is Medium Format worth the HYPE?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ม.ค. 2024
- Have you been wondering if medium format is worth shooting against traditional 35mm?
In todays episode we will pit 35mm film against medium format film to see which format its the best! Is there a format that comes out on top? Can 35mm come close to the glorious look of medium format film? Let's find out!
This episode sponsored by: thedarkroom.com
BLOG: thedarkroom.com/35mm-vs-120-w...
📱IG: @calebknueven
☕️ Buy Me A Coffee: bmc.link/badflashes
📧 Email:
Badflashes@gmail.com
🖼️ Prints:
calebknueven.darkroom.tech
📷 Clever Supply Strap:
cleversupply.co?ref=MKAZ3 - code badflashes for 10% off
🎶 Music:
www.trackclub.com/referral-la...
🎒 Bag: Brevite:
Jumper www.brevite.co/?rfsn=6938463....
📷 prf.hn/click/camref:1100lAoqp
Cameras: Canon Eos1n & Pentax 67
Film: Kodak Gold ~ Lomo 800 ~ Portra 800
#35mmfilm #mediumformat #pentax - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.76[2/2] เดินมาสิบกว่าป่า วันนี้รู้แล้วว่าโจโฉกลัวอะไร!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R7Yor-t2Au0/mqdefault.jpg)
Disc Cam vs 8x10 glass plate next.
YESSSSSSS
You and Nick Carver need to form a film posse with those hats!
UUMMMM YESSSSS .... can you make that happen for us?
You live closer to him than me! I'm actually shocked you guys haven't collabed yet lol@@BadFlashes
I was in a Hat shop in NYC took all i could to muster up the balls NOT to buy one of those!
Jason has met him …but 🤷🏼
Few drinks that can change
When i used to photograph weddings in the 90’s with my Nikon F100, i would rent the 6x7 if i had large groups or big wedding party. After this i got into Hassey’s. I wish i still had them. The Pentax 6x7 is my dream camera right now, just looking for a good deal. Great Video!!!
oh thanks! Yeah you got to love that slap lol
Pretty sure I’ve commented this before but I just love the editing lately. Feels fresh and nothing like anyone else’s content
oh hell yeah. If you have posted it before... ill so take it again 🥰
Stopped by to say the same. Also, the musical choice 🤌 mwa!
Ah wonderful. So glad 🙏🏼🙌🏼🥳
I love all your videos, but this one was top tier for me. Stellar presentation and comparisons. Keep up the great content ❤
oh hells yeah ... thanks so much! I definitely wanted to put my all into it 🥰
Caleb and Jason, Jason and Caleb: A love story. What I like about 120 is that 8-16 120 or 16-32 220 and I can send it in. I seem to load up my 35mm and it takes me forever to get through 38 shots. Also the HUGE finders.
a love story for generations
@@BadFlashes We've seen the first act, the set up. Now you are in the second act, the confrontation. This is always the best part, but ends on a down note. This is your Empire Strikes Back. No pressure.
LOL. I bought a Diana’s mini last month. Half frame. 72 exposures!!!
Takes forever to get through it !! Oh My!!
But so much fun!
Great video. Loved the clear comparisons. Some ripper shots in there
Is 6x4.5 worth it or does it HAVE to be 6x7??
Thanks so much!!!!
645 is definitely worth it! I own one myself and definitely love it. All the comparisons wouldn’t 100% translate but if you want to get in the medium format it’s a cheaper way to start and finish. Lol
Damn bro watching your videos are sooooo dang enjoyable. This was good one ☝️ thanks!!
🥰🥰🥰🥰 this from the king!!!!
😭😭😭😭😭😭 thanks so much
Thank you a lot for this nice comparison 👍🏼 So nice to watch your emotional statements 😎
🥰🥰🥰🥰
I have paired up my 6x7 to a gfx50s for this very reason. The 105 2.4 and the Mitakon 65 1.4 give more or less the same DOF and FOV. Even though the GFX "Medium Format" sensor is smaller than 645. It is such a convenient combo to carry around. Well maybe not convenient in terms of weight...
oh yeah I so seee that
In my book the biggest strength of a GFX is that it will take some 135 format lenses beyond their official potential. Take a Helios 58/2, a Contax Planar 50/1.4, or even a Canon 50/1.2LTM in 1:1 crop and you're getting some bonus bokehliciousness. With the Pentax there's so many cinema projection lenses and large format lenses it can take, it's a gorgeous rabbit hole. The 105/2.4 Takumar is nice, but you can go so much further than that, there were double gauss design ~105/1.6 projection lenses by ISCO and Schneider or what I'm using now, a Kowa Super Prominar 114/1.8 used for IMAX before. If it can project a 65mm wide roll of film, it can take one ;) The only issue is figuring out the flange distances and finding something that fits within the range.
