|
|
35mm
vs. Medium Format
This is not only a look at the virtues of 35mm over Medium Format or vice versa but also a look at some of my own personal reflections as to what I might do in the future regarding my photographic hobby. Most know that all else being equal, the Medium Format whether 645, 6x6, 6x7 or larger will yield a superior image for enlargements over the 35mm format. Tone, contrast and grain are the key factors involved in the superior print that can be evident even in 8x10 sizes which 35mm should be able to provide some modicum of quality. 35mm of course has the virtue of flexibility and convenience. If you desire the cutting edge in technology 35mm is the format to go with. Medium Format in the 645 size is catching up though as three, high-quality autofocus SLRs are available from Pentax, Contax and Mamiya. Fuji has the excellent 645 autofocus rangefinders with data printing capability just like the three SLRs. But the AF in MF is in its infancy and we can and should expect better performance in the years ahead. I do find it surprising that so many complain about the relative slowness of the AF 645 SLRs, especially the Contax, which utilizes a USM type, lens motor for AF. Given that Canon and Nikon have produced some very large yet very quick autofocus super telephoto lenses the argument that Medium Format lenses are too heavy to AF in a quick manner is specious to me. I think the problem is that the lenses haven’t been designed for very fast AF like 35mm lenses have been with Internal Focusing, Rear Element Focusing, or efficient software to speed up the AF in the camera bodies. Medium Format makers have been working with manual focus designs for decades and sometimes it can be hard to change a way of doing things. Take Carl Zeiss for example. Although they have designed new AF lenses for the Contax 645 (their only true AF lenses for any Contax SLR, 35mm or 645) they steadfastly refuse to introduce AF lenses for the 35mm Contax bodies due to concerns regarding absolute optical quality. They believe that AF degrades the optics of lens designs and thus the Contax AX was developed to address those concerns. Put the AF in the body and leave the lenses alone. Truly ingenious of Zeiss or Kyocera to have developed the camera within a camera design to provide AF for manual focus Zeiss 35mm lenses. When 645 medium format reaches the levels of convenience as the 35mm format offers now, serious shooters are going to have some very difficult decisions to make as to what format to go with. For the non-serious shooter size is always going to be an issue as well as price. The average person off the street is not going to go into a photo store and plunk down several thousands of dollars for the pleasure of having a 645 sized negative or chrome. He would however put down a hundred or two for a convenient 35mm or APS point and shoot camera that he can drop into his jacket pocket and pull out when needed. He doesn’t care that the nature of the point and shoot shooting style will never provide him with anything meaningfully larger then a 5x7 because he only wants the 4x6 print anyway. He doesn’t care that the puny built-in flash couldn’t illuminate a breadbox as long as he can see the one or two faces in the dark that he wanted. It’s not the size that counts…is
it? What’s the point of all this, not much, only that 35mm has the ability to be carried with you at all times whereas medium format does not, even if you buy a relatively compact Fuji GA645i rangefinder. I have my eye on the Olympus Stylus Epic due to its very compact size as well as for the fast 35mm 2.8 lens. The Yashica T4S is also a contender for its Zeiss 35mm Tessar lens but I’ve heard about its very slow shutter lag time and that’s a concern for me given what I want out of a compact camera. It’s the size AND speed 35mm also has longer focal lengths available at much faster speeds. Long lenses up to 1000mm can be had for the Pentax 67 system at reasonable prices (reasonable being relative to long lenses) and all the major players at least reach out to 500mm for medium format systems. But these 500mm lenses will never be f4 though with f8 being the likely maximum aperture for size and cost compromise. Speed is another factor in the 35mm’s favour. You can rip through a roll of film in seconds with 35mm whereas most motorized medium format systems plod along at 1 frame per second or slower. 645 is a bit better in this respect but still only equal to a low end 35mm body. The fast motor drive coupled with AF will allow a practiced photographer to obtain most of the shots he wants whereas the medium format shooter will need every measure of skill and training to get the action shots desired. Medium format is simply not designed for the areas that the 35mm format excels at. I’ve had these thought as well as others running through my head trying to figure out which system should be optimized and used as the key kit. Money is a factor and I can’t simply go out and buy all the things I think I need to have a well-rounded kit. If I had that kind of money, I would have everything from an APS point and shoot to pro-level 35mm to MF to large format as well as digital and traditional dark room. But since I haven’t won the lottery yet I have to make compromises and buy what I feel is most needed or is going to be suitable for my style. It’s not the size that counts, it’s
the style! (Quoted by a female University of Victoria professor) Given these parameters and the desire to have a well rounded kit suitable for most applications and the lack of need for fast, action oriented equipment, I can feel comfortable with a range of lenses from 20mm to 300mm in 35mm format without the requirement to have blistering speed. Unfortunately the best lenses as far as optics are concerned tend to come in the faster aperture variety. I like zooms but I’m not especially keen on consumer grade types and would rather spend the extra money to get the pro-grade fast zooms to help cover a wide range of focal lengths with some cost effectiveness and convenience. Yes Santa, I’ve been a very good
boy this year I would want to add at least two very good bodies and probably three as being a comfortable number to work with. Some kind of combination of F5s, F100s, F90x’s and FM2n’s. I consider the F100 to be really an upgrade of the F90x so I probably wouldn’t bother with the F90x unless I kept my existing unit. Ideally I’d like to have an F5, F100, and a FM2n to cover a wide variety of shoots. The F100 for most walk around and casual handheld shots and wedding receptions. The F5 for more critical work where the sturdy build and mirror lock up would be required such as outdoor and tripod mounted shooting and the FM2n for the mechanical backup and very long time exposures without need for batteries. A very serious factor to consider is the cost of such a kit. For working pros cost is relative to what it would cost them not to have the equipment they need to capture a shot. Plus they can also amortize the cost on tax returns or borrow pooled equipment from other sources. For an amateur such as myself living within average means, I can’t really think about blowing $15,000 CAN in one shot and it is difficult enough to try and buy even one major piece of equipment. Now the key to this whole essay is to ask myself, is this cost for the dream 35mm kit really worth it? This is the $15,000 question and one that I’m trying to answer within these paragraphs. I’m trying to figure out whether or not my Bronica kit would suffice in areas where I might not have thought it could or whether continued purchases for the 35mm kit are justified in light of what medium format can or can’t do. And the answer is… Although I justified the purchase of the Bronica SQ-Ai 6x6 system to my wife by stating the benefits of it for potential wedding and portraits done on the side, I really wanted it for personal work (and vanity). Decision compromises and the need for certain features made the 6x6 the logical choice for me. As of this writing I lack a few more lenses that I need to really make the Bronica the number one kit. Wide angle and telephoto coverage are non-existent as the 80mm and 150mm Zenzanon lenses on hand only cover roughly 45mm and 85mm respectively (135 format equivalent). I want that coverage to go much wider to 40mm (24mm in 135) and at minimum 250mm (135mm in 135) with a 2x TC to extend the reach to 500mm (270mm in 135). Until I can save the money needed for such coverage the Nikon kit is still in regular rotation because I already have most of the range. But then again… The Nikon EM body with say a 28mm E lens would not be much bigger then a larger point and shoot camera such as the Konica, would fit into my coat pocket and again the quality and flexibility in control would be in my favor. Try to do this with a medium format body. I’ve done some street shooting with the Bronica with just the basic kit with no other accessories except for a handheld meter and it just doesn’t seem worthwhile to do so. Without the tripod in tow to provide for the stability to get the best out of a larger medium format body, the results can be questionable. And questionable results were not the reason why I bought the medium format kit. 35mm has very fast and long lenses available for purchase or rent. I cannot afford to buy any of the very fast or long lenses and have never rented any photo equipment and am not likely to in the future. One of the best reasons for having a 35mm kit is one that is inaccessible to me unless I look at low cost options from the used market or third party manufacturers. I would love to have a prime lens reach to 300mm and if I take out the desire for the fast f2.8 aperture then the f4 version begins to become a reasonable expectation for the future. Beyond that and Tokina and Tamron would be vying for my dollar for a 400mm f5.6 type. Since I’m not into wildlife or bird photography the need for lenses longer then 300-400mm is a major benefit to my wallet. In addition, trying to obtain first rate images from super long lenses for landscapes can be fraught with difficulty, as atmospheric conditions will play havoc with the sharpness and contrast of the scene. Add to this the need for a good tripod and you move away from the whole point of 35mm, which was for a small and lightweight kit. Having to haul around a tripod as well as a number of heavy lenses makes 35mm seem redundant to me and I may as well as pack a medium format kit and obtain superior quality images. I’ve been leaning towards a new role for my 35mm kit, which won’t be so new for so many other photographers. That is, a very compact kit for handholding in existing light with suitable lenses and films for such shoots. Get away from the big and heavy autofocus and motor driven SLRs and the attendant big and heavy, pro-quality zoom lenses. Before settling for the Nikon EM body, I was contemplating some kind of rangefinder type of system. They seemed to address my newfound role for 35mm the best with their small size and weight and first class optics. The Contax G2 in particular seemed outstanding for this role except for one thing, cost. Cost is also very obviously why I didn’t even want to look at a Leica M system. It seemed that the only way I could have rangefinder convenience with an excellent lens and low cost was to buy a Konica Hexar Silver. The lack of interchangeable lenses killed that potential purchase, as did the limited shutter speed available on the Hexar. Konica has a new M mount, manual focus rangefinder called the Hexar RF available and