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!!!
P67 is great, almost as "convenient" as 35 mm, but when I shot Velvia 50, locked down hard on tripod, mirror locked... The detail goes on forever! I'm planning to scan some, but will do in maybe 4 or more DSLR shots. I don't have the Nikon 120 scanner..
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.
@@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.
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...
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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!!
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
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 !!
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
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
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.
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
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
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!
You really make some great videos bro.. Thank you! I think you left out slide film though in 35 for grain free enlargements. You guys go up to Bishop, so I wonder if you ever checked out Galen Rowell’s ‘Mountain light Gallery’ It is closed now since 2018 or so. He was a nature / adventure photographer and shot a lot in the Sierra, mainly on Nikon, and mainly on Fuji slide film. I bought an RA4, Fuji Crystal Archive print blown up from one of his 35mm slide film shots that is 36x54 inches, and the sharpness and detail is incredible.
I really like the perspective of the longer medium format lens, while keeping the wide field of view of a shorter 135 lens. It's really apparent when the field of view is normal to wide, say 35-50mm equivalent, and the subject is close to the camera. The shorter lens will have some distortion and the subject appears to poke out of the frame, but this effect is absent with the longer medium format lens.
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.
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.
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)
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
I have a 24" printer and 35 mm is fine to 16" especially after running topaz gigapixel ai. But it gets blown away by 67 and even 645, the sweet spot for me, with larger prints. And grain on 35 is huge on 3200, like grains of sand, but in 645 or 67, sweet. I don' t use 3200 in 35 mm, but it's one of my fav portrait stocks in the other 2. Cost per shot is vastly different eg, 33 cents vs a dollar for hp5. What I don't use is the slide film I shot for 40 years because if I want crazy sharp and clean, I'll just shoot digital.Same with a crazy fine grain b&w in 67. I go to fp4 or hp5 to retain the feel of grain. I have 2 mamiya 645 pro tl kits, power/plastic crank, wlf elf. Stripped, it's easily carried all day and with a metered elf, 28 m equiv lens, zone focused.... it's a mf point and shoot for street with 2 fps winder.
Not to forget the creative possibilities of medium format ar bigger... a framed positive, or contact printing from a huge 6x9 negative or alternative processes like cyanotypes from the bigger negative ...
As someone who has used 6x6, 6x7 and 35mm: Film format grain was less noticable in 120 film images vs. 35mm. Modern digital sensors - depending on type used- will show differences (noise) when cropped with smaller sizes at a disadvantage vs. the 40+ megapixel sensors gaining popularity and affordability. If film vs. film I still own medium format and 35mm but use 35mm more due to portability. I still prefer medium format for portraits when using film. If scanning images for viewing on small screens, I would say buying medium format is a waste of money.
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).
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
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?
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
@@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.
#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.
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.
@@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!
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.
It is a given that you can pack more subject image data on a medium format frame than you can with a 35mm frame, At that level of comparison, bigger is always better. However, most uses of film photography these days do not take advantage of the additional information in a MF image. A large percentage of film users shoot an image, have the film scanned, convert it to a positive image, then post it to video, on a phone, a computer or something similar. Those end uses of that image will rarely use the information from a 35mm film frame, and will never benefit from MF. The minority of folks who make, or have made, larger prints from scanned film may marginally benefit from a larger negative, but the digital processing used will often negate any significant, visible advantage of MF. For the relative tiny group of people make prints in a darkroom, a print up to 8x10 inches is not going to show much difference, but for traditional prints larger than 8x10, or if taken on high speed, coarse grain film, MF will show a huge image difference in a final print. Conclusion: Much 120 roll film is used for no rationale purpose apart from the pleasure the user gets from using MF equipment.
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 :)
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.
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... 😛
(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.
i see many photographers say "bokeh is for newbies" then glaze a medium format camera "for the bokeh" like dawg if you can buy a medium format camera you ain't a noobie or just stoopidly rich.
@@BadFlashes yeah i love bokeh too! saying it is just for shitters is dumb, and since I'm a hobbyist, who cares? I'm tryna save for a 70-200 GM (1), the 2 is too expensive and almost has no stabilization
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
Because DSLRs would inherit 35mm format due to sensor sizes. Not possible to produce a medium format sensor for any affordable price. In addition, 35mm images were bigger and better than early digital. Early digital was -and still is- good for immediate internet posts that did not need large images.
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)
@@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
Disc Cam vs 8x10 glass plate next.
YESSSSSSS
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
P67 is great, almost as "convenient" as 35 mm, but when I shot Velvia 50, locked down hard on tripod, mirror locked... The detail goes on forever!
I'm planning to scan some, but will do in maybe 4 or more DSLR shots. I don't have the Nikon 120 scanner..
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
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 🙏🏼🙌🏼🥳
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!
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
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
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
Do you have recommendations on where to buy a 67?
eBay maybe???
Facebook if you trust them????
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 🥰
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!
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 😝
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
it depends on the subject when it comes to photography @ should i use film or digital photography? and the camera itself as well.
🙌🏼
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!
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!
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 !!
Love P6 but watch out, she's a diva.
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
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
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!
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
Damn bro watching your videos are sooooo dang enjoyable. This was good one ☝️ thanks!!
🥰🥰🥰🥰 this from the king!!!!
😭😭😭😭😭😭 thanks so much
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
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
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
You really make some great videos bro.. Thank you!
I think you left out slide film though in 35 for grain free enlargements. You guys go up to Bishop, so I wonder if you ever checked out Galen Rowell’s
‘Mountain light Gallery’ It is closed now since 2018 or so.
He was a nature / adventure photographer and shot a lot in the Sierra, mainly on Nikon, and mainly on Fuji slide film.
I bought an RA4, Fuji Crystal Archive print blown up from one of his 35mm slide film shots that is 36x54 inches, and the sharpness and detail is incredible.
No way!!!! That’s sick! I bet it was nice and sharp. I’ve never seen the gallery unfortunately.
I really like the perspective of the longer medium format lens, while keeping the wide field of view of a shorter 135 lens. It's really apparent when the field of view is normal to wide, say 35-50mm equivalent, and the subject is close to the camera. The shorter lens will have some distortion and the subject appears to poke out of the frame, but this effect is absent with the longer medium format lens.
🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
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
congrats on 30k subs brother.
Ahhhhhhhhhh thanks so much! :)
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!
Nothing like a definitive conclusion! 🤣 Good points, good comparison work. Another fun outing in the desert.
Glad you enjoyed it 🥳🥰
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.
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 😜
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!!!!!!
Damn those Pentax 67 images look great. And have been tempted often to buy one just to try that 105mm f2.4
It is dope for sure 👍🏼
The best part of this video is Caleb licking his lips when looking for shots
Hahahahaha you found me out
I need to do something like this with my 6x6 80m 2.8 vs 135 50mm 0.95
Yaya do et!!!!!
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.
I have a 24" printer and 35 mm is fine to 16" especially after running topaz gigapixel ai. But it gets blown away by 67 and even 645, the sweet spot for me, with larger prints. And grain on 35 is huge on 3200, like grains of sand, but in 645 or 67, sweet. I don' t use 3200 in 35 mm, but it's one of my fav portrait stocks in the other 2. Cost per shot is vastly different eg, 33 cents vs a dollar for hp5. What I don't use is the slide film I shot for 40 years because if I want crazy sharp and clean, I'll just shoot digital.Same with a crazy fine grain b&w in 67. I go to fp4 or hp5 to retain the feel of grain. I have 2 mamiya 645 pro tl kits, power/plastic crank, wlf elf. Stripped, it's easily carried all day and with a metered elf, 28 m equiv lens, zone focused.... it's a mf point and shoot for street with 2 fps winder.
Oh totally. 💯 to this!!!!!
My 645 is with me in a trip now
Thank you a lot for this nice comparison 👍🏼 So nice to watch your emotional statements 😎
🥰🥰🥰🥰
You’re the guy who hangs out with the guy from the grainydays channel!!
We are known to be friends, yes lol
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!
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:)
Not to forget the creative possibilities of medium format ar bigger... a framed positive, or contact printing from a huge 6x9 negative or alternative processes like cyanotypes from the bigger negative ...
More for sure!
As someone who has used 6x6, 6x7 and 35mm:
Film format grain was less noticable in 120 film images vs. 35mm.
Modern digital sensors - depending on type used- will show differences (noise) when cropped with smaller sizes at a disadvantage vs. the 40+ megapixel sensors gaining popularity and affordability.
If film vs. film
I still own medium format and 35mm but use 35mm more due to portability.
I still prefer medium format for portraits when using film.
If scanning images for viewing on small screens, I would say buying medium format is a waste of money.
🙌🏼🫡🎞️🥯 1000%!
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 💕
Are these off route 66 in ca?
I think so yeah. :)
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
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.
#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
You've got the best back round music.
Oh thanks 😊
I love picking music for my videos
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!
If I can tell the difference in each photo without hesitation that kind of answers the question doesn’t it?
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
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
Best explanation on medium format to 35mm yet.. not gonna lie, I like the 120 in most pictures taken.
Oh sick. So glad :)
That location would be a good set location for a movie about a dystopian future
100000000%
It is a given that you can pack more subject image data on a medium format frame than you can with a 35mm frame, At that level of comparison, bigger is always better. However, most uses of film photography these days do not take advantage of the additional information in a MF image. A large percentage of film users shoot an image, have the film scanned, convert it to a positive image, then post it to video, on a phone, a computer or something similar. Those end uses of that image will rarely use the information from a 35mm film frame, and will never benefit from MF. The minority of folks who make, or have made, larger prints from scanned film may marginally benefit from a larger negative, but the digital processing used will often negate any significant, visible advantage of MF. For the relative tiny group of people make prints in a darkroom, a print up to 8x10 inches is not going to show much difference, but for traditional prints larger than 8x10, or if taken on high speed, coarse grain film, MF will show a huge image difference in a final print. Conclusion: Much 120 roll film is used for no rationale purpose apart from the pleasure the user gets from using MF equipment.
Yeah that's a fair point. I know I love the experience of using medium format cameras
Knocking it out of the park!
Yay 😁
Great video!
Thanks! Glad yo dig it
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.
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 :)
Congrats on the wedding!
Thank you!! 😊
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
Drum scans please.
Hahaha maybe when I’m Peter McKinnon level
GFX 50s with Mitakon 65mm
Someday someday
Whatsup with all these film dudes only driving Lexus? Do they come with like a film fridge or something?
Hahaha I don’t have one. I have a civic lol
Meanwhile Jason is shooting large format
Hahahahaha
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
I definitely love working with medium format when appropriate.
Yes!!
It’s so good
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 :/
(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!!!!!
It is.
😝
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 😜
i see many photographers say "bokeh is for newbies" then glaze a medium format camera "for the bokeh" like dawg if you can buy a medium format camera you ain't a noobie or just stoopidly rich.
Bokeh !!!!🤩😆
@@BadFlashes yeah i love bokeh too! saying it is just for shitters is dumb, and since I'm a hobbyist, who cares?
I'm tryna save for a 70-200 GM (1), the 2 is too expensive and almost has no stabilization
Lenses matter most, then format. Printing latitude is also huge difference.
All true :)
@@BadFlashes great video btw!
YES
Yas
...But some other people can't forget when 16 mm was simply amazing. Namastè.
16mm film. So totally
Medium Format in this Economy?! Half frame will have to do for me.
oh shit ... yeah I see that
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!!! 🍕🚀📷
I can't tell you guys apart with those hats.
lol I’m the one with facial hair
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 😂
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
When the canon 5d2 came out I said, hey film, suck it. I had a pentax 6x7. So sick of film.
Oh nooooo 😝
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.
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
is bigger always better? I wouldn't know.. you asking the wrong guy... sadly.
awwww ... sorry
Yes.
YASS
grain town haha, great video
Thanks 👍
Yes, and I don't watch youtube that weren't shot on imax, and by that I mean no.
Someday I’ll do that
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.
There must be a reason the last professional film cameras were 35mm 😅.
lol 😂 good point
Because DSLRs would inherit 35mm format due to sensor sizes.
Not possible to produce a medium format sensor for any affordable price.
In addition, 35mm images were bigger and better than early digital. Early digital was -and still is- good for immediate internet posts that did not need large images.
Right on… those MF bad boy sensors still be pricy
For some reason, I have the feeling that Alice Cooper went to that school. 😜
you got that tooooo
12:09 “Ben youre FIRED!!! p.s. It’s a girl” - I have so many questions
I know right!!!!!!! hahaha
Look at those two handsome boyscouts!
😘😘😘
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
How creepy is finding matresses in an abanded buildings?
it's more comfy than anything 😜