Sick of 24x36?

This might not be the right forum for this, but I didn't see one better.

Back in the day, a 35mm camera was the smallest image size a professional would use. I hated them, except for sports and the handiness of the body size. I had some nice systems, but it was only to shoot Kodachrome for annual reports. A B&W neg from this was too small.

I love medium format. I used many systems in many circumstances.

Due to financing a 13 year divorce and a career slide into design, I ended up selling off all my gear. I did some gig a while back and bought into the 1Ds and the rest is personal history. I started with L lenses and have always been a little disappointed. Maybe I was lacking some existential knowledge in their use, but I soon migrated to a full Zeiss line-up. They produce more what I'm looking for. But in all honesty, maybe its the 24x36mm sensor that isn't the holy grail (duh). I thought new technology, new physics, and 24x36 might be OK. Nice open-minded theory, but maybe flawed.

Yeah, I know, some guy with a Diana can produce museum work. And some guy with a broom can out-golf me and my Callaways.

RE-PHRASING EDIT:
I was having a discussion about moving to medium format with a pro buddy of mine. pro meaning his entire income is from photo. As I. We complained that although we both shot DSLR, the 24x36mm format was historically not overly quality-fulfilling.

We discussed how DSLRs are "the" camera that makes too many too much in love with their images, for no reason. That maybe the 35mm digital should NOT be our tools of choice, but perhaps they are best left for sports guys and overnight photographers. I'm sure I'll keep my 5D2, long lenses, and 50L. Maybe a few others, which becomes the financial v practical problem. But I can get Schneider-K in a Phase, or my Zeiss in a Leaf.

He sent me this email and this link:

http://zackarias.com …t-phase-one-iq140-review/

I guess it is all about the equipment, there is hope for me after all.

I never said I was all that. Fame in the US is for the trendy. I never heard of you either, so that must make your opinion worthless.

I suggested that my search for better IQ was kicking me out of the DSLR format. The problem might not be glass, but sensor size.

I also said that the affordable format has made everyone with a DSLR think they're pro who's work doesn't suck (they're sure) just because it came from a bigger-than-pocket-sized camera. This format is not the Holy Grail.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970427
This might not be the right forum for this, but I didn't see one better.

Back in the day, a 35mm camera was the smallest image size a professional would use. I hated them, except for sports and the handiness of the body size. I had some nice systems, but it was only to shoot Kodachrome for annual reports. A B&W neg from this was too small.

I love medium format. I used many systems in many circumstances.

Due to financing a 13 year divorce and a career slide into design, I ended up selling off all my gear. I did some gig a while back and bought into the 1Ds and the rest is personal history. I started with L lenses and have always been a little disappointed. Maybe I was lacking some existential knowledge in their use, but I soon migrated to a full Zeiss line-up. They produce more what I'm looking for. But in all honesty, maybe its the 24x36mm sensor that isn't the holy grail (duh). I thought new technology, new physics, and 24x36 might be OK. Nice open-minded theory, but maybe flawed.

Its like every idiot with a DSLR is a photographer these days. And for the state of this situation, look at Flickr, FB and even here. What vomit, but someone always says how great they are. There are nice images, but the bulk makes my eyes bleed. It seems like the time to move out of this amateur format and move up.

Yeah, I know, some guy with a Diana can produce museum work. And some guy with a broom can out-golf me and my Callaways.

I lost my Hasselblads (3 500 C/Ms and a crap load of lenses and backs) in a bad divorce in 1997. I have heard some rumors that Blad is working on a true square format back. Could be interesting. Maybe pick up a 500 C/M and a square digital back? I think square is a perfect format for portraits.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970649
I never said I was all that. Fame in the US is for the trendy. I never heard of you either, so that must make your opinion worthless.

I suggested that my search for better IQ was kicking me out of the DSLR format. The problem might not be glass, but sensor size.

I also said that the affordable format has made everyone with a DSLR think they're pro who's work doesn't suck (they're sure) just because it came from a bigger-than-pocket-sized camera. This format is not the Holy Grail.

That's why posts where people talk about "full frame" producing the ultimate in image quality give me a chuckle. Everything is relative.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13970654
I lost my Hasselblads (3 500 C/Ms and a crap load of lenses and backs) in a bad divorce in 1997. I have heard some rumors that Blad is working on a true square format back. Could be interesting. Maybe pick up a 500 C/M and a square digital back? I think square is a perfect format for portraits.

Thank you for putting this in the right light. It's great the way people turn to personal attacks when generalizations are made.

Someone just pm'd me and asked if medium format was APS-C.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970689
Thank you for putting this in the right light. It's great the way people turn to personal attacks when generalizations are made.

Someone just pm'd me and asked if medium format was APS-C.

I love medium format. I think its the perfect balance between view cameras and 35mm. I really like large format to. Nothing is better for landscapes and architectural photography than a view camera. I've actually been kicking around picking up a rolleiflex. Its a great medium format camera for the streets. I no longer have a darkroom but I have a closet so I could still develop my own film and I have scanner. I donno. I do know that my next digital camera will be a Leica M.

I am not sure the point of this post? Are you asking a question, making an equipment statement, or just trying to piss everyone off?

help me, help you.

mafoo wrote in post #13970811
I am not sure the point of this post? Are you asking a question, making an equipment statement, or just trying to piss everyone off?

help me, help you.

I think he is not happy with the 135 format and becasue he shot mostly with larger formats in the past he isn't crazy about the IQ when compared to what he is used to seeing. I say to him give the 35 1.4 summilux and a Leica M9 a test drive. So no I don't think he is trying to piss anyone off just looking for some answers that Canon may not be able to answer.

Maverique wrote in post #13970851
But medium's ****ty compared to large format!

And then theres the real large format
http://www.ebonycamera​.com/cam.html

Scroll down to the 20 X 24 camera. 20 X 24 inch neg...There is no sensor in the world capable of producing resolution like that.

Not large enough, buddy. Think Hubble - he said, not even aware of how large Hubble is.

Man, people here are taking this personally. He is just saying he isn't getting what he wants from 35mm digital and that he likes medium format more. He isn't saying anything bad about anyone else. Sheesh...

I get it. After the divorce and selling off your gear you made the assumption that the
new gear would do it for you and you are disappointed that it doesn't. Sounds like you
need to gear up again with the stuff you know works for you.

riverdog1 wrote in post #13970936
I get it. After the divorce and selling off your gear you made the assumption that the
new gear would do it for you and you are disappointed that it doesn't. Sounds like you
need to gear up again with the stuff you know works for you.

Sort of. I had hoped that my distain for 35mm was film, and that a 24x36 sensor was superior. Maybe, but it's still small. Buying into Canon, then being disappointed with IQ (my agents all have me printing as large as I can), I assumed it was lenses. So I bought Zeiss (as I said before), and they're much closer to the reproduction qualities I want, its probably because I grew up as a pro with German-designed glass. But there is still detail lacking that I'm now thinking is the 24x36 sensor.

I brought up the masses because of the mass propoganda that a DSLR is all anyone couls ask for unless you were Annie. But upon inspection of the hype, most of the people saying this are not producing quality images. But they are everywhere.

I was having a discussion about moving to medium format with a pro buddy of mine. Pro meaning his entire income is from photo. As does mine. We complained that although we both shot DSLR, the 24x36mm format was historically not overly quality-fulfilling.

We discussed how DSLRs are "the" camera that makes too many love with their images for no reason. That maybe the 35mm digital should NOT be our tools of choice, but perhaps they are best left for sports guys and overnight photographers.

He sent me this email and this link:

http://zackarias.com …t-phase-one-iq140-review/

mcluckie wrote in post #13970978
Sort of. I had hoped that my distain for 35mm was film, and that a 24x36 sensor was superior. Maybe, but it's still small. Biying into Canon, then being disappointed with IQ (my agents all have me printing as large as I can), I assumed it was lenses. So the Zeiss (as I said), and they're much closer to the optical reproductions I want, its probably because I grew up as a pro with German-designed glass. But there is still detail lacking.

I brought up the masses because of the mass propoganda that a DSLR is all anyone needs. But upon inspection of the hype, most of the people saying this are not producing quality images.

I was having a discussion about moving to medium format with a pro buddy of mine. pro meaning his entire income is from photo. As I. We complained that although we both shot DSLR, the 24x36mm format was historically not overly quality-fulfilling.

We discussed how DSLRs are "the" camera that makes too many love with their images for no reason. That maybe the 35mm digital should NOT be our tools of choice, but perhaps they are best left for sports guys and overnight photographers.

He sent me this email and this link:

http://zackarias.com …t-phase-one-iq140-review/

Seriously give the Leica M9 a spin with one of Leicas great M lenses like the 35 1.4 summilux.
By a Canon guy
http://www.canonrumors​.com …ica-m9-experience-review/

on Leica M lenses
scroll down to optical performance.