Photographer Kyle McDougall says that a very common question is whether filming in a medium format film, such as the 645, is really “worth it” compared to 35mm film. In this 11-minute video, he explains why he thinks it is.
Although it is clear that there are no “bad” formats and they are all quite capable. Which really comes down to the type of work you intend to create and the preferences you develop over time.
“If the format you’re working with now suits you and works for you, you don’t feel the need to upgrade just for it,” he says.
That being said, he believes the 645 is a big step in many cases from 35mm. Working with a larger negative means you get finer details, less apparent grains at similar image sizes, and finer tones. Next to it, 645 versus 35mm are significantly different if you were to view the negatives side by side.
The 645 film also offers a 3: 2 aspect ratio, which many photographers – including McDougall – consider particularly pleasing to the eye. In addition, if you switch to the 35mm medium format, only a 35mm frame is too narrow, unlike other medium format film sizes, which can be quite narrow.
McDougall also says that from his experience, he finds that of the medium-sized cameras, the 645 cameras seem to have the most compact and readily available cameras that can be found, and the options are also cheaper than other medium-sized options. .
In summary, McDougall believes that for those who are interested in switching to a medium format film from 35 mm, 645 has the most positive aspects in his opinion. To answer the original question, McDougall argues that the answer is yes: for many use cases, especially landscapes and portraits, it is more than 35 mm for several reasons. Not only is the image quality improved due to a much higher negative, but the trade-offs are less severe compared to other medium format sizes.
You agree? Why or why not? Tell us in the comments.
For more information from Kyle McDougall, you can subscribe to his YouTube channel.
(via ISO 1200)