is Medium Format worth the HYPE? 

Disc Cam vs 8x10 glass plate next.

You and Nick Carver need to form a film posse with those hats!

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!!!

Pretty sure I’ve commented this before but I just love the editing lately. Feels fresh and nothing like anyone else’s content

I love all your videos, but this one was top tier for me. Stellar presentation and comparisons. Keep up the great content ❤

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.

Damn bro watching your videos are sooooo dang enjoyable. This was good one ☝️ thanks!!

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.

Thank you a lot for this nice comparison 👍🏼 So nice to watch your emotional statements 😎

Nothing like a definitive conclusion! 🤣 Good points, good comparison work. Another fun outing in the desert.

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...

Great video. Loved the clear comparisons. Some ripper shots in there Is 6x4.5 worth it or does it HAVE to be 6x7??

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 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.

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 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.

You’re the guy who hangs out with the guy from the grainydays channel!!

congrats on 30k subs brother.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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!

Great video!

The best part of this video is Caleb licking his lips when looking for shots

it depends on the subject when it comes to photography @ should i use film or digital photography? and the camera itself as well.

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!

Do you have recommendations on where to buy a 67?

Damn those Pentax 67 images look great. And have been tempted often to buy one just to try that 105mm f2.4

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.

Knocking it out of the park!

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

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.

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.

#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.

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.

You've got the best back round music.

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.

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.

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.

If I can tell the difference in each photo without hesitation that kind of answers the question doesn’t it?

One camera away from being Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now… (I’m counting the video camera as well)

I need to do something like this with my 6x6 80m 2.8 vs 135 50mm 0.95

Interesting scene at 10:38, looks like a set piece from Tough Guys

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.

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!

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)

Congrats on the wedding!

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.

That location would be a good set location for a movie about a dystopian future

Best explanation on medium format to 35mm yet.. not gonna lie, I like the 120 in most pictures taken.

YES

What about 645 cameras? It seems to me that this is a good alternative between grain preservation and medium-format purity

Funny, the video drops exactly two days after I bought a sweet TLR to join the medium format hype. xD

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.)

It is.

I got my 50 1.2 for I guess about ... $50? THIS YEAR. Crazy finds still happen, somehow.

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 some other people can't forget when 16 mm was simply amazing. Namastè.

I can't tell you guys apart with those hats.

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?

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.

Are these off route 66 in ca?

Biggest advantage of medium format is you get to lick it.

GFX 50s with Mitakon 65mm

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.

The short answer is yes. But a well done 35mm shot can be pretty impressive as well.

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

GameBoy Camera vs APS-c next plz tanks

Drum scans please.

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... 😛

Yes.

Medium Format in this Economy?! Half frame will have to do for me.

(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.

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

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!

Look at those two handsome boyscouts!

Lenses matter most, then format. Printing latitude is also huge difference.

Whatsup with all these film dudes only driving Lexus? Do they come with like a film fridge or something?

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.

For some reason, I have the feeling that Alice Cooper went to that school. 😜

12:09 “Ben youre FIRED!!! p.s. It’s a girl” - I have so many questions

Yes, and I don't watch youtube that weren't shot on imax, and by that I mean no.

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.

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.

Print size? 35mm isn't close.

You’re showing movie format 35mm for the comparison.

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.

is bigger always better? I wouldn't know.. you asking the wrong guy... sadly.

The fastest Pentax loader in the west …..

Meanwhile Jason is shooting large format

I DRINK PEPSI!!!

the heart says yes, the wallet says no.... so i will stick to 135.... for now

you look like starlord

How creepy is finding matresses in an abanded buildings?

720p vs 4k 🤷‍♂️

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)

An Hype? 120 exists for over 120 years...

Your lenses cant compete with good MF lenses Put a 50APO on your M6 to make a real comparison.....