With film having such a resurgence, I’m surprised no one has come out with a new dedicated scanner like the Nikon Coolscans. It’s frustrating that I have to use a 20 year old scanner that may break any day.

The reason I love 6x6 format is: 1. Rolleiflex & Hasselblad 500cm are legends and only offer 6x6 2. Square ratio is super easy once you learn it. No need to rotate your camera for aspect ratio orientation 3. 12 shots per roll of film is the magic number for me personally. I don’t have to force myself to be creative for 24-36 shots. Just 12 great ones

I shot 35mm happily for over 20 years before I bought a medium format camera. I still mainly shoot 35mm and 35mm is more than capable and with care you can make 20x30 prints and those look just amazing. Even bigger with drum scanning. With the advent of KZfaq, ironically I know, I feel there is too much emphasis on cameras instead of actual photography. Any camera no matter what format doesn’t make you into a better photographer. Shooting a lot and studying a lot does. Yes toys are fun and I’m just as guilty of it. For me though the reason I bought my Mamiya 645 Pro TL is its modularity and I wanted to purchase a medium format camera with great resale value. The real reason I bought the camera is I wanted to simply shoot some emulsions , some expired, which I couldn’t find in 35mm such as the Fuji Pro 160 NS. It’s fun to shoot the Mamiya and I agree with your video where you said that 645 is definitely worth the jump from 35mm in resolution. Those who say it’s not simply exercise snobbery. 645 is a beautiful but so is 35mm.

I come from film .i used to nail a portrait for a magazine in 5 rolls they expected that much . but for myself I can do a good portrait in one roll. The whole spray and pray digital thing seems crazy. On digital I treat it the same way. One big problem. People Don't get it. They think a portrait is done in 2 photos because of phone photography. That's the real challenge. Finding patient subjects.

10:06 everything you said from this point on rang 100% true with me. I had about a year long flirtation with a Pentax 67II (shot some of my favorite shots I ever made with that camera too!) but ended up selling it for a few different reasons: 1) Shooting 6x7 was just getting too expensive. 2) This doesn’t go for all MF cameras but the 67II was a brick. A beautiful brick that takes very nice photos but still a brick. 3) most importantly, I just didn’t need all that resolution. I spent some time thinking about what cameras made some of my favorite photos and realized most of them were taken with 35mm Leicas and Nikons. Although I loved that 6x7 resolution, with all of the 67II’s inherent flaws I decided to just stick with 35mm. The great thing with Leica’s (and any other non-SLR camera) is that I can shoot lower-ISO film’s like Ektar or Portra 160 in lower lit places due to me being able to shoot at lower shutter speeds, so it brings back some of that resolution for me. Saves me lots of money too!

Very good video to show all pros and cons of getting into medium format. For me it’s all about getting inspired by the camera itself. Sold a Fuji GFX100S because it was not an inspiration. Bought a Bronica ETRSi and love it and 645. But I get the same inspiration by my Fuji X-Pro3 and Leica M2. Every camera for a different purpose.

Thank you for an insightful video that highlighted a couple of things to consider, especially around composition with the change in aspect ratio as well as the reason why.

Great video, thanks for making it and posting it!

5:17 I know you get less shots, but 6x9 is a thing, you know. I dunno, I just figured that if you wanted the 3:2 aspect ratio, A Fuji gw690/ Mamiya Super 23 is the way to go.

The rise in prices really makes me second guess every shot I take. 6x6 is currently perfect for me as i like the aspect ratio and it gives me 12 shots.

