|
|
35mm
versus Medium Format Part II
Will the lens provide a good 11x14? Is it pushing it to make a 16x20 and am I dreaming if I want to enlarge a 35mm negative or slide to 20x24 or even beyond? From these questions regarding the suitability of a lens’ quality performance for such applications we also usually receive the adage that prime lenses provide superior performance to zoom lenses. Further to this, if the questions and commentary are allowed to get out of hand or off topic to a degree, we usually also get the advice that brand L or Z is superior to brand N or C, never mind the fact that brand L and Z are usually double or triple the price of brand N and C and that the supposed superiority is often time questionable with brand N and C often producing lenses of such exquisite quality that both brands L and Z would be proud to have their names stamped on them (and in fact brand L has sometimes used lenses from brand M and S from Japan and called them its own and at prices far above what brand M or S could ever sell them for). I think you know what I’m getting at here from the above sentences, that the brand snobs like to trumpet Leica and Zeiss over Canon and Nikon, et al for 35mm optical predominance. What I find surprising from all of the associated arguments over prime lenses versus zooms, of German optics versus Japanese optics is how much people will pay for that little bit of prestige and marketing created long ago of Teutonic virtues over Zen designs. The prices are abhorrent when looking at German labeled but perhaps Japanese designed and manufactured Leica and Contax products. I recall email discussions with a friend just before he fell sway to his romance filled memories of his Leica III and bought into the current iteration of the classic Leica M series body. He provided some relevant and capable reasons for wanting another Leica (the usual stealth reasons) but I also think he felt an emotional link to his grandfather who gave him his first Leica so many years ago. The purchase of a Leica system allowed him to relive the heady moments of first becoming involved in photography, of going back to basics and eschewing the technological marvels of today. I still feel that his Leica purchase was more subjective then objective and felt that his Nikon FM2 was all the back to basics he really needed. I personally couldn’t fathom the amount of money required to build up a basic Leica kit that would duplicate what he had already done with Nikon. Am I missing the point here? Have I lost touch with all of the fine traditions of true craftsmanship, of building products not to a price point but to the most outstanding parameters available currently? To be fair to Leica users, the M6 is an exquisite piece of machinery. The few times that I’ve held one in my hands and used it almost made a convert out of me but as soon as I have my F100 back in my hands and start auto focusing again, stirs me out of my German fed stupor. And again, once I realize how much money it would cost to build a capable and versatile kit also brings me back to reality. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had to choose between a Nikon F5 based kit to that of a Leica M6 or R8 based kit, I would select the Nikon (or Canon, depending upon my current frame of mind). The point I want to make here is not that I’m Ebenezer-like with my money because I don’t believe I have been in the three and half years I’ve been involved in this photographic passion. I’ll spend the money when I can comfortably do so and sometimes I’ll spend it big as with my Bronica SQ-Ai kit. The point is that I think it is folly to buy into a Leica or Contax based 35mm format kit because there is a very real limitation so far as enlargements are concerned. And if you’re not shooting for enlargements then what are you shooting for (speaking from the perspective of an amateur landscape photographer)? It would be mind boggling for a person to spend $10k in order to take 4x6 snapshots of the family on vacation or other family events and not use the Leica or Contax for anything else (but I’m certain that there are a great many well-to-do purchasers who do nothing more then snapshots with their fine equipment). Most of the Leica and Contax users I’ve come across (on the Internet newsgroups and mailing lists) are quite passionate about the hobby and craft and strive to be the best they can be, just as most Nikon, Canon et al users are also passionate about being as good as they can be. But I think their (Leica and Contax) money would be better utilized with different equipment. Using the rule of thumb that 35mm is really only capable of a truly superb 11x14 sized print through traditional darkroom methods then it does seem silly to spend so many extra thousands on a Leica or Contax based kit over a Nikon or Canon based kit. Can the virtues of German designs be so spectacular that it warrants the huge price premium over the Japanese brands? This is subjective as one person’s criterion is his own and if German designs really hone in on those criterions then nothing other then German optics will do whereas another person could have a set of criterions that German optics will have little to no bearing on. I suppose the crux of this essay is a bit narrow, when people discuss how to extract every last little bit of quality from 35mm format and when some people go the route of buying into prestige brands as a means to an end, I just find that to be foolish and wonder why they don’t just spend all those thousands for a decent medium format kit. And finally, here is my wonder and amazement that there are so many people who seem to have the means but not the knowledge that there exist equipment that can do so much more for their photographic passion beyond the puny 1x1½ inch strip of film. For many of these people autofocus is not especially important but if it is there now exist three 645 SLR systems as well as a Fuji 645 rangefinder camera that offer usable AF performance. For the proponents of a different and more classic approach there are also three major 6x6 square format offerings and beyond this there are several iterations of the rectangular shape to satisfy most landscapists. Any of these medium format offerings would offer tremendous qualitative improvements over 135 format. For the truly greedy or the truly anal, large format also beckons and offers the bonus of tilts and swings for complete control of perspective, something that almost all medium format offerings fall inadequately short of. I know what you’re thinking, there are just some things that medium format can’t do that 35mm can and I completely agree. If your thing is wildlife or sports/action photography then medium format isn’t going to cut it because you’ll never get the extreme focal lengths that 35mm offers without a corresponding compromise to image quality. You’ll never get ultra-wide rectilinear focal lengths such as the intriguing Cosina-made but Voigtlander badged 12mm lens (or their 15mm or even pedestrian 18mm offered by others). The widest you’ll get is the 135 equivalent of a 20mm perspective but with fisheye distortion artifacts. The equivalent 24mm is about the widest medium format gets with any pretense to keeping lines straight. Although autofocus is now a medium format reality, it’s still about ten years behind in terms of speed and locking onto targets either in dark ambient light or when they are moving. Despite the fact that Contax utilized a state of the art USM lens motor for their 645 lenses, user reports indicate a less then blistering AF speed. But for those 35mm users who like to work methodically with their subjects. Who do in fact use a tripod and cable release and not some rocks picked up off of the trail and the self-timer in some Rowell-like, neurotic quest for lightness when out hiking. Who put thought into their subjects and compositions and don’t burn through a roll of 36 exposures for the sake of 1/3 stop exposure compensating just because they can. Who use the mirror lockup feature if available even when outside of the critical mirror vibration shutter speeds of ½ to 1/60 of a second. Who worry about whether or not they have enough resolution for a good-sized enlargement. Who eschew even high quality zoom lenses in favour of prime lenses for that extra smidgeon of quality that may or not be detectable in the enlargements. Who buy enough 35mm format equipment to warrant a Lowepro Trekker series backpack, meaning heavy enough to induce back strain humping in the back woods. For this type of photographer, who may have bought into Leica or Contax/Zeiss to try and mitigate some perceived short comings of Japanese designed optics, meaning the person has bucks to spare, why the heck aren’t you using a medium format system? Size and weight are comparable for a well-equipped 35mm and medium format system. Costs are also comparable depending upon the brand chosen and for outdoor work that does not involve tracking untamed ornithoids then autofocus is not necessary and is often times redundant especially when working in the macro world. When a person goes to a lot of trouble getting the technique down it seems ludicrous that an instant qualitative bottleneck should be worn around the neck like the mariner’s albatross. Even if that albatross happens to be some precision made German designed products, it won’t make up for the fact that the 35mm film is of finite size and can only be enlarged to a certain degree before falling apart in terms of film grain. Speaking of film, for those who crow about the virtues of new formulations from Fuji, Kodak et al, that minimize the qualitative differences between 35mm and medium format, just remember that what benefits 35mm also benefits medium format too. All the popular film formulations such as the incredibly low grain Fuji Provia 100 F or the super saturated Fuji Velvia and Kodak E100VS are enjoyed by medium format photographers and often times, large format photographers too. The inherent advantages of larger film formats do not remain static in time for 35mm to poach upon their traditional virtues. So go 35mm advances, as does medium format. Take a look at some well-regarded outdoor photographers and see how they utilize the best of 35mm and medium format for their stock or assignment images:
You’re thinking, what about that ultimate 35mm format guru Galen Rowell? The man who seems allergic to anything heavier then a Nikon F65 at the moment but who nevertheless still owns Nikon’s brutish F5 and slightly less brutish F100 bodies and attendant long and heavy telephoto lenses for his outstanding images (credit given where credit is due). He has often written about his attraction to 35mm as the format that best allows his creativity to come out while on the run, literally. But until recently, despite Galen’s large format mentality in using his 35mm gear, his poster sized enlargements would not have been overly satisfactory in the way that a medium format enlargement would have been (since discovering drum scanning and Lightjet printing, Galen has come out endorsing digital imaging in a big way, as it allows him to actually and finally make exhibition quality prints from the puny 35mm film). I think Galen would still have been a stupendous medium format photographer but just not as prolific as he is now as a 35mm format user. After having said (or typed actually)
all this and despite the fact that I have a two-body Bronica medium
format kit, there is the strong possibility that I would dispense
with the medium format system and return to a 35mm based system. Contradictory
and hypocritical? Seemingly yes but more on that in this
essay. |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
I’ve
been wondering about the mindset of some 35mm format users, the ones
who regularly analyze a given lens to death in terms of sharpness,
light fall off among other parameters. The desire to know how a given
lens performs technically is important to ensure confidence that the
lens will perform as desired in an actual shooting application. Invariably
though, questions regarding the quality of a given lens tend to lead
towards how a lens will perform for enlargement purposes (and that
is a major part of amateur photography isn’t it?) 