I haven't used a 135 camera for any of my personal stuff since I was sixteen years old. However, if I wanted extreme portability, or to shoot action/sports, or high mag macro, or very long lenses... I'd get a 135 camera and the optics/accessories to support those needs. There are many things a 135 just does better or at least far more conveniently than MF or especially LF.
To me 35mm is the bread and butter of film photography.
Acceptable for a lot of things, and not much to dislike
MF, well to paraphrase a UK commercial of a famous Chain store over here
There is film photography, and then there is MF film photography
(Nigella Lawson optional)
"Flatter Me, and I May Not Believe You. Criticize Me, and I May Not like You. Ignore Me, and I May Not Forgive You. Encourage Me, and I Will Not Forget You."
35mm, MF and LF all have their uses and each does some things better than the others. Various benefits of the 35mm format have been put forward above. Also, depending on the subject, sometimes I want a print with a gritty, quick-and-dirty look. This is generally easier to achieve with a 35mm camera.
for some of my on-location shooting, it's a matter of what fits in the backpack
1 body with 18-55 lens attached
3 filters cir-pl nd4 uv
anything larger is too much
the backpack is almost too big for some of the smaller units I climb
an example of type of work I do
Kodak Duaflex II with kodet lens
N75 N8008s D60
Yashica - D
Only a photographer knows the true value of infinity
I use 35 because some film are only available in 35, the cameras are great to work with, it is still fairly exceptable since processing and films can be found in many many places still, it's somewhat inexpensive, it is small and portable, the cameras are not as expensive as good used MF gear, they are good for action and there are many many diffrent cameras and leses available. Medium Format is better but not always. I look at them both equally. I love and use them both.
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The different cameras and formats have entirely different strengths.
Apart from the technical issues (lens speed, resolution, tonality, movements, equipment bulk, bellows focusing etc), these different cameras also affect how we see the subject... literally and figuratively. So the relationship with the subject can be very different. Some cases in point: imagine seeing a subject life-size (1:1) on ground glass as opposed to some scaled representation through a viewfinder. Or imagine seeing your subject in natural 3D with no lens effects through the viewfinder of a rangefinder, as opposed to looking through the lens of an SLR. Totally different ways of seeing.
My gripe about digital is not technical (kibbles and bits and bytes and range and all that). My principal gripe about digital is the way it's drastically narrowed all the gear options to one: the DSLR. That's just a ridiculously small subset of what used to be commonly wielded by film photographers. (And yes I do realize that there are digital backs that I can put on my MF and view cameras etc.... but... still no digital RF or TLR or folder worth my time or money. Okay, actually no LF back worth my time and money either)
I've found MF to not be worth the trade-off of depth of field limitations to negative size. I shoot 35mm and 810, and have been shooting 35mm almost exclusively for the last four years. But I pulled out a box of 810 from the freezer today, and have the film holders on the counter in the darkroom, I'll clean them tomorrow and load them up. Something very satisfying about working with 810 that isn't all about print quality.
I've been printing my 35mm negs at 16x20", and have no problems with inferior quality. They just look different than an 810 at 1620, and the grain is something I rather like.
There are motorized medium format cameras but burning up 220 film can be expensive. 35mm equipmemt is more flexible and easier to use in low light. As film quality improved al lot of work which had been done with medium format equipment started to be done with 35mm cameras. A lot of work that was done with 4X5 cameras then started to be done with medium format cameras. Most medium format cameras do not have the movements or small f/stops of large format systems. An exception is the Fuji GX680 line. I enjoy using my medium format cameras but I use 35mm cameras more often.
I VERY much appreciate these opinions--all of them.
For me, depth-of-field is an important aspect--not just in the objective sense, but also in the subjective sense. I like the extra DOF offered in 35mm lenses, and I suppose this is why I have remained in the 35mm realm. Prior to beginning this thread, I suppose I had only a vague perception of how important DOF is in my photography. Your comments and opinions have helped to bring this to the surface.
That is why APUG is so successful. Everyone of us can learn from anyone of us.
Originally Posted by FilmOnly
Edit: In reference to "how many ... make large prints [above 8"x10"], I regularly print 35mm color at 24"x36" and 120 film at 30"x30".
Last edited by Sirius Glass; 11-16-2009 at 06:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.