Good starter medium format camera?

[Helge]

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.

Even in the original masked cameras it still meant less apparitions and vignette at the corners. Which again let you shoot more open without so much “character”.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A medium format camera with a waist level viewfinder is impossible to use if you had to rotate it to get a portrait view. So square format eliminated that problem. There are no portrait or landscape formats. It's all the same. Mamiya solved that problem with their RB67 shooting 6x7 by allowing the film back to revolve while the rest of the camera stays oriented the same. If fact, RB-67 stands for Revolving Back.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I'm with you Don. I discovered that regardless of the camera aspect ratio, I compose automatically to fit the format I see in the camera.

When I started to show my vacation pictures on a 16:9 HD TV, I found that 4:3 or 3:2 shots would leave black borders on the screen. Video clips, however, were shot in 16:9 which filled up the screen. So when I combined them for a slide/video clip show, it was annoying to get black bars on and off. So one day when I went on vacation, I decided to switch my camera to shoot 16:9 format. It took practically no time to get accustomed to the ratio and compose naturally. Then when I got home and made slide shows, all the still photos and video clips filled the full 16:9 screen of the TV and also on my 16:9 computer monitor.

If I happen to be shooting with my cell phone, I have everything set up to shoot stills and videos 16:9 too and can put together brief "shows like this. The take away point is that composing comes naturally regardless of format. Your brain adjusts.

 

[NB23]

Duderinos, what’s upperino? The format war is so 2006...

 

[138S]

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.

Also 6x12 is not exactly 6x12, in the 6cm dimension you have to substract the margins of the frame, usually 56mm but it can vary...

But there is no doubt that 6x12 is the film format that matches very well the present industrial standard.

 

[MattKing]

The aspect ratio fights are motivated by the choices available for presentation.
If you go shopping for frames or albums, there are very few that are oriented toward square images.
Now that current trends have moved away from prints in albums or frames, different aspect ratios are more prevalent.
Almost all Hasselblad film images are/were originally square, but the vast majority of those shots were made by professional photographers whose prints ended up rectangular. The entire professional lab industry was oriented that way.
In the last couple of years I have done a larger than usual number of square prints - some of which came from rectangular negatives. The reason for doing that was I sourced some square frames I like.
Sometimes I make exposure choices to suit the camera's frame. More frequently I make printing choices to suit the image's characteristics.
In the days when I shot more 35mm slides, the aspect ratio of the camera was more influential than when I intended to darkroom print negatives.

 

[Helge]

Another advantage of a smaller film plane is that there is less chance of warped film/the film will often be flatter.

 

[138S]

Almost all Hasselblad film images are/were originally square, but the vast majority of those shots were made by professional photographers whose prints ended up rectangular. The entire professional lab industry was oriented that way.

For 35mm film there is a need to make a good use of the available flm surface, for obvious reasons. As the format grows cropping is less a pain.

The 6x6 was very Pro in that concern, not having to rotate a system camera this is an smart way, you may evebn decide later if orientation is landscape or portrait... some film is wasted in the shooting...

The RB67 is Rotating Back, but less fieldable

 

[Donald Qualls]

The RB67 is Rotating Back, but less fieldable

Depends how young and sturdy you are. I can carry my RB and 90mm "normal" lens at a similar weight to my Speed Graphic -- the 4x5 gives significantly larger negatives, but I can carry much more film for the RB67. And since the RB67 has a Graflok back, I can in theory put other stuff on it -- Grafmatic for 2x3 sheet film, roll backs for other formats (though internal blockage means it won't cover a 6x9 frame, I can shoot 6x6 on it if I get, for instance, a Graflex 22 that fits a 2x3 Graflok). Easier to use than the Speed, too -- SLR vs. ground glass or, if I have the one matched lens mounted, RF, roll film vs. film holders. If not for the weight, this might well be my "one camera".

 

[ignatiu5]

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.

Who on earth suggested getting a Mamiya 645?!?! Oh, wait...that was me (and others). I really hope you enjoy it. I very much liked the images I got when I had that 80/2.8 normal lens, both times I owned a Mamiya 645 system. I think it was a good choice for you to buy the whole system at once and be able to just shoot right out of the gate. Personally, I've had good luck with KEH.

Now, the hard part: don't second guess your decision. Just shoot. No gear lust/"but what if"/grass is greener. Just shoot the living heck out of your camera. After a while, figure out if you need a lens that's a bit wider, or a lot longer. Get that. Just shoot. Then shoot some more. For the foreseeable future, Bronicas and RBs and f/2.8 TLRs don't exist in your world; they're all broken and full of fungus.

I'm not suggesting to not try something new ever again, just to not do it until you know "why" you might need something different. That knowing, I think, doesn't come until you have a really good understanding of the strengths and weakness of what you already have, and that takes time (and film).

 

[papagene]

Who on earth suggested getting a Mamiya 645?!?! Oh, wait...that was me (and others). I really hope you enjoy it. I very much liked the images I got when I had that 80/2.8 normal lens, both times I owned a Mamiya 645 system. I think it was a good choice for you to buy the whole system at once and be able to just shoot right out of the gate. Personally, I've had good luck with KEH.

Now, the hard part: don't second guess your decision. Just shoot. No gear lust/"but what if"/grass is greener. Just shoot the living heck out of your camera. After a while, figure out if you need a lens that's a bit wider, or a lot longer. Get that. Just shoot. Then shoot some more. For the foreseeable future, Bronicas and RBs and f/2.8 TLRs don't exist in your world; they're all broken and full of fungus.

I'm not suggesting to not try something new ever again, just to not do it until you know "why" you might need something different. That knowing, I think, doesn't come until you have a really good understanding of the strengths and weakness of what you already have, and that takes time (and film).

Big +1

 

[MattKing]

I like the 645e, and have often considered getting one as a backup/complement to my 645 Pro.
Have fun with it!

 

[brainmonster]

Who on earth suggested getting a Mamiya 645?!?! Oh, wait...that was me (and others). I really hope you enjoy it. I very much liked the images I got when I had that 80/2.8 normal lens, both times I owned a Mamiya 645 system. I think it was a good choice for you to buy the whole system at once and be able to just shoot right out of the gate. Personally, I've had good luck with KEH.

Now, the hard part: don't second guess your decision. Just shoot. No gear lust/"but what if"/grass is greener. Just shoot the living heck out of your camera. After a while, figure out if you need a lens that's a bit wider, or a lot longer. Get that. Just shoot. Then shoot some more. For the foreseeable future, Bronicas and RBs and f/2.8 TLRs don't exist in your world; they're all broken and full of fungus.

I'm not suggesting to not try something new ever again, just to not do it until you know "why" you might need something different. That knowing, I think, doesn't come until you have a really good understanding of the strengths and weakness of what you already have, and that takes time (and film).

Yeah I see some people buy the modular system in parts, but I'd be worried if you get a certain part that doesn't work, it'd be hard to diagnose and return it if you get from different sources. But probably the parts are OK if they are advertised as working, but I was worried about it since they all have electrical contacts and are getting a little bit old. Especially the leaf shutter in the Bronica which is in the lens, and is controlled by the electrical contacts in the body, I'd be worried about that and hard to CLA it.

Anyway I look forward to getting my Mamiya soon and shooting with it, hopefully it's in good condition as advertised.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Yeah I see some people buy the modular system in parts, but I'd be worried if you get a certain part that doesn't work, it'd be hard to diagnose and return it if you get from different sources. But probably the parts are OK if they are advertised as working, but I was worried about it since they all have electrical contacts and are getting a little bit old. Especially the leaf shutter in the Bronica which is in the lens, and is controlled by the electrical contacts in the body, I'd be worried about that and hard to CLA it.

Anyway I look forward to getting my Mamiya soon and shooting with it, hopefully it's in good condition as advertised.

Yes, well done and please enjoy! Also: the E has that funky eyepiece/viewfinder. It looks spiffy.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Glad you went with the 645! Congrats!

Now shoot the hell out of it and don't look back!

Jeremy

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Hasselblad advertised that "Square is the perfect format."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

You can't turn a waist level finder camera on it's side and still see through the finder.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's usually pretty obvious rather quickly whether a camera works for you or not, immaterial of format, finder type etc.

Do not force yourself to use a camera that doesn't feel comfortable for the sort of work you want to do.

Ignore the silly blinkered doctrine that manifests as 'my format choice is the only format choice allowed'.

 

[MattKing]

You can't turn a waist level finder camera on it's side and still see through the finder.

Sure you can - if you don't mind the world being reversed and upside down!
Of course, that requires you have grey hair and a beard .

 

[johnha]

Sure you can - if you don't mind the world being reversed and upside down!

And looking 90 degrees to the direction the camera is pointing in...

 

[MattKing]

And looking 90 degrees to the direction the camera is pointing in...

Just like any waist level finder .

 

[abruzzi]

I’ve taken a few portrait shots with a WLF. It’s doable, but quite challenging.

 

[ruilourosa]

I have 4 hasselblads and jamming was never an issue... easy fix...
since the 90´s...

 

[grat]

I’ve taken a few portrait shots with a WLF. It’s doable, but quite challenging.

The manual for my Yashica 12 actually has illustrations of using the camera sideways, and upside down (for those top-down shots).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not use the WLF with my Hasselblad; I only use the 45°prism.