex with 75mm Zeiss Tessar f3.5 from the 1950's or Rolleicord with 75mm Xenar f3.5 both of which I have had or still have and like. All three cameras can be bought for modest sums( the Hassy more $) and produce great square images 6x6 (12) per roll of 120 so you can crop landscape or portrait mode and not have to rotate the camera.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>An F6 is light years away from Medium Format, it's an incredible system camera and I want one. (And a million other things.) But to say you can't decide between an F6 or MF is like saying you don't know what or how you want to photograph.</p>

<p>Back in the day...I carried a Nikon F4s as a backup to a Mamiya 645 Pro. One system was pure mechanical slowness with higher image quality, the other a very rugged light weight bludgeon that doubled as a camera. One afternoon across from where the tanks are parked in Shivta in the Negev desert I shot some landscapes looking at the main ruins. I left the M645 on a tripod and climbed into a hole in the ground that led to rooms of Nabatean ruins that were slowly falling off the cliff. I emerged straining to get my humus fattened gut through the hole, covered in sweaty mud, soon to be dust, again. That would have killed the Mamiya, the F4s brushed it off and seemed to say "that was really cool".</p>

<p>Two different machines and very different uses. But the F6 would make a very very good backup to a 500 c/m.</p>

<p> </p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>What do you want to shoot? An F6 is a rather extreme machine optimised for sports and stuff, i.e. where you need fast AF. If you are going to shoot landscapes then you can do just as well with a Nikon FM2. If pure quality is your goal then MF wins hands down, especially the larger formats (67 and up). 645 is not that much bigger than 35mm.<br>

MF has its own set of problems that you may or may not be happy with. AF is one area. The generally slower shutter speeds and more care you need to take handholding is another. I personally think that pristine 11x14s are the realm of MF and larger only. 35mm is maybe good up to 8x10 for me.</p>

<p>And regarding 35mm being an amateurs format, I think that Ken Rockwell was maybe having a little poke at 35mm users for fun. But saying that I do find that most of what her says is a bit stupid. If 35mm is an amateur format, then most of the great photos produced are "amateur". Its not as simple as what size of film you use.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>I have an F6 and I think you should get a MF camera and start contributing to the MF POTW.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I'm just trying to see what other people are using for high quality work where IQ is important (knowing that the answer will be different to an extent on what you shoot - landscapes etc.).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nowadays I almost exclusively use the F6 for macrophotography, with slide film. 135 is plenty big enough for that purpose because closeups lack detail. And although slide film is generally difficult to expose correctly, it's almost a no-brainer in macrophotography where subjects are typically evenly lit ('cuz they're so small). I could use an APS-C camera instead, which resolves about the same, but prefer the look film gives out of the camera, so to speak.</p>

<p>I take out the MF gear when I know and have planned ahead of time what I want to photograph.</p>

<p>For casual walkabout use I carry an OM1n or OM2n. Either has the same IQ as the F6 and all three are capable of lovely 8x12s with print film -- I've never printed 135 larger than that --- but that look merely adequate next to a 16x20 print from 120 film.</p>

<p> </p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>I should say, the reason I use different formats is because I own them; and I own them because I like cameras, not because I'm trying to match image content with image quality, as if an image quality axis existed upon which different photographic subjects could be naturally mapped. Image quality is not very important, IMO, past a certain minimum standard which 135 greatly exceeds. In fact the <a href=" picture I've taken this year</a> was on 135 iso 1600 B&W film.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There was still one National Geographic photographer using film, according to a 2005 documentary. He has since switched to digital.</p>

<p>In planning your "return" to film, you should consider how you will deal with the rest of the story - what will you do with the results. You could, of course, shoot strictly reversal film and buy a slide projector (are they still made?). Most people will want to share their pictures on the internet or in print, which means you will need a scanner. You will quickly find that commercial prints directly from film leave much to be desired, and scans from minilabs are almost less than useless, and flatbed scans strictly web quality.</p>

<p>You could print using an enlarger and processing equipment, if you are willing to dedicate a significant portion of your home to a darkroom, you paycheck for equipment and supplies, and time away from other pursuits.</p>

<p>Most people find scanning to be satisfying as an avocation, and generally superior to optical prints, provided you use a dedicated film scanner, which you can select from one Nikon (LS-9000) or a couple of Hasselblad/Imacon scanners. You could assemble a "light" room complete with film scanner, printer and software for about $4000 - about half the cost of setting a decent darkroom (including plumbing, electrical and ventilation requirements). An alternative is to get drum scans of your best work, which adds up pretty quickly at $50 or more a pop. You would still need the rest of the infrastructure. One bonus is that all of the film scanners still in production will handle 120 film too.</p>

<p>If it's just results you want, and not some feeling of doing things the old-fashioned way, a 12MP DSLR will make an excellent 16x24" print, and look better at 11x14" than any 35mm film scan.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Two different formats in which different results are possible. The medium format has a much greater possibility for enlargement. The F6 has a great degree of versatility when it comes to making the shot. Yes, many professional photographers used the 35mm camera's probably heavily in Leica or Nikon systems. Steve McCurry used 35mm camera's for a long time but has probably turned to DSLR. Sabastio Salgado is famous for his 35mm work using Leica camera's but has now started using a Canon DSLR due to problems trasporting film across borders. Nick Brandt uses a Pentax 67 for his amazing wildlife photography and does not even use a telephoto lens. It would be impossible to say what you should use for photography. It's up to you to choose your way. Welcome back to the wonderful world of film. Check out Picture Preview, Beaverton Oregon for film processing if you feel like it.</p>

[bob_everding]

<p>Johnatan, medium format scanned at the "normal" rate my lab does it has returned results in fine, fine detail that I cannot get with either my F-4 film scanned by same lab or my D60 (which at times does very, very well). There is just so much more information there to be used....</p>

<p>My problem with medium format has been expressed above by others. If it involves ANYTHING moving, you could be in for some major disappointment. I have a simple 645 Pro and it is virtually impossible to get any descent photos with with a 2 year old girl unless she is asleep or maybe frozen in fear of something. When I do hit something candid with this little girl, the results are stunning. Detail, colors, depth....the results from medium format cannot be over stated.......when you hit it.</p>

<p>I am currently looking at the autofocus 645 cameras. From what I gather, they are not fast focusing cameras but perhaps may work for me with the kid and other moving objects. Examine your desires of what you want to do. Used 645 stuff is exactly what everyone says on this forum.....cheap. Sure you can spend $30,ooo on a new Mamiya 645AFD with a wonderful digital back, but for a $1,000 you can get a very, very good setup (Pro, or Pro II), have your local lab scan the negatives or slides (lately I have been having wonderful luck with Kodak 160VC in my Pro), Photoshop as necessary and enjoy your results.</p>

<p>May I recommend a Mamiya set up to begin with ONLY because it is so cheap. Start to love it, look at a Hassy. If you don't like it, dump it for most likely what you paid for it and no harm done. But I am willing to bet that if you get a Mamiya 645, you WILL be looking at a 6x6 or 6x7 camera within a month!! Somebody tell me I am wrong!!</p>

<p>Look at what Edward has to say again above......do not miss his point about what you are going to do with your film. So far, I have not gone above 8x10 and 99% of mine work is 6x8 (because I have a Kodak 6850 I got really cheap). I would say the key question is how good your lab is. If their standard scan is acceptable then that should work for showing work on the web and most real prints. Take what I say with a grain of salt now.......for prints 11x14, I cannot imagine why you would need a drum scan with a medium format image. Most of my scans from my lab are running around 3.5MB to 4.5MB for a 645 negative. Those images blown up 75% to my 6x8 paper still give amazing detail (again depending on the photo). However, if you plan to use this 645 stuff for real, income producing photos......a drum scan may be necessary more than one might ordinarily think.</p>

<p>I am still amazed at the photos I can get out of my F-4. So 35mm is not dead and I love what comes out from my 645 Pro too. May I say different formats for different needs? I have to close with a quick comment on Ken Rockwell. He has helped me a couple of times and has been dead on right every time (for me that is), but if he was here next to me, he too would say.....take what I say as advice based on HIS experience not anyone else's. I don't do this for a living, but many here do. THEY are the ones you must listen to for advice carefully, particularly if you think you are going to do this for a living. That's why many of you Pros can take a 35mm anything and it will be better than anything I can luck myself into in any format. Anyay, while I am at it.....any of you pros that post pictures for us to view, thank you. I may spend a long, long time studying them for the technical aspects (like use of flash and light) and your wonderful composition and artistry that I definately need to improve on and am slowly thanks to you!!</p>

<p>Bob E.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>From te tone of your original post, I think you'll be wasting your money on an F6. It's got some fancy automation, to be sure; but that automation is not what makes the picture. The lens and the film make the picture. And while Nikon makes some pretty darned good glass, there's nothing special about the F6 that can improve the lens quality as if by magic. If it's 35 mm you want to shoot, you can do just as well with a lesser body.<br>

But if it's medium format quality you're after, there is no 35 mm camera on the planet that can go head to head with a good medium format rig in terms of overall image quality. Even the rather pedestrian Yashicamat will absolutely blow the doors off any 35 mm camera when used within it's design limitations.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>depends on your objets :-) landscape, studio/daylight portraits go MF. Evrything else get the F6 (or bette an F100 and a bunch of lenses).</p>

<p>Even the AF medium format cameras are slow to focus, so anything moving is a problem. Also macro photography with medium format will be difficult I guess.</p>

<p>As a newbie in MF (Bronica ETRSi), I cannot tell you much from personal experience. However I sold my Nikon F gear (F75/80/100) and got the Bronica, because it suits my style of shooting (slow, low volume, mostly landscape/portrait). The biggest advantage are the backs for me. Waiting for a 36 picture film was too much for me (often shot only 1/2 a roll in a month).</p>

<p>From the quality point, MF is a large step up from 35mm film. However it requires some adaptation of technique and habit.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>If 11" prints are your goal, forget 35mm. At this print size or larger, any medium format size will blow away 35mm in a side by side comparison.</p>

<p>As for Ken Rockwell, he is more or less a jackass that's best ignored.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>A Nikon F5, rather than F6, would give you a taste of something very MF-ish: interchangeable viewfinders, including WLF and chimney types. This may change your perspective, with eyes-down composition and "contemplating" the image in a different way before you click the shutter. If that captivates you, you'll probably be going the whole hog for a MF SLR or TLR before long.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_276104]

<p><em>"I am interested in printing my photos to about 11 by 14 inches or maybe a bit larger."</em></p>

<p>To address that specific point, I have had 12x18" prints made from my own 35mm JPEG scans with a Nikon Coolscan IV (approx. 12MP equivalent) that look great. I only use slide film, and nothing faster than ISO 100.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>As said earlier here: "the lens and the film make the picture", and I would add: the photog's eye, the light, and a bit of chance.</p>

<p>So, the best lenses are/ were made by Zeiss or Leica; with the F6 you would luck out on getting those best lenses, I am afraid. The best film is Ektar 100 or Fuji Pro 400 H (for faster shots). So use those. Then train your eyes to see, get up early and watch the light and you will be there.</p>

<p>Of course medium format is totally different again from 35 mm: you will take totally different subjects (more static ones) totally differently, due to different aspect ratios, speed of set-up, shortness of 12 or 16 frames per film, .. weight of gear, ...</p>

<p>And ultimately it does not depend on the gear/film/lens alone (unless you do product photography and working with a SINAR $ 60,000 set up already) but on your eye, the light, and your luck.</p>

<p>So, go price a Contax G2 with a couple of lenses and try that out for cheap but best 35 mm outfit all around. And with that you can go to 12 by 18 any day or night. Good luck!</p>

[frank_major]

<p>I'm where you are in the format change up. I have, use and enjoy 35mm cameras (all manual focus/manual exposure). However, when i'm seriously doing some photography for myself (rare), i really like to slow down and enjoy the experience and the environment i'm photographing.</p>

<p>For me, MF is making more sense as i begin to realize more of what i'm wanting to do (landscapes/portraiture). I've started with about the most basic MF around - a Minolta Autocord TLR 6x6 - a "no light meter" version. I've only shot some B&W in it which i need to process, but that big 'ol ground glass is a joy to use!!! Everything i've heard about the Hassselblad system sounds like a great way to go if you're serious about MF.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I saw this post in the Nikon forum...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>35mm has the same image quality as a 25 megapixel digital camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is probably true in principle, but in practice I find my Canon 5DmkII superior to 35mm film scanned at any size over 11 x 14 (or in my 35mm equivalent 10 x 16). At 11 x 14 both images are very good - the film image still retains the look of film and is very good to look at. The digital image shows less grain-like imperfections, but perhaps the film images look more "natural". This is a matter of opinion and can be subtle. For those of us who have spent our life looking at film - the very clean digital images can still feel clinical. Above 10 x 16, I find the 5D is superior in all ways - sharper and cleaner, although occasionally I do find a 35mm image that can take to 13 x 19 well. So I would agree that for best results an 11 x 14 is about the max you can print in scanned 35mm.</p>

<p>The other downside to film is that it will take you longer to get to a file capable of this enlargement - cloning out imperfections and balancing color will take you considerably longer than with the digital file. Buying and operating a scanner is not so straightforward either. Many of us it only because that is we need them to print our "legacy shots". In my opinion, it pays to cut out the scanner middleman and keep with digital for best quality.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Perhaps the most compelling reason to use medium format film is that you can equal or surpass the image quality of an high-end DSLR at a much lower initial cost, even considering in the cost of a Nikon LS-9000 scanner. There is, of course, a substantial learning curve for scanning and printing film, no less than that required for using a color darkroom, but ultimately with far more control over the results.</p>

<p>The criteria of producing 11x14" prints is artificially low for medium format. Like driving a sports car, you will want to "see what this baby will do". On a very conservative basis, grain is barely visible in a 16x20" print with fine-grained film like Reala or Ektar 100, and tolerable at twice that size. Grain might be tolerated in street photos (there's no issue of image quality nor taste in that endeavor), but not in landscapes. If you can't see the difference compared to 35mm at 11x14, or even 8x10, you aren't looking very critically, or have other problems that overwhelm the senses (e.g., no tripod).</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I think Galen Rowell puts the issue to rest. See here:<br>

<a href="http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html">http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html</a><br>

Nonetheless, I carry the equivalent of Galen's setup (Nikon primes and Velvia), PLUS some ancient Medium Format gear (Rolleiflex Automat 6x6, Agfa Billy Record II 6x9). <br>

For me, it is about the aesthetic of the day and the shot. I take pretty much every picture with my 35mm setup. When I see a really good shot through the lens of my F3HP, I unsnap it, snap in the MF gear, and replicate the shot on a huge negative. That way, if I have the "shot of a lifetime", I'll have the huge square centimeters of film to enlarge just about infinitely.<br>

That's my personal preference. When I do it that way, the MF results usually outshine the 35mm. There's just more "ink" there on MF. Color density feels richer on MF to me. So, that's my layman's impression. Do what you will!<br>

Oh, here's some MF and some 35mm. See if you can tell the difference. You can go to the originals and make them really big if you wish to see grain (or not).<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10157537-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7709496-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1466" height="1005" /></p>

 

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Man, that squeeze is ugly. Here are URLs:<br>

<a href="../photo/10157537&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10157537&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7709496&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7709496&size=lg</a></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>When I see a really good shot through the lens of my F3HP, I unsnap it, snap in the MF gear, and replicate the shot on a huge negative. That way, if I have the "shot of a lifetime", I'll have the huge square centimeters of film to enlarge just about infinitely.</em><br>

It's nice to read a truly objective analysis ;-)</p>

<p>I looked at the large image you posted in your gallery. It's less than 1500 pixels on a side. Do you really think you could see MF grain in in a 5x5" print? I scan 6x6 film to a native 8500x8500 pixels with my LS-8500, where you <strong>can </strong>see grain (check my portfolio for examples with 100% crops). There are a few Velvia 50 shots there too. Once you see what fine-grained negative film can do with landscapes, the truncated dynamic range of Velvia becomes a painful memory. The difference in resolution between Ektar and Velvia is trivial.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>35mm is a photojournalist and sports photographers and fast moving events format.</p>

<p>Portraiture, landscape, nature all are better served with medium and large formats.</p>

[nathan_wong1]

<p>Personally I don't think I'll be shooting 35mm any longer. I wanted to buy a Nikon F6 as recent as a couple years ago. At the time I was shooting film exclusively and I was a die hard film person. I refused to go to digital. I then got a Canon SD950 and that changed things. I did a comparison of film and digital when I got a Nikon D700 and truthfully, I don't think I'd go back to 35mm because the results showed how much better medium format film was compared to 35mm. I won't say how digital was since that's not what we're focusing on. I'd still shoot medium format for film because it's an easier format to to work with, especially in the darkroom or using a scanner, though film is getting harder to find. <br>

So, my suggestion is to forget the F6 unless you need fast shooting and go with medium format. The difference is pretty big. </p>