# 35mm or Medium Format



## sarahkate (Jul 18, 2012)

Hi all! I own a Nikon d300 and a Canon ae-1. I've been using the ae-1 for a few months now and I'm really enjoying it. I'm even thinking about selling my d300 and investing in a more modern 35mm or a medium format. Just because I feel like I'm missing shots without the auto focus. What do you think, will I just get better with time? I have a little one and he's quick...probably too quick for me. So I'm trying to decide if I should get a modern 35mm or medium format. If I sold the d300 for let's say $700 and maybe put an additional $300...I'd have $1k to work with. Thanks for all your advice!


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 18, 2012)

Medium format isn't the best for fast moving subjects, the cameras are large and the DOF tends to be shallow unless you really stop down a lot. 

(oops, just realized that this was in the film gallery, and I have no idea about how much medium format film cameras go for these days, sorry.  above comment still stands though)


----------



## Derrel (Jul 18, 2012)

Right now, TODAY, I know of a photo store that has SEVEN NIkon F100 35mm autofocus film bodies, all priced at $195 each. THAT, the Nikon F100, is *****exactly***** the camera I would recommend to anybody who wants to get a great (not good, but great) 35mm AF "shooter". Seriously...the F100 represents over five decades of 35mm SLR development from Nikon, and is a fantastic design. It has everything you'd want in a 35mm camera AND it will use your D300's lenses!

Medium format is more suited to slower shooting than 35mm AF. If you DO want to go medium format, I can heartily recommend what I have these days: the Bronica SQ or SQ-A or SQ-Ai camera bodies, a 50, a 65, and 80, and a 150mm lens.The SQ series cameras are like Hasselblad 500 bodies--only RELIABLE.(Better no-servicing, semi-sloppy parts, no-lube-needed "Japanese engineering" versus "old-school-needs-lube-and-CLA-all-the-fricking-time European engineering") And the lenses are affordable, and have accurate, reliable Seiko shutters in each lens.

Honestly though; unless you are really skilled in medium format use, I would never choose it for photographing ACTIVE kid pics. For posed stuff, sure, it's great. But for run-n-gun, the Nikon F100 is what you want...it is light years (well, okay, only about 20-25 years or so) ahead of the Canon AE-1 series and all its ilk.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 18, 2012)

Agreed; the F100 is a good camera, but for very little more you can probably put your hands on an F5; not only is it an outstanding camera, but if you're doing renovations to your home, you can use it to pound nails too.


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2012)

Hi. I am really glad you are taking an interest in film photography. And, when speaking of photography, what sort of it is your main interest ? Is it this, what should be a factor, when choosing camera. There is a big difference between small and medium format. Cost, size and weight, comfort in use, lenses availability etc. Medium format is less portable in general, but it gives much better negative. At least it should.
As for AF 35 mm camera, should not be that expensive. The last Nikon F75 was made when, 2004-5 ? I bought one for $30 (body) in box, in retail store. It has shortcomings, but also has the latest technology Nikon was putting in film cameras. There is one more thing, F75 on the second hand market are almost unused, so with a care they may keep shooting for the next 25 years. Lens may cost more, but OK Sigma or Tamron should be in $200 range.
With medium size AF choice is small. You may try Fuji 645 series, GS, GA, GF or Mamiya 645AF under $1000.
So, let us know, what type of photography you are interested more.
Ciao.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 18, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Agreed; the F100 is a good camera, but for very little more you can probably put your hands on an F5; not only is it an outstanding camera, but if you're doing renovations to your home, you can use it to pound nails too.



Agreed. The main issue with the F5 is its massive heft and weight...for a man like John, that's not a problem. For a big burly dude like me, not a problem. But my experience is that most women do not like cameras of the F4-F5 size and weight...they just don't "like using" such cameras. The camera makers have really,really found this to be true now that they have come up with all these new ultra-light, ultra-small d-slr's like the Nikon D40...HUGE sellers to the female photog set! 

A camera that uses eight AA cells as its power has a lotta' "ballast"! Which is great when using a big, heavy lens like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or 300/2.8 on the front end. The key is to get a "balanced outfit", one that feels good in the hands and is not too small,nor too big, and not too heavy. BALANCE is more important than overall weight, to me. My experience is that women often tend to prefer smaller AND lighter cameras.


----------



## bhop (Jul 18, 2012)

F100 is awesome, although, if you like a grip on your camera at all times, go for the F5.  I have an F100 and it's great.  I always have a grip on it though, which kinda makes me wish i'd gotten an F5 instead.

Should also be noted, that the F100/F5 and D300 are nearly identical as far as controls go.  There are a few minor differences, but you'll be up and running from day 1 if you're already a pro at using your d300.  They also use the same FX lenses so if you have any non-dx lenses you can keep them.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ...Agreed. The main issue with the F5 is its massive heft and weight...for a man like John, that's not a problem. For a big burly dude like me, not a problem. But my experience is that most women do not like cameras of the F4-F5 size and weight...they just don't "like using" such cameras.


OP's username... "Sarahkate"....  Hmmm... should'a figured that one out on my own!  Good catch Derrel.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 18, 2012)

Thanks for all the replies. I shoot nature, landscapes, some interiors and architecture, family lifestyle portraits, and I'd like to get more experience with weddings but I haven't had the opportunity yet.


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> I shoot nature, landscapes, some interiors and architecture, family lifestyle portraits,


It does not require AF, actually the opposite. Medium format then will be better.
 For weddings stay with d300 for now.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 18, 2012)

timor said:


> sarahkate said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot nature, landscapes, some interiors and architecture, family lifestyle portraits,
> ...


Agree; MF will work very well for those purposes, and you'd be surprised how cheap it is.  Two years ago, I picked up a Mamiya 646 AFD, back, Metz flash, 80mm AF, 45mm, 150-300mm and the VERY difficult to find 24mm fisheye for $1500!  If you go with a more modern MF system such as the 645 AFD, Contax 645 and a few others, than you can also directly attach a digital back should you want to.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 18, 2012)

I know that I really want a Medium format badly but finances will not allow it at the moment even though I know they have dome down drastically from what they were in years past. I hope at some point in the future I will be able to afford one. The digital back for a medium format however is pure pie in the sky because I have seen the prices on those and the used ones seem to be in the $10,000 ranges which is way beyond my means. I might end up being able to find the money for a Mamiya or Bronica at some point but I will never be able to cough up the funds for a Leaf or Phase One back.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 18, 2012)

I shoot film professionally, and when I shoot 35mm, I use two F100's. The F100 for me is much better than an F5 because you can see your AF points light up and it's half the size of an F5, yet just does as well in 99% of applications. 

If you want to do medium format, but still stay relatively nimble, I'd recommend a 645 system. 80mm and f/2.8 looks strikingly similar to 50mm and f/1.4 on 35mm, but you don't get the aberrations or softness of f/1.4. It really does look significantly better than 35mm.

For systems, it's hard to go wrong, but i'd recommend Mamiya or Contax. I started shooting MF on a Mamiya 645AFD (really good camera), and now shoot on a Contax 645 (GREAT camera). If you shoot people, just run 400H or Portra through them, shoot wide open, and when it gets dark, switch the the F100's.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 18, 2012)

tirediron said:
			
		

> Agree; MF will work very well for those purposes, and you'd be surprised how cheap it is.  Two years ago, I picked up a Mamiya 646 AFD, back, Metz flash, 80mm AF, 45mm, 150-300mm and the VERY difficult to find 24mm fisheye for $1500!  If you go with a more modern MF system such as the 645 AFD, Contax 645 and a few others, than you can also directly attach a digital back should you want to.



Yea I'm looking to spend $1k or so for a MF outfit or AF 35mm any good rec's for MF? I've been looking at the Mamiya 645...how about a Leica?


----------



## bhop (Jul 18, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Leica is great, I own two (although one is a 60 y/o screwmount version), but you're not going to get far on your budget ($1000 you said right).  For that money you'll get a "user" M2 or M3 body (meterless from the 1950's/60's).. expect to pay minimum $300 more for one 3rd party lens (canon screwmount or voigtlander maybe..), or $1000+ for a genuine Leica lens.

Also.. for the type of Photography you say you want to do, you're probably better off sticking to your original idea.  You can do all that stuff with a Leica for sure, but IMO, rangefinder cameras in general excel at photojournalism or "street" style photography.

