Are any square (or larger) formats still actively supported?

[Oren Grad]

On another note, does the Fuji GSW690III have a built in meter?

No.

 

[AutumnJazz]

What I meant when I said "designed like 35mm" was more "right hand shutter" vs. the "left hand shutter" of many MF cameras. I'm right hand, left eye dominent...So cocking the shutter and whatnot with my right hand would probably be much easier.

I honestly think I'm just going to go with a 6x7 camera. How heavy is a GS-1 vs. an RZ67 vs. a Nikon F100?

And, it seems as if Adorama doesn't rent AE prisms for the 'blad.

 

[Q.G.]

The extra amount of enlarging does not show?

No.

Here is an absolute indisputable fact:

When printing a 16x20 from a 6x6 negative, you are only using a 6x4.5 crop from the 6x6. The surface area of a 6x4.5 neg is 27 sq cm. The surface area of a 6x7 neg is 42 sq cm. The 6x7 neg has a little more than 1.5 times as much surface area as 6x4.5. That's more than 50% increase, and it is indisputable fact.

It's 65.3% more, even.

Still the difference between a 8x10 made from a 6x7 negative and a 10.3x12.8 made from that same 6x7 negative.
Now go to your darkroom, and make both prints, run back to your desk, turn on the high wattage desklight, break out the loupe, and start looking for the difference in quality.
Then sit back and wonder what all the fuzz was about.

More personal opinions being presented as if they were absolute indisputable facts. That's how so much misinformation gets propagated on the internet. For me personally, it is NOT more comfortable to hold the camera at chest height. For me, eye level is more comfortable AND more stable. I can't stand using waist level finders, and I ALWAYS use a prism finder. It's all about personal preferences.

Indeed. Your personal opinion, against absolute indisputable fact...

 

[per volquartz]

AuttumnJazz,

Try a Rollei 6001. it can be had fairly cheap. Lenses are the best. And it has a built in motor. Focus and set apertures with your left hand. No cranking with your right hand. All you have to do with your right hand is click the shutter. Interchangeable backs (without darkslide) etc. A very advanced camera that is very easy to use.

 

[bnstein]

I honestly think I'm just going to go with a 6x7 camera. How heavy is a GS-1 vs. an RZ67 vs. a Nikon F100?

And, it seems as if Adorama doesn't rent AE prisms for the 'blad.

IIRC Weights of camera/back/waist level finder/standard lens
GS-1 1800g
RZ67 2400g
'blad 1500g

F100 800g plus lens (50 mm perhaps 150 g?).

(1000g = 2.2lb)

The GS1 is significantly less bulky than the RZ, but then you have the rotating back for the RZ so never have to turn it on its side. The prism finder for the RZ series is *BIG*: I cant imagine using it off tripod, the GS is handholdable with the prism.

As far as 6x8cm goes Fuji did make a domestic model 6x8 fixed lens rangefinder, and IIRC mamiya made a 6x8 back for the RZ/RB series also domestic only. Ive certainly seen the former at KEH.

AE prism on a 'blad kind of defeats part of the purpose to me: pick a nice day and use sunny 16.

Have fun with your day of rental!!!

 

[k_jupiter]

AuttumnJazz,

Try a Rollei 6001. it can be had fairly cheap. Lenses are the best. And it has a built in motor. Focus and set apertures with your left hand. No cranking with your right hand. All you have to do with your right hand is click the shutter. Interchangeable backs (without darkslide) etc. A very advanced camera that is very easy to use.

Now, I got every camera I will ever need. I gots the FM2, I gots a couple rb67s, I gots my 4x5 Speed Graphic, I gots my 8x10 Deardorff with 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 backs. I gots my Yashica 44.

I don't need another camera.

BUT... If I were to get another one, it would be a 600x series Rollie. The best balanced camera I have ever held. I didn't have the money for one when I was in the market, I certainly don't need one now.

BUT... What a great camera, especially sitting on top of a pistola grip.

tim in san jose

 

[AutumnJazz]

So, it wouldn't be a good idea for me to run around with an RZ67, wide angle lens, and AE prism? The GS-1 is just looking better and better.

Jupiter and volquartz, I can't really find any info on the 6001...KEH and Rollei's site are sparse. I can't find any info on how much it weighs, if there is an AE finder, etc. I guess I should check on bhphotovideo or something.

I do most of my shooting walking around, without a tripod...but I'm young and strong. I don't, however, want a massive camera that is going to draw a lot of attention or possibly get smashed (MTA train cars and taxis are cramped, and NYC streets are busy and bustling).

Maybe I should go simple and get an old Rollei TLR.

(If anyone is wondering why I'm so crazily hot on AE, it is because I really, really, really love shooting slides...even for B&W. I suppose that is because of my upbringing in such a digital instant world, I love to see my images...but another reason is because I don't have my own darkroom, and so on...I can't print all of my images, so it is nice to at least see them.)

 

[per volquartz]

The Rollei 6008AF (similar to the Rollei 6001) offers both AE and Auto Focus. However the 6001 focusses fast (I have a 50mm 2.8 that has a shutter speed up to 1/1000 sec.)
The camera feels good handheld. It weighs a bit but feels solid and "just right" - for me at least!

