Best Portable Medium format camera for a kid

[2F/2F]

When I was 14 I wanted to know where the next oz was coming from or the next 6 of beer.

None the less, if Simon is so well connected why is he asking us?

Personally, he has gotten some questionable advice from his real life friends, a rb67 is a terrible idea for a 14 YO. Too damn heavy, unreliable in inexperienced hands. I would advise against a c330 for the same reasons. Now a nice C220 with a 65mm lens and perhaps a 105 is a great starting point. A M645 is a good starter camera with built in metering. Both have tons of cheap lens and are easy to use. The Yashicamat is a nice camera for a beginner MF person, it will tell you if you like the 6x6 backwards composing attributes to the TLR format, small enough to carry anywhere, and if Simon is too darned good to carry a Yashica, he needs to get a reality grip. Remember Atget shot with equipment that would make most of us blanch yet his work is superior to most everything any of us do. 14YOs need to know that the equipment doesn't make the photographer, the photographer does. He needs to be encouraged to use simple equipment to achieve his view.

tim in san jose

Ditto! (And there are some other great 645 systems as well, in addition to Mamiya.)

 

[tkamiya]

At this point, I have no idea what he is looking for in his gears. I also don't know what his goals are, or his current skill and experience level. It is also strange a professional photographer who shoots for National Geographic would recommend a 6x7 to him. Rather than talking about cropping, I would think he'll be talking about creating quality photograph first using full frame, so he doesn't have to crop. He's also a world traveler who loves architecture and texture, and an assistant to a pro?

He's all over the place....

To me, what is being said just doesn't add up. I'm going to be stepping aside because I have no basis to make any recommendations.

 

[2F/2F]

You, too? My first camera was an Instamatic 126 also. Boy did I have fun with that stuff. But that didn't stop me from dreaming about all the cameras I read about in magazines and make a list of my must-have kit that will allow me to take great picture every time in any circumstances. THAT was fun and disappointing at the same time.

Yep. I might have it in a box somewhere, but maybe not. It was an X-15. When the first one with the blue trim broke, I found another with the red trim at the Salvation Army in Pasadena for $1. I never liked the red trim as much, but it did the job. When that one broke, I "upgraded" to 110. Ha! Looking at the difference in pictures in the album now, it was really a downgrade. I didn't get a 35mm camera till about 1994. A Canon Sureshot, which I still have. (Good cameras, about $3 to $5 in thrift shops now.) It was a big step up in image quality. My first "real" camera was a Canon FTb that fell my way from the mother of an ex girlfriend. It sat there for years and I would just fiddle with the controls. Then, when I was studying journalism, photo was a required course. After the basic course, I went to the large format course. I am fortunate in that my instructor gave me a 4x5 camera, and that is what I mostly shot when I was learning. Now I really prefer the smaller formats. Quite a regression! Maybe eventually I will end up back shooting with 126 Instamatics!

At any rate, I think I would have loved to have started much earlier, and with a compact medium format camera. Bronica SQ, Mamiya 645, Yashica TLR, etc.

 

[Thingy]

When I was 14 I wanted an OM1 but my dad would only buy me a Praktica L2.

On the giving away camera front, I'd rather donate an unused or little used camera to an enthusiast than sell it to someone who will add it to their collection and never actually use it or keep it as an investment. I feel the same way about my old (pre-WW2 & pre-WW1) microscopes.

 

[pbromaghin]

As I understand it, the keeper ring is designed to be installed when no filter is mounted and removed when you want to mount a filter. The problem is that many people think that the keeper ring has threads that filters may be screwed into, but they don't.

There are a number of Mamiya TLR owners who post to APUG (including Graham Patterson). Hopefully one of the other owners of 180mm and 250mm lenses can chime in.

I checked the 180 and you are exactly right. The ring was really hard to get off the taking lens, but the 49mm screwed right on once it was gone. I had to use a magnifying glass to see that the rings on it were concentric and not continuous.

A big thanks to you for telling me about this. Not only will I save some $$ by using filters I already have, I would probably have ended up scratching or breaking something while trying to get filters on it. It's time to load up some B&W and play with that lens. All I've done with it so far is take a few for exposure and focus tests.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel, with all due respect and admiration for your offer, maybe you missed that Simon, the OP, has traveled throughout Asia, works for professional photographers as an assistant, and has parents well-connected to other photographers. In other words, I think he is in a position to afford to pay for a camera. Might I suggest that you find a home for your D where it will be truly something that wouldn't happen without your generosity?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Simon finds the Yashica-D beneath him.

Well I guess he will be mature and kind enough to tell me himself what he thinks, no?

 

[tkamiya]

Looks like OP has left us....

 

[Prest_400]

As someone who works with 14 year olds on a daily basis I know how obsessive they can be and how fast they drop that obsession when another comes along.

Indeed! Having been one recently (well, still am) and it happens. I've got that OM-1 that Tim wished back at the same age and now it sits kinda unused...

I might give a word on this, being a teen just a bit older than the OP. Although I have no experience with MF, only the info I've been looking for. (Someday gotta go MF).

I'd say get something like a Folder or TLR. 645 or 6x6.
The Boxy shape of TLRs seem nice for travel and use well the space of a bag, same for folders and similar for modular SLRs. A 35mm SLR type shape (P67) have got a not so friendly shape.

A note against 6x7. Seems heavy, rather awkward and not as much shots. It might be harder to find an enlarger that goes up to 6x7.

One lens is enough. I've got a 28, 50, 135mm kit and I almost always use the normal lens. I sometimes use the wide but seldomly do tele. Afterall, many photographers have worked with a normal lens and nothing else.

Consider yourself aswell. If you compose well and think you do good photography, go for a big format.
Why need bigger negative if it's not interesting? With the marginally lower 645 you'll spend less for the same photo and gives you extra exposures.

And, hey, If I had more time and could dedicate more into photography, I'd take that Yashica D! But as for now, I can't.

 

[ntenny]

As someone else said, note that the diversity of opinions is HUGE. If you asked the same question about 35mm cameras, you'd basically get two clusters in the suggested answers, SLR and rangefinder; in MF, not only do you have those options, but also TLRs and folders, *and* the diversity of formats---and these are all things about which everyone has their own opinion. (Personally, I love square format and can't understand why anybody shoots 645; and there are plenty of people around at least as competent as I who feel exactly the opposite.) Everybody probably has a good point, but what works for one person may be totally wrong for another, and it's almost impossible to judge a priori.

That said, to my mind, interchangeable lenses are almost always more of a pain than they're worth, especially when travelling. The exceptions are subjects that don't move---architecture, statuary, landscapes. Some people allegedly have patient family members who will sit still for a change of lenses, but I think it's just a myth. So that experience biases me towards the fixed-lens alternatives, which trade flexibility (little used) for compactness (hugely important when travelling).

What about rentals and/or borrowed cameras as a way to experiment? Surely of the pros around you, some must still have their old film rigs in a closet somewhere. It might give you a chance to narrow down what works for you and what doesn't without committing a bunch of money up front.

-NT

 

[filmamigo]

At the risk of being late to the party, I thought I would chime in with some advice. I'm far from 14 (more like 38!) but I only got serious about photography maybe 5 years ago. Enough time to try lots of different cameras and camera styles.

There are two conflicting needs here: a small enough camera to pack in the bottom of a backpack; and a camera that is usable and reliable enough to actually be used on vacation.

I vote against a folder. They are attractively small when folded, but the viewfinders are universally tiny and painful to use for serious photography. Very few folders have a rangefinder. I don't think learning your focussing distances "on the fly" and getting half of your irreplaceable vacation photos out of focus is much fun. And most folders under $100 will need some serious TLC. Camera repair is a different hobby than photography

A TLR might be a better choice, but the OP doesn't seem overly interested.

Based on what the OP said, I recommend one of two cameras -- either a Fuji GW680/690, or a Bronica ETR system.

The Fuji GW cameras give you a nice big rectangular negative. The lens is sharp -- but fixed, so no changing lenses. The viewfinder and the rangefinder patch are HUGE and accurate, much better than you will ever find in a folder or a 35mm rangefinder. These cameras are built like a TANK and will take the abuse of being stuffed in the bottom of a backpack. Film loading and camera handling are much more like a 35mm camera, which will speed your learning curve and encourage you to shoot lots.

In favour of the Bronica, is the small size and different way of working. I think that a waist-level finder is a wonderful tool and great way to slow down and consider composition, focus, etc. A Bronica ETR with waist level finder, 75mm lens, and film back, is one of the most compact, lightweight, easy-handling medium format cameras you will find.

Yes, the 645 negative is smaller. But 645 is a great format for "real world" use. If you want to learn darkroom, it's easier to get a good quality 645 enlarger than a 6x7 or 6x9 enlarger. If you are having your films scanned by the lab at time of processing, the 645 scans very well -- effectively giving you bigger scans than 6x6 which is cropped later.

You can add to the Bronica now or later. In addition to the body, wlf, 75mm and one back, I would get:
- a second film back. This will let you carry two different types of film, loaded and ready to go.
- a metered prism and speed grip. With this combination, the ETR goes from "Hasselblad mini" to "35mm SLR maxi".
- 50mm/2.8 - because it's a much sharper than the 40mm/4 MC, and it's a stop faster
- 150mm/3.5 - because it's about as big a lens as you want to carry in a backpack, and about as long a lens as you can handhold comfortably. It's a fantastic portrait lens.

Of the ETR equipment you already listed, I would avoid the 40mm MC. It's just not a good lens. If you can afford the PE, then sure. But the MC isn't worth the heartbreak. The 250mm MC is a good lens, but 5.6 is slow, and the lens is big and heavy. With the 250mm you are going to definitely want to use a tripod. Unless you need the length and are going to carry the tripod everywhere, don't bother with the 250.

Finally, if there is one place to not skimp on a Bronica ETR, it's the film backs. The backs are the one thing that will wear out first. Spring for some nice EX-rated backs instead of the UG or BGN. No need to take a risk to save a couple of bucks.

 

[SimonSutcliffe]

I am doing mostly architectural photography for my parents and I have been given a 3 nikon Fs (black) which I will use I now have a 28 pc 35 pc and 50 1.4 I will think about medium format in the future.