1st Medium Format Camera Recommendations

[keithwms]

I agree with Mike. I'll just add my usual speech, which is this: look, MF is generally more specialized than 35mm. Use that, to your benefit. What annoys me is when somebody alleges that a single MF camera it the be-all / do-all / best-in-show. It's nonsense. A major reason why I went from 35mm -> MF (and then to LF for some things) is the way the different cameras work with me for different purposes. As Mike says, you simply don't want to fight your gear. For me that means fairly routinely using all of the following: 35mm slrs and RFs, 645 SLRs, 6x7/6x8 SLRs and RFs, and 4x5-11x14 view cameras. And a digital black box too Here's the thing: nothing I possess, nor anything on the market, can do everything that I want at all times. And honestly I really enjoy the different design concepts and how they affect the way I see images.

So... just pick whatever scratches a particular itch for now, and get started and don't expect one MF camera to solve everything. That they are more specialized in design is a good thing in my book. They're not like the cameras for the masses that we currently see from Canon, Nikon...

End of speech

 

[PaulW128]

Excellent post Keith! This has been a very interesting thread. I too have taken the plunge into the MF world with a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. I've shot with it once so far and I like it a lot.

But as Keith said, it's one camera that cannot do it all. I have 35mm film cameras as well as a DSLR. It is soooooo tiring reading the film is better/digital is better/8x10 is better, ad nauseum...Choose the camera that gives you the result you want and be happy

Best
Paul

 

[Sparky]

Sparky, I think you offer some excellent advice, as well as some insight that some of us are unwilling to confess: That a better camera -- or even a different camera -- will somehow make us better photographers.

However, I will say that one of the keys to great photography is not having to fight the equipment. Once you reach a comfort level with your gear, then you spend less time on the mechanical process and more time taking photos. Which is how it should be.

Thanks for the compliment, Mike. I'm not 100 percent sure I'm saying that though (maybe I misread?). I'm making the somewhat contentious statement that most photographers place (what I feel is) undue importance on the equipment because they FEEL that it will make them a better photographer. Will buying a BMW make you a better driver? Probably not - a more dangerous one maybe... heh. But I think that buying 'the best' equipment will limit your progress a lot. I've seen it time after time. In myself too. It will make you a far more conservative photographer. What I recommend is trying out different things. Try a holga - or a throwaway 120 camera from the 60s that's on it's last legs. Use a coffee can and try pinhole. See what happens when you set a holga on bulb exposure and throw it up in the air - just to see what happens (extreme example i suppose) but there are so many creative possibilites that people don't explore. There's a whole universe out there. You never know what you may just stumble upon. And sometimes having limitations in your gear can be surprisingly liberating... I'm all for people experimenting with a lot of things until they find their voice a little. But even then it's good to mix things up a bit too occasionally...!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sparky, I think you offer some excellent advice, as well as some insight that some of us are unwilling to confess: That a better camera -- or even a different camera -- will somehow make us better photographers.

However, I will say that one of the keys to great photography is not having to fight the equipment. Once you reach a comfort level with your gear, then you spend less time on the mechanical process and more time taking photos. Which is how it should be.

The blanket statement that the camera add nothing is a line of crap. When I went from a folding non rangefinding camera [Voightlander Vito II] to a Minolta SR-7 there was a big improvement in the quality of my work even though I still had one lens.

Steve

 

[Sparky]

The blanket statement that the camera add nothing is a line of crap. When I went from a folding non rangefinding camera [Voightlander Vito II] to a Minolta SR-7 there was a big improvement in the quality of my work even though I still had one lens.

Steve

Depends on your definition of 'quality'. If you were just getting sharper images of the same boring subject matter (not saying yours is)- then there's no difference. Much bigger gains can be made by using one's mind.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Depends on your definition of 'quality'. If you were just getting sharper images of the same boring subject matter (not saying yours is)- then there's no difference. Much bigger gains can be made by using one's mind.

I could also see a large and clearer image in the viewfinder among other advantages. I only used one point to blow a hole in the statement. Overkill was not necessary to wipe out a blanket statement.

 

[Sparky]

Well- it's not clear to me that a clearer viewfinder image will always result in superior photography. But I think it's good to know what you're looking at. The only overall point i'm trying to make is that people make assumptions that equipment will help them - when looking inward will help them a whole heck of a lot more. There's no substitute for thought and care.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well- it's not clear to me that a clearer viewfinder image will always result in superior photography. But I think it's good to know what you're looking at. The only overall point i'm trying to make is that people make assumptions that equipment will help them - when looking inward will help them a whole heck of a lot more. There's no substitute for thought and care.

It allows one to compose with less work and to see details that were not visible in the Voightlander. Now if you can take superior photographs without being able to see clearly through the viewfinder, then you have a very rare talent. The point of my original comment is that a change of equipment or getting a camera with added features can make a difference depending on what was being used before and that the statement that the camera brings nothing to the party is still full of crap.

Are you saying that there was not an improvement for many people when cameras switched from wet plates to sheet and roll film? Are you advocating that we should destroy all of our cameras and go back to homemade pinhole cameras because there is no and can never make a difference using another camera?

 

[Sparky]

Nope- not at all, Sirius... I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that people get stuck in unproductive vicious cycles, vis-a-vis their belief systems... there are times when extra detail can be distracting for some people. Sometimes, for instance -it would be better to see something a little more 'obscure' and be able to concentrate on the overall composition rather than things that aren't going to be read by the ultimate viewer of the photograph. What I'm trying to say is that it's good to 'mix it up' - rather than suggest the primacy of one type over another.

So here's an example: I started out on MF and 4x5 and then I remember scaling up to 8x10 for a while in the late 80s. But the photos I made were shit. NOT great at all. My ability to determine a composition on the ground glass fell apart the bigger I got. So what did I learn from this? That MF ground glass viewed directly is about the best compositional scale for me (better than both 35mm and 8x10). It wasn't so much the brightness nor the clarity - but that everyone has a natural size they can perceive things best at. It appears to correlate with what size of hand drawing you feel most comfortable with making...

but anyway- I am sure, yes - there are some situations for some people where pinhole WOULD be a revelation. It stands to reason. It's about knowing your limitations. There's power in that...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nope- not at all, Sirius... I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that people get stuck in unproductive vicious cycles, vis-a-vis their belief systems... there are times when extra detail can be distracting for some people. Sometimes, for instance -it would be better to see something a little more 'obscure' and be able to concentrate on the overall composition rather than things that aren't going to be read by the ultimate viewer of the photograph. What I'm trying to say is that it's good to 'mix it up' - rather than suggest the primacy of one type over another.

That is another issue. That is a problem. I would call that a WOMBAT. [Waste Of Money Brains And Time] This has not been a problem for me. I do not buy cars or cameras on impulse. I do my research and ask questions. They few things I have bought on reputation -

Choosing Nikon over Cannon when I was buying an AF camera when my girl friend won a Tameron XR 28mm to 300mm zoom lens. I only had a few hours left before I had to fly from Los Angeles to Rochester.


​

 

[Q.G.]

Nope- not at all, Sirius... I'm not saying that. But I AM saying that people get stuck in unproductive vicious cycles, vis-a-vis their belief systems... there are times when extra detail can be distracting for some people. Sometimes, for instance -it would be better to see something a little more 'obscure' and be able to concentrate on the overall composition rather than things that aren't going to be read by the ultimate viewer of the photograph. What I'm trying to say is that it's good to 'mix it up' - rather than suggest the primacy of one type over another.

I do agree that some people get stuck in unproductive beliefs...

But how can the above be reconciled with your view that people lean on hardware far too much?

If people need a bit of metal and glass to help them see what they would want to see, i think they should put all thoughts about using cameras to rest for a while. Until they get their thoughts organized, until they know what they want to do when presented with the full width and bredth of reality. When reality distracts you, you are not up to making decisions about reality and what to do with it.
Using the shortcomings of a viewing system to guide them, help them produce something they think they like, is nothing short of letting the camera decide. Leaning on a crutch of monumental proportions.

The ultimate viewing system is one that doesn't obscure anything, except that which will not be on film. A system that will show everything as it will appear on film.
It's up to you and me to decide what we want to end up on film, and how we want that to end up on film, and what to do to make it end up on film the way we want it.
Not a decision the viewing system should make for you.

 

[Sparky]

QG - well - I think it's fair to say that sometimes you just have to make pictures to see what the possibilities are... no harm in that. I think the terms of what each of us are thinking are probably nebulous enough to raise the possibility that we're having a common conversation that encompasses three completely different topics...

 

[Q.G.]

No, no, Sparky. That's too easy.

People don't need to be aided by viewfinders that leave them guessing at what they are seeing.

And such a belief is irreconcilable with your other belief, that people rely on hardware too much.

So make up your mind already!

 

[Robert Budding]

I'd recommend a Bronica ETRSi for starting out. It's a huge improvement over 35mm, it's inexpensive, the lenses are excellent, leaf shutter lenses sync at all speeds, and it's light enough and compact enough to carry easily.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I want to have a camera makes suprises with extreme sharpness , 3D effect , high contrast effect like a Leica. Lens and your film , developer , paper , enlarger have huge effect on quality.
Viewfinder is about to trust to lens. If you dont trust your lens too much , you would want to see more from viewfinder. I remember taking extreme fast pictures with my Leica 3C or 2F or Leicaflex and get great results.
When you buy a new camera and see the results , your brain connects with the results and try to solve the problems or try to force the good things with your new shooting , using experience.
I believe thats why good photographers prefer Leica.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

 

[Q.G.]

Experience certainly counts.

But i would (and do) find it rather odd that people using a visual medium don't want to see what they are doing.

Leicas were popular among press photographers. They became that, because the small silent cameras lend themselves to a whole new type of reportage photography.
Good press photographers may prefer Leicas, because they are more/only concerned with the moment.

Good photographers prefer cameras that don't hide things that are part of the essence of photography.
That's why Leica also makes reflex cameras. Cameras that offer what their other thingies lack.

 

[2F/2F]

I want to have a camera makes suprises with extreme sharpness , 3D effect , high contrast effect like a Leica. Lens and your film , developer , paper , enlarger have huge effect on quality.
Viewfinder is about to trust to lens. If you dont trust your lens too much , you would want to see more from viewfinder. I remember taking extreme fast pictures with my Leica 3C or 2F or Leicaflex and get great results.
When you buy a new camera and see the results , your brain connects with the results and try to solve the problems or try to force the good things with your new shooting , using experience.
I believe thats why good photographers prefer Leica.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

That just about sums it up! Not sure what else we can add after that. Time to close the thread! :rolleyes:

 

[elekm]

The blanket statement that the camera add nothing is a line of crap. When I went from a folding non rangefinding camera [Voightlander Vito II] to a Minolta SR-7 there was a big improvement in the quality of my work even though I still had one lens.

Steve

I'm not saying that a better camera won't make you a better photographer. I'm just saying that many buy that expensive body or lens and expect their photography to improve immediately.

Hey, and maybe it does, because it gives them more confidence to shoot differently. But in the end, it's not for me to say.

By the way, that hasn't stopped me from owning some very expensive gear at various times. It didn't always improve my photography, but it sure did make my wallet thin.

 

[Robert Budding]

I'm not saying that a better camera won't make you a better photographer. I'm just saying that many buy that expensive body or lens and expect their photography to improve immediately.

Hey, and maybe it does, because it gives them more confidence to shoot differently. But in the end, it's not for me to say.

By the way, that hasn't stopped me from owning some very expensive gear at various times. It didn't always improve my photography, but it sure did make my wallet thin.

Agreed. I've seen plenty of dreadful photos that were made with expensive equipment - even some of my own photos (though fortunately not all).

 

[Robert Budding]

I want to have a camera makes suprises with extreme sharpness , 3D effect , high contrast effect like a Leica. Lens and your film , developer , paper , enlarger have huge effect on quality.
Viewfinder is about to trust to lens. If you dont trust your lens too much , you would want to see more from viewfinder. I remember taking extreme fast pictures with my Leica 3C or 2F or Leicaflex and get great results.
When you buy a new camera and see the results , your brain connects with the results and try to solve the problems or try to force the good things with your new shooting , using experience.
I believe thats why good photographers prefer Leica.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

It's been my experience that medium and large format produce results that are far superior to any Leica. There is no substitute for film area. Leicas are excellent, though, if you need something small, light, and quiet for low light shooting. It just depends on what compromises you're willing to make. Sometimes large format isn't practical.

 

[keithwms]

So leica is it, huh Mustafa? Well here is a medium format Leica for you, enjoy

 

[AgentX]

Experience certainly counts.

But i would (and do) find it rather odd that people using a visual medium don't want to see what they are doing.

Leicas were popular among press photographers. They became that, because the small silent cameras lend themselves to a whole new type of reportage photography.
Good press photographers may prefer Leicas, because they are more/only concerned with the moment.

Good photographers prefer cameras that don't hide things that are part of the essence of photography.
That's why Leica also makes reflex cameras. Cameras that offer what their other thingies lack.

That's a little over the top...photography has an "essence?" Seriously? However, it's down the right road, even if it's gone a little too far.

Some photographers are more concerned with the dynamics of what's happening around them than the projection of an image on a piece of glass. Some are more concerned with the way the world looks through a camera.

Some are concerned with the former at some times and the latter at others. Some never gave it a thought.

Horses for courses (and riders).

 

[benjiboy]

Well this is where everyone lists their favourite cameras.... so here is mine, but I will try and justify!

Mamiya TLR, you may get an old one for 100GBP. Why?

(i) Interchangeable lenses - from 55m up to 180mm. 65mm makes a great 'wide standard'
(ii) With lens choice suitable for all types of photography - landscape to portraits (particulalry good for portraits).
(iii) Pretty solid and reliable.
(iv) Good value used.
(v) discrete for urban/street use - can take picture without being noticed (also quiet operation of shutter)
(vi) Beautiful and quality looking pictures (my opinion).

cons:-
a) Some think they are heavy
b) Some think they are slow to operate (but some would say this is an advantage)
c) No electronics or metering
d) Could be a culture shock if you are used to 35mm electronic SLR.

Anyway, best of luck with your choice. Medium format is great!

There is also a 250mm Mamiya C lens.

 

[Sparky]

It's been my experience that medium and large format produce results that are far superior to any Leica. There is no substitute for film area. Leicas are excellent, though, if you need something small, light, and quiet for low light shooting. It just depends on what compromises you're willing to make. Sometimes large format isn't practical.

I find leicas are far superior to LF if in the graininess department. There's also LOTS of situations (street photography) where LF will produce far inferior results - as you've given some tip of the hat to... that particular grainless LF image quality is just one parameter some people chase after. I personally feel peoples' time is better spent chasing after other image qualities... i.e. composition, doing something novel, etc... even if it's with a POS (oops I meant point AND shoot) digi...

 

[Sparky]

I'm not saying that a better camera won't make you a better photographer. I'm just saying that many buy that expensive body or lens and expect their photography to improve immediately.

Hey, and maybe it does, because it gives them more confidence to shoot differently. But in the end, it's not for me to say.

By the way, that hasn't stopped me from owning some very expensive gear at various times. It didn't always improve my photography, but it sure did make my wallet thin.

Pretty much what I've been trying to say all through this thread...