Cheapest medium format camera

RPippin · May 1, 2011

It could be that your reasoning for the 6X7 format is that it is a little closer to what your used to with 35mm, but I would seriously consider a Bronica SQA as something to get started with. You might find the square format to your liking, or you could crop a bit to get the aspect ratio your looking for. You can get a view finder that resembles the look and feel of a SLR, which in effect it would be, and it is very easy to hand hold. You can also get a back that frames 645, as well as many other accesories. The thing about the Bronica as well as the RB or RZ cameras that makes them a great choice is that they are system cameras. You can add on to your kit as time goes by, they have great lenses at great prices, and will be bargained priced. If you decide to move up in equipment, they have good resale value. There is a great expression that goes "I can't afford to buy cheap shoes" that applies here.

Jeff Kubach · May 1, 2011

I would look into Maimya RB67 or maybe a TLR. Good prices on KEH.

Jeff

baachitraka · May 1, 2011

RPippin said:
It could be that your reasoning for the 6X7 format is that it is a little closer to what your used to with 35mm, but I would seriously consider a Bronica SQA as something to get started with. You might find the square format to your liking, or you could crop a bit to get the aspect ratio your looking for. You can get a view finder that resembles the look and feel of a SLR, which in effect it would be, and it is very easy to hand hold. You can also get a back that frames 645, as well as many other accesories. The thing about the Bronica as well as the RB or RZ cameras that makes them a great choice is that they are system cameras. You can add on to your kit as time goes by, they have great lenses at great prices, and will be bargained priced. If you decide to move up in equipment, they have good resale value. There is a great expression that goes "I can't afford to buy cheap shoes" that applies here.

I agree, having anything like a system is good for the long term. I will think about RB67 with a good lens for portraits.

blockend · May 1, 2011

You have to be sure what you want a 120 camera for. An RB or RZ67 is a seriously heavy piece of kit, ditto Pentax 67, Mamiya Press or most other medium format SLRs. I have a 5 x 4" MPP that weighs little more than some roll film cameras. You'll only take such cameras if you are sure you are going to use one.

A folder will fit into a pocket and you wouldn't buy a Mamiya filter for the price of a Zeiss Ikon. If you like the roll film format you can purchase a more versatile camera later, if not it's cost you nothing, you can sell the folder on. The only camera that offers the versatility of a folder with superior lenses in a compact form is the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. A new one with 80mm lens costs £2500-3000. They sell because they deliver 120 quality in a portable format, which has always been the elusive goal of medium format cameras.

Another solution is a Rolleiflex/ Yashica/ Minolta twin lens reflex, depending on your budget. As your original question was what is the cheapest medium format camera, I take it budget is a consideration. If you're asking what is the best you'll get a whole different set of answers.

bblhed · May 1, 2011

I have to join the Zeiss folding camera camp. I have a Kodak Brownie Autographic #2 that I really like, and I Zeiss 520/2 with the Telma f/6.3 lens (read "the cheep lens"). The Zeiss is sharper every time hands down. Also, the Zeiss was handed to me by an 82 year old woman that couldn't recall the last time it had been used, I had to cycle the shutter a bunch of times until it sounded right, but here are the results. I used a pocket meter, and guessed at the distance for focus.

These are negative scans at 1200 DPI, further reduced in quality by uploading to Picasa, but they will give you an idea of quality.

Full size image

Detail

It isn't award willing tack sharp quality, but it works for me.

baachitraka · May 1, 2011

blockend said:
You have to be sure what you want a 120 camera for. An RB or RZ67 is a seriously heavy piece of kit, ditto Pentax 67, Mamiya Press or most other medium format SLRs. I have a 5 x 4" MPP that weighs little more than some roll film cameras. You'll only take such cameras if you are sure you are going to use one.

A folder will fit into a pocket and you wouldn't buy a Mamiya filter for the price of a Zeiss Ikon. If you like the roll film format you can purchase a more versatile camera later, if not it's cost you nothing, you can sell the folder on. The only camera that offers the versatility of a folder with superior lenses in a compact form is the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. A new one with 80mm lens costs £2500-3000. They sell because they deliver 120 quality in a portable format, which has always been the elusive goal of medium format cameras.

Another solution is a Rolleiflex/ Yashica/ Minolta twin lens reflex, depending on your budget. As your original question was what is the cheapest medium format camera, I take it budget is a consideration. If you're asking what is the best you'll get a whole different set of answers.

For an experimental portrait photography, I do not want to spend too much for an equipment. So, I would like to stick to something which delivers a decent quality of portraits.

blockend · May 1, 2011

baachitraka said:
For an experimental portrait photography, I do not want to spend too much for an equipment. So, I would like to stick to something which delivers a decent quality of portraits.

For portraits I'd recommend a folder even more highly. At wide open apertures they'll give you the softness it sounds like you're looking for. One point worth remembering is many folders are scale focusing and at close distances you'll have a shallow DoF so it's worth carrying a tape measure (from the film plane, not the lens), or a pre-measured piece of string.

Some Nettars (and other cameras) allow multiple exposure, later ones often have multi-exposure prevention systems. If experimentation is paramount, you may want an earlier model.

baachitraka · May 1, 2011

blockend said:
For portraits I'd recommend a folder even more highly. At wide open apertures they'll give you the softness it sounds like you're looking for. One point worth remembering is many folders are scale focusing and at close distances you'll have a shallow DoF so it's worth carrying a tape measure (from the film plane, not the lens), or a pre-measured piece of string.

Some Nettars (and other cameras) allow multiple exposure, later ones often have multi-exposure prevention systems. If experimentation is paramount, you may want an earlier model.

For 35mm I had no problem in choosing cameras. Since, I know a bit about the manufactures.

Whens comes to MF I could not able to sort it out. :-(

I will be happy to find a foldable with 85mm equivalent lens.

johnielvis · May 1, 2011

well..best comparison to 35mm with 85mm would be 6x9...same scale 3:2 aspect ratio there. (9/6 is same as 36/24 frame sizes scaled up--see?)

the scaled up lens 85mm ==> 6x9 is going to be 197mm exactly...so 200mm roughly.

there are no folders that I've ever heard of with a 200mm lens---best combo would be a "folder" such as a baby 6x9 press camera with a 203 kodak lens onit (ektar or anastitmat). you get a roll film holder and you're in business--direct comparison. you can even synch the rangefinder to the 203 I believe. At any rate, you get ground glass focusing for the critical close focusing. And you can put any old lens you want on it when you want to shoot different...can also choose 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9....AND it folds!

this ain't gonna be 50 bucks though--the 203 lens itself is a pretty hoopy item--sought after due to tiny size and sharp 5x7 coverage.

blockend · May 1, 2011

If you definitely want a short telephoto lens it will have to be a 120 SLR, or a tele Rolleiflex, or a Mamiyaflex derivative or johnielvis's solution. I'd question how much you need an 85mm equivalent for experimental portraiture, but only you know that. I'd start with a standard lens and work round the limitations.
Frankly for the price you may finish up paying you may find a second hand 5 x 4" camera gives you more flexibility for your dollar.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 1, 2011

baachitraka said:
I have no idea about the quality of the photos from MF yet and only presumed that higher the film area, better is for the detail(using good lens).

The only difference you will see in quality between 35mm and medium format is in terms of grain. The lenses for 35mm are so much better in terms of resolution than medium format ones, assuming that you are using a film that is capable of high resolution, that you get practically the same resolution from a 50mm Zeiss Planar in 35mm format as you get from an 80mm Zeiss Planar in medium format. It goes on to 4x5 format too, where lens design poses limitations, in terms of resolution, where it performs similarly to 35mm.
There is a very well researched article about this particular topic, made by Lars Kjellberg, using Hasselblad's test facilities in Sweden. Google it if you don't believe me (search for Lars Kjellberg film format). Hard data that suggests that a larger negative doesn't necessarily have to be better.

What you do get from a larger negative is a smoother tonal gradation when the pictures get bigger, one grayscale to another. But 'better' is such a subjective term; what's good for one person is not so good for another. I like grain, and have been on a frenzy lately where I use Delta 3200 35mm film processed in Rodinal for some really BIG grain in 16x20 prints. I could not do that with medium format. The thing is, the pictures are still pin sharp. I just get more grain.

baachitraka · May 1, 2011

blockend said:
If you definitely want a short telephoto lens it will have to be a 120 SLR, or a tele Rolleiflex, or johnielvis's solution. I'd question how much you need an 85mm equivalent for experimental portraiture, but only you know that. I'd start with a standard lens and work round the limitations.
Frankly for the price you may finish up paying you may find a second hand 5 x 4" camera gives you more flexibility for your dollar.

I was shooting a lot with APS-C with f=50mm(80mm equivalent) and occasionally with f=50mm on full-frame. I have very good results with it.

I am still listening to good recommendations for folders.

R gould · May 1, 2011

I have and use a number of folder from the 40s and fifties, and they produce very good and sharp negatives indeed, in fact I rarely if ever use my bronica gear these days, A voightlander perkeo with a color skoper lens or one of the many zeiss Ikons, or perhaps one of the many Ensign range with the Ross expres will serve you well, the lenses are as good as some today, and as far as focus, you can pick up an old rangefinder for peanuts, a hand held exposure meter, and you are away,some of these lovely folders even have built in rangefinders, I would reccomend one for someone starting out and wanting to experiment, and they are as cheap as chips today,for instance I recently bought a Ensign Selfix 820, 6x9 or 6x6, with the Ross xpress lens, in perfect working order, producing negatives capable of enlargeing to at least 20x24,I have printed some to that size from this camera today, for £69 GBP, and this is a dealer price, so I would say go for a folder,
Richard

blockend · May 1, 2011

I'd second what R gould say. Also ask around on the APUG Folder Group. Many people are put off folders because they look 'antique', fortunately that keeps the prices down for the rest of us.

Marc B. · May 1, 2011

Baachitraka,
Since you state you have no desire to set-up a studio, that means you want a camera that is easier to hand hold and carry around.
With that said, I would advise against a RB/RZ; they're too heavy. Also, to keep costs under control, I would not recommend any cameras that are extremely old, like many folders with bellows and range finders that can become un-coupled and mis-adjusted, or cameras that had limited or short production runs like some of the offerings from Koni-Omega.

Stay with something more main stream, or produced in such large numbers, that initial cost of the camera is low, and parts, (even through cannibalization) are more readily available.

For you, I would highly recommend a TLR. Yashica and Mamiya are probably your best value, long term. Mamiya TLR's are plentiful and so are the variety of interchangeable lenses that go with them. The Yashica TLR's don't have interchangeable lenses, but are much lighter to carry around. Nice operable, "user" Rolliecord's, (poor mans Rollie), and Rollieflex's, (rich mans Rollie) are often priced outside the range of what would be considered cheap or economy.

With patience, a Yashica D, LM, 12, or 124 model can be purchased in user condition for no more then $75.00 USD. You don't need to buy into the inflated hype of the 124G. Whichever model you find, try to find one with the matching case.

Good user versions of Mamiya C series TLR's can be found, (complete with view finder attached and one lens set) for about $100.00 USD.
Don't worry so much about a matching case for the Mamiya TLR's. They're over priced and a genuine PITA to use.
The Mamiya TLR's have bellows, but unlike folders, there are actually three (3) bellows. The outer bellows can be seen, but underneath, there are two more independent bellows, one each for the viewing lens, and one for the taking lens. A little bit of crinkle or crumple on the outer bellows is not necessarily a deal breaker.

There are seven different lens focal lengths available for the Mamiya TLR's. ranging from the two wides, 55mm and 65mm, the standard 80mm, the short telephoto or long standard 105mm, and then the three long telephotos, the 135mm, 180mm, and 250mm.

I love my RZ, but my TLR's are much easier to carry around, the results are impressive, and I never have trouble finding parts or service for TLR's, even in my little Podunk town.

blockend · May 1, 2011

I had a Mamiya C330 TLR from new and they are indeed lovely cameras, as are their lenses. However depending on your definition of cheap, they may or may not fit the criterion. Nor are they especially light and they have parallax issues, though these are much overstated in normal use. A Mamiya TLR with a finder is a Big Camera.

However they are probably the cheapest means of getting a quality portrait lens on a roll film camera.

MattKing · May 1, 2011

A Mamiya C220 or C330 with a waist level finder and a 135mm lens is a lovely portrait camera. Add a 65mm lens and you will have a nice, compact two lens setup that is easier to carry than many DSLRs.

This won't fulfil your "cheapest" criteria though.

Jim Noel · May 1, 2011

baachitraka said:
I shoot with 35mm and have no interest to go for another format very soon. In the mean-time, I am wondering how the photos will look from medium-format esp., 6x7.

Can anybody suggest a dead cheap medium-format camera just for testing, please.

Holga

2F/2F · May 1, 2011

Holgas aren't really that cheap. Maybe they used to be.......

Moopheus · May 1, 2011

2F/2F said:
Holgas aren't really that cheap. Maybe they used to be.......

You can still get older Dianas and Diana-clones on ebay for cheap, much less than the newer versions.

2F/2F · May 1, 2011

But are they "dead cheap" when you compare them to the $3 to $5 options at local yard sales, such as Brownies and the like? Christ, I got my 120 Brownie from the freebies section of Craigslist. I wouldn't spend 5 dollars on a Holga, let alone what they actually go for. I just don't feel any love for the Holga, and the prices really add to that. An old American-made cardboard-skinned or bakelite point and shoot that helped to carry the Kodak company for years is far more interesting to me than a plastic piece of modern-day Asian cheapness...and the images are more interesting too IMHO.

Matthew Rusbarsky · May 1, 2011

Brownie Hawkeye flashes are currently going at 2 for $10. No one seems to want to pay for shipping for a single. The 620 spools inside are worth $6 each, which gives the camera a value of -$1. I I had cash, I would grab a Mamiya RB or RZ. Best bang for your buck for system cameras. There are certainly other choices, but the Rb/RZs are so common you are insured of a good supply or parts, lenses, finders, and just about everything else for reasonable prices.

FM2N · May 2, 2011

For weight I would go with the Bronica ETRS. I own the C330 and the RB67 and they are both heavy cameras to carry. I just got my Bronica back and as soon as I picked it up I knew the RB and the C330 would soon be for sale. I also think that the Bronica glass is really beautiful. You can easily put together a nice beginners set-up for around $200
Arthur

bblhed · May 2, 2011

2F/2F said:
But are they "dead cheap" when you compare them to the $3 to $5 options at local yard sales, such as Brownies and the like? Christ, I got my 120 Brownie from the freebies section of Craigslist. I wouldn't spend 5 dollars on a Holga, let alone what they actually go for. I just don't feel any love for the Holga, and the prices really add to that. An old American-made cardboard-skinned or bakelite point and shoot that helped to carry the Kodak company for years is far more interesting to me than a plastic piece of modern-day Asian cheapness...and the images are more interesting too IMHO.

While we are Holga bashing, I would like to know if anyone can explain why I can walk into a drug store and but a disposable camera for about $10 and it is far more complicated and way better built than a Holga that sells for over $100? Volume alone can not possibly account for the price disparity.

Oh yeah Brownies don't take nice sharp photos, but for less that $20 you can buy a camera, load it with film, and get photos back, that is about what photos from a disposable cost, and brownies are way cooler, and you get to keep the camera.

2F/2F · May 3, 2011

And if you get certain Brownies (the earlier glass-lens box ones are generally better in image quality than the later space-age plastic lens/plastic body ones, and they offer more control), and learn to work withing their limits, you can actually get decent pix. Sharp enough in the middle for a couple times enlargement, fuzzing out and darkening on the edges at full aperture which greatly reduces at the tiniest aperture...the point and shoot equivalent of the stuff that people pay a thousand bucks for when buying old brass lenses. Just stabilize the camera well, release the shutter gently, and get your subject about 10 feet or more from you, and you have a pretty capable camera for many situations.

Cheapest medium format camera

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency