120 Camera Help

walsh

walsh

Messages
905
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Right ive come to the decision to trade in my D90 as im finding Im using it less and less. Id like to get a more professional 120 camera than my lubitels so what could I get for the £500 mark? Ive had a look at mamiyas and bronicas but dont know a lot about them.
 
I've just picked up a Mamiya RB67 with waist-level finder and 90mm lens for around £300. So that gives an indication of what is available if you keep your eyes open (or CT's eyes in my case).

The first decision is what size negative you're looking for.. 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 or panoramic (6x12/14/17). A larger format system might have adapters down to a smaller size (e.g. the Mamiya 67s have 645 backs available), but you can't go the other way.

On recommendation from here I picked up a copy of The Medium Format Manual by Michael Freeman for a couple of quid secondhand on Amazon. It's a bit dated.. but so are most of the ex-Pro systems now available in the price range.. and it gives a broad overview of the main systems.
 
Many people coming from 135 or digital seem to instantly gravitate to a MF camera with as many auto features as possible to avoid the manual camera shock or attempt to use it in the same way as there smaller format.

What format are you looking to project on that 120 roll of film (645, 6x6, 6x7, etc)? And what kind of features are you looking for?

I shoot my Hasselblad 500C/M and Pentax 6x7 with a waist level finder, for example, and need to carry a one-degree spot meter and meter my own scenes. I prefer it that way but as you can see it is not fast and convenient. So with a MF camera configured like those, you probably would still want a 135 or digital for fill shooting situations where those two cameras are not ideal.
 
Mamiya 645 with auto prism is about as close as you can get to film/digital without going into a different arena completely. 645 lenses are a little smaller because of the slightly smaller format for the same angle etc of the bigger formats, so easier to handle. The auto prism will allow you to concentrate on the photograph and not worry about metering with a seperate meter, you can then get a WLF at your leisure if you'd prefer that route.
The 645 format is similar in layout terms to 35mm/DSLR so no massive culture shock.
I have a 30yr old 645, still works fine, so build quality is obviously high, never had a service or had its light seals replaced.

Matt
 
thanks for the replies, well whenever I have used 120 its either been 6x6 or 6x4.5. Having auto doesnt bother me much, Id be using it for pretty much all round shooting. Whats the variety of lenses available?
 
The Pentax 645 has several generations made going from manual focus to fully automatic. The latter one would be the 645NII but it would push your budget. You get auto focus lenses and zooms with it too and shoots like 135. But since the release of the 645D MF digital camera, the lenses for it have jumped in price and are harder to find now especially auto focus.
 
Last edited:
You have to consider the Bronica ETRS in your decision.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Many people coming from 135 or digital seem to instantly gravitate to a MF camera with as many auto features as possible to avoid the manual camera shock or attempt to use it in the same way as there smaller format.
Click to expand...

I went from a Nikon D70s to a Holga but I can't recall ever using anything other than the "M" setting on the Nikon, so not too much shock making the change.
 
boliston said:
I went from a Nikon D70s to a Holga but I can't recall ever using anything other than the "M" setting on the Nikon, so not too much shock making the change.
Click to expand...

Holga's are fun. I have a 120N. But I don't see how 'M' mode on a fully automatic digital camera will help you learn to meter your own scene or is any help transitioning. On my digital, 'M' means it still meters the scene and still auto focuses unless I put focus on 'M' too and then there is this green light in the view finder that tells me I'm focused. ;)
 
I went from digital to an Ensign 420 as my first MF camera, and I can't think of one person I know that didn't make the transition to MF via either a Holga or a vintage folder. And often that's as far as they got, but they continue with these simple cameras and hand-held lightmeters.

I'm also struggling to think of a MF camera I'd regard as "automatic" at the most affordable affordable entry-level end of the market. You might get "many" looking for automatic, but I'd go with "most" starting out much simpler.

Within the OPs budget I think the selection is going to be along the lines of Bronica 645 or SQ, Mamiya RB/Z 67, or one of the TLRs from Yashica or Mamiya.
 
A TLR would be a good choice I think too. Not too expensive and easy to carry around. A good first MF camera to find out if you like this film thing or not.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Holga's are fun. I have a 120N. But I don't see how 'M' mode on a fully automatic digital camera will help you learn to meter your own scene or is any help transitioning. On my digital, 'M' means it still meters the scene and still auto focuses unless I put focus on 'M' too and then there is this green light in the view finder that tells me I'm focused. ;)
Click to expand...

If I'm using a DSLR I use "M" mode but only really use the viewfinder to frame the scene.

I know there is a little green bar that indicates what the camera thinks of the settings you have chosen, but I don't tend to use the camera's meter - I just set aperture & shutter based on my favoured settings for the type of scene and take a shot then look at the histogram.

I normally tend to take at least 2 shots of each scene 1 stop apart and choose which one I prefer once it's on my screen at home.
 
just looking through the stock of the closest camera shop to me and come across this

price seems ok too me, but I could be wrong!
 
walsh said:
just looking through the stock of the closest camera shop to me and come across this

price seems ok too me, but I could be wrong!
Click to expand...

Needs the speed grip, the price seems a bit high to me but I could be out of touch.
 
You don't need a speed grip at all, I have one for my ETRS and very, very rarely use it nowadays. It's bulky and doesn't add anything other than slightly easier hand holding and a little more of a "slr" feel with the thumb winder.

I would also say the price for that is a bit high, or at least there are definitely cheaper deals out there.
 
Jakska said:
You don't need a speed grip at all, I have one for my ETRS and very, very rarely use it nowadays. It's bulky and doesn't add anything other than slightly easier hand holding and a little more of a "slr" feel with the thumb winder.

.
Click to expand...

erm I've never tried vertical shots with a prism and no speed grip ;)
 
my two penneth, for what it's worth.

college have a mamiya rb67. lovely camera, but it's bulky/heavy. i have a bronica SQ-A, which cost £300 last year (body, 150mm, 80mm, waist level finder, grip)

i really like it, and alot of people on my course lust over it often. alot lighter than the rb67, and the focus is on the lens instead of the body which is the case with the 67.
 
How about a brand new RB67 ProSD - can't be many of these left now...

CLICKY

Ffords sold off their last few of these a couple of years ago drastically reduced for £850, so this one is actually a bargain for a camera which will last a lifetime. Shame youd probably get shafted with the import duty.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
erm I've never tried vertical shots with a prism and no speed grip ;)
Click to expand...

Give it a go! I'd personally say it feels just as stable without the grip because you can kind of tuck your hands and arms in more. I shoot vertical with the finder to the right, so shutter hand down, and you can get a perfect hold on the camera body :) might just be because my speed grip was out of action for a while and I got used to it, but I really don't find it a necessary piece of kit at all anymore.

That RB67 link looks so nice, would feel great to be the first person to ever use that camera straight from the box!
 
Jakska said:
That RB67 link looks so nice, would feel great to be the first person to ever use that camera straight from the box!
Click to expand...

Absolutely - a thing of beauty isn't it? I wonder how much that would have cost in it''s heyday - anyone know?
 
Corrr that new RB67 looks nice. Are they considerably different to the RZ's?
 
tjs said:
Corrr that new RB67 looks nice. Are they considerably different to the RZ's?
Click to expand...

It's quite chunky to hold..I found a cheap bracket to fix to mine esp for holding a flashgun.


img103.jpg
 
Looking at that reminds me how much of a pain they are compared to my SQ! Built like a tank.
 
tjs said:
Looking at that reminds me how much of a pain they are compared to my SQ! Built like a tank.
Click to expand...

Probably only about 2 lbs heavier, and you get that lovely rectangular picture, my spare home wouldn't look the same in sq format ;):-

6X7--800px.jpg
 
That is true, I can see myself buying a 6x7 soon enough, but for now my SQ suffices! :love:
 
excalibur2 said:
It's quite chunky to hold..I found a cheap bracket to fix to mine esp for holding a flashgun.


img103.jpg
Click to expand...

I find my RB67 chunky, but I don't find it heavy. It probably helps that I'm 6'2" (in thick socks). The same weight in a smaller camera would be worse.

There's a tidy looking SQ on the 'bay at the moment, saw it last night but can't spot it just now.

But if you want compactness, portability and lightweight from 120 format you wouldn't go for Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax or Hasseblad.. you'd go for a folder from Fuji or Ensign (Selfix 820 Special with the coupled rangefinder).
 
Well I hump around my RZ67 and shoot a lot hand held, yes its big, yes its heavy but its still great to use. I must be a freak because I like heavy cameras, they just feel so much more stable too me, and I'm a short arse at 5'5".

Mart
 
Marvin d martian said:
Well I hump around my RZ67 and shoot a lot hand held, yes its big, yes its heavy but its still great to use. I must be a freak because I like heavy cameras, they just feel so much more stable too me, and I'm a short arse at 5'5".

Mart
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you were 6'3" before you started carrying the RZ :LOL:
 
LOL, I hope not. If it was by the end of the year I'll only be 18" tall!!! :razz:

Mart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top