Buyers guide to entry medium format

Christopher Walrath

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,175
Location
Milton, DE USA
Format
Analog
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Yeah, I'm thinking around $300 if memory serves. And that 80 should be a 2.8. The 210 is an f/4. Good review I wrote for this camera and the lenses at the magazine if you want to read up first. I used to have two. Great cameras.
 

Jeff Kubach

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond VA.
Format
Multi Format

What he said! I had the same experience.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Most or all of the cameras discussed so far are SLRs, if I'm not mistaken. I'd just like to toss out the fact that there are other options. One that might be worth considering is the Mamiya C-series, which is a TLR with interchangeable lenses. See this article for a quick introduction, or Dead Link Removed for detailed information. These cameras have all the advantages and disadvantages of TLRs generally, but most TLRs are locked into a single lens, so the C-series is unusual in this respect. Bodies with a single lens usually go for $100-$200 on eBay, so for the sorts of prices being discussed, you could get a system with several lenses, finders, etc. I recently bought a C220, and although I've only shot three rolls with it so far, I like it a lot and I'm sure I'll use it plenty in the coming years.

FWIW, I briefly owned a Mamiya M645 1000s. Unfortunately, mine was in pretty bad shape, with numerous cosmetic and functional problems. I could tell that it was once a beautiful camera, though, and I may eventually buy another one -- the one I got had just been abused, or at least used very heavily for too many years. I returned it to the seller. (That's a story in itself, but not for this thread!)
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Oh, one other comment: For still lower-level equipment (most TLRs, folders, etc.), see (there was a url link here which no longer exists) Given the drift of the conversation, this probably isn't of interest to the original poster, but it could be of interest to others who might be interested in less expensive stuff. (That being defined as $100 or so, vs. the $500 or so that I gather is the price point for this thread.)
 

Christopher Walrath

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,175
Location
Milton, DE USA
Format
Analog
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

I've never had a TLR. And I have always wanted one. So don't sell the C330's short. Would be a hugely nice-acious score.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,252
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I had a C330. I found the fiddle factor for taking a photograph was very high. I dumped it, the 65mm, 80mm, and 250mm, and all the accessories that one could get for that camera, to buy a Hasselblad. The 120 SLRs by Mamiya and Bronica are much easier and more fun to use than the C330.

YMMV,
Steve
 
OP
OP

oliver|PHOTO

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Denmark, Aar
Format
35mm
Hi guys!

First i must say, that im still amazed how much respons and relevant response I have gotten on this, thank you!

Also, a TLR are not really what im looking for - im gonna go with SLR 645 or 6x6. Been doing alot of researching on Mamiyas and if/when I get a price from the owner of the m645j system (as posted earlier) ill let you know.

On a bit of a side not, any links to blogs/threads on technique shooting MF?

Thanks again for all the help - APUG, you've been great!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

firstdue

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
18
Location
Nth Central
Format
35mm
I've just jumped back in, and snapped up a Fuji 645. Where I used to work (back in a previous era) we sold them and I've been kicking myself ever since for not buying one. However I've also used an RB67 and a Hassy and I seem to vaguely remember a TLR at some point. For the prices now, if price isn't the single most important factor, the Hasselblads may deliver the best bang for the buck. Maybe the defining point would be the reliability factor outweighing the cost of 2 RBs or RZs or something else.

Your mileage will vary depending on what it is you want to shoot MF. I purposely picked up the Fuji for travelling, it's compactness and ease of use while on the road. If I'm traveling for work, there's no way I'd take an RB or Hassy.
 

Pupfish

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
307
Location
Monterey Co,
Format
4x5 Format
Darn little reason to cheap out anymore when reliable pro stuff (with an bevy of sharp multicoated lenses and service still available) is now so incredibly affordable.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
IMHO, the biggest advantage of the Kievs is that the lenses are more affordable than the lenses for more reputable names. This is most dramatic in the case of the 30mm fisheye. This lens can be had new for roughly $200-$375, depending on the seller and whether it's been given extra pre-sale prep. There are adapters to mount Kiev 60/88CM (or Pentacon Six, which uses the same mount) lenses on some other MF cameras, but you're likely to lose some aperture features. Prices on the cameras themselves aren't all that great any more, especially on the used market; used prices on all film cameras have just dropped so much in the past decade that the Kiev price advantage has dwindled quite a bit.

That said, you can certainly take good photos with a Kiev. IMHO, they can be a good choice if you don't mind a camera that can be fiddly and temperamental. If you want a reliable Kiev (if that's not an oxymoron), your best bet is to buy from Arax Photo, Kiev USA, or some other dealer that does post-factory checks and calibration. (Note that I've never bought from either Arax or Kiev USA; I've just heard good things about both dealers.) This will add significantly to the price compared to buying from somebody else.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
Though you have to balance that 'advantage' (being cheap) against not being very good, and decide what tips the balance for you.

The Arsat/Zodiak fisheye lens, for instance, is fun. And cheap. But not very good.
In fact, unless combined with the word "not", using the word "good" at all when discussing this lens is rather an overstatement. It is not sharp, with terrible contrast. The mechanical quality of it (aperture mechanism in particular) is even worse than 'not good'.

I wouldn't spend money on such a lens again. But when you forget the money you spent on it, and not expect anything, the lens still is fun.
But will that be enough for you? Or will getting annoyed at the build and optical quality of the cheap equipment, over and over again, drive you up the walls?

In short: cheapness is not a quality that can substitute for build quality or optical quality.
You'd be better off saving up a bit longer, spending a bit more on equipment that is really good.
 

Kevin Caulfield

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,845
Location
Melb, Australia
Format
Multi Format


Glad you've got good help here. If you have the means, may I suggest that you consider subscribing to APUG. Then you get more benefits and you help say thank you to APUG for all the help.
 

alanrockwood

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,184
Format
Multi Format

You might be right, and I do not own this lens (30mm Arsat/Zodiak), but the the website http://www.pentaconsix.com/30mmpt2.htm has this to say about this lens:

"The 30mm Zodiak/Arsat is an amazingly sharp lens, one of the best from this manufacturer."

"Comparing identical images from the fish-eye lenses from Arsenal and Carl Zeiss, it is sometimes possible to see greater contrast with the Carl Zeiss lens. However, unless the two images were side by side, it would not be noticeable."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
Wishfull thinking. ;-)
Still a fun lens though.

Anyway, it was just an illustration of how being "cheap" does not make up for not being "good".
It is cheap. Yes. But also not good. Your wallet will notice the first bit. Every picture you take will show the second bit.

So when making a choice, don't think that cheapness is a "quality" other than one that may decide between possible or not possible.
Always know that more often than not, you do not get what you do not pay for. Buying cheap may be the more expensive option in the long run. The more expensive entry into MF photography (and anything else) may in the end turn out to be cheapest.

And with so much excellent MF equipment nowadays not much more expensive than the low level bits of metal and glass ...

Just a thought.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Yep, I don't see much wisdom in taking chances on gear now; you can get a whole hassie or mamiya or bronnie or pentax etc. system together for $1000 or less.

Overall though, I would admonish a newcomer to make a comprehensive list of all the lenses and peripherals that he/she will want. Not just alist of what he/she can afford now.. but make a growth plan. If you do that, then all will become much more clear. Certain brands will emerge as much better bargains than others, when you make a system plan.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Q.G.'s comments on the Arsenal 30mm lens don't match anything I've read elsewhere (alanrockwood quoted one of those sources). There are of course many possible explanations -- perhaps Q.G. has much higher standards than average, so that what most people consider small differences in quality are to him huge issues; or maybe he tested a defective or damaged lens; or maybe the information in favor of the lens is just, as Q.G. suggests, wishful thinking. I do take exception to one thing Q.C. wrote:

Q.C. said:
You'd be better off saving up a bit longer, spending a bit more on equipment that is really good.
Click to expand...

The Arsat Zodiak 30mm lens, as I wrote before, costs about $200-$375 new. Competing 30mm lenses for other cameras don't cost "a bit" more than this, they cost much more than this. A quick check shows that KEH has a few used 30mm Bronica lenses for $959-$999, with Hasselblad 30mm lenses costing $3,389-$4,119. That sort of price difference is significant. Personally, I couldn't justify spending $1,000 on a lens, much less $4,000, so for me, the choice isn't one of whether to get a 30mm lens for a Kiev or for a Bronica, it's whether to get a 30mm lens for a Kiev or none at all. I'm sure others are in the same boat as I am. If you're not, then that's great for you, but please keep in mind that not everybody can afford such expensive toys. (Or tools, for professionals; but then the earning potential of the lens comes into play, which isn't an issue for hobbyists.)

My point, in my original post and now, is that if you want a big lens collection, and especially if you want a 30mm MF lens, a Kiev will enable you to build a bigger collection for less money -- perhaps significantly less money -- than will be possible with other MF cameras. I'm not claiming these lenses are top quality, but they aren't Coke-bottle optics, either. I don't happen to own an Arsat 30mm lens, but I do own two other Kiev lenses (a 65mm and a 90mm), as well as an East German Flektogon 50mm for the same mount. Subjectively, these lenses are all sharp enough to me -- they're in the same class as my two Mamiya C-series lenses. (My Kiev 90mm lens is in bad shape mechanically because of its age and use/abuse by prior owner(s), but optically it's fine.) If you're not interested in big lens collections or if you do have the money to spend on more respected names, then the price difference between a Kiev and something else may not be so important. That's a personal choice, not an absolute issue of a correct choice vs. an incorrect choice.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
srs5694,

No offence intended.

The point is that when you start buying cheap, you inevitably, and without fail, want to buy better.
Do that cheap again (the next level up), and you will again want to get better.
That goes on and on, and in the end, you will have spend (much) more than if you would have bought quality gear to begin with.


The lens i have is a good one, for Arsats/Zodiaks that is.
I don't think that my standards are higher than those of most of us. But the reports about how good this thing is all contain a hefty - but mostly hidden - dose of "hey, it's cheap!". So everytime it says it is a very good lens, you should really add "... for the little money it costs".


Of course it will be very hard to justify paying what a Zeiss fisheye costs. It will be even harder to scrape the money together so you can to begin with.
And given the limited use such a lens gets (it's a play thing, nothing else), it would be bordering on insanity to do so. That's why i got an Arsat/Zodiak to play with.
So i do acknowledge the merits of cheapness. I however do not expect greatness from a cheap lens.

And that's my point: your rarely ever can.
So unless all other options are explored and found to be impossible, don't let low costs be the deciding factor.

And those other options aren't so bad nowadays.
Reading here on Apug what little money Apuggers get Mamiya RB or RZ sets for, i must say i am very tempted to get such a kit myself (the only thing stopping me is that i know that i absolutely do not need another kit).
Much sooner than a Kiev kit!
There's no denying that there are worlds separating the two. And with so little in it 'moneywise', the traditional cheap option (i.e. Kiev) is just not an option. At least not one i would recommend.
On the contrary!
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Q.G., overall I agree with you; the cost difference between a Kiev with a couple of typical lenses and a Mamiya, Pentax, or other mid-range MF camera with a couple of typical lenses is small enough that the Kiev probably isn't that great a buy. The point I was making in my original post was that the main advantage of Kievs is the low cost of the lenses -- if you want a full range of lenses, you can put one together with a Kiev for much less than you'd pay for equivalent Mamiya (or whatever) gear. The 30mm is an extreme example of this. By almost every other measure, even including the price of the body itself, a Kiev system isn't that great a bargain.

Ultimately, every buyer must decide on his or her own price/quality tradeoffs. If you plot price vs. quality, there will be a linear relationship, but there are bargains and anti-bargains -- gear that's well off the usual line. In the past, I expect that Kievs were in the bargain category, but with prices, particularly used prices, very low at the moment that's probably only true any more if you're after a system with lots of lenses and/or a very wide-angle lens, such as the 30mm.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
srs5694 said:
The point I was making in my original post was that the main advantage of Kievs is the low cost of the lenses
Click to expand...

And my point was that low cost is not a quality you are looking for in your photographs (though it will show).
 

alanrockwood

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,184
Format
Multi Format
I bought a Kiev 60 (one of modified ones with mirror lockup and various other upgrades), two 80mm lenses, one of which is a Zeiss Biometar, bellows, extension tube, two finders (one of which is the TTL meter), a couple of filters, a cable release, and maybe one or two other items, for $168, including shipping. It seems to work fine.

I also got a got a "for repair" body, also one of the upgraded bodies with mirror lock up, etc., for about $27, including shipping. It turned out to work just fine.

I also got a used Kaleinar 150mm f/2.8 lens for $58, including shipping.

All of these were bought used within the last few months.

I doubt if you could put together a comparable MF system for any other brand for anywhere near that kind of money.

One thing that is sometimes under-appreciated about the Kiev 60 is that, being lens-compatible with the Pentacon 6x6 and largely compatible with the Exakta 6x6, there is a huge range of lenses and accessories available for the camera.

On the one hand, it is not a Hasselblad, but on the other hand it can be a lot of camera for the money, if you get a good one, or if you are handy and can modify it yourself to make a good one.
 

Mark Fisher

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
1,691
Location
Chicago
Format
Medium Format

If you are using it handheld, I'd stick to 6x4.5 or 6x6. I had a Pentax 645 which was a great camera, but I hated the interface. I can't imagine a better choice for using using handheld. I also had a Mamiya C220. It was a bit awkward to handhold, but I could handhold it to ridiculously low speeds (no moving mirror, leaf shutter). Both of these options are very lightweight for a 3 lens kit too. They fit in the same size bag as my 3 lens Canon EOS kit.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Q.G. said:
And my point was that low cost is not a quality you are looking for in your photographs (though it will show).
Click to expand...

You could make the same point about, say, Mamiya or Pentax vs. Hasselblad -- a Mamiya or Pentax is lower in both cost and quality compared to a Hasselblad. (Or so I've been led to believe; I've never actually used a Hasselblad.) The fact is that everybody's got a budget, and if you want certain types of gear within a given budget, you've got two choices: Buy something that's less than optimal or buy nothing at all. For some people on some budgets with particular desires, it may be a choice between a Kiev and nothing at all. Perhaps nothing at all would be the better choice in some cases, but in other cases a Kiev will be acceptable. There are people on this forum who use Kievs and get plenty of enjoyment out of them and the photos they take.

Second, I believe we actually do agree that Kievs aren't really something to be generally recommended in today's used market. Used cameras with much better build quality and reliability can be had for about 150-200% of a used Kiev's price, or for about the same as a new Kiev. I've simply pointed out the cases where a Kiev still makes some economic sense -- where the glass is half full, as it were. To which you've consistently pointed out that the glass if half empty and suggested that only a full glass is worth having.

I've made my point, so I'm done with this exchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…