Good starter medium format camera?

138S · Jul 2, 2020

Anyway, IMO, before selecting the MF camera one should first select the format he wants. 645? 6x6? 6x7? 6x9 ? 6x12? 6x17?

Perhaps one of the most interesting MF formats today is 6x12cm because aspect ratio matches today's monitors and TVs

Personally I don't feel attracted by somthing under 6x7... buy first one has to detemine is what format !

johnha · Jul 2, 2020

Jeremy Mudd said:
The only negative I'll put out there for the Pro is that they can be fragile. You often read about the mirror stop breaking. That's actually never happened to me, but I've had two of them just go dead and not fire anymore.

I've read this too, on several occasions preceded by "Whilst I was adjusting the infinity focus of the mirror stop..." so I'm not too concerned about it. I've had my Pro since the '90s and although I don't shoot it much now, I haven't had any problems. Like many of the 'known weaknesses' reported on the web, this may be a case of a very few instances getting more prominence than the stats would suggest (how many people report they haven't had the problem for comparison). The lenses can be very affordable and as there's no shutter in them, there's very little to go wrong with them.

Jeremy Mudd · Jul 2, 2020

johnha said:
I've read this too, on several occasions preceded by "Whilst I was adjusting the infinity focus of the mirror stop..." so I'm not too concerned about it. I've had my Pro since the '90s and although I don't shoot it much now, I haven't had any problems. Like many of the 'known weaknesses' reported on the web, this may be a case of a very few instances getting more prominence than the stats would suggest (how many people report they haven't had the problem for comparison). The lenses can be very affordable and as there's no shutter in them, there's very little to go wrong with them.

True. It could very well be skewed by the amount of times the same story gets told.

I think the glass for the 645 is great. The only lens I don't have for it is the 50mm shift lens which I am currently eyeing at the moment.

Prices have been creeping up I think because people are starting to figure out how much bang-for-the-buck the 645 Pro/TL's are. A couple of years ago I could pick up a spare, like new body for $100. Now they are going for $250-$400 depending on condition. Maybe I should quit talking about them now.

Jeremy

Kodachromeguy · Jul 2, 2020

johnha said:
Like many of the 'known weaknesses' reported on the web, this may be a case of a very few instances getting more prominence than the stats would suggest (how many people report they haven't had the problem for comparison).

Ah, yes the infamous internet "statistics." This sounds like whenever someone asks about the Hasselblad v system, you hear the internet "experts" claim they jam all the time. Thousands of professionals used Hasselblads for weddings and commercial work for 50 years, but they jam all the time.....

ruilourosa · Jul 2, 2020

The lenses for Mamiya 645 are nice but bodies are a bit prone to eletric fail... had 3 bodies, 2 failed and repair was through scavenging other bodies.... quited the sistem and traded all for hasselblad 903 swc...

Jeremy Mudd · Jul 2, 2020

Kodachromeguy said:
Ah, yes the infamous internet "statistics." This sounds like whenever someone asks about the Hasselblad v system, you hear the internet "experts" claim they jam all the time. Thousands of professionals used Hasselblads for weddings and commercial work for 50 years, but they jam all the time.....

Might be the same people who gripe about plastic film reels that "jam all of the time".

Those people don't understand how to use them properly.

Jeremy

ruilourosa · Jul 2, 2020

Yes, hasselblad jam... mostly when using extension tubes... but unjamming is easy...

If cost was no issue, Hasselblad is one of the best cameras for a beginner, not only in MF but in photography in general...

138S · Jul 2, 2020

ruilourosa said:
but unjamming is easy...

There are two kinds of hassie jamming, the easy to fix DIY one and the other one.

David Reynolds · Jul 3, 2020

abruzzi said:
You should be able to find a working Bronica ETR (or ETRS or ETRSi) with a prism, 75mm lens, grip and 120 back for under $400. They currently seem to be about the cheapest medium format system SLR camera out there. They may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but they are very capable cameras, and lenses are cheap—most are $100-150–so you can build out a respectable system inexpensively.

I also recommend the Bronica ETR and it's S and Si models. These cameras are undervalued at the moment especially for a kit . I have used an ETR for many years and found that the image on a piece of 120 film is sharper than any 4X5 film I have shot. I believe this is because of the thickness of the 120 film base is thinner. You can find many ads for a Bronica ETR at the moment.

brainmonster · Jul 3, 2020

Ended up ordering a Mamiya 645E with 80mm 2.8 N lens, winder grip, 120 insert, for about $500 shipped from KEH. I heard they're a reputable dealer so hopefully it will be OK. Lens was "bargain" quality but I've heard they grade conservatively so I think it should be OK. Let me know if you have any comments on this camera. I'm glad it has all the parts together, I was having trouble finding a camera with all the modular parts assembled and 120 back, working meter, etc.

I also had a hard time finding a strap, if anyone knows of one to recommend. I'm not sure if this model has 2 different lug sizes on both sides, so a hasselblad strap might not fit.

bernard_L · Jul 3, 2020

138S said:
Perhaps one of the most interesting MF formats today is 6x12cm because aspect ratio matches today's monitors and TVs

I hope this is meant as a joke.

Helge · Jul 3, 2020

138S said:
Anyway, IMO, before selecting the MF camera one should first select the format he wants. 645? 6x6? 6x7? 6x9 ? 6x12? 6x17?

Perhaps one of the most interesting MF formats today is 6x12cm because aspect ratio matches today's monitors and TVs

Personally I don't feel attracted by somthing under 6x7... buy first one has to detemine is what format !

That's a decision that will never be done then.
The original format for 120 film is 6x9, because of cheap and easy contact printing. All the formats have their own fans and rationalisations.
Personally I've never got 6x7. Not a heck of a whole lot larger than 6x6, though only ten exposures per roll.
I used to think 6x4.5 was silly: "Half frame medium format"? What was the point even, then‽
Now, I'm loving it, while still using my 6x6 gear.

My point is, just chose something that you like the look and sound of, if you don't have some demanding very particular use in mind.
Good quality medium format cameras are all far better, than you are probably ever going to need for ninety percent of the stuff you'll do.

Smaller formats have the advantage of faster lenses, smaller gear, more exposures and larger depth of field.
Larger formats "just" have that effortless feel. With huge resolution and lots of ability to crop if needed.

138S · Jul 3, 2020

bernard_L said:
I hope this is meant as a joke. View attachment 249581

Not a joke, 1:2 is today the most popular aspect ratio: Monitors, TV's, Cinematography... even smartphones... we are all day long viewing things in that aspect ratio. Check what average time we spend looking 1:2 screens every day.

today 1:2 it is the gold standard.

Helge said:
My point is, just chose something that you like the look and sound of,

Or course...

Donald Qualls · Jul 3, 2020

Helge said:
Personally I've never got 6x7. Not a heck of a whole lot larger than 6x6, though only ten exposures per roll.
I used to think 6x4.5 was silly: "Half frame medium format"? What was the point even, then‽

if you measure the actual 6x7 frame (56x65 mm, at least in my RB67 120 film back) it's close to the 4x5 aspect ratio, so it prints to 8x10 or 16x20 (with a small border) with almost no cropping. 6x4.5 is one of those "transition" formats. There's a chain there -- 9x12 is "almost 4x5", and 6x9 is half that -- 6x4.5 is half of that, and almost the same as 127 full frame (4x6); then half frame 127 is just about the same as 828. There were 828 cameras made in square (28x28) and half frame (28x20) as well, though you don't see them every day like the "rare" 24x24 Robot and various half-frame 35mm cameras. So 6x4.5 is part of a family, stepping down from 9x12 (in fact, it's just about 1/4 of the 88x118 "9x12" film frame, at 56x42).

I'm finding 6x7 and 6x4.5 are becoming my favorite medium format frames. One is enough bigger than 6x6 that it doesn't feel square, the other gets enough additional frames on a roll not to feel "cramped" by 12, 10, or 8. That said, I'll never give up 6x6 as long as I can buy 120 film.

grat · Jul 3, 2020

138S said:
Not a joke, 1:2 is today the most popular aspect ratio: Monitors, TV's, Cinematography... even smartphones... we are all day long viewing things in that aspect ratio. Check what average time we spend looking 1:2 screens every day.

today 1:2 it is the gold standard.

Over in this quantum reality, I'm pretty sure that 1080p is 1920x1080 (16:9) and 4k is 3840x2160 (16:9).

Outside of 6x12 format negatives, I can't think of a single example of 2:1 aspect ratio.

But I feel like I'm being trolled.

Dan Daniel · Jul 3, 2020

https://xkcd.com/2322/ ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

MattKing · Jul 4, 2020

grat said:
Outside of 6x12 format negatives, I can't think of a single example of 2:1 aspect ratio.

Well, Lawrence of Arabia in its native format was 2.2:1, so that is close.
And Dr. Strangelove in its native format was 1.85:1, so that too is close.
And then there is this article:
https://vashivisuals.com/the-hot-ne...he 2.00:1,and classic widescreen aspect ratio.

grat · Jul 4, 2020

Hrm. I confess, I have to (sit) partially corrected, and admit that I've been out of touch with modern cell phone developments (Because they're HUGE, and overpriced):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#2:1

Would I be a cynic by suggesting that manufacturers, realizing that 8K is going to be a tough sell, have decided on a new format that just happens to be slightly difficult for a 4K set to render?

... and would that suggestion completely derail this topic?

RalphLambrecht · Jul 4, 2020

brainmonster said:
I have a budget of about $300,maybe $400. I have a lubitel and it's total crap, so I'd like to get something better. I was thinking about some sort of cheap folder camera for $50-100, or something better for $300-$400. What can I get? I'd like to avoid another TLR, and try an SLR or rangefinder type camera instead. Any suggestions?

I also suggest to start with a folder in the work yourself up to a Hasselblad from there.

Helge · Jul 4, 2020

RalphLambrecht said:
I also suggest to start with a folder in the work yourself up to a Hasselblad from there.

There is not necessarily something to work yourself up to.
A folder can easily be all you need.

Helge · Jul 4, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
if you measure the actual 6x7 frame (56x65 mm, at least in my RB67 120 film back) it's close to the 4x5 aspect ratio, so it prints to 8x10 or 16x20 (with a small border) with almost no cropping. 6x4.5 is one of those "transition" formats. There's a chain there -- 9x12 is "almost 4x5", and 6x9 is half that -- 6x4.5 is half of that, and almost the same as 127 full frame (4x6); then half frame 127 is just about the same as 828. There were 828 cameras made in square (28x28) and half frame (28x20) as well, though you don't see them every day like the "rare" 24x24 Robot and various half-frame 35mm cameras. So 6x4.5 is part of a family, stepping down from 9x12 (in fact, it's just about 1/4 of the 88x118 "9x12" film frame, at 56x42).

I'm finding 6x7 and 6x4.5 are becoming my favorite medium format frames. One is enough bigger than 6x6 that it doesn't feel square, the other gets enough additional frames on a roll not to feel "cramped" by 12, 10, or 8. That said, I'll never give up 6x6 as long as I can buy 120 film.

That sounds:

A. Extremely boring and subtly constricting, to have a format that gently but subtly forces every image to have the same format and composition rules as “industry standard“.
When I print 8x10, more often than not, I happily cut away at it.
6x6 leaves plenty of room to crop or not.
And “almost”..‽ That’s just not good enough for the price you pay.

B. Like many people haven’t realized that 6x6 is a wonderful format in and off itself.
Square leaves a lot of room for that all important mood setting sky outside.
And let’s you concentrate the image on the subject in a whole other way.
And makes any considerations about whether to have portrait or landscape orientation out of the taking moment. Either crop later just as you like it or embrace the square.
And it makes the best use of the optical projection circle of the lens, so you get the most bang for the buck.

campy51 · Jul 4, 2020

If square is better then why aren't there any digital cameras with square sensors? I just think square is something that stuck when the box cameras came a long. I personally don't like the square format even though every medium format camera I have other than a Medalist is square format. There may be a reason that falls into the category of there are things I don't know, I don't know.

Donald Qualls · Jul 4, 2020

Helge said:
That sounds:

A. Extremely boring and subtly constricting, to have a format that gently but subtly forces every image to have the same format and composition rules as “industry standard“.

<crop>

B. Like many people haven’t realized that 6x6 is a wonderful format in and off itself.

I don't find any format boring. I shoot 2:3 (35 mm, 6x9), 3:4 (6x4.5, 9x12, 18x24mm), 4:5 (4x5 and 6x7), and 1:1. I've got a pano/sprocket setup for my RB67 that shoots 35x67 (sprockets included) or 24x67 (if I make a mask or crop off the sprockets).

I like all of them. I compose differently for each.

BTW, 6x4.5 "half frame" came about originally in folders -- with the inclusion of a simple drop-in or snap-in mask, the same camera could shoot full frame (contact prints big enough not to need reading glasses or magnification) or half frame (economy of more frames for the same film cost, hardly more processing). Dedicated cameras came later -- and all this professional stuff came after the folders.

bernard_L · Jul 4, 2020

campy51 said:
If square is better then why aren't there any (...). There may be a reason that falls into the category of there are things I don't know, I don't know.

Does there have to be a reason? For liking/disliking C. Monteverdi, S. Rollins, or P. Smith?
I like square format, and feel no need to rationalize or argue to convince others; I feel at ease with 40mm f.l. in 135 format, and could not care less that it's "close to the diagonal of 24x36" and therefore the natural f.l.".

Helge · Jul 4, 2020

campy51 said:
If square is better then why aren't there any digital cameras with square sensors? I just think square is something that stuck when the box cameras came a long. I personally don't like the square format even though every medium format camera I have other than a Medalist is square format. There may be a reason that falls into the category of there are things I don't know, I don't know.

The polite answer is the market I surprisingly conservative.
The real answer is that the people who design and market digital cameras are retards.

Square was never very popular in box cameras.
It existed sure, but was more a way of squeezing the film budget in that economically conscious market than anything else.
The vast majority of 120 budget cameras from 1901 to the 1950s was 6x9.

Good starter medium format camera?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency