Deciding on medium format ...

[rayonline_nz]

thanks fantastic. ... have a good day. financially better than mamiya pro/ tl. my twilight with 50 speed film.

 

[cjbecker]

The photographer that I bought my hasselblad kit from, was a wedding/portrait photographer and he also though of the the camera as a 645 that you dont have to turn on its side. He used 645 crop lines both vertical and horizontal. He liked to use a 50 or 60 lens so he always got focus and the depth of field. He would cropped for the final image. He said he liked hasselblad cause the lenses allowed this approach. He used a few other brands but he said none allowed as much cropping while staying sharp enough.

 

[lxdude]

They all have T mode. With a cable release, after cocking the shutter and body by winding, you unscrew the stop on the lens, and slide the switch from A to T.

Just a detail: on the newest ETR lenses, the PE series, the stop is pulled out, not unscrewed. It's retained by a detent, so it helps to have strong fingernails.

 

[spijker]

Just another question, sorry. I am doing my spreadsheet up with the Mamiya vs Bronica. For Mamiya what are the more moden lenses - the N series? I know that the Bronica are the PE.

Correct. Then there are also the 645 lenses with an A prefix instead of the C prefix. AFAIK, these are from the same generation (or later) as the N (suffix) series, for example the A 150mm f/2.8.

 

[JW PHOTO]

The photographer that I bought my hasselblad kit from, was a wedding/portrait photographer and he also though of the the camera as a 645 that you dont have to turn on its side. He used 645 crop lines both vertical and horizontal. He liked to use a 50 or 60 lens so he always got focus and the depth of field. He would cropped for the final image. He said he liked hasselblad cause the lenses allowed this approach. He used a few other brands but he said none allowed as much cropping while staying sharp enough.

Yes, that's what I used mine for and had all four corners of one screen completely blacked out. That really help for composing the way a Bride and/or her mother saw pictures. I never had one Bride or mother ask me for square prints and when I would show the proofs some would even say, "Ah, they're square". It was certainly nice not to have to do any camera flipping from horizontal to vertical, but it also meant you were now using a 645 camera. The one plus for the Hasselblad system was that the lenses optical quality allowed you a very large enlargement even from a 64 size negative. I had not complaints there, but you do waste a little film that way. When I do my own thing I print the way I want and have made a few 10x10 and 16x16 prints, but being Dutch I didn't see much sense in wasting paper either. I have made some "near" square prints that I really liked. You could just tell that they weren't square by looking at them. For me they looked better than the same image printed square. So, if a person doesn't mind wasting a little film or prefers to print square, then the 6x6 cameras are the way to go. Maybe that's why I never dumped my Hasselblad system after I stopped shooting weddings? Just work with whatever you get 'cause you now you've made the right move and that move is up. Yes, the lady's are right, "BIGGER IS BETTER"! Have fun. JohnW

 

[Soeren]

Actually, the ETRSi does have bulb. Not sure if the ETRS and ETR do though. In the SQ line, only the SQ-Ai has bulb. They all have T mode. With a cable release, after cocking the shutter and body by winding, you unscrew the stop on the lens, and slide the switch from A to T. Then you open the shutter by pressing the cable release or shutter release. You can then let go of the cable release or shutter release and the shutter will stay open. To end the exposure, you slide the switch on the lens back to the A position. The general practice is to cover the lens with a hat or such before jigging the camera to slide the switch back to the A position if there are light sources that might look blurred in the photo. Since one generally would only be using T mode for long exposures more than 8 s or so, it's not much of an issue.

I had the Bronica SQA-i and liked it a lot (might get another one some day) I forgot how fiddly the Timesetting on it was. Now I have a Mamiya 645 Pro with prismfinder and the 401 grip/winder. On this one there is a threade shutter button for a mechanical cable release. The 645Pro also have a nice way to use the T setting. Set shutterdial to B, set lock/on/selftimer dial to selftimer. Press shutter/cable release and when done press it again. remember to reset dials Ok I will regret saying this but the Mamiya 645 lenses are soo cheap its almost a steal.
Best regards

 

[smolk]

If I have the time, I bring my Rolleiflex 6008i with 80mm and 120mm (usually, alternatively Pentax 645N for which I have more lenses, either longer or wider).
If I want square but need it more portable, either Rolleiflex TLR (2.8C) or Agfa Super Isolette (really compact).
All of this for landscapes. I tend to use normal or light tele, even though for the Pentax I do have the 35mm (which is ultra-wide).
I enjoy the slowness of the process, but that's also related to the subject matter. In town, I'd use the TLR or a folding camera.

