Can't give up 35mm....
Does anyone else have MF or LF setups that are collecting dust because (heaven forbid) you just like 35mm better?
My Mamiya setup (Pro TL, 3 wonderful lenses) always gives me great results, but it sits unused for most of the time. My usage ratio of 35mm to 645 in terms of film is about 20:1. I don't necessarily think it is because the Mamiya is just slightly more cumbersome. I think I just understand 35mm better somehow. I really want to use my MF setup more, but I always seem to go for my Nikons.
Has anyone made a similarly unsuccessful jump from 35 to MF or LF?
Can't say that I have, Shawn. I like the 35mm format, and it's entirely possible to get great results from it. I think I have come to a place where I look beyond the format and just 'see'. I guess the longer I'm doing this, the less important the camera seems to be. I just grab whatever's convenient, it seems, or what camera type corresponds to what I have in stock for film.
"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 really like your response, Thomas. Thanks. I understand you and also find myself mostly not caring what format I use - until, that is, I think about the gear that is wasting away. I'll also from time to time take stock of what film I have in the fridge and try to choose based on that.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Thanks for the response!
I'm not from the "bigger is better" camp. I get just as much enjoyment from a beautiful 8x12" print, as I do from a large print from an 8x10" negative. Yes, it's about seeing, and capturing that on film. The 35mm films and lenses are just so good nowadays, that I don't feel compelled to shoot medium or large format, to produce beautiful snaps or prints.
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit."
I have a Canon EOS 3 with 17-40L and 70-200 f4 IS lens that just doesn't see too much use. Well, I haven't been out shooting as of late, but most of the time I'm out shooting, I'll grab my Rolleiflex before the the 35mm setup. I feel like I'm still in the honeymoon phase with the Rolleiflex, but man, it's a fine camera!
I'm considering selling the 35mm setup to help fund a Hasselblad setup or maybe even an LF setup. Still, it's proving very hard for me to part with the 35mm setup. I could easily sell off the 35mm gear for $1600+, but it's just too darn convenient for me to do so.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm still stuck in the "bigger is better" crowd. I still shoot 35mm, but when I print, I always end up going for the MF stuff. The tones and detail are just too engrossing.
i love 35mm cameras and th eneg proportions, but really dislike the small neg.
I've always been a big 35mm fan, and have several.
But recently I bought a Fuji RF 6x7 and since I bought it I've only used my Rollei 35 (fits in my pocket) a few times, my Leica once and my Nikon SLRs, hardly.
I find the Fuji only a little bigger than an SLR, but the negs give lovely tonal range, when you see Tri-x Neopan or HP5 in MF you end up using 35mm only when you need the flexibility of a system cam or small size for carry about.
I love Delta 3200 in MF, could just be a 'honeymoon' effect as noted above, but somehow I feel I'll use both depending on what subject matter.
I've been shooting more 35mm than MF lately and am really enjoying the freedom. The neg size does not bother me.
My life is recorded on 4x6 machine-made color prints, shot with 35mm cameras. There are few enlargements made from those negatives, although they are certainly capable of being enlarged. There are a few negatives I would like to jumbo size, but for the most part, there's plenty enough "memory" in the 4x6 print.
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.