Cheapest medium format camera

I was carrying and using my RB67, Yashicaflex 6x6 and an old Canon TX last weekend, all at the same time. The weight is not an issue; really!

Folders are fun, many love them and Brownie box cameras too but portraiture is not their strong suit if you're honest about them. They were snapshot cameras really, nice for group shots and shots of people in front of buildings, by their cars or campsites and so on but not tight headshots. The same is true of most simple TLRs (not the Mamiya C330 obviously which can install a real headshot focal length to use though parallax is still an issue).

Most simple TLR and folder cameras with a standard lens (6x6 80mm, 6x9 105mm) don't focus terribly close and at close range for portraits they have parallax focus errors anyways unless you are very careful (some viewfinders have parallax aids you can use but I don't find they work all that well for me). An SLR like the RB67 will focus closer AND since you are focusing through the lens you'll see exactly what you will get.

Get an RB67 with the 180mm lens if you want a focal length for portraits like 85mm on 135 format. If you shoot a 6x6 TLR with 80mm lens and crop for the tight head shot it will end up the same as 35mm with 80mm, EXACTLY THE SAME. Focal length on film gives the same scale, the same grain and tonality if you crop and enlarge. To take advantage of medium format or large format for that matter you need to frame the picture correctly for the format. Always, always, always frame properly (tightly) for portraits unless your intent is to include some of the environment.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

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.
.

Click to expand...

I may be a bit dumb here but from what I can tell of the article, he is comparing 35mm at 50lp/mm with the contrast from large format at 14lp/mm and saying that because they are the same then 35mm is as good as LF..

The results he would get if he compared the 35mm at 180lp/mm against the MTF of the Sironar S at 50lp/mm might show a different result.

Also, his pictures of the test image don't show the smallest bars for the 35mm film (even though he shows the smallest bars for the LF film).

Not sure I'd pay too much attention to these.. From my experience scanning real world film, I can get 4000-5000 dpi information out of 25mm, 3000-4000 out of medium format (67) and 2000-3000 out of LF.. This means that in real terms, LF still has 2-3x as much linear resolution as 35mm film.. (or about 5-6 times the equivalent megapixels).

As for a good medium format camera, I reckon a decent folder is the best bet. Alternatively a Bronica would be a good SLR type solution

Tim

Tim

timparkin said:

I may be a bit dumb here but from what I can tell of the article, he is comparing 35mm at 50lp/mm with the contrast from large format at 14lp/mm and saying that because they are the same then 35mm is as good as LF..

The results he would get if he compared the 35mm at 180lp/mm against the MTF of the Sironar S at 50lp/mm might show a different result.

Also, his pictures of the test image don't show the smallest bars for the 35mm film (even though he shows the smallest bars for the LF film).

Not sure I'd pay too much attention to these.. From my experience scanning real world film, I can get 4000-5000 dpi information out of 25mm, 3000-4000 out of medium format (67) and 2000-3000 out of LF.. This means that in real terms, LF still has 2-3x as much linear resolution as 35mm film.. (or about 5-6 times the equivalent megapixels).

Click to expand...

You can prove anything with statistics, and there are surely situations where large format surpasses the smaller formats.
The article proves that 35mm CAN be incredibly good, and for being a camera format that is compact, easy to set up, no 'dead time' between focusing and actually opening the shutter so that you don't miss all those fleeting moments passing by, it can deliver astonishing picture quality. I have 9x12" prints that people will not believe are from 35mm.

I was trying to show the flip side of the coin, and elaborate a bit on the fact that it isn't always necessary to go to medium format to get amazing prints. Had I known the quality I am now able to get from 35mm back when I was dying to jump into medium format, I would not have done it. I would have stayed with 35mm, because it is good enough if you take care with what you do. Us photographers think way too much about the cameras.

35mm and 120 prints have two different looks. It's reasonable to prefer one over another but they aren't the same thing. I agree that 35mm comes close to the tonality of 120 if slow films and fine grain developers are used and the negative printed under 10 x 8", I used Agfapan 25 for years in 35mm, but it's hard work to get continuous rolling tone, whereas in medium format it's straightforward, even at 400ASA.

35mm aesthetic is derived from granular sharpness primarily, and was used effectively in a lot of 1960s portraiture and fashion, with high contrast lighting, but it isn't what most people expect of a portrait. I'm happy to use 35mm and roll film for people shots.
To go back to the topic, we're talking about cheap medium format which I suspect rules out any SLR though cheap could mean sub £1000, under £100 or less than £30. All can be met by one kind of MF camera or another.

