6x6 for studio .. but which one?

[MattKing]

When working with a Mamiya (or any other TLR) the importance of parallax is related to working distance. If you are close to your subject, it is important, but as you move farther and farther away, it becomes less and less important.

For head and shoulder shots using a Mamiya C330, the 180mm lens would be ideal. That will give you a working distance that will make the parallax issue quite minor.

Even with the 135mm lens, I find the adjustment required to be easily accomplished even without the paramender.

I also like the fact that when working with the TLR, the finder doesn't go black at the instant of exposure.

Matt

P.S. when considering a Mamiya TLR, a visit to Graham Patterson's "Mamiya TLR System Summary"
site is a must (Graham posts here on APUG as well). Here is a link:

Dead Link Removed

If you read through this, you might find his "11 User hints" section to be interesting when it comes to the issue of camera weight:

Dead Link Removed

 

[timk]

given that you want something light which rules out the Mamiya RB/RZ's, I think the hasselblad is your best option. If you're on a budget however, the bronica 6x6 SLR's are good and similar size/weight.


As a studio camera, I would rule out TLR's and rangefinders due to the parallax error and the inability to view DOF.

 

[fschifano]

Like Matt said, parallax error really becomes an issue only when working close in. Even then, you get to know what it is after a few shots and you automatically correct for it. It's not rocket science. And as I wrote, there is a clever device built in to the C330 and C330f models which compensates for parallax error. It is a pointer across the top of the viewing screen that moves down as you focus closer, and shows exactly what will get chopped off the top if you don't recompose. In any case, parallax error is not likely to become an issue for portraiture if you're using a longer than normal lens. It is only a little bit of problem with the 105 mm lens, and none at all with lenses of 135mm or greater at the working distances you would use for portraiture. It's easy. See this link and poke around for the C330 manual. With a little more practice and prudent observation, gauging depth of field becomes second nature as well.

Now I'm not saying that there is anything at all wrong with any of the other choices mentioned here. Bronica cameras are fine, but there are enough reports of them being trouble prone to make me question buying one, and they are out of production. Hasselblads are great, but even with today's depressed prices can still be spendy. The Mamiya TLR's too, are out of production and have been for a long time. But they can be had for very little money and are about as rock solid as you can ask. With relatively few moving parts, there simply isn't much to go wrong.

 

[jforney]

I thought the needle in the c330 was indicative of the exposure compensation for the bellows draw. The distance between the viewing lens (upper) and shooting lens (lower) is fixed regardless. Very vague recollection is like 45mm (the exact info is out there on the web).

I also have a 503. The c330 and 503 are great cameras if you want fully manual. I have some very close-up shots with the c330 (55mm and rollei 200 iso IR) during the spring snowplowing up at trailridge road in Rocky Mountain NP...all the dslr folk were shooting from the back of their trucks. (And I do not state that negatively, the c330 is cheap so you can dive right in without worrying that a $3000 camera is getting wet...which never affected it).

503 gives you flexibility as far as using multiple film backs. Lenses are cheaper for the 303 though.

Depends on what you want. I think the c330 is still the best buy in mf for general use

 

[MattKing]

I thought the needle in the c330 was indicative of the exposure compensation for the bellows draw.

When working at close distances with a C330, the needle indicates both - the exposure compensation and the top of the frame cut-off.

Actually, it is quite ingenious.

I normally tend to take it for granted, possibly due to the fact that I've been using my C330 for 30 years or so.

Matt

 

[benjiboy]

Two points about Mamiya TLRs and parallax 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. 2. Parallax is only significant at less than ten times the focal length of the lens.
I've shot portraits with a couple of Mamiya TLRs for more than twenty years and found them ideal for people photography. kids ,weddings , portraits, they have been great , utterly reliable, quiet and with no flapping mirror you never loose sight of the subject.

 

[olleorama]

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.

I had a 500CM in the past. Now I shoot with a RB67 system. 6x7 is much better in my view. Also german glass will always be expensive. I paid 105 USD for my 180 KL/L.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Not sure where you got that idea from

Mamiya TLR's were Professional work-horses just as validly as a swedish camera.

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

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.

I had a 500CM in the past. Now I shoot with a RB67 system. 6x7 is much better in my view. Also german glass will always be expensive. I paid 105 USD for my 180 KL/L.

Mamiya TLRs will only "freak out" clients/models who are as self image obsessed as this contributor.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Now I definitely can not blame others if I make a wrong choice - thank you for all the above.

Seems like 3 candidates in the game for me: Bronica 6x6, Mamiya C330(f) and The Hasselblad.

Now - the first two I should manage to go through, but the Hasselblad came in just too many generations/versions with different features and even (based on your posts) different lenses.

If I would decide for Hasselblad - I will definitely go with full manual one, so this should mean 500, 501, and 503 incarnations (did I miss any?).

The question is - what are the differences between these versions, which features you consider necessary or helpful, which lenses fit which cameras. I am asking ,as it is a bit more confusing than I appreciate.

 

[olleorama]

Mamiya TLRs will only "freak out" clients/models who are as self image obsessed as this contributor.

Come on, I think it was clear that I wasn't being serious about the looks.

 

[Q.G.]

My vote would definitely be for a SLR, not TLR camera.
There is absolutely no reason why you should have to work with the parallax.

The TLR concept was great in the days that SLRs were slow because of the mirror that had to be moved out of the way. Those days are well and truly behind us now. Nowadays, the TLR is a solution to a problem that ceased to be one over 60 years ago.

Most (all?) 6x6 SLRs offer a wider range of accessories too. But that may not be important to what you want to do.

 

[Q.G.]

If I would decide for Hasselblad - I will definitely go with full manual one, so this should mean 500, 501, and 503 incarnations (did I miss any?).

The question is - what are the differences between these versions, which features you consider necessary or helpful, which lenses fit which cameras. I am asking ,as it is a bit more confusing than I appreciate.

A short run down of the non-motorized, leaf shutter Hasselblads:

The 500 C was the first.
Non-interchangeable focussing screens. And a mirror that was a bit too short.
It brought about a small revolution in photography world.

The 500 C/M was next. It improved upon the 500 C by having interchangeable focussing screens.

Then came the 503 CX. A 500 C/M, with built-in TTL-OTF flash sensor.

Next up was the 503 CXi. We didn't know it at the time, but it was prepared to take a motor winder, which came quite a bit later.

Then there was a 501 C.
Basically a 500 C/M, with fixed wind crank. Sold as an 'entry level' to the MF market (Too expensive for that). Still every bit as good as the other cameras.

The 503 line was continued by the 503 CW. A 503 CXi with better, larger mirror. And with it came the winder the 503 CXi was prepared to take already.

The 501 line was continued by the 501 CM. A 501 C with the better, larger mirror.

All of them are equally good. The small differences are in the features.
Want the larger mirror? You need a 503 CW or 501 CM
Want TTL-OTF flash control? You need a 503 CX, CXi or CW.
Want to be able to use a motor winder? You need the 503 CXi or CW.
(You can combine the above to find what camera you need when you want to combine feautures).

 

[Ian Grant]

This thread has made me realise how much I liked my C33 and C3, and having returned to using TLR's and loving the format, I think I'll try find another (or pair).

I never found Parallax a big issue, earlier in the thread i mentioned I shot a jexellery Catalogue with a C33 (same as C330 but all metal basically better built), I never had a paramender but back then I couldn't afford one, but set the tripod up right & just crank up the column worked perfectly.

One thing's great the lack of a mirror, regardless of what anyone says it gives TLR's abig advantage, and the mass of the C series is enough to allow shrp images at shutter speeds well below those achievable by SLR's with a mirror.

Ian

 

[fotch]

My vote would definitely be for a SLR, not TLR camera.
There is absolutely no reason why you should have to work with the parallax.

The TLR concept was great in the days that SLRs were slow because of the mirror that had to be moved out of the way. Those days are well and truly behind us now. Nowadays, the TLR is a solution to a problem that ceased to be one over 60 years ago.

Most (all?) 6x6 SLRs offer a wider range of accessories too. But that may not be important to what you want to do.

Portrait photography is not table top photography. Parallax concerns are for very close up images. Most recomendations are to back aways with a somewhat longer lens to avoid the facial distortion of close up. Parallax correction would be for under 3 foot, more like 1.5 feet, not exactly the territory of portraits.

Mirror slap and viewfinder blackout or delay, slow shutter speeds, those are more of a concern. Of course, if you shoot with hot lights, focal plane shutters don't matter. The very brief viewfinder blackout, while brief, does matter. The old saying, "don't take your eye off the ball" applies.

Portraits can be made with any camera, however, view cameras and TLR are tops.

 

[fotch]

This thread has made me realise how much I liked my C33 and C3, and having returned to using TLR's and loving the format, I think I'll try find another (or pair).

I never found Parallax a big issue, earlier in the thread i mentioned I shot a jexellery Catalogue with a C33 (same as C330 but all metal basically better built), I never had a paramender but back then I couldn't afford one, but set the tripod up right & just crank up the column worked perfectly.