@@KNURKonesur For 135mm I shoot Nikon and use my 85 1.4 Ais and 135 2.0 on the GFX without any issues. Also some other lenses as well like a Contax 50mm 1.7
I shot exclusively digital up until late 2022 and jumped right into medium format with a Pentacon Six TL, but I also paired it up with a Kodak Retinette 1A. Brought both to Japan last February.
Pretty hooked on the medium format look, but I do want to dabble in 35mm panoramas. Probably will try for an ETRS and a 135W back or maybe might try adapting a 220 back to run 35mm.
Love the depth of field separation in medium format.
MEDIUM FORMAT IS AMAZING!!!!!!! I'm you jumped on board
For medium format, I use TLR cameras. Not as versatile with just one lens, but it's a very satisfying experience using those cameras. For 35mm I like the Canon 1N HS (I have three of them) which is the most satisfying camera to hold ever made. I also have a Nikon f4, f5, and f100. And I also love my 'plastic fantastic' Nikon N75 cameras which can even use the VR of modern Nikon f mount lenses. I like a mix of films, including Ilford, kodak, and once in a while goofy stuff like Lomo purple and adox ii. I shoot digital as well, and occasionally large format. I just like to have fun. By the way, you remind me of the guy in the Ford explorer advertisement who sees bear tracks and then goes to a restaurant. You look and sound similar and have the same impish grin.
I bet he's sexy 😝
Dann - try getting your hands on a Mamiya C series. The glass is excellent and interchangeable across all body models in the series.
Oh mamma Mia!!!!
@@BadFlashes here I go again…
@@BadFlashes you’ve reviewed RZ, 645, and of course the 7; to make the family complete I’d love to see you do an in-depth episode on the most awesome almost modular TLR in existence and relish in the wonderful but compact lenses…
I invested in medium format last year but eventually got out because the slight quality upgrade is not worth it considering the size of the camera you have to lug around. Most of my best photos come from a Canon EOS 7s with the entry level 50mm and 35mm. With a subtle dash of noise reduction in Lightroom the photos looks nearly as good as medium format and, from my perspective, the grain on the cheap lenses is just as dreamy as the medium format pics I took. Having said that, I preferred the 120 in all of your comparisons.
oh thanks! and I totally get where you are coming from for sure
Heck yeah it’s worth it! Especially if you are making big darkroom prints from the negative and not some computer file.
Go rock a Holga for some real fun! Or an RB 67!!
hells yeah .... you know what's up!
It's really just all about, "the look" for me. I light the tighter grain on 120, and the higher "resolution" 3d-pop kind of look you get out of 120. Having said that, I think a lot of the time 120 looks like digital with light grain added. I don't think it's hype, they are just different for me... Is 120 worth the cost... Nah, but I don't mess with it to be economical.
None of us would mess with this hobby if it was economical lol
When I first got back into shooting film at the beginning of last year, I slapped my 24-70 f/2.8 II on my almost 30-year old EOS 5. It was the first time that was used since 2008 and also the first time ever seen through a modern lens. The mark II glass has so much resolving power, even on 15-year old expired Gold 100, the sharpness rival something came out of my R5. Every since, I have not seen any lens from any of my 135 film camera resolve anywhere near as sharp, until I got my M3DS, my CLA'd Summitar is now just as sharp as what I had seen of that faithful shoot with the 24-70.
My problem with my Pentas 6x7, or even my RB67 is that even in the best condition, I still cannot nail focus as good as my Leica focusing patch.
Good old rangefinder, that’s what’s what! That is awesome you dusted off the old EOS
I really wondered if it was worth a medium format. So i just bit the bullet and got myself a Pentacon 6. Worth it ! Even Kentmere 400 looks good in 120 format
kentmere 400 is amazing in medium format
I use a Kiev 6c ttl , super similar as I believe my Kiev is based off of the pentacon six
Lovely cameras , vastly overshadowed by their fragility 😂 they’re big heavy and bulky but the internals weren’t made with the greatest quality and care so make sure you pay close attention to your frame spacing and shutter speeds !!
I’m wondering if your Canon lens has some haze developing in it. It’s quite common in that lens unfortunately and would explain the extreme blooming that seems to be happening.
For the Pentax, one of the greatest lenses nobody talks about is the 165mm. Cheers!
OH 165 ... I'll have to check it out.
also .. yeah I can totally see the Haze ... but that's the owners prob 😝
congrats on 30k subs brother.
Ahhhhhhhhhh thanks so much! :)
I mostly use a Kiev 6c ttl for medium format
But I also use a pretty rare Ansco automatic reflex 3.5 camera for my tlr
I have a Graflex 4x5 speed graphic I have a medium format back for
Zeiss ikon Nettar 6x9 folding camera
And a little ihagee duplex camera with a rollex medium format back on that as well
Solid collection for sure!
These days...if I shoot something regular 35mm...I do FF digital.
I prefer my film to be...different sizes and aspect ratios. When I shoot 35mm film, it is almost always in panoramic aspect, whether on my old Russian HorizonT swing lens, or I had a PressPan made which combines an old Nikon with a Mamiya Press lens...shoots a bit wider than Xpan.
Everything else, is Medium Format....6x6, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17.....
That's my current M.O.
Thank you for another GREAT presentation!!!
Hope you and yours have a great day and Mardi Gras season!!
( I live in NOLA).
OH SICK! NOLA
Thanks for the love 💕
I recently had the opportunity to put one big difference between 35 and 120 the test! I've looked at 35mm Ilford HP-5 pushed to 1600 vs 120 HP-5 pushed to 1600 in my Mamiya RB67, and I found that despite the fact I pushed that sucker super hard, there was almost no grain compared to 35mm. This was actually kind of disappointing to me because I'm one of those weirdos who likes grain in certain contexts. Nonetheless, I was overall impressed and very happy with how it turned out, and it goes to show that format CAN make a difference! I don't know if this has been the same for everyone, but that's my experience. What I choose depends more on my use case than preference. Am I shooting something that could benefit more from a larger framing? Do I want grain or not? Is the subject I'm shooting so special that the overall resolution and quality of medium format to do it justice? And sometimes, it's just a plain old difference of speed. This is especially true of bright light or dark night, moving vs non-moving target, etc... frankly, my F5 is a speed demon and has way more reliable shutter control and slow speed compared ridiculous amount of precision the T mode requires. Overall, if you're just trying to be a casual photographer who doesn't particularly care about the technical end of things, you maybe don't need a medium format. But if you're a serious hobbyist and/or someone who really wants expand their creative options, a medium format can be super worth it. Consider needs before investing!
Excellent video as always. I'm thinking maybe I should get a reasonably priced TLR, something along the lines of a Yashicaflex, just to get my feet wet in the Medium Format world
Ahhhh thanks 😊
Yashica is fantastic
Nothing like a definitive conclusion! 🤣 Good points, good comparison work. Another fun outing in the desert.
Glad you enjoyed it 🥳🥰
35mm film does not look like this. It's default sharpness and NR settings over sharpen the grain to make it more pronounced than it actually is while also smoothing out most details with NR. In fact at these settings, 35mm looks more like super 8mm or 16mm. Even with Fuji C200 you should be able to see details such as small cracks in buildings from 10-20 meters away and be able to read window sized signs from over 10m away. Most of the 35mm images also have a ton of color noise. I use both 35mm and 120 so it's irrelevant but this is not an equal comparison.
What do you suggest then?
@@BadFlashes I suggest coffee and churros. Idk about him tho
Do you have recommendations on where to buy a 67?
eBay maybe???
Facebook if you trust them????
Quality of the lens wide open or stopped down will differ from lens to lens. To compare 35 with 120 formats you need the same optical performance of the lens, otherwise you compare the format+lens performance of both lenses. Is the 50mm f/1.2 lens not very soft at f/1.2 and therefore not comparable with the 105mm f/2.4.
is that a question? haha
Overall the 50mm wide open preformed very well. The 28-70 not so much but look look. But yeah that 105 is amazing and hard to compete
Love this video. Your presentation is awesome! Your energy really keeps me engaged with the video and the topic. Really an enjoyable type of gear comparison videos!
It also keeps bringing me one step closer to getting into the film world. I want that Pentax 6x7 but fear that may be a silly move for my first film camera.
oh thanks so much! Im so glad you like the video ... and me 😝
I mean if know you would like the film journey it isn't a bad camera if you get one in good condition ... but you can always get a smaller medium format like a mamiya or Bronica that shoots 645 and save a bit of money
OR GO BIG BABY lol
As a Canon shooter, I had nice glass and one day I took off the dust on my Canon film SLR. 35mm film shot with the latest EF 85mm L 1.4 is surgical.
it really is
Honestly, everything you admitted was 100% right. However, for me the selling point of mf is that the geometry of the objects in the frame is slightly better and natural to the eye. I know that's a tini tiny detail but for me it is the ultimate defyning feature of 120 vs 135, though no one talks about it
Hey, if it works it works. Everyone has their own reason and all solid :) GO MF YO!!!!!!
For some reason I've ended up shooting mostly half frame (Pen FV), and medium format (500cm). It's a weird mix, but it sort of works out OK. Half frame Ektar still has plenty of detail. The main problem is the time it takes to finish a half frame roll, and the guilt of not taking any of the full frame gear out.
Hahaha makes total sense!
But you should go even bigger!!!!!!!!!!!
@@BadFlashes I've banned myself from 4x5 until next year!
Hahaha I get that
I need to do something like this with my 6x6 80m 2.8 vs 135 50mm 0.95
Yaya do et!!!!!
I miss my medium format camera. The grain is so much cleaner. I’m curious what size you got your scans in. I’ve noticed labs tend to keep 35/120 about the same size, so you really aren’t getting much more resolution from your 120 scan.
I Mirrorless scan… but you are also right. Same sensor size / MP
But medium format isn’t about the back end pixels. It’s the feeel baby
@@BadFlashes have you talked about how you do mirrorless scans anywhere? I need to look back at your videos. I've wanted to do that but the equipment I've looked into was beyond my budget.
While I agree with you somewhat- the difference is when you print from the negative in a wet lab darkroom ! Vs from a computer scan /file.
I do have a video. BUT it’s a bit outdated now. Might need to update
@@BadFlashes oh please do!
Great video!
Thanks! Glad yo dig it
That location would be a good set location for a movie about a dystopian future
100000000%
Thoughts on 67 vs 645 for a first medium format to invest in? Obviously, the legendary 105 lens cannot be understated in rendering and bokeh quality but wondering if the larger image size for print opportunities is worth almost 1.5x fewer shots (16 vs 10) with the price of film going up up up these days..? Also noting, there is something so inherently satisfying about shooting with the more mechanical feel of the 67 but if this is going to be for more potential professional use like weddings, family portraits, etc. would the autofocus option for the 645 override the rad vibes of 67? Thanks for the feedback, loving the channel!
I think 645 is totally enough for stuff like that… I didn’t engagement shoot with Mamiya 645 pro and loved it.
oh great, one more camera to look at..😅 had just narrowed to Pentax to keep it simple -- ahh the ever-growing options lol@@BadFlashes
Interesting scene at 10:38, looks like a set piece from Tough Guys
oh yeah ?????
@@BadFlashes Looks like the tender from the replica of Southern Pacific 4449 that was built for the film, pretty cool find!
If I can tell the difference in each photo without hesitation that kind of answers the question doesn’t it?
Nice photos. Especially the 120 ones. Sharpness, color and exposure were spot on. You have a lot of abandoned places by you it seems. I follow a film photo vlog from Ohio and they seem to have many abandoned places too.
Thanks so much! Yeah, Ohio definitely has its fill. I’ve been meaning to go back to check them out. :)
@@BadFlashes The film photographer I follow in Ohio, I always suggest that they make an art gallery or art center and restore the movie theatres I see abandoned in his videos.
The best part of this video is Caleb licking his lips when looking for shots
Hahahahaha you found me out
When shot with a good lens, low ISO film and well exposed image, I feel like the differences become harder to notice for sure. I have a milvus 50mm lens on my canon eos1 and it produces some marvellous images that rival what my Pentax 67 is capable of. I still prefer the look of the 67 lenses most of the time(and the relatively cheap cost of those lenses)
#truethattho
Damn, a milvus.
I'm loving the tiny little 40mm 2.8 on mine, plus a 90mm macro.
Boom booom
@@mikafoxx2717 oh nice! I’ve never shot macro on film before. How is that 90mm?
@@sneakingelephant
I rarely shoot macro, it's more of a portrait lens and film scanning lens in practice. I don't mind 2.8 aperture, I shoot most of my stuff at 5.6 anyways. I just don't like how most zooms render. I've sorta stopped using my 24-105 F4 L IS lens. The two primes do my 90% of what I want. The 90mm 2.8 is a sigma or Tamron macro lens, can't recall. Deep recessed front element makes glare a non-issue. The 40mm and 90 macro are very well behaved and very sharp. I really hate geometric distortion, and lateral chromatic aberration and such when my 5D classic and film cameras can't correct for it. Vignette is fine, usually it adds subtle extra subject focus to photos unless it's wide open on a 1.8.
You've got the best back round music.
Oh thanks 😊
I love picking music for my videos
Idk i think i like the 35 more, only cause it feels older. I 18:46 only do film for the old feel and the 120 looks too clean, i feel like i might as well use my d5200. But Im not a serious photographer at all.... not even close.
I mean I get that!
One camera away from being Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now… (I’m counting the video camera as well)
Hahahahaha
That’s who I’m trying to be 😂😝
Wait, you have your iPhone on you. That’s four! 📷📸📷📸
@somephotovideos hahaha that doesn’t count 😜
What about 645 cameras? It seems to me that this is a good alternative between grain preservation and medium-format purity
Definitely!! I love that format:)
You’re the guy who hangs out with the guy from the grainydays channel!!
We are known to be friends, yes lol
#GrainIsGood but yeah 120 is so clean! Great comparison. My biggest decision to shoot 120 over 35mm is that it's easier to finish a roll and not be stuck ona 35mm roll for so long.
I really should have put that on my list cuz …. Yeah … so so true
Even crop can get you lost of bokeh. Try the Viltrox 75mm 1.2! It’s incredible.(it’s equivalent to about 112mm on full frame.)
Totally
Knocking it out of the park!
Yay 😁
Are these off route 66 in ca?
I think so yeah. :)
It's all about print size. From Portra 160 and the best conversion techniques, you get ~24mp. If you're needing more resolution for bigger prints, you go MF. The other obvious use case is for high ISO where MF mitigates grain. Even then, for handheld in low light, a Tamron 35mm F1.8 VC with ISO 800 film is easier to hand hold in low light than a P67 with 105mm and ISO 3200.
Oh yeah … that’s the sauce!
@@BadFlashes Dood, the Tamron 35mm F1.8 VC is God tier. It's sharp as attack in the central area wide open, and it barely vignettes wide open. I've gotten sharp shots at half a second shutter speed most of the time and a quarter second almost every time! That Tammy + EOS 3 + Cinestill 800T = handheld shooting in full dark 😁
Also, random, using a Sigma 105mm Art taking lens (240 lp/mm resolution) with Adox CMS 20 II, then scanning with a 100mp GFX body and macro in composite mode yields ~80mp of real usable optical resolution on a USAF 1951 resolution test chart. So you can go beyond 24mp real-world resolution in digital conversions from 35mm, but the work to get there is crazy. Most often the taking lens is the limitation. The other cheat code is to darkroom print the 35mm frame, then scan the print. That process is far less "lossy" and you get maybe 40% more image data vs the very lossy direct conversion.
Great video as always!
When posting only on social media, it doesn’t matter really, even 110 looks good. Printing the images, I can see vast differences between the formats. What format makes you want to go out and shoot?
Totally!
and the answer is all formats :)
@@BadFlashes I’m glad you’re not a size king
My opinion? Buy a good used lens, and then buy a later film and cheap ff digital. Best of both. Nikon f90 + D610, Canon EOS 7 + 6D. Both great combos and a great lens stays great
But like digital hahaha
@@BadFlashes
Hey, you didn't shoot this video on film!
I'm allowed to cheat just a lil bit. I prefer film for black and white darkroom prints, but colour is too much a hassle, plus wildlife photos eat film for breakfast.
I got my 50 1.2 for I guess about ... $50? THIS YEAR. Crazy finds still happen, somehow.
Da fuck!?!?!? That’s crazy 😜
And awesome 🤩
@@BadFlashes Yeah!! It's not in perfect shape, but it works fine and even still has the hood.
Best explanation on medium format to 35mm yet.. not gonna lie, I like the 120 in most pictures taken.
Oh sick. So glad :)
Funny, the video drops exactly two days after I bought a sweet TLR to join the medium format hype. xD
Oh nice! I did it for you!
😘@@BadFlashes
GameBoy Camera vs APS-c next plz tanks
Hahahahaha yas!!!!!
...But some other people can't forget when 16 mm was simply amazing. Namastè.
16mm film. So totally
Congrats on the wedding!
Thank you!! 😊
(The following is from memory, from magazine articles 30-odd years ago. My memory is pretty good but it ain't perfect: I'll blame that for any errors in the following.)
Back in the 1980s and 90s Popular Photography magazine regularly published lens tests. I believe that the tests were well regarded, using Air Force resolution targets to measure the number of distinct parallel lines per millimeter each lens could resolve, for example. In general, the average 35mm prime lens often out performed the average medium format lens at similar apertures, and both often out performed large format lenses. The superiority of the larger formats came from two factors: the larger area of the bigger films, requiring less enlargement, and that the larger formats were more often used on tripods with leaf shutters and cable releases, greatly reducing vibration at the moment of exposure. Using 35mm on tripods with shutter releases and locking the mirror up (for SLRs,) made their photos much closer in quality to photos from the larger formats. The biggest tell-tale then, to my eye, was that tones (shades of gray in black and white,) were noticeably smoother in the larger formats.
Besides, does it really matter? Technically image quality is often not what makes a better photograph: maybe we should be more concerned with matching the gear we are using to the characteristics of the photos we want.
And have fun!!!!!
That whole "bigger better" discussion is missing the point so much :D The difference between medium format and 135 format is that you can use different lenses to different degrees. Stopping at the OEM vanilla lenses like the 105/2.4 Takumar or L series Canon lenses is the wrong way to go about comparisons, just barely touching the tip of the iceberg. Especially on a Pentax 67 which has a focal plane shutter so you can DIY modify and adapt a shit ton of lenses onto it. THAT's what makes 645 cameras and the P67 unique. Find an amazing lens and find a way to push it beyond the official design limitations :D
I think both can be true. I don’t think I’m missing the point at all. I’m siting differences in formats and how one could possibly get 35mm to “look and feel” like the attributes of 120. But your right Lens selection is another iceberg that I just didn’t have time to explore in a video like this
@@BadFlashes highly recommended, it's an amazing rabbit hole teaching how much more equipment existed and was used in the industry but didn't "survive" till now and using them changes thinking about photography kit as a whole :)
Drum scans please.
Hahaha maybe when I’m Peter McKinnon level
GFX 50s with Mitakon 65mm
Someday someday
In my opinion, justifying medium format is challenging. 35mm film is already costly these days, but medium format takes expense to another level! Despite its advantages like improved grain structure, resolution, dynamic range, and depth of field over 35mm, opting for digital with a fast lens could save a considerable amount of money in the long run. Personally, I'm not shooting film to solely achieve better resolution or depth of field. So, it's 35mm all the way!
If care about the resolution, dynamic range etc... just go digital.
GRAINNNNNNNNNN BABY
A decent 'L' lens (50f1.2L / 80f1.2L etc.) and fine grain developer will render incredible results that can be blown up to embarrassing sizes. 😀 No need for bulky cameras... 😛
Also, it looks like you're 28-70 may have Lens separation on the third element. Happened to mine when I kept it a little too close to the heater. 😞
Yeah. I think so :/
I can't tell you guys apart with those hats.
lol I’m the one with facial hair
Biggest advantage of medium format is you get to lick it.
damn, how did I miss that! I should hire you to write for me 😜
Medium format is worth it if you can afford the treat, more pixels does not mean better image. Each medium has there own touch to it. you can’t compare any. if you have time to slow down and plan accordingly, going up in a medium is worth a try
The short answer is yes. But a well done 35mm shot can be pretty impressive as well.
