Large Format Displacing Your Old Medium Format?

[Nick_3536]

Not me. My MF setups have replaced my 35mm mostly. I only use 35mm for snap shot quicky stuff.

[Zach In Israel]

I seem to be mostly using my Rollei TLR. It helps that while I don't have a lot of cash right now I have about 15-20 rolls of 120 format film in the freezer. The 35mm comes out some of the time for some things. I am still working out the details of my LF rig. I just got a bunch of film holders but they need to be checked for leeks and I have not had time or money to do so.

[Sheldon N]

I just sold my beloved Hasselblad to simplify to a two format system - 35mm film/digital and 4x5 film.

I found that I used 4x5 for landscape and the DSLR for everything else. Medium format ended up being the "in between" option that never got chosen.

[Brian Ellis]

I finally sold my Pentax 67 system last year. Between LF and digital I hadn't used it in at least three years. At one time it was my favorite system, the one I used for many of my best photographs, the one I always took on trips. I loved the retro nature of the camera - needle-in-a-hole meter, auto nothing, electonic nothing, the loud "clunk-clunk" noise it made every time the mirror was locked up and the shutter was tripped. But I figured it was better to let someone else get some use out of it than have it gathering dust in a closet. I forget exactly what I netted, I think something like $1200 for the camera, metering prism, four lenses, and telextender, which is just a little more than what I paid for the camera alone when I bought it new in the early '90s. But that was o.k., I got far more than my money's worth out of that system in pleasure of use.

[audioexcels]

The Canon 1DsII is the best camera I have ever owned! I love it more than the Mamiya 7II, which *used* to be my favorite camera.

I have 3 4x5's that I use - a Toyo AII, a Cambo Wide, and a Fotoman. I just bought a Mamiya 645 this summer, but only 2 rolls of film through it, and I haven't even gotten the 1st developed yet!

Digital displaced medium format for me in 2002. I just stopped using it!

I am looking forward to the day when it replaces my 4x5. Too heavy, bulky, awkward (can't even see my composition on the GG with a 65mm and a center filter) too expensive, ($1,200 for 300 sheets of film in 3 months - the same as a years depreciation on the 1DsII.)

I have been doing photography for 30 yeras. I am delighted with the new tools. Much less expensive than the old - I used to spend $5K a year on film for my Mamiya 7 at $1 a frame. And I am aesthetically much happier with digital, than with all that base noise and lousy darkroom prints with film.

Sorry, don't mean to be offensive. But not crying here. I side with Kirk's "the best of times" 100%.

Do you remember that John Prime song "Dear Abbey"? The chorus was: "You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't. So listen up buster stop knocking on wood ... ...." (and i forget the rest that goes here?) "Signed, Dear Abbey"

So you haven't shot with the Mamiya 7II since 2002? Maybe you should pay a visit to it with film from today, a proper scanning of the film, and then your own post processing/printing and see how the look of the prints from both Canon and Mamiya compare. I have seen pics posted of the Canon from when it first came out (2002-2003?) and now. If you have a look at them, you'll see that the ones taken in 2003-2004, even 2005, etc. almost look outdated and old...but looking at pics taken in the recent year, they all look so clean and nice.

Check out the Fuji S2 images on Pbase...even the S3...they look old, even terrible...go to Flickr and look up "most recent images" from the same camera and they look clear, clean, as if it's not the same camera.

I don't think it's fair to compare a slide of film from almost 6 years ago to one taken today...It's like comparing slides taken in the 80's and 90's to those taken yesterday. Scene to scene, taking something that has gone unchanged since the 80's will still look like it is an 80's photo...whereas one taken today will look like an entirely different rendition.

[audioexcels]

I love 4x5, and don't shoot it as much as I would like to; mainly due to work issues. As a result, I find myself shooting much more 35mm lately. I have a digital camera, but really hate the images it produces, so I mainly use it for my blog and illustrative purposes. I've started getting into shooting 6x12, but with my 4x5. I use a Toyo 45AII, but ordered one of the Chamonix as a replacement. My main camera other than 35mm is my Nikon F6 - what a fantastic camera!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a D200 as well, but find it just an expensive paper weight.

However, I am planning on ordering Mamiya 7II next spring.

Curious what it is you do not like about the D200 vs. 35mm film and are you using a quality scanner for the 35mm film or just taking the film into a decent lab and getting prints from them and having the better ones scanned in properly?

[eddie]

I love 4x5, and don't shoot it as much as I would like to; mainly due to work issues. As a result, I find myself shooting much more 35mm lately. I have a digital camera, but really hate the images it produces, so I mainly use it for my blog and illustrative purposes. I've started getting into shooting 6x12, but with my 4x5. I use a Toyo 45AII, but ordered one of the Chamonix as a replacement. My main camera other than 35mm is my Nikon F6 - what a fantastic camera!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a D200 as well, but find it just an expensive paper weight.

However, I am planning on ordering Mamiya 7II next spring.

sounds like we are on the same road.

i too have a chamonix on order.....and i would love an F6. someday i will buy an F6 but not this year.

i find that i shoot a lot of 4x5 at home. i use my 8x10 also but not nearly as much. i shoot 100s of sheets of 4x5 pinhole images, the most film burning i do is with the pinhole. i hardly ever shoot mu 35mm any more. my Rb sees little use around here. BUT i went to Wyoming with all the formats and i found that i got all my best stuff from the RB. while the LF stuff was pretty good i was plagued with dust, scratched negs during processing and other minor difficulties. the RB was wonderful. i was able to shoot it easier and faster (probably why i got better shots than the LF) and it is super sharp. i also began shooting 35mm slide film again then. i was just thinking about taking it out this morning as a matter of fact!

basically i use what i got. and today it will be 35mm.

eddie

[audioexcels]

I've just sold a Rollei SLX to one of the nicest people here on the LF forums, but......

I also have:

Rollei 6002
Rollei 6006
Mamiya RZ67

Digitally, I have shot with a few point and shoots, DSLRS from Nikon/Canon/Panasonic/Olympus/Minolta. I have shot with Nikon and Contax for 35mm (Contax SLR and G system). For 35mm, in spite there is no macro'ing with the G system, seeing prints from it is really something. I look at my prints with my past DSLRs and they are very nice also, but they do not seem to have the similar level of sharpness and color accuracy/rendition as the Contax G w/good slide film and even print film like Reala or for super low grain, the 160 series from Fuji.

Problem with 35mm=Need a scanner=much more time than popping in the CF card and working even a little in photoshop..of course, scanning 35mm film also means having to photoshop...so there's develop, scan, process vs. pop card into computer, process.

Problem with digital=If we are after such high resolution full frame DSLRs, I see no point unless you shoot commercially or you want to be blowing up shots of wildlife and etc. "specifities" that nothing else would be capable of managing.

MF has a problem competing with the fast full frame DSLRs, but otherwise is the equal or better tool for similarly sized blowups.

So we come to the point of enlarging...at what size do people want to be printing? What is the majority of one's print size and also, can one see differences say, between their beloved 8X10 printed at a two time enlargement vs. a full frame DSLR or nice scanned MF print?...question can be similar to asking about a 5X7 or 4X5 shot...how are the enlargement sizes from these formats compared to the mega buck DSLR or a nice scanned MF shot?

And what about 8X10-11X14 prints? I am sure a 10MP DSLR like the Canon 40D that is MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE and has a beautiful coloration/quality about it can produce something with a good look at 8X10-11X14. So if most of our prints are at this size, again, what is the point of an expensive DSLR?

Lastly...I feel a quality 35mm cam can produce results equal to the 10MP cameras and will run into trouble against MF and the mega buck DSLRs when enlarged too much...maybe others disagree with me, but I feel that if print size is 8X10-11X14, even 12X16, a nice slide shot will from 35mm will be the equal of the 10MP DSLR...and it is VERY CHEAP to get a 35mm cam. Only issue I have with 35mm and even larger film is cloud grain that is not seen with the clean rendition of clouds via digital.

I think all these formats fit in somewhere, but one has to ask how large they want to go, if they see the quality differences in comparisons, what "specifically" each tool will be used for (DSLR or 35mm rangefinder would be best on action/wildlife/streetphotos IMHO), and then assess what camera/s will be needed.

I personally feel that MF even with the consumer flatbeds will produce a better print than any DSLR w/exception of the full framers...this is where the scan will become the difference. I could be wrong, but it's what I feel especially from seeing images off the 5D and the Rollei w/Planar lens.

But does one need to be printing consistently at such a large size "and" is it really that expensive to have a Rollei w/Planar lens for $350 shipped (what I sold my kit for) along with an Epson 4990 for $250 used or V700 for $400 used?..not really...especially iif one is already using the Epson to proof and even do prints from sheet film, your cost to have a cheap and extremely sharp Rollei system is nothing.

There's too many variables, though at the same time, it is really simple...

1) Get a "cheap" DSLR and use one zoom and manual focus lenses=$1000 OR get a Contax G2 w/28-90 lenses for $700-$800 I have seen them going for on Craigslist and just shoot print based film with an accurate meter or learn the meter inside the Contax. Then find a good lab to make a cd with your shots off the G2 and you have your web images. OR, scan that 35mm in with the same Epson used above...I have 8X12 prints that show ZERO grain and they were done at a local Fred Meyer (west coast shop/store).

2) Get a used Canon 5D for $1700 used nowadays and get one wide zoom, the rest nice Zeiss manual lenses and call it a $3K setup or so...this will give you prints in all sizes up to about what, 16X20? To me, if I had the money, I would go for this option "if" the 5D was more like $1500 for the cam w/lenses. 3K is way too much.

3) Use LF even for snapshots...get a Graphic and stick a cheap lens onto it and shoot like they did in the old days via hand-held. And use your primary LF camera/s for the more serious work...this can eliminate the need for ALL other cameras except maybe a cheapo digi-point and shoot for online photos and 4X6 prints...even a cheapo Pentax/Olympus w/zoom is only $400 nowadays and that will give fine 8X10's.

Talking way too much as usual...to me, it's think size of photo, reason to use (requirements of use), and find me a darn Arca Swiss Compact at a cheap price before hell freezes over!!!...oh, and a nice Whole Plate back is also acceptable to have on it along with a 5X7 and 4X5 back.

[Former Member 8144]

A full frame dslr (canon 5d) with wide shift lens and other lenses does the job perfectly for 95% of my commercial interiors.
I also use it for stock work but would never make a print bigger than 16x12 inches from it and only do that rarely (I'd actually prefer a lighter M8 or similar for my kind of stock work but that's another story)

For my personal work (print sales and projects) I like to be able to print upto 40 inches wide.
Over the last decade I have used a variety of 5x4 and medium format equipment.
I have tried going back to medium format from 5x4 this summer (selling my large format field gear for a hasselblad setup that I had previousely used for much of the last ten years) and whilst it certainly is easier to use than 5x4 (quicker, cheaper, more variation in shots, etc (but not necassrily lighter) when I look at the images, although prints up to 20x20 inches are very good (drum scanned lightjet prints) I know when I make a larger print (and evena print at that 20 inch size) it will lack the detail etc I get from 5x4.
I also really like the movements on the 5x4.
So the hasselblad set up (like Sheldon's) has gone and I'm putting my 54 kit together again.
It is a slight pay off as there is a chance that I may miss the odd shot that I would have got with the hasselblad (perhaps I also need a very light one compact film camera with one lens only to go with the 54 on location for those shots, but as I already carry the dslr also for stock at the same time, that all gets a bit heavy!...that's where the M8 could come in) but more importantly every shot I have will be printable to a size as big as I require and will be framed perfectly with the cameras movements whatever the camera position restrictions.

Marc

www.marcwilson.co.uk

[Narcissist]

Since getting my Ebony my RB67 has sat used but I can't face selling it. The RB is probably my favourite camera to use and I do miss it (especially wlf and lack of dark cloth), but in the end the small dof with 6x7 combined with the lack of tilt for landscapes meant many of the photographs I wanted to take I couldn't Eventually this drove me crazy and forced my move into LF.

If I do shoot colour (rare) I use a roll film back though. The cost of shooting LF colour is crazy and I just cannot justify for the way I shoot. 10 shots on a roll means I feel much more free to take creative risks and try things rather than worrying about the cost which is important to me.

I am tempted to sell my mamiya 7 since I never really got on with it. It is a very nice camera but handheld use even using iso 400 for anything that needs more than shallow dof is limited. I am not enamoured by digital b&w and massive depreciation on dslr's is why it has not yet been replaced but it won't be long - handheld I'm sure a 5D would match it and is far more flexible with excellent high iso performance.

I still use 35mm a lot of street photography. I also sometimes take it out and shoot a roll handheld somewhere local to get a break from having to 'set up', tripods, dark cloths, and let my creative brain run wild.