Cheap?; we are talking Folders: just got a Voigtlander Bessa 6X9 for 10 bucks. Lots of fun. 10 bucks. After that; my Mamiya RB6X7 Pro S, which are also dirt cheap these days. Just got Mamiya like new with three lenses: 50, 90, 180; 2 Backs, Grip; all in an Aluminum Case for U.S.$250

Lubitel 166b. Free if you ask around. Not that great for film flatness, large apertures, edge sharpness or exact composition in the viewfinder, though.

blockend said:

35mm and 120 prints have two different looks. It's reasonable to prefer one over another but they aren't the same thing. I agree that 35mm comes close to the tonality of 120 if slow films and fine grain developers are used and the negative printed under 10 x 8", I used Agfapan 25 for years in 35mm, but it's hard work to get continuous rolling tone, whereas in medium format it's straightforward, even at 400ASA.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and think that there is a lot more to be had from 35mm than most people will dare to believe. I have made 9x12" prints from 35mm TMax 400 where you have to get really close to the paper, and actually search, to find any grain, and people that see them refuse to believe they are from 35mm film, especially 400 speed. Tones are smooth as silk, if I want them to be.
Bigger than that, and I have to use 100 speed TMax or Acros to get there, so I'm not going to pretend that there are no limitations.

I'm not saying you're wrong. For you, and your view of what constitutes a fine print, it is entirely true. But for others it may not be, and I'm one of them. I find no important difference between a cropped 6x6 negative and a cropped 35mm negative in 9x12" print size, using TMax 400 film, processed in replenished Xtol, and contrast targeting my Foma paper and Ethol LPD developer.

I'm sorry if I'm derailing the post. I just want the OP to think deeply about a switch to medium format, and ask questions that could be important to answer before moving to a different format. It's true that I'm trying to play the Devil's advocate a little bit, but to think critically about changing our tools is important, and you'd have to insure that you're actually gaining something by doing so. That's what I'm trying to achieve.

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.

Click to expand...

if you don't mind "zone focusing" an old folding camera might be the kind of MF
camera you are looking for ...
to give you an idea of what they look like

http://arukucamera.net/folders.html


some cameras are better than others ...

The Mamiya C cameras are great for street photography in bad neighborhoods. If someone accosts you, you just bash him over the head with it. Then as he writhes on the ground, you take his picture, because it will still work.

pbromaghin said:

The Mamiya C cameras are great for street photography in bad neighborhoods. If someone accosts you, you just bash him over the head with it. Then as he writhes on the ground, you take his picture, because it will still work.

Click to expand...

Yep, the classic advantage of the vintage steel-bodied camera over newer more plasticy cameras--hand-to-hand combat!

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I disagree, and think that there is a lot more to be had from 35mm than most people will dare to believe. I have made 9x12" prints from 35mm TMax 400 where you have to get really close to the paper, and actually search, to find any grain, and people that see them refuse to believe they are from 35mm film, especially 400 speed. Tones are smooth as silk, if I want them to be.
Bigger than that, and I have to use 100 speed TMax or Acros to get there, so I'm not going to pretend that there are no limitations.

I'm not saying you're wrong. For you, and your view of what constitutes a fine print, it is entirely true. But for others it may not be, and I'm one of them. I find no important difference between a cropped 6x6 negative and a cropped 35mm negative in 9x12" print size, using TMax 400 film, processed in replenished Xtol, and contrast targeting my Foma paper and Ethol LPD developer.

I'm sorry if I'm derailing the post. I just want the OP to think deeply about a switch to medium format, and ask questions that could be important to answer before moving to a different format. It's true that I'm trying to play the Devil's advocate a little bit, but to think critically about changing our tools is important, and you'd have to insure that you're actually gaining something by doing so. That's what I'm trying to achieve.

Click to expand...

There is no strong urge to switch to MF yet. I prefer portrait and low-light photography more than any other genre.

So, I was wondering that I can get anything special apart from very large prints from MF.

I never used any studio lights, just few flash guns.

Till now, I understood that dynamic range is proportional to the area of the film/sensor. Do you think I miss-understood anything? What kind of flash system you use when shooting indoor portraits, if you shoot with flash?

Off camera flash for indoors. Two if possible.

Dynamic range? Well, anyways the 'sensor' size only counts if you use all of it! If you shoot at 80mm and crop the headshot then you have reduced your format size.

Wherever possible I'd use natural light for portraiture. You can enhance it with reflectors, white paper, silver foil, mirrors or whatever but you can see how light effects the sitter. Studio flash has modelling lights that give an idea of how the finished shot will look but hand held units are guesswork. You can always use tungsten/artificial lighting and balance the colour temperature with a blue filter. Tungsten balanced film is thin on the ground nowadays.

blockend said:

...hand held units are guesswork.

Click to expand...

But educated guesswork. Shoot with any artificial lights a handful of times, and you'll know what you are gonna get with any other artificial lights, at least enough so to get what you want. Speedlites are not ideal, but they are certainly not a crapshoot if you understand the basics of lighting things artificially....and if you meter, of course.

I feel that staged artificial light is always easier to use than natural light. You have total control and practically nothing to get in the way between you and your shot. Working outside is like putting one hard light in the middle of your studio that is slowing arching across the room on a track, and then telling your model to walk around amongst various fixed reflectors and diffusers until the light looks good. And when it does, hope you get your shots off before the light changes position too much on the track.

Long ago, on a planet far, far away called the 1970s I used to assist a photographer who made most of his income shooting advertising and editorial shots involving people, nearly all of them female and frequently without much in the way of clothing. He had a few basic lighting formuli but always used a flashmeter and a polaroid back to confirm his mathematics, then bracketed exposure.

His photographs under studio flash must have run into thousands but he was always careful never to guess the outcome without confirmation. On that basis I'd say experiment by all means but never assume anything about light hitting a human body in advance.

baachitraka said:

There is no strong urge to switch to MF yet. I prefer portrait and low-light photography more than any other genre.

So, I was wondering that I can get anything special apart from very large prints from MF.
io lights, just few flash guns.

Click to expand...

I'm confused by your assertion that you have no strong urge to change formats any time soon and yet are asking what you will gain. But here's what i know:

Improved local contrast in your print, shallower depth of field and lower grain – if you consider these to be an improvement or not is personal.
Arguably a slower and perhaps more deliberate approach to working.
Ability to shoot 12 or 15 shots per roll, or less depending on exact 120 format. (Some count this as an advantage.)
The potential to view and compose your photographs on a ground glass screen.

blockend said:

Long ago, on a planet far, far away called the 1970s I used to assist a photographer who made most of his income shooting advertising and editorial shots involving people, nearly all of them female and frequently without much in the way of clothing. He had a few basic lighting formuli but always used a flashmeter and a polaroid back to confirm his mathematics, then bracketed exposure.

His photographs under studio flash must have run into thousands but he was always careful never to guess the outcome without confirmation. On that basis I'd say experiment by all means but never assume anything about light hitting a human body in advance.

Click to expand...

Never is a strong word. Assume is just the wrong word, as it implies lack of specific knowledge or experience. I'd say learn what to expect from your tools and methods, and then trust yourself to do the right thing in order to get what you want. I use speedlights (potato masher Sunpaks on stands or held by a friend) on location all the time without Polaroids (a horrible waste of time and money for most people), usually bounced off of foamcore. I just use a meter to measure the flash, and I know by practice how the flash will look as metered, turned down one stop, etc. To model the light precisely, simply get behind the flash or reflector and follow it's direction toward the subject, and you can see where the light will fall.

Lighting is really not very complex; its properties do not ever change, and there is only so much you can do with it. But so many people make it out to seem like it is this highly fugitive and unpredictable thing that must be chased around and pinned down for every picture in order to be able to know what is going to happen.

All I am saying is that you don't need modeling lamps or Polaroids to know what flash is going to look like. You just need knowledge and practice...and not even that much. Light is simple; you can only do so much with it: change it's direction, change it's intensity, and change it's relative size (i.e. modifiers and/or distance from subject).

pbromaghin said:

The Mamiya C cameras are great for street photography in bad neighborhoods. If someone accosts you, you just bash him over the head with it. Then as he writhes on the ground, you take his picture, because it will still work.

Click to expand...

2F/2F said:

Never is a strong word. Assume is just the wrong word, as it implies lack of specific knowledge or experience.

Click to expand...

You can predict, and do so fairly accurately but the risk to ones professional reputation was never worth the hassle of not putting a Polaroid through, especially to sooth the art director's brow.
In the context of this question I don't see hand held flash as being more controllable than available light for a beginner.

I am not advocating that a professional working for an art director forgo pre-viewing images while shooting, so the discussion of that to respond to my point is misplaced.

Nor am I arguing that an off-camera speedlight (not necessarily hand held by the photographer while shooting; when did I say that? I said I use a stand or a friend) is an absolutely ideal tool; I specifically said otherwise.

I am simply arguing against the position that a speedlight is not a good tool (simply "guesswork," you said) for outdoor shooting because it does not have a modeling lamp. They are extremely useful tools for this, for beginners or for the most experienced photographers.

jnanian said:

if you don't mind "zone focusing" an old folding camera might be the kind of MF
camera you are looking for ...
to give you an idea of what they look like

http://arukucamera.net/folders.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for this link. I'm not the OP, but I'm following this thread with some interest as I'm just starting to get into MF.

Moopheus said:

Yep, the classic advantage of the vintage steel-bodied camera over newer more plasticy cameras--hand-to-hand combat!

Click to expand...

I thought that's what heavy tripods were for.

2F/2F said:

I feel that staged artificial light is always easier to use than natural light.

Click to expand...

While I realize you wrote, "easier to use," and not, "better to use," this is still going to ignite a flash vs. natural light religious war.

kwall said:

While I realize you wrote, "easier to use," and not, "better to use," this is still going to ignite a flash vs. natural light religious war.

Click to expand...

I am a fan of bouce flash esp., low ceilings.