What are the advantages of Medium Format over 35mm - discuss

Andysnap

Andysnap

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,322
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
As above really. When using film are there advantages (or disadvantages) of MF over 35mm.

Just asking as I have ordered some 120 for my Ensign 16-20 so next week will see the start of another experiment. :thumbs:

Andy
 
advantages

When printing you enlarge the neg less so larger prints can be made.
Size of neg.
Slides are just awesome in MF.


disadvantages

Number of shots on a roll
non instant feed back( maybe thats just me being inpatient)
cost of film and developing compared to digital.


I am sure I have missed loads, I still have a soft spot for MF and large format
 
en general:
  • more subtle tonal changes,
  • lower perceived grain,
  • less perceived DOF,
  • generally primes so *better* lenses,
  • access to waist level finders as standard,
  • less potential for bromide drag as there are no sprocket holes,
  • more weight (usually),
  • bigger cameras (usually),
  • more likely to need a tripd (usually),
  • fewer shots per roll,
and most importantly:

A higher level of overall awesomeness
 
Simple bigger negs or slides

645 = 15 shots
6x6 = 12 shots
6x7 = 10 shots
6x9 = 8 shots

So less images and probable a little more expensive to get developed than 35mm of and I doubt you can get 120 done at the likes of Tescos or somewhere like that (waits to be corrected)

Oh and more addictive than 35mm :lol:
 
I don't feel the words "awesome" and "awesomeness" have been used to their full potential when describing the main virtue of MF, in this thread.
If we were playing top trumps, awesomeness trumps everything.

I think 35mm is the same price to develop but the film is more expensive.
Or to put it another way, for the same money I'll take the large double helping of awesome...pls

:)
 
You often take your time using Medium format and can often lead to not only superior picture quality but also better images.
 
Knikki said:
So less images and probable a little more expensive to get developed than 35mm...
Click to expand...

In Portugal I pay the same price to develop 120 and 135, but of course each image is more expensive in the end. :)
 
OK folks, thanks for the responses. So, basically MF is awsome, has awsomeness and will inspire awesomeness in all. I like it. Can't wait for my awesome 120 film to arrive then I'm of out on the trail of awesome images.
Seriously though from what I've seen the images produced do have a greater tonal depth than 35mm and digi and seem to just look 'better' for want of a better word.
The Ross Ensign Selfix 16-20 I got last week seems to be the high end one with a Rosstar lens which have been compared with most german lenses of the time so hopefully awesome pictures will be produced.

Cheers All

Andy
 
Not forgetting that using a MF camera will instantly make you more attractive.
 
The real problem with 120 is so few cameras are designed to be as user friendly as 35mm. By the 1960s it had become a studio format and the hardware and finders built for a tripod, so in practice you have to factor tripod weight in as well. The results tend to be a bit formal as a consequence, IMO.
Medium format cameras can be made to be pocketable, and used to be so, but most evolved away from hand held shooting. Shame really.
 
Apparently the Ensign is one of, if not the, smallest medium format camera. When its folded it will fit in a coat pocket and weighs about the same as my Nikon F301 so it will be going out and about on a regular basis I think.

Andy
 
Andysnap said:
Apparently the Ensign is one of, if not the, smallest medium format camera. When its folded it will fit in a coat pocket and weighs about the same as my Nikon F301 so it will be going out and about on a regular basis I think.

Andy
Click to expand...

Looks about the same size as my Voigtländer Perkeo - only with a 6x4.5 mask rather than the perkeo's 6x6 :)
 
Yes it is about the same size and a similar design as well.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top