it looks impressive but I don’t imagine that it will be much less then the Contax G system. So I bought the Nikon EM after trying out a few manual focus kits that happen to be available for me to try out. You can read more of how I bought into the EM in my user report but I find it perverse that I should be using a body that was first made twenty years ago and cost me all of $150 Can today. My autofocus F90x and F70 bodies are now relegated to backing each other up for family shoots with negative print film. That’s being a bit simple actually as the autofocus bodies have served me very well since I bought them and I couldn’t live without them for the serious shoots at weddings or other social events. Even though medium format is suppose to dominate this market I went through a recent family celebration with both systems in hand to actually see if I could be successful at doing candids with the Bronica kit. Bronica versus Nikon The Nikon kit I brought was exactly in its element for the candid moments. Autofocus allowed me to capture the various expressions of the kids running around the area as well as a few fleeting moments when I was made aware of a situation. I was concerned that the results on film would not be as good as what I would normally receive from pro-grade print film because I was shooting a left over roll of Fuji Superia 400. Previous results with the Superia line of films have been hit and miss and even going back to a processor that gave good results one time would not guarantee good results the next time. That was until I went back to the first processor that I ever used (a bit more expensive then most places) as a serious photographer and received some great looking prints from the film. I realized how stupid I had been to nickel and dime myself over processing costs for negative film and resolved never to do it again. I’ll note that I only cut costs when I was processing for myself and not for others, on those occasions a customhouse is given the order for developing and printing. The Bronica kit was awkward to use as I frantically tried to focus manually and keep up with some of the action. Only when I was taking some posed shots did I have the time to compose and focus properly such as the cake cutting or the group shots at the end of the party. It was such that I didn’t even shoot off a whole roll of film during the night with the Bronica but of the handful of shots I did take the couple did ask to borrow the negatives for some enlargements. They also asked for some of the 35mm negatives because it seems that of all the cameras used and pictures taken during the party, mine turned out the best. Without trying to sound too arrogant or smug I knew that that would be the case given what the others were using that night. A handful of point and shoots of varying quality and only one other SLR were seen and I knew that the SLR wouldn’t amount to much because the owner was using the pop-up flash of the body. Also, if I know amateur consumers if only because I was as stupid when I first started, they were probably using ISO 100 or 200 film, which would not be adequate in the low ambient light of the restaurant to show any details outside of the flashed areas. The result of that party served to reiterate some generalities that I have come across in my quest for photographic knowledge. The Bronica in my hands is more or less useless as an action type of camera for candids or otherwise. I don’t have a problem with the size or weight of the body with flash bracket and big handle mount flash but I just can’t use it to any effectiveness in these situations because I’m not use to using manual focus. But on the tripod then this kit is supreme and is fast and easy to use when my subjects are going nowhere as in landscapes or formal posed shots. The higher expectations of the medium format kit means that I take more care in how I take the photo, which is very much a good thing. It does mean being less spontaneous but I can accept that since the 35mm kit is so good for those types of shoots. The F90x as always was a joy to use handheld during the party. The configuration at the party was less versatile then my normal serious rig with the Stroboframe bracket and SC17 flash cord but it pulled through and it goes without saying that the flash shots were right on. Good processing and printing are obviously important for the end result but it reaffirmed for me how good Nikon (and all the other major companies’) equipment is for quick moving moments. Low light and macro photography undoubtedly require a tripod or other stable platform to expose the film properly without vibration but outside of these situations I can’t see why I shouldn’t handhold all of my 35mm shots. It’s accepted by many that the best quality enlargement that one can obtain from a 35mm is 8x10 and only with the greatest of care can an 11x14 be obtained with anything larger being the domain of medium and large format equipment. Since 35mm is so restricted in enlargement quality it seems silly to go around as an anal-retentive photographer carrying around a tripod for use with his mid level 35mm equipment. If you’re going to go to all that trouble and are willing to spend big, big bucks on top notch pro-quality bodies and lenses, all for a dinky little 24x36mm piece of film then why wouldn’t you consider a medium format kit? The cost certainly wouldn’t be more then a top flight 35mm kit. Conclusion The Bronica will be the main kit when I do want quality results and the nature of the kit will force me to slow down and do things deliberately. Both 35mm and MF have their place and their roles that each is best at and I will continue to try and exploit those advantages to the best of my abilities. |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