One thing's great the lack of a mirror, regardless of what anyone says it gives TLR's abig advantage, and the mass of the C series is enough to allow shrp images at shutter speeds well below those achievable by SLR's with a mirror.

Ian

My first quality camera was a Minolta Autocord TLR. I shot a lot of table tops with it, and would just crank up the column to adjust for parallax. Of course, a SLR shines for close ups.

 

[benjiboy]

This thread has made me realise how much I liked my C33 and C3, and having returned to using TLR's and loving the format, I think I'll try find another (or pair).

I never found Parallax a big issue, earlier in the thread i mentioned I shot a jexellery Catalogue with a C33 (same as C330 but all metal basically better built), I never had a paramender but back then I couldn't afford one, but set the tripod up right & just crank up the column worked perfectly.

One thing's great the lack of a mirror, regardless of what anyone says it gives TLR's abig advantage, and the mass of the C series is enough to allow shrp images at shutter speeds well below those achievable by SLR's with a mirror.

Ian

I agree entirely Ian, and have notice lately that this forum is full of posts from people who have bought Hasselblads on e bay and are having problems either in operating them, or determining if they are faulty, the Mamiya TLRs are mechanically simple, and don't have any interlock problems, I have a C33 and a C330F, and wouldn't exchange them for my people photography for Hasselblad gear.

 

[Ian Grant]

My first quality camera was a Minolta Autocord TLR. I shot a lot of table tops with it, and would just crank up the column to adjust for parallax. Of course, a SLR shines for close ups.

I did ALL my commercial close up work with TLR, I could have used 5x4 but that didn't fit the budget

We can become gear freaks for the wrong reasons, I'm putting together a good 35mm SLR kit - all Exacta, because it's fun to use (and the final quality is high).

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

Portrait photography is not table top photography. Parallax concerns are for very close up images. Most recomendations are to back aways with a somewhat longer lens to avoid the facial distortion of close up. Parallax correction would be for under 3 foot, more like 1.5 feet, not exactly the territory of portraits.

I think you're missing the point: no matter how insignificant you can imagine it sometimes can be, there simply is no reason to put up with it at all.

Mirror slap and viewfinder blackout or delay, slow shutter speeds, those are more of a concern. Of course, if you shoot with hot lights, focal plane shutters don't matter. The very brief viewfinder blackout, while brief, does matter. The old saying, "don't take your eye off the ball" applies.

It doesn't.

What are you going to do?
When you decide to press the shutter, it is too late to do anything about it, whatever you may see through the viewfinder.
You'll also not be ready to capture the moment you saw you just missed while looking through the viewfinder.

There are moments when you need to keep an eye on the ball. There are moments that it doesn't matter one iota whether you do or not.

Portraits can be made with any camera, however, view cameras and TLR are tops.

I agree. Agree that some people think so.
But that doesn't make it so.

Explain, for instance (and for fun), how not having a 1/30 second viewfinder blackout being a major plus is reconciled with using a view camera for the same type of photography.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Please dear friends - do not start a TLR versus SLR war. I well understand that the technique and years of experience make more difference that the choice of the camera.

Concerning the Mamiya TLRs and close ups - according to specifications the 135 & 180 lenses at closest focus distance allow for subject of 27x27 cm. The 105 allows tighter crop - around 17x17 cm. That is more than close enough for tight head shot and longer focal lengths should yield results without significant distortion of the face.

I need time to think the Mamiyas over - I am used to Rolleiflex so partially I know what to expect.

Now back to Hasselblads. [Q.G. - thanks for the great overview]. If I understand correctly - If I do not need a TTL flash or such, I should be perfectly fine with 500 C/M or one of the 501 models. Still - I would like to ask what king of difference does the "better" mirror brings (I found also something called "GMS - gliding mirror system"). Also - how is the lenses compatibility? Which do and do not fit?

P.S. I shoot with flashlights, not hot lights. So the exposure is defined by the duration of the flash. The short exposure helps to keep the influence of other light sources (lamps, window light, trigger flash, etc..) down.

 

[rwboyer]

Please dear friends - do not start a TLR versus SLR war. I well understand that the technique and years of experience make more difference that the choice of the camera.

Concerning the Mamiya TLRs and close ups - according to specifications the 135 & 180 lenses at closest focus distance allow for subject of 27x27 cm. The 105 allows tighter crop - around 17x17 cm. That is more than close enough for tight head shot and longer focal lengths should yield results without significant distortion of the face.

I need time to think the Mamiyas over - I am used to Rolleiflex so partially I know what to expect.

Now back to Hasselblads. [Q.G. - thanks for the great overview]. If I understand correctly - If I do not need a TTL flash or such, I should be perfectly fine with 500 C/M or one of the 501 models. Still - I would like to ask what king of difference does the "better" mirror brings (I found also something called "GMS - gliding mirror system"). Also - how is the lenses compatibility? Which do and do not fit?

P.S. I shoot with flashlights, not hot lights. So the exposure is defined by the duration of the flash. The short exposure helps to keep the influence of other light sources (lamps, window light, trigger flash, etc..) down.

the newer mirrors in the 501CM/503CW will not vignette as the focal length gets longer. This is not usually a big big deal as it is very slight with the 150 but gets more pronounced as you go longer - that is it. I have a bunch of 500 series bodies and don't really even think about it much but I do not shoot longer than 180 and most of the time 80/120/150.

All C, CF. and CFi/CFe Zeiss lenses will work just fine on all the 500 bodies as well as the 2000 and 200 bodies - there are some schneiders that will work as well that were made for Hasselblads. Pretty much any of the lenses that will mount and have a leaf shutter. The 200 series without shutters will not work on a 500 body.

It really is much more simple than what most people think.

RB

 

[Q.G.]

[...] Still - I would like to ask what king of difference does the "better" mirror brings (I found also something called "GMS - gliding mirror system"). Also - how is the lenses compatibility? Which do and do not fit?

P.S. I shoot with flashlights, not hot lights. So the exposure is defined by the duration of the flash. The short exposure helps to keep the influence of other light sources (lamps, window light, trigger flash, etc..) down.

The mirror in the original 500 C was made too short, so that it would not hit the rear lens element of the 80 mm lens while swinging up.
The result of that was that when the exit pupil of the lens moves away far enough from the mirror, the projected cone of light would partially pass below the mirror. The result of that is that the top of the viewfinder image would not receive any light.

So with longer lenses (starting with the 120 mm, less with the 150 mm, already at a maximum with the 250 mm), or when short lenses are moved away from the mirror/film by using extension tubes or bellows, there is a little vignetting along the upper edge of the viewfinder image.
This is, of course, only in the viewfinder. The film captures all of it.

This was remedied by making the mirror large enough, and having it move back while swinging up.
This mirror geometry was first introduced in the 1970s 2000-series focal plane Hasselblads. Then adopted in the ELX in the middle of the 1980s, and finally also in the 503 CW in the 1990s.

Only when that 503 CW came out was it introduced as something new, called the Gliding Mirror System (GMS). It all boils down to the same thing. So they were then about 20 years too late to bill it as something new. Didn't stop them doing so anyway.


You can put all (post-1957) lenses on any (post-1957) Hasselblad V-System camera. Since the 500-series needs a shutter in the lens, the shutterless F/FE lenses (meant for the 2000 and 200-series focal plane shutter bodies) will fit, but not work very well. All the rest (C, CF, CFE, CFi) will.

 

[fotch]

I think you're missing the point: no matter how insignificant you can imagine it sometimes can be, there simply is no reason to put up with it at all.




It doesn't.

What are you going to do?
When you decide to press the shutter, it is too late to do anything about it, whatever you may see through the viewfinder.
You'll also not be ready to capture the moment you saw you just missed while looking through the viewfinder.

There are moments when you need to keep an eye on the ball. There are moments that it doesn't matter one iota whether you do or not.



I agree. Agree that some people think so.
But that doesn't make it so.

Explain, for instance (and for fun), how not having a 1/30 second viewfinder blackout being a major plus is reconciled with using a view camera for the same type of photography.

It has meant, sometimes, knowing that the subject blinked while shooting rather than waiting to know this after you make a contact sheet. With a view camera of course, you will be looking right at the subject since the ground glass is blocked. Its an advantage, just like in close ups or telephoto use, an SLR is my go to camera.

 

[dpurdy]

Ok well I hate Hasselblads after using them for 15 years in a studio and I love my Rolleiflexes. But if I was going to commit to studio use of MF I would go with the Hasselblad due to the quality interchangeable lenses and the film backs that you can load up several of in advance and have both color and black and white loaded. Plus you can have an assistant loading them while you shoot. With a Rollei you must either slow down or have a few cameras.

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

 

[rwboyer]

Ok well I hate Hasselblads after using them for 15 years in a studio and I love my Rolleiflexes. But if I was going to commit to studio use of MF I would go with the Hasselblad due to the quality interchangeable lenses and the film backs that you can load up several of in advance and have both color and black and white loaded. Plus you can have an assistant loading them while you shoot. With a Rollei you must either slow down or have a few cameras.

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

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?

RB