Getting back to MF without going overboard?

[Graham_Martin]

I am thinking of getting back into MF in a minimalist way. My fear is that I will repeat my "sinful" ways of the past by continually expanding my gear. As a retiree, I am on a limited budget, and using MF would be just to get back into the sheer joy of taking the time to plan each image. This is where I need your help.

In the past I have owned several MF cameras and always wound up buying several lenses, backs and related accessories. I started out with an RB67, sold it and then bought a Pentax 645 both manual and auto focus, sold it and then bought a Hasselblad 501 C/M, kept it and then bought a Mamiya 645 AFDII. Eventually I sold both the 'blad and the Mamiya to where I now have no MF gear at all. However, I find that I really miss those times with my MF gear. I miss the 'blad and the RB67 the most. If I jump back into the MF pool I will buy an RB67 since that is in my price range.

Which brings me to my dilemma. Which would be the most versatile setup in the RB67 family for me to buy? I would be using the camera almost exclusively for landscapes and/or cityscapes. I would not plan on any work requiring a flash. I have quite a lot of expired 120 and 220 film in my 'fridge, and so I know that I will need to buy two backs. I don't plan on making really big prints, and so I will probably have the negatives scanned to a CD by the lab. The scanning has been a bit expensive in the past, and so I am thinking of using my Epsom V500 for this purpose. I am going to scan some of my old MF negatives to see what sort of results it would give me. If I were to move to a V700 how much of an improvement in scan quality would I see?

I'm hoping that no one suggests that, given my parameters, I simply stick to the 35mm format or DSLR. I realize that I may not see a huge difference in quality on an 8 x 10 from a MF versus my Nikon D3. However, I am not contemplating this move in order to get significantly better prints. I am thinking about this more from the sheer pleasure of having to think through each step of the image taking process.

 

[hpulley]

I love my RB67 for hand held work even without a flash. It works well for landscapes and cityscapes where I use the 65mm and 180mm lenses the most, the 90mm and 127mm at times. Coming from mostly 35mm I like the prism finder though I use a waist level finder on my TLR just fine. The prism adds quite a bit of weight as does the flash bracket which I use both for steadying the camera hand-held and to hold a flash when I'm using it indoors freehand.

I have a Canon CanoScan 9000F for scanning. It does 9600x9600 which yields rediculously humongous files. I make prints in the darkroom only, I never make prints from scans with an inkjet, I just use the scans for quick uploads for web sharing. If you plan on printing from scans then getting the best scanner you can afford is wise; lab scans are expensive and after just a few months I bet you'll have spent as much on scanning as you would on a good scanner for home.

Know, however, that it is cheaper to set up a darkroom these days than to get a really good scanner and printer for home. Perversely the prices on darkroom gear are just silly cheap these days, usually going for "get it out of my basement" prices. The result is much better with a real optical print too (and I'm not just saying that because this is APUG).

 

[Hikari]

The best way to stop buying is to stop looking. Only you can do that.

You seem to have lots of experience. What focal length/angle of view do you do most of your work with. Start there. Personally, I never go beyond a two or three lens setup--wide/normal or wide/normal/tele. If find beyond that I have diminishing returns and a bunch of unused gear. Once I buy my camera, I stop looking and reading reviews. That is the time to shoot and learn how to use what I have.

 

[Graham_Martin]

Know, however, that it is cheaper to set up a darkroom these days than to get a really good scanner and printer for home. Perversely the prices on darkroom gear are just silly cheap these days, usually going for "get it out of my basement" prices. The result is much better with a real optical print too (and I'm not just saying that because this is APUG).

Thanks for the advice. So far as setting up a darkroom is concerned, I live in Florida where we don't have basements. I don't think the other half would like me converting the second bathroom into a darkroom. Is there a way to set up a darkroom that one can set up and take down on as needed basis?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Graham,

You know which camera will work best for you. So I will not jump into this.

You do not need a basement to do darkroom work. Get a changing bag, bottles, tanks, reels, a thermometer, a funnel, nylon line, film hangers, developer, stop bath, fixer and a wetting agent like Kodak PhotoFlo. Later if you choose to develop color, with patience you can find a reasonably priced JOBO processor for slides or prints [If you are interested we can get into that].

I happened to choose a large changing bag, http://www.freestylephoto.biz/25001-Photoflex-Changing-Room, that I got for 35mm and 120 film for loading daylight developing tanks. It happens to be large enough for me when I later got into 4"x5".

Please feel free to ask for advice and suggestion about photography, darkroom work and keeping the price down.

Steve

 

[Роберт]

OK, simply minimize the amount of lenses and look for:

Good camera 6x6 or 6x7, fixed top optics, not too heavy, easy to carry, 120 and 220 roll film, suitable for landscapes and city.

C.V. Bessa III 667/Fuji GF 670:
one lens 3,5/80mm, 6x6cm and 6x7cm, collapsible 1000 grams, eat 120 and 220 roll film and very suitable for landscapes and for in the city.

The difference in a MF scan for V500 and V700 is neglectible. So keep your V500 and be happy with a 2000-2400 dpi scan.

Retro 100 TONAL E.I. 80 in AM74.
C.V. Bessa III 667. V500 Epson scan.

 

[brucemuir]

Why not a Rollei TLR if you want minimalist?

No lens lust to worry about and easy compact kit.

 

[hpulley]

For making prints you need more than just a changing bag but several APUGers have temporary setups they use in their bathrooms so it can indeed be done. Luckily for me I have been allowed to take over some of the basement for my work.

 

[waynecrider]

I've never been satisfied with formats and have jumped from one to another over years. Lot's of money has been spent and I should have taken it instead and gone to Italy and France shooting. The memories and pictures from such an experience would have eclipsed any further cameras I would, or could have bought... Hindsight is depressing.
So I've just recently completed putting back together my 6x9 Graphic and while I get prepared to create the focus scale for my lens I'm already thinking of selling it and thinking of what i would like to buy instead. It just never seems to stop. I have taken stock tho of what I actually produce, who see's it that knows anything beyond "that's pretty", and what it looks like I may produce over the next year or so, and have come to the determination that MF is way over kill. I also just don't want to carry the baggage for the format. It goes beyond the body & lens to filters and hoods and another bag and backs etc, and lots of gotta have accessory expenses. So I think that if I do get back into shooting the format, I think I'll just buy a good folder and shoot it along side my primary camera and 2 lenses, which is basically all I really want to carry; Accent on the carry thought. Luck tho with sticking to another change.

 

[CGW]

I am thinking of getting back into MF in a minimalist way. My fear is that I will repeat my "sinful" ways of the past by continually expanding my gear. As a retiree, I am on a limited budget, and using MF would be just to get back into the sheer joy of taking the time to plan each image. This is where I need your help.

In the past I have owned several MF cameras and always wound up buying several lenses, backs and related accessories. I started out with an RB67, sold it and then bought a Pentax 645 both manual and auto focus, sold it and then bought a Hasselblad 501 C/M, kept it and then bought a Mamiya 645 AFDII. Eventually I sold both the 'blad and the Mamiya to where I now have no MF gear at all. However, I find that I really miss those times with my MF gear. I miss the 'blad and the RB67 the most. If I jump back into the MF pool I will buy an RB67 since that is in my price range.

Which brings me to my dilemma. Which would be the most versatile setup in the RB67 family for me to buy? I would be using the camera almost exclusively for landscapes and/or cityscapes. I would not plan on any work requiring a flash. I have quite a lot of expired 120 and 220 film in my 'fridge, and so I know that I will need to buy two backs. I don't plan on making really big prints, and so I will probably have the negatives scanned to a CD by the lab. The scanning has been a bit expensive in the past, and so I am thinking of using my Epsom V500 for this purpose. I am going to scan some of my old MF negatives to see what sort of results it would give me. If I were to move to a V700 how much of an improvement in scan quality would I see?

I'm hoping that no one suggests that, given my parameters, I simply stick to the 35mm format or DSLR. I realize that I may not see a huge difference in quality on an 8 x 10 from a MF versus my Nikon D3. However, I am not contemplating this move in order to get significantly better prints. I am thinking about this more from the sheer pleasure of having to think through each step of the image taking process.

Value-wise, look at hooking up again with a Mamiya. Shop for a Pro S or Pro SD body. A kit with a 90/3.8C, a couple of 120 backs, and a WLF shouldn't be too pricey. Keep in mind that KEH is selling off new KL lenses for the RB at crazy low prices--a deal that surely won't last much longer.

 

[elekm]

The one thing that I'll add is that as I've gotten older, I've become a bit less reluctant to carry a huge, heavy camera.

The minimalist approach would be a TLR with a fixed lens. Or even a folding camera.

 

[lns]

Thanks for the advice. So far as setting up a darkroom is concerned, I live in Florida where we don't have basements. I don't think the other half would like me converting the second bathroom into a darkroom. Is there a way to set up a darkroom that one can set up and take down on as needed basis?

Absolutely. A lot of us do this. Spend a pleasant hour or two searching APUG and you can get some great ideas. I personally have a smallish enlarger, a Beseler 23C II, which works for medium format and 35mm, on a wheeled cart that I can push in and out of a basement bathroom. Setting up and taking down the temporary darkroom, and cleaning everything up afterwards, does add time to the process, so I find I need at least 2 or 3 hours per printing session.

-Laura

 

[Sirius Glass]

Darkroom equipment is relative cheap. The darkroom itself can be expensive, unless the room can be converted back and forth, the space alone is "expensive".

Steve

 

[MattKing]

See the "temporary darkroom thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

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

 

[markbarendt]

A 220 back seems to be able to handle both film lenths so get two of these. (You do need to remember to look and see where you are at if you are using 120.)

I have a prism and a W/L finder. Pick whichever you like best. My preference would be W/L if one were the limit, for the "lower" perspective/camera position.

On lenses for what you are considering I'd say go slightly wider than normal 65-75ish.

 

[fdfjc]

The one thing that I'll add is that as I've gotten older, I've become a bit less reluctant to carry a huge, heavy camera.

The minimalist approach would be a TLR with a fixed lens. Or even a folding camera.

That same sentiment has sent me on the mimimalist route too. I love my Hasselblad, but not on long hikes. When I got ready to simplify, I bought a $63 Ziess Ikonta with a Tessar on ebay. It weighs only a few onces, which my knees really appreciate a few miles into a shooting hike, and the quality of the negatives rivals the Sonnar on my Hasselblad. I honestly can't tell any difference, but my checking account sure can -- more money for film and processing.

 

[2F/2F]

Minimalist would be something along the lines of a fixed-lens TLR.

A good one-lens RB kit might be an RZ with the 110mm f/2.8.

If you do not want to get a 6x7/6x9 enlarger, but prefer 6x6 because they are smaller and cheaper, how about a Bronica SQ with an 80mm lens? There is an SQ-B with a prism in the classified section here that looks like a nice kit.

But either of these cameras might "tempt" you to go overboard again. So, given your history of "running amok," I would say a Yashica TLR and a Omega B-22XL enlarger. K.I.S(and cheap).S.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have been doing the minimalist approach and it seems to have worked. First I bought a 1948 6x6 folder for $100 and then a complete bathroom darkroom kit for $80 with a Durst f60 that will handle both 35mm and 6x6. It just took 3 months of patience watching eBay and Craig's list until the right equipment at the right price just fell in my lap. That's not to say there weren't some serious bouts of camera fever in the meantime.

As others have recommended, both of the "show us your darkroom" threads have some really clever bath/laundry/closet solutions. They made me understand that owning a darkroom was possible.

As far as controlling you buying urges go, that's not a photography question. This guy helps a lot of people: http://www.daveramsey.com/home/

 

[Graham_Martin]

I have found a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD with a 127mm K/L lens, 120 back and metered chimney finder for $350. This seems like a good price to me, and so I am going ahead with the purchase. Since I still have some 220 film I will need to get a 220 back. Do I have to get a Pro SD back, or can I go with one of the older models? I'm pretty sure the older version will work, but would appreciate getting confirmation from someone. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

You may find this link handy:

http://www.reznitsky.info/Mamiya/Comchart.htm

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I agree with some of the above posts, you could go with a TLR or an RB 67 with a 90 or 127.

Jeff

 

[tomalophicon]

I think the Mamiya 6 only has 3 lenses. As far as I've been told it's a great camera.

 

[Graham_Martin]

You may find this link handy:

http://www.reznitsky.info/Mamiya/Comchart.htm

Very helpful link. Thanks.

 

[elekm]

A minimalist approach would be a TLR. If you're concerned about weight, you could get an earlier Rolleicord with a Xenar (Tessar-type) or a Rolleiflex Automat (with either a Xenar or Tessar).

The Planar- and Xenotar-equipped Rolleiflexes are noticeably heavier.

If you want the true minimalist approach, you could try a folding camera. However, these definitely come with limitations, generally aren't ideal for close-up photography and many don't have a rangefinder.

As for myself, a huge, heavy camera is getting to be less fun to haul around on a hike.

 

[TimmyMac]

I think the Mamiya 6 only has 3 lenses. As far as I've been told it's a great camera.

Unfortunately a 6 with 3 lenses will cost more than a nice RZ setup. I paid far less for my RZ II with 37, 50ULD, 110, and 210APO.