Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] LF vs MF - a rebuttal

Subject: [OM] LF vs MF - a rebuttal
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:31:51 -0800 (PST)
>I've always thought of MF as combining the worst features of
>35mm (noisy, no lateral/angular movements) with the worst
>features of LF (big, heavy, expensive film & lenses).

>Not to put down any MF fans out there, but I think one reason
>a lot of 35mm folks are drawn to MF is familiarity with the
>basic SLR concept and FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about
>bellows, film-holders, etc.

Ok, I'm not going to let this slide...  If MF has the worse of
both worlds, it also has the best.  A modern MF wondertank is a
user-friendly 35mm camera with bigger film.  It gives better
resulting image quality than a 35mm could ever dream of giving
(based on film size and magnification ratios).

LF (4x5 and above) might help drive us to make better pictures,
but that's a little backwards.  If you can't make a good picture
with 35mm, you sure aren't going to make a good picture with LF.
 That's like saying that all I need is to get a Palm Pilot and
I'll be organized.

LF has its place.  It is a good format--one of which I
tremendously enjoy.  However, there is a 90% rule that applies. 
If roll-film cameras (regardless of format) serve 900f my
needs better than LF, I must go with the 90% rule.  Granted,
there are times that 4x5 is the best way to go, but do I
compromise on the 90% just to get the 10%?

As much as I like 35mm for the convenience, costs and size, I
find myself spending too much time trying to overcome the
weeknesses of the format.  The weeknesses do occasionally
include compositional things where lens shifts would be
beneficial, but mostly are size related.  Size does matter!

I know, I'm preaching to the choir.

With LF, it is imperitive to have a second system.  LF is only
suitable for certain types of photography.  That means that my
second system would be either 35mm or MF or even digital.  Now
I'm carrying TWO systems around again.  Carry only one of the
two systems and you are bound to either miss something (because
of setup time and complexity) or compromise on image quality
because you didn't want to carry two systems on that hike.

For me, I don't see going to MF as a F.U.D. issue or even a
lazyness issue.  I just know how I work, see, and compose.  All
the time in the world isn't going to help my compositions much. 
Either I get it nailed in the first few seconds or it won't
happen.  Yes, I alter my compositions/framing extensively in the
darkroom, but as a couple of others on the list know, I rarely
print the same picture the same way twice.  But that's all in
interpretation.  I hate it when I so tightly compose my pictures
in the camera that it doesn't leave me any flexibility in
printing.

AG-Schnozz

I'm still waiting for compelling arguments for/against the
darkroom or MF purchase.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz