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

[Greg_E]

You definitely want to look at what your subject matter is. And if you need really fast film, and want to scan it, the larger the better to reduce the effects of grain in the scans. In a museum carrying many 4x5 film holders is probably not such a difficult thing. Out on the trails a 6xXX roll film back might be a good option.

I would probably find a decent 4x5 camera kit and build the camera, then find the backs and a roll film adapter. And if you ever find you have unlimited money, the large pixel count digital backs and digital viewcamera lenses are always an option. Considering that the cheapest 39mp back costs more than my house, it's going to be a while for me. But you could still get those nice BIG films that will scan well on lesser expensive scanners (like a prosumer flatbed). You could also contact print the 4x5, etc.

 

[jasonjoo]

Hi Wayne,

I normally shoot landscapes, street shots, and candid portraits. I plan on using a WLF with the Hassy setup. I also plan on purchasing an enlarger to make some prints, but am still in the process of finding an enlarger local to me. 35mm definitely has its place. I will always have my trusty Canon A-1 if I need a 35mm camera, but for now, I'd like a more flexible MF setup.

Mexipike, please don't get me wrong. I LOVE my Rolleiflex. I plan on getting the other CLA'd, but just haven't gotten around to it yet. The Hassy or whatever route I go will not replace the Rolleiflex. It would compliment it. Being able to change film is one thing, but I would also like to be able to change focal length.

Greg, I come from the digital world. I sold my digital gear to pursue analog photography. It is a lot more fun! Its very rewarding to develop a roll of film and admire a physical negative . I'm not planning on returning to digital SLR's for a very long time.

Jason

 

[Soeren]

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.

While it is true that there is some shutter induced vibration I find it to be an overrated problem. I made an unscientific test using a Laserpointer and a mirror and found the shutterinduced vibration to be a fraction of the mirrorinduced. I did the "test" with two Mannfrotto tripods, a 055 and a 058 the latter putting 6 kg on the weight. It made no difference which where used. What I found to be of importance is the interface between the camera and the tripod. My mannfrotto 141 which normally perform very well is flexing just a tiny little bit not enough to see or feel but using blunt force reweals the problem. When mounting a Ballhead the problem was minimized to a degree where I would call it nonexcistant. You can mount your camera on a concretepost but if your tripod head is not up to the task it doesn't matter. whether the tripod is 2 or 6kg is a minor issue. Oh btw on the 055 cut the centerpost and loose the little plastic dinkie
Kind regards

 

[weasel]

As above. Get the Rolleis working, buy and shoot a crap load of film. Use the 35 for when you need long/short/macro lenses.
No solution that anyone here has mentioned will outperform the rollei to any great degree, within the limitations of one lens, one back.
Save your money for film, chemicals, paper,enlargers and such.

 

[Greg_E]

Greg, I come from the digital world. I sold my digital gear to pursue analog photography. It is a lot more fun! Its very rewarding to develop a roll of film and admire a physical negative . I'm not planning on returning to digital SLR's for a very long time.

Jason

I do agree there, at least until you get into the $30,000+ range, and I'm so far from there I need a bigger map to show me where to go.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Do you like square prints? If not then why the square camera? It's an advantage with quick shooting since you don't need to rotate the camera. You just crop after wards. But for landscape use you might be better of with something else.

Why the rush to spend the whole budget? Get a body,film back and normal lens. Use the camera for a few months. Decide if you like it or not.

 

[max_ebb]

While it is true that there is some shutter induced vibration I find it to be an overrated problem. I made an unscientific test using a Laserpointer and a mirror and found the shutterinduced vibration to be a fraction of the mirrorinduced.

I found the shutter vibration to be significantly worse than vibration from mirror slap (especially with the 67II, which had better mirror damping than the older P67), both in unscientific testing, AND in actual use. The unscientific test I did was simply to hold my hand flat, with the palm up, and then set the camera in my hand without gripping it. Then I tripped the mirror up to see how much vibration I could feel, then fired the shutter. I could barely feel the vibration from the mirror, but the shutter kicked like a mule. I did this with both a P67 and a 67II. Both had significant shutter induced vibration.

I also experienced shutter vibration problems in actual use, and using MLU didn't make that much difference. The problem I had was when shooting 1:1 (or more) macro at slow shutter speeds. Even with a solid tripod and head, I had to hang a lot of weight on the camera to get the sharpness I wanted.

Do you like square prints? If not then why the square camera?

That's exactly the way I felt about shooting square format. If I'm going to print from a 645 image, I might as well shoot a smaller 645 camera and get more shots per roll. Plus, a 6x7 image allows for quite a bit of cropping and still have a decent size image to print from.

 

[JRJacobs]

Shuter vibration from the P67 cameras is way overrated. I have both the 67 and the 67II and have never experienced problems from the shutter vibration . Then again, I don't handhold lower than 1/60th and when doing MACRO or TELEPHOTO work or long exposures, I use a proper medium format tripod.

I can balance a penny on the ground glass screen on either of my Pentax's and release the shutter and the penny does not fall over. The dampening is quite good.