 

[dorff]

Just another question, sorry. I am doing my spreadsheet up with the Mamiya vs Bronica. For Mamiya what are the more moden lenses - the N series? I know that the Bronica are the PE.

The N lenses are the latest, AFAIK. I also have the Macro A 120/4, which I am not sure is N or newer than N, but it makes no difference to me (it's a great lens!). For lenses such as the 45/2.8 and 55/2.8, C vs N makes quite a bit of difference, since the optical formulas changed. I don't know whether it is that important for other focal lengths, but I suspect the newer lenses will have better coatings, so might have better contrast. If you decide to go for Mamiya, then as others have said the Pro or Pro TL (they differ in the TL having TTL flash capability, as well as one or two minor mechanical details) is probably the best body. Wide-angle lenses are still a bit expensive, so if you find a nice, well priced kit with a 45 N or maybe even a 35 N, go for it. The 120 Macro is a wonderful lens to have, as it goes to 1:1 and the quality is nothing short of stellar. The 80/1.9 is another great lens to have, and it really brings out the best that 645 can offer. Other lenses I own include 45/2.8 N (sharp but vignettes heavily wide open, OK stopped down), 50/4 Shift (stellar lens), 150/4 C (quite respectable), 300/5.6 both C and N ULD versions (the ULD has more contrast and is slightly sharper) and 500/5.6 N (a very solid performer). On the AF-system I also have the 150/3.5 and 210/4 ULD, both extremely sharp lenses with good bokeh and high contrast, only marred by a long minimum focus distance in both cases. The 80/2.8 AF is sharp, but compared to the 80/1.9 is nothing special. On longer lenses, ULD is certainly the better option than none, where both exist. I don't own any zooms for M645, so can't comment on those. Slow, large zooms sort of go against the logic of medium format for me, but many use them with success.

Hope you find something that will work for you. Good luck!

 

[Mark_S]

Like many others here, I have used a variety of MF cameras, and have settled on the Hasselblad V system for the same reasons as many here have expressed. One thing that has not been mentioned, but was a big reason for my going with Hassy is that many photo stores still rent Hassy equipment. For example, the 40mm FLE lens is a great lens that I can't justify purchasing for the number of times that I will use it, but it is easy to rent one for a week when going on a trip where the extra WA would be nice to have in the bag. I also like having the square canvas to compose on, and then crop to the rectangular image under the enlarger. Many here mention the 645 format, but the other camera that I shoot the most is a 4x5, and almost all of my enlargements are onto paper with a 1.25 aspect ratio, so I tend to think in that aspect ratio - with the Hassy it makes no difference.

 

[PKM-25]

Many here mention the 645 format, but the other camera that I shoot the most is a 4x5, and almost all of my enlargements are onto paper with a 1.25 aspect ratio, so I tend to think in that aspect ratio - with the Hassy it makes no difference.

Interesting observation...

I find when I am out with my 4x5 kit that sometimes I will see a square image and for some reason, have less of an issue with mentally discarding some negative area in order to go forth with the composition. But when it comes to getting a 4x5 aspect ratio out of my Hassy, I am more reluctant because the negative is smaller...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am reluctant because I compose for the full view finder. I find 645 confining and an arbitrary format based on combining 35mm movie film single frame to double frame without using a brain to figure out a better height to width ratio.

 

[PKM-25]

I am reluctant because I compose for the full view finder. I find 645 confining and an arbitrary format based on combining 35mm movie film single frame to double frame without using a brain to figure out a better height to width ratio.

Maybe that is it, I just never feel the need to do anything but square with the Blad and really work to fill the frame, the main reason I am using cameras with non-image cutting gliding mirror systems.

 

[Peter Simpson]

I have an SQ-A and you can get a 120J back if you want to do 645.

If you go with that camera, buy a grip. It makes it much more user friendly.

 

[jerrybro]

I waited for over 30 years to buy my Blad. I'm glad I finally took the plunge.

 

[MattKing]

The 645 format has almost exactly the same aspect ratio as the 4/3 cameras in the digital realm.

And is fairly close to 11x14.

So courses for horses.

 

[Atari1977]

C. I know that the cheaper lenses with Hasselblads are the C T* is that quite a bit older than the Bronica lenses? So a Bronica lens is cheaper, more modern and in better condition?

Cheers...

