Can we talk Medium Format cameras?

Naboo32

Naboo32

Messages
3,278
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Now, I know that some of you will be tempted to respond with, "Google is your friend" or "Use the Search function" :D, but I have done those things and am not really finding the kind of information that I want. Instead, I thought that I'd open this thread and ask only those who genuinely enjoy discussing camera equipment and sharing their knowledge and opinions to take part, in order to help me get a better overview of what's out there. I hope that's OK with you all :) !?

My situation is (roughly) this; I enjoy shooting with film and I like to develop my own b&w negatives, but I am growing increasingly unhappy with the lack of detail and sharpness that my 35mm cameras (even when used with 'good' Nikkor lenses) can bring :shrug:. Most of the blame (IMO) falls on the scanner (Epson V500), as it cannot keep even remotely curly 35mm negs in sharp focus and everything that I've tried to get the kind of image quality that I crave points to using bigger negatives (which are easier to hold flat in my scanner and easier to extract detail and sharpness from). If I'm going for 'bigger' then I probably want to skip the 6x4.5 format cameras (as they don't offer enough of an improvement to warrant all the hassle and expense), but equally I can't really afford the expense of developing and scanning Large Format negs. So, 6x6 or (preferably) 6x7 it is (y)!

In terms of what I'm looking for in camera features, there's no point in me writing a definitive 'wish list' here - I simply need to find out what all of the contending models are and then find out a bit more about their features, strengths and weaknesses. Armed with that info, I can try to make a decision about which one to get (or whether to give up on the whole idea, if nothing really suits ;)). That said, as a starting point, let's just say that I would like something which has top quality glass available for it, is not overly heavy or hugely bulky, has some form of built-in light meter and has a reputation for good build quality and reliability.

In particular, I'm a bit confused about what the various MF cameras use for metering :shrug:. Do most of them have built-in meters, or do MF users generally favour using external light meters?

I'm also a little unsure about the usability of the Hasselblad 500 series, with their 1-500th sec s/s range - that seems awfully restrictive to me :thinking:. Could you get around that in daylight by using ND filters and is there a way to extend the exposure times (i.e. 'bulb' mode) for night time use :shrug:?

Size and weight of MF cameras are a little difficult to judge from some of the articles that I've read, too. People say (of the Mamiya RB/Z 67 models in particular) that they are 'too heavy for carrying around' :nono:, but I can't seem to find any details of what camera and lenses weigh for some of these brands.

Perhaps most of all, I would simply be interested to hear which MF cameras you folks prefer to own and use and of course ... why :).

Thanks in advance for your input.

Andy
 
Andy,
Completely understand regarding the whole Google thing, no worries. Let's try a reply...

Naboo32 said:
Most of the blame (IMO) falls on the scanner (Epson V500), as it cannot keep even remotely curly 35mm negs in sharp focus and everything that I've tried to get the kind of image quality that I crave points to using bigger negatives (which are easier to hold flat in my scanner and easier to extract detail and sharpness from).
Click to expand...

Firstly, before you delve into MF, have you considered getting a dedicated 35mm scanner like a Plustek model? They are superb - someone recently posted a comparison between a V series Epson and their newly acquired Plustek (it was in the last few days, I can't remember who it was), and it is completely different. The holders for the Plusteks are pretty good with curly negatives, they snap down quite firmly and with a little flattening with a few heavy books, should be pretty much good to go. No doubt about it, the bigger negative helps, but the curl problem is exactly the same - I had a 6x6 Provia slide that curled so far out of the holder that it wasn't held properly, which resulted in a blurry scan - the scanner can only do so much when the negative is at fault.

Naboo32 said:
That said, as a starting point, let's just say that I would like something which has top quality glass available for it, is not overly heavy or hugely bulky, has some form of built-in light meter and has a reputation for good build quality and reliability.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of the MF cameras have top quality glass. Zeiss/Schneider are frequently on the front of lenses, and MF earned its reputation for superb image quality thanks to the quality glass from the various different systems. Whilst many have excellent build quality and reliability, a lot of it can come down to previous users - a sturdy Hasselblad that was abused might be worse off than a more fragile Mamiya 7 that was babied. Difficult to make general comments as a result.

Naboo32 said:
In particular, I'm a bit confused about what the various MF cameras use for metering :shrug:. Do most of them have built-in meters, or do MF users generally favour using external light meters?
Click to expand...

In general, no, but that sort of information is generally available per each model. A lot of Hasselblads did not, most that do are newer models that command higher prices. Only the later Rolleis had meters, which were selenium meters that do not stand the test of time well - although the later FX and GX models had better metering, but again much higher prices. I use a Sekonic L-308s, and before used a USSR Leningrad 8 to meter for all of my TLRs. No problems there, you learn a) how to meter quite efficiently, b) often learn how to read light without needing a light meter, c) with negative film you often have some leeway anyway.

Naboo32 said:
I'm also a little unsure about the usability of the Hasselblad 500 series, with their 1-500th sec s/s range - that seems awfully restrictive to me :thinking:. Could you get around that in daylight by using ND filters and is there a way to extend the exposure times (i.e. 'bulb' mode) for night time use :shrug:?
Click to expand...

All should have a bulb mode, and yes you could use ND filters if you wanted - although buying another back with a faster/slower film in might actually be quicker, and would be taking advantage of the modular system that a lot of MF SLRs have. I thought it would be an issue with TLRs, but you learn to work past it - and you often need the smaller apertures to get the adequate depth of field anyway (depth of field is smaller with larger formats) so I haven't found it too much of an issue.

Naboo32 said:
Size and weight of MF cameras are a little difficult to judge from some of the articles that I've read, too. People say (of the Mamiya RB/Z 67 models in particular) that they are 'too heavy for carrying around' :nono:, but I can't seem to find any details of what camera and lenses weigh for some of these brands.
Click to expand...

The RB/RZ67 was too heavy for me. For what I like to do (having the camera around my neck the whole day, on the streets, out & about) it simply did not suit. Others on this forum swear by their Mamiyas, and they do produce big negs with excellent image quality. The information is often out there, often searching "[camera model] weight" or "[camera model] grams" helps to find some of those smaller details.

Naboo32 said:
Perhaps most of all, I would simply be interested to hear which MF cameras you folks prefer to own and use and of course ... why :).
Click to expand...

I fell in love with TLRs. I tried a Yashica Mat, and although the inversed waist level viewfinder was initially difficult to grasp, I ended up getting used to it, and the unobtrusive nature of TLR shooting was wonderful. Quiet, unassuming when shooting people, 12 shots per roll which suited me far more than trying to take 36 rubbish shots on 35mm... it was all just there. 6x6 negative meant scanning and printing was significantly easier and less hassle, and the images just popped in a way that I hadn't achieved with 35mm. I also hated working with 35mm - having to be super fine cutting the negatives, the tiniest piece of dirt ruining a quarter of a scan, scratches showing up very easily...I bought a Rollei 3.5F and that was that really.
 
Last edited:
Hi Freecom2!

Firstly, thanks a million for taking the time to post such a varied and helpful post - this is just the kind of response that I was hoping for :naughty:!

There's a lot to digest in there and I have already read it through three times.

I think that the scanner option, as the 'weak link' in my current chain, could well be worth considering as an alternative to going to MF, if I can't find a suitable MF kit for a sensible price. To be honest, I only bought my scanner earlier this year and somehow missed out on the (better) Plustek models altogether when doing my research :shrug:. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to post a more general and open set of questions this time - so that I don't miss anything ;)!

Another part of the reason for wanting to go to MF is to reduce the impact of film grain and dust on the scans. I always have to clone out dust spots with my Epson V500 (as the bundled software for this just robs the image of all sharpness :|). I figured that a bigger neg would keep the grain under more control when sharpening, as well as not being as badly affected when cloning out small specks of dust/hairs :thinking:. I also hate fiddling about with trying to get the 35mm film to load onto my tank's reel, but that's another story :D.

Good to know about the (probable) need for a light meter too - I'll have to figure that one into the budget. Also, it hadn't occured to me that DOF would be any shallower on MF, but I suppose that it makes a certain amount of sense when you consider focal lengths and proximity to subject etc.

As for the RB/RZ67s, you must be the tenth person to say that they were 'too heavy' out of the twelve people who've commented on the weight (in other threads that I've read) :D - I think that I should take heed of this warning, as I don't own a car and have to carry everything over my shoulders :(. The Hasselbald looks a good deal lighter, I must say.

Regarding TLRs, I must say that I hadn't really thought much about those yet. They looked as though they might be heavier and many of them seem to have fixed focus length lenses (whereas I want some flexibility there). I will have to do some more reading :naughty: ..........

Thanks again!
 
Well I don't find my RB67 a problem at 8lbs in a back pack + 35mm SLR, and I don't know what weight would I find unbearable as I took 16lbs of camera gear to Ibiza and didn't find that a problem, also in a backpack.

If you want the image on a RB67 the right way (like a SLR) then you need a prism finder this setup was about 8lbs
DSC00937.jpg
 
After retuning to film with 35mm and enjoying the limitations of it I was tempted to try Medium Format. I didn't have or want to spend much money on it and acquired a Yashica Mat on the bay for a few quid.

I loved it. Still love it.

I shoot it in order to take my time. Always on a tripod, more than happy to go out and make just 1 picture. Slow slide film and small apertures is my way. It's not everyone's and may not be yours.

But there is magic in that big square...

(still use 35mm for walkabout)

I use CC Imaging for develop and scan btw.
 
Hi Andy,

At the moment there does seem to be a movement toward TLR's in this musty little section.They are light and produce lovely 6x6 negs from which even I can manage some half decent pics. As to the problem with 1/500 of a second this image was taken on a brilliantly sunny day (one of the few) in mid-afternoon on a Yashica A which only goes up to 1/300th, no filters or grads were used.


Statue by andysnapper1, on Flickr

Cheers

Andy
 
Hey Andy,

I am in your exact position and after my research google + flickr - I am saving up for a Fuji gw690II . Also, it has the 6x9 format - i know people love the square 6x6 but it just doesn't suit me.

In my experience the V500 is really good value - getting dust etc off my 35mm negs just requires patience - longer washes at the end of dev and using a blower on the scanner and negs for 2/3 mins before each scan.
 
Last edited:
6x6 is the way forward. As has been mentioned on another thread "it's hip to be square" :D
 
As Freecom has kindly and expertly swept up most of the muck in this thread, it looks like its a what have you got and how do you like it thread.
So I'll add mine for perusal.

the good -
I mostly shoot Mamiya 6 RF, its light and more compact than the 7, marginally less expensive but still a serious wallet full with glass.
It meters perfectly, the lenses are sharp and its very easy and convenient to use, I measure the product of all my MF cameras past and present against it because its freakishly reliable and consistent.

the bad -
There are only 3 lenses available for it, 50, 75, 150
It does not close focus well at all, can't fill a 6x6 frame with a head shot.
RF focussing does not suit everybody, it takes a bit of getting used to.

the good -
Bronica ECtl SLR, similar in size and weight to a 500CM so its reasonably light, but with a 250mm f4 on the front....not so.
EC & ECtl's won't break the bank and the lens range is huge.
I use it for studio but you can hand shoot it with wlf or a prism pretty easily with wides through to mid teles.
This thing close focusses like a champ, 500CM can't get close to it, all the glass is very good, not zeiss good but pro quality good.
It uses film backs.

the bad -
Its a focal plane shutter, with a big split mirror banging up and down every frame.
This system is now 40+ years old.
The ECtl is metered but you can't bet your life on correct exposure.
If it breaks....its broke for good in all likely hood.


Neither of these 2 cameras are the cheapest route in to MF, but if you want light/convenient, if you want choice of lenses and metering, they usually cost more..:)
 
In terms of lightish, convenient, relatively cheap and interchangeable lenses the Mamiya C220 fits the bill. And the TLR is a whole new way of seeing.
 
I'll add to the comments that the rb67 is NOT too heavy. I have taken mine with one lens and waist level finder on holiday to Europe twice now, no worries. I also like to carry it when out hiking.

I also love my Seagull TLR, though everyone else seems to hate them. A Japanese or German one would be way better of course, but for the price I got mine (before the Lomography days), I can't complain.

The key with medium format is finding the frame size and camera type that suits you and your budget. The MF rangefinders are all (as far as I know) superb and easy to carry around. TLRs are nice too, none are particularly cumbersome bar the Mamiyas, which make up for their relative largeness and weight with the extra flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'll let others comment on SLRs, all I can say is that if you aren't averse to a bit of mass, a Mamiya RB/RZ is king. Only shortcoming of the Mamiyas if you ask me is the lack of fast glass.
 
Just dropping in (before bedtime :D) to thank you all very much for the superb contributions to this thread :clap:.

I'll try and respond to all of the posts tomorrow, once I've had a chance to digest all the info and once I'm back at work and being paid to surf'n'chat :p!
 
As already stated above, a TLR might be a good way to go. Relatively portable and comparatively unobtrusive too.

Personally I have a Mamiya RB67, and love using it especially the larger negatives, focussing is not an issue either. It's a bit of a beast but, to me anyway, is not much worse than lugging my DSLR and a few lenses around and the increased picture quality and the ability to use different film stocks (I am a sucker for Velvia and also Acros and Ektar) makes up for any additional weight.

I always have to use it on a tripod whereas that might not be the case with a TLR, so that might also be a factor?

There is no meter in my 67 but I used an ancient analgoue meter which worked fine and have eventually moved up to a 'proper' spot meter (mostly since moving up again to large format which is the only reason I am considering selling the 67 at the moment)
 
If you want light and not too expensive, what about one of the folding Zeiss Ikonta rangefinders? :nuts:
 
My RB67ProSD was probably my favourite camera to use of all time, I absolutely loved it. In fact I've been looking on Ebay and can't believe how little they are going for now. I was a bit younger and a lot fitter then but could happily walk all day in the Lake District with my RB kit comprising of 50, 65, 90, 127, 180 and 250mm lenses, plus a few 120 backs and a prism all in a LowePro Trekker. For landscapes I mainly used the 65mm, not very wide but it suited me, for weddings and people I would use the 127 and 180mm, I rarely used the 50, 90 and 250mm lenses. The prism did have a built in meter with spot and average but I always used a hand held meter, although for landscapes I preferred the waist level finder.

For travelling I replaced it with a couple of Mamiya 7II rangefinder cameras with 50, 65, 80 and 150mm lenses. Once again I mainly used the 65mm and occasionally the 150. Again there was a built in meter that I didn't use preferring a hand held meter. These cameras were great for travelling, not that much bigger than a pro 35mm camera and the lenses were much smaller and compact. They appear to have held their prices very well and are still an expensive option

I also had a small C330f twin lens kit with 55, 80 and 135mm lenses. I mainly used the 80mm for street photography and found that with the waist level finder, no-one was aware of their picture being taken.

For a while I had a small 645ProTL kit with 55, 150 and 300mm lenses and a prism. I used it with the prism but with the crank wider, not with a grip.

I enjoyed using all of these Mamiya cameras and miss the process of shooting medium format. If I had to choose one, it would be the RB...ruddy brilliant!
 
Don't dismiss the 645 too quickly. The negs are over 3 times bigger, 15 shots to a 120 roll and more portable than the 67s. I've got a mamiya 645 which can shoot up to 1/1000 sec and has a wide range of lovely lenses available for surprisingly little money and you can even find a f1.9 80 mm lens. The system is modular, I use a metered prism which gives me well exposed negs.

Mike
 
As above, I have recently purchased the mamiya 645 pro, and have both the waist level finder and the metered prism.. it,s not to heavy and as already said meters well with the prism fitted..
 
MindofMel said:
Hey Andy,

I am in your exact position and after my research google + flickr - I am saving up for a Fuji gw690II . Also, it has the 6x9 format - i know people love the square 6x6 but it just doesn't suit me.

In my experience the V500 is really good value - getting dust etc off my 35mm negs just requires patience - longer washes at the end of dev and using a blower on the scanner and negs for 2/3 mins before each scan.
Click to expand...

I have the GSW690II ( wide angle version) and it's a great piece of kit. I have only managed to put two rolls through it so far, so still getting to grips with it. I managed to get mine from Japan on the well known auction site and was lucky enough not to get charged any customs fees, and saved quite a bit on what UK sellers were asking (even of I did get charged it would have been cheaper). Just need the weather to improve so I can get out with it again.
 
Naboo32 said:
Firstly, thanks a million for taking the time to post such a varied and helpful post - this is just the kind of response that I was hoping for :naughty:!

snip
Click to expand...

Glad to be of assistance, it keeps my mind fresh on the various options as well (not that my GAS needs it). Yes, the scanner is definitely worth thinking about, although a route into MF isn't necessarily a bad thing - because otherwise it might be a nagging want until you fulfil it, if you never know whether it was for you or not without trying it. We mention medium format on Film & Conventional so much that you end up being intrigued by it!

Controlled grain is definitely a big plus. I shoot T-Max 400 dev'd in T-Max Developer, which is already quite minimal grain at 35mm level, but at medium format it can be tough to find the grain to focus on when printing.

As for loading - loading is a pain with any format :bang: I use reels with wide flanges though, they are a little more difficult to get than the Paterson normal reels but well worth having a look out for.

RE: the weight of RB/RZ67, as some of the following posts after yours have shown, it really is a subjective thing. I personally find even my current shooting outfit too heavy (D7000 + 17-50 f/2.8 on one shoulder, Rolleiflex 3.5F on the other), but for some people that combined weight is nothing. The advantages of the additional negative size with 6x7 is a big draw for a lot of people (and many of the people who posted above will often cite that as to why they shoot with it), but for me outweighed by the disadvantage of their weight and ideally needing to be shot with a tripod; not a necessity, but I have sharp shots with TLRs at 1/8th and 1/4th of a second, which simply would not be possible handheld with the RB/RZ system.

Lots of talk of 6x7 rangefinders/SLRs, lots of talk about 6x6 TLRs, but many other types to consider. 6x4.5 does offer a lot and often in a much more neck/shoulder acceptable weight, and there are a few rangefinders and several SLR systems in that size. With 6x6, there are the SLRs - the Bronica SQ, Hasselblad 500, Kievs, Pentacons, and the rangefinders - Mamiya 6 springing to mind.

The world of medium format, even with far fewer cameras, is much more varied and with many different ways to shoot 120 film.
 
It's worth mentioning with 6X4.5, 6X6 and 6X7 you get 15, 12 and 10 shots respectively...and using film concentrates your mind to get everything right so for many subjects all you might need is 10 shots (well unless you are somewhere special). And of course there is nothing stopping you taking a 35mm SLR or DSLR for backup or whatever...I always carry two film cameras.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I don't find my RB67 a problem at 8lbs in a back pack + 35mm SLR, and I don't know what weight would I find unbearable as I took 16lbs of camera gear to Ibiza and didn't find that a problem, also in a backpack.
Click to expand...

Well Brian, you must have a very understanding airline :D if you can carry 16lbs of camera, plus luggage, when you go on holiday. That would be too much for me, I have to say.

Although I expect to do most of my MF shooting locally, I really do want a set up which is light enough to pack (either partially or completely) into my hand luggage when I go abroad. I'm starting to get the impression that if I did own an RB67 (great value though they are at the moment), it might end up being left at home if I was going travelling :crying:.

trevorbray said:
After retuning to film with 35mm and enjoying the limitations of it I was tempted to try Medium Format. I didn't have or want to spend much money on it and acquired a Yashica Mat on the bay for a few quid.

I loved it. Still love it.

I shoot it in order to take my time. Always on a tripod, more than happy to go out and make just 1 picture. Slow slide film and small apertures is my way. It's not everyone's and may not be yours.

But there is magic in that big square...

(still use 35mm for walkabout)

I use CC Imaging for develop and scan btw.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point there, Trevor - one which I should have clarified in my earlier post ;). Yes, I too intend to use the MF format for 'studied' landscape and still life photography. I don't 'do' portraiture and have other cameras better suited to 'faster' forms of photography.

I will certainly check out the TLR options, as you suggest. The sample images that I found when I just Googled "Yashica Mat" were mostly of the kind of (high) quality that I am searching for.

Thanks for the post.

Andysnap said:
Hi Andy,

At the moment there does seem to be a movement toward TLR's in this musty little section.They are light and produce lovely 6x6 negs from which even I can manage some half decent pics. As to the problem with 1/500 of a second this image was taken on a brilliantly sunny day (one of the few) in mid-afternoon on a Yashica A which only goes up to 1/300th, no filters or grads were used.

(snip)
Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

Andy, does your Yashica have a 'bulb' exposure mode? It's more the long exposures that I am concerned about than the short ones, I guess, as I have ND filters.

Nice results there, BTW (y).

MindofMel said:
Hey Andy,

I am in your exact position and after my research google + flickr - I am saving up for a Fuji gw690II . Also, it has the 6x9 format - i know people love the square 6x6 but it just doesn't suit me.

In my experience the V500 is really good value - getting dust etc off my 35mm negs just requires patience - longer washes at the end of dev and using a blower on the scanner and negs for 2/3 mins before each scan.
Click to expand...

Hi Mel,

The Fuji looks like another very tempting proposition :naughty:. I love the portability aspect of it. The initial images that I found from that camera/lens combo looked a little soft, which is why I took it off my list, but I guess that I might have just found some poor examples. I need to go and have another look at that, because there are several of these on eBay right now, at affordable prices :naughty:.

I look forward to seeing what you do with yours, when you get it, Mel.

RaglanSurf said:
6x6 is the way forward. As has been mentioned on another thread "it's hip to be square"
Click to expand...

:p

joxby said:
As Freecom has kindly and expertly swept up most of the muck in this thread, it looks like its a what have you got and how do you like it thread.
So I'll add mine for perusal.

the good -
I mostly shoot Mamiya 6 RF, its light and more compact than the 7, marginally less expensive but still a serious wallet full with glass.
It meters perfectly, the lenses are sharp and its very easy and convenient to use, I measure the product of all my MF cameras past and present against it because its freakishly reliable and consistent.

the bad -
There are only 3 lenses available for it, 50, 75, 150
It does not close focus well at all, can't fill a 6x6 frame with a head shot.
RF focussing does not suit everybody, it takes a bit of getting used to.

the good -
Bronica ECtl SLR, similar in size and weight to a 500CM so its reasonably light, but with a 250mm f4 on the front....not so.
EC & ECtl's won't break the bank and the lens range is huge.
I use it for studio but you can hand shoot it with wlf or a prism pretty easily with wides through to mid teles.
This thing close focusses like a champ, 500CM can't get close to it, all the glass is very good, not zeiss good but pro quality good.
It uses film backs.

the bad -
Its a focal plane shutter, with a big split mirror banging up and down every frame.
This system is now 40+ years old.
The ECtl is metered but you can't bet your life on correct exposure.
If it breaks....its broke for good in all likely hood.


Neither of these 2 cameras are the cheapest route in to MF, but if you want light/convenient, if you want choice of lenses and metering, they usually cost more..:)
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for posting your thoughts, John - that's exactly what I was inviting people to do.

The Bronica ECtl is one that 'got under the radar', so thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I looked at the Bronica ETRS and saw that it only produced 645 format negs and consequently 'tarred all other Bronicas with the same brush' :bonk:.

mustanir said:
I'll add to the comments that the rb67 is NOT too heavy. I have taken mine with one lens and waist level finder on holiday to Europe twice now, no worries. I also like to carry it when out hiking.

I also love my Seagull TLR, though everyone else seems to hate them. A Japanese or German one would be way better of course, but for the price I got mine (before the Lomography days), I can't complain.

The key with medium format is finding the frame size and camera type that suits you and your budget. The MF rangefinders are all (as far as I know) superb and easy to carry around. TLRs are nice too, none are particularly cumbersome bar the Mamiyas, which make up for their relative largeness and weight with the extra flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I'll let others comment on SLRs, all I can say is that if you aren't averse to a bit of mass, a Mamiya RB/RZ is king. Only shortcoming of the Mamiyas if you ask me is the lack of fast glass.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I loved the idea of the Mamiya 6 or 7 when I first saw them, but the prices and the lack of wide angle lenses (for the 6 in particular) really put me off. I know that focal lengths for 120 film cameras are 'wider' than on 35mm cameras, but 50mm only translates to about 28mm, which is not quite as wide as I would like for what I have in mind. As for the aperture values available for the RB/RZ lenses, I hadn't really noticed that yet, but I will keep it in mind.

Thanks for your input.

Nguss said:
As already stated above, a TLR might be a good way to go. Relatively portable and comparatively unobtrusive too.

Personally I have a Mamiya RB67, and love using it especially the larger negatives, focussing is not an issue either. It's a bit of a beast but, to me anyway, is not much worse than lugging my DSLR and a few lenses around and the increased picture quality and the ability to use different film stocks (I am a sucker for Velvia and also Acros and Ektar) makes up for any additional weight.

I always have to use it on a tripod whereas that might not be the case with a TLR, so that might also be a factor?

There is no meter in my 67 but I used an ancient analgoue meter which worked fine and have eventually moved up to a 'proper' spot meter (mostly since moving up again to large format which is the only reason I am considering selling the 67 at the moment)
Click to expand...

Large format looks rather expensive to me (for film and developing), but I wish you luck with that.

Funnily enough, Velvia and Acros are probably the two films that I intend to use too.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

ChrisR said:
If you want light and not too expensive, what about one of the folding Zeiss Ikonta rangefinders? :nuts:
Click to expand...

It's an interesting suggestion, but I really want to have the possibility of using at least one UWA lens (sorry, I should have said that in the original post) and so a fixed focal length camera is out.

OneTen said:
My RB67ProSD was probably my favourite camera to use of all time, I absolutely loved it. In fact I've been looking on Ebay and can't believe how little they are going for now. I was a bit younger and a lot fitter then but could happily walk all day in the Lake District with my RB kit comprising of 50, 65, 90, 127, 180 and 250mm lenses, plus a few 120 backs and a prism all in a LowePro Trekker. For landscapes I mainly used the 65mm, not very wide but it suited me, for weddings and people I would use the 127 and 180mm, I rarely used the 50, 90 and 250mm lenses. The prism did have a built in meter with spot and average but I always used a hand held meter, although for landscapes I preferred the waist level finder.

For travelling I replaced it with a couple of Mamiya 7II rangefinder cameras with 50, 65, 80 and 150mm lenses. Once again I mainly used the 65mm and occasionally the 150. Again there was a built in meter that I didn't use preferring a hand held meter. These cameras were great for travelling, not that much bigger than a pro 35mm camera and the lenses were much smaller and compact. They appear to have held their prices very well and are still an expensive option

I also had a small C330f twin lens kit with 55, 80 and 135mm lenses. I mainly used the 80mm for street photography and found that with the waist level finder, no-one was aware of their picture being taken.

For a while I had a small 645ProTL kit with 55, 150 and 300mm lenses and a prism. I used it with the prism but with the crank wider, not with a grip.

I enjoyed using all of these Mamiya cameras and miss the process of shooting medium format. If I had to choose one, it would be the RB...ruddy brilliant!
Click to expand...

Thanks Richard, lots of good info there.

I think that for value for money, the RB looks like a really good choice right now, but I'm fairly sure that it would be too bulky for me to travel with. Shame really!

Rockman said:
Don't dismiss the 645 too quickly. The negs are over 3 times bigger, 15 shots to a 120 roll and more portable than the 67s. I've got a mamiya 645 which can shoot up to 1/1000 sec and has a wide range of lovely lenses available for surprisingly little money and you can even find a f1.9 80 mm lens. The system is modular, I use a metered prism which gives me well exposed negs.

Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike!

I will certainly try to keep an open mind as I go through all the options. I do suspect though that if I was to go with a small MF (645), I would always be left wondering, "What if ...?"

I hate that feeling :D!

Steve-B said:
As above, I have recently purchased the mamiya 645 pro, and have both the waist level finder and the metered prism.. it,s not to heavy and as already said meters well with the prism fitted..
Click to expand...

Sounds like a really nice camera and I know that the prices are very attractive these days. Who knows, if I really get the MF bug, I might add one to the collection for 'street' stuff.

Enjoy yours, Steve!

Kev-B said:
I have the GSW690II ( wide angle version) and it's a great piece of kit. I have only managed to put two rolls through it so far, so still getting to grips with it. I managed to get mine from Japan on the well known auction site and was lucky enough not to get charged any customs fees, and saved quite a bit on what UK sellers were asking (even of I did get charged it would have been cheaper). Just need the weather to improve so I can get out with it again.
Click to expand...

I have seen three of them on eBay this week, from a Japanese seller. Great to hear from someone who has gone down that route and found success with it. Congratulations on your purchase, Kev.

freecom2 said:
Glad to be of assistance, it keeps my mind fresh on the various options as well (not that my GAS needs it). Yes, the scanner is definitely worth thinking about, although a route into MF isn't necessarily a bad thing - because otherwise it might be a nagging want until you fulfil it, if you never know whether it was for you or not without trying it. We mention medium format on Film & Conventional so much that you end up being intrigued by it!

Controlled grain is definitely a big plus. I shoot T-Max 400 dev'd in T-Max Developer, which is already quite minimal grain at 35mm level, but at medium format it can be tough to find the grain to focus on when printing.

As for loading - loading is a pain with any format :bang: I use reels with wide flanges though, they are a little more difficult to get than the Paterson normal reels but well worth having a look out for.

RE: the weight of RB/RZ67, as some of the following posts after yours have shown, it really is a subjective thing. I personally find even my current shooting outfit too heavy (D7000 + 17-50 f/2.8 on one shoulder, Rolleiflex 3.5F on the other), but for some people that combined weight is nothing. The advantages of the additional negative size with 6x7 is a big draw for a lot of people (and many of the people who posted above will often cite that as to why they shoot with it), but for me outweighed by the disadvantage of their weight and ideally needing to be shot with a tripod; not a necessity, but I have sharp shots with TLRs at 1/8th and 1/4th of a second, which simply would not be possible handheld with the RB/RZ system.

Lots of talk of 6x7 rangefinders/SLRs, lots of talk about 6x6 TLRs, but many other types to consider. 6x4.5 does offer a lot and often in a much more neck/shoulder acceptable weight, and there are a few rangefinders and several SLR systems in that size. With 6x6, there are the SLRs - the Bronica SQ, Hasselblad 500, Kievs, Pentacons, and the rangefinders - Mamiya 6 springing to mind.

The world of medium format, even with far fewer cameras, is much more varied and with many different ways to shoot 120 film.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for your continued input, f2.

To pick up on what you said about tank reels, I too have now managed to get my hands on some reels with flanges (Kaiser brand), which work for 35mm or 120 film.

My preferred b&w combo is Fuji Acros 100 developed in Diafine, which is even pretty much 'grain-free' on 135 film - I can't quite imagine how clean it would look with 120 film!

Anyway, you and everyone else here have given me a lot to think about and a lot more options to consider, for which I am very thankful :).

I intend to have a closer look at the TLRs and see what options I might have there for interchangable (UWA) lenses. I also think that the RB/RZ67s are not really for me at this stage, due to the difficulty of flying with that much kit in my luggage.

Aside from that, the Hasselbald still appeals and now I know about the (broadly similar?) Bronica ECtl camera, I can check those out too.

If I come up with any more specific questions, I'll come back and post them here.

Cheers!

Andy
 
Last edited:
UWA Lens?

Hmmm!! That may limit what your after depending on how wide you want to go.

The Fuji GSW690 gives you roughly 28mm when compaired to 35mm cameras, which for a 6x9 camera is very wide. Of course the thing with the Fujis are they are range finders with fixed lens, but are very light (good for travling) and produce really sharp images. Plus with it being a large neg/slide it would work well on the V500 you have.

Other than that the widest lens I know of is the Hasselblad SWC range, which is a Biogon 38mm lens with a film back on it and will give you about 90 degrees of view, with very very very very little distorsion.

Being a Hasselbald they are not cheap :)

If your thinking of 6x6 then Hasselblad or the Bronica SQ and SQ-Ai range might be worth a look. Ther Bronica is, near enough, a Japanese copy of the Hasselblad but is all electronic where as the Hasselblad 500 series is mechanical and a fraction of the cost of the Hasselblads.

I am not sure of the Blad lens range but I know that the Bronica does a 35mm fisheye (rare), 40mm (24mm in 35mm terms), 50mm (28mm in 35mm terms) and 65mm (35mm in 35mm terms) so UWA lens are a little more limited than what you can get with 35mm cameras.

Check my flickr link as I uploaded some Bronica stuff the other day.
 
Last edited:
Just some shot's I like with the fuji from flickr:

5663644296_b7b661b110_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hieudoan/5663644296/


Picture below isn't amazing - but I think it demonstrates that you can use the Fuji in 'normal' day to day life which is a big thing for me. If i pulled out a RB/RX Bronica etc - I can guarantee at least 3/4 people would be looking dead pan into the lens. Really informal.

5917567111_16d1f91605_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelcarew/5917567111/sizes/l/in/set-72157626903939827/


4474714120_09628cbdd1_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_wrath_of_khan/4474714120/sizes/l/in/photostream/


Another consideration if you like 6x6 / 6x7 etc - just crop! :)

2271349727_4ec6d56c68_z.jpg


6040017387_45025f4d05_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_colapinto/6040017387/sizes/l/in/photostream/

4756299908_897692b63a_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/franz304/4756299908/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I'm really sold by the Fuji anyway. (y)
 
Last edited:
Naboo32 said:
In terms of what I'm looking for in camera features, there's no point in me writing a definitive 'wish list' here - I simply need to find out what all of the contending models are and then find out a bit more about their features, strengths and weaknesses. Armed with that info, I can try to make a decision about which one to get (or whether to give up on the whole idea, if nothing really suits ;)). That said, as a starting point, let's just say that I would like something which has top quality glass available for it, is not overly heavy or hugely bulky, has some form of built-in light meter and has a reputation for good build quality and reliability.
Click to expand...

Andy, get a copy of The Medium Format Manual by Michael Freeman. It's about £2 secondhand via Amazon and well worth it for the broad overview of most of the major medium format systems. It doesn't cover everything, but it gives a really good guide to medium format.
 
In their day Rolleiflex cameras were king, I have had many.

When they were used professionaly they were not thought to produce square pictures.. .simply ones that had not yet been cropped. It was great to be able to offer portrait or landscape versions for publication.

I stuck tape in the corners of my screens so that I could "see" the normal 10x8 proportions more easily.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In their day Rolleiflex cameras were king, I have had many.

When they were used professionaly they were not thought to produce square pictures.. .simply ones that had not yet been cropped. It was great to be able to offer portrait or landscape versions for publication.

I stuck tape in the corners of my screens so that I could "see" the normal 10x8 proportions more easily.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I sold my tele Rollei..as it seemed daft taking a shot then cropping it in the darkroom to fit expensive colour printing paper. So I went RB and ETRS and never had a 6X6 camera again
 
excalibur2 said:
One of the reasons I sold my tele Rollei..as it seemed daft taking a shot then cropping it in the darkroom to fit expensive colour printing paper. So I went RB and ETRS and never had a 6X6 camera again
Click to expand...

I would be quite happy if digital cameras produced round uncropped images using the maximum image circle... (the first film cameras did this)
It would give the maximum options later. and make any straigtning a piece of cake.

I never used other than a square medium format reflex camera. as they make verticle shots more difficult. On LF they always provided a rotating back to solve the problem.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would be quite happy if digital cameras produced round uncropped images using the maximum image circle... (the first film cameras did this)
It would give the maximum options later. and make any straigtning a piece of cake.

I never used other than a square medium format reflex camera. as they make verticle shots more difficult. On LF they always provided a rotating back to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

On the RB67 you rotate the back for vertical shots and the etrs is no problem for me with a speed grip, erm well except I still get quite a few vertical building leaning :eek:
 
Knikki said:
UWA Lens?

Hmmm!! That may limit what your after depending on how wide you want to go.

The Fuji GSW690 gives you roughly 28mm when compaired to 35mm cameras, which for a 6x9 camera is very wide. Of course the thing with the Fujis are they are range finders with fixed lens, but are very light (good for travling) and produce really sharp images. Plus with it being a large neg/slide it would work well on the V500 you have.

Other than that the widest lens I know of is the Hasselblad SWC range, which is a Biogon 38mm lens with a film back on it and will give you about 90 degrees of view, with very very very very little distorsion.

Being a Hasselbald they are not cheap :)

If your thinking of 6x6 then Hasselblad or the Bronica SQ and SQ-Ai range might be worth a look. Ther Bronica is, near enough, a Japanese copy of the Hasselblad but is all electronic where as the Hasselblad 500 series is mechanical and a fraction of the cost of the Hasselblads.

I am not sure of the Blad lens range but I know that the Bronica does a 35mm fisheye (rare), 40mm (24mm in 35mm terms), 50mm (28mm in 35mm terms) and 65mm (35mm in 35mm terms) so UWA lens are a little more limited than what you can get with 35mm cameras.

Check my flickr link as I uploaded some Bronica stuff the other day.
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

Some very cool stuff on the Flickr (y)!

Having looked a little bit further in MF equipment, I can now see that (for whatever reason?) UWA lenses are almost non-existent for most MF cameras :|. That's a shame, as I would have thought that the larger (print) size would allow one to create photos with lots of small, distant details in and the the wider lenses would really come into their own. Instead, it seems that most MF cameras have been designed with studio portraiture in mind. Perhaps true landscape photography belongs to the realm of Large Format cameras ;).

The Fuji GSW690 ticks a few boxes for me, but I believe that it has just a fixed lens, making it only useful for some of what I'd like to photograph :|.

Also, I don't have 1,500GBP for a Hasselblad SWC, so it's back to the drawing board on that one.

Thanks for your contribution.

Alastair said:
Andy, get a copy of The Medium Format Manual by Michael Freeman. It's about £2 secondhand via Amazon and well worth it for the broad overview of most of the major medium format systems. It doesn't cover everything, but it gives a really good guide to medium format.
Click to expand...

I'll keep an eye out for a copy, Alastair, cheers!

Terrywoodenpic said:
In their day Rolleiflex cameras were king, I have had many.

When they were used professionaly they were not thought to produce square pictures.. .simply ones that had not yet been cropped. It was great to be able to offer portrait or landscape versions for publication.

I stuck tape in the corners of my screens so that I could "see" the normal 10x8 proportions more easily.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, Terry and one which actually kept me awake last night :thinking:.

I can see why professionals (and editors) would welcome a square format, but the more I think about the 6x6 format, the more I realise that I very likely to end up cropping a lot off and 'throwing it away' (as I don't really like the square picture format for most shots). If that's the case, perhaps a 645 format camera would not be so bad afterall :shrug:.

Much as I'd like to have one of the 6x7/8/9 options offered by some MF cameras, it's hard to find one that has interchangable lenses (with a wide angle option) and is not too huge or expensive :shrug:. Still, looking for a new camera is never a dull chore, so I will continue to enjoy my pontifications :D.

Thanks again to all for the valuable input.
 
You might want to take a look at the Pentax 67 SLR system which is literally a 35mm SLR magnified about 4 times, it is big and heavy (but handholdable down to about 125th or sometimes lower, although it depends on the person) but it does feature normal lenses down to a 45mm f4 (24mm) and 35mm f4.5 fisheye.

UWA's are uncommon on medium format simply because of the level of complexity and manufacturing skill needed for them and the sheer cost that they would entail. Think of how expensive UWA's are for 35mm/APS-C and at least double that. Plus their size would be somewhat increased as well.
 
Matt989 said:
Id love to use MF in the studio, how easily do they sync with modern studio lighting systems? Please say easily.
Click to expand...

Easily.

You can link them up using a PC cable or if you wirless flash has a cord you can use them as well. Plus as they have leaf shutters they will sync at all speeds up to 1/500th.
 
Last edited:
Matt989 said:
Id love to use MF in the studio, how easily do they sync with modern studio lighting systems? Please say easily.
Click to expand...

If you go that route, go with a RB67 or RZ67. Being able to swap to a Polaroid back for a test shot is very handy.
 
Mainly because they are bulkier and don't have the desirable Hasselblad logo on them
They aren't significantly heavier than 'blads either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top