Should I go for medium / large format or 35 mm ?

[andy_lee]

Hi everybody,

I will be taking an early retirement from my regular job pretty soon

and will be getting into full time photography. In my photographic

life, I am most probably never going to chase cheetahs in Africa. I

generally shoot wildflowers, insects, birds and landscape.

 

At present I own a minimal set of Canon gear (EOS 50E, 50/1.4 USM and

100/2.8 macro) which I has given faultless service all these years.

It is thus natural for me to buy more Canon equipment. But what I am

wondering is if I should get into medium / large format instead. I

don't want to invest heavily into 35 mm and then one day suddenly

feel that I should have bought a med/large format system.

 

If I decide to buy more heavily into the Canon system, I would

probably buy one more body, 20mm or 24mm (non-L), I'll keep the

50/1.4 and the 100 macro, may get a 200/2.8L, a 300/2.8L and a 2X

extender. That'll make it pretty heavy to carry, and I haven't even

talked about the tripod. If you have a better suggestion, please let

me know. But no zooms.

 

On the other hand, if I buy the large format, I'd probably go for a

Sinar F and a minimal set of lenses. I'll probably have to sacrifice

shooting birds. I would very much appreciate comments from those who

have made similar decisions.

 

Best regards,

Andy.

 

PS.

1. Money will not be a constraint after I retire. But at the same

time I would like to keep the weight moderate, after all I'll have to

carry it.

2. And please do not write flames calling me an equipment junkie.

It's my hard-earned money after all...

3. I definitely will not be able to carry both the systems in the

field :-)

[mark_mitchell4]

Andy, I went through the same decision process over a year ago (not the retirement, but can't wait for that!) and made a decision to go to

medium format. First and foremost, are you shooting slides or prints?

Do you make prints from slides? For me, MF was the route to go as I asked myself why I was using 35mm for landscape/nature photography. To me it didn't make sense, since I view 35mm as a convenience whereas MF delivers the quality I was looking for simply due to larger negs/slides. I shoot slides almost exclusively and usually will have prints made up to 16x20. On rare occasion, I'll shoot a roll of Reala for prints as well. In either case, I've been extremely please with the results. But still, to some degree, it is a compromise and only you can decide if it is worth it. A medium format system (couple of backs, 1/2 bodies, 3 lenses) can be quite heavy. You will approach the quality of 4x5, but probably not consistently. Birds in flight will be a challenge and just about impossible with LF. My suggestion would be, if possible, is to rent a quality medium format camera, a couple of lenses and try them out. You might find the quality so much better than 35mm that you can't/won't go back. This is not to disparage 35 mm format, but to me if you�re looking for maximum image quality with minimum of hassle, then MF is the way to go.

[andy_lee]

I shoot only in Fuji sildes. I generally don't need blown up prints. My aim is to get into stock photography slowly once I retire (well, I have nothing to lose !).

[jeff_drew4]

Since I have put the carts before the horses, gone broke, started all over again; I think it may be more important to plan, on paper, what you really want to do! Landscapes = Large format or LF with roll film or a sizeable MF system. Serious macro work, Birds, local kitties, really endorse quality 35mm gear with fine film. It would seem a 6x4.5cm system would be a nice compromise (which means it works "okay" in more than one environment!). You can do it all, of course. I'm not too far behind you, btw, and I finally realized I like doing all the things you listed too. Instead, I'm going to leave all the stock stuff to you and others, get myself a really good slide system and travel! Or maybe I should . . . Best wishes & good Health to you! - - - Jeff

[patrick_chase]

35 mm is just about the only game in town for insects and other macro subjects.

 

While there are excellent 1:1 macro lenses for MF, it's important to remember that "1:1" means that the lens focusses down to cover a subject area equivalent to the film format, so 1:1 on MF is equivalent to 1:2 on 35 mm, which is probably inadequate for insects.

[qtluong]

For stock, 35mm or 4.5x6 should be enough. For birds and insects,

you'll want 35mm. LF in the nature is for

fine art and/or fun. I routinely carry 35mm and 5x7 even on

difficult outings (some people have a strange idea of fun :-))

 

You might be able to carry LF and 35mm if you choose a

camera other than the Sinar. See the

<a href = "http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/">

LF page</a> for alternatives.

[squareframe]

<I>While there are excellent 1:1 macro lenses for MF, it's important to remember that "1:1" means that the lens focusses down to cover a subject area equivalent to the film format, so 1:1 on MF is equivalent to 1:2 on 35 mm ..</I><BR><BR>

 

not true at all. 1:1 is 1:1 in any format. the relationship between image size and recorded size. unless I missed something in the above quote, it simply is untrue.

[dcphotog]

Andy-

 

You could do a combination. A large format FIELD camera for the landscapes- not a studio 4x5 like the Sinar that you mentioned. Keep your 100m and 35m body for flowers and closeups. Add a 300/2.8 (get the IS version) with BOTH a 1.4 and 2x for shooting animals and birds. Buy a second body- perhaps the Canon Elan 7 w/grip to save some bucks and still maintain top performance. All the 35mm gear mentioned above would easily fit in a small photo back pack and be easy to carry.

 

Since you will rarely be doing both landscapes and animals at the same time you could easily do it this way and keep each setup fairly light weight. I would recommend a Gitzo 1348 tripod, ball head with arca swiss quick release and plates for the cameras and lenses to keep it all uniform.

 

You will have an easier time selling landscapes on 4x5. Animals on 35mm. I don't recommend splitting the difference with medium format as the cameras are heavy and too expensive. And the longer telephotos aren't long enough, fast enough, or convenient enough for consistently great wildlife. Especially birds.

 

PS- If you don't understand the medium well enough to believe that you can grasp all the new technique that will come with large format then stick with 35mm completely. I'm not saying you don't but I have seen too many get frustrated over large format to not give this warning. It is easy if YOU don't make it any more difficult than it already is.

[patrick_chase]

In response to Daniel Taylor;

 

Magnification is equivalent to (though not precisely defined as) the ratio of image dimensions to subject dimensions (linear dimensions, not areal)

 

In practical terms, this means that for a flat subject positioned at the plane of focus, a lens focussed to 1:1 magnification on 35 mm film captures 35 by 24 mm of that subject. By comparison, a lens focussed to 1:1 on 6x6 cm would capture 60 x 60 mm of such a subject. Thus, to fill the same fraction of the frame with any given (i.e. fixed-size) subject requires about twice as much magnification on MF as on 35 mm. That's all I was trying to communicate with my initial post - It's not exactly a revolutionary or difficult-to-understand concept, and it's why you don't see too many people doing insect photography or other high-magnification macro work with MF!

 

I suppoose you could argue that since the same physical film area is filled by a given subject in both formats you can simply crop down, but in that case you're defeating the point of working in a larger format.

[patrick_chase]

If you're willing to go with 2 systems, then I'll third the recommendation of using 35 mm for closeups and long-lens work, and LF for landscapes and still-lifes. That is the approach I use.

 

Rgds,

 

Patrick

[mark_mitchell4]

Andy, I stick by my intial suggestion, and a 35mm system is really necessary for birds and any macro work. As far as marketing your stock, pick up a copy of the 2001 Photographers Market guide. There you will see the format that the potential clients require - MF is still the choice and in the majority for landscape work, too many companies/publications simply can't handle 4x5. It it a great reference manual as well regarding marketing techniques. Good Luck.

[ShunCheung]

Andy, correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are still a beginner to intermediate nature photographer. If that is indeed the case, I would invest in 35mm equipment first and get my skills up. If there is need in the future, get into medium or large format later. Large-format equipment may not seem very expensive, but film and development cost could be crazy. I would shoot more 35mm format, bracket exposure, try different composition, etc. etc.

[leif pigott]

Hi,

I would keep the 35mm system, if you love birds keep taking the pictures. I would also get a 24 or 20mm lens.

 

You can carry both systems at once - you don't need to go overboard on MF gear to start with.

 

Learning to use a MF/LF system doesn't happen overnight. Why not go with a fuji 6x9 range finder? Great lens and it will teach you how to meter. It is completely manual, pick one up second hand then start to understand the joys of manual cameras. If you don't like it sell it with minimal loss. This camera is light enought to carry with your 35mm gear.

 

I brought a Mamyia 23 a few years ago and learn lots- yes I have sold several of the shots. It was big heavy and suffered from the odd light leak -if I stuffed up it let me know about it. It improved my 35mm work no end. I replaced it with a fuji gs645w and a Pentax 67, each tool has its own place.

 

After you fall in love with large tranies on the light box you can make the MF/LF choice.

Hope this helps

Leif

[piaw]

If you truly plan to sell stock, 35mm is the only way to go. As John Shaw writes in his book on business for photographers, nature photography is a volume business, and to be able to reach that volume, you have to shoot lots of frames. That means 35mm.

 

For personal use, do whatever you want --- it sounds like your heart is set on MF, so nothing I say can dissuade you. :-)

[andy_lee]

Thanks so much for the replies. As far as photography experience is concerned, I would say I am an intermediate level photographer. I have been shooting for the last 7 years. I have kept my investment to a minimum so far, to get the technique right first. Now I am confident that I probably won't starve if I quit my regular job. And not much time is left, if I have to do some serious full-time photography I have to do it now (I am not getting any younger :-)).

 

Reading all your replies, I have changed my mind and will try a 6x7 medium format body and a single wide-angle lens for landscapes and I will keep my 35 mm, adding a few lenses and a body as mentioned earlier. I hope it won't break my back.

 

Now it's time for me to read all the old threads about 6x7.

[darth_m]

At the request of one of the agencies that I work with I started carrying a 5x4 for my landscape stock along side my 35mm kit for a while, until I found out they were duping some of my 35mm up to 5x4 anyway. After that I went back to just carrying my 35mm kit.

[kevinoneil]

I went from 35mm, to 6x7, to 4x5, to 4x5 w/6x7 rollback, back to 35mm. This was over a ten year period of selling mostly nature/scenic images to calendar cos. (BrownTrout, Sierra, Audubon, etc.) To make a long story short, most cos. want 70mm dupes these days and that is what most of my sales are now. Why dupe from a 4x5 original to a 70mm dupe?

Ok, I can't submit to Arizona Highways, but I can deal with that limitation.

 

For prints, from a 35mm slide I can get a Tango drum scan and a light jet print of 20x24 which is of perfect quality. So I don't need medium or large format.

 

I love the freedom of 35mm. And the cost savings. And not having to lug around two outfits.

 

As an equipment junkie, I do miss my Toyo 45A, 65, 90, 150 and 270 Nikkor lenses. But I'm trying to be realisitic and making sure the tools I have are the right ones for the job.

[joseph_albert]

Clarifying Patrick's response to Daniel...

<p>

trying to do macro work in the field with larger formats takes substantial patience. if a subject such as, say, a flower, fills

a 35mm frame at 1:2 magnification, you'll be around 1X in medium format. (slightly under 1X in 645 or 6x6, and slightly over 1X in 6x7). this means you'll lose 2 stops of light to bellows extension. And, in medium format, you'll be using a lens with an f/4 or f/4.5 maximum aperture. This means you'll be focusing an image that is f/8 to f/9 or even slightly darker on the ground glass to work at 1:1, which takes alot more patience. With depth of field considerations, you'll be at apertures like f/32 or f/45 and so you'll be at slow, vibration prone shutter speeds.

<p>

Larger format macro shots can be breathtaking when enlarged to poster size images. But it takes tremendous patience to do this type of work. Most people prefer 35mm for macro work in the field, even many diehard large format users.

<p>

4x5 is de rigeur for landscapes, and the cameras are not really any heavier than most 6x7 systems (excluding Mamiya 7). But you've got to carry a bunch of sheet film holders or quick loads, and this makes 4x5 a bit awkward if you are hiking or walking very far. Medium format is really a compromise between 35mm and large format, both in terms of convenience and in terms of quality.

<p>

Back to Andy's original question: I would get a 28/2.8 and 200/2.8 (you will want a 180mm or 200mm lens for portraits of flowers) for your current 35mm outfit (EOS body + 50mm + 100mm macro) and then get a larger format outfit for landscapes. Given your constraint about keeping the weight moderate, forget about images of birds.

[squareframe]

I must be missing something quite fundamental here, and best get out the macro books. to the non-macro photographer like myself, I can see no reason why everyone keeps referencing the frame size to magnification. if my requirement is to make an image, 1X, lifesize of a quarter, dime, or penny .. it is the image on film that sets the requisite magnification, not the type of camera or format.

 

I have no argument against what format might be the more practical selection. if both images of the quarter (or insect) were cropped to identical dimensions, and the viewer asked to identify the 1:1 rendering, both photographers would claim using a 1:1 magnification.

 

a side note, my limited macro work with Hasselblad and Zeiss Makro-Planar lenses easily eclipse any macro productions I have done in 35mm using tubes, diopters, and inferior optics. I have not used the new Canon 100mm, and do not intend to after tasting the fine results of the Hasselblad/Zeiss combination with a wonderful bellows extension.

 

I'll get out the books and hopefully gain new clarity ...

[alpshiker]

Andy, many good things have been said above and this will certainly help you make a decision. What size of slides you need is really a matter of what kind of photography you are willing to make and for what purpose. I went through a similar decision process some years ago, after shooting 135 for many years, and what I did was fairly simple: I checked some photography books, calendars and prints that presented an array of the kind of work in the quality I wanted for myself. Then I simply looked what cameras had been used to accomplish that work and there I went.

 

My decision came out of the frustration I had been experimenting enlarging 135 landscapes. Being mostly landscape centered I went right to 4x5 with complementary 6x9 back. Starting to work in this totally new approach was not easy and I had to accept the loss of the convenience and rapidity of the 135 camera. Composing the reverted image was also very difficult at start. The need for a tripod and external light meter where a big step forward in term of quality though. Then I bought a second hand Pentax 67 outfit. This camera has been and is still a blessing to me. Many of my good ones have been made with that material. But in many occasions I was missing the movements of the view camera so I kept working with both. Now I lug the two outfits with me wherever I go with the car, then I choose which bag I want to hike with thinking of what kind of situation I will encounter and what sort of images I want to bring back.

 

But if you are looking for a lightweight equipment, you may not be satisfied with these two.

A friend of mine who does the same kind of photography as you do uses successfully a 135 outfit along with a Mamiya 645 for landscape (Could be a Pentax 645 too). This is a lightweight combination and he gets very good results. Other photographers use combination of 135 with a panoramic camera. All depends on what they do. For animals and macro, nothing beats 135. The Sinar F is a nice camera but leave it in the studio. There are many better choices if you go in that direction.

 

 

Check the Large Format Forum for true field cameras: http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/

[john_moran]

I'm in 35mm right now, and I'd love to have enough money for either medium or large format, but let's face it, I don't even have money for a second 35mm camera body right now. I wouldn't consider LF if I were you. Stock isn't an option, it's slow and unwieldly, and forget birds and wildlife.

 

If I had an unlimited budget, I would get a Mamiya645AF with a long large app, a medium macro, and a couple of wide angles. That's it, simple as that for me. Remember though that it'll really cost you, especially after support, cable releases, bags, cases, filters, film, developing.

 

 

OR...get a 711 for scenics etc. MF, but shoot panoramic 35mm, polaroid, 6 by 7, and it's small and versatile. It is a rangefinder however, which turns me off, and it isn't something I'd suggest for birds or macro.

 

 

OR...get a panoramic camera. Wait, don't, panoramic scenics are practically all they are good for.

 

 

OR...get a couple of 35mm bodies, a fun assortment of lenses, zooms and fixed, and explore with that. Macro, tilt shift, noct, defocus, IS and VR, telephoto, wide andle, people, scenics, wildlife, bugs, oceans, underwater, out of water.

 

 

There are definetely reasons why so many people own 35mm cameras.

 

 

In fact, you know what, just do that, forget the MF and LF, get the 35 set, and discover photography for as many years as it takes. (I take it that you haven't already because you're asking.) Then, once you know what you want, perhaps cash or trade in for a MF or LF set, and develop your photography away from stock (35mm) and to Large Format art or maybe set up your own line of poster with Medium format. The Canon equipment you have is wonderful, and I'd stick with that, at least while you want to do stock, and as long as you're happy with it. I would however get a zoom. In this day and age, it is almost crazy not to get a zoom. get a 20-35mm 2.8 or 28-70/80mm 2.8 or 70/80-200 2.8, and you will not be dissapointed. I don't get what the bias is against zooms, but it is often missinformed or outdated prejudice.

[joseph_albert]

Daniel,

<p>

The point is that if you want to compare 35mm to medium format and make an apples-to-apples comparison you want to hold the composition constant. Thus, if you make an image of the US coin called a "quarter" at 1X it will approximately fill a 35mm format frame of film vertically.

<p>

If you want to make the same composition with a 645 camera, you'll need to fill the vertical dimension, and that now is about 42mm. Since the image of the quarter will now be 42mm high (to get the same composition full frame), you will be working at higher than 1X magnification, or roughly 1.75X.

<p>

For 6x7, filling the frame will require 56/24 or about 2.7X.

<p>

Of course, you don't have to work at higher magnification, but can crop instead to get the same composition, but now you are not achieving any benefit of the larger format. The point is that the more linear dimension you fill up, the less you have to enlarge in the darkroom, leading to higher image quality, but the more you have to enlarge in the field when exposing the film, hence working at higher magnification.

<p>

Thus, you can think of the macro subject as being enlarged some fixed amount on the final print. If an 8x10 print is made from a 35mm film frame on which a subject is rendered at 1X, the subject is being magnified 8X on the print. In theory, you could use an 8x10 format camera, expose the film with the lens focused at 8X and do a contact print (no additional enlargement) of the negative.

<p>

If you use a smaller piece of film to capture the image, you are pushing some or all of the enlarging work off into the darkroom, which reduces final print quality but enables working in the field at a lower magnfication. So there is a tradeoff here, and no particular decision is correct. I find it most convenient to shoot macro images in 35mm for field work. If you look at alot of commercial table-top images of hard goods or other products, or food such as fresh veggies and fruits, these are usually done in a studio in large format, or sometimes medium format, but rarely, if ever, 35mm for studio shots.

[tom_thurston]

I started with a 35mm Canon system, and faced this same question several years ago. I ended up keeping my 35mm system, and adding a Mamiya 645 system. I still use both of them extensively. I use the 35mm primarily for birds, animals, snapshots, travel, and for some of my macro work. The 35mm system is very convenient, especially for birds and animals. My lenses range from 24 f/2.8 to 300 f/4 with 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. I use the 645 system primarily for landscape and architectural photos, but find that I also use it quite a bit for macro work. The Mamiya 120 mm macro lens is very sharp and is nice to use. I just finished a show where two of the photos that sold were macro shots taken with the 645 system -- one of a grasshopper, and the other of a large beetle. My 645 lenses range from 45mm f/2.8 to 300 f/5.6.

 

One issue you may want to consider regarding format is what happens to depth of field for close shots as you increase the format size. I find that it is often quite hard to get all the depth of field I need when shooting with the 645 system and I want to include both near and farther objects. It's not just a problem when shooting things like foreground flowers with distant peaks. It's a problem with things like a stream cascading over rocks as it flows towards me, or shooting at sand dunes where I want to show both the texture of the near sand as well as the flow of the dunes into the distance.

 

A subject that fills the frame with 50mm lens on a 35mm system requires about an 80mm lens on 645, and 100 or so (90 or 105) on a 6x7 system. My Canon 50mm lens stops down to f/22, but so does my Mamiya 80mm lens. But f/22 gives a shallower depth of field for a 80mm lens than for a 50mm lens. Thus, the larger format tends to give less depth of field than the smaller.

 

Anyway, my point is that I don't worry much about depth of field with my 35mm system. I worry quite a bit with my 645 system, and find that there a few subjects I'm never satisfied with -- for a given view it's impossible to get enough depth of field to have everything in focus that I want. But I've come to understand this problem and alter my shooting style accordingly. I've not used a larger format than 645, but it seems to me that it would be more of a problem with 6x7 or larger.

 

Anyway, the result of all this is that I'm still interested in a camera with movements to give me more control over the plane of focus (a field camera of some sort). However, I realize that I'd still have problems with subjects where the items I want in focus do not all lie within a single plane. So I'm tempted by a large format system. But one worry I have for a large format system is that I tend to use longer focal lengths much more of the time (hence my depth of field problems). My most used 645 lens is the Mamiya 105 to 210 zoom. To get the equivalent field of view the 645's 210mm on a 4x5 system, I think I'd need about a 400mm lens. That's a pretty long lens for a 4x5 field camera. However, if I stick a 6x7 back on a field camera, I only need a 300mm lens or so to get that field of view. A 300mm lens is seems to be much more workable for a field camera than a 400.

 

So maybe I'd be happy with a field camera with a 6x7 back. But then I'd have problems with wide angles. To get the equivalent field of view of my 645's 45mm lens, I'd problably need a 65 or so on the field camera. But a field camera that extends enough to work with a 300mm lens may have problems with a lens as wide as 65mm, without using a recessed lens board, suffering restricted movements, or being able to switch bellows or something.

 

Then there is the issue of the weight and size of a system. I looked very seriously at the complete weight of comparable 6x7 and 645 systems when I was considering which larger format to move to. The Mamiya 645 system looked okay. I was worried that the Pentax 6x7 would not be. I was sure that a Mamiya 6x7 would be too large and heavy.

 

I've rambled a long time in this discussion. The point is that any system one chooses involves all kinds of compromise. I've personally tried to understand some of these issues of compromise, and have learned to work fairly effectively with a 35mm system and 645 system. I'm tempted by 6x7 and 4x5, but so far when I look at the tradeoffs for these formats, they've not compelled me to make that move yet. I'm mostly happy with the tradeoffs of my 35mm and 645 systems.

 

[j.r._fernandez]

It sounds like you have lots of time on your hands and an adequate amount of money available to spend on more than one decent system.

Keep you 35mm gear and add to it as you need to. Then, goo for Medium Format; a Pentax 645 is excellent offering great glass.

 

I used LF for about a month and hated it. It offers a very meditative approach to photography(I liken it to golf! and I don't like golf) but not very satisfying on a consistent basis. True, when you do get a slide back that is perfect; it is perfect! Nothing in the other formats can compare.

 

However, with the advent of digital technology and tools such as

Genuine Fractals, there's absolutely no reason to shoot LF other

than the satifaction of knowing that it was done in that ormat.

 

You can easily take your 35mm slides, scan them into your favorite

digital photography studio(I use Corel PhotoPaint)run them through Fractals to enlarge the digital image. Take the image to your favorite

pro lab and have them generate a 4x5 slide. Ship this slide to your

agency. Whala! A 4x5 image without luggin around 25 lbs of stuff.

 

For the purists out there this may be called cheating but an

image is an image is an image...

 

Cheers

[mlfly]

I started with a Minolta SRT 102 in the 70's and loved it. Finally, I could afford a Nikon and bought an FM. Loved it. Finances improved and then came an F3, F4 and loved them. A Mamiya TLR made me scoff at 35mm because I loved it. Then, a couple of medium format SLR's came along. You guessed it, I loved them. Suddenly, I needed larger film. I loved 4x5 - Tachihara at first and then a Toyo 45 AX. BTW, so you don't think I'm a complete wacko, this did not all happen in a year's time and some were owned concurrently with others.

 

Now, I'm using 35mm. No extra meters to carry, no loupes, no film holders, etc., etc. If I want digital images, I get Dale labs to do Pro scans for $8 each and I can print up to 11x14 on a Photo 2000P printer on Archival Matte paper. 70mm dupes satisfy those who don't want prints (my goal isn't to make a living but to pay for my hobby - this advice may differ for someone who has to put food on the table).

 

I had to laugh knowingly at Kevin's post - I've been on a similar path at about the same times with the same equipment.

 

The only thing I miss is a viable way to do top quality B&W prints. The 2000P cannot do that at this time. I hope someone figures that out one day and I hope it's HP because their software is the best.

 

My point is, if you have the luxury of doing this for fun, use what is fun for you to use :) Oh, and shoot excellent images. Then, the market will accept your equipment in most cases.

 

Mike