Camera recommendations

[John51]

I'm a fan of the Zeiss Ikon folders. Google them and see how few sites are trying to sell you a replacement bellows. Then google Isolette/Super Isolette and see how many sites are offering replacement bellows. Not saying that Zeiss folders never need bellows, just pointing out the odds.

Never seen it mentioned on a camera forum but when buying unseen, apart from pics on THAT auction site, I go by the (apparent) difference in condition between the camera and the case. *

Pro: Camera is there to work, it is in its case when there is no work. More work = less time in case. Camera battered, case looks ok.

Semi Pro: Case and camera get equal amounts of a hard life and it shows.

Serious Amateur: Best I can afford, better take care. Case looks more worn than the camera.

Part time Amateur: Case looks good, camera looks good. No abuse, no loving care either.

* Possible that case/camera is a recent marriage but life is a gamble.

The above is just my opinion and ymmv.

 

[Paul Howell]

Sounds like a TLR would be ideal for you, except for the metering part. As others pointed out, getting a TLR with a working meter reduces the pool of candidates tremendously. If you are shooting negative film, even a very cheap handheld light meter, or even a smartphone app, or just estimating, will be fine.

For particular TLR recommendations, just about any of the Japanese TLRs with 4-element lenses, such as Yashica-mat, Ricoh Diacord, or Minolta Autocord, will be great, as well as German Rolleicords. Getting one with a working shutter, and no fungus in the lens is the most important thing.

Mamyia with metered finder, I think Mamiya made metered finders for both the 220 and 230, the Mamyia 80mm as I recall is a 5 element lens in 3 groups.
As already mentioned Mamiya and Pentax 645 with metered finder.

 

[Roger Cole]

Smart phone ap works, and works well, but is (or best I see anyway, I haven't really explored all the settings) pretty much only a spot meter. That's good if you have or are willing to get experience with such, maybe not as good for someone brand new to metering outside the camera.

Though they are not supposed to be accurate I find the meter built in to my Yashicamat 124 (non-G) to agree almost exactly with my Luna Pro SBC, giving some allowance for somewhat different angle of view and such. I almost never use it though. The only time I have was the one time I was caught short by a dead battery in the Luna Pro and didn't have one, and it was quicker to use than the phone ap. (It was also a rainy, overcast day which made the light even, the contrast low, and metering pretty non-critical.) Exposures turned out fine, but then it's hard to mess up the C41 I was shooting.

I agree - set aside the need for a built in TTL meter. It's sometimes nice - the AE prism on my Mamiya 645 Pro is very handy - but far from necessary, and a good external meter should be a possession of every semi-serious photographer, even if all their cameras DO have them built in. (For one thing I've never seen a built in meter that could be used in incident mode, though there are quite a few with spot or at least narrow angle meters.)

 

[houstonphotographics]

I would get a Rolleicord or a Yashica D if price is good on either. Or a Rolleiflex. Figure in cost of a CLA on any of those and a decent hand meter

 

[sagai]

Someone has mentioned a TLR ??
I hope it was not mine [emoji2]

 

[Sirius Glass]

Jan welcome to APUG

 

[Steaphany]

If you want an affordable modular system camera, and don't mind the weight, take a look at the Mamiya RB67/RZ67 series. I have the RB67 Pro SD, a full camera with 6x8 film back and lens was in like new condition and cost me under $300 from a Japanese dealer through ebay.

 

[Roger Cole]

A 6x8 back for an RB? You mean 6x7 don't you?

 

[John Koehrer]

A 6x8 back for an RB? You mean 6x7 don't you?

They had a 68 back too. Not sure that it works on older cameras though.

 

[MattKing]

A 6x8 back for an RB? You mean 6x7 don't you?

This thread talks a bit about the 6x8 capability - it only works well in portrait orientation: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Roger Cole]

Interesting. I had no idea they had ever offered that. It seems of minimal (zero to me, actually) interest considering a) it seems from that discussion that it often doesn't work that well even in portrait orientation and b) it doesn't work in landscape orientation, which is where the more rectangular format would most often be useful. I suppose in vertical orientation it might be useful for tall buildings (especially if you had a shift lens) or, heck, I dunno, full length portraits of basketball players.

