Advice needed what MF camera

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,252
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
Totally clueless so hoping to get some help.

I'm after a medium
Format camera solely for landscapes just for some fun, don't have a massive budget.
Doing a bit of research I think the rb67 is for me, anyone any opinions? Or is there something else I should consider ? And recommendations for a wide lens aswell?


Thanks in advance
 
You don't need a massive budget (not like you used to). I was in Campkins of Cambridge the other day and they had a good range of MF kit for modest prices... You'd get a guarantee from them too.
 
RB67 is an excellent camera, a little eccentric, but a proper workhorse with all the features you need. Mamiya made a 50mm and 65mm, roughly 25mm and 35mm equivalent in 135 (FF) and both are very sharp excellent performers.
 
if all you want it for is landscapes then look at the Fuji rangefinder style cameras. A lot lighter than the bulky box style which you usually see,
 
The RB67 is a very popular camera and is an extremely capable camera as well, it is however the size and weight of a small ocean going liner.
Ash has suggested a Fuji, a very good suggestion, I have had 2 but didn't get on with them (a GW690 and GW690 Mk III), the lenses are absolutley stunning but I found the rangefinder patch small and on anything other than infinity difficult to focus correctly. This however is my fault not the cameras.
This was taken with the Mark 1 version
9370651871_e457914126_b.jpg


and this with the Mark III
14281293817_2869a9d33e_b.jpg


This is the Mark III
14520557062_bb60826c87_b.jpg


Light and comparitively small and makes massive 6x9 negatives.

There are many, many different types of medium format camera. My own preference is for a TLR (Twin Lens Reflex) which shoots 6x6 square negatives (and we all know its hip to be square) and prices run from very cheap e.g Lubitel (poor quality in my opinion) to very expensive e.g Rolleiflex f2.8 (probably the best ever TLR). If you want interchangeable lenses in a TLR Mamiya is the way to go, C3, 33, 330 or 2, 22, 220 with a range of lenses from 55mm to 250mm.

One from a Mamiya C330f
10910212035_8b8ec592df_b.jpg


and one of the camera, they are a fairly hefty beast but not as big as an RB67
8227997024_823dce5e08_b.jpg


Ross Ensign made a series of compact, lighter folding cameras, the 16-20 (6 x 4.5 negs), 12-20 (6 x 6 negs) and 820 (6 x 9 negs) which had excellent glass and a solid build in a fairly compact package. the 16-20 is not much bigger when folded than a larger comapct camera. Prices range from £30 (16-20) to £100 (820), with any with autorange in the name pushing the prices up massively.

Here's the 16-20, completely manual with no double exposure stop.
12241155846_3d85753689_b.jpg


There are many other choices and I'm sure you will get lots of other suggestions as well as the above.

Cheers

Andy
 
As to wide lenses 50-55mm is about as wide as it gets, anything else is a fisheye.:D
 
I suppose weight is as much subjective as objective. I don't find the RZ67/RB67 a great weight to carry, and if I were to have just one camera for landscapes, and it had to be medium format, then that's the one(s) I'd go for. It's going to depend on your priorities in terms of features/weight etc. and how you "see" landscapes. My vision doesn't call for a wide angle lens, for example.
 
stumac said:
Totally clueless so hoping to get some help.

I'm after a medium
Format camera solely for landscapes just for some fun, don't have a massive budget.
Doing a bit of research I think the rb67 is for me, anyone any opinions? Or is there something else I should consider ? And recommendations for a wide lens aswell?
Click to expand...
  1. What's your rough budget?
  2. Do you have any preference on aspect ratio? I imagine a 6x4.5, 6x7 or 6x9 probably works best for landscapes.
  3. Do you have a preferred wide angle focal length on 35mm kit? If so, that can also help to find the medium format equivalent.
 
freecom2 said:
  1. Do you have a preferred wide angle focal length on 35mm kit? If so, that can also help to find the medium format equivalent.
Click to expand...

Seems to have changed the numbering when I deleted the other points...

