Could someone shed more light on the fact medium format and 4 by 5 excel at landscape compared to 35mm. From what i've gathered reading about the 2 systems the former helps make larger{ read huge} enlargements. Are there any other benefits, if one pursues landscape as a hobby and probably won't need humongous pics? I am torn between a used medium format film system and the latest and greatest full frame digital camera ( which) will be rendered obsolete the following year !!! ) or 35mm film and velvia which by many accounts is a fine combination . 35mm would be more portable for travel !!! I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The difference in resolution is huge! Just compare film area to find out about it. 4x5 will have about 130sq.cm area compared to 35mm's less than 9sq.cm. That means the film area on a 4x5 is about 15 times larger! Then the different medium formats falls in between.
This is not only an advantage when making large copies, the larger format is also much easier when scanning. Even microscopic dust will be a problem on 35mm.

But, a 4x5 is far over the needs for an amateur, if you don't need the advantages of tilt and shift function. I just put my 4x5 up for sale because it is never used any more. It is just too much work to set up, and mine (Sinar) can't really be used for my favorite photography (bad weather).
As for beginners, I actually doubt a beginner would be able to get off the first sharp shot within the first week.. Not really a snapshot cam.
I'm trying to get hold of a more sturdy and smaller field camera in 4x5.

In medium format there are a lot of cameras to choose from (secondhand). Some are neat and small, and almost as fast to use as a 35mm.
I've used mostly Hasselblad in 6x6 format.

If you are a beginner I would suggest you look at medium format if you really want to work with film. Then a digital SLR for learning. It will save a lot of money if you want to shoot a lot. I just did a quick price comparision on digital vs 35mm film. I would have spent around 1.5 times more on film/developing if I shot the same amount of images on film as I've done on my last DSLR, and it's still not obsolete. I might have shot more digital shots than I would on film, but then I've not calculated the slide frames, and the hundreds of hours scanning.

Of course the kind of photos you want to shoot will have to be one of your criteria's for choice of format. For action, forget about anything larger than 35mm or digital. Even in landscape you sometimes need some speed. I shoot bad weather, waves, ships etc. hard to do on a large format.

NO camera is ever obsolete if it still operates and takes good pictures. I still shoot occasionally with my Minolta SRT-101 that I had in college in the early 70's. As long as you can get batteries, if needed, and the shutter is accurate then the camera is not obsolete!!

I recommend starting with 35mm film. Get a F80/N80 Nikon (used in mint condition @U.S. $80) and a Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D (new @ $120) and shoot with that rig for 6 months and then see what you think you might want next.

How big is big when it comes to final print size? I've seen some very impressive enlergements from 35mm negatives.

What about camera operators?

I owned and operated Hasselblad cameras and lenses for years, usually with the camera mounted on a tripot whether I was in the studio or on location. It was more-or-less a necessity in my line of work.

Besides the benefits of a larger-than-35mm format, the working professional didn't have to pause to unload and reload the film as the assistant was there to immediately replace the film back on the 12th or 24th exposure. In addition, the photographer could produce reasonably-sized Polaroid images at any point in the shoot for any reason whatsoever without moving the camera.

However, for personal work I much preferred my Rolleiflex TLR. I believed it was superior in craftsmanship and lens quality to my Hasselblads (which is not to say anything negative about Hasselblad quality), it was smaller, lighter and more fun to use. I didn't use it for professional work because it lacked those Hasselblad features listed above.

Now I have a pair of 35mm film cameras with a nice assortment of lenses and a 4x5 inch view camera with a nice assortment of lenses. Except for the fun of using my Rollei, I don't miss medium format at all. However, I must mention that I'm expert at the use of the view camera and I think that makes a world of difference compared to someone coming new to view camera work.

My personal preference is for some rich uncle (no luck there) to gift me with a full-frame digital SLR, something like a next-generation D3X and a nice range of lenses. However, if I were to shoot medium format again, I might consider getting a used Hasselblad for film and renting a digital back from time to time--or maybe a used Mamiya 645AFD for the same purpose.

Yeah, King ... bet in 645 AFD ... i love mine ... and maybe in near future i will try to find my rich uncles to buy a Leif back , now i have only two film backs

Chuck I have had 30X40+ inch prints made from 35mm and sold them. No you could not take a magnifying glass to them but when viewed from 3 feet they looked great. With 4X5 and 8X10 film you can do billboards.

Thank you all. Clyde I agree with you, by obsolescence I mean cameras that do things better ie less noise , faster, in camera HDR, HD video etc are released. last 10 yrs i've shot N50 , do I need to upgrade to N 80/90/100 to improve quality of pictures.Ken rockwell says on his site " the F6 nails exposure in any crazy light "to rephrase his quote, is that a better buy over D700 or the Upcoming D700X for landscape. I have a 50/1.4D, 70-210 non D and kit lens 35-80mm. I need to get a wider lens. Of course now that I somewhat understand the " art of photography" these were snapshots all along. King i'm self taught, so is the 645 or Mamiya 6 by 7 system easy to to operate.

I bought the D200 coz p/s cams were giving blurred pics of my kid. I understand my photography will improve faster with the instant feed back of digital, however I'm just too curious by now to find out, how well i'm capable of applying my knowledge of exposure, with the Film test. Your input is eagerly waited. Thanks a lot.

No. The two most important things for image quality is the front part and the part behind the camera. In opposite order of importance. The lens and the person behind the camera!
Why do you think about F6 for exposure for landscapes? You have time for bracketing. Any camera will do.

Depends a lot on what kind of image you enlarge. I regularly make and sell copies at 1.6m (5 feet +) from D200/D300 files. Those are quite detailed landscape shots (rejects..)

Out of curiosity, what are you offering, what are you asking and is it sold yet?
...well, I suggest that it *could*, but maybe not onboard a ship.

Hello, my first post to this forum, so please be kind if I do not "fit in" at first.

Just for the intro - I shoot 35mm (more - less P&S), MF (6x6 with Rolleiflex T) and 4x5 (with tachihara) and also digital with Minolta 7D, even though the last is often used as a "light meter with preview" for the 4x5.

But to the original post: It all depends on what you want to achieve and what you like to use. Going with a larger camera (either MF or 4x5) will slow you down - you will probably spend more time thinking about what and how before you push the release button. On the other hand - the bigger the camera, the bigger the limitations (time, weather, etc..) so - there is no clear winner. I have lugged all the 3 film cameras over 3 weeks in a camper wan on New Zealand - the number of shots I bought home was inversely proportional to the size of the camera. It was a great experience and I enjoyed shooting with the 4x5, though this was often not possible and I wished I had a modular MF system (the Rolleiflex has one fixed lens).

Often - 4x5 may be too slow to work with and you may loose shots purely because of the time constraint. In such a case a MF film camera (may choices SLR, MF TLR ...) may be a better solution.

With 4x5 you will gain more control over the image because of the camera movements - but often very little is needed for landscape photography - most if these is to control the small DOF what is much less of a problem with smaller formats. On the other hand - I have just done a 40x50 cm print and it looks really great - and it was even not made with my sharpest lens ;-)

If you consider MF - just give it a try. Used cameras cost little. The 645 SLRS are probably easiest to use - the resemble 35mm SLR closely. If you do not like it - you will be able to sell with little or no loss. Some say that 645 is "too small to bother" - but 6x7 is larger and heavier. I have made great 30x40 (cm) prints from my 50 years old Rolleiflex T (cropping to cca 6x4.5) and the difference to 35mm can be breathtaking. Even with 20x30 cm prints the ones from 645 will be smoother and sharper.

If you are after large prints that can be viewed from close - you need a lot of data - about 8 Mpix per 8x10 print. Whether they come from digital sensor or scan from a film is to some extend secondary. Still - one difference remain - even with medium-large prints like 30x40 cm - you can still make them from 35mm as well from large formats - but the amount of detail the the tones will be better with large film formats. My personal taste is - I want to be able to come close and enjoy the detail.

If you decide to go the digital way AND want to make large prints - you have a good possibility to download some of the full size samples that can be found on the web and simply have them printed. If you like what you see you may be set.

Concerning the obsoleteness of digital - is you get a digital camera that satisfy your needs (quality, pixels, size) than you are fine even when upgrades hit the market.

So - choose what you need and what you like to use - the process is part of the image. Just if you decide to go with larger film formats - think ahead of the expenses - they tend to be larger than expected (especially with 4x5). The best could be to loan the camera you like, to see whether it works for you or not. Keep in mind the necessity of developing (good lab) and good quality scanning - especially the second may cost you quite some money.

good luck with your choice

Excellent post, Matus! I hope to be able to see some of your images soon...especially the MF and 4x5.

Not sold. I guess I can get equal to USD 1000 with 2 lenses (90+150) and 2 bellows.
Bad weather.. Hard to get that thing stable in heavy wind..

What a bargain! If I had an extra $1,000, I'd buy that kit, although I don't need it. I simply *WANT* it.

I personally shoot with a D700, FM2n 35mm, and a Mamiya RB67. So although I can't comment on large format, I can make a comparison between the 35 and MF formats. Whilst the films you use can be the same, there are two main things, imo, that make MF far better than 35mm. The first is simply the amount of information in the negatives/slides... Or res, if you will, if indeed you intend to scan the images. Secondly, because you have so much more information, the tonal graduation across the negative is far smoother, which I believe counts for a lot when potentially editing/digitally enlarging.

LIke I say, I don't use LF kit. However I have some friends who do, and it has to be said that setting up a MF system appears to be far quicker and easier than LF! :)

Good reason to buy!
But shipping the monster to US??

I can print A3 size from 135 format no problem.

MF is for sure a sweet middle ground. I may get a Mamiya 7 kit - but then I need to get a new scanner and the CoolScan 5000 was expensive enough - let alone the CoolScan 9000!

Sell the Coolscan 5000 and buy a Epson V750 (should give you a few hundred pounds in hand) - This is what I did. There are lots of forums about comparing the Epson to the Nikon 9000 - yes there is a difference but you would expect there to be. The Epson can produce very high quality scans, which are a little soft if anything, but a bit of careful sharpening can deal with that. If I want higher quality I send the best images off for drum scanning.