Affordable close-up rig?

[hospadar]

I've got an art project in mind that calls for close-ups (not really macro, probably 1:2 - 1:8, field of view probably about 4"-8" diagonal) that I could do on a 35mm SLR with any ole macro lens, but I'd really like to do medium format if at all possible.

My current medium format options are several 6x4.5 folders that are wholly unsuitable to the task, and a Rolleiflex 2.8f that could probably get the job done with a Rolleinar close-up (If I can find the right one for the right price). The Rolleinar seems like definitely the cheapest option given that I already have the Rolleiflex, but I'm wondering if there are any other options that aren't wildly expensive that I might consider.

Budget is probably $300 on the high end, so I assume most hassleblad or other 6x6 or 6x4.5 SLRs are out? Perhaps something like a Kiev 60 with extension rings or bellows if I find the right deal? I realize I might just be wishing for a miracle but curious if there's anything I've overlooked.

Has anyone done close-up work with a Mamiya C TLR? Seems like that with a longer lens might be a good fit?

 

[MattKing]

Has anyone done close-up work with a Mamiya C TLR? Seems like that with a longer lens might be a good fit?

The C330 models are very capable when used for closeup work. The Paramender accessory adds convenience and speed, but is not absolutely necessary. You don't need a longer lens - the 80mm lens works fine - the bellows focusing permits closeup work with the entire lens line. IIRC, I can achieve the highest magnification with my 65mm lens.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I wonder if a 6x9 Century Graphic with maybe a 101mm/127mm lens would get you the reach you want? Add a 6x9, 6x7, or 6x6 back. This is bulkier but avoids the Paramender and Rolleinar and such.

 

[abruzzi]

I wonder if a 6x9 Century Graphic with maybe a 101mm/127mm lens would get you the reach you want? Add a 6x9, 6x7, or 6x6 back. This is bulkier but avoids the Paramender and Rolleinar and such.

I'd be looking down this path, though my preference would be a Horseman VH. It would probablyexceed $300, but with careful shopping you might find one with a single roll back and lens for around your budget. Ground glass focusing so WYSIWYG, but no handholding.

 

[loccdor]

Avoiding a moving mirror is a good idea for macro work. SLRs with mirror lockup help. But a big MF focal plane shutter alone can introduce a lot of vibration too.

Although, you can avoid this problem by doing long enough exposures by means of a strong ND filter, such that initial vibration is made irrelevant. That's how I do macro work on Kiev 60s.

My Mamiya 645 Junior was only like $130 for the camera body and definitely less than $200 when an old prism and film inserts were added. I used an adapter to mount the Pentacon 6 lenses I already owned.

 

[Saganich]

I have good results in that range with Rolleinar...maybe borrow one?

 

[Alexander6x6]

Perhaps something like a Kiev 60 with extension rings or bellows if I find the right deal? I realize I might just be wishing for a miracle but curious if there's anything I've overlooked.

If you are not aware of the reproduction flatness (the case of real macro lenses), then the cheapest way would be:
1. Pentacon Six bellows (25-40 USD at Ebay)
2. Volna-3 and/or Vega-28 (30 USD at Ebay)
3. Place an order for the P6 adapter for your SLR or mirrorless camera at hartbleilens com (about 50 USD).

 

[runswithsizzers]

a Rolleiflex 2.8f that could probably get the job done with a Rolleinar close-up (If I can find the right one for the right price). The Rolleinar seems like definitely the cheapest option given that I already have the Rolleiflex

I would recommend just going with the Rollei plus the appropriate Rolleinar. I have a Rolleinar I for my Rolleicord V and I really like the results from it, plus I think it is easy to use.

As @MattKing suggests, the Mamiya TLRs can focus close, actually much closer than the Rollei. However, compared to the Mamiya, I think the way parallax correction works in the Rolleicord viewfinder makes it more pleasant to use for closeup work. The Mamiya C220 has a line across the viewfinder screen to indicate where the top of the frame will be at closer distances; but it does not actually show the whole frame, corrected for parallax. For me, with a Mamiya C220, and when getting closer to the subject than about 36", estimating what the bottom area of the frame was going to include became something of a guessing game, and I had a few unpleasant suprises.

My Rolleicord V actually tilts the focusing screen at closer distances to compensate for parallax. So far, at moderate distances* what I saw in the viewfinder was approximately what I got on the negative.
* On my Rolleicord, the Rolleinar I is useful between 18"-39" There is a chart in a little booklet from Rollei titled, "The Practical Accessories" which shows more information about focusing distances, field size, etc. for the Rolleinars. You can download a copy from the Butkus website. I'm guessing you may want the Rolleinar II?

These two photos were taken with the Rolleinar I. The bird's nest was about 3"-4" as I recall. The skull measures about 5.25" from top to bottom.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I just thought of one situation where using a SLR might have an advantage over a TLR, and that would be if you use polarizing filters to help control reflections. With some filters -- like a deep red, or neutral density -- TLRs are better than SLRs because the filter does not make your viewfinder go dark. But with a polarizing filter, it is far easier to use if you can see the effect of the filter in the viewfinder.

 

[MattKing]

As @MattKing suggests, the Mamiya TLRs can focus close, actually much closer than the Rollei. However, compared to the Mamiya, I think the way parallax correction works in the Rolleicord viewfinder makes it more pleasant to use for closeup work. The Mamiya C220 has a line across the viewfinder screen to indicate where the top of the frame will be at closer distances; but it does not actually show the whole frame, corrected for parallax. For me, with a Mamiya C220, and when getting closer to the subject than about 36", estimating what the bottom area of the frame was going to include became something of a guessing game, and I had a few unpleasant suprises.

The Paramender accessory that I mentioned solves this issue.
If I am out without it in my bag, can emulate its response fairly well by framing first and then simply raising the camera 50mm/2 inches just before taking the photo.
The latter method works with all TLRs, although the inter-lens distance of 50mm is specific to Mamiya.

 

[Dan Daniel]

The Paramender accessory that I mentioned solves this issue.
If I am out without it in my bag, can emulate its response fairly well by framing first and then simply raising the camera 50mm/2 inches just before taking the photo.
The latter method works with all TLRs, although the inter-lens distance of 50mm is specific to Mamiya.

Minolta made the Paradjuster that works similar to the Mamiya Paramender. And it is for the standard 42mm spacing of Bay 1 TLRs. I think the 2.8F has a 45mm lens to lens distance.

And sorry to be a broken record, but the Rollei viewfinder parallax mask does not correct for parallax. It gives an approximation of the framing but you will still be looking at one point from two different places in space and will have parallax. Same with the Rolleinar prism compensation.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The Paramender accessory that I mentioned solves this issue.
If I am out without it in my bag, can emulate its response fairly well by framing first and then simply raising the camera 50mm/2 inches just before taking the photo.
The latter method works with all TLRs, although the inter-lens distance of 50mm is specific to Mamiya.

I almost bought a Paramender, but I decided it wasn't worth it for the short time I was using the (borrowed) Mamiya -- a school semester.

I did use the "frame-then-raise-the camera-50mm" method a few times, but I didn't like it. The central column of my tripod can rotate when I raise it, so I was never sure I was keeping the side edges of the frame exactly where I wanted them.

the Rollei viewfinder parallax mask does not correct for parallax. It gives an approximation of the framing but you will still be looking at one point from two different places in space and will have parallax.

Good point. I did qualify my post by saying "at moderate distances what I saw in the viewfinder was approximately what I got on the negative." I assume the discrepancy between what you see and what you get becomes worse at closer working distances?

After using nothing but 35mm SLRs for decades, my first impression of the Mamiya TLR was that it is a poor clumsy tool for closeup work. (For me, "closeup" is not that close; see examples above.) I still prefer my SLRs for closeups, but I am finding the Rolleicord+Rolleinar to be OK in some circumstances. I never felt that way about the Mamiya C220.

So bottom line for @hospadar, if you are going to be doing a lot closeup work, maybe getting medium format SLR would be worth it? But before spending that kind of money, first I would want try using the Rolleiflex with a Rollinar.

 

[halfaman]

I used a couples of times a Rolleiflex 3.5f with a Rolleinar 1 and results were stunning. I would not look further if OP has a 2.8f.

 

[xkaes]

Since you are doing close-up work and not macro work, you might want to take a look at close-up lenses (often incorrectly called "filters"). The beauty is that they can be used on ANY camera lens and any format,

But not all close-up lenses are created equal -- and the good ones are not inexpensive. Here's a website that lists the QUALITY close-up lenses:

https://www.fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

 

[hospadar]

VERY helpful thoughts - some initial thoughts/responses:

I'm planning to be hand-holding for most of this (it's close-ups of body parts of strangers, so a tripod setup is out, I think that rules out any TLRs without at least some indication of parallax error as well as any rangefinders or press cameras). I'm not terribly concerned about the different-angle-of-view problem of a TLR as long as I'm not mangling the framing. It also seems like if I could get one of the longer lenses (the 180 seems relatively available) on a mamiya C33/C330 that might help to minimize the angle-of-view difference since I'd be further from the subject.

Flat field of a true macro lens is also not required.

Image-quality wise, 35mm would be just fine (I'm not planning on making huge prints), but I was hoping to be able to contact print 6x6 (or bigger) negs. If i change my mind and go 35mm, I'll just grab something with at least 1:4 for my SRT-Super, any ole boring zoom lens or MF macro prime would probably be fine for this (but why do that when I could be having FUN with medium format!!?!?!).

Have been doing some camera price study:

- Rolleinar is definitely in bounds - I think probably the #3 (which is supposed to focus 9ish to 12ish inches I think)?
- I _think_ a C33/C330 might be workable if I can find the right deal as a complete kit (or with extras I can part out). From my reading it seems like the mostly likely issue I'll face is sticky slow speeds on the shutter which I won't really need right away, and I can eventually CLA myself when I get around to it.
- rb67 would be great but that's probably just a bit too far out of the price range, seems unlikely that I'd be able to get a full kit for much under $400

 

[runswithsizzers]

@xkaes, I totally agree -- the extra time and money it takes to obtain a good achromatic close-up lens is worth it. After using screw-in single element closeup lenses for years, I got a Marumi DHG Achromat Macro 330, and it produces noticeably superior results with both my 35mm SLR and my mirrorless digital lenses. Sure, I would rather have a dedicated macro lens for each camera I own, but even if I had the money, I wouldn't want to carry them around for the occasional casual closeup. I bought the correct diameter to fit my largest lens, and then I use stepup rings to fit it to my other lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

If your willing to pay for 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 sheet film you can get a Bushman or Baby Graphic with a pretty good lens for around a $100 with a 90 or 100/101 lens. You don't need one with a working rangefinder just a clean ground glass back. Workflow is simpler with a sheet film back as you don't needs to change backs for focusing with the ground glass back then back to the roll film back. Unless you intending on shooting a large number of works sheet film will be affordable. Down side is limited brands, I think you can ILford and rebranded Foma. I have Artista 400 which is rebranded Foma 400, same price as a sheet of Foma 4X5. Be sure and buy 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 and not 6X9 film and holders. In TLW world you can get a Mamiya 220 for around $200 with 80mm 2.8 lens, same bellows as on the C330.

 

[pbromaghin]

This was done with a Minolta X570 and a 50mm macro lens. The medalion is about an inch in diameter.

Learning Macro Photography

North window light, bright mid-day sun. A decorated gourd my wife bought while watching the artist make another one.

www.photrio.com

My father-in-law was an orchid grower and assembled this kit (along with an extension tube) to photograph his flowers. 25 years ago, he was trying to breed a color of orchid that still, nobody has been able to do. He was a VERY intelligent man.

 

[reddesert]

If you think you are going to photograph a field of diagonal about 6" or 150mm: that is a magnification of about m = 1:4 on 35mm, and 1:2 on 6x6.

You will have a lens to subject distance of about d_object = f * (1 + 1/m), so for "normal" focal length lenses of 50mm and 80mm, that's about 250mm and 240mm respectively. IOW if you use normal length lenses on both formats, the lens to subject distance doesn't change much, which makes sense since they both have "normal" angles of view.

If you use longer-than-normal focal length lenses, you gain more working distance, but you need a lot of extension (focus travel or bellows).

I think this distance is about at the close limit of Rolleinars, and attainable with a Mamiya C with the 80mm lens, but not with the longer lenses like 135 or 180mm. Attached is a table from a Mamiya C manual that shows the minimum field size achievable with each lens.

For close ups of people (body art?) where you have a 3-d, not perfectly still, subject and are hand holding, I'd really be concerned about speed of operation and of parallax error in focusing, that is focusing on some spot that isn't quite where the taking lens is pointed.

I understand the desire not to buy more stuff than one needs, but there are good reasons why people use SLRs for close up work. I think either a parallax compensated close up like the Rolleinar, or an SLR with a normal lens + close up, or an actual macro lens, is indicated. If you did look at medium format SLRs, they unfortunately aren't cheap any more, but MF macro lenses are often surprisingly not overpriced (I suppose they are in less demand from the "must have fast lenses for blur" users).

 

[choiliefan]

Another option with your Rollei is the sheet film back with groundglass. I paid very little for mine several years ago.
Add a bay III to 52mm adapter and a set of close-up diopters and you're good to go. Course the Rolleinar might be better optically.
Here's a complete back setup fs as one example but need to verify it includes the sheaves for sheet film:

Rolleiflex Plate Back Adapter Kit | eBay

Need other Rollei parts ?.

www.ebay.com

 

[runswithsizzers]

I'm planning to be hand-holding for most of this (it's close-ups of body parts of strangers, so a tripod setup is out,

Adding these conditions to your close-up requirement, I would change my recommendation, and suggest your 35mm slr is going to be the most efficient tool. A medium format slr might work too, but I’ve never used one so I don’t really know.

 

[bernard_L]

You need to consider how much depth of field you need. For a given object filling the frame, as you change to larger format you need a smaller aperture to achieve same dof.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Something tells me that the best bet is spring for a Rolleinar and get shooting. As the project moves along you might decide that you need a different setup, but right now it's hard to say. Bay III Rolleinars aren't cheap but it's certainly the cleanest way to get moving on the project. I can't find a chart that shows what field size the different Rolleinar strengths give, but using the distances you can probably get a fuzzy idea of which one to get.

 

[retina_restoration]

I use the Rolleinar 2 and it does an excellent job. But given your requirements, I think the Rolleinar 3 would be best.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I can't find a chart that shows what field size the different Rolleinar strengths give

As I mentioned in post #8, the Rollei booklet, titled, "The Practical Accessories" includes a chart with some of this kind of information for the Rollinar I and II (but not for the Rollinar III). You can download a PDF copy of the booklet <here> don't forget to donate.

... so it looks the Rollinar II has a working range of 19.75-12.5 inches, and can reproduce a field size of 8.75 x 8.75 inches at a magnification of 1:3.9.