Going MF?

[R gould]

Why not try an old folder? there are several that do both 6x6 an 6x7 or 6x9, I have recently bought an Ensign selfix 820,takes 6x9, with built in mask for 6x6, basic, no metering or rangefinder and a fold up viewfinder, but the ross xpress lens takes cracking photos, a hand held meter is reasonably cheap and easy to use, and you can buy a simple range finder for a few pounds, fixed 105mm lens gives slight telephoto with 6/6, and if you want it a great conversation starter,
Richard

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Despite the lack of meter built-in with the older, more affordable models, I'd put in another vote for the Rolleiflex. You can find a Rolleiflex 2.8 E with a meter (most likely not operating), or an F or GX with working meters (for a LOT more money). I haven't found the single lens to be that limiting. It is not silent, but it is a LOT quieter than a Hasselblad or an RB67 (both of which I have owned or currently do own). The RB is a great studio camera - I know people who do shoot them handheld but I find it very awkward because of the way you have to operate the camera.

 

[ianstamatic]

Check out fuji 645 and 69.
Also check out a crown graphic.

 

[Diapositivo]

The shutters on SLR are not that loud. Just another urban legend.

SLR have a very noisy mirror. Focal plane shutters, in themselves, are not that noisy but in my experience leaf shutters are much less noisy than anything else.

My Canonet makes a small noise, my Voigtlaender Vito CLR (of the Sixties, leaf shutter) is really quiet, it makes less noise than my Kodak Instamatic 36. The Cosina - Voigtlaender Bessa-L which I received today is certainly noisier than the other two RFs I have, but is also certainly less noisy than all the other cameras I have (they are all SLRs).

 

[ianstamatic]

Use flickr too see the results people get with different systems

 

[Ambar]

Thanks you all for the feedback..

Use flickr too see the results people get with different systems

ianstamatic, I do like the look of pictures with a hasselblad.. and the pictures I've seen on flickr from the GF670 seem sharp and nice but something looks off.
It doesn't quite seem to blur the background out even when wide open? I've seen a few hasselblad pictures which are claimed to be taken at f/2.8 and pictures from the GF670 that claim to be at f/3.5. The subject in focus seem sharp and nice on both but the background on the hasselblads appear radically different. As in, it has a severely shallower depth of field. Not something I would blame on the minor aperture difference. Does this confer? Maybe MaximusM3 could shed some light on this?

I guess we have boiled it down to TLRs and Rangefinders. Or better yet.. things with leaf shutters. On the TLR front, I guess I should be looking at Rolleis. We do have a few floating around in brazil in pretty good shape. They are relatively cheap as well. There's a 75mm/3.5 F model for $860 (with a working light meter) and another 75mm/3.5 E model for $375. Both are in apparent good shape and the store even offers me a little warranty (they will fix anything that breaks within 6 months I believe)! I don't know if they are Xetar, Xenotar, Planars, Zarkortian, Plazarians... (sorry.. I've always thought these names are hilarious! They seem like they were taken from a 50's sci-fi movie.)
On the rangefinder front.. There's the GF670 and..........? other antique foldables?

 

[MaximusM3]

Thanks you all for the feedback..



ianstamatic, I do like the look of pictures with a hasselblad.. and the pictures I've seen on flickr from the GF670 seem sharp and nice but something looks off.
It doesn't quite seem to blur the background out even when wide open? I've seen a few hasselblad pictures which are claimed to be taken at f/2.8 and pictures from the GF670 that claim to be at f/3.5. The subject in focus seem sharp and nice on both but the background on the hasselblads appear radically different. As in, it has a severely shallower depth of field. Not something I would blame on the minor aperture difference. Does this confer? Maybe MaximusM3 could shed some light on this?

I guess we have boiled it down to TLRs and Rangefinders. Or better yet.. things with leaf shutters. On the TLR front, I guess I should be looking at Rolleis. We do have a few floating around in brazil in pretty good shape. They are relatively cheap as well. There's a 75mm/3.5 F model for $860 (with a working light meter) and another 75mm/3.5 E model for $375. Both are in apparent good shape and the store even offers me a little warranty (they will fix anything that breaks within 6 months I believe)! I don't know if they are Xetar, Xenotar, Planars, Zarkortian, Plazarians... (sorry.. I've always thought these names are hilarious! They seem like they were taken from a 50's sci-fi movie.)
On the rangefinder front.. There's the GF670 and..........? other antique foldables?

Ambar,

It really boils down to how the lens actually renders out of focus subjects and not aperture. I am a Leica shooter for the most part and the rendering of a 35mm summicron @ f2 and a Summilux is certainly different, for example. Fuji lenses are VERY sharp but backgrounds rarely wash out in a dreamy fashion. A Rolleiflex will be more pleasing in that department, for some, and maybe not others. Always a matter of taste.

Max

 

[Ambar]

PS: when looking at Rolleis, which one should I be going for? Tessar, Planars...??

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Work backwards from your target: darkroom prints, slides, or Web only / DPUG.org prints?

Let's assume that you are going for darkroom prints. What's the max size your enlarger can take? Most MF enlargers stop at 6x9, 6x7, or 6x6. My own stops at 6x6, and though I'd love to buy a cheap RB67, I'm not going to be able to print without some extra investment.

Once that's decided, think about your subject: static, dynamic, combination? Macro? Wide vista? Tight portraits? Architecture? Your shooting style will determine whether you're more of an SLR, TLR, or RF type. Exceptionnally, you may be a candidate for a 6x9 technical/view camera.

Based on your stated preference for handheld, modern cameras (meter, haptics), you look like a candidate for the Mamiya 7.

If you stay in that zone, you will love it, but forget about true macro, DOF preview, interchangeable backs, and other features typical of different camera types.

 

[pbromaghin]

Ambar, you are getting a huge amount of really good advice. I recently moved up to MF after years of 35mm, but had completely different needs and ended up with a completely different camera than you will - a Mamiya C33. I started with a 1948 Zeiss zone-focusing folding 6x6 as a first baby step just to get used to the format. That was some of the best fun I have ever had with a camera.

Whatever you get, if you listen to these guys, you will do alright. Boa sorte.

 

[elekm]

In general, the Planar/Xenotar will give smoother backgrounds when shot wide open. However, when you're shooting close up at f/8, for example, the differences narrow.

But you probably want a Planar/Xenotar. The Tessar/Xenar will give round out-of-focus areas when shot wide open. It's just the nature of the lens design.

For example, this was shot with a Rolleiflex Automat with a Xenar (Tessar type) outside, probably f/8 or f/11:

Decent background, even with close focus of probably about 3 or 4 feet.


Now, a different camera (35mm) with a Tessar:

Shot wide open -- typical Tessar performance. Round out-of-focus backgrounds. Subject to distance is probably about 3 to 4 feet.

 

[Ambar]

Thanks for these examples elekm!
These are beautifully illustrative! Would it be fair to compare these pictures with other Planar design lens, even if from another brand (Zeiss for a Hassy)? Comparing to these, I think I prefer the rendering of the pictures I know as being from a Planar but if anybody with a Rollei/Planar combo could share a picture.. I guess I could settle this once and for all.

After reflecting and thinking a lot about the things discussed here I'm coming to some kind of conclusion:
Though I'm a BIG fan of the idea behind the GF670, after a days worth of googling pictures by it, I think I'm shying away from it and gravitating towards a Rollei. They will probably win this contest (FOR ME, RIGHT NOW!!).. I loose some things such as the in built light meter and the less freindly for factor (both as compared to the GF670), but it seems to deliver a quality (not as in more or less, but as in character) that I think suites my taste better. It also maintains noise down as compared to a hassy, mamiya, pentax and other SLRs.. In the imperfect world we live in, I can live with awkward form factor and a hand light meter. I can't live with an image that doesn't look as good as it should (to my esthetics), or something that will startle and/or disturb my subject. As for 6x7.. I could always crop even I rarely crop my pictures. I like the restrictions imposed by a given format. Another thing going for Rollei TLRs are that I can get one used in good condition and at an accessible price here in Brazil, thus making my search a lot easier!
But this does raise the question, which one? Elekm has split them nicely into Planar/Xenotar and Tessar/Xenar. I think the planar/xenotar might fit the bill better.. If only I there was a portraitesque picture with a planar rollei to ease the comparison. Also, I'm thinking 80/2.8 instead of 75/3.5 but I don't think that the most important discussion lies here.
PS: Feel free to call me a crazy lunatic who has no idea what he's talking about. You'd probably be right!

 

[Makten]

One important thing: If you could skip the requirement of a quiet camera, you have very much more to choose from. Remember that with 6x7 for instance, you've only got 10 frames per roll, so you're not very likely to "snap away" and disturb people anyway. Just one loud bang and then you're off for something else to shoot.

My own route has ended (?) with a Pentax 67II. I chose it because it's probably the best SLR for handheld shooting, plus the 105/2.4 is one of the fastest and nicest rendering normal lenses for 6x7.
Yes, it's large as hell but handles very well in my opinion.

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes they are noisy - but what a beautiful noise.

If it's a similar noise to the RB the yes, it's a beautiful noise. Although larger, the mirror noise of the RB (and I assume, the RZ) can be quieter than some of the smaller cameras like the ETRS as its mirror mechanism is better designed and slows down towards the end of its travel. I think it's on a cam rather than being forced up against an end stop.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Work backwards from your target: darkroom prints, slides, or Web only / DPUG.org prints?

Let's assume that you are going for darkroom prints. What's the max size your enlarger can take? Most MF enlargers stop at 6x9, 6x7, or 6x6. My own stops at 6x6, and though I'd love to buy a cheap RB67, I'm not going to be able to print without some extra investment.

The main reason I bought an RB67 was the fact that my enlarger's maximum negative size was 6x7cm. I now have a 5" x 4" enlarger so there's no excuse for not using my Speed Graphic now!


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Ambar, you are getting a huge amount of really good advice.

Unfortunately, when you ask a question to many people, you get many different answers. I think the thing to do is just get something, doesn't really matter what at the moment.

Perhaps a folding camera like an Isolette or a Zeiss Ikonta or a Rolleicord or Yashicamat. Just something to get you started cheaply into medium format. Then if you think it is something you want to continue with, you can start looking for something better whilst still having your original MF camera. This gives you more time to consider what you really want rather than rushing into a major purchase for the sake of getting something quickly.


Steve.

 

[elekm]

Here's a photo with a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. I remember that I shot wide open, because I wanted to give it a go. Remember, there's just a 1/2 stop difference going from f/3.5 to f/2.8 -- even though we make it out to be much wider.

 

[Ambar]

Unfortunately, when you ask a question to many people, you get many different answers. I think the thing to do is just get something, doesn't really matter what at the moment.

Steve,
I really don't mind the conflicting opinions.. I never expected people to solve these qualms of mine. I actually quite enjoy the different answers! They almost always come from the different challenges people around here face. I just hoped to educate myself with these experiences!
I agree WHOLE HEARTILY With your statement: "just get something.." I often find that the best way to get started on something new is.. this might sound stupid.. Just start! I have no intention of over thinking this through but the I have to admit that the quality of the info users have shared with me has helped me tremendously! It shouldn't be too long now before I dive into this!

Elekm! Thanks again! Another wonderful shot that really helps me..!
I have one quick and final question.. There shouldn't be any difference between the Schneider or Zeiss lens right? I have a nagging suspicion that in real life.. You're equally well served by both. Is that a fair statement?

 

[2F/2F]

I think that a Bronica SQ or a Mamiya 645 Pro or Pro TL are the best all-around medium format cameras for the buck, if size and weight are a factor. If not, then Mamiya RB/RZ or Bronica GS-1. Since you want multi format capability, I would suggest one of the latter two, and just deal with the size. The Bronica seems lighter than my RZ, though I have not actually weighed either of them.

 

[Ambar]

Also, I scan my shots (for the most part). I do thoroughly enjoy enlarging my pictures on paper but I don't normally have ready access to a lab. I am working on fixing that..
One of the enlargers at this "potentially available" lab (??) does accept medium format.. At least 6x6 but i'm not sure if it'll go all the way to 6x9 (I do suspect it does though).
You all know.. Slowly we find the means to achieve our goals. But the idea of working back from the enlarger's restrictions is a very sound argument! One I won't forget nor neglect when attempting LF!

 

[thegman]

My brother uses a GF670 and it's a wonderful camera, so portable, great results, and is about the best looking camera going this side of a Leica MP. I use a Hasselblad, and while I like using it, it's lack of portability can be a real pain.

If you're committed to using tripods and getting out there with a heavy camera, Hasselblad is brilliant. If you want truly portable, I think GF670 or Mamiya 7 are the ones to consider.

 

[Ambar]

Alright!!
So I visited a friend's house today and saw a shotty little yashicaflex thrown on top os a shelf.. I asked her what was the story behind it. She said she bought it at an antique store for $10(!) but she never had the patience to put it in working condition. I checked it all out.. Shutter and aperture seem perfectly operational.. It needs a good cleaning (a little bit of fungus on the lens) but nothing serious. I said let me put it to work and use it a bit! "It's a deal!"
Tomorrow I'm sending it out to a local repair guy who does all the work on my analog equipment.
I'm officially moving into MF!!
Thanks everybody for your input!! It's not a Rollei, or a 7ii, or a GF670... but you can't beat free! I'm hoping that as a starter kit, it'll be lots of fun!

 

[elekm]

I think the Yashica is a great place to start. You'll get the experience without it costing a lot of money. And then if you like it, you can look at other cameras from there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Alright!!
So I visited a friend's house today and saw a shotty little yashicaflex thrown on top os a shelf.. I asked her what was the story behind it. She said she bought it at an antique store for $10(!) but she never had the patience to put it in working condition. I checked it all out.. Shutter and aperture seem perfectly operational.. It needs a good cleaning (a little bit of fungus on the lens) but nothing serious. I said let me put it to work and use it a bit! "It's a deal!"
Tomorrow I'm sending it out to a local repair guy who does all the work on my analog equipment.
I'm officially moving into MF!!
Thanks everybody for your input!! It's not a Rollei, or a 7ii, or a GF670... but you can't beat free! I'm hoping that as a starter kit, it'll be lots of fun!

Great!!! A good step in the right direction. Use one camera; one film; and if you develop the film one developer. Get to know each well before you start using any thing else. This is the best advice that you can get for now!

Enjoy! ​

 

[Ambar]

Use one camera; one film; and if you develop the film one developer.

I've been shooting Tri-x, Velvia 50 and Provia 100 99% of the time in 35mm format.. I'm probably gonna stick with those, specifically starting with Tri-x!

Just dropped it off at the repair guy.. he said that one of the fungus spots might leave a tiny mark on the glass, but once he's done fixing it, there shouldn't be any real detriment to the image. Yea!