120 Film Photography | Is Beautiful Medium Format Worth It?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Mamiya RZ67 Vs Canon EOS 50E (EOS 55) Film Portrait Photography | 120 vs 35mm
📸 My Lightroom Presets - geni.us/ccUXB
🎥 My Slog 3 & Cinema LUT's - geni.us/nNai
📚 Sony Camera Guides - geni.us/Jco1vd
🔧 My Gear List - geni.us/qtfMjre
🐇 How I effortlessly organise & cull my photos for free - bit.ly/3Rm0cta
📸 Follow My Instagram - bit.ly/47CtvyL
@MitchLally & Instagram - / mitchlally
@CARLO.OBRIEN & Instagram - / carlo.obrien
Model Lydia - / lydiajwootton
Model Katie - / katie_swaffer
🔧 Gear Used in this Video
SONY A6700 - geni.us/YKnLw
SONY A7IV - geni.us/eAA0
SIGMA 24MM - geni.us/CYyy
SIGMA 85MM - geni.us/CoSuuA
ZVE1 (BTS) - geni.us/iC0eZ
SIGMA 24-70 - geni.us/Kgg0
AUDIO - geni.us/J5ZmLu
🔧 GEAR THAT I USE
▸ Main Photography Camera - geni.us/eAA0
▸ Main Video Camera Camera - geni.us/eAA0
▸ My Vlog/Photo/Video Camera - geni.us/YKnLw
⬇️ SONY Full Frame Lenses I Love
▸ My Most Used Lens - geni.us/Kgg0
▸ My Favourite Portrait lens - geni.us/xXoA
▸ My Favourite (BUDGET) Portrait lens - geni.us/SRuhEjf
▸ My Favourite 85mm - geni.us/CoSuuA
▸ My Favourite Wide Angle Prime - geni.us/ms9u1fU
▸ My Favourite Wide Angle Zoom - geni.us/7YkvXB0
▸ My Favourite Telephoto Zoom - geni.us/sJhCnJ3
⬇️ SONY APSC Lenses I Love
▸ My Most Used Lens - geni.us/8v0AR
▸ My Most Used Lens (BUDGET OPTION) - geni.us/CBvqKt
▸ My Favourite Portrait lens - geni.us/evHC7
▸ My Favourite 85mm (56mm APSC) - geni.us/k2azJw0
▸ My Favourite Wide Angle Prime - geni.us/VbSKrf
▸ My Vlogging Lens - geni.us/ejUROqC
▸ My Favourite Telephoto Zoom - geni.us/sJhCnJ3
🎒 What's In My Professional Camera Bag
▸ My Camera Bag - geni.us/UAE6fvO
▸ My Photography Camera - geni.us/eAA0
▸ My Main Lens - geni.us/Kgg0
▸ My Prime Lens - geni.us/CkjVuXQ
▸ My Flash - geni.us/YuuBt
▸ My SD Cards - geni.us/W1YBya
🎒 My "TRAVEL" Camera Bag
▸ My Camera Bag - geni.us/UAE6fvO
▸ My Compact Vlog/Photo/Video Camera - geni.us/YKnLw
▸ My Main Lens - geni.us/8v0AR
▸ My EDC Lens - geni.us/PAqBs
▸ My Vlog Lens - geni.us/ejUROqC
▸ My Telephoto Lens - geni.us/sJhCnJ3
▸ My SD Cards - geni.us/mGZjY
▸ My Mist Filters - geni.us/eE4IkU
▸ My ND Filters - geni.us/vy49Q3
▸ My Matt Box - geni.us/u2IIOxZ
▸ My Lav Mics - geni.us/J5ZmLu
▸ My On Camera Mic - geni.us/TNDA
▸ My Studio Mic - geni.us/EBQ6
▸ My Studio Light - geni.us/qwHQoy
▸ My Soft Box - geni.us/VIka
▸ My Tripod - geni.us/PgvWsV0
✖ Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries ✖
creativeculture.au@gmail.com
#120film #35mm #film
6x7 is way more than double the size of 35mm with regards to surface area. 6 x7 film, 60mm x 70mm = 4200mm, 35mm 24x36=864. 4200/864 = 4.86 times larger
Oh really so a 105mm 6x7 is more like 25mm in full frame field of view? Doesn’t sound right to me
I am talking about the surface area of the film, what do lenses have to do with anything?@@gerardneedham
Dont sweat it. He ll surely word it more carefully next time. I also hope he reads your comment carefully cause it deserves more than the answer you got.
@@gerardneedham 105mm on a 6x7 is approximately 53mm equiv. Crop factor is ALWAYS based off the diagonal. So 2x the diagonal, but far more than 2x in surface area. That's why for example a micro four thirds sensor is 2x crop even though it's 1/4 the size.
@@iamnarval Seriously, if you go on a public forum you might want to get your facts straight along with the technical details and their description.
35 mm is 8.64 square cm, 67 is 42, that isn't just twice the size, it's 4.8 times the size, nearly 5 times as large. It's a huge difference. Use ilford 3200 on each and on 35 mm the grain looks like sand on 67 not so noticeable. On 645, for me, goldilocks... perfect. I tend to grab 645 for walkabouts with slower paced shoots, 35 for run and gun. I can print to 20" with 35 mm but 645, gorgeous as large as my 24" printer will go. 67 when I want ultimate tonal transitions, resolution and print size. I rarely take the 67 in the field and in studio it lives on a rolling stand. I'm selling my 6x6, don't like the camera or ratio.
Oh thanks for the information math isn’t my strong suit
Mine either. The bottom line is way more surface area means more gratdual tonal transitions, better resolution/ destail, smaller relative grain. When I am doing a shoot, I chose between 35 and 645,66, 67 based on that as well as ease, speed of use, interchangeable lenses. @@gerardneedham
Nice video. I shoot both with a Pentax 67ii and nikon f6. Let me just say that shooting with the Pentax was a game changer for my landscape photography. But, After a few years of shooting the Pentax I hardly pick it up anymore. I think I'm going back to 35mm full time and sticking with that aspect ratio and format. Reasons for me are cost, size/weight/ grain/ aesthetic. The 120 scans are almost looking too digital to me. I also print a lot of my work in home and have done 35mm large. It just looks great and has a vibe. If I want clean images I'll shoot digital. Many times I have backpacked and hiked far distances to waterfalls lugging around the pentax. Im over those days lol
Yeah that’s my thing with medium format is that it’s too clean, I have been loving portra 160 and using my home scanner and the files look so much better. If I want a dead clean image I’ll use my Sony ahahah
@@gerardneedham If you are so obsessed with too clean images why don't you just shoot everything with a cheap Kodak instamatic camera. I guess you would absolutely hate the B&W portraits and lanscapes I shoot on 4X5 film. I don't scan those images, I print them the old way with my Omega enlarger in a darkroom. Of course they don't look digital because there are zero pixels in any of the images.
I started shooting 35mm film again a year ago and have a nice little vintage camera and lens collection. But I just picked up a Hasselblad 500 with 3 lenses so now I’m one roll into my medium format adventure! Thanks for the video.
That’s epic man
Enjoyed this video. I usually keep 35mm Portra 400 and Ektar 100 at home, but it is a rare occasion I use it because after developing, printing, and scanning, each exposure has a cost of about $1 USD or more.
I generally prefer medium format digital cams. I can work close to a subject and obtain a shallow depth of field - but because my distance from the subject allows me to stop down a stop or two, I can maintain sharpness + contrast without the "softness" that many lenses exhibit wide open.
Although, some of these differences become less noticeable when working with new gear. Computer aided lens designs, advanced coatings and lens correction profiles do amazing things.
Yeah film prices are insane now, and a lot of people have stop shooting film
I’m going to start shooting by film and a got here.
That’s awesome
6x7 is almost 5x the size of 35mm, not 2x.
is it? Then why is a 105mm about a 50mm full frame feild of view
@@gerardneedham you’re confusing film negative sizes and lens focal lengths.
35mm film negative is 24mm X 36mm.
6x7 film negative is 56mm X 67mm.
I'm currently putting 2 rolls of Delta 3200 through both my 120 TLR and 35mm SLR, be interested to see how they come out, but the reduced grain on the 120 TLR could be the clincher for me. However also found the camera costs a big difference, my Canon 300V was £25
Yeah some of these old canon 35mm cameras are a steal
Sick video brah! Thanks for having me shoot with you man.
Bro thank you for helping out bro, 120 shots slap
Kudos for taking on this subject and comparison, Gerard.👍 Seldom a YT subject. Before digital, I shot 35mm film on Nikon and Pentax film cams, and medium format film on a twin lens reflex (Roliflex). Film rated 800 is fast (grainy) to begin with. Grain is an emulsion characteristic, same for all formats for a given film stock (particles per area unit the same). Check negatives under a magnifying glass - should see no grain difference. At same image magnification 35 and 6X7 should be the same grain-wise. It is not that 35mm film is inherently more grainy. When 35 is enlarged more to get the same size image as from 6x7 then you will, of course, see more (magnified) grain.
Image resolution, lens quality, depth of field, field of view, and ergonomics in vid all valid points, well presented and illustrated. How negatives are scanned also a factor. (Still beats the darkroom film to chemical print process thing😁.)
Can’t think of commercial projects that could not be met by today’s digital gear (including large format digital). Still, shooting some film, IMO, is a good way to expand one’s skills and experience. Cheers!
Yeah I was trying to explain the grain size and magnification but the video just got to long ahahaha, had to cut it out unfortunately.
But the short way you explained it would of worked. I also cut the part about my new Mirrorless scanner, keen to see if I can get more punch out of the 35mm negatives, for commercial work it’s a more creative decision, and I’m not shooting film at a boring job like a building site ahahah.
My friends dad recently showed me some chemical prints and they look awesome on 35mm and 120, so more to learn more to do
Thanks heaps for the kind words
@@gerardneedham I bet your scanning process would make a fine video. Lots to cover.
Nice vid and comparison 👍, gonna try a newly acquired bronica 6x7 in a few days afyer a year shooting 35mm and can't wait to see the results.
Awesome mate keen to see the results
great vid.. thanks for letting me press the shutter
Churring, I’ll airdrop you the photos when we are in Japan this weekend 🥹
Super dope the canon eos 50 e seems like a steal
Oh yeah man, nobody talks about it as it doesn’t look cool
Wow! These are so cool! What film was use to shoot the first set of images? And would you use medium format for weddings?
We used portra 800 and lomo 800 yeah I’ve been considering get a medium format for weddings
For me, it’s not the resolution or size of the negative or grain made me to switch from 35mm to 120. The real issue for me with the 35mm is its boring aspect ratio especially in the portrait mode.
Yeah the medium format aspect ratios are great
I usually crop and its fine.
I wish we'd talk about lenses in terms of angle of view instead of focal length.
Yeah that would be nice but you get so many different field of views with different focal length with different aspect ratios
@@gerardneedham I think if you used the angle producing the circular lens image, you don't have to think about focal length, and people can figure out what the angle means for their particular aspect ratio. I literally can hold out my arms to a certain angle and it helps me visualize what portion of what I can see will be in the picture.
What’s curious Land Rover badge. 0:20 😂
🤪
good video but you don't show the images for long enough, maybe hold the images longer on screen, we don't need to see you talking or b roll, would rather be looking at the images side by side. trying to take in all the differences in detail. oh and typo spotted, "FEILD" lol :p
Yeah slightly dyslexic here 🖖 ahahahahah
You can always just pause to see the photos longer, I used to leave them longer than 3 seconds but got to many complaints, so I guess majority rules right.
Thanks for the support