Is this necessarily a good basis? I don't want to generalise from my own experience, but it wasn't true for me. When I switched from 35mm to medium format, it changed the way that I worked, and to a large extent the way that I looked at the world. Slowing down and thinking about what attracted me to a subject, and considering how best to convert that to an image, I found that the angle of view I preferred changed. On 35mm, I'd use either a 21mm or a 90mm lens, and rarely used anything else unless I wanted the greater reach of a longer lens. On changing to medium format, I found that the standard lens suited me for almost everything - in my case a 90mm lens on a Mamiya RZ67. I have a 50mm lens for it, but have only used it once (I think) in rather exceptional circumstances.
 
Andysnap said:
As to wide lenses 50-55mm is about as wide as it gets, anything else is a fisheye.:D
Click to expand...
You can get a 40mm for the SQ (but that's 6x6 of course)

I wouldn't get an RB67 without holding one first. The SQ-A is already heavy and bulky enough that I don't take it out as often as I expected. The RB is a lot bigger ) and a lot heavier. You don't want to buy one and then dread carting it up a hill or more than a mile from the car.
 
^^^ My point exactly. They are a great camera but if you like I do, climb a few biggish hills you really don't want to be lugging a beast the size of a Volkswagen up there with you. A Rolleicord VA or Vb or even a Rolleiflex Automat are about half the size and weight and give just as good results.
 
Thanks all for
The great Info so far , when I say using it for landscapes I'm
Never far from the car ( a bit lazy tht way) so weight isn't really on my priority list . But over all quality is , don't thing I could get on with a square format camera so that's why I was looking at the rb67
 
With regards to lenses I wouldn't want anything longer than 25-30mm (35mm equivalent ) ideally around the 20mm mark
 
stumac said:
Thanks all for
The great Info so far , when I say using it for landscapes I'm
Never far from the car ( a bit lazy tht way) so weight isn't really on my priority list . But over all quality is , don't thing I could get on with a square format camera so that's why I was looking at the rb67
Click to expand...

Go large format then if youre close to the car :)
 
StephenM said:
Is this necessarily a good basis?
Click to expand...

Certainly it's not always going to be 100% perfect, but since OP specifically wanted recommendations for an MF camera for landscapes and wide angle lenses, it seemed appropriate to ask that as one parameter to help choose an ideal kit. I would always recommend getting a standard lens since it is versatile, and most MF camera kits tend to come with a standard lens (whether you like it or not).
 
Andysnap said:
^^^ My point exactly. They are a great camera but if you like I do, climb a few biggish hills you really don't want to be lugging a beast the size of a Volkswagen up there with you. A Rolleicord VA or Vb or even a Rolleiflex Automat are about half the size and weight and give just as good results.
Click to expand...

Weight isn't a big deal, its how its carried. With a good pack an adult can carry easily over 10kg for as long as their fit enough to walk. My full RB kit including tripod is still less than 8kg, though tbh my 5x4 kit is about the same weight...
 
stumac said:
With regards to lenses I wouldn't want anything longer than 25-30mm (35mm equivalent ) ideally around the 20mm mark
Click to expand...

The aforementioned 50 and 65 are the widest linear lenses on the RB system I don't think you'll get anything relatively wider on MF, next step is fisheye. You'll see wider lenses on 645 (6x4.5 nominal) but they have broadly the FOV.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Weight isn't a big deal, its how its carried. With a good pack an adult can carry easily over 10kg for as long as their fit enough to walk. My full RB kit including tripod is still less than 8kg, though tbh my 5x4 kit is about the same weight...
Click to expand...

Weight is a big deal when your an old fat bloke like me...:D I already carry about 4 RB67's worth of excess just around my middle. The Rolleiflex weighs about a kilo... a much better option imho.
 
Last edited:
I was in a similar boat earlier this year, and I went for the RB67 as my first proper medium format camera (after playing with a Holga), using it mostly for landscape work. I can't offer any comparison with other cameras, but it's certainly been as fun to use as I hoped, and very happy with the quality too. I've stuck with the 90mm lens so far, not felt the need to go wider just yet, but probably will do down the line.

As for size and weight, it is big and heavy, but its really not that bad once you get used too it. I find it as easy as carrying my digital gear around, and regularly walk and cycle with it in the bag... but it definitely won't fit in your pocket.

If you want a fun camera I don't think you can go far wrong (from my experience so far) with the RB67. My 2p

.David.
 
Andysnap said:
Weight is a big deal when your an old fat bloke like me...:D I already carry about 4 RB67's worth of excess just around my middle. The Rolleiflex weighs about a kilo... a much better option imho.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly in peak physical condition my self!! ;)

My hiking/camping pack which I use for the 5x4 carries the weight on my hips and is barely noticeable even after a full day. The appalling camera pack I use for the RB carries on my shoulders, I can feel it immediately, its uncomfortable after an hour or so and I've got my tripod in my hands so its got less all up weight. When carrying weight its all in the pack, ask a squaddie or a long distance hiker.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Weight isn't a big deal, its how its carried. With a good pack an adult can carry easily over 10kg for as long as their fit enough to walk. My full RB kit including tripod is still less than 8kg, though tbh my 5x4 kit is about the same weight...
Click to expand...
It's not about what I'm capable of carrying, it's what I'm happy carrying. I could carry my Bronica all day if I wanted to, but as it happens, I just don't. I thought I'd be using it all the time, but when push comes to shove I'd rather pick up an SLR or a TLR or a compact, or basically anything less bulky. (I don't drive, so if all I did was get out of the car and put it on a tripod I'd probably feel differently)
 
abdoujaparov said:
It's not about what I'm capable of carrying, it's what I'm happy carrying. I could carry my Bronica all day if I wanted to, but as it happens, I just don't. I thought I'd be using it all the time, but when push comes to shove I'd rather pick up an SLR or a TLR or a compact, or basically anything less bulky. (I don't drive, so if all I did was get out of the car and put it on a tripod I'd probably feel differently)
Click to expand...

On several occasions I've hiked more than 15 miles with my RB kit, I've done many long off road rides with the RB (the 5x4 is actually better on the bike) I don't just get out the car and plonk it on a tripod. I'm not going to tell you what you're happy with, that's personal choice. But immediately writing off a camera system, any camera system, because its heavy or difficult to use is a little odd, in here especially.
 
steveo_mcg said:
On several occasions I've hiked more than 15 miles with my RB kit, I've done many long off road rides with the RB (the 5x4 is actually better on the bike) I don't just get out the car and plonk it on a tripod. I'm not going to tell you what you're happy with, that's personal choice. But immediately writing off a camera system, any camera system, because its heavy or difficult to use is a little odd, in here especially.
Click to expand...

I suggested he held one before buying it. That's all.
 
Right, when I wor a lad I used to get up half an hour before I went to bed and carry Ansel Adams, all his cameras and the car he arrived in all day up Mount Everest in me undies.
But now I'm nearly 200 years old I don't want to lug that much stuff about with me, I can and still do walk 10 or 12 miles in a day in the Lake District but if I had to carry an RB then I would definitely not get as far. Nobody is dismissing the RB system, it's bloody fantastic, but for the more senior walker/photographer (or walkographer as I like to be called) it is just too big and heavy however its carried (unless it comes with a mule).:D
 
skysh4rk said:
Wimps. When I go out hiking, I carry both a TLR and my SQ-A. ;)
Click to expand...

H'mm can't see the point unless it's for backup, I would have thought a 35mm plus Medium format would be better esp for those quick shots of something that might turn up, the 35mm could have a 70-210 zoom.....but that's me and what I do.
 
Last edited:
abdoujaparov said:
I suggested he held one before buying it. That's all.
Click to expand...

Holding one isn't going to tell a person if its too heavy for to use, it will tell them its a heavy bit of kit but as I've said weight is all about how its carried and as you quite rightly reminded me, its a personal thing.

But if you're going to use it for landscapes, odds are it will be either on your back or on a tripod at which point it only matters if you can use the controls.

I did use it for a mornings walk around suspended by a strap from my neck... I regretted that in the morning!
 
Andysnap said:
Right, when I wor a lad I used to get up half an hour before I went to bed and carry Ansel Adams, all his cameras and the car he arrived in all day up Mount Everest in me undies.
But now I'm nearly 200 years old I don't want to lug that much stuff about with me, I can and still do walk 10 or 12 miles in a day in the Lake District but if I had to carry an RB then I would definitely not get as far. Nobody is dismissing the RB system, it's bloody fantastic, but for the more senior walker/photographer (or walkographer as I like to be called) it is just too big and heavy however its carried (unless it comes with a mule).:D
Click to expand...

I suspect your selling your self short there Andy. :)





.... You must be older than 200 :D
 
steveo_mcg said:
I did use it for a mornings walk around suspended by a strap from my neck... I regretted that in the morning!
Click to expand...

I've carried my RZ67 around for a day, but over my shoulder, not round my neck. Plus my Benbo tripod (the original, from the days when Benbo did one tripod) which is large and NOT carbon fibre. I have carried a Manfrotto CF tripod, plus RZ67 and 5x4 in a backpack and survived without feeling any ill effects.

But that was when I was younger (probably around 60). Although I wouldn't think it was a problem even now that I'm slightly older.
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm can't see the point unless it's for backup, I would have thought a 35mm plus Medium format would be better esp for those quick shots of something that might turn up, the 35mm could have a 70-210 zoom.....but that's me and what I do.
Click to expand...

And I can't see the point of using 35mm.

We can spend all day explaining our own preferences, but it ultimately has no bearing on what the OP is looking for. For me, the weight of most medium format cameras is pretty trivial, so I can carry around whatever I like, but that doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. I think the OP needs to consider his own preferences with regard to viewing (e.g., SLR, TLR, rangefinder), film format, and lenses and then the answers will become much clearer.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I suspect your selling your self short there Andy. :)





.... You must be older than 200 :D
Click to expand...

Cheeky young whippersnapper, I'm only 197. But RJ is correct, we are giving suggestions based on our needs and preferences and we have come to those mainly through trying things out and discarding the things we don't like and moving on to the next thing, well I know I have anyway.

What it comes down to is this... IT'S HIP TO BE SQUARE.... end of.:wave:
 
Some people see square images, some don't. Some see panoramic images, others don't.

Some people are logical and consistent. Others aren't. I find 35mm too loong and narrow, but like 2.25x3.25 (6x9 in metric). Now that IS odd...
 
Wow.... such a manly thread. Bronica ETRS... you won't go far wrong!
 
i got a rb67 and it is pretty big and heavy, ive got the optech pro neck strap which does help alot, the stock strap is dreadful. need to look into getting a shoulder or sling style setup sorted for it tho

i did buy a backpack for it, which my dad promptly nicked :\, but it fits into a kata 123 go or whatever backpack, i have, but not much room left for other stuff.

it is quite fun to use :)

folders tend to not have wide angle lenses
 
skysh4rk said:
And I can't see the point of using 35mm.

We can spend all day explaining our own preferences, but it ultimately has no bearing on what the OP is looking for. For me, the weight of most medium format cameras is pretty trivial, so I can carry around whatever I like, but that doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. I think the OP needs to consider his own preferences with regard to viewing (e.g., SLR, TLR, rangefinder), film format, and lenses and then the answers will become much clearer.
Click to expand...

.......but you are carrying two square format cameras that do the same job\results.......that was my point.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
.......but you are carrying two square format cameras that do the same job.......that was my point.
Click to expand...

A Yashica Electro shoots the same format as a Nikon F5, but do they do the same job?
 
Last edited:
On the weight thing......

I have a wide strap on my Bronica SQ-B that goes over my left shoulder with the camera hanging at my right side.

I'm not as young as I was and 9 stone ringing wet, but the weight is a non-issue for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top