While Hasselblad C and CT* lenses are cheaper, keep in mind they are 40 years old minimum at this point. Their spare parts are also no longer made, so are in short supply, meaning they will be more expensive to have repaired.

 

[PKM-25]

While Hasselblad C and CT* lenses are cheaper, keep in mind they are 40 years old minimum at this point. Their spare parts are also no longer made, so are in short supply, meaning they will be more expensive to have repaired.

Very expensive, I found a super mint condition black T* 120mm 5.6 S Planar for a couple hundred that needed a CLA badly, that part was $345, ouch, I could have got a 120 F4 CF Makro Planar for the combined cost. Stick to CF or newer lenses is my advice....

 

[Fixcinater]

Hi all - I have thought about this for quite some yrs now. I do mainly landscapes and cityscapes so I am using my Nikon F100 and FM2 on a tripod mostly, don't shoot a lot, so I think 120 suits me, per the roll cheaper, process is the same, less frames per roll and that is fine for the more real estate. I want a WLF style than the eye level style of say Pentax 67 etc. Not that heavy so P67 and RB67 are out. Preferably larger than 645. For my casual stuff that is just digital as people want these days ..

I went to Keh.com and started number crunching. Hasselblads cost more. Bronica's like the SQ are cheaper and they are rated in better condition.

A. Maybe Bronica is worthwhile then I know it needs a battery to operate right? Shouldn't be that much an issue.
B. How are the brands of lenses like?
C. I know that the cheaper lenses with Hasselblads are the C T* is that quite a bit older than the Bronica lenses? So a Bronica lens is cheaper, more modern and in better condition?
D. Do you find that with a 6x6 format you are unable to do sweeping views of city vistas of its square format? Say if this was the Yarra River in Melbourne or rooftop deck of Singapore or Bangkok or Tokyo or Paris. You have their tower lighted up at night and you compose your cityscape shot ... I have been tempted with 6x7 but they might be too large physically and I prefer not to use a rangefinder, they also more expensive.

Using the 40mm lens Hasselblad, not checked the Bronica yet - Cokin P filters are too small right? Do you guys find a 50mm ok for landcapes - at times I like to pop on a graduated filter and a solid ND filter.


Cheers...

I didn't read the rest of the responses but my Pentax 6x7 with the pop-up WLF is a lot lighter and smaller than the prism and especially the metered prism. I would not go down to 645 after seeing the slides from my trip to France earlier this year. They are phenomenal and I have the earliest non-MC Super-Takumar 105/2.4 so the later ones should be even better. I now have the latest 45/4 and it's a brilliant lens for landscape work and quite compact/small for what it can do.

 

[Soeren]

IIRC the P6X7 with unmetered prism and 90mm f/2,8 is around 2500g
The Mamiya 645 pro with AE prism, Winder, 120 filmback and 80mm f/2,8 is 1965g
Without finder(I don't have a WLF) and with the crank its 1233g. Offcource still with the lens and back.
Best regards

 

[Fixcinater]

Soeren-

Looks like with the lighter WLF it could be just a bit heavier than the Mamiya, though probably still larger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I waited for over 30 years to buy my Blad. I'm glad I finally took the plunge.

A very wise man indeed!

 

[dorff]

I didn't read the rest of the responses but my Pentax 6x7 with the pop-up WLF is a lot lighter and smaller than the prism and especially the metered prism. I would not go down to 645 after seeing the slides from my trip to France earlier this year. They are phenomenal and I have the earliest non-MC Super-Takumar 105/2.4 so the later ones should be even better. I now have the latest 45/4 and it's a brilliant lens for landscape work and quite compact/small for what it can do.

For slides, yes I agree, 6x7 is markedly superior. For black and white, it is a bit more subtle, as one can make a darned decent print from a 645 negative. The Pentax 67 lenses are excellent, as many have said. But it seems the OP has decided not to go that way, so it is pointless further deliberating on the 6x7 systems. About the only 6x7 camera size and weight-wise that would make sense is the Mamiya 7, but I am not sure the rangefinder would do the trick for his intended purposes. And of course it is pricey, especially with the wide-angle lenses.

 

[jspillane]

While Hasselblad C and CT* lenses are cheaper, keep in mind they are 40 years old minimum at this point. Their spare parts are also no longer made, so are in short supply, meaning they will be more expensive to have repaired.

For what it is worth, the various repairmen I have spoken to who handle Hasselblad have never mentioned a higher fee for C/CT* lenses vs. CF lenses to me. While there is a higher probability they will need a CLA, I am sure there are plenty of CF lenses that need to make a trip to the shop as well... I could be mistaken though, I haven't taken the plunge on a lens CLA yet (although I have a 250mm C T* that could use one, the focusing is a bit stiff although it is otherwise perfect).

Also, I've seen posts dating back at least 10 years on forums warning about the lack of availability of C lens parts, but the repairmen I've spoken too (Odess, Nippon Photo, Dave Easterwood) all indicated that they could work on C lenses without issue. I've always had the feeling it is an old wives tale, recycled on forms but not really an issue.

I actually prefer C/C T* lenses. They are a pleasure to shoot with, beautifully built, B50 filters are dirt cheap, and the default coupling works well for my mode of shooting (on tripod, using EV readings). I've heard murmurs about the fact that the single-coated chrome lenses are less contrasty and better for portraiture, but I suspect this is another old wives tale-- all the lenses I've shot with (C, C T*, CF and a 60mm CB which is identical to CFi) deliver images of and with the same quality.

 

[jsimoespedro]

I have a bronica SQ-Ai

Good points:

A 40 mm lens is available but filter size is crazy (95mm).

From 50mm onwards you get 67mm filters - note that the PS version of the 50mm lens uses 77mm filters.

You can probably use a 67 mm filter on the 40mm lens using a step down ring. Any vignetting will likely affect the corners only. The glass itself is much smaller than 95mm in diameter.

They are relatively inexpensive.

You can change film speed by simply changing backs.

Bronicas are low profile cameras.

Bad points:

When you had a battery grip with winder and a metering prism, the weight becomes massive. Not practical for carrying around when site seeing.

Operation is much (really much) slower than a 35mm SLR. These are cameras to compose and use on a tripod.

Top speed is only 1/500. That is 2 stops slower than usual top speed in 35mm. In practice you cannot shoot wide open in bright/slight overcast conditions with 400 ISO film. Additionally, without mirror lock up, you are limited to 1/60 tops, and preferably to 1/125. That is only a 2 stop range in speed. This is only a concern when you want to shoot at a predetermined aperture - either closed down or wide open. You will end up changing back more often than you desire.


If you shoot mostly at infinity or mostly closed down, rangefinders are a good alternative. A Mamaya 6 or 7 will include a meter at a fraction of the weight, albeit a much higher price. Wide lenses in RF format are also superior by design.

BTW a 40mm on a 6x6 (actually close to 56x56mm) frame is very very wide. That is equivalent to 25mm in terms of horizontal field of view or 22 mm diagonally. I own this lens and it is of very limited application - It is so wide you must have something of interest in the foreground otherwise the shot will feel empty. 50mm is much more reasonable or even the 65mm. Horizontally, 50mm is equivalent to 32 mm and 60mm is equivalent to 41 mm.

You should also make note that because you are using longer focal length lenses for the same field coverage, depth of field is shallower. If you would normally shoot at f22 you now need to shoot at f32, again in terms of horizontal field coverage. For diagonal coverage that is f45. Usually, MF lenses will not close beyond f22. In practice, depth of field is equivalent in 35mm terms, limited to somewhere between f11 and f16.

I hope this helps.

To summarize, 35mm is much more convenient and since you usually use a tripod you can afford using slow film, or even document film with special development.

So pose the advantages and disadvantages carefully.

I was originally a 35mm shooter when I was in my late teens. I lost interest in analogue photography, when digital and a year ago went back to analogue with MF.

The bottom line is, in 10x8 prints and larger, MF quality over 35mm is very obvious, but this come at a price. I cannot see grain at 5x enlargements on 100 ISO T-grain films. That is a 10 inch side print. If you enlarge larger, you will also likely observe the print from further away, this means grainless prints of any size when viewed at appropriate distances. t grain at 400 ISO is only visible in areas of uniform tone. For instance, a 8x10 print from conventional 400 ISO film in 35mm format is miserable, in my opinion.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Mamiya 645 has great advantages if you want to get into MF. The bodies are compact and durable, lenses are plentiful and affordable, as are metered prisms. Many parts are interchangeable. For a very small investment you can get a versatile setup that delivers good enough photos, or better.

The only reason to go for a different sytem, is if MF will be your main medium. Then I would suggest going for Hasselblad directly (saves money by skipping the upgrade cycle) or even Mamiya AFD, to get the option of affordable digital backs.