Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

[Stephanie Brim]

The regular SLR cameras are harder to hand hold. I find the TLRs with the leaf shutters to be IMPRESSIVELY easy to do this with. If I have a prism/porrofinder on my Mamiya C3, I can hold the thing reasonably steady at 1/8 second. Heh. But with the majority of options, that would be impossible.

[Poisson Du Jour]

I agree that one format is not going to be universally suitable for all subject matter. But how can you claim LF and MF (given tripod mount) give more flexibility for framing?

By practicing what I preach! I'm referring to the size of the format.
How is a tripod going to restrict composition and framing?

[cliveh]

By practicing what I preach! I'm referring to the size of the format.
How is a tripod going to restrict composition and framing?

Because you can't instantly move the camera 2cm to the left, or 20cm lower, or 1 metre closer in a fraction of a second.

[Poisson Du Jour]

Because you can't instantly move the camera 2cm to the left, or 20cm lower, or 1 metre closer in a fraction of a second.

I don't think that is practical in action at all. Prior to docking the camera on the tripod, it is common to walk around eyeing the subject (with any format camera), and repositioning the tripod to that point. Nothing more should normally be necessary, especially nothing more with LF given the complexity and time needed to set adjustments. I've never ever needed to move the camera in a "fraction of a second": what's the hurry? If I need to tweak the image, and never quickly, I employ a tilt-shift lens, but that is entirely a separate matter to movement of the camera, which does not change.

[cliveh]

I don't think that is practical in action at all. Prior to docking the camera on the tripod, it is common to walk around eyeing the subject (with any format camera), and repositioning the tripod to that point. Nothing more should normally be necessary, especially nothing more with LF given the complexity and time needed to set adjustments. I've never ever needed to move the camera in a "fraction of a second": what's the hurry? If I need to tweak the image, and never quickly, I employ a tilt-shift lens, but that is entirely a separate matter to movement of the camera, which does not change.

We are obviously talking about a different type of scene. I am not talking about photographing rocks, but living, moving people.

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you are photographing living and moving people that is very different indeed to the premise of photographing stationary subjects — how were any of us to know what you were referring to?. If speed, spontaneity and automation is important, use whatever camera you wish for the subject if it needs speed and portability, but one cannot assume it is necessary better than MF or LF in skilled, experienced hands using less automation and refined, paced technique. Remember for decades and decades MF was the only format photographed for weddings, with many beautiful abstract processional movement images created by locals I know of (additional to static portraiture). Weddings have also been shot on pinhole cameras (!).
Probably then, MF and LF is not for those stepping from the comforts of SLRs photographing action to MF and LF, but experimenting with processes and methods in the bigger, more cumbersome and thought-intensive format can be just as educational and foregoing much-loved creature comforts of 35mm.

[markbarendt]

Because you can't instantly move the camera 2cm to the left, or 20cm lower, or 1 metre closer in a fraction of a second.

Have you heard about monopods?

[cliveh]

If you are photographing living and moving people that is very different indeed to the premise of photographing stationary subjects — how were any of us to know what you were referring to?. If speed, spontaneity and automation is important, use whatever camera you wish for the subject if it needs speed and portability, but one cannot assume it is necessary better than MF or LF in skilled, experienced hands using less automation and refined, paced technique. Remember for decades and decades MF was the only format photographed for weddings, with many beautiful abstract processional movement images created by locals I know of (additional to static portraiture). Weddings have also been shot on pinhole cameras (!).
Probably then, MF and LF is not for those stepping from the comforts of SLRs photographing action to MF and LF, but experimenting with processes and methods in the bigger, more cumbersome and thought-intensive format can be just as educational and foregoing much-loved creature comforts of 35mm.

I agree, but would also point out that the way of working I am suggesting is completely devoid a of thought-intensive process.

[Poisson Du Jour]

I agree, but would also point out that the way of working I am suggesting is completely devoid a of thought-intensive process.

Then photography is not for you!
The best images are created in the mind's eye with considered thought. The camera is just a black box to hold the film. I don't care much for the hot-shoe-shuffle of positioning/repositioning of the physical camera and whatnot. I'm interested in capturing the image as I have envisioned it. Please move on from small matters.

Now, go out and get some photography done.

[markbarendt]

I agree, but would also point out that the way of working I am suggesting is completely devoid a of thought-intensive process.