But for me I'd just compose using a lens and camera position that fit the 7cm long side and then crop the 6cm side accordingly in the darkroom. I know some people have an almost religious aversion to cropping but I'm not one of those people.

 

[Alan Gales]

I know some people have an almost religious aversion to cropping but I'm not one of those people.

Roger, I mentioned cropping 8x10 once on the Large Format Photography Forum and someone thought I was nuts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Roger, I mentioned cropping 8x10 once on the Large Format Photography Forum and someone thought I was nuts.

Just because they post on LFPF or APUG does not in itself vouch for the education nor the intelligence level of the poster.

 

[Alan Gales]

Just because they post on LFPF or APUG does not in itself vouch for the education nor the intelligence level of the poster.

Thanks Sirius. I wasn't offended or anything by the fellow. I know some people have a real aversion to cropping but it's actually just another tool photographers can use. I've always cropped when I felt it helped an image.

 

[Roger Cole]

Me too Alan. The biggest issue with 8x10 is that probably a fair percentage of people who shoot it do so with contact prints in mind. Of course you can still crop but at the expense of print size. One thing that's kept me from pursuing 8x10 is the difficulty of optically enlarging it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Tony-S]

A 6x8 back for an RB? You mean 6x7 don't you?

I never understood the allure of a 6x8 back. Seems like it's awkward. But then again, I'm not a fan of 6x9 either!

 

[Roger Cole]

I sort of see it in the sense that I don't really think the 6x7 (or 645 or 4x5 or 8x10 for that matter) is really "ideal" in any sense except fitting the most common paper sizes. I think either a more rectangular format or, sometimes, square, are actually better. But since I have no issues with cropping I just don't need the 6x8 back. If I want it more rectangular I'll just print a 5x7 (or whatever, but that's a nice rectangular aspect ratio IMHO) portion of the 6x7 frame.

 

[MattKing]

I like 6x8 for the aspect ratio (which is the same as 6x4.5, and appeals to me) and for the fact that a roll of 120 gives you nine negatives, all of which will fit nicely on a single Printfile negative holder sheet.

 

[Alan Gales]

Me too Alan. The biggest issue with 8x10 is that probably a fair percentage of people who shoot it do so with contact prints in mind. Of course you can still crop but at the expense of print size. One thing that's kept me from pursuing 8x10 is the difficulty of optically enlarging it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Yeah, those 8x10 enlargers are huge and you need a lot of ceiling height unless you mount one horizontally. For now I've got an Epson V750 flat bed scanner. My daughter is going to college in town. When she eventually graduates and moves out I'm going to figure out a way to cover the windows in her bedroom and make it a part time darkroom for contact printing. When I was young I had a room in my parents basement. It was like a mother-in-laws quarters with a kitchen. I would cover the windows with blankets and print at night.

 

[Roger Cole]

I like 6x8 for the aspect ratio (which is the same as 6x4.5, and appeals to me) and for the fact that a roll of 120 gives you nine negatives, all of which will fit nicely on a single Printfile negative holder sheet.

I actually called up my iPhone calculator as I thought 6x7 was the same aspect ratio as 645 but you are right of course.

The negative filing is something I don't like about 6x7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Roger Cole]

The exceptions are the Zone VI and Besseler enlargers with the 8x10 heads but they aren't so cheap or common.

Since I can print optically up to 4x5 I've settled on that as my maximum format for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Tony-S]

I like 6x8 for the aspect ratio (which is the same as 6x4.5, and appeals to me) and for the fact that a roll of 120 gives you nine negatives, all of which will fit nicely on a single Printfile negative holder sheet.

I just buy the wide Printfile negative sheets for 120/220 and put them in at 3x3x2x2. Works well. I try to do everything at the 4:5 aspect ratio (from film to print) to maximize everything. I occasionally go on tangents and do the square or wider aspect, but not often.