Recently, I purchased a Kodak projector and for the first time, viewed 35mm slides on my 120" screen. For various reasons, I had never bothered to project these slides that I had shot some 20 years ago. The slides were shot with a cheap Canon kit lens and not so expensive film. And, even then - they sort of wow-ed me. So I thought to myself, if 35mm looks so good, I bet MF is going to look even more glorious.
Fast forward a few weeks, I own three different MF systems - a Yashica Mat 12, a Mamiya C330 and a Hasselblad 503CW. Now, I haven't received the slides back that shot with the Hasselblad yet but I projected slides from the Yashica and Canon 35mm on the same screen.
For 35mm, I have a Leica RT-300 with the 90mm f2.4 Colorpan and a Navitar 70-125mm lens. For MF, so far, the only working projector I have is a Trumpf with a 150mm/f3.5 lens. I got a Rollei P11 but still waiting for a power cord and 6x6 slide tray. The Leica, I can almost fill the 120" screen with the Navitar set to 70mm or bit smaller with the 90mm. The MF slides end up smaller width wise on the screen but almost fill the screen vertically - so even with a wider lens, I couldn't project larger images.
Now, granted that I am still working on focusing skills with my MF cameras and newer Canon L lens probably run circles around the old Yashinon 80mm but I am not seeing a huge pop in the projected images from MF compared to 35mm. So I am wondering, given that I won't see images larger than what can fill my 120" screen - is MF worth all the hassle of maintaining another system or should I instead work/invest more on my Canon 35mm system? Or, given the viewing format of 16:10, 6x4.5 will look richer and more detailed than 35mm?
One slide show that I did for my friends - the 35mm ones did get more applause than the MF ones. The pictures are mostly portraits and that is what I intend to shoot the most - family/friends.