I'm done with 35mm... need a few MF alternatives!

Eric Rose · Apr 8, 2008

david b said:
The Hasselblad 501c kit with 80mm lens should go for about $1100.
A 50mm CF lens is about $700 and a 150mm CF is about $500

That's a great travel kit. Buy another back when you can for about $200.

This is exactly the kit I travel with. Weight wise it's about the same as a 35mm body and a bunch of prime lenses. I've never been a fan of zooms. Maybe you should try using primes on your 35 rather than zooms and see how your scans turn out.

If I don't take the Blad then the Linhof gets to go.

Given the resale value of 35mm gear these days you might be a bit optimist about the value of your existing equipment. If this turns out true then your best off keeping what you have and just save up for a larger format.

Walter mentioned the RB67. Great camera and if you are not traveling with it or backpacking (unless your a tri-athlete or sucker for pain) it's a great system. The glass is first rate and much cheaper than Blad glass. Personally I prefer the look of Zeiss glass but that's just a personal thing. A Shen-Hao 4x5 with a couple of lenses and some film holders would weigh less than an RB.

wfe · Apr 8, 2008

jasonjoo said:
but is the mirror slap that bad? What's a "useable" shutter speed to overcome this mirror slap?
Jason

I've hand held my Hasselblad at 1/30 and have great results. I think it depends on the intent of the picture.

Cheers,
Bill

walter23 · Apr 8, 2008

Eric Rose said:
Maybe you should try using primes on your 35 rather than zooms and see how your scans turn out.

Eric, I don't think this will make any difference. In my experience anyway, it's hard to get acceptable scans from 35mm (though I have printed a few nice ones from my epson flatbed scanner). And his optics are some of the best Canon produces, only a hair behind really top end primes - though he mentions the 135L which is pretty much the top end prime, on any system, period.

Given the resale value of 35mm gear these days you might be a bit optimist about the value of your existing equipment. If this turns out true then your best off keeping what you have and just save up for a larger format.

His 17-40L, 135L, and 70-200L IS will fetch pretty close to new values. There's very little depreciation of these lenses given their high quality and utility on current digital SLR gear.

A Shen-Hao 4x5 with a couple of lenses and some film holders would weigh less than an RB.

Very true. I lugged around MP_Wayne's RB for an afternoon and it was a beast. I guess the advantage over 4x5 is the cheaper roll film it uses and it's low cost, but that's about it.

As mentioned though, I'd seriously consider 4x5.

Ted Harris · Apr 8, 2008

dpurdy said:
Seems like every successful and world famous Rollei user eventually switched to Hassleblad. That includes Penn and Avedon. I watched a video of Helmut Newton the other night, guess what, using a Hasselblad. You know with a hasselblad you are getting absolute top optics.

That was true in the past but not so sure today. The Rollei 6000 system is more reliable than Haselblad and in many ways is easier to use. New and used prices are comparable (except for lenses, which are more for the Rollei new) and you can actually save money in some way swith the Rollei system (e.g. film inserts don't need to be matched to a specific back.

panastasia · Apr 8, 2008

For what its worth. When I made the jump to MF after studying all the options I chose the RB67 over the Hassy because I wanted big negatives (the real reason to go MF). The RB had some options I liked, such as: flash sync at any shutter speed, aspect ratio (up to 6x8), revolving back, and the film holders are known to hold film very flat. The Hassy is really a 645 when cropped and not a great deal lighter, IMO. The Mamyia KL lenses are as good as the German glass - any difference is insignificant these days - don't kid yourself! Also, to those who think that an RB is too heavy, tell that to the women who carry them. The extra mass also allows the use of very slow shutter speeds, hand held

Regards,
Paul

max_ebb · Apr 8, 2008

There are a couple of issues with the Pentax 67 that haven't been mentioned. The focal plane shutter (just like 35mm) makes for faster cheaper lenses (since they don't have leaf shutters in them), but the shutter causes more vibration than the mirror slap does. So even using MLU, you still need a very solid/heavy tripod to dampen the vibration from the shutter when shooting slower shutter speeds. Also, unless you have the 67 II, there is no multi exposure capability with the older P67's unless you use a leaf shutter lens (there are only 2 LS lenses available for the P67). Also, as someone else mentioned, you can't flash sync at any shutter speed faster than 1/30 unless you use a LS lens.

Bronica is one of the most compact 6x6 SLR MF cameras, and I believe that the Bronica GS1 is by far the most compact 6x7 SLR camera. For square format, Bronica gives the most bang for the buck. I started out in MF with a Bronica SQA, and the thing I didn't like about square format is that since I always print rectangle and never print square, by the time I crop the square neg to rectangle, I was essentially printing from 645 images. 6x7 images are a LOT larger than 6x4.5. For 6x7 format, I think that RB67 gives the most bang for the buck. I use an RZ67, and it is by far my favorite 6x7 format camera.

Personally, I think that blads are WAY over priced considering what else you can get for the same money (or have a lot more of the money left in your pocket).

jmcd · Apr 8, 2008

I have a question regarding medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, concerning the tortuous film path? It seems that if one is burning through a roll for a portrait session, there is no problem. But for the contemplative tree and rock shooter, I have read that film flatness from reverse curl setting in is a real factor. Some report trouble setting in after 15 seconds in humid weather. Others report wasting every other frame to avoid the problem. What is your experience?

Paul Howell · Apr 8, 2008

jmcd said:
I have a question regarding medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, concerning the tortuous film path? It seems that if one is burning through a roll for a portrait session, there is no problem. But for the contemplative tree and rock shooter, I have read that film flatness from reverse curl setting in is a real factor. Some report trouble setting in after 15 seconds in humid weather. Others report wasting every other frame to avoid the problem. What is your experience?

With my Mamyia Universal I have never had an issue. Last summer I went to a esate sale to look at a Zone VI enlarger, the enlarger lamp had been looted but the person running the sale gave me (i would have never bought one) Kiev 88 kit with 2 backs. I have only shot a few rolls, but it seems that with the Kiev, I have problems keeping the film flat, some frames are sharp other not. It has the older style back that will fit a hassy, I dont know if I just dont know to load the back, or if the design is flawed. As a rule I dont think interchangeable backs are an issue.

Ted Harris · Apr 8, 2008

jmcd said:
I have a question regarding medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, concerning the tortuous film path?

Another reason to go with the Rollei system. It uses a straight through film path and is reputed to have superior film flatness to other 6x6 systems.

Neanderman · Apr 8, 2008

jasonjoo said:
I understand what the backs are for, but what's an insert?

Hassleblad backs are two part: one part is the 'shell' the other is the 'insert.' The insert is the entire film carriage/advance mechanism. The shell is just that -- a case that shields the insert from light. For optimum performance, especially when enlarging, the insert and shell should match -- i.e., have the same serial number.

Ed

Eric Rose · Apr 8, 2008

walter23 said:
Eric, I don't think this will make any difference. In my experience anyway, it's hard to get acceptable scans from 35mm (though I have printed a few nice ones from my epson flatbed scanner). And his optics are some of the best Canon produces, only a hair behind really top end primes - though he mentions the 135L which is pretty much the top end prime, on any system, period.

Very true. I lugged around MP_Wayne's RB for an afternoon and it was a beast. I guess the advantage over 4x5 is the cheaper roll film it uses and it's low cost, but that's about it.

As mentioned though, I'd seriously consider 4x5.

I agree the 135L would be a good lens. However I have never seen any zoom that would compare apples to apples with a good prime lens. Believe me I have tried. Yes I know the Canon L glass is good and their zooms are some of the best zooms made, but they still do not give the corner to corner sharpness, colour fidelity and contrast of a good prime.

I use a Nikon scanner to scan my 35mm negs and I get excellent scans. Both B&W and colour. If your not getting good scans I would suggest looking at your scanner, software and workflow as areas where you could see improvements. I have tried scanning 35mm negs on my Epson flatbed and they suck.

My comment of current pricing for non-digital lenses (yes I know they can be used on digital cameras) is based on a buddy of mines experience. I sold a bunch of his high end L glass and EOS bodies for him on eBay and the selling prices were no where near replacement cost. Maybe things have changed.

Eric Rose · Apr 8, 2008

jmcd said:
I have a question regarding medium format cameras with interchangeable backs, concerning the tortuous film path? It seems that if one is burning through a roll for a portrait session, there is no problem. But for the contemplative tree and rock shooter, I have read that film flatness from reverse curl setting in is a real factor. Some report trouble setting in after 15 seconds in humid weather. Others report wasting every other frame to avoid the problem. What is your experience?

I have used my Blads in the jungles of Borneo and Costa Rica. I have never had a problem with film flatness. I think a lot of these myths get started by people who have never done any real shooting in the REAL world. To many armchair quarterbacks IMHO. There is a reason why Blad dominated the professional MF market for so long (pre-digital days). Their stuff WORKED! And worked very well.

panastasia · Apr 8, 2008

Eric Rose said:
I have used my Blads in the jungles of Borneo and Costa Rica... There is a reason why Blad dominated the professional MF market for so long (pre-digital days). Their stuff WORKED! And worked very well.

Even on the moon!

max_ebb · Apr 8, 2008

Eric Rose said:
There is a reason why Blad dominated the professional MF market for so long (pre-digital days). Their stuff WORKED! And worked very well.

Dominated? Oh please, give me a break. Blads might have dominated the wedding photography industry, but do you honestly believe that blads dominated over RBs/RZs in the studios? Do you believe that they dominated in MF landscape photography over 6x7 cameras? The only thing blads dominate IMO is being ridiculously over priced (they also dominate in quirky glitches).

I have never had any film flatness problems/issues with Bronica or RB/RZ film backs, whether I wait a few seconds between frames or a few days.

jasonjoo · Apr 8, 2008

Wow, this is far more replies than I had expected over night. I apologize for not being able to reply back to each post.

Eric, I have come from the digital world and had a few of Canon's top lenses. I've sold my 35L and 135L and am now planning on selling the rest of my lenses. I've never had issues with the 17-40L or 70-200 f4 (both IS or non) and both lenses perform marvelously.

Walter, I thought about picking up another digital body. I sold my 5D in favor of analog gear, with the idea of purchasing the 5Dmk2 in the future, but decided against it. I prefer the look of Velvia and it requires very little PP once scanned. Beautiful film that is. (It's cool seeing you post both here an on FM!).

While many people have presented very good reasons to have both a Pentax or Hassy setup, I think I'm going to go with the Hasselblad. I find myself wanting to shoot both color and b/w interchangeably. Also, in my travels, I've noticed that many times I can use a slower film outdoors, but once in a museum or similar place, I need a faster film. The interchangeable backs would be very helpful in these situations.

As for the enlarger suggestion, this I plan on doing sometime soon as well! Not so much for color, but definitely for black and white prints. I'm still very new

Many of mentioned a LF camera. I'm also currently debating this. I would love the flexibility of a LF camera with a 120 roll film back (perhaps 6x12 or 6x17), but have to really evaluate if I want to jump into another medium at this point. I'm trying to walk, not run

Again, thanks for all of the suggestions. Another reason why I'm choosing the Hasselblad route is that in the future, if I need a repair or CLA, I'm sure there will be a handful of Hasselblad techs around.

Jason

jasonjoo · Apr 8, 2008

Neanderman said:
Hassleblad backs are two part: one part is the 'shell' the other is the 'insert.' The insert is the entire film carriage/advance mechanism. The shell is just that -- a case that shields the insert from light. For optimum performance, especially when enlarging, the insert and shell should match -- i.e., have the same serial number.

Ed

Thank you Ed, this was very helpful. I will keep this in mind when I begin my shopping process.

