• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Medium Format and Large.....

ErikJonas

Banned
I know this is a fairly dumb question....But what are some of the benefits of large or medium format film over a standard digital DSLR......For a large format camera other then print size what benefit is there?
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Good evening, Erik

LF: you have options like shift and tilt for all the focal lenghts, beside the better image control with the huge ground glass.

It's a much slower approach, like you' ve to insert the film casette in the back, close the shutter - by hand - open the casette's inner door, and wait a few secs, to avoid a shaken image... before pressing the release cable. etc...

You see, compared to todays guys with CF-card for 1000's shots, LF is monk-like: mounting carefully the cam, the lens, studying the composition, making a Pola, waiting for the good moment and light.

Of course, LF means a heavy bag.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Advantages of Medium format and Large Format film over the DSLR

I know this is a fairly dumb question....But what are some of the benefits of large or medium format film over a standard digital DSLR......For a large format camera other then print size what benefit is there?

For most work, the DSLR will do fine. One can document life's moments and art exhibit or a crime scene well. However, when one does that, one is limited by the character of the digital file: it's not continuous, rather it samples gradations and reconstructs colors. In many cases, the difference is hardly noticeable. However film does give smoother changes in tonality and hue.

This and the next characteristic is the ability to record detail. DSLR's like the Canon 5DII and the D3X record over 20 MP and so can define a lot of detail. However, a sheet of B&W film optimally exposed can capture much much more.

If one wants to record detail of a large group, one can do that with the 20 MP available in flagship DSLR's. I have done that with 115 musicians in an orchestra. One could go yo a MF digital camera with 30 or 50MP and do far better. However, even renting such a system is expensive.

However, at far less expense, LF rental will do as well or even better. So an 8x10 sheet of film would yield much richer and sharper prints capable of being enlarged to a huge size without noise.

The DSLR has an advantage when one uses it everyday, since one knows very well every control that will be needed for the shot. A rented MF camera may or may not be familiar to you and so could be risky for an important shot. The LF film camera, however, just requires use of the focussing screen and experience in setting the aperture and cocking the shutter. There are less things to go wrong, the commonest of which is not removing the dark slide of the film holder or not turning the holder around after a sheet is exposed! The MF camera is simpler to use and when scanned well might even rival a top end DSLR.

For quiet stealth work, two cameras: The Mamiya VII II is a very easy to use rangefinder with amongst the sharpest lenses ever made and very quiet. The new Fuji 677 6x7 and 6x6 camera, sold in the USA as the Bessa III, has the quietest real shutter I've ever heard! So for high quality stealth shots, leave your DSLR behind and go for these film cameras. (The rewind for the Bessa III is noisy and should be done in some deep cloth bag, LOL!).

Lastly, as Michael points out, the film cameras forces one to slow down and contemplate more, so that might be either maddening for you or a desirable new attribute to your creative mood.

Asher
 
I know this is a fairly dumb question....But what are some of the benefits of large or medium format film over a standard digital DSLR......For a large format camera other then print size what benefit is there?

Benefits:
- Camera movements (giving control over perspective and plane of focus),
- Enlargement potential, or quality when magnification is low,
- A more studied type of shooting (less snapshots more deliberate shots),
- A shallow Depth of Field is possible.

Drawbacks:
- Big and bulky (although 4x5inch isn't too bad),
- Not suited for fast/action shooting (although one could dol it for a single shot),
- Requires film because most sensors are not large enough to exploit the benefits of size.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Daniel Buck

New member
For me (and this might be different for some folks), medium format doesn't have enough adantage over 35mm to warrent bumping up, if you are talking about 35mm digital versus consumer level scanning (flatbed) medium format film. Large format has a significant advantage over 35mm to warrent bumping up and carying extra gear. Any kind of movements you want, large film surface, and ability to develop individual shots separately, not dealing with roll film, and the workflow of a view camera. Me, I just don't really like roll film that much, even if it were 4x5 roll film.

If you are doing 4x5 with a few lenses, the entire setup wouldn't be much heavier than a 35mm setup with extra batteries and fast lenses. Actually, accessories aside, my 4x5 camera with a normal lens mounted weighs less than my 1Ds and any one of 1/2 the lenses I own. Film holders can add a bit of weight/bulk, but that's just part of shooting film. 8x10 and other formats larger than 4x5/5x7 area different story. They can be very cumbersome, but also very enjoyable. I enjoy my 8x10 alot, but I use my 4x5 more often because of it's lack of bulk compared to the 8x10. More than a few 8x10 film holders, and things start to get bulky! So I pick and choose when I bring the 8x10 with me, and when I just bring the 4x5.

