6x6 for studio .. but which one?

dpurdy said:

I know many people love Hasselblads as much as I do Rolleiflex (like Q.G.) but it isn't for everyone. To me it is an unpleasant camera to use and I can never feel in touch with it like my Rolleiflex. In my experience it spends a lot of time in the repair shop as well. Maybe that is because I didn't have the loving touch.
Dennis

Click to expand...

I certainly do not have that problem. I think you suffer from "Operator Assisted Failure".

Steve

rwboyer said:

500 series - repair shop? Not me going on 25 years and countless exposures. Are you sure you are not talking about a 2000 or 200 series?

Click to expand...

2000- or 200-series - repair shop?
Not me going on [etc.]

dpurdy said:

I know many people love Hasselblads as much as I do Rolleiflex (like Q.G.) but it isn't for everyone. To me it is [...]

Click to expand...

To each his or her own, of course.
Since you mention me, i just want to point out that i don't (like you say you do) hate any of the other brands i have decided were not for me. It's not a love (one brand) hate (the other brands) thingy for me. It's just that i like one more.

If you like using TLRs, you can go for a Mamiya C series setup. You could probably get three lenses, two bodies, a prism, and CLAs for under $1,000.

If you want a three-lens 6x6 SLR "Hassy clone" for under $1,000, I would go for the Bronica SQ system. You could probably get two bodies, three lenses, and several backs for under $1,000. You might get lucky and get a prism included in a kit. Not sure if $1,000 would cover all that and CLAs.

If you can afford it, both now and into the future with the costs of accessories, maintenance, repair, etc., I'd not hesitate to go for a Hassy.

benjiboy said:

1. The distance between all the lens centres is 50mm so if you haven't got a Paramender you can adjust it in your tripod centre column with a pair of dividers set at this distance.

Click to expand...

This ONLY works if your camera is perfectly level, AND your tripod column is aligned so that it goes up and down perfectly straight. Stopping down might cover any errors in some cases, but can't be relied upon all the time.

olleorama said:

Looks are important too. The mamiya tlrs look weird. Will probably freak out your clients/models, 'one lens to take a picture, the other one to capture your soul!'. Hasselblad looks PRO.

Click to expand...

I could not disagree more...with everything quoted here. First of all, they look COOL. Weird? Maybe..but COOL. So does a Hassy...so does an RZ, etc. Face it: Every camera but an AF SLR looks "weird" nowadays. I have never worked with a single client or model who has been anything other than fascinated/impressed by WHATEVER camera I am using, if they notice it at all...especially the old ones. If you act like a pro, your camera "looks PRO." If you have clients who care about whether you are using a Hassy or a Mamiya TLR, FIND DIFFERENT CLIENTS, or have them foot the rental bill. Warning flag number one is when a portrait client says they are a photographer, or starts asking about your equipment. Not worth the money shooting judgmental know it alls, IMO.

2F/2F said:

This ONLY works if your camera is perfectly level, AND your tripod column is aligned so that it goes up and down perfectly straight. Stopping down might cover any errors in some cases, but can't be relied upon all the time.

Click to expand...

You're quite right, but I find in the studio on a level surface as a quick fix it works if you don't have a paramender.

benjiboy said:

You're quite right, but I find in the studio on a level surface as a quick fix it works if you don't have a paramender.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it does work if all is perfectly level.

You can say exactly the same thing about the paramender. All it does is lift the camera 50mm straight up - exactly the same thing you'd do by lifting the center column of the tripod by an equal amount. There is a very rare type 3 paramender which has a pan and tilt head according to Dead Link Removed (scroll down to sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.3).

fschifano said:

You can say exactly the same thing about the paramender. All it does is lift the camera 50mm straight up - exactly the same thing you'd do by lifting the center column of the tripod by an equal amount. There is a very rare type 3 paramender which has a pan and tilt head according to Dead Link Removed (scroll down to sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.3).

Click to expand...

The Paramender goes between the quick release plate and the camera body, therefore it follows the movement of the tripod head, thus ALWAYS moves the camera into the correct position to shoot, no matter whether the camera is level or not. This ONLY works with the center column if the camera is perfectly level and the center column is oriented so that it is perfectly straight. I don't know about you all, but for me it is a near-impossible chore to get the center column perfectly perpendicular to level, and I almost never shoot with the camera perfectly level (unless using a view camera, in which case I almost always shoot level and use movements to do everything else).

Good point! I wasn't thinking straight.

Now what just pissed me off is that I have a paramender and should have realized this right off. Shows you just how much I don't use the thing.

fschifano said:

You can say exactly the same thing about the paramender. All it does is lift the camera 50mm straight up - exactly the same thing you'd do by lifting the center column of the tripod by an equal amount. There is a very rare type 3 paramender which has a pan and tilt head according to Dead Link Removed (scroll down to sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.3).

Click to expand...

The Type 3 paramender works very well indeed .

I actually bought mine new, in the 1970s. It came in a kit along with a regular head, and a Mamiya tripod.

Matt

PS unless you are working at close subject to camera distances, and at relatively extreme out of level angles, adjusting the centre column of the tripod works quite well

Still very amusing (and bemusing) to watch this discussion about how to fix this unnecessary parallax thingy.

Has anyone found the answer yet to why you would want to lumber yourself with it in the first place?

Q.G. said:

Still very amusing (and bemusing) to watch this discussion about how to fix this unnecessary parallax thingy.

Has anyone found the answer yet to why you would want to lumber yourself with it in the first place?

Click to expand...

I think this post sets it out well:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)



Matt

MattKing said:

I think this post sets it out well:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)



Matt

Click to expand...

Yea that happens a lot, IF YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. Or maybe once ever before you read the freaking directions. Or never if you do or you ask for any kind of advise on using a Hasselblad V series on here considering it has been posted hmmmm 7,978,678,853,128 times in the last week when anyone says "Hey I might get a Hasselblad"

RB

RB

As may be clear, most Hasselblad owners passionately love their cameras .

Matt

MattKing said:

As may be clear, most Hasselblad owners passionately love their cameras .

Matt

Click to expand...

I love my deardorff and ansco view cameras to.

Well maybe not quite as much as my Hasselblad cameras but still...

RB

The funny thing about this discussion is that I used to sell Hasselblad and Mamiya TLR cameras.

The Mamiya C330 I have was a store demonstrator. I found it much easier (for me!) to use than the Hasselblad demonstrators.

The Mamiya works quite well when you do have to take parallax into account, but the most important thing to realize is that you almost never have to worry about it.

Have you ever heard anyone recommend against a Leica rangefinder because of issues with parallax?

Matt

MattKing said:

I think this post sets it out well:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)



Matt

Click to expand...

It explains how the mechanism works.
Something most camera users know nothing about.
Do you?

It doesn't describe any practical problems or great difficulties. Just as explaining how a broken fan belt might wreck a motor doesn't imply that all fan belts must break and wreck a motor.
People ask about something, and they get an answer.

I asked something too. Several times now.
About something that is a cert: get a TLR and you have to work your way around parallax.
Where's your answer?

MattKing said:

The funny thing about this discussion is that I used to sell Hasselblad and Mamiya TLR cameras.

The Mamiya C330 I have was a store demonstrator. I found it much easier (for me!) to use than the Hasselblad demonstrators.

The Mamiya works quite well when you do have to take parallax into account, but the most important thing to realize is that you almost never have to worry about it.

Have you ever heard anyone recommend against a Leica rangefinder because of issues with parallax?

Matt

Click to expand...

I love my leica m's but I absolutely would not recommend them for studio work or macro work or...

Hey wasn't this thread about what MF 6x6 for studio work? Let's see a range finder is fantastic for somethings and a TLR is okay for somethings but neither is nearly as versatile as an SLR. Doesn't mean you cannot use them but they are a royal pain in the ass for closeup work and really really tight head shots and just about anything you have to actually see the focus falloff accurately and...

MattKing said:

Have you ever heard anyone recommend against a Leica rangefinder because of issues with parallax?

Click to expand...

Why, yes! Often.
Most often from a local Leica dealer and enthusiast (he had the most amazing collection of Leica stuff i have ever seen).

Leica almost was the first 35 mm SLR, because very early on they too recognized the limitations of rangefinder cameras, and came up with a much needed reflex housing.
And though the M series has a prominent cult following, the R-series is the thing any Leica photographer who doesn't fancy himself as the next Magnum Hot Shot goes for.
And so do Leica themselves: no future for the M. But a new (digital) SLR system.

So don't be silly and suggest that TLRs and rangefinders don't have severe limitations. Don't suggest that there is no good reason why SLRs are the succesfull evolutionary branch.

A TLR is a flexible instrument that is capable of providing top quality results in a wide variety of studio settings. Except in a narrow range of circumstances, the issue of parallax is unimportant. The exception, of course, is for higher magnification or close-up work, and in those circumstances, the Mamiya TLRs and in particular the C330 (in its various incarnations) provide you with tools that make it extremely easy to deal with them, especially considering the great flexibility that their built in bellows provide.

A Hasselblad (or Bronica) 6x6 SLR with a selection of lenses is also a great tool in those circumstances. The through the lens viewing provides a definite advantage, although some of the lenses may be more restrictive than the Mamiya when it comes to close focussing capabilities unless accessories like extension tubes are employed. As an example, the unaided Mamiya TLR 135mm lens permits closer focusing and higher magnification than the 150mm lenses for the Hasselblads.

In the hands of a photographer experienced in the use of his/her tools, both types of systems are capable of giving great results - but neither system is of any use at all to the OP if he doesn't have it to use or cannot keep it maintained. That is why the Mamiya TLR has one huge advantage - it can be acquired at a much more reasonable cost and it can be maintained thereafter at a very reasonable cost.

You do recall, don't you, that cost was one of the criteria being considered by the OP?

Matt

MattKing said:

A TLR is a flexible instrument that is capable of providing top quality results in a wide variety of studio settings. Except in a narrow range of circumstances, the issue of parallax is unimportant.

Click to expand...

One more time, and then i'll shut up about this. Promise!
(And i'm not arguing with what you are saying here, Matt!)

It's all there, in the above comment.
Noone will contest the fact that most TLRs are capable of delivering top quality results (some are just crap, but that is not because they are TLRs. There are more bad SLRs than there are bad TLRs.).

But there are limitations. Limitations that you don't have to put up with if you would use an SLR.
So when deciding to go for a TLR, you must be able to convince yourself that there is a good reason why you would deliberately limit yourself, given that there are equally good choices that are more flexible/less limiting.

Haven't heard a good explanation yet.

But like any choice, a personal thing in the end. Some people just like the whole 'atmosphere', the 'aura' surrounding TLRs. And i too like the Rollei TLRs, both for the role they have played in the history and evolution of photography, and for the quality machines they are (just for those two thingies, i would like to have them all. )

But as a practical choice...? Why!?

I am one who has opted for TLR instead of SLR for 6x6 format. I have a Mamiya C33, a C220, three lenses (65, 80, 180), a prism, and a type 2 Paramender, as opposed to a Hasselblad and all the trimmings (or SQ, etc.). I have spent $550 on the entire setup. I have also spent $200 on service, so $750 total. I am totally happy with it.

In the studio, I find many of the advantages of an SLR to be minimized, because there, I have plenty of time and plenty of control.

I don't need interchangeable backs in the studio. (I need them in the "field", when I am shooting architecture or landscapes, at the mercy of the available light, on the go, in a rush, in totally unreproducible, uncontrollable situations, and may be shooting only a few frames before I want to change films.) With a TLR in studio, a backup body is fine. When shooting a person in the studio, I will go through a roll of 220 fast enough to change films, if I get that itch (though I do not often get that itch).

I don't need a million different lenses from which to choose. Seven choices for the Mamiya C series are fine. (I would like to get the 250, however.) I am extremely pleased with the quality of the images from these lenses. I do not need nor want the coveted Zeiss Hassy glass. In fact, I prefer the subjective aesthetic qualities of these lenses to those that I see in my friends' Hassy prints.

Adjustment for parallax error is not an issue for me. I have the Paramender (which cost $100 out of that $750) when I need it. If hand held (which I do sometimes with flash), I use the line in the viewfinder. When I am working close enough to warrant an extremely precise parallax adjustment, I am not shooting people anyhow.

I do not often use depth of field preview on any camera in any format. I find it useless 95% of the time, personally. I don't miss it on any camera that does not have it. If I really care about being super finicky about depth of field, I will use a view camera. When I choose not to use a view camera, I am choosing to do so to gain certain advantages, while opting not to obsess over other ones (such as D of F or the way out of focus areas are rendered). Otherwise, I can figure out what I need to figure out without D of F preview.

I also have an RZ, which I use in the studio when I want 6x7 format. I honestly do not find using it much different than using a TLR, or any reflex camera, for that matter. You put film in the thing, you take the lens cap off, look through through the thing, you shoot a pic, you advance the film. I do not find using a Hassy all that different than using a TLR. You take a pic, you wind the advance, you get a square pic taken with a reflex camera. Whether the advantages of a Hassy will help you is up to you, and must, of course, be balanced with budget.

I use my RZ mostly for the aforementioned outside stuff, for its extreme flexibility with backs and such, though I do use it in the studio if I want a 6x7 piece of film. Yes, I do find enough of a difference in image quality between 6x7 and cropped 6x6 in the prints I make to warrant using 6x7 sometimes just for the raw size.

I do not think that any of the quirks of any camera system are things that must be "put up with". Cameras are chosen by us, not forced upon us (most of the time). 1. If you want a camera that has certain features, then get that camera. 2. Don't get a camera that lacks features you want. End of story.

So, decide what features you want/need, based on what you do, and then pick the camera that has the closest you can get to those features within the budget that you have decided suits you.

The OP is already comfortable with TLRs, and sounds like he is on a somewhat tight budget. As such, the Mamiya TLRs are definitely worth looking at, alongside several other camera systems.

2F/2F said:

Adjustment for parallax error is not an issue for me. I have the Paramender (which cost $100 out of that $750) when I need it. If hand held (which I do sometimes with flash), I use the line in the viewfinder. When I am working close enough to warrant an extremely precise parallax adjustment, I am not shooting people anyhow.

Click to expand...

One quick note on parallax.
A difference in framing is not the only thing it involves. Perspective is different too.

So though you can use a parallax mark in a viewfinder to get the framing right, the only way you can get perspective right too is by putting the viewing lens where the taking lens will be (or vice versa, put the taking lens where the viewing lens was).

Not trivial, since framing too will be different than expected, due to the different perspective.