Jump to content

Q2 vs. medium-format film?


JoshuaRothman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a bizarre question, but it’s on my mind, and maybe some of you have experiences to share—so here goes! (I put this in the Film Forum instead of the Q / Q2 Forum because I thought people here might be more likely to have thoughts.)

I’ve owned the Q2 for a while now and it’s been my main and favorite camera. But that’s begun to change ever since I bought an M2. I find that I deeply enjoy the rangefinder and film experiences. I like the look and feel of the film pictures more, and find the physicality of the process absorbing. I’m developing and scanning my own black and white and color film at home, the Q2 is largely sitting on the shelf, and I’m shooting with the M2 almost all the time.

The Q2 has many advantages over the M2, including a no-hassle digital workflow, autofocus, and low-light performance. But its real value, to me, is high resolution. Its 47-megapixel images are detailed and refined, offering a different aesthetic from my 35mm pictures. This has gotten me thinking about medium-format film. I’m drawn to 6x6 and 6x7. If I sold the Q2, I could easily afford some of the most expensive medium-format rangefinder film cameras, like the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, with lenses. If I made that switch, I’d no longer own a digital camera apart from my Ricoh GR III. I’m a hobbyist, not a professional, and so I don’t need the high-efficiency aspects of digital photography; at the same time, I’m a little afraid of going without a very capable digital almost completely. That said, I like the idea of working consistently with film. The main downsides, I think, would be diminished low-light capability and the lack of autofocus for fast-moving situations, as I have a young kid who’s always running around. There are certain kinds of pictures I take now that I would find more difficult on film. Maybe I’d be okay not taking them in exchange for an all-film existence.

Has anyone made this kind of switch? This would be a big step for me, and I’m having trouble distinguishing between having GAS or legitimately following my aesthetic instincts. A few other considerations that are floating around in my mind:

* The Q2 is probably at its peak resale value, still quite new and not overshadowed by a Q3.

* I’ve gone on a few trips where I’ve brought both the Q2 and M2, and I don’t like the way that the digital and film images sit alongside one another afterward; I have the idea that moving to medium-format film would ensure greater consistency. True?

* I worry about the delicateness of old film cameras like the Mamiya 6. But then again, the Q2 is a digital camera that could also fail. If I move to medium-format film, will I be buying into endless repairs or CLAs?

Thanks for reading. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to take the same photos, or types of photos with the Q2 and M2? I'm not surprised that you are dissatisfied shooting them in tandem. If you want two cameras working in the same style, by all means get another film camera, 35mm or medium format. But why not just treat them as different tools for different sorts of photography? Have you worked out exactly what each gives you and why you are using them at any one time?

I use the SL2-S for occasions when others expect me to produce good photos: events etc. I use the Q2 for family stuff (every now and then my kids go through my catalogue and download all the family photos of grandkids for their own records). I expect to use it for travel. But I use my film Leicas, and large format, purely for my own experimentation and creativity: I am not trying to produce the technically perfect image, but just conjure up a moment, a place, a thought or an emotion (so far with limited success!)  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The film vs digital debate has been done-to-death, so I'm not going to re-hash it yet again, but to quickly state my personal preference: I'm enjoying using the M10 alongside film of various formats, but I ultimately prefer the look of color-negative film over digital. This includes the period when I was using medium-format digital last year (Hasselblad X1D).

1 hour ago, JoshuaRothman said:

* I’ve gone on a few trips where I’ve brought both the Q2 and M2, and I don’t like the way that the digital and film images sit alongside one another afterward; I have the idea that moving to medium-format film would ensure greater consistency. True?

I've taken a 35mm film together with a medium-format film camera on vacation a few times - usually when it's a driving holiday, as taking 35mm and MF cameras in carry-on, along with all the film, gets way too bulky and impractical on flights in my experience. I really enjoy the result, and the shooting is more consistent and feels more harmonious to me.

Quote

* I worry about the delicateness of old film cameras like the Mamiya 6. But then again, the Q2 is a digital camera that could also fail. If I move to medium-format film, will I be buying into endless repairs or CLAs?

I have owned a lot of film cameras the last 10-12 years and have not experienced any problems other than a light leak on the bellows of my Fujica GS645Pro, and losing the figures on the display of my Ricoh GR1 - both of which are well-known and well-documented problems.


I own a Mamiya 6 and (knock on wood) have had zero problems with it, and it feels totally solid and reliable - it certainly does not feel like an "old film camera". Try taking a look through the amazing rangefinder and you may never want to use even a Leica, ever again.

The idea that film users are constantly nursing broken cameras is just part of internet chatter which happens on forums when old guys have too much time on their hands. The whole "it will need a CLA" is mostly hot air. My attitude is fix it when (if) it breaks, imo.

Edited by plasticman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a getting an inexpensive TLR and trying 6x6 first, Minolta Autocord or similar, then if you decide to get a top end medium format you can sell it on. And TLR's are a good way to hone medium format skills. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I second Pintpot's thoughts. Years ago I went through similar mental machinations...film, digital, medium format. In the end I satisfied myself with a relatively inexpensive used TLR, learned its in and outs and have been satisfied with the results. I actually bought 3 of them, ranging from a high end one, to a medium range one, to a lesser known one in need of TLC. When I compared the operations of each and the results in the things I usually photograph, I ended up keeping the one needing attention, and it has served me well. So I have choices of which to use and for what occasions. AND I didn't sacrifice the utility of one medium over another. So, I suggest not selling anything and getting a good usable TLR and see if that satisfies your itching.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm going through the same thing, but from the other direction. My M-A is my only camera. I ordered an MP four months ago and...hopefully...eventually...I'll get it. :) In the meantime I'm thinking of getting a Q2 for some of the reasons you've listed--ease of use, digital workflow, autofocus, etc. Basically, I want a camera for casual social photography when people will expect to see and share my photos quickly.

However, every exposure I take on a digital camera is a missed opportunity to learn/practice on my M-A. I'm not a prolific shooter, but I am amassing quite a collection of negatives. That body of work is showing me my trends and tendencies. I know I tend to underexpose. I go strictly by the film manufacturer's instructions which I now know causes me to overdevelop. In other words, in the two years I've shot nothing but film I have produced a lot of pushed negatives. They don't wet print or scan very well (in general).

My point is, I like film. I prefer film. But...it's not easy. I've dedicated myself to practicing, learning, and reading more. I want to get better negatives to get better prints, because a well printed film photo (IMO) is beyond compare in the photographic hobby.

Okay...that's me. Now back to you. :) You say you already like the look of 35mm film better than the Q2. What is MF going to get you? I mean, do MF if you want, but other than the opportunity cost I don't see how MF and the Q2 relate.

Edited by malligator
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW

 

I started by getting back into photography a couple of years ago (after decades of digital) by buying a Leica iii, then an M3, then an M4, then a Minolta X500 and then a Rolleiflex TLR. Like others have noted it's not a debate about film vs digital. They are different tools and you pick what you like and damn what everyone else has to say. I also bought a Leica digital CL and tried to use digital in parallel with film - that didn't work for me because they are just too different. I sold the CL partly because of that and partly because the user interface of the CL was so less pleasant than the film cameras.

In terms of image clarity and resolution I have found that 35mm film falls way short of what I could achieve with the CL and it was not a 47Mp sensor. I do think that modern digital cameras, especially FF, are at least as good as film MF. So if you want to make posters or insist on screen filling images then I would suggest digital. For 'family photos' I use my iphone 13, it provides all the image quality I need to share photos with extended family and friends, it's reliable and easy to use. My iphone is my Q and it's much more convenient than carrying a dedicated digital camera. Let me say again, I don't claim that the iphone is a match for the Q only that it is fit for purpose - family shots under almost all circumstances. 

I've no concerns about the robustness of my film cameras. I don't worry about battery life, or integrity of memory cards. 

Despite the lower quality of 35mm film vs 6x6 I have found myself using mostly 35mm film, mostly because I feel I'm still learning how to use it properly (exposure is important etc.) and 35mm film gives me more shots at lower price. But I am hoping to use my Rolleiflex more often in the future, those big negatives are great. I find I'm not a very good photographer and the challenge of using film is addictive. I also love the look of film, both the colours from Portra and the tones and feel from Ilford B&W.

 

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very very much for these replies—this is already very helpful.

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Why do you want to take the same photos, or types of photos with the Q2 and M2? I'm not surprised that you are dissatisfied shooting them in tandem. If you want two cameras working in the same style, by all means get another film camera, 35mm or medium format. But why not just treat them as different tools for different sorts of photography? Have you worked out exactly what each gives you and why you are using them at any one time?

Yes, this is very true. I do almost use them interchangeably right now, which is a source of confusion. That said, the real distinctive value of the Q2, for me, is for landscapes, for portraits, and for photographing social occasions like holiday parties, where I think I'll want to take a lot of pictures and share them quickly. I imagine a medium-format film camera fitting into the landscapes-and-portraits slot, and probably being more satisfying and interesting for those uses. I suppose I'd just get better at doing social photography with my M2, or do it with my digital GR.

1 hour ago, Pintpot said:

How about a getting an inexpensive TLR and trying 6x6 first, Minolta Autocord or similar, then if you decide to get a top end medium format you can sell it on. And TLR's are a good way to hone medium format skills. 

A good thought, and I've done this—I bought a Yashica Mat 124g and used it for a while. I quickly realized that the TLR form factor wasn't what I wanted: I need a smaller, lighter camera. But I loved the images I was able to make. My main photography is basically documentary in nature—just taking pictures of family life, really. So the medium-format cameras I'm drawn to tend to be the smaller rangefinders.

1 hour ago, malligator said:

However, every exposure I take on a digital camera is a missed opportunity to learn/practice on my M-A.

This is absolutely part of the equation for me. I really enjoy the learning experience of shooting film, and digital feels "easy" by comparison. Of course, taking good pictures is actually just as difficult with the Q2, in terms of content. But there's something fun about the challenge of film that's missing.

30 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Despite the lower quality of 35mm film vs 6x6 I have found myself using mostly 35mm film, mostly because I feel I'm still learning how to use it properly (exposure is important etc.) and 35mm film gives me more shots at lower price. But I am hoping to use my Rolleiflex more often in the future, those big negatives are great. I find I'm not a very good photographer and the challenge of using film is addictive. I also love the look of film, both the colours from Portra and the tones and feel from Ilford B&W.

This is something I'm thinking about, too. What if all I need is actually a 35mm camera? Perhaps I'm inventing a need or want just because I have this Q2 on my shelf.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

This is absolutely part of the equation for me. I really enjoy the learning experience of shooting film, and digital feels "easy" by comparison. Of course, taking good pictures is actually just as difficult with the Q2, in terms of content. But there's something fun about the challenge of film that's missing.

That's a big reason I've added a deleted the Q2 from my shopping cart a dozen times by now. I know it won't take good images on its own. However, as long as the exposure is somewhere near correct a well-composed photo on the Q2 can be post-processed. Not so on the M-A. Many is the time I've gotten a good image on film that just can't be saved.

I feel the Q2 should wait until I perfect my film process. But...we're going on vacation with friends next week and the ability to point 'n' shoot (and share images on location) is so very enticing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be pleasantly surprised by how well a good iphone can meet the point n shoot requirements - I know you won't be able to share the images of your vacation on this forum but why the hell should that be a criteria?!

With film you will lose shots, the number of keepers may not be high, there is a chance you will not be able to save a 'good image'. So for a professional the choice is clear, use digital. But for my personal enjoyment, film is where it's at right now. I sometimes take a snapshot with my phone if I must have a back up. But otherwise, the risk of not getting the shot only helps to add to the overall challenge which focusses my attention on the shooting process, it puts me in the 'flow' as some folk call it, which is a pleasurable state that excludes life's other stresses; it's highly rewarding. Using a film Leica has a deserved reputation in this regard!

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

You may be pleasantly surprised by how well a good iphone can meet the point n shoot requirements - I know you won't be able to share the images of your vacation on this forum but why the hell should that be a criteria?!

With film you will lose shots, the number of keepers may not be high, there is a chance you will not be able to save a 'good image'. So for a professional the choice is clear, use digital. But for my personal enjoyment, film is where it's at right now. I sometimes take a snapshot with my phone if I must have a back up. But otherwise, the risk of not getting the shot only helps to add to the overall challenge which focusses my attention on the shooting process, it puts me in the 'flow' as some folk call it, which is a pleasurable state that excludes life's other stresses; it's highly rewarding. Using a film Leica has a deserved reputation in this regard!

You're preaching to the choir. :)

I've had systemic issues with my film process for a while now. It's not just an occasional negative. It's, on average, the whole of of my work to this point. I tend to underexpose which is probably a holdover from my digital days. I overdevelop simply because I followed the recommended development times and didn't know the signs of overdevelopment. I've read all the books from Ansel Adams and Fred Picker. I'm learning how to manipulate the dynamic range and contrast of my negatives. I've got flash cards to drill myself at switching SS, aperture, and focus quickly and without looking. I'm rebuilding my brain as a Maestro III processor. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too! I've been a habitual under-exposurer since re-starting with film. Maybe a hang-over from years of digital where the worse crime is to over-expose. I've recently been taking more drastic measures and rating my film one stop slower. I've just finished a roll of Portra 400 which I set to EI200 and will let the lab develop it at box speed. For my B&W I'll do something similar although I process that myself and will shorten the development slightly like you seem to be experimenting with. I don't have a wet dark room so I scan, it's a hybrid workflow in todays parlance and so I don't worry too much about contrast and acutance and such things - I just need to get the darn exposure correct so that it scans OK.

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting, insightful discussion. 

I began shooting commercially in 1970 and was a late adopter of digital.  I hung onto my  Leica M4s and supplemented them with an M8 and M9P.  I hung onto my Hasselblad 500s hoping that someone would make a reasonably priced digital back for them. I finally sold them in 2016.

Today I have a Panny DC-S1, four Leicaflex/Leica R bodies and lenses, a couple of Rolleiflex/cord cameras, a Phase One XF and DF with a Leaf Credo 40 back and a phalanx of lenses, and a three-body, nine  Pentacon Six CZJ/Hartblei lens Kiev 88CM setup.

What I've figured out over all those years is that there is no "perfect" camera, format, or system.    As a Navy photographer in the mid 1970s, I worked in photo labs that had ALL of the tools available, from Leica M4 MOT kits (which I used most) to Mamiya C330 systems, and 8x10 view cameras.   We had copy cameras that had a room as the camera body, and vacuum boards inside to hold the film, and outside on the far wall to hold the subject matter, with a huge bellows and lensboard on the outside.

All of the gear got used, depending on the job.   A Rolleiflex works great for those things for which it is competent.  A "Texas-Leica" style rangefinder works great for those things for which it is competent.  There is a cross-over, but they are in different niches.   The world today thrives on a combination of digital and film.  And each is amazing when chosen carefully for the job at hand.  And so is the gear. 

The bottom line is that they're all tools.  None of them can do everything, but some of them are more versatile than others.  I don't see any reason to limit myself to either digital OR film; nor do I think it prudent to do the "one body-one lens" drill as it's too limiting in its scope.    What I DO recommend is finding a really good lens set, and expanding it as you can, but buy bodies, both digital and film,  that can all use them.   All of my bodies, 35mm film and digital, 120 film, and 645 digital can all make use of the Zeiss Pentacon Six mount lenses.  My Panasonic S1 (essentially the Leica S2S) can use all of the Leica R glass, all of my Hexanon glass, the Mamiya 645 manual lenses I have, and it's own L-mount 24-105 (the only native L-mount lens I have, for obvious reasons.)  And lest you dismiss me as a millionaire, everything I have I only have about the cost of a new M11 and Summicron 50 invested.  Perhaps a little more, but not much.   Every camera and every format I own has its strengths.  The key is to play to them.

I guess my council would be for you to keep your options open.  Let the job at hand dictate your choice of gear and medium, and be prepared to shoot whatever may come your way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched from digital to 100% film (including the kids running around). For me it had been a long process and at the end of it the digital camera (a Nikon dslr) was just gathering dust so I sold it. All I did is pick up the camera I like and sold the dslr when I was sure I no longer needed it. I do the same with film bodies, and lenses. 

You raised an interesting questions about how they compare. I definitely do not shoot in the same way. I love the all mechanical cameras because they encourage me to anticipate and plan whereas I used to be « reactive » when using the dslr.  

More importantly, I simply like the look of analogue photos more than digital for my own photography so using a digital camera simply doesn’t feel right for me at the moment. 

In your case, I’d suggest to take your time, maybe also explore high iso film to see if you like the look before deciding (assuming you shoot in Low light). 

Happy shooting!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, malligator said:

That's a big reason I've added a deleted the Q2 from my shopping cart a dozen times by now. I know it won't take good images on its own. However, as long as the exposure is somewhere near correct a well-composed photo on the Q2 can be post-processed. Not so on the M-A. Many is the time I've gotten a good image on film that just can't be saved.

I feel the Q2 should wait until I perfect my film process. But...we're going on vacation with friends next week and the ability to point 'n' shoot (and share images on location) is so very enticing.

Please note: I do not argue against the Q2 at all (I never touched one) but how do you meter with your m-a currently? How did you meter the ones that were so off that they couldn’t be saved? Which film?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aryel said:

You raised an interesting questions about how they compare. I definitely do not shoot in the same way. I love the all mechanical cameras because they encourage me to anticipate and plan whereas I used to be « reactive » when using the dslr.  

I have heard this repeated almost as a mantra about digital vs. film cameras for the past twenty years.   I don't shoot digital any differently than I shoot film, except allowing for the requirements of the differences in the technology.  Why did the medium dictate the way you use it?  Why do photographers (in general) seem to think that recording on a digital sensor is somehow different from recording on film when making an image?   I just don't understand?  The camera is merely a tool.  How does it dictate how you use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not. If shooting film is your thing and you want the detail you are used from high resolution digital, medium format brings you closer to this resolution while offering you the astethics of film. If I shoot film today I would either use a Leica M or medium format.

In case you are interested...I own a Mamya 6 with 3 lenses collecting dust which I might sell.  The Maymia 6 is very compact, the lenses are very good, but the short focusing distance is a little long. Otherwise a great system, and light/compact for medium format.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I have heard this repeated almost as a mantra about digital vs. film cameras for the past twenty years.   I don't shoot digital any differently than I shoot film, except allowing for the requirements of the differences in the technology.  Why did the medium dictate the way you use it?  Why do photographers (in general) seem to think that recording on a digital sensor is somehow different from recording on film when making an image?   I just don't understand?  The camera is merely a tool.  How does it dictate how you use it?

« If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail »

The medium doesn’t dictate anything, I agree with you. However, a mechanical camera is vastly different in usage than a dslr. The camera has a direct influence on how you expose, frame and shoot. You pick the tool for the photo you want to make. The dslr was simply not the tool for me and my photos. 

A mechanical camera encourages you to anticipate because you have no other option with it. If you did not set the exposure by the time a scene starts to unroll you won’t get the shot. They are beautifully simple if you anticipate. They lack the options that I do not need.  I like tools that encourage me to work in that direction. I have a mechanical camera always loaded and ready to shoot, as soon as a scene unroll I just need to frame and press the shutter. A dslr is less suited to this type of work. it is designed as a do it all tool. Nothing stops you from making the above work with a dslr, but I would personally  have a hard time simplifying and be as fast and efficient as with a mechanical camera.

Finally, I much prefer the look of film and that dictates all my photography choices (beside my phone). They are different medium and have their pro and cons. 
 

This is not meant as a mantra, this is simply what works for me and my photos. We are all enjoying and exploring photography in our own way. 

Edited by Aryel
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aryel said:

Please note: I do not argue against the Q2 at all (I never touched one) but how do you meter with your m-a currently? How did you meter the ones that were so off that they couldn’t be saved? Which film?

Just a quick note that's orthogonal to your question: a few years ago while on vacation and using an OM1n with an internal meter and Portra160, I didn't notice that a combination of settings meant that I over-exposed the film by at least 4 or 5 stops (maybe as much as 6 or 7 stops?). I realized my mistake when I was home again, and thought I'd lost all the images. 

When I got the film developed the negatives were indeed very dense - but they looked great when I scanned them! I actually like these shots more than most of my vacation images.

Film has an amazing ability to tolerate poor craftsmanship 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...