Jason

Venchka · Apr 8, 2008

It may be big. It may be loud. But. For half of your budget I put together a Pentax 6x7 with 45mm/4.0, 105mm/2.4 and 150mm/2.8 lenses. Oh yeah, notice the extra f-stop relative to Hasselblad. I reckon you could buy a whole spare 6x7 body & prism for the price of a Hassy back. Shoots 220 too when you need to pack a lot of film in a tight place. A set of extension tubes is cheap for close-up work. Folks talk about Hasselblad prices being down, but anything for a Hassy is more than just about any other camera system. Bronica ain't too shabby for a similar form factor to the Hasselblad.

walter23 · Apr 8, 2008

jasonjoo said:
Walter, I thought about picking up another digital body. I sold my 5D in favor of analog gear, with the idea of purchasing the 5Dmk2 in the future, but decided against it. I prefer the look of Velvia and it requires very little PP once scanned. Beautiful film that is. (It's cool seeing you post both here an on FM!).

Yeah, I totally agree. Slide film rules for landscapes, especially larger formats.

Many of mentioned a LF camera. I'm also currently debating this. I would love the flexibility of a LF camera with a 120 roll film back (perhaps 6x12 or 6x17), but have to really evaluate if I want to jump into another medium at this point. I'm trying to walk, not run

Hey, they're all just cameras. Fundamentally the same thing. No need to be a chicken

jasonjoo · Apr 8, 2008

Hi Venchka,

While I think my mind is set, if I were to go with the Pentax system, I would look into the 6x7 II and no less. Their lenses however are very cheap!

Others have mentioned this as well... but I do like the 6x6 form factor.

Jason

jasonjoo · Apr 8, 2008

walter23 said:
Hey, they're all just cameras. Fundamentally the same thing. No need to be a chicken

True, but that means I would have to invest in another set of darkroom tanks (if one can even use tanks for 4x5 film)! Color is just out of my reach for now. I'm using my bathroom as a makeshift darkroom.

I wish I had played with analog photography earlier. Polaroids type 55 film really seems like cool stuff

Jason

walter23 · Apr 8, 2008

jasonjoo said:
I wish I had played with analog photography earlier. Polaroids type 55 film really seems like cool stuff

Yeah, me too.

BTW 4x5 drums can be picked up pretty cheap. I use a Unicolor 8x10 print drum, a beseler 8x10 print drum, and a Unicolor motor base which I think ran me about $40 for the set. You can theoretically do 4 sheets at a time in 8x10 print drums (using about 180ml of chemistry), though I only do 2 at once to avoid the risk of sheets sliding and overlapping.

They have dividers to let you do 5" wide sheets (like 4x5 or 5x7).

Eric Rose · Apr 8, 2008

I use both 6x7 and 6x12 Horseman rollfilm backs on my 4x5. A great all around alternative and you get the advantage of using movements.

Go for it! Pick up a cheap 4x5 and have some fun.

jasonjoo · Apr 8, 2008

Yet another variable in the mix! Man, having a LF view camera would really shake things up! I'm really not sure what to do any more!

Jason

waynecrider · Apr 8, 2008

It really comes down to different strokes for different folks when it comes to MF. I've shot them all and then sold off out of the format except for a 645 that sits in a drawer and awaits the day. Better size tho that 645 and better hand holding especially at eyesight. The Pentax doesn't flip as easy for me.

You really should think about making a decision based on your normal subject matter. You also have to decide on metered or non-metered and that in and of itself determines handholding and working speed to a degree. Pop a finder on top a 500/501 (anything) Hassy and tell me how you like the hand holding /hand operating procedure.

If I was landscaping it I'd go 6x9 even if it was just a pinhole. The Fotoman 6x looks nice. For street probably a Rollei TLR/SLR. Whatever you do try and be different for God's sake.

Apparently your shooting a MF camera now what with the scanning mention. Hopefully your not comparing 35mm off a flatbed. Why not try an enlarger or at least some contact alt stuff? That's what this forum is about, film and darkroom work.

My final suggestion would be a $300 Graphic if you want detail and developing options. You work slower but you get more keepers I feel when comparing quantity. Contacts are nice and simple with some alt processes.

mexipike · Apr 8, 2008

Why don't you just get both of your rolleiflexes working perfectly and calibrated exactly the same? Then you have two of the exact same camera, which is like having one camera with two backs. And besides in my opinion rolleiflexes are some of the best mf cameras money can buy. Use the money left over to buy lots of film.

I'm done with 35mm... need a few MF alternatives!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency