Future MF camera

[JWMster]

So the more I shoot, the more I print, the more negatives I run, the more I see the beauty of MF output, and wonder, "Is this something I should do?" And it's a cost tugging, gear lugging, Leica hugging moment that makes me think I'm not there yet. But I can't put the thought away completely either.

And so I read and gaze, and as much as I think there's some appeal in MF in the square format. One of my favorite shots I've taken on a Fuji (yes digital) was square format monochrome... before I came back to film - and it's a shot I've kept as a screen saver for more reasons than any, but 'cause it's also a favored subject: sailboats, the waterscape, and low clouds. So that sticks, and I like the thought of not having to rotate the camera to change perspective with cameras as big as MF's.

But size is important. I'm a little guy to begin with, and I like to move - hence the story of how Leica replaced a Sony digital in short order....even shortly after I acquired the "then at the time to die for" Sony... now outdated (Ain't digital a pain in the wallet?). So I think I'm feeling the tractor beam of a small-ish 6 X 6 I guess, and there's not many choices. I'm spoiled by fast lenses, so I weaken on a M645 1000S or 645N... and these square hunks... I dunno. Anyway, I think I'm frozen for now and a while ahead. But I'm still wondering how you folks have "solved" these puzzles? My dilemmas are sometimes my own, but common than I think!

 

[John Koehrer]

There are folders, you know. 645, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9. Most are about the same height and thickness. Length varies with format.
light & compact but usually no interchangeable lenses.

6X6's Yashica and Rolleii alway come up highly recommended, Also Hasselblad & Bronica. Stand
them on end and they're about the same size as the H and B's but heavier and with
interchangeable lenses and film backs.

You can bet your bippy there's going to be devotees of any of them pipng up.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Small person, likes to move. Hmm.

My solution won't suit you at all. 2x3 Graphics with roll holders, to which was added a gift 2x3 Cambo view camera. And lots of lenses. Don't think of such things. Don't ask about them.

If you want a 6x6 folder that will go in a not-too-large pocket, think of a Voigtlaender Perkeo II. They're beautiful, joys to use and overly complex internally, which means that repairs can be a problem. Mine has an 80/3.5 Color Skopar, IMO a mediocre lens. Sharpness isn't all that necessary, but with this bijou it is unattainable.

 

[brent8927]

For about 15 years all I shot was a Hasselblad with just an 80mm lens and a single film back. (I have since purchased a few lenses, but 90% of my photographs are still with the 80mm). I felt it was quite portable--but that's obviously a matter of personal preferences. As far as 6x6 SLRs, you can't get much smaller than a Hasselblad. A few others (like Bronica) are pretty close, but it's harder to get those cameras serviced. On the other hand, they are typically cheaper...

A Rolleiflex/Rolleicord is quite small/compact, as mentioned above. Great for candid shots just like Leicas.

I really don't know much about the 6x6 folders.

 

[MattKing]

There is a significant difference between what you are used to, and a 6x6 camera. So I would suggest something relatively inexpensive to experiment with. You may find that your priorities adjust themselves.
As an example, you say you want fast lenses but you want small. The fastest MF lenses aren't really small. And fast MF lenses offer very shallow depth of field when wide open - you may prefer shooting them with smaller apertures.
I am not particularly small, but I'm almost one handed, so ease of use is very important to me.
Are you happy with a waist level finder, or do you need an eye level prism or viewfinder?
Do you want built in metering?
My smallest 6x6 camera is a scale focusing folder that is particularly suited to left handed operation - a "Baby Bessa". Would you be comfortable with scale focusing, or do you need either a rangefinder or SLR focusing? If a rangefinder would work for you, would you need it to be coupled?
If you were local, you could visit me and try out a whole selection of options

 

[paul ron]

get a yashicamat to start. its light n easy to use. there are a few in the classifieds right now to chose from at a very reasonable price in working condition.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


once you are hooked, i mean set up, for 120 film, there is no turning back!

 

[JWMster]

Matt: Good points. I love RF's, but there are points and places where an SLR suits. RF provides quicker focus and I like that. Yet RF's in recent MF (Mamiya and Bronica) are extremely pricey. What surprises me is that it seems to be the 645 format where the lenses that aren't F4 and slower reside. Mamiya M645 and Pentax 645N for example (though motor wind... may not be my thing) and they ain't anywhere close to those RF's. My "use up the film roll" shots usually come out of my garden... so the ability to dive in a flower, perhaps focusing distance might be more important than speed? I've been reading that some of the Hassy (blad) folks do some of their wedding shots with their F4 lenses using 15 second exposures and having the couples "freeze" for the shot. That's a little on the awkward side... imho, but I'm not a wedding dude. So maybe I'm wrong to think 6X6 and not 645? Appeal of the 6X6 is no need to rotate the camera! That's kind of a narrow requirement! and might be suboptimal relative to features for $'s available with the others. I think 6X7 is too big, but 6X6 seems to have a narrow number of choices. Even today, a 'blad would require some patience and more $'s to put together than a Mamiya M645. So the whole of this remains a puzzle... which may explain my curiousity about approaches others took on entry. Your comment seems a good one... to try a lot of things before committing. Thanks!

 

[JWMster]

Actually had a TLR and used it for only one roll of film... long, long ago. Wasn't much of a fan back then. But might be a way to start. As you say, you have to build the infrastructure in. For those of us not wet printing, it's a MF scanner... which I don't have. And that could run some bucks... raising (and delaying) the whole shebang.

 

[Alan Gales]

I like the big viewfinder, bellows focussing and revolving back of an RZ67. I also like the smaller size and build quality of the Hasselblad. A Mamiya C220 is the same weight as the Hasselblad but is better to shoot handheld because of the lack of mirror. Still a Minolta Autocord's small size and light weight makes it even more suitable for hand held photography but of course you are stuck with one lens. Oh, I forgot to mention the automation including autofocus plus matrix metering of the Pentax 645Nll. I have not shot a Fuji rangefinder or Mamiya 6 or 7. I wonder what they are like?

I've come to the conclusion that there is no perfect medium format camera. I like them all.

 

[papagene]

To get your feet wet with medium format photography, I agree with some of the others and suggest the Yashica Mat. It was my first MF camera, and there was no looking back. I now have two Fuji rangefinders, a Rolleiflex, a Rolleicord, a Bronica S2A with a couple of lenses, and 6x7 roll film backs for my 4x5. And I enjoy using all of them... But just as important is I enjoy printing the images I get from these cameras.
My advice... just jump in and have fun.

 

[voceumana]

In my experience, the only MF cameras that handle as fast and with comparable weight to 35mm cameras are the MF Folding cameras. TLR's and SLR's in the MF size tend to be large and heavy by comparison.

Bronica did make a 6x4.5 RF for a while with limited lens selection--I've not handled one.

The Voightlander/Fuji Bessa 667 offers a modern RF camera with 6x6 or 6x7 format at a price. If you can find one, I'd probably go that route. I've always liked Fuji lenses.

 

[Huss]

... For those of us not wet printing, it's a MF scanner... which I don't have. And that could run some bucks... raising (and delaying) the whole shebang.

If you already have a digital camera, you can use that to scan your film. There's a thread on it at rangefinderforum.com
It's what I do and it's fantastic. But I don't want to discuss further here as apug is not the right forum for that.

 

[Prest_400]

So the more I shoot, the more I print, the more negatives I run, the more I see the beauty of MF output, and wonder, "Is this something I should do?" And it's a cost tugging, gear lugging, Leica hugging moment that makes me think I'm not there yet. But I can't put the thought away completely either.

I would encourage taking up medium format. A TLR is a particularly different and enjoyable shooting experience. Price wise (ongoing film and dev costs) it is more per frame than 35mm, but what a frame...

In my experience, the only MF cameras that handle as fast and with comparable weight to 35mm cameras are the MF Folding cameras. TLR's and SLR's in the MF size tend to be large and heavy by comparison.

Bronica did make a 6x4.5 RF for a while with limited lens selection--I've not handled one.

The Voightlander/Fuji Bessa 667 offers a modern RF camera with 6x6 or 6x7 format at a price. If you can find one, I'd probably go that route. I've always liked Fuji lenses.

Fuji 6x9's and 645's. I have a GW690III and it is very 35mm like, only larger and heavier in all. "Texas Leica" well named. The disadvantage of 6x9 RF is that it is a bit confusing: The format leans me towards trying to be more conservative and contemplative shooting but the 35mm like handling helps exposing frames conveniently and quickly. I find 6x6 (and 645 in theory, haven't tried) a more field driven frames/roll format.

Sadly Leica didn't make a 6x6 RF to go along the Rolleiflexes. That would have been fantastic! So far there is only the Mamiya 6 and folders for square format.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I started with a Minolta Autocord, then tried various models of Yashica TLRs, finally went to a Bronica SQA and SQAi, then a Mamiya 6, and now I'm back to the TLR (this time a cheap Rolleiflex I managed to find). Out of all of them, the TLRs are the lightest, and easiest to handle, but you might want to get a brighter screen installed for faster focusing. I much prefer the Autocord over any other TLR for easy of use (plus, the film always lies flat, unlike the other TLRs, where it often as to go under rollers - but only an issue if you keep the film in there for a long time). While I did enjoy shooting with the Bronica, I found it to be too heavy for travel use, and I kept paring it down until I was travelling with one lens and one film back. Then I thought the Mamiya 6 would offer a better experience - lighter than an MF SLR, but more features than a TLR (plus interchangeable lenses). It does produce stunning images, but the system is pricey, and personally for me, I don't like using the rangefinder - not for focusing (that's no problem) but for getting close to my subjects (almost impossible) and because of the parallax error - which seems worse on the Mamiya than any TLR I ever shot.

Long story short, there are pros and cons to every system. If you are thinking 645 and plan to crop it square, you're not going to get that much more film real estate than shooting 35mm. Something to consider.

 

[JWMster]

You guys are very helpful. I'm putting this down to a smoke it over thing for now. Need to try this and that in-the-flesh. Bronica SQ-A gets high marks. Hassy CX or some variant, too. Truth is I think this is a longer term project than I thought, and I've still got my hands full adjusting to film from digital, and equipping to have that work smoothly and well. This IS the next step, but it's a step AFTER the current one. But you sure are helping to open my mind to possibilities I didn't imagine before. Thank you!

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Mamiya C220 is the same weight as the Hasselblad but is better to shoot handheld because of the lack of mirror.

Mamiya C220 does have a mirror, but the mirror does not move.

 

[Alan Gales]

Mamiya C220 does have a mirror, but the mirror does not move.

You are of course correct, Sirius. Thanks for the correction. I wouldn't want someone thinking there was no mirror.

What I meant was that the C220 lacks a moveable mirror so you don't have any mirror slap to cause vibration.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never had a problem with the so called mirror slap. I believe that the myth was started by very jealous Leica owners.

 

[JWMster]

I never had a problem with the so called mirror slap. I believe that the myth was started by very jealous Leica owners.

LOL. I suppose there's a part of me that wonders at the end of the day, I should have enough scratch on hand that if a 'blad is the thing, I can afford to do it right. The old, "Go big or stay home" thing. An article I read suggested that if you're going to do MF, give it a fair shot by doing it right. I'm sure plenty have tried to do it on the cheap, been... duh... diasppointed to find there is no cheap, and then run the whole thing into a ditch, blaming it on MF cameras. So that's NOT what I want to be lured into. When the time comes, I'm going to try a 6X6 Bronica SQ-A and a Hassy something or other, and see if it does the trick. If not, I'll stick with the Leica's and others. THanks

 

[Fraunhofer]

I never had a problem with the so called mirror slap. I believe that the myth was started by very jealous Leica owners.

Very neat, with a RB67 there is no mirror slap since there is not enough mass in the mirror to move the massive body.

 

[JWMster]

From the youtubes I've seen on the Mamiya RB67, you could rest a Panzer tank on the mirror, fire the shutter, have it move, and it STILL wouldn't shake the thing. Massive indeed! Most of the guys in the youtubes were using a Mammoet or two to move the things: Dead Link Removed

 

[Saganich]

I bought a Super Isolette (solinar f/3.5 lens) a bunch of years ago from Jurgen Krenkel (who restored it completely) and I have tested it side by side with my 500C with TriX. The worst thing I could say was the edges weren't as sharp in enlargements. For size and quality its a good light traveler for MF but difficult to find a good one.

 

[ac12]

I got the Hasselblad because it was the camera that I dreamed about but could never afford.
Digital changed the picture, and drove down the price of used Hasselblads. My used 500c/m + 80CF + A12 was significantly less than my Nikon D70.
So my choice of camera was not scientific or logical but based in large part on emotion. Luckily emotion matched up with a good system.

But, having said that, I am looking for a TLR to be an easy to use grab shot camera, when I don't want to haul the Hasselblad around.
Similar to the way my P&S digital is to my DSLR.

 

[RichardJack]

The future is here. MF digital, every day they get better and produce images far better than film. The question should be what is the future of large format?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got the Hasselblad because it was the camera that I dreamed about but could never afford.
Digital changed the picture, and drove down the price of used Hasselblads. My used 500c/m + 80CF + A12 was significantly less than my Nikon D70.
So my choice of camera was not scientific or logical but based in large part on emotion. Luckily emotion matched up with a good system.

But, having said that, I am looking for a TLR to be an easy to use grab shot camera, when I don't want to haul the Hasselblad around.
Similar to the way my P&S digital is to my DSLR.

I too could only dream about Hasselblads, but the digital revolution changed that. I even have a darkroom now. I use a PME 45° prism on my Hasselblad which removes the left right reversal and that would aid in getting grab shots.