I've tried medium format (6x7cm) and although the film size is nice, without drum scanning my results were not really any better (resolution and clarity) than my 35mm digital files. If I were to pony up for drum scans, the results may be quite different, but I don't do that. If I were printing the film traditionally with an enlarger, yes, 6x7 is quite noticeably better than printing 35mm film, in terms of grain, sharpness, tonality, and the size of dust hits. One thing I do like about scanning medium format verus 35mm digital files, is I get the "look" of film, the grain and the smooth transitions of tones. This makes digital camera files look like plastic in comparison. But aside from that, scanning medium format on a flatbed doesn't gain me a whole lot of sharpness and resolution over my 1Ds2 files.

Basically, I think most (not all) medium format setups are kind of like a big 35mm. And for it to be "better" than 35mm in terms of scanning, I think it depends on the route you go for scanning. Flatbed scans of 6x7cm negatives don't seem to please me near as much as 4x5 or 8x10 flatbed scans do. Drumscanned 6x7 negatives would be very nice compared to 35mm digital, if you don't mind paying for the scans, or finding a drumscanner to own.

If you are just looking for a bit more of a film look (grain, and contrast/tones) medium format with a consumer level scanner will most likely get get you what you want, especially if you go for the larger medium format films, 6x6cm or larger. I wouldn't even bother with 645 film unless you have a very good scanner.

If you venture into 4x5, you will probably not like it if you are looking to keep your same shooting style as with your 35mm digital. Large format is much more than just having bigger film, it's a different way of shooting. Even if you are using "fast" and hand held 4x5 cameras like a press camera (speed/crown graphic). I really enjoy it, even when shooting side-by-side with my digital. But it's not for everyone, for sure.
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Daniel
I agree about the medium format, even having 2of them, I never felt really happy, vs the spontaneity of SLR and the controls of LF.

The mixed version, MFfilms, going from 6 x 7 cm to 6 x 12 cm on a LF cam worked quite fine in the studio, but not on exteriors.

I don't agree on the weight of LF; it starts with a heavy tripod, goes through 3 - 4 heavy lenses, and ends with the need of having film cassettes for colorslides as well as for b&W-negs ....

that's ok in the studio, or if you shoot from the roads, but as we all know, they' re more interesting cam position than that. I' ve experienced both version - LF and DSLR - in the alps, and there's no doubt about weight and possibilities; stitching is pretty easy with DSLR for wider angles and enhancing resolution.
 

Daniel Buck

New member
I don't agree on the weight of LF; it starts with a heavy tripod, goes through 3 - 4 heavy lenses, and ends with the need of having film cassettes for colorslides as well as for b&W-negs ....

Actually, for 4x5 I often use the same tripod and head that I use for my 35mm camera (and the tripod that I had originally purchased with only 35mm shooting in mind).

My 4x5 camera with a lens mounted actually weighs around the same amount as my 1Ds2 with a lens mounted (sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the lenses) The tripod is not a heavy weight tripod (but it ain't no plastic 2-lb combo either).

For 8x10 I've used on the same tripod a few times, but yes for larger LF cameras I prefer my larger heavier tripod with a single tilt head. 4x5 cameras may be a good bit larger than 35mm cameras, but they are mostly wood surrounding alot of air :D And mine has a fairly light weight construction (but still quite ridged), a Chamonix.

As for the weight of LF lenses, accept for a few of the very large aperture lenses that I rarely go hiking with, most of my large format lenses actually weigh less than my 35mm lenses, even my 8x10 lenses. :) But then again, my 35mm lenses are amonb the largest aperture primes available, and my large format lenses (mostly) are NOT among the largest aperture lenses available.

The film holders, yes they can add up in weight. But for a typical afternoon/evening outting with my 4x5, I'll bring 3 or 4 holders (2 shots per holder), that's not really alot of weight, probably not much more weight or space than if you brought along a book to read. Different story for 8x10 though, they can be heavy and take up alot of space quite quickly.


My medium format outfit weighed more than my 4x5 outfit does! Granted, I had probably the heaviest medium format setup possible, an RB67, those lenses are super heavy! haha!
 

Nigel Allan

Member
For most work, the DSLR will do fine. One can document life's moments and art exhibit or a crime scene well. However, when one does that, one is limited by the character of the digital file: it's not continuous, rather it samples gradations and reconstructs colors. In many cases, the difference is hardly noticeable. However film does give smoother changes in tonality and hue.

This and the next characteristic is the ability to record detail. DSLR's like the Canon 5DII and the D3X record over 20 MP and so can define a lot of detail. However, a sheet of B&W film optimally exposed can capture much much more.
Asher

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I recall reading in a book on digital photography that the 'equivalent' megapixel count to film emulsion for a 35mm or full frame dSLR sensor would be about 25mp.

In other words, at anything less than this resolution there is no way that digital could even compare to the smoothness of transition of tones in a film, so imagine how many megapixels you would need to match an 8 x 10 film size? many millions and millions and millions

For most people and most needs they will never know the difference, but even in this forum I have noticed the work of Cedric and my eye was drawn to the beautiful tonality of his shots even before I knew they were analogue and then scanned in (and this is in spite of viewing through a digital monitor). I just instinctively felt that his shots (which I later learned were film) were smooth and easy on the eye. I guess my eye subliminally picks up pixelation
 

Wendy Thurman

New member
I've shot a bit- not a lot- on large format cameras. I can't think of anything more glorious than an 8x10 Velvia chrome- simply as good as it gets. The control the adjustments lend- more tilt and shift than you can imagine- are valuable, particularly if shooting architecture. Double exposures are easy (too easy- use a view camera often enough and you will double expose a sheet of film). I found the different way of seeing to be helpful with regard to composition- the image on the ground glass will be upside down and backwards.

Very cool cameras.

Wendy
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I recall reading in a book on digital photography that the 'equivalent' megapixel count to film emulsion for a 35mm or full frame dSLR sensor would be about 25mp.

In other words, at anything less than this resolution there is no way that digital could even compare to the smoothness of transition of tones in a film, so imagine how many megapixels you would need to match an 8 x 10 film size? many millions and millions and millions

For most people and most needs they will never know the difference, but even in this forum I have noticed the work of Cedric and my eye was drawn to the beautiful tonality of his shots even before I knew they were analogue and then scanned in (and this is in spite of viewing through a digital monitor). I just instinctively felt that his shots (which I later learned were film) were smooth and easy on the eye. I guess my eye subliminally picks up pixelation


Not all film manages 25Mp in a 35mm frame and there are real considerations as to how to extract the information that is there in any case. In practical terms, 35mm film doesn't seem to compare with 21Mp (or even 12Mp) dslr print output in terms of percevied detail. Part of this is grain and part is a result of the smoothly declining MTF of film with increasing frequency in comparison with digital sensors, which retain a high MTF value until relatively close to the Nyquist limit (and AA filtering).

Still, there is a lot more in a well shot 35mm neg than some of the internet would lead you to believe, and black and white can be remarkable.

Mike


Edited to add - plus it looks different of course. Bart is right about the differences arising from the tonemapping and grain, but building equivalent tonemaps is not actually a simple process:)
 

Jim Galli

Member
I'm not sure I would even say that ultimate print size is much of a consideration for LF over high end digital.

For me there are other factors that keep me looking at the world upside down on a glass the size of a mini TV screen. Some of the magic is hard to describe. I think for me it is pure potential of what is possible. Brute force tonality in a big hunk of film. Method of working....slow and deliberate. Mostly, there is all this wonderful wonderful glass from a hundred years ago that has more pesonality disorders than a New York City jail cell. I love the selective focus / shallow focus look that you can achieve with a 450mm f4 lens.

Then there are the Platinum and Carbon and other obsolete printing methods that require the neg to be the same size as the print. An 8X10 camera makes an 8X10 print.

I'm no fool. When I need snapshots I grab the Nikon D200. Even for fall color I would grab that camera. But if I'm trying to achieve something that is both different and beautiful, something elegant that has it's own intrinsic value beyond a mere record of an object, I'm back to that first word I threw out; Potential
 

Daniel Buck

New member
....and something stationary. ;-)

only if you are lazy ;-)

hand held walking an 8x10 :

harvester_06.jpg


hand held panning a 4x5 :

vara_01.jpg
 

ErikJonas

Banned
................

I want to thank everyone who commented here and gave me some of their insight....And Daniel that second picture is Sooooooo incredably cool!!!...If you ever want to do a print trade please let me know...

Again thanks for everyone who responed...I dont have the time to section things out and comment on and in fact i am going to have to read this again to get the most out of it....Its really nice to get so much feed back.....
 
Top