And to illustrate the effect of longer FL on background out-of-focus blur quantity, both nearfield b/g and far field b/g, here are two similarly framed shots, both at f/4 (the way most photographers think -- not 'aperture' size) with the 1' deep DOF vs. 2' deep DOF zone, and comparing how the near- and far-field background is blurred for each. Larger format, then smaller format...
A great illustration of how it's not just about the "zone of sharpness".
The relationship between depth of field and format size becomes way more interesting when one starts doing close-up/macro work.
Just a different set of trade-offs. That's all.
Originally Posted by cliveh
I found another advantage 35mm has over MF... When you go away to a friend's ranch for the weekend and bring an MF without an empty take-up spool... You have to improvise a darkroom to unspool one of your fresh rolls of film and pack it in foil...
With most 35mm the takeup spool is permanently affixed.
i can see that being a great advantage. :)
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
another one i found was when running for a bus
and the 35mm leaps out of the pack and slams bottom plate
on concrete, the camera still works fine for 20 years with a little
duct tape holding the top plate down .. and with a MF TLF when it rolls on the ground,
from less than 3 inches there are troubles, way more troubles than a few pieces of duct tape can fix ...
Sorry to hear that... I've been lucky with *my MF TLR, nothing bad has happened to it since it fell in the chicken soup...
Originally Posted by jnanian
*If it hadn't fallen in the soup, my mom's cousin wouldn't have given it to me, so technically this is why it's mine.
at least you know the camera won't get a cold :)
not worried about my tlr ..
its all good. and hopefully will be as good
as good can be once zack does his camera-fix voodoo on it
I've recently fallen in love with MF TLRs (I have one Rollei now, and a second on the way as a backup camera for the first). There's something about waist level shooting that makes such a big camera relatively inconspicuous (well, Rolleis aren't that big in the grand scheme of MF cameras) that is only equalled by 35mm rangefinders. I haven't figured out yet why a 35mm rangefinder raised to your eye is less conspicuous than a 35mm SLR - they're both in front of your face, and pointed directly at the subject. Once the exposure is taken, there's an obvious difference in the noise level with the mirror slap and the (probable) film advance motors kicking in.
As to advantages of 35, they've been pretty well covered - ability to work handheld, speed of operation, compactness, relative low cost, variety of lenses, built-in automation. I don't always see the relative gain in DoF as a plus though- I LIKE being able to blow-out foreground and background and just concentrate my focus on my main subject. And the lenses that are available for large format cameras just don't have analogs for 35mm. They never made a 3 1/2" Verito in any 35mm mount, or a Cooke Portrait with the knuckle-duster soft-focus adjustment. And you're forced to develop all 36 frames with the exact same time and temperature and developer chemistry - so inevitably there will be some frames that would have benefitted from altered processing that won't get it, or you sacrifice every other frame on the roll to the needs of the one frame.
Minolta made the 85/2.8 "Varisoft", a lens with spherical aberration control, which I imagine can be used for the kind of results the Cooke Portrait would deliver.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/85mm%20Page%201.htm (scroll down to the Varisoft lens).
Not a cheap lens though