You can get an F100 with a lot of cash to spare on your budget, for film, or other lenses, etc.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 18, 2012)

$700

Mamiya 645AF Mamiya 645 Autofocus 645AF MEDIUM FORMAT SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com

80mm f/2.8 Mamiya 645 Autofocus 80 F2.8 (58) FILTER RING BROKEN MEDIUM FORMAT SLR AUTO FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS - KEH.com

120/220 back Mamiya 645 Autofocus 120/220 BACK - KEH.com


Or get the ultimate 645 system, the Contax 645, just shy of $4,000: Contax 645 Autofocus 645 WITH 80 F2 T*, 120/220 BACK, AE PRISM *WITH CAPS, MEDIUM FORMAT SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA OUTFIT - KEH.com


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 19, 2012)

Keep the D300 and spend the $300 (or so) on a Mamiya RB67 with a 90mm lens.

You aren't going to beat the D300 for snap-shooting kids and if you're doing paid work it just makes too much business sense to shoot digital unless you're doing boutique film work

The RB67 is a fully manual, hulking beast that takes fantastic photos and is probably the best value around in medium format.  You could get a 645 but if you're going I say go all the way.  (and if you really like it there is this little thing called large format that will knock your socks clean into the washer)


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Jul 19, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:
			
		

> $700
> 
> Mamiya 645AF Mamiya 645 Autofocus 645AF MEDIUM FORMAT SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com
> 
> ...



The contax 645 is always around 2200 a 2600 on ebay! Dont buy it new.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 20, 2012)

Sure, I paid 2 for mie...but it's still a helluva lot more expensive tan it should be


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Jul 20, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:
			
		

> Sure, I paid 2 for mie...but it's still a helluva lot more expensive tan it should be



Not necessarily, it is very well built. Excellent quality glass and one of the most ergonomic bodies.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 20, 2012)

Have you used a Contax? The grip is made for a child. The Mamiya 645AF I used to own was more comfortable to shoot for a whole day, and the Contax has a problem keeping film flat with 120 film. To be honest, the only thing the Contax is really better at is the 80mm opens up to f/2 and the AEL switch is a better design than a button. Otherwise the Mamiya was a smarter camera IMO, and the 80mm for it was sharper.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 21, 2012)

Id go with the f100 as suggested, and then back it up with a large format view camera for those special subjects.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 25, 2012)

Thank you for everyones replies. I'm on the fence with the recommended F100 and the Mamiya 645AFD. I already have a 35mm though...do I really need another? I'm sure the F100 completely surpasses the AE1, but still!

I'm scared to get rid of my D300, however I can't keep it. It's collecting dust! I'll use it in a pinch when I don't want to mess with my AE1. Plus I hate the workflow of digital. I feel like I take pictures and load them onto my computer and never get to enjoy them.


----------



## bhop (Jul 25, 2012)

You could get the f100 and sell it for the same price you bought it if you don't like it.


----------



## Corto (Jul 25, 2012)

A pentax 645 or 645N is another MF choice.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 26, 2012)

sarahkate said:
			
		

> Thank you for everyones replies. I'm on the fence with the recommended F100 and the Mamiya 645AFD. I already have a 35mm though...do I really need another? I'm sure the F100 completely surpasses the AE1, but still!
> 
> I'm scared to get rid of my D300, however I can't keep it. It's collecting dust! I'll use it in a pinch when I don't want to mess with my AE1. Plus I hate the workflow of digital. I feel like I take pictures and load them onto my computer and never get to enjoy them.



Sounds to me like your ready to step up to medium format.

Medium format autofocus is s-l-o-w, save yourself some $$ and go with a manual focus mamiya.  A metered, gripped mamiya 645 tl pro with a back and a normal lens sells for as low as $375 these days.  The lenses for the mf version are also much cheaper.

One great thing about buying used gear is that you can always resell it and youll only be out what u paid for shipping.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> Agreed. The main issue with the F5 is its massive heft and weight...



Not sure if your familiar with the d300 but to me it's very solid in my hands. How is the f5 comparable? Or the f100?

Nonetheless I'd still like to consider the thought of staying with 35mm for now. But I still like the thought of MF. Plus there's always the price difference. I don't plan on developing myself!


----------



## Rick58 (Jul 29, 2012)

"nature, landscapes, some interiors and architecture"? I'll keep lugging around my RB67 for the bigger negative. I have the 6x4.5 Bronica but hardly ever use. If I go smaller then 6x7, I'll usually just grab a F2a. 
It's all a compromise. MF is a compromise between LF and 35mm. 6x4.5 is a compromise between 6x7 and 35mm....and lets not forget to throw the 6x6 in there for good measure. To me asking if I should buy a MF or 35mm is like asking should I buy a truck or sports car. Oh, and by the way, I realize I'm showing my age by the references above...LOL


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 29, 2012)

Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed; the F100 is a good camera, but for very little more you can probably put your hands on an F5; not only is it an outstanding camera, but if you're doing renovations to your home, you can use it to pound nails too.
> ...



I know many will disagree with me but I think of all the AF designs made by Nikon  the F4S is still the king the only thing it really does not do is VR  and plus you can use even non AI lenses. You can even get nice working examples these days for less than a $100 dollar bill a steal if there ever was one if you need to have an AF 35 mm camera.  JMTC and YMMV.


----------



## Rick58 (Jul 29, 2012)

Man you guys make me feel older then I even am. I'm still programmed into Auto-nothing, prime lenses and MAYBE a battery for my F2A meter. I feel like I need to grab the wife by the hair and drag her back to the cave.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 29, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Man you guys make me feel older then I even am. I'm still programmed into Auto-nothing, prime lenses and MAYBE a battery for my F2A meter. I feel like I need to grab the wife by the hair and drag her back to the cave.




Rick I think the F2 is the pinnacle of 35 mm camera development. You will get no argument from me what so ever and I think the fact that any F2 still sells for at least $300 while newer $35 mm cameras like the F4 , F5 and F100 can be had for mere pennies of their original costs speaks to that fact. I cannot tell you how many times over the years I have kicked my self in the butt for selling me F2AS if nothing else but for sentimental reasons. Those cameras are solid as tanks and works of art.  

Kudos to you.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 29, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> What do you think, will I just get better with time?



Regardless of what camera you're shooting with, the only way you will get better is with studying your particular cameras functions/buttons/menus until you're an expert, and then just get out and shoot, shoot, shoot!

Buying a medium format camera will not magically make you a master photog. Sorry. :cheers:


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 29, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> Regardless of what camera you're shooting with, the only way you will get better is with studying your particular cameras functions/buttons/menus until you're an expert, and then just get out and shoot, shoot, shoot!
> 
> Buying a medium format camera will not magically make you a master photog. Sorry. :cheers:



I realize this. And I'm not expecting MF to make me a better photographer. However the above quote was directed toward mastering manual vs. AF. With just about anything, anyone can improve with practice and time. I'm just worried about going fully manual as I feel like its the only thing holding me back with my AE1. 

Everyone's replies have been very helpful and I enjoy reading them. I suppose the underlying issue right now is picking MF or 35mm. I'm aware they're different and you can't really compare them... I guess I can't decide if I should dabble around more in 35mm (I only have a few months experience with film) then in the future move on to MF or just go for MF. There's no doubt that I love film and digital is dead to me.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 29, 2012)

Another thought as I further my research on the web. Is it just me or does MF have a distinct look to it compared to 35mm? Every photo captured with MF just feels like it has that certain 'indescribable' look. I maybe bias though!


----------



## Rick58 (Jul 29, 2012)

Clarity and detail are your biggest factors. Even a negative from a 645 is 3 times larger then a 35mm and the ratio on goes up from there.


----------



## sarahkate (Jul 29, 2012)

So where did any of you start? Digital, MF or 35mm? What would be your go to format now and why? 

Knowing what you know now is there anything you would have changed about your setup?

Thanks again!


----------



## bhop (Jul 29, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



F100 feels almost exactly the same as a D300 in your hand, but put some lithium batteries in there and it's lighter... plus they'll last forever.  The viewfinder is bigger and brighter in the F100 too, but the controls are mostly the same, except for some obvious differences since one isn't digital.


----------



## Rick58 (Jul 29, 2012)

"_So where did any of you start? Digital, MF or 35mm? What would be your go to format now and why? 

Knowing what you know now is there anything you would have changed about your setup?"


_Personally I've been bouncing between 35mm, MF and LF for the entire 40 years I've been into photography. I currently have all 3 formats along with a bottom of the line Sony A230 I use for a family outting snap-shooter.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 29, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> So where did any of you start? Digital, MF or 35mm? What would be your go to format now and why?
> 
> Knowing what you know now is there anything you would have changed about your setup?
> 
> Thanks again!



To list what I used as my photographical workhorses, without mentioning other things I tried along the way:

- I started with a purely mechanical 35mm rangefinder and a handheld light meter in my pre-teens.
*Reason: *This was what I could get at that time.

- Then I moved on to what some might call MF polaroid  for fun  ... still a teen then.
*Reason: *Fun to see the images quickly with no delay.

- Then came some more 35mm rangefinder, even in my army time and early university time.
*Reason: *Small, handy, fast, reliable and ... affordable

- Then, still at university, I started with 35mm SLRs ... this is also when I started with slide film as opposed to negatives... I stayed at that until 2004/5 
*Reason:* Wanted more control over my images, had more money to afford all this, still it was lightweight enough to fit my backpack for weeks in the wilderness.

- At some point I jumped into full frame digital.
*Reason: *I was annoyed by the resolution of scans from 35mm film. The only film I used which would give me the resolution I needed for larger colour projections, both slide and scanned slide, was the Velvia 100F.

*Today: 
- *I mostly shoot full frame digital for its versatility and resolution. 
- I totally gave up on 35mm slide film as it does not do well in the digital stages of my workflow. And I need digital in the end for AV presentations.
- I still shoot 35mm black and white negative film as I cannot get that b&w tonality from digital sensors.
- I shoot large format b&w for the movements of the camera, so much more possibilities than on 35mm.
- I plan to shoot colour slides again, but now on LF.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 29, 2012)

sarahkate said:


> Another thought as I further my research on the web. Is it just me or does MF have a distinct look to it compared to 35mm? Every photo captured with MF just feels like it has that certain 'indescribable' look. I maybe bias though!



To the discerning eye, there's certainly a noticeable difference. It's the same in digital MF. NYC headshot photog Peter Hurley is the first example that comes to mind. Granted, he's Mr. Big Shot and uses a $15,000 lighting setup, but it's his TOTL Hassy setup that makes his images so mind-blowingly sharp and colorful.

I don't have the patience for film right now. Maybe later in life when I don't have 157 things fighting for my time.


----------



## ktan7 (May 11, 2013)

If you are looking for a medium format, consider the Mamiya 645 AF. You can pick one up for fairly cheap at roughly $600 on eBay. This was my first medium format camera and I absolutely love the sound of the shutter.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Agreed; the F100 is a good camera, but for very little more you can probably put your hands on an F5; not only is it an outstanding camera, but if you're doing renovations to your home, you can use it to pound nails too.



The nearly invisible afpoint selection and the lack of a second dial on the grip makes the f5 inferior to a gripped f100 IMO.


----------



## Mike_E (May 12, 2013)

Jennifer622 said:


> I shoot film professionally, and when I shoot 35mm, I use two F100's.



Hi Jennifer, welcome to our corner of the interwebs.

What do you shoot when you're not shooting 135?


----------



## bhop (May 13, 2013)

djacobox372 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed; the F100 is a good camera, but for very little more you can probably put your hands on an F5; not only is it an outstanding camera, but if you're doing renovations to your home, you can use it to pound nails too.
> ...



F100 grip only has one wheel too..it's just how they were back then.  I would probably agree with the afpoint issue.  The f5 af points are black, f100 red.


----------



## Leica3 (Jun 9, 2013)

In my experience I settled on a two camera system (rangefinder) for my 35mm, which is what i shoot 80% of the time. I don't like to fuss or play with gear. Instead, I pick one type and master it. For me a 35mm rangefinder is lighter. If I am doing more methodical planned work such as portraiture, I will always grab my MF. 

I disagree with some posters who say that MF is not good for street work. When the camera is mastered and it becomes a natural extension of you, then MF can be just as quick, viable and in some cases more discreet. 

I know this doesn't help much, but I can't live without both. I guess if I was forced to choose, I would probably take a 35mm for its versatility.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 9, 2013)

Take a look at this photographer he shoots MF on the streets i shoot with 2 M4's and a Mamiya C330 + digital but not very often
ALEXEY TITARENKO | PHOTOGRAPHY


----------

