Cheap medium-format cameras

[Prest_400]

Definately an interchangeable lens Mamiya TLR for 6x6 format. Loves it!

For how much can I get one with a standard lens? A nice set for 200$? And do the bodies need any big CLA?

For less than $50, you may be able to get a yashica TLR, minolta autocord, Agfa isolette...

 

[GGardner]

If you can't spend $1,000 on a car, how are you going to afford gas and insurance?

I have had my share of sub-$1,000 cars that I have somehow insured and filled with gas, even though my budget for the purchase of the car itself was low.

Also, FWIW, I have many, many cameras, but have never had a budget more than $500 for ANY of them. The one time I splurged to buy a $750 Rolleiwide that I found in a thrift shop, I borrowed $250 to do it.

Yet, I manage to keep the cameras filled with film (and even end up printing the pix sometimes).

I applaud your parsimony, but in general, when people ask about very low priced cameras, I wonder if they are considering the total cost of ownership. For example, to buy a roll of 120 film, process it, and get a few prints out of it, you are probably talking about $5 a roll. So, our original poster is willing to spend 4 rolls of film on a camera, but not 10. To extend this to your car analogy, where it might cost $30 to fill up the gas tank, they'd be willing to spend $120 for a car, but not $300.

At least for me, I need to put several rolls of film through a camera before I stop screwing up. OK, I never actually stop screwing up, but I'd like to think that the frequency does decrease after the first few.

Again, I don't want to sound like a scold, we live in great times for low-priced camera acquisition. But, I wonder if you only have $20 to spend on a camera, maybe that money would be better spent on film for your existing cameras. I think we'd all agree that the worst thing is for a camera to sit unused on a shelf, be it a $5 garage-sale find, or a $3000 Leica trophy owned by a collector.

 

[namke]

I started with a lubitel 166B - cost me about £10... nice lens, but badly built (make sure you have a roll of black tape!

I then moved onto a 1934-ish Rolleicord which was about £30 (Well-built, but I didn't like the 'look' of the uncoated lens).

I then picked up a Yashica-Mat (original model) which has a sharp lens (like the lubitel - IMHO - can be), and the solid build quality of the Rollei too. It was my cheapest TLR too at £5.

I've now gone 'upmarket' with a Fuji GS645, which I replaced the bellows on (the bellows cost as much as the camera itself) - in total £100.

I'm quite happy with the path that my MF buying has taken - starting relatively cheap, and moving up once I'd found out what sort of things I felt could be improved! I feel that the GS645 allows me to be more responsive with my picture taking, even though I like the 6x6 format of TLRs, I find the waist-level finder affects the framing/picture-taking experience...

 

[Soeren]

You don't actually need a meter, you can learn to do without using sunny 16 ot 11 or whatever
Shooting MF the penalty for overexposure isn't that much.
Kind regards

 

[Q.G.]

Ouch!

Get a medium format camera, because of (i hope) the better image quality, then think that overexposure isn't a bad thing.


I'm rather bemuzed by how namke's post follows one that talks about the total costs of ownership.
Namke, had you bought the Fuji right away, you would have had spent £45 less.

It is cheaper not to buy a cheap camera to begin with.
Because if you do, you will spend more money to get a better one.
Make that one a cheap thingy too, and you'll spend more money to get a better one.
Make that one a [etcetera]
In the end, you will end up with an expensive camera you have paid more for than what other people who bought one immediately have paid.
Parsimony?

 

[Soeren]

Ouch!

Get a medium format camera, because of (i hope) the better image quality, then think that overexposure isn't a bad thing.

Well it isn't, not compared to underexposure. Offcource youll loose some quality from overexposure but from a MF neg you can live with some more grain and a little less sharpness. With some experience youll be able to get quite close to optimum without a meter. And btw. getting a cheaper camera with a worser lens and perhaps unreliable shutter somehow makes metering..........
Kind regards

 

[DavidM]

Be careful what you wish for.
If you get bitten by the MF bug you may end up buying half a dozen different MF cameras - TLRs, Folders, Box etc.

If I new then what I know now I would have skipped the four cheap cameras and bought a good TLR or MF folder at the beginning of the never ending journey !

My favourite cheaper MF are Yashica 124G TLR and Agfa Isolette II.
My Agfa Isolette II was purchased from a very good camera restorer in the USA - Jurgen.
I got the lovely blue one on his front page - looks great and is a joy to use.
Fully manual , 6X6 , feels great in the hand, good clean lens and accurate shutter .
It is 50+ years old and if i treat it well may go another 50.
http://www.certo6.com/index.html

Save up, bite the bullet and buy a nice camera for a couple of hundred dollars, you will keep using for many years while the cheap one will get two rolls of film through it and then you may get fed up with its lack of quality or it breaks.

120 film is not cheap to buy or develop so using a half decent camera may help reduce the wasted shots.

Just an opinion from one who has spent too many dollars on cheap cameras but persisted with MF and love using it.

 

[2F/2F]

What's the medium-format equivalent of the $15 ME Super?

The $50 Yashica TLR might be the closest thing. Fairly common in shops, thrift stores, etc., good enough, and cheap. (Spend twice as much and you can a Rolleicord, however.) Forget E-Bay for these if they are really going for over $50. Just keep your eyes peeled locally. If anyone wants over $50, tell 'em exactly what I just wrote: "I can get a Rollei for $100."

 

[ntenny]

If I new then what I know now I would have skipped the four cheap cameras and bought a good TLR or MF folder at the beginning of the never ending journey !

Doesn't help. My first MF camera was a Rolleicord III; the first MF folder I bought was a prewar Wirgin, which while unremarkable on paper turns out to really speak to me. Not long after that I inherited a Rolleiflex 2.8C, which should be about all the MF camera a reasonable person could ever need.

And yet, there I still am, lurking on eBay and bottom-feeding on weird old cameras. It's not really about technical quality per se; they're just plain *fun*, and part of the fun is the challenge of using the limitations of the equipment constructively. Having technically-better cameras available doesn't obviate that drive.

Or maybe this is all an elaborate rationalisation, and what I really mean is "More toys! Gimme!"

-NT

 

[k_jupiter]

To be honest, this is the time to extend yerself and get a good MF camera. Spend the 200 bucks and get yerself a Mamiya 645, C220, or rb67 with a single prime lens.

Learn how to use it and revel in the increase in your photographic knowledge.


Nothing beats MF... except LF (or ULF).

tim in san jose

 

[sanking]

I agree with Tim. There are really fabulous values in MF cameras now. Even great cameras often go for pennies on the dollar of their selling price ten years ago.

Basically, I use MF when LF is not practical, so I personally would look for high quality and a large negative, 6X7 or 6X9, in a MF camera. My favorite cameras are the Fuji GW and GSW 6X9 rangefinders, and the Mamiya 7. With either of these cameras it is possible to closely approach or even equal 4X5 quality with appropriate use of film and good technique. I prefer rangefinder cameras because the type of work I do does not normally involve close-up work.

Sandy King

To be honest, this is the time to extend yerself and get a good MF camera. Spend the 200 bucks and get yerself a Mamiya 645, C220, or rb67 with a single prime lens.

Learn how to use it and revel in the increase in your photographic knowledge.


Nothing beats MF... except LF (or ULF).

tim in san jose

 

[Michael Finder]

Cheap medium format? Try the Bencini Korolls using 120 roll film. Models are 6x6, 6x4.5, and half frame 6x6 = 24 shots on a roll of 120. They are very basic, usually have one or two shutter speeds say 1/50 and 1/100 plus B, a fixed aperture of f8 or f11. Scale focusing, and the viewfinder (ha ha ha) is no bigger than a gnats chuff! They have a glass lens which gives a lovely soft rendition. Perhaps this may be the look you are after? They all have a tripod screw mount, and some take cable releases. The ones I have come with a PC flash connection. I have done portraits using my studio strobes. Bencini cameras are cheap too - around $20.00 on the bay. I have great fun with these cameras. I often use expired film to experiment. They work well with black and white film - nice contrast, (I process my own film) and colour film is soft and lovely, almost dreamlike. Exposure is sunny 16 stuff, or guess. Colour negative film gives a bit of latitude. They are very retro-cool in look, almost art deco. People often comment on my cameras. Cheers Michael.

 

[skyrick]

While not typical, I bought my Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic at a local antique mall for $30. They typically go for $200-$400 on eBay. I'm very happy with the results.

http://gallery.me.com/marcialynn#100022

As far as your folding Kodak w/620 film: I've been able to load 120 into my Hawkeye Brownie with good results too.

http://gallery.me.com/marcialynn#100052

You do need a 620 take up reel, as the 120 won't fit in the take up slot without some cutting. I don't know if that'll work on your Kodak, but if you have an empty 620 spool already in there It'd be worth trying, given how inexpensive 120 is.

Rick

 

[Venchka]

If you have real money

to spend.......

I recently bought a scanner that handles 6xwhatever film. I have been scanning 6x6 negatives I made in 1969. I am totally amazed by the amount of detail on these negatives. I'm really kicking myself for selling the camera back in 1969 to buy a "real" cameras: A pair of Nikon F bodies and 3 lenses.

I decided that I would like to replace this wonder camera with the amazing lens. I go poking around KEH and was dismayed to see the prices this ancient camera commands today.

What was it? Oh, right. A Mamiya C3 series with 80mm 2.8 lens. A stunning performer. Alas, they cost upwards of $200-$300 today. Quality equipment holds it's value! I thought I was so clever buying it used for $80 and selling it a few months later for the same $80. Dumb and Dumber!

 

[srs5694]

What was it? Oh, right. A Mamiya C3 series with 80mm 2.8 lens. A stunning performer. Alas, they cost upwards of $200-$300 today.

Just today I received a package from an eBay seller: A Mamiya C220 with 135mm lens. I paid $94.81 including shipping. It works fine, although it's a bit grungy-looking. There's a recent thread about KEH (called "should I go 'ugly'" or something similar) in which people relate how very clean the KEH used merchandise is. eBay's much more of a gamble, but the prices are usually lower. My camera with lens is about what KEH lists for the C220 body alone. (They don't currently have any 135mm lenses for the C-series, so it's hard to judge how much I saved vs. a KEH purchase.)

 

[Nathan Smith]

To be honest, this is the time to extend yerself and get a good MF camera. Spend the 200 bucks and get yerself a Mamiya 645, C220, or rb67 with a single prime lens.

Learn how to use it and revel in the increase in your photographic knowledge.


Nothing beats MF... except LF (or ULF).

tim in san jose

I agree - why spend your energy goofing with the camera when you could have a reliable camera and use your time for making images? Bronicas and Mamiyas for example are very affordable nowadays.

Having said that, I had a ball goofing around with a Kiev 6c I bought a while back from an APUG member for around $16. Took some work to make all the adjustments ... and the frame spacing is still not quite right, but it was a lot of fun and I got some good photos.

Nathan

 

[firstdue]

This thread is one of the reasons I joined here.

However, my quandry right now is more along the lines of how much to spend....

...the backstory is that I'm moving back to analog from the dreaded d$^*(%l. When I searched fleaBay and saw the prices of Hassy's I nearly flipped. I was ready to spend almost $900 to upgrade my DSLR for better quality images, better quality that is now becoming almost as good as the stuff I shot 20 years ago. Oh, the ones that are almost as good aren't $900. But you all know that.

So for now, I've dusted off the F and F2 along with all the lenses. I've gotten a LunaPro (and was unaware of the mercury battery issue) and have a decent tripod coming. Although not this year, I've been traveling quite a bit the last few years, which makes me think twice about a Hassy (or a Mamiya RB or RZ). Or makes me keep an eye on the Fuji 645s, which still aren't terribly cheap.

This site is kind of a revelation and I'm looking forward to getting out and shooting for real again, instead of worrying about how I'm going to edit and the shortcomings of my gear.

 

[Jon Middleton]

I guess "cheap" is relative, not only actual purchase price, but also cost of ownership over time. I bought a Yashica 124G Mat 25 years ago which is worth more than I paid for it. I also bought a Mamiya C330 9 years ago, which is worth as much as I paid for it. They are both very nice, but particularly the Mamiya. I'd rather spend more to get a nice, functional camera than pay $50 and worry about the reliability, unsharp lenses, etc.

 

[Pumal]

I'm buying a Yashicamat for 25 bucks. Bought a few days ago an RB6X7 Pro S; 2 bodies, 5 lenses, 3 backs and meter Prism in 2 Cases for US$ 480 . I haven't had time to try it yet, but I can tell you is HEAVY.

 

[thisismyname09]

its not that heavy.

 

[Doug9345]

its not that heavy.

I just weighed my RB67 pro S weighs 5.6 pounds with a 120 back 90mm lens, a WL finder, and a roll of film in it. I'm just learning to use it and so far have only taken a couple of rolls of pictures with it. The pictures are all either on a tripod or on a bean bag on the ground. Crocuses are beautiful but close to the ground and small.

I don't know if I would try to hand hold it or not. great steadiness of hand isn't one of my strong points. If I was in a situation where I could hold it level and have a fairly high shutter then likely yes.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't know if I would try to hand hold it or not. great steadiness of hand isn't one of my strong points.

This is where weight in a camera can help. Its inertia damps down hand shake better than a lightweight camera.

Only up to a point though. When the weight increases to a point which is too much for your muscles, you will shake even more.


Steve.

 

[firstdue]

I managed to snag a Fuji 645 from the fleabay for what I considered a reasonable price.

Now I just need to find somewhere fairly local to process some 120 print film before I buy some chrome. Anyone know if LB Wheaton's in Worcester does? I think I'll take a ride today anyway.

 

[Kokoro]

its 2.15 am so i probably cant put a coherant sentence together.
I came to this thread because I have been thinking about 120 cameras lately. The problem I have is judging what is good value for money. Would a refurbished Yashica-A for £80 be good value or would I be likely to find something better (preferably faster or wider lens) for the same price elsewhere?

 

[ambaker]

I am not familiar with pricing in the UK, but the Yashica A is a early model. I have one, but I paid much less than £80, and I like the Yashica Mats better. The last one they made was the 124G.

The 124G runs a little more than your £80 quote but other can be had in very fine shape at that price point, here in the U.S.