Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,231   Online: 736
      
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    833
    Images
    42
    Use the formats for their strengths:

    35mm: Good for wide and long lenses, and macro work. Portability (if you leave some of the lenses behind!) is good.

    MF: Can be very portable (one often has a fixed lens or fewer choices), reasonably economic, and good all-round quality. Practically every design variant you can imagine.

    5x4 and up Movements, odd lenses, contact prints, smaller final enlargement.
    I feel, therefore I photograph.

  2. #22
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,899
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    I observed somthing interesting a little while ago.

    In reality, a Bronica SQA, with an 80mm f2.8 attached, is not much bigger then, say, a Canon 5D, with battery grip and a modern 50mm f1.4 ( the new Sigma springs to mind).

    MF is the perfect compromise between quality and portability.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,137
    Images
    104
    I've moved to 5x7 LF and an RB67 system.......only two of my 35mm cameras see regular use and those are my old Nikkormat and a FED-2

    I do have a 3rd Nikon Lite-Touch I use because of how small it is and it has a 28mm f3.5 lens so it's a great walkaround
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B&L 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    4x5 Graphic View, made in USA! New project
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    Random 35mm stuff

  4. #24
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Snapshot View Post
    ...because now I don't use my 35mm equipment much anymore and I spent a fortune on it. I'm spoiled on the relative image quality of MF. Now, I better avoid looking at that 4x5 camera I saw the other day, otherwise I might be writing a "I Hate Large Format..." thread in the near future. Anyone else have a similar experience?
    I don't hate it, but I feel almost the same way. I mostly only use my 35mm now to shoot slides for projection and moving/fast subjects with print film so I can get 36 shots per body. Even then my M645 gives me 15 and I can change backs much quicker than film in my 35mm and if I pre-load inserts I can insert those faster too. I don't have my fast-ish zooms or as-fast primes, though.

    I wouldn't worry about the LF so much though. I shoot 4x5 and like it, but the fact is I'm more tempted more often to get an RB67 system to replace the 4x5 than to hang up my M645 and Yashicamat. Medium format gives you probably 70% of the quality jump (especially for 6x7 or 6x9) for a tiny percentage of the hassle. Hassle with sheet film holders and dust a while and you'll see what I mean. And for the sizes I print (only up to 16x20) MF is more than good enough, again especially 6x7. I only shoot color in a rollfilm back even on my 4x5 provided I have a wide enough lens, for example, because it's affordable and won't be ruined by dust. 4x5 B&W isn't all that expensive given the shooting speed but color is.

    If I could have only one it would be MF over 35mm or LF.

  5. #25
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,889
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Yes, the image quality jump from 35mm to MF is hugebut the jump from MFto 4x5 is disappointing.In my mind MF give the biggest bang for the buck.It's my favorite format and always has been.
    Spot on.

    I enjoy working with a view camera. I don't enjoy sheet film for the most part, or the dust battles even though I now mostly win that one. MF gives me almost all the quality, none of the hassle. (But then there are movements and that big gg image, the enforced slow contemplation - I do enjoy using 4x5....most of the time...)

  6. #26
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

    Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.
    "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

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

    Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.
    I kindof agree, but I still love my RB67.

    Jeff

  8. #28
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

    Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.
    I don't obsess over it. I find that I get much better quality results much easier with medium format. I can get good print quality out of 35mm but it takes a lot more effort. So I actually do what you say - I use what gets me the shot, but I tend to use the camera that gives me the biggest possible negative while also getting the shot. The bigger negative gives me quality much easier, more options for cropping etc.

    I do shoot some low light B&W in 35mm because I have faster lenses, and I shoot moving subjects more often - even though I have the AE prism for my M645 Pro, the 35mm is still faster handling with better lens selection. Sure print quality is secondary to getting the shot, but everything else is secondary to getting the shot. If you can't get it with MF, use 35mm of course - or Minox or digital or whatever. But if you can get it with either then other preferences come in to play.

  9. #29
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,280
    Images
    46
    Here in one thread are several opinions I value highly:

    Thomas Bertilsson has encouraged me to return to 35mm. Spend some time corresponding with him and he will convince you as well.

    Ralph Lambrecht is right in my book... the jump in quality from 35mm to Medium Format is a significant one. Possibly all the jump you might ever need.

    I'll use 4x5 because I enjoy making prints from the larger negative, but the step-up in quality is hardly visible. And Vaughn... of course you need 8x10 for Carbon printing.

    On the foundation of those opinions, I am now completely neutral regarding format. It is very liberating to take any camera anywhere. Come back with the best you can get, and if you feel any room for improvement... take care of the mistakes you might have made.

    And if you feel afraid to make a mistake listen to jnanian, who can help you shake off doldrums.

    I have a 4x5 negative hanging to dry that I am afraid disappoints me - it is the exact same photograph as "Oak and Mistletoe, Black Diamond Mines" originally printed from a 110 negative. I took two shots, planning to provide a demonstration of the difference in quality between the worst I can do to the best I can do. Yet the branches and mistletoe in the 4x5 negative are unsharp and do not give me the delicious "fractal" effect that I had in mind. I really enjoy a black and white print which you can see details that appear infinitely fine. For the first time I understood the attraction of Red Dot Artar lenses (which I don't possess), because in this specific case, where I want extremely detailed branches, one of those lenses may have given me what I had in mind.

    Fortunately for me, I take lessons like these as an opportunity to re-evaluate what is really important. And looking at the original print from 110 negative... I really like it as it is.
    Last edited by Bill Burk; 05-01-2014 at 12:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You guys obsess over cameras and film size way too much. You use whatever camera gets you the shot you need. The end.

    Ultimate print quality is a secondary consideration, after you make sure you get the shot AND something that is interesting and worthwhile.
    I agree, use the best tool for the job at hand. I like using my 35mm slr. I wouldn't mind getting Leica M6 or M7 with 2 lenses. But that will have to wait a long while.
    I also wouldn't mind getting Pentax 67 to go along with my hasselblad. But for now I'm pretty happy with what I have.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin