Good starter medium format camera?

[Dali]

alexvaras, the Lubitel might not be the best tool depending on what the OP wants to do: Accurate focussing and winding film are a pain in dim light, limited shutter speeds range, fully manual operation, this can keep away a lot of users from it. Once you know the camera limits, you play within them: Very light camera (don't forget the release cable!), very silent shutter, very bright finder.

I agree with you, Lubitel are good performer but they are not for everyone.

 

[Alex Varas]

Yes, I know but he wants not a TLR and everyone is advising TLRs
The best choices are already in game, folding camera with coupled rangefinder, for that budget any of the Mamiya 6 folders, Super Isolette or Iskra if you find one with the counter working.
SLR's are big and if I suggest a KW Pilot 6 or KW Super Pilot (wonderful cameras)... they are even more difficult than Lubitel.
If he can get Pentax 645 or such with AE-Prism would be the best but they are 4.5x6 and I don't think a GS-1 for 400$ is possible.

 

[ignatiu5]

I don't print square...thinking about it, I think 6x4.5 would be a better choice, since you also get more shots (16 vs 12 seems like it would cut down the cost).

Currently bidding on a Mamiya 645...(snip)...
There also seem to be a number of semi-compact Fuji rangefinder-type cameras that are pretty modern, that are around the $300-400 mark, so I'll take a look at those.

I’ve owned three versions of the Mamiya 645: an m645, a 1000s, and a Pro. I liked them all (the first two were my initial MF cameras, and the last one has a timer, which was why I held on to it for so long). Well-regarded lenses, modular design, solid build. I don’t recall any failures with any of them.

Ultimately, I stayed with a Bronica ETRSi mostly for ergonomics and balance in my hands (i.e. a personal rather than a performance difference). I really like the handling with the Speed Grip, and it makes portraits easy and comfortable for me. I shoot a lot of portraiture. Leaf shutter lenses that will work with flash at and shutter speed. A decent range of lens options that aren't at the upper end of the price scale. Across the multiple formats that I use, the Bronica is the camera I pick up about 70% of the time.

I’ll let others speak to Fuji RF options; I’ve never used a MF rangefinder.

 

[NB23]

You are a bit destructive with the kievs 4 rolls 4 cameras

Of course the Kiev 88 cameras have a dispersion in quality, some will never fail, and some may fail soon. Probably it was not a camera for shooting weedings, but it can be good for an amateur usage, sooting some dozens of rolls per year.

Hasselblads also have their shutter stuck, it's important to learn how to prevent it and learning how to un-jam it: http://www.dmin-dmax.fr/photoe2b.htm

A difference with the Hasselblad is that Kievs are so cheap that it's cheaper buying another one than fixing it, if the jam is importrant and it requires a Pro fix.

Rule of life: you are never rich enough to buy cheap. Recomending a Kiev88 is quite diabolical.

 

[138S]

Rule of life: you are never rich enough to buy cheap.

This is very true... most of the times...

But I paid painful sums for fixing jammed Hasselblads, I could buy 4 Kievs... Now I use a Pentax 67II, I'm scared to think what may happen if the electronics says good bye.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Rule of life: you are never rich enough to buy cheap. Recomending a Kiev88 is quite diabolical.

But many times, you aren't rich enough not to. Are you supposed to just go back to bed?

 

[NB23]

But many times, you aren't rich enough not to. Are you supposed to just go back to bed?

What are we talking about, now, really?

All I did was to recommend a top notch camera, that’s basically undestructible and highly efficient PRO calibre. Easy to find for 200-300$, which is about the same price as a garbage POS kiev-88.

What exactly is your argument?

 

[NB23]

This is very true... most of the times...

But I paid painful sums for fixing jammed Hasselblads, I could buy 4 Kievs... Now I use a Pentax 67II, I'm scared to think what may happen if the electronics says good bye.

Are you really trying to argue in favor of a kiev-88 by name-dropping Pentax and Hasselblad into the mix, and by dismissing Mamiya, which is more reliable than all those brands?

What exactly is the argument? What is your agenda? Helping out the OP surely isn’t on your list.

 

[Donald Qualls]

What exactly is your argument?

By your rule ("You're never rich enough to buy cheap") lots of folks on a tight budget would have to just stick with their cell phone if they want to make photographs. And it'll be a crappy cell phone, most likely.

For a personal reference, I now know it will be worth it to me to buy a Contax RF-- but if I hadn't "bought cheap" with a Kiev 4, I'd never have been sure enough to risk spending hundreds of dollars on an actual Contax.

 

[Joseph Bell]

The Mamiya 645 is a great first camera. I picked up a 1000s and 150mm 3.5 lens for $300 total from an eBay seller in Japan. The self timer doesn't work, but otherwise it's great. Perhaps I am a greedy monster but I was so delighted by the jump in quality from 35mm negatives to 6x4.5 that now I pine for other treats and tools and toys - Fuji rangefinders, Hasselblads, and both Mamiya sixes, new and old! Pardon the digression; I heartily recommend the Mamiya 645, particularly if you are a portraitist - the standard issue 80mm 2.8 is beyond reproach, but you may also wish to someday try the 80mm 1.9! And speaking of portraits, the WLF is my favourite facet of MF photography, but shooting verticals on the Mamiya 645 is, to some, a crazy nightmare!! This issue can be easily resolved by switching to a prism finder. It's quite easy to switch finders, but then again there is something fun and funny about shooting verticals with the WLF, you'll see!!

 

[NB23]

By your rule ("You're never rich enough to buy cheap") lots of folks on a tight budget would have to just stick with their cell phone if they want to make photographs. And it'll be a crappy cell phone, most likely.

For a personal reference, I now know it will be worth it to me to buy a Contax RF-- but if I hadn't "bought cheap" with a Kiev 4, I'd never have been sure enough to risk spending hundreds of dollars on an actual Contax.

You’re talking about homeless people kinda poor? There’s always a Nikon slr kit for 40$, which will last a lifetime.

And let’s not forget the importanct concept of cost of ownership. the cost of ownership
of a high Quality camera is basically Zero Dollars. You buy for 300$ and you sell it for 300$ a few years down the road.

Zero Dollars.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't print square...thinking about it, I think 6x4.5 would be a better choice, since you also get more shots (16 vs 12 seems like it would cut down the cost).

Currently bidding on a Mamiya 645, and also looking at a Kiev 60 modified for 6x4.5. Not sure about the Kiev, I've heard they're unreliable. I don't really want to get into the whole Russian camera thing again.

Hopefully I can get the Mamiya.

To answer the questions, my purpose would most likely to do portraits, I like photographing people. I really like the medium format quality for portraits, checking out the portraits on the portrait forum done in medium format, they look great. I also would enjoy doing landscapes on medium format, it seems like the resolution makes the detail really pop out.

There also seem to be a number of semi-compact Fuji rangefinder-type cameras that are pretty modern, that are around the $300-400 mark, so I'll take a look at those.

645 ... that is like buying a Porche, storing it in a warehouse and never driving it. If you are going to use 120 film shoot 6x6 or larger.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've never actually seen the "zero cost of equipment" -- that fails to take into account that you're expected to spend money on maintenance and repairs in order to get that "free equipment" effect.

 

[Joseph Bell]

One other thing - I understand you're leaning toward 6x4.5, and while I love that format myself, it's true that there is much more detail and richness in a larger negative. If you do decide to go bigger, another good cheap option is the Bronica s2 or s2a - the system is delightful to use, a poor man's Hasselblad, heh heh, no batteries to worry about, and the standard issue Nikon 80mm 2.8 is lovely! CAVEAT EMPTOR: 6x6 negatives are so splendid that you may soon find yourself pining for 6x7, 6x9, etc!

 

[BrianShaw]

Rolleicord Va
+ Bright screen
+ Not so heavy (just like other cords)
+ Xenars are sharp
+ Accessories are cheap including pol filter
+ Rolleinars for close up photos
+ Lots of fun...
- Focus knob on left and winding on right

Rolleicord V
+ Focus and wind on right side
- Not so bright screen

Get one and you are fine for long time

Now we’re talking. In a story similar to NB23, my first MF camera was a Vb. Bought in 1983 and I still have it. The 3 MF cameras I bought after that get used but not as much. If I were a wise man I would have quit the quest way back then.

 

[138S]

Are you really trying to argue in favor of a kiev-88 by name-dropping Pentax and Hasselblad into the mix, and by dismissing Mamiya, which is more reliable than all those brands?

What exactly is the argument? What is your agenda? Helping out the OP surely isn’t on your list.

No agenda, I'm not selling a Kiev at ebay But if you could shot 4 rolls with 4 cameras... let me ask, why did you buy the other three ?

Speaking seriously, I never owned a Kiev 88, but I used the one a friend has since 10 years ago, he had absolutely no problem, he shots around 30 rolls per year, I know it because I develop his film. It is true that he is skilled, he treats the camera with care and he lubes it from time to time.

K 88 weaknesses:

'Obviously require a certain amount of DIY and mechanical aptitude. Seem to require above average amount of lubrication; needle applicator and lithium or silicon lube. .... Also, screws may need maintenant tightening, possibly even glue. But most weaknesses are result of lack of practice with them.'


Now you mention Mamiya, there is a RB67 at Germany for 450€ , no pentaprism, side-inverted image, with 90 lens. This can be a good recommendation.


Also I use two RB67, with all the glass (500mm included) except the fisheye, the RB brick is total quality, it's also a true brick... Ideal for studio and well fieldable by an sportsman.

As the RB has a seiko shutter in each lens, the body has no shutter, a lens may fail but not the camera. It is unit focus, it requires bellows compensation but lenses are always very good because no mess with IF. Also flash Synchro at top speed. Well, the body has nothing, no electronics, no shutter... only the mirror.

The RB can be recommended as an start point for a future move to the RZ.

6x7 is 6x7 !!! this is a very, very nice format.

 

[NB23]

I've never actually seen the "zero cost of equipment" -- that fails to take into account that you're expected to spend money on maintenance and repairs in order to get that "free equipment" effect.

Not only zero, but you might also make a buck. It’s crazy like that.

 

[NB23]

No agenda, I'm not selling a Kiev at ebay But if you could shot 4 rolls with 4 cameras... let me ask, why did you buy the last 3 ?

Speaking seriously, I never owned a Kiev 88, but I used the one a friend has since 10 years ago, he had absolutely no problem, he shots around 30 rolls per year, I know it because I develop his film. It is true that he is skilled, he treats the camera with care and he lubes it from time to time.

K 88 weaknesses:

'Obviously require a certain amount of DIY and mechanical aptitude. Seem to require above average amount of lubrication; needle applicator and lithium or silicon lube. .... Also, screws may need maintenant tightening, possibly even glue. But most weaknesses are result of lack of practice with them.'


Now you mention Mamiya, there is a RB67 at Germany for 450€ , no pentaprism, side-inverted image, with 90 lens. This can be a good recommendation.


Also I use two RB67, with all the glass (500mm included) except the fisheye, the RB brick is total quality, it's also a true brick... Ideal for studio and well filedable by an sportsman.

3 returns/exchanges, one local garage sale.

Major Pita. Major loss of time and energy. And even the cheap feel of the camera is something I wish my senses have never experienced.

 

[138S]

3 returns/exchanges, one local garage sale.

Major Pita. Major loss of time and energy. And even the cheap feel of the camera is something I wish my senses have never experienced.

Well, this is having quite a bad experince... but a factor in that pita had to be your dealer... There is a community of Kiev 88 users, crappy and not much unreliable, but the Hasselbladsky is one of the cheapest ways to try SLR medium format photography. If it breaks you sell it for parts with a $150 loss, you recover 100 from the lens and 100 from the bricked body.

Good point for the 88 is that glass is cheap, you may get a Fisheye for less than 200... an MF fish for a P67 is x3 price.

 

[warden]

And even the cheap feel of the camera is something I wish my senses have never experienced.

You're suffering from Photographic Tactile Microaggression. PTM

 

[brainmonster]

There is nothing wrong with a Lubitel, mine is last model 166U and it’s a good performer.
I guess you got bad luck with your sample.

The pictures mine takes are not bad, But mostly I don't like the viewfinder, it's very difficult to see - it's "round" and seems to move around depending on the angle, making it hard to frame the image. Some of my photos come out tilted. Also I find it hard to focus, even with the magnifier, the ground glass middle part on mine is a little dark, probably could use a soak, some of my images come out out of focus. I wonder if the two lenses on mine are decoupled slightly.

I did flock the interior, which upped the image quality greatly. But I still don't get the IQ I would like (The lens is OK, but not stellar), or the DOF I would like, at least compared to something like an RB67, which of course is going to be much better. Don't get me wrong, for what it is it's a great value. It was really cheap and allowed me to try out medium format before investing more money in it. But mostly the viewfinder is just really difficult to use.

By your rule ("You're never rich enough to buy cheap") lots of folks on a tight budget would have to just stick with their cell phone if they want to make photographs. And it'll be a crappy cell phone, most likely.

For a personal reference, I now know it will be worth it to me to buy a Contax RF-- but if I hadn't "bought cheap" with a Kiev 4, I'd never have been sure enough to risk spending hundreds of dollars on an actual Contax.

Yes that's exactly why I bought a Lubitel, but now I'm ready to move onto something better.

 

[BrianShaw]

To answer the questions, my purpose would most likely to do portraits, I like photographing people. I really like the medium format quality for portraits, checking out the portraits on the portrait forum done in medium format, they look great. I also would enjoy doing landscapes on medium format, it seems like the resolution makes the detail really pop out.

That, actually, makes a case for square. Imagine portrait work without ever having to turn a camera on its side!

for similar goal, I bought a Kodak Duo620 for portrait-oriented 645. Works great but burdens user with respooling 120 onto 620.

 

[NB23]

Well, this is having quite a bad experince... but a factor in that pita had to be your dealer... There is a community of Kiev 88 users, crappy and not much unreliable, but the Hasselbladsky is one of the cheapest ways to try SLR medium format photography. If it breaks you sell it for parts with a $150 loss, you recover 100 from the lens and 100 from the bricked body.

Good point for the 88 is that glass is cheap, you may get a Fisheye for less than 200... an MF fish for a P67 is x3 price.

You push for the kiev a way too hard, and you will never win the argument. Firstly, because you are mistaking me for a novice, for an beginner amateur, or for a guy that doesn’t have a clue. I’ve been a Professional making a good living in the business even before digital even existed. Juste like there’s no way you could sell a Lada to a professional racer, you won’t be able to sell a Kiev to me.
“Yes but a Lada...”. No. Just no.

This is the problem with the internet: it’s easy to mistake people and get sucked into a following. Like bloggers: mostly nobodies, newbies, that think they know it all. Pros don’t give a damn about creating a blog. And they discern the wannabe bloggers real fast. Let me tell you, I’ve seen my share of bloggers having born and died, but man they “sounded” so knowledgeable. Shit, a Kiev following? Does this mean it’s suddenly a good camera? What? A cool blogger endorses a Kiev? Must I be buying one now?
I’ve seen enough of such bullshit with Leica, and now Kiev?

As my final argument: You pay me 150$ for using a kiev-88 (and other cheap stuff) and I will refuse. My reason is mathematical and logical.
Spending 4 hours, from shooting a roll, developing and printing a proof, and ending with unsatisfying results is worth 150$ for my time.
This is how serious I am about this stuff, in case you havd mistaken me for a skaterboy or a sloppy artist, or a faux-tographer.

 

[138S]

That, actually, makes a case for square. Imagine portrait work without ever having to turn a camera on its side!

A retired photographer I know made his career with hassies for 25 years and he never sold a single square photograph. Square is square, horizontal and vertical, you concentrate in the subject's expression and you frame in the printing.

 

[138S]

I’ve seen enough of such bullshit with Leica, and now Kiev?

don't attack the Leica, you make good the Kiev by mentioning both that close ! And some Leica supporters may get offended !

As my final argument: You pay me 150$ for using a kiev-88 (and other cheap stuff) and I will refuse. My reason is mathematical and logical.
Spending 4 hours, from shooting a roll, developing and printing a proof, and ending with unsatisfying results is worth 150$ for my time.
This is how serious I am about this stuff, in case you havd mistaken me for a skaterboy or a sloppy artist, or a faux-tographer.

Of course, it is difficult remembering a single western Pro wedding photographer with Kiev 88. Not a pro camera for westeners.

Anyway, IMO "wikipedia" has a nice description of the Kiev issues: "Attractions of Kiev cameras, and problems" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_(brand)