I think that comment nails it for me Roger, I found I was using my 35mm like medium format, prime lenses, slow film, on a tripod, with mirror lock-up, so I thought 'why not just use medium format?' If I found I was using my medium format like 35mm, then I may as well use 35mm I guess.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
I disagree, and I didn't necessarily talk about Canon. Think Leica or Pentax. But then again, I also don't really care that much. So I'll stop with that, and go make some prints instead.
Originally Posted by F/1.4
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
I am more biased to composition(proportion, relation, geometry, dynamics...) than format.
Good photo will always comes out no matter with what format it was shot.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I am very impressed with the 257 images in your gallery. You have produced a great body of work. I especially love the portraits of Jeanah. Please add your name to the list with those of Salgado, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Erwitt and others who have produced amazing images that capture imagination and spirit.
I would not refer to it as an “advantage.” Instead, I would call it a “difference.”
Originally Posted by xtolsniffer
If I need print sizes of 8x10-inches or smaller, the difference in image quality between small and medium format is not significant to me.
If I need print sizes of 16x20 or larger, the difference in image quality between small and medium format is very significant to me.
If I need to take a group photo of 25 or more people, I will select the medium format over the 35mm because I know that I need a lot of image detail regardless of the final print size.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have some 8x10 prints that I made from 4x5 HP5+ negatives. They jump right out as being something special.
This is at the heart of why i choose a 6x7cm camera when searching for a larger (than 35mm) format. To me, the massive increase in negative real estate the 6x7cm provides over a 35mm negative offers the option of much larger prints (given equal image characteristics). On the "convenience" side of things, to me sheet film usage seems a huge hassle - everything from loading it, storing it until developed/printed, availability (compared to 120 film options) and price per photo just seem less 'pleasurable'. Also, the 6x7 camera is, again to me, much easier to use - i can hand-hold it, don't need a darkcloth to shoot under and general ease of carrying/packing.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
I'm making a general statement. I get similar sharpness and tonality between a 9x12 inch print from a 645 negative shot with a Bronica RF645 and a Leica enlarged neg printed at 5x7.
I was wondering at what level of enlargement you think you can see the advantage of medium format over 35mm?
I am satisfied with ISO 125 small format negatives enlarged to 5x7. When I enlarge small format to 8x10 or 9x12 there is image fall-off and I'm often unsatisfied when viewing prints in the hand.
A MF negative printed to 9x12 maintains similar sharpness/tonality to the small format neg printed to 5x7.
I can print one size up from 5x7 using MF film and retain similar quality to the 35mm Leica neg. The larger you print the more you see a difference.
At viewing distance fine details are not visible when comparing the two formats at reasonable print sizes (9x12). That said, improved tonality and ease of printing are why I prefer MF for all prints over 5x7.
There are other reasons to pick one format over the other such as DOF, camera operation, and optimizing print size to negative shape.
Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 10-11-2012 at 11:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
For small prints it doesn't matter much.
An average scanner will do a better job on MF than 35mm. A high end dedicated film scanner is capable of producing very nice scans of 35mm, however the MF scans will be even better.
At about 8x10 print size and larger, tripod usage becomes almost mandatory for 35mm although a heavy MF camera sometimes needs a tripod for steadiness simply because of its size and weight.
In a studio, MF rules because the larger film size allows better DOF characteristics at common shooting apertures with strobes. That can be offset by the freedom to handhold a 35mm camera while squatting, kneeling, standing, and generally jumping all over the place shooting at unique angles like a "real pro" fashion shooter. It depends on your style.
Even in MF, there are choices. A 6x7 has considerably more negative area than a 6x4.5. A 6x6 square format has more negative area than 6x4.5 only if you print square. If you print 5x7, 8x10, etc., you're loping off much of the extra negative area over a 6x4.5 anyway.
A big negative doesn't do you any good if you aren't carrying your camera when you want to shoot something. I have a few nice quality 35mm cameras for easy carrying when portability is crucial. I take a 6x4.5 if I'm feeling up to carrying a MF camera. My 6x7 camera pretty much goes to the studio or locations where a tripod is used. There's a purpose and room for all of them.
Larger negative= more spatiality in the image. The MF pictures look completely different than 35mm ones.
Then, of course, less grain, more resolution, more tones, more latitude, etc....