Re: 35mm vs. MF

[Joe Berenbaum <joe-b@dircon.co.uk>]

At 15:02 09/08/97 -0700, you wrote:
>     Ted,     
>     Thanks for your honest view on the matter of 35mm vs MF format in the 
>     art world.  I had orginally asked the question after being told by a 
>     gallery director that they had not exhibited any 35mm work over the 
>     last year they could remember.  It had all been MF or larger.  Their 
>     comment was a little disappointing to me when I wanted to pursue 35mm 
>     work.  I find that MF on a tripod in urban scenes even without people 
>     in the frame is frustrating with the added weight, cumbersome setup 
>     and more time required to capture images.  I am just trying to figure 
>     out what is the best combination of equipment to achieve "quality" 
>     prints without the hassle factor of MF or large format gear.  It 
>     appears Leica is the answer with the great performance, especially at 
>     low light conditions but some loss of film latitude when images are 
>     enlarged for gallery hanging.     
>     Any other thoughts out there on my ramblings?
>     Ken

Just one observation; there are folding MF cameras to be found that give
negatives of 6 x 4.5, 6 x 6, or 6 x 9 sizes; these can have coupled
rangefinders and coated Tessar or Tessar clone lenses. Some later square
format Super Ikontas and the Agfa Super Isolette even have interlock so you
can wind on without looking in a red window at the back to see the frame
number. I have a couple of such cameras and intend to try some urban scenes
with them at some point. These cameras will slip into a coat pocket so they
are quite convenenient especially when compared to other larger and heavier
MF options. Using one of these is much the same as using an early classic
35mm camera- it's just bigger, and you have to cock the shutter. For someone
who doesn't mind a standard lens, such a camera might be worth considering.
The film could all go in the same pocket as the Sekonic L308B.

Joe Berenbaum