"cheap" SLR

Tree and reflection

H
Tree and reflection

  • 1
  • 0
  • 11
CK341

A
CK341

  • 0
  • 0
  • 46
Plum, Sun, Shade.jpeg

A
Plum, Sun, Shade.jpeg

  • sly
  • May 8, 2025
  • 3
  • 0
  • 74
Windfall 1.jpeg

A
Windfall 1.jpeg

  • sly
  • May 8, 2025
  • 6
  • 0
  • 60
Windfall 2.jpeg

A
Windfall 2.jpeg

  • sly
  • May 8, 2025
  • 1
  • 0
  • 58

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,613
Messages
2,761,978
Members
99,419
Latest member
Darkness doubled
Recent bookmarks
1

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
Most medium format SLRs can be used with whatever kind of finder the user wants. I like having both main kinds (WLF and prism), personally. I use a prism on my Rollei 100 percent of the time, and on my Mamiya C series TLRs every now and then. (I prefer the chimney 3.5/6x magnifier most of the time.) With 645, I prefer prisms, because verticals are nearly impossible for me with a WLF on a rectangular frame. However, I do use my Mamiya 645 WLF quite often, especially when shooting horizontals on a tripod.

But, my point is to not let the finders that people commonly associate with a certain type of cameras sway your decision. Most medium format SLRs can be used with whatever finder you prefer.
 
OP
OP

pbryld

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
What I'm looking for is a SLR/TLR that can take pictures with the sharpness of these: http://www.flickriver.com/groups/ricohflex/pool/interesting/
Preferably rectangular pictures (I've been told cropping 6x6 is not an option, then i should just get a 35mm SLR).

I don't know about the price. Is $200 too much limitation?

In all honesty, I really doubt I will ever enlarge the pictures to more than 20" x equivalent". Should I just get a 35mm SLR then? Or am I compromising on the sharpness of the photo when enlarging them that much (in that case: to what degree can I enlarge 35mm TMAX without compromising on the image quality?)?


Thanks in advance! I'm really glad to have come by such a helpful community.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,022
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I'm guessing that by referring to "live viewing" the OP is wondering whether a TLR's viewing system gives a "what you see is what you get" result.

Of course the answer is "not quite".

The three major differences are:

1) due to the fact that the viewing lens is at a slightly different location than the taking lens, the framing and angle of view are slightly different. This is generally only a problem for close work, and there are work-arounds;
2) most TLRs are used mainly with waist-level finders ("WLF"). With a WLF, the image is reversed. One soon becomes accustomed to the reversal, although it takes a fair amount of practice to become sufficiently accustomed to be able to shoot fast moving action. In the medium format world, quite a few SLRs offer WLFs as an option, and when used with a WLF, those SLRs have the same issues. Some TLRs (Mamiya, Rollieflex) offer a prism finder as an option (see attached photo). With a prism finder the image is not laterally reversed; and
3) if the OP is used to checking how the depth of field varies with aperture, to my knowledge there is just one TLR lens that offers that facility - one of the 105mm lenses designed for the Mamiya C series TLRs.

The photo below shows a Mamiya TLR (a C330) with a moderate telephoto and a prism finder. The Mamiya C series TLRs are the only ones that offer interchangeable lenses. They are larger and heavier than fixed lens TLRs.

I've had my C330 since the mid 1970s. I also have and use 645 SLRs and 6x7 SLRs and 6x6 folders.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: 6x6 is cropped all the time!
 

Attachments

  • 47f-2011-05-12.jpg
    47f-2011-05-12.jpg
    787.6 KB · Views: 49

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,833
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
You want blurry edges? Look for a Yashica-D with a Yashikor lens, and shoot wide open.

Or learn some tricks in the darkroom. Remember, what you see from a Holga isn't unique. People have been doing such effects since the beginning of photography. Sometimes the lens, sometimes in the shooting, darkroom, etc. If you have a sharp original, making it blurry isn't hard. Going the other way- blurry to sharp- is another story.

If you want a DSLR-type viewing experience. get a Bronica ETR(Si) and a prism finder.
 

Jose LS Gil

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
146
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
.