🥳🥳🥳
@@BadFlashes I like to comment when I start a video and then I realized that’s exactly what you guys determined in the video 😂
Medium Format in this Economy?! Half frame will have to do for me.
oh shit ... yeah I see that
One thing I noticed right off was 120’s ability to hold highlights a little better. I think another diff between 120 and 35 is the larger format’s ability to get the same field of view but with more compression. I think that’s a characteristic of larger formats a lot of people don’t talk about.
That said, shoot your F3 with the 85/1.4 AI-S, Nikon’s legendary “Cream Machine”. I think it would give MF a run for its money!
Good video, as always!
oh awesome, thanks so much! 🤟🏼
It is.
😝
Yeah, medium format would be untouchable IF they sold medium lenses at f/1.2 and stuff. But... they don't. So faster lenses can just make up for all the advantages and cancels out. You can get the same shallower DOF, and you can also get less visible grain by using your faster lens to shoot lower ISO in the same light conditions.
Yep!!! 🍕🚀📷
12:09 “Ben youre FIRED!!! p.s. It’s a girl” - I have so many questions
I know right!!!!!!! hahaha
Lenses matter most, then format. Printing latitude is also huge difference.
All true :)
@@BadFlashes great video btw!
Yes.
YASS
For some reason, I have the feeling that Alice Cooper went to that school. 😜
you got that tooooo
i only shoot formats that i can reload myself. 16mm minolta is King, 110 is second. 35mm of course, but 120?… nope! ive rolled 70mm into 120 and it ISN’T WORTH IT. i now loathe the format.
do you mean roll yourself???? How can you not reload medium format?
Look at those two handsome boyscouts!
😘😘😘
Yes, and I don't watch youtube that weren't shot on imax, and by that I mean no.
Someday I’ll do that
is bigger always better? I wouldn't know.. you asking the wrong guy... sadly.
awwww ... sorry
Can’t believe you think 6x17 is the largest medium format has gone. You’ve never seen 6x24? You get 3 shots per roll, and it’s ridiculous 1:4 aspect ratio.
I mean … I don’t think I said it caps at x17 I just said the most popular and accessible format
You’re showing movie format 35mm for the comparison.
Is that a question? lol
I don’t have any cine film in this episode
@@BadFlashes No but when you’re showing the difference between 35mm and 120. The graphic you use is 35mm oriented vertically using 4-perf. That standard 35mm for movies. 135 stills is 35mm oriented horizontally using 8-perforations.
Print size? 35mm isn't close.
totally
Galen Rowell disagrees...
Went to Fuji GFX because I was paying $3/click for 6x7 on Portra 400. That's triple the price of Instax and no print to show. Couldn't do it anymore. I still shoot a bit of medium format black and white that I process at home, but yeah -- I think my color medium format days are over, economically.
The fastest Pentax loader in the west …..
honestly ... I hope I keep up that loading streak lol
you look like starlord
🫠😝 not the first I’ve heard this … but don’t hate hearing it at alllll 😍
How creepy is finding matresses in an abanded buildings?
it's more comfy than anything 😜
Meanwhile Jason is shooting large format
Hahahahaha
I DRINK PEPSI!!!
Haha weird
Jk
hahaha np I won't argue with a guy that probably still believes in santa
jk @@BadFlashes
the heart says yes, the wallet says no.... so i will stick to 135.... for now
yeah I get that .... I could have made this video 10 more min's by diving into just that lol
720p vs 4k 🤷♂️
hahahahahaha close
psh, shooting anything less than 12x20" isn't real photography anyways
Hahahahahahahahaha
Your lenses cant compete with good MF lenses
Put a 50APO on your M6 to make a real comparison.....
If only I could have gotten those
Dude, You need to stop copying me and my "Jason-esk" counterpart. Or Maybe I'm "Jason"
...which of you owned the 4 runner? We just don't have cool hats like you big bosses (and we shoot mostly digital)
sorry ... I'll try 😝
@@BadFlashes One of these days, off of some dusty, California desert road in an abandoned building, we will meet. When we do, don't you dare laugh at my Canon AE-1
An Hype? 120 exists for over 120 years...
Still Hype baby!
Hey uhhhhh marry me?
Damn, already taken… maybe next time 😝