Here's my 5 Pence worth of experience with MF in Film, AND Digital: I started with 35mm Film back in the early 2000's. When you could still widely get film and have it developed. By that time, MF was already starting to drift out of fashion, and prices were low. I bought a Pentax 645. At the same time, I was also experimenting with DSLR's. The Pentax BLEW ME AWAY. The sheer experience of even just looking through that massive viewfinder, and handling this hulk of a camera was completely different from a sensory experience, to anything I had tried before. That kind of "feeling" really stuck with me for almost 20 years (more on that in a sec...) Shooting slide film on the Pentax was amazing. I still look at those slides today and go "Wow!". There's something very unique and very very beautiful about them. And handling this mechanical beast of a camera was an enjoyable, although challenging experience. Now, let's get onto the negatives of MF Film: - My P645 was BIG. And heavy. Not a casual photography camera. - It was slow. - The mirror slap was immense and unforgiving. No point in trying to treat this thing like an SLR and "be agile...". - Lens selection was limited at the time. And I couldn't really find any proper wide angle lenses (eg sub 24mm in 35mm equivalent). I LOVE wide angle! - MF Film was becoming harder to find, and even harder to have it developed. I had to travel 2 hours by train to London, to have it developed there. And it wasn't cheap. The situation only became worse as more and more labs started closing down... - Scanning the film, for publishing on the web was very hard. I couldn't afford an MF scanner! I eventually gave up on it, and sold the camera and focused on DSLR's for a while. And then also stopped with those. Fast forward to 2021, and I felt the itch to get back into Photography. I missed that creative outlet. Whilst thinking about what camera I should buy, I reminisced about my experience with the P645. How I loved the size and clarity of the viewfinder. How I loved the quality of the slide pixs. What I had forgotten, was the negatives of the lens availability, mirror slap, and sheer bulk of these systems. So I committed the atrocity and bought a second hand Leica S (Typ 007) for $5000 on eBay. And a bunch of lens adapters and mostly Mamiya glass. Twas not a cheap thing to do.... I very quickly realised what I had forgotten about the "darker side" of MF. The weight. The mirror slap. The lens availability and cost issues..... And whilst the Leica produced "reasonable" images, it just felt slow, and very hard to use. Not enjoyable. At the same time, I discovered that my Leica had an issue with the sensor. It was faulty. That gave me the impetus to return the camera to the seller on eBay, get my money back, and go and buy a Sony A7R3 and later a Sony A7R converted to full spectrum. Very long story short: The Sony bodies will whoop the Leica's (andP645's) ass all day long. They're small, relatively cheap, very fast, have AMAZING image quality. Electronic shutter, Electronic Image Stabilization on ANY lens. No mirror slap. Lens availability is the best of any system out there, because you can adapt anything. I'm even using an old Leitz Colorplan Projector lens with the two cameras, and the results are superb. The viewfinders are great! And one thing that is the most important for me: Focus peeking. I can finally nail focus every time! All in all, for me MF (and film for that matter!) is dead. With how much DSLR's and Mirrorless systems have evolved, and how much the cost has come down, it just does not make any sense anymore to shoot MF Film. I still enjoy watching your videos tho! :)

Great video! You are spot on about the experience being really different and fun with all the different types of cameras and aspect ratios and all that! Medium format is definitely useful and fun, but I still do most of my work on 35mm and the smaller/lighter setup usually suits me best.

Excellent insights. My big gripe with 35mm film vs 6x7 (or even 645) is bang for the effort. After acquiring the film, metering/shooting, developing, scanning, and final corrections, a finished MF image gives you so much more than what 35mm can give.

Thanks! You summarized it quite well for me. Aspect ratio is, I think, underestimated. I have 645, 6x6, 6x9. For general and snapshot uses, I usually take the TLR 6x6. No rectangular aspect and relatively lightweight. As a bonus, I can bring along the wide(r) angle adaptor in cities As for high resolution, it's nice to know, but in practice not needed. With 400 ISO, I can stop down enough to compensate for shallower depth of field.

Love the medium format film cameras! such a fantastic format for my niche (landscape). thanks for the video!!

Well done...very insightful. Having relatively recently moved to medium format with a Mamiya 645 and just in the past 6 weeks or so to the Pentax 67, your observation about potentially overthinking shots with 10 frames per roll is something that I have experienced. I think some of my favorite images on 35mm were those more experimental or spontaneous exposures. Thanks again for this video.

Thanks for the video, it really is insightful. I've just moved into the medium format with my Yashica, and so far it was an absolute bliss (when it comes to shooting at least, not so much when it comes to buying film). Also, hate being the first one to say it, but "fewer images", not less)

All very true I recently bought a Fugi gw690 iii absolutely love it there is definitely a learning curve from working primarily with 35mm and getting the specific shots I want. I’m learning to enjoy the trial and error and having patience and building on all of that, also being specific and thoughtful with my 8 shots.

I am not a professional so I have no explicit need for medium format, BUT I ADORE MEDIUM FORMAT. It is my favorite way to shoot film just the huge amount of experimentation and different types of cameras you can use just keeps me giddy (and my wallet very empty). I use ancient folders etc when I am feeling experimental. And my Bronicas when I want good photos of family. So much fun. Love my Rollieflex 3.5t (so the cheaper Tessar not Plannar) TLR too Good video as always!

I think sometimes people underestimate the quality of their images, I've been doing some 11x14s with a mamiya 645 and the grain is almost unnoticeable with delta 100. I'm sure you could even go to 20x24 with minimal drop in quality. I wanted more resolution than a 35 and I was concerned 645 wouldn't be enough but I've been blown away with how detailed and sharp the shots are even enlarged so much.

Thanks for the video. Like you mentioned, for the entry level and occasional medium format shooters, film is great. I think film is good for those uses. The cost of shooting a 6x6 in estimation comes down to about .75 a shot at the cheapest price . Not too bad since instant and large format is even more expensive. Digital medium format is more ideal for the regular shooter or those making money with their gear. The cost of medium format are more about upfront gear cost (camera body and lenses). There are alot of challenges with medium format. All depends on what one is trying to do. I recommend 35mm film or digital for nature photography, it’s fast and easier and lots of long focal lengths. For street, 35mm or medium format (I prefer 35mm for this type). For still photography, portrait and landscape, medium format shines. In medium format, I only use 6x6 since that is all I have with the Bronica and Rollei. My solution has been to shoot Large format with anything larger (4x5 or a 6x9 roll film holder). Medium format is so non-standard, same roll film but so many choices and sizes for the negatives. Honestly, 35mm is more than enough for most of my needs, it’s 80% of my work. While I love the square 6x6 format, I have issue with it in darkroom printing, there is so much waste and if you print on 11x14” paper you have to crop to 10x10 to retain the square. I think square is nice when it’s a bigger size.

Thanks for the video. I have been shooting medium format since I was 5-years old. I also shoot 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch large format and 35mm small format. I find 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 6x9cm medium format a good compromise between large and small format.

great video as always Kyle

Used my Rolleicord VBII on Sunday at a classic motorcycle meeting in Scotland, had original Fuji Acros film in it. I develop my own colour and B&W film, but I dont have a scanner.

I shoot medium format from time to time just because I never had to spend money on a camera. I have this ancient Ihagee camera that my great grandfather bought in the early 30s and I've been using that exclusively for film photography. It's either that or digital for me, so overall I don't spend a fortune on this stuff. The camera itself is nice too. The lens has some serious character. On the downside the only way you can focus is by guessing or measuring the distance to the subject.

I've been waiting for someone to release a video like this! I've been keeping my eye on a Zenza Bronica ETRSI and a Kiev 6C.

Thanks for a informative and great video!

Thanks for the video. Maybe I missed it, but one thing worth mentioning is the weight. While the TLRs like the Rolleicord can be pretty lightweight and compact an SLR with a few lenses and multiple film backs and maybe a tripot can add to quite a few kilogramms. Not an issue in the studio, but if your into landscape you might carry a heavy backpack.

I have a Yashica Mat tlr, but I miss my Bronica EC with the Nikkor 50mm f4 lens. I just compose using all the square image and make black and white 8x8 inch prints in the darkroom, using the wasted edge of the paper to make test strips. If you go to a 6x7 you will have a much bigger and heavier camera.

I am an amateur photographer and only use film for special locations and occasions. Other times just use my digital mirrorless or ricoh GR. How film works for you no matter how expensive it is will depend on your mindset. If you shoot film like digital it will cost u an arm or a leg no matter what. I think that's the first thing beginners should consider before entering film photography - will they have the time and patience to learn film photography. Nice videos

You've hit the nail on the head with this one 🥲

I sold my Mamiya 7 to get a GFX and ended up selling it and buying another Mamiya 7 (note this is not a sound financial decision, don't try this at home). There's something about medium format film that just looks so good right out of the camera. I was spending so much time trying to make my digital shots look more "filmy" that film is actually a shortcut. I can take or leave 35mm for the most part, but medium format just works for me. Never selling that Mamiya 7 again.

I got a Zeiss Super Ikonta for free and I actually like having only 8 frames to shoot, it means I can go out, shoot a roll, go back home and develop it. With 35mm I sometimes struggle to finish it. Another plus for amateurs is that it's easier to scan, i.e. you don't need a real macro lens to DSLR scan it.

film is the way

Some really interesting observations. I personally am still struggling a bit moving from 3x2 to 4x3, both on my Mamiya 645 and Fuji GFX. I find it easier to compose 4x3 in portrait format. For landscapes I find 4x3 doesn’t give me enough “breathing space” and often end up shooting the GFX in 3x2 mode. I do like square though. Cost-wise (and this is going to sound weird) I find medium format is the same or cheaper than 35mm. My supplier of choice has a 5-pack of 120 Portra 400 for £5 less than the equivalent 35mm. Yes, I know per frame it’s more expensive, but for me 15 shots on a roll of 120 represents the ideal for going out and working a location for a morning. If I took out a roll of 36 35mm exposures, I’d probably still finish the whole roll, but I’d find myself firing off shots “just to use it up”. But that’s just me. The slow, deliberate process with lack of sponteneity is what attracts me to medium format, as an antidote to digital!

I think size and weight are also things to keep in mind

I've though about getting a medium format rig (digital or film), but you're certainly right about "resolution overkill" as it's now easy to produce large prints with well under 20MP (assuming a quality image of course). What I'd really like to see is a "shootout" with prints of the same scene recorded with various format cameras (film and digital), which should confirm to even the most ardent skeptics that imaging technology has reached the point where even mid-level, smaller format gear is more than capable of producing museum-worthy images. I know there are a number of people who'd disagree with that, but let's just try a "blind" (so to speak) comparison and see--the proof is in the printing. I shot film for decades and thoroughly enjoyed the experience (apart from the toxic chemicals), but not anymore. I can relate to Ansel's world, but I'm sure if he were around (and ambulatory) today, he'd carry something like a Lumix G9 (enabling him to get to places impossible with large-format) and love every minute (especially post--DxO, Capture One, etc. sure beat the darkroom)! I fully appreciate the mindset of composing an image when every shot counts (and you've only got a few left on the roll), but it just takes mental discipline to cultivate that when you've got virtually limitless "bites at the apple"--it still takes careful, thoughtful pre-visualization to make a great image and simply having more (or fewer) chances to get it won't make the difference.

RE: Aspect Ratios - The 'Barnack's Folly' aspect ratio of 3:2 has never been quite right if you print anything other than 4x6 postcards. it gets very annoying to do the extra post-production work to crop things out for 8x10/16x12 and larger sizes, and it starts to make sense why 6x7 became the de-facto 'standard' aspect ratio on medium format - it requires minimal cropping to print on 8x10. This is one of the main reasons why I chose to skip full-frame digital and 35mm film cameras altogether and move from APS-C to Digital Medium Format and 6x7 Film. It was not easy and I had to make a lot of compromises elsewhere (lens lineup, portability, selling a kidney etc.) to get what I wanted. To Kyle's point - it does take a while to learn framing on other formats, but once it clicks - you'll find 3:2 very long/wide.

Great to see.. I'm borrowing a ETRSi and still on the edge but I've only shot expired.

My first medium format camera was the 124g and I loved it!! However I bought a Kiev 60 because I wanted a slr type of camera because I feel more comfortable composing with it!! I wanted a Pentax 67 but hey, the Kiev 60 is a soviet wonder!! Mechanical and slr type!! Plus I can match it with zeiss glass which is beautiful!!

Nice video, I will never sale my Hasselblad’s there have been all over the world with me, had them for all my professional career in photography I do shoot digital now but some of my memorable shots of my 30 year experience are on film!

I wish companies would start making actual film cameras again now that film is so popular. Like... why are we forced to use 20, 40, 60 year old cameras that are shooting up in price due to scarcity and could break at any moment with no replacement parts.

Because I use a Bronica ETR for medium format camera with a waist-level viewfinder and no light meter, the experience of shooting is somehow very different than my Nikon FE. A much slower pace, the waist-level viewfinder is quite a different experience compare to eye-level viewfinder. The absence of in camera light meter forces me to understand the light in a much better way, habilities that I can export to my digital photography. I did improve my digital photography because of my medium format film photography

A little off topic here but I just found your channel & it's been great. Will you be doing the Portra 800 exposure test? I heard you mention it in one of your videos but didn't see it. Any chance of doing that with the new Gold 200 in 120? Thanks.

Kyle, I’ve been looking at getting a TLR. Would you say scanning 6x6 negatives with a Canon R6 (20mp) could give me nice results?

Since I shoot medium format a lot, I found out the 3:2 ratio is not my thing in most cases. And yes I have also a GW690 but don't like the ratio. I think I'll get a GSW680 one day.

I'm someone that only uses 35mm and I feel it has a lot of limitations in terms of dynamic range and "look" in general. I WANT to get into medium format, but getting any worthwhile camera is going to be minimum $800+ due to the recent boom.

For me, yes medium format is *overall* the best: higher image quality than 35mm, but still reasonably compact/portable, unlike 4x5 or bigger. And I intentionally embrace the slow thinking-process, so less frames are fine. Some folks want the finest image quality, so nothing less than 8x10. Some folks are already happy with 35mm. Do whatever makes you happy.

Great video and playing to my love of 6x6. I was shooting my Agfa Isolette II yesterday on a hike with Portra 400 loaded. Shoot my Mamiya C3 every week. I develop the B&W myself and scan all 6x6 on an Epson V500 with Digitaliser holder. I even enlarge now in the darkroom. It's a slippery road to Large Format I promise you. Nice one Kyle.

I don't like to use 36 exp 35mm. I generally shoot 24 exp. Gives me earlier chance to switch film. My favorite camera is my Mamiya RB67. A beast but it seems to fall naturally for me.

The ZONE SYSTEM. How about a video explaining how to place a metered shadow spot in a specific zone that was choosen for getting most of detail. In other words - how do you know in which of the ZONE be it Zone II / ZONE III / ZONE IV to place your shadow metered spot. To me it looks very very subjective. I am not a professional photograph. Thanks !

ngl I prefer 120 over 35mm because I find it easier to load into a camera, and easier to load onto a reel for developing lol

I bought a mamiya C33 with a 105 mm lens for $150 in mint condition a 65mm mint lens for $185 ,made a copy stand for $100 and take photos of my film so I don't have expensive scanning fees.i develope my film so no developing fees I use cinestill single stage That will develop 12 rolls of 120 for $20 with the cost of new film it's about $10 a roll so it isn't too expensive If you want the film experience then do it all

My preferred medium format thing is 6x9. I like the 3:2 aspect ratio, and in all honesty, I often will just simply dedicate at least one 120 roll to working an idea or concept. I don’t shoot much landscapes, but when I’m just out and about to shoot stuff, I just don’t give a darn about what it costs and whether a shot is worth it. If I liked it enough to think of taking a picture, I’m taking that picture, and will often stay and work some variations. There’s no point in overthinking it, if you see something or have an idea, just zone in and create. If cost were really that big of a deal, then film isn’t for you. If you can’t make money and still shoot film, then film isn’t for you. Let’s be real here, shooting film in any format is a luxury. You can either afford to do it or you can’t. If you just wanna take pictures for nearly free, that’s what your phone is for.

I'm taking my leap into it shortly. I snagged a Pentax 6x7 and am waiting for the seller to ship it. Other than orienting myself with the image taking process+learning to use a light meter, I am more scared about the developing+scanning process. I want to get good quality scans but don't know whether I'm better off getting an Epson scanner or paying a photo lab to scan it for me.

Interesting except for mid-roll Squarespace ad which cheapened your brand.

Do you think you can get your hands on a Digital Back for Medium Format, Phase One are popular but Kodak also made few and there not much info on the web yet alone a shooting experience

You think a Pentax 6 by 4 5 is worth 500$ I used to use Mamiya got a old yashica that can even do multiple exposure. Testing it now. I like the square for portraits.

Does anyone still do optical enlargements anymore?

I've been struggling with this but on the digital side. I have a Sony A1 and a GFX100s for me, I LOVE the quality from the GFX100s, but it so much easier and more versatile to shoot with the A1. I guess I just need to up my studio game :)

I’m finding TLR’s expensive here even in the UK

Although I used 35mm SLR for the first 20 years of my photography, mainly for economic reasons, I've used MF for the most part for the last 35 years. I make traditional B&W and color prints in a real darkroom, prints in the size of 8x10 to 16 x20 inches. MF makes that process so much easier and does not stretch the optical limits of the film or camera. If I were scanning film images, I cannot see why anyone would shoot MF. The uses such images are applied to would not exceed the capacity of 35mm film in 99% of the situations. Images headed to on-line posting or inkjet printing are stepped on electronically to such extent that any issues of grain or tonality in the final image are swept away by the process and final medium used for presentation. In this setting, the economies of 35mm format are unbeatable, and use of MF is done just for the person gratification of using that type of equipment.

Dark slides. One day I will remember to pull them before I push the shutter release.

Me 645 super x ever

What lens are you currently using on your Bronica?

thing for me is.. my dream camera is a medium format mirrorless camera, but I’m not trying to spend 4-7k on a camera just because I like the aspect ratio:/ I just wish fuji had a more affordable medium format mirrorless camera:(

10:44 so 6x7 film is equivalnet to 88mp digital camera output? Would it be correct to say an 6x7 film scan gives you about the same resolution as a 100MP fuji GFX camera? Or because of film grain and old lenses is is not as good? a 6x9 would be around 115mp. so an old fuji rangefinder is still better than a 100MP GFX digital camera?

I sold all my MF film cameras and 120 film 12 months ago along with my Epson V850. The cost of film today makes it unviable for me to continue though I still have one 35mm film camera with several rolls of black and white film I'll finish off.

Okay, I'm a total newbee, and will be asking a total newbee question. I haven't owned a "real" camera (digital or analogue) for over thirty years. Last "real" camera I had was a Canon AE1 Program, a 305mm SLR... made before digital photography was "a thing". I was considering acquiring a Nikon F3 (also an analogue 35mm slr), but then I thought "maybe I should try medium format"? Anyway, my newbee question is ... can I do this while avoiding all digitization in printing? I mean, can my entire photography experience be pre-digital these days... without my needing my own darkroom?

I'm thinking of getting a MF camera for the most important images. I'd probably only use it for things I'd want to print large on a wall: a formal family photo, a magnificent landscape from a place I know will yield such a landscape (think national parks). For how much I would use it, I probably shouldn't buy one until I'm rich.

I struggle to agree with the concept that 35mm has more than enough resolution compared with MF, but that’s actually more because I can’t get over how grainy 35mm is, and that MF just has that “look”. I think the reason us “MF’rs” enjoy MF over 35mm is because of the anecdotal idea of a look vs actual real resolution.

Totally unrelated Such a nice beard. Mega beard envy

That 6x6 ratio is probably the no.1 reason to go medium format; it's so airy, so deep and I think also closer to our vision, in the sense we have quite a lot of vertical field of view too and our real world perception is more square/circular that rectangular. I often catch myself deciding what to include in the frame with a rectangular format, yo need to do some math, while 6x6 is like automatic to the brain; most of the time you point the camera and you just know...maybe it' just me, I'd really like to know if someone has this idea/perception.

death before Digital ....... the hassle rules all !!!! :D 35mm ( 24*56) panorama , 645, 6*6, polaroid , pinhole

It was for me until i had to spill juice on my yachicaflex and now i cant change the shutter speed lmao

My RB67 is so heavy and annoying to use, but the look is so worth it.

This insane proxy war is a hit on everything . but you had a great used market in Russia for medium format. Cheaper then all the crazies on Facebook market place and Craigslist that now think every old medium format is special and worth a premium.

Only thing holding me back is the initial cost. Minimum price for a decent medium format camera is $1000AUD.

Honestly there almost are zero benefits, other than thinking it's "cool" or whatever experience. I mean technically speaking: The resolution is not needed for anything unless you print wall sized Where's Waldo puzzles that people will look at 3" sections of. The DOF is canceled out by the existence of much faster lenses available in FF coverage that just gain back the same DOF again. Similarly, the smaller grain is basically just gained back again by faster lenses letting you shoot at a lower ISO than you could with the slower MF lenses. The perspective of portraits are a little closer in FF for the same composition and DOF, that's about it. That's shouldn't be worth thousands of dollars, 3x the film price, and + lbs of weight for almost anyone.

Medium format is not for me, The C330 is.

For newish photographers I always give them 2 factors to this question. Is your yearly film budget over/under $1k and do you plan on pursuing a professional career in any capacity? If it’s under $1k, you’re wasting money and not shooting enough and if you’re not pursuing generating sales, what’s your rush? Obviously there’s more conversation involved, but that’s the crux of the conversation.

There is no point to photograph film if you scan film. Better buy iphon or samsung and shoot. It is better and simple. I photo film medium format, but only B&W and processing it to final photography on enlarger in darkroom. For everything else i mean social media, Phone camera is perfect. For exemple iphon 13 can compere with 5k digital camera. So.

The only issue is the ridiculous price of film!!

Please stop saying “ LIKE “ …..like every like third like you know, like third like word ..like …..okay “ Like “ ….🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Awe who cares buy a new one

Kyle thank you for putting this together. This is a topic very interesting to me and I think a lot of people value your input and your take. I have the Yashica-124 Which I love using but not the greatest for Portraits. Because of cost I invested in the Kiev-60 as well as the ARAX for an SLR type body. The 6 x 6 aspect ratio is definitely something I am struggling with. I just ran the first rolls through those cameras. Can’t wait to see the results