From what the OP asks in his/hers original question.
If you want to keep shooting 120 film, your least expensive camera would be a TLR or a rangefinder type medium format camera. These cameras can be found from $20 on up, depending on brand, lens, and condition.
I recently purchased a Rolleiflex TLR with a 75mm Zeiss taking lens, for $45.
I also picked up a neat Moscow rangefinder folder with a Tessar style lens, for $50. This camera uses 120 film, but the negative is 6X9cm. In the Rolleiflex, I installed a Rolleikin kit to shoot 35mm film. Both these cameras are from the early '50s.
In your original post, you mention that you would most likely not make a print larger than an A4 size paper, and were questioning if 135 film could make such an enlargement. The answer is yes it can. I have made 16X20 size prints from Tri-X 35mm negatives. A4 is close to 8X10 size printing paper and you would have no problem making a print that size, while using TMAX film.
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
For a 20" enlargement I would sure stay with the 6x6 rather than 35mm.

On the other hand, a bargain Nikon n90s and a nice 50mm 1.8 af lens can be had at keh.com for $200.
 
OP
OP

pbryld

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
For a 20" enlargement I would sure stay with the 6x6 rather than 35mm.

On the other hand, a bargain Nikon n90s and a nice 50mm 1.8 af lens can be had at keh.com for $200.

So are you saying I would get a better picture on a 20" enlargement using 120 film?
 

CGW

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,896
Format
Medium Format
So are you saying I would get a better picture on a 20" enlargement using 120 film?

YES! Take a standard business card and place it on a 4x6 index card. That's a very approximate illustration of the difference in negative real estate between 35mm and a 6x7 negative on 120. 8x10 is about the limit for 35mm; 16x20 for 6x7 is no problem with the same speed film. Check some tables for enlargement multiples for various format sizes to see what's what. Film ISO matters but generally the difference between even 645 negatives and 35mm negatives when printed isn't subtle. That's what sold me on medium format.
 

Jose LS Gil

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
146
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
.

pbryld,

In general, you can get a less grainy enlargement from 120 film than from a 35mm size negative. It would depend on how much cropping you do to get that print.

If you make full frame 16X20 print from 120 film and one from a 35mm film, the 35mm negative needs to be enlarged many more times than the 120 neg. However, if the 120 camera has a crappy lens, technical term for a low quality lens, and the 35mm has a low distortion, high quality lens. Chances are the 35mm neg will have a sharper image than the 120 neg. The grain may be the size of golf balls, but the image may be sharper.

Then again, a 16X20 size print is not supposed to be viewed at arms length. They are meant to be viewed at a distance. Much like you would view a movie on a large screen tv versus on a laptop.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
So are you saying I would get a better picture on a 20" enlargement using 120 film?

Think about how far a neg has to be blown up to see why this is so. To make an 8xWhatever inch print, you need to blow up the short side of a 35mm frame (about 1 inch) approx. 8 times, linearly. Rounding down to call a 6x6 or 6x7 cm 120 frame 2 inches, you would have to blow it up only 4 times. When you blow something up less, it is less magnified, and you see fewer "flaws."

Looking at it in another way, and assuming similar lens qualities between the formats, you could say that you would see the same "quality" in a 16xWhatever inch print from 6x6 or 6x7 that you would in the 8xWhatever inch print from 35mm. This is because in each case, the film is blown up 8 times.

So, just as a rule of thumb, I tend to think of medium format as "about twice as sharp and half as grainy" as 35mm, assuming the use of quality lenses and technique in each format. And that is very good, considering how respectable you can get 35mm images to look with today's films.
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
So are you saying I would get a better picture on a 20" enlargement using 120 film?

It is not that you can't get a great 16x20 from a 35mm neg, it's just harder.

It takes better technique and better tools and more care.

The results of a Holga's lens imperfections and light leaks actually IMO lowers the viewer's expectations with regard to sharpness. To put it bluntly, trash shots can look really cool because nobody expects better.

With non-toy cameras, trash shots tend to look trashy because people expect more.

At keh.com there are 5 complete bargain RB 67s under $300 that I would happily consider f I didn't already own 2.

Another thing that you should consider since you want sharp 20" prints is a really good tripod or monopod.
 

BrianL

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Toronto ON C
Format
Medium Format
Some very good suggestions here to the OP. What is your primary photo interest? It may be pertinent to the suggestions. If looking for macrophotography, a TLR is pretty much impractical, thought it is possible. For landscapes and still life, a TLR is as good as almost anything provided a fixed lense camera (except the Maymiya TLR) is acceptable. A modular SLR allows for the most flexibility if varied interests. There are also rangefinder cameras in both the fixed lens and multi-lens formats. A lot depends on what features you want, how it will be used and how it fels to you.

For instance, if pack packing and no tripod, a heavy camera will soon make yolu think your choice. If in a studio setting, weight is of little concern except in making sure a tripod can support it. If a beginner, it may be better to restrict youself to a fixed lens body and learn to us the lens and things like using your feet to change perspective, DoF, etc. I've seen a number of potentially decent shooters not learning the basics and the results are what could have been an excellent photo turned out to be trash.

To clarify, generally a cropped 6x6 to make it rectanglular, will yield about the same image coverage as a 645. 6x6 is an interesting format and while some find it difficult to master, once done, it is no more difficult to work with than any of the rectanguar formats.

Older vs newer cameras, are less an issue. It depends on how much you are going to shoot and the camera condition. I've seen old clunkers in better operating condition than the new stuff. However, to be on the safe side, old workhorses should at least have their shutters checked and folders, their bellows. Cost for the cameras vary but very good ones with legendary lenses can be had very reasonable and depending on the shutter, a tech check can be very reasonable. In the past there were many types of cameras not available later such as folders with lenses that were legendary. Amongst these the Zeiss and Voightlander names are legendary. In the TLR lineup of course there are the Rolleiflex and Rolleicords.

I found no one camera fits all for me so ended up with a few of them. My primary system is a Bronica ETRS bought back when they were in production along with a number of accessories. The basic camera has the WLF what like a TLR gives a lower shooting position than the SLR generally. Today, with the standard 75mm len, this camera is less than most 35mm SLRs in the better amatuer/pro category. The lenses are excellent regardless of which series, main difference being the coating and f/stops. Accessories include prism, metered prisim, motor drives, and a speed grip. With the metered prism and speed grip, it handles and feels like a 35mm slr and is not that much bigger than some of the pro level 35mms. Add a 35mm back and it makes an excellent 35mm SLR that includes the ability to use different film loads (depending on how many backs you have). The standard 645 back adds no weight. The system includes a very wide range of lenses, including some zooms and a tilt and shift, macro extenders, focusing screens, and many more things. While when in production, the system was not inexpensicve, today it is. The last think I bought was the 105mm / macro lens for $100 and a prism finder (non-metered) for $90. In my system the only thing I'd like to add would be the zoom lenses and the 500mm but as I have the doubler for my 250mm, not that important.

But, while it gives me both a 35mm and MF system with commonality, I find it a bit bulky to carry every days and use either my Leica CL or a 35mm Zeiss Ikonta as a daily carrier. I'd leave none in my car so in the glove box, I have a 35mm Canon rangerfinder 35AF. On days when I think I might find some interesting scenery or something but don't want to schlep the Bronica or on days when I\d carry the Leica or Zeiss but not going hither and thither so I can relax, I'll sling the Rolleiflex TLR.
 

ArtTwisted

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Ottawa Ontar
Format
Multi Format
as far as cheap medium format, a yashicamat is a decent place to start, the lens isint razor Hasselblad sharp, not even close, but the negative is big so you can easily print 10 - 15 inch prints that look great, they have a very unique look, not quite sure how to describe it, but they certainly are nice and sharp at those sizes.
(all this based on my yashicamat and attached lens, other models maybe be better / worse)
 

LyleB

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
376
Location
Lower Michig
Format
35mm
My first MF was a Yashica A, followed immediatly by a Yashica D. Both of these made very good introductions to MF and I was blown away by the difference in the look of even relatively small prints when compared to the same film in 35mm. As someone above said, the difference is NOT subtle.

I haven't seen the Pentax 645 mentioned. That was my next MF system. I love most everything about it except the non-standard controls. They are not difficult to use, but I knew I would prefer the more intuitive Pentax 645n, so I have now added one of these to my collection. The original 645 sells for very reasonable amounts, so is great for the budget minded.

If anyone is interested in a nice, clean, fully functioning Pentax 645 body, send me an offer. I will continue to use my collection of manual focus lenses with the 645n. These are both large cameras, but well balanced for hand-held shooting. They lack the ability to change backs mid-roll, but this has not really been a problem for me.

Make sure to take a look at the Pentax 645 before deciding. I'm not sure why this camera seems to be overlooked so often.
 

BetterSense

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
3,151
Location
North Caroli
Format
35mm
Why don't you start off right, and buy (there was a url link here which no longer exists)? You know there's no need for a CLA when you buy them LNIB.
 

Roger Cole

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
Um, the original poster indicated a preference for rectangle, see post #6. You rarely see a prism on a TLR, whereas most 645 SLR's have em. Not saying TLR is bad, but it does have some limitations.

Jon

Ok, I skimmed that one because it started with a comment on other cameras I wasn't addressing.

WHY, of all the vBulletin sites I'm on, is this one the only one that doesn't allow multi quote??? ARGGHH!

At any rate, I have seen quite a few Mamiya TLRs for sale with prisms, and the finders are readily available from KEH. The Rolleis are more rare, but not inexpensive in any case. If eye level viewing were really important and I wanted to get into MF on the cheap, a Mamiya TLR would be on the list, though admittedly there are other options.
 

Roger Cole

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
What I'm looking for is a SLR/TLR that can take pictures with the sharpness of these: http://www.flickriver.com/groups/ricohflex/pool/interesting/
Preferably rectangular pictures (I've been told cropping 6x6 is not an option, then i should just get a 35mm SLR).

I don't know about the price. Is $200 too much limitation?

In all honesty, I really doubt I will ever enlarge the pictures to more than 20" x equivalent". Should I just get a 35mm SLR then? Or am I compromising on the sharpness of the photo when enlarging them that much (in that case: to what degree can I enlarge 35mm TMAX without compromising on the image quality?)?


Thanks in advance! I'm really glad to have come by such a helpful community.

Who told you cropping 6x6 is not an option?

That's rhetorical. I don't really care who told you; they're wrong.

Cropping a 6x6 negative to 8x10 proportions means you use 6x4.5 cm or so of it. The only downside relative to having shot it on a 6x4.5 camera to start with are that you will waste a little film, getting fewer shots on a roll, and the camera is likely to be a bit larger and heavier. But on the other hand, you don't have to rotate it for horizontal and vertical as the cropping happens in the darkroom.

Of course it will be half the size of a 6x9 negative and 64% the size of a 6x7 negative, but depending on your desired print size and tastes in quality (and film, and technique etc.) it's likely to be quite good enough.
 
OP
OP

pbryld

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
I was told by a member 4,5x6 wasn't worth it. Anyways, now I know Medium format is the way to go, so the hunting begins. I will definitely take all of your recommendations into consideration.

Why don't you start off right, and buy (there was a url link here which no longer exists)? You know there's no need for a CLA when you buy them LNIB.

Tempting, but too expensive. :sad:

Btw, what does CLA mean? I am guessing LNIB = like new in box?
 
OP
OP

pbryld

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Some very good suggestions here to the OP. What is your primary photo interest? It may be pertinent to the suggestions. If looking for macrophotography, a TLR is pretty much impractical, thought it is possible. For landscapes and still life, a TLR is as good as almost anything provided a fixed lense camera (except the Maymiya TLR) is acceptable. A modular SLR allows for the most flexibility if varied interests. There are also rangefinder cameras in both the fixed lens and multi-lens formats. A lot depends on what features you want, how it will be used and how it fels to you.

I would primarily be shooting landscapes and buildings, portraits once in a while too. Do I need 2 lenses in that case?

I don't mind the 6x6 format really, but I find square frames unflattering. Perhaps the solution to this is framing two square photos in one frame and just find a 6x6 camera, which seems to be the easiest. In worst case scenario I could just crop the image...
 

Roger Cole

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
I was told by a member 4,5x6 wasn't worth it. Anyways, now I know Medium format is the way to go, so the hunting begins. I will definitely take all of your recommendations into consideration.



Tempting, but too expensive. :sad:

Btw, what does CLA mean? I am guessing LNIB = like new in box?

6x4.5 not "worth it?" Just goes to show, ask a dozen people, you'll get about 20 opinions. The jump from 35mm to 6x4.5 is considerable as is the increase in quality. They may have meant if you're going to carry a MF camera kit anyway you may as well carry larger and that has some merit to it, but a 35mm frame has 864 square millimeters of film area. 6x4.5 has 2700. (These are based on 24x36 mm and the nominal 645 dimensions, though I understand the actual ones are a tad bit smaller for 645 I don't have that information, and it's a bit different when talking of cropping 6x6 anyway.) That's over three times the area. The improvement in quality is very significant. Of course 6x7 has 4200 sqaure millimeters and.... :wink:

CLA - Clean, Lube, Adjust.

I'm not sure that being like new or even NIB (New In Box) when it's been sitting a while makes that un-needed though. Lube dries out more when it's not used than when exercised regularly, and light seals deteriorate more from age than anything. That's a nice Mamiya kit either way, though.
 

nosmok

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
678
Format
Multi Format
i'm still the loony who will sing the praises of the Graflex RB series B (2-1/4in by 3-1/4in, or 6x9cm). My last one was 140 bucks with roll film holder and an astonishing 127mm coated Ektar. Those early 50s Kodak lenses give away nothing to their more modern counterparts, and all those shutter speeds mean great exposure control. Using one is like learning to ride a bike-- hard the first few times but once you get it, you got it. Plus you can fix them yourself if your handy at all. And it's a true SLR.

--nosmok
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom