MF Usage

[max_wall]

I would appreciate knowing from those forum members who

previously shot 35mm exclusively and subsequently moved to

MF, what approximate % do they now shoot with 35mm for the

same type subject matter they did before the transition?

[tom_harvey2]

I used to be a 100% 35mm man. After plunging headlong into 6X7, it's 100% 6X7 and 0% 35mm.

 

TH

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

About 30% to 40% 35mm. I still shoot a lot of candids and I don't use the MF camera for those.

[jay_.]

I do all my travel photography with Leica M (unless I'm going someplace strictly for landscape photography and won't have to walk far from the car), wildlife and people photography with Canon EOS. The only things I use my Hasselblads for is landscape and occasionally a wedding or other event.

[jim_seaman]

Once again, it depends on what you are shooting...

 

For my kids that can't run, walk or crawl away easily: mf:40% 35mm:40% and digital:20%

 

For my kid that can: mf:10% 35mm:85% digital:5%

 

For artistic (sic) work: mf:87.236% :) 35mm:10% digital:2.73%

 

Typically, if I can do it easily (or sometimes even with considerably more difficulty) with medium format, that is what I will choose. The large negative is seductive...

 

Medium format will never replace my 35mm (Though maybe digital could replace my 35mm, had I sufficient funds to buy a really nice digital slr...)

 

Regards,

 

Jim

[tree]

I have about a 60% MF vs. 40% 35mm split now, though it depends a lot on

what subjects I'm shooting. When the family went to Disney I carried the

Mamiya around the park for one day, the 35mm for the rest. With

landscapes and nature shots I'm almost all MF. Candid people shots are still

done in 35mm, either with a rangefinder or my SLR, depending on what I

have with me and the amount of attention I want to call to myself.

[barry_books]

I shoot 100% MF now but I borrow my wifes D30 sometimes. The 35mm sits on the shelf.

[nicholas_wybolt]

Max,

 

I went from 100% 35mm to 100% MF. In fact, I sold all my 35mm gear, except for a P&S. Then the local labs that handled MF processing for me either went out of business or digital-only. Since then, I acquired another (smaller) 35mm system and have found another lab that handles MF. So, right now the mix is about 40% 35mm, 30% MF, and 20% digital.

 

-Nick

[christopher perez]

I shot 35mm for decades. Then something mysterious happened. I discovered larger formats. Everything changed after that. Even threw out most of my old work, I was that unhappy with it all.

<p>

<b>Medium Format - 70%</b> used for all travel, portraits, wildlife, action, and a few scenics (for when my Large Format gear isn't around)

<p>

<b>Large Format - 29%</b> used mostly for scenics and large stationary objects (steam locomotives, for example)

<p>

<b>35mm - 1%</b> used less and less for color family photos and travel

<p>

<b>Digital - 0%</b>

[OCULUS New York]

Hi Max,

I'll try to answer to your Same Subject matter point. I used to shoot exclusively 35 (Leica); then, exclusively top-of-the-line Olympus digital for 4 years; then, out of frustration with marginal repro, I bought medium format. I still find 35mm good for action/photo journalism/street shooting and traveling (especially on my motorcycle) so those applications are still 100% 35mm.

 

On the other hand, with the MF, I am now shooting a lot more landscape and architechtural, that I would have attempted (with much less success and satisfaction)in 35 before, but never consider it now, so those subjects are 100%.

 

Also, another answer may be tied to which subject goes with which LENS, as much as which format. Thankfully, I was able to purchase key prime lenses in MF, and as such I use them whenever possible with subjects whose detail or scale dictates. On the other hand, I still like portraiture with a 35 and a fast 85mm lens. But I say that because I jump around taking portraits from all angles.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, the 35 never enters my mind if I am headed for broad scenic areas.

 

The one preserve that remains 100% DIGITAL is macro work on my (wrist watch) hobby/collection. My digital is so great at macro (.8 inch focus on the Olympus C2500L) and tolerant of low light, (ambient/desk lamp)that when photographing the details of a dial or a movement, (and of course the immediate ability to see whether you got it or not), really dictates digital to me.

 

In sum, I look at the issue of format in terms of applications, and I use each. And for this reason, we may find MORE people coming BACK to FILM, (and therefore MF) out of interest in the ART of photography. On the other hand, snapshots are just that, and convenience usually dictates the market. Maybe I'm just naive....I like 'em all.

 

Click on!

Ray Hull

[lex_jenkins]

Tho' I love my TLRs (Rollei and Yashica) for satisfying my fine art pretensions they probably see only 25% of my total photographic usage.

 

About 50% remains 35mm for work I hope to eventually have published as well as personal projects such as live theatre photography.

 

And about 25% is digital, which includes testing setups and exposures before committing to film, family snapshots and documenting items for sale or insurance purposes.

 

I'm basing these estimates on number of shutter clicks. In terms of something like carrying time - how much time a camera spends around my neck or in a shoulder bag, the percentages are more like 65% 35mm, 10% digital and still 25% medium format.

 

If I didn't have a passion for handheld documentary photography, which necessitates 35mm for me, the usage patterns would favor medium format over 35mm or digital.

 

Since I got both my medium format and digital cameras at about the same time last year my previous usage pattern was, naturally, 100% 35mm.

 

What *has* changed is that I also put together a home darkroom at about the same time last year. This significantly altered my film usage patterns from 75% color and 25% monochrome (generally using C41 process monochrome film) to 75% traditional b&w and 25% color, with slide film dominating the color usage. Since getting a digicam for snapshots I rarely use color negative film other than for the occasional family wedding. I do use quite a bit of Reala in 120 tho', the only color film I buy in bulk for medium format.

[david_goldfarb]

Like most of us, I began with 35mm and used it for everything for many years.

 

Now I shoot 35mm, medium, and large format, and find that the only thing I regularly do with 35mm anymore is bird photography requiring long lenses. Occasionally I may use 35mm for low light photography requiring faster lenses or for work using a film not available in a larger format or when I need 35mm copy slides. I recently even sold off my 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm lenses for my 35mm system, because I'd rather do anything wideangle with a larger format that can actually render all the information a wide lens can take in.

 

Portraits, travel, landscapes, architecture, and even snapshots I shoot almost exclusively with 6x6 or larger now.

[roger krueger]

60% digital (Olympus E-10)

30% MF (6x9 Mamiya Universal Rangefinder)

??% 4x5 (got a Linhof Color Kardan two weeks ago)

9% 35mm Zorki with Voiglander 12mm

1% 35mm other

 

 

 

The only things I use 35mm for is situations where I don't have a comparable lens for digital or MF--a 200/4 and a Voigtlander 12/5.6--and situations where 35mm slides are the final product--jury slides for juried exhibitions. My 135/2.8 used to be my staple lens for 35mm. Haven't shot it ONCE since I got my E-10 two years ago.

 

Otherwise, I basically always find that if digital isn't going to be good enough it's worth going all the way to MF. It'll be interesting to see how the addition of the 4x5 changes my habits.

 

It's also worth noting that a large part of the digital usage is utilitarian--ebay images, "scouting" shots (to go back with MF later), day-at-the-zoo-with friends, event candids, etc. If I were counting only "serious" shooting digital would be 10%, not 60%, making my chart look like more this:

 

10% digital (Olympus E-10)

65% MF (6x9 Mamiya Universal Rangefinder)

??% 4x5 (got a Linhof Color Kardan two weeks ago)

23% 35mm Zorki with Voiglander 12mm

2% 35mm other (Mainly Minolta XD-11 and SRT 101)

[cxc]

35mm = 10%

 

MF = 30%

 

LF = 60%

 

It seems like MF for me was mainly a stepping stone to LF; I've gone from fun 35mm and serious MF, to fun MF and serious LF. Nothing but snapshots and note taking with the 35mm anymore.

 

CXC

[Jochen_S]

I spend hollidays without 35mm only MF, but 35mm still got its share; color prints for example. It depends on my mood.

[brad_hiltbrand]

Since buying a Fuji GA645Zi, I use it for all my 'artistic' shooting,

including family portraits. I am mainly interesting in landscape

for my serious photography and needed a very portable but high

quality camera that could go with me everywhere.

 

But I also use a 4MP digital (Olympus C-4000) for most family

snapshots because of the ease of getting them into a viewable

form (on the computer). When out on photographic excursions or

family vacations, I mostly use the 645, but allow my son (age 12)

to tag along using the C-4000 to try and teach him something

about photography. This C-4000 replaces a C-3030 that recently

had an unfortunate encounter with a granite slab in Yosemite. I

love this newer version because it allows easy control of

aperature, shutter speed, and focus, and makes a great

teaching tool with it's instant feedback. I also use the histogram

feature on occasion to test my medium format exposures.

 

My old OM-1 and lenses just gather dust now, although I admit

missing having 200mm and longer zoom lenes now and then.

So for everything that I might want to print 8X10 or larger, its MF,

for everything else, it's digital.

 

When the prices come down on 11 MP and higher digital SLR's, I

will probably make a change and slow down my medium format

film photography, unless of course, I step up to 4X5 or larger film

cameras. LOL

 

But right now I get the highest quality 13X17 inch prints for the

lowest cost by capturing images with 645 film, scanning with an

Epson 2450, and printing on an Epson 1280. And I like film. It

presents a greater challenge, which makes life interesting.

[patrick_oreilly]

Portraits = 50/50. I use my 6x7 for b&w and 35 for color. (But even when I shot with only 35 I had one for b&w and one for color.) I have considered going all 6x7 for portraits, all in b&w, but I shoot model portfolios and they want color to.

 

All the rest, 6x7 almost entirely. The only thing I can do with 35 that I can't do with 6x7 is macro work.

[norman_trabulus1]

exposures - 60% 35mm, 40% 6 x 6, except shoot more b & w, all 6 x 6.

Keepers - 80% 6 x 6, 20% 35mm.

[syd]

Well this is fun...

 

Before moving into MF I was shooting 100% 35mm and then once I made the move to 6x7 it was 100% MF. Recently I have become frustrated with limited dof due to the focal length of my 127mm C and started shooting my 35mm Contax again using a 24mm wide angle. I have to say after 3 rolls of Velvia and E100-S I am happier shooting 35mm for the moment because I am primarily a landscape/outdoor/nature photographer. So at the moment unless the subject requires pulling in allot more I am using my 35mm for landscapes about 70% and my Rb67 about 30%.

 

However having said all that I am selling my 127/C and buying a new 50mm 4.5/C with the floating ring. When this happens I think I will be shooting about 70% MF again where the Mamiya's size doesn't interfere with the subject matter and 30% 35mm where size forbids the beast entry!

 

0% Digital... rpt! 0% DIGITAL! :0)

 

Regards, Si

[max_wall]

I want to thank all of you who were so gracious and amiable with

your responses. It is a pleasure to be able to ask a question

and receive such helpful and friendly answers. The reason for

my question is that I am a 35mm shooter, exclusively (Leica M),

but am giving serious consideration to MF. While I probably will

always use my Leicas, I would like to be able to get better

images in my larger prints. I realize after making some 35mm

and MF comparisons that even with smaller prints there is a

difference. I would like to have MF quality in all my shots:

scenics, landscapes, abstracts, etc.. I am not into people/street

photography. While some may think I am attempting to justify a

large outlay of funds for a top of the life MF by assessing the

utilitarian value of such a venture, I don't think this is my main

concern. I just wanted to know from 35mm folks how MF has

impacted their photography, vis a vis small format. You have

been helpful and I thank you again. I would like to ask additional

questions about MF in the days ahead, and I extend my

appreciation to all of you in advance.

[max_wall]

That should have read ". . .top of the LINE."

[dougmiles]

Max, I sympathize with your situation! My early serious interest in photography was with Pentax SLRs, but it wasn't long before I picked up a used Leica M2 and 35 Summicron in 1967. In the mid-70's I got a used Pentax 6x7 (non-MLU) and gradually added lenses to the system. What I found was that I'd use the 6x7 whenever the goal justified the bulk, and pack the 35's when they better fit the situation.

 

I have experienced a trend more toward rangefinder cameras over the years, adding a new Minolta CLE for instance. What a great little camera that has been! Then a fun move into super-wide lenses from Voigtlander. And most recently the Bronica RF645 will considerably boost my medium format usage. I've always shot more 35 than MF, but it has gone in phases too with various projects. The tidy rangefinder 6x4.5 will push MF into subject matter previously dominated by RF 35's.

[david_myers2]

Doesn't it come down to what we are shooting and the look we want for the image? For example, when I am working on human figure projects in a studio I shoot exclusively with 6x7 since I want lots of tonality, limited grain on large images, ... . When shooting human figure work with available light, I tend to go with 35 and the faster lenses. Landscape work, where we have time to set up, invites the MF, and so on. They each have their place and it just depends on the project and look that you want.

[s._c.]

I agree with David Meyers. I think using the right tool for the job is important. For my casual daily carry piece, it's either a Stylus Zoom, Canon S45 digital, or to mix things up, a folding 6x6 Zeiss Ikonta. My studio and location shooting is primarily a couple of Hasselblads for fashion and glamour-I'm able to make 20x24s that impress clients. Supplementing is a Canon 1D digital for those action shots. For fun on my personal time, it's a Toyo 45.

[s._c.]

My apologies, that's Myers. Check out Medium Format Photography by Lief Ericksenn. There is a lot of great information in this book that helped confirm my interest in medium format. I started with a Rolleiflex 3.5E3 Planar which I still use.