Read more here:

Dead Link Removed



Per Volquartz
Dead Link Removed

 

[BradS]

back before photo.net went to hell, Phillip Greenspun wrote quite favorably of the Rollei 6000 series. one might still be able to find his stuff if so inclined.

 

[eddym]

I have a Rollei 6003 which, with the side mounted grip, is one of the most ergonomic and well-balanced medium format SLR's I've ever used. It has spot and matrix metering, manual and both shutter speed and aperture priority auto exposure. My only complaint is the nicad battery, which I need to replace, and it is quite expensive.

 

[AutumnJazz]

ed, I assume the grip is for one's right hand, correct?

Well, surprise trip into NYC tomorrow--meeting up with friends, one of whom I just found out is a photo nut too. So, we'll be heading to B&H. I suppose I should get more film while I'm there, and check out an RZ67 and 'blad. (I don't know what he shoots, or if he even shoots film).

 

[eddym]

ed, I assume the grip is for one's right hand, correct?

Well, surprise trip into NYC tomorrow--meeting up with friends, one of whom I just found out is a photo nut too. So, we'll be heading to B&H. I suppose I should get more film while I'm there, and check out an RZ67 and 'blad. (I don't know what he shoots, or if he even shoots film).

Yes, the grip is on the right hand side of the camera. You focus with your left. There is a meter check switch, AF lock, and trigger button on the grip.
If you'd like to check out the Rolleis, you should visit Eli Kurland at 670 Broadway, Suite 501. They're open M-Th 10 AM till 5PM. 212-475-6648. He sells new and used. KEH never has much in the way of Rolleis, unfortunately. Kurland may have more than B&H, I'm not sure.

 

[AutumnJazz]

I don't think I can make it down to the village, but I'll try.

 

[Iwagoshi]

back before photo.net went to hell, Phillip Greenspun wrote quite favorably of the Rollei 6000 series. one might still be able to find his stuff if so inclined.

AJ,

You can find Phillip's Rollei 6008 review here. I use a 6006.
Getting back to the original question, I'm not sure if thus was mentioned before but iirc Fuji still supports medium format..

Terry

 

[AutumnJazz]

I've been following that, actually...there's been no news of late, other than that that was only a prototype.

 

[JBrunner]

FWIW I wouldn't base a decision on any modern camera in decent shape on "active support" The used market is healthy there are good options for repair and CLA. You'd have to shoot a lot of film to wear a good one out. To me, it's just not an overly strong criteria because late model cameras are that have been given decent care are very reliable. I would tend to base a decision on cost, ergonomics, the camera system as a whole, and most of all what suits my goals as a photographer. There's a lot more difference, for example, between a Hassy and an RZ than the frame. As a matter of fact the frame might be among the least of the differences when the rubber meets the road and you actually have to shoot with the thing. My advice is to shoot the camera that suits you, and disregard the meanderings of print sniffers, etc..JMO.

 

[AutumnJazz]

I went today. I compared an RZ67, Hasselblad 530c/x (or whatever), and a Mamiya 7. I absolutely LOVED the RZ67...but it is just way too heavy for me...I just cannot walk around with that thing.

I'm warry of manual focus anyway...I mean, I learned on it...but my favorite "genre" is street photography, and that is just so fast. I'm afraid that all of my shots are going to be crappy and blurry.

I did really like the Mamiya 7, though. Very light, ergonimic, and unassuming (for a MF camera, at least).

 

[BradS]

I went today. I compared an RZ67, Hasselblad 530c/x (or whatever), and a Mamiya 7. I absolutely LOVED the RZ67...but it is just way too heavy for me...I just cannot walk around with that thing.

I'm warry of manual focus anyway...I mean, I learned on it...but my favorite "genre" is street photography, and that is just so fast. I'm afraid that all of my shots are going to be crappy and blurry.

I did really like the Mamiya 7, though. Very light, ergonimic, and unassuming (for a MF camera, at least).

Before you dismiss manual focus fro street photography, consider that the master of the genere did it with a leica. To convince yourself that you don't need or even want autofocus, mount up a 28mm manual focus lens lens on a 35mm body. Load it wth a roll of HP-5+. Use aperture priority auto exposuse and on a sunny day, set the aperture to f/11 or f/16 and set the focus to the hyperfocal point on the lens. Now, just go out and shoot on the street. Don't even touch the focus ring. Try shooting from the hip - just kinda point the camera in the right direction with out even looking through the veiwfinder....see what you get. I guarantee it'll be much more interesting than anything you can do with any autofocus, auto-everything camera.

 

[AutumnJazz]

I know that it is easily possible with manual focus, I simply feel that I am not good enough with autofocus to do it.

I also feel that it is easier to auto focus with my K1000 than with my F100...Maybe the K1000 is brighter.

Also, I'm a sucker for really large aperatures and blurry backgrounds with closeups...Although I do like wide expansive scenes filled with people interacting with a sharp environment...I don't know. Environmental portraits vs. street photography, I guess.

(I recently saw a video linked from here with someone [Bruce something-or-other] with a Leica, who would throw it up in people's faces to get pictures. For some reason, I remember nearly perfect focus...Was he like Weegee [known set focus], or did he just use a small aperature?)

I'm really upset about the RZ67, though. The viewfinder was beautiful, the image was sharp, I loved the way it handeled, the rotating back, the way it focused...It was just way, way, way too heavy for me to carry around all day. Maybe I should just bit the bullet and get a good workout, lol.

Edit: I really, really, really cannot stop thinking about the RZ67. I seriously think I may suck it up and carry it around with me. I don't know. I think I'll spend a weekend walking around with a 10lbs. brick around my neck. (5 lbs. camera + 2 lbs. AE prism + 1lbs. motor winder [I'm lazy in that respect] + 2 lbs. lens)

I wish I could pick up and fondle a Bronica, though. I couldn't make it down to Kurland, and B&H had no Bronicas or Rolleis.

The RZ67 just felt so perfect in my hands, aside from the weight. Obviously, if it left this kind of impression on me I should at least consider it.

I did like the Mamiya 7, too...I just don't like the idea of an RF. It seemed pretty akward to me when I used it. It did look amazing, as the Mamiya did. The 'blad didn't leave much of an impression on me, it felt pretty average.

 

[Q.G.]

The 'blad didn't leave much of an impression on me, it felt pretty average.

Great, isn't it?
A camera that let's you concentrate on the business of photography, instead of continually drawing attention to itself.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Well, I mean...When I popped open that viewfinder, the image just popped and looked beautiful...not at all like the 'blad. It just felt better in my hands, even though it weighs so much. The image just popped, and looked beautiful.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wish I could pick up and fondle a Bronica, though.

If you're driving around the area, try Koh's Camera on Long Island. They specialize in Bronica-- http://www.kohscamera.com/

 

[max_ebb]

No.


It's 65.3% more, even.

Still the difference between a 8x10 made from a 6x7 negative and a 10.3x12.8 made from that same 6x7 negative.
Now go to your darkroom, and make both prints, run back to your desk, turn on the high wattage desklight, break out the loupe, and start looking for the difference in quality.
Then sit back and wonder what all the fuzz was about.

Just because you don't print larger than 8x10 doesn't mean that others don't. I print 16x20 and 20x24 exclusively, and I can clearly see the difference in detail between 6x4.5 and 6x7. Just because you can't see the difference, do you seriously believe that no one else on the planet can see the difference?

Indeed. Your personal opinion, against absolute indisputable fact...

I understand that in your mind you actually believe that there is no difference in image quality between 6x4.5 negs and 6x7 negs, but that's your personal opinion, NOT an absolute indisputable fact. Do you believe that anyone who says they can see a difference is full of crap, and you are the all knowing one who cannot possibly be wrong?

 

[Q.G.]

Just because you don't print larger than 8x10 doesn't mean that others don't. I print 16x20 and 20x24 exclusively, and I can clearly see the difference in detail between 6x4.5 and 6x7. Just because you can't see the difference, do you seriously believe that no one else on the planet can see the difference?

Why do you think i don't print larger than 8x10?

More importantly: why do you think that the difference scales extra-proportionally, i.e. that print size matters?

And why do you think that saying that you print exclusively to medium sizes like 20x24 would make your claim more credible?

I understand that in your mind you actually believe that there is no difference in image quality between 6x4.5 negs and 6x7 negs, but that's your personal opinion, NOT an absolute indisputable fact. Do you believe that anyone who says they can see a difference is full of crap, and you are the all knowing one who cannot possibly be wrong?

I have the distinct feeling that you do not understand at all, are rather fighting your own particular windmills.
Why are you so aggressively protesting an undisputable and huge superiority of a format that's only (yes: only!) 1.29x larger?

Stop that, and instead do run to your darkroom, and make those 8x10 and 10.3x12.8 prints, "run back to your desk, turn on the high wattage desklight, break out the loupe, and start looking for the difference in quality.
Then sit back and wonder what all the fuzz was about."
I know it to be an undisputable fact that you haven't.

 

[max_ebb]

And why do you think that saying that you print exclusively to medium sizes like 20x24 would make your claim more credible?

I didn't say anything about credibility. Those are your own words. I said that is the size that I can see a difference in image quality between 6x7 and 6x4.5.

Why are you so aggressively protesting an undisputable and huge superiority of a format that's only (yes: only!) 1.29x larger?

Do you have some problem comprehending the English language? I DID NOT say "huge superiority", AND I never said that the superiority is indisputable. You stated that the difference in image size "DOES NOT SHOW" (as if your opinion was absolute indisputable fact). I said that I can see a difference, and that is my experience, nothing more, nothing less. If you don't believe me, I really don't care. Apparently you are the all knowing one who could not possibly be wrong.

What kind of math are you using to come up with 1.29x?

6 x 7 = 42 sq cm

6 x 4.5 = 27 sq cm

42 = 27 x 1.555...

42 does not equal 27 x 1.29

42 is 55.555% larger than 27