Just use a better tripod, macro work always requires using an overkill tripod with just about any camera - I have also found that carbon fiber tripods are not suitable, as they are too lightweight and transmit vibration. But even a simple Tiltall is plenty good enough for the P67.

I found the shutter vibration to be significantly worse than vibration from mirror slap (especially with the 67II, which had better mirror damping than the older P67), both in unscientific testing, AND in actual use. The unscientific test I did was simply to hold my hand flat, with the palm up, and then set the camera in my hand without gripping it. Then I tripped the mirror up to see how much vibration I could feel, then fired the shutter. I could barely feel the vibration from the mirror, but the shutter kicked like a mule. I did this with both a P67 and a 67II. Both had significant shutter induced vibration.

I also experienced shutter vibration problems in actual use, and using MLU didn't make that much difference. The problem I had was when shooting 1:1 (or more) macro at slow shutter speeds. Even with a solid tripod and head, I had to hang a lot of weight on the camera to get the sharpness I wanted.

 

[jasonjoo]

I can see why people keep suggesting to fix up my second Rolleiflex and be done with it. It is a great camera, but I feel like I need more flexibility (focal length included!).

Anyways, I'll sell off my 35mm gear first and see how things play out from there.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[max_ebb]

Shuter vibration from the P67 cameras is way overrated. I have both the 67 and the 67II and have never experienced problems from the shutter vibration. Then again, I don't handhold lower than 1/60th and when doing MACRO or TELEPHOTO work or long exposures, I use a proper medium format tripod.

For your information, I DO use a "proper medium format tripod" for macro work. Whether the shutter vibration is "overrated" or not is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is not absolute indisputable fact, no matter how much you thump your chest and act like you know more about it than anybody else. Just because you haven't experienced problems from the shutter vibration (that you know of), doesn't mean that there is not a significant amount of shutter vibration.

I can balance a penny on the ground glass screen on either of my Pentax's and release the shutter and the penny does not fall over. The dampening is quite good.

Just because the penny doesn't fall over, doesn't mean that there is not enough vibration to adversely affect an image on the film. The damping is "quite good" compared to what? The vibration from a 6x7 focal plane shutter is about 10,000 times worse than vibration from a leaf shutter.

Just use a better tripod, macro work always requires using an overkill tripod with just about any camera - I have also found that carbon fiber tripods are not suitable, as they are too lightweight and transmit vibration. But even a simple Tiltall is plenty good enough for the P67.

There's nothing wrong with the tripod I use. You don't need such an "overkill tripod" with leaf shutter lenses. I do primarily studio/macro photography, so I sold off all my P67 gear and switched to RZ gear. IMO, an RZ is far better suited for studio work, especially macro work than a P67.

 

[max_ebb]

I can balance a penny on the ground glass screen on either of my Pentax's and release the shutter and the penny does not fall over. The dampening is quite good.

Does the penny fall over from the mirror going up? If not, then it's a moot point that is completely tangential to my original comment. My original point was that the vibration from the shutter is worse than the vibration from the mirror slap (IMO based on my personal experience).

 

[JRJacobs]

For your information, I DO use a "proper medium format tripod" for macro work. Whether the shutter vibration is "overrated" or not is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is not absolute indisputable fact, no matter how much you thump your chest and act like you know more about it than anybody else. Just because you haven't experienced problems from the shutter vibration (that you know of), doesn't mean that there is not a significant amount of shutter vibration.


Just because the penny doesn't fall over, doesn't mean that there is not enough vibration to adversely affect an image on the film. The damping is "quite good" compared to what? The vibration from a 6x7 focal plane shutter is about 10,000 times worse than vibration from a leaf shutter.

Please calm down and lets keep it friendly, OK? Life is good.

 

[max_ebb]

Please calm down and lets keep it friendly, OK?

You should have 'kept it friendly' instead of making a post that was so belittling and condescending. I never said that the vibration couldn't be controlled with a heavy/sturdy enough tripod and enough weight hanging on the camera. My point was that a 6x7 focal plane shutter causes a significant amount of vibration, and it does. It is a fact. If you feel that the significance of the vibration is overrated, that is your opinion, but you stated it as if it was absolute indisputable fact, and basically implied that I was full of shit to even suggest that a P67 has shutter vibration issues.

The reason I had to hang a lot of weight on the camera was because I had the tripod setting on carpet with pad under it. No matter how good the tripod is, if it's on carpet and pad, it needs weight to compress the padding enough to be stable. With a leaf shutter though, it isn't an issue.

 

[JRJacobs]

Max -

Looking at your prior post history, I see this is a pattern for you to attack anyone who disagrees with you, and to slam anything other than Mamiya.

Please, let's keep it civil and keep out the profanity, OK?

 

[Thanasis]

So go with a Hasselblad

Did it

and use a tripod

Did it

and lock up the mirror.

Did it

And my photographs have improved out of sight.

 

[weasel]

It is a no brainer that a leaf shutter is going to move less than a focal plane shutter, but in practice it probably is not so cut and dry.
Different cameras have differing amounts of dampening of the mirrors, and I would venture a guess that a lot of the older stuff a a number of us shoot makes mechanical wear a very unpredictable variable. There is probably a lot of variation among different examples of the same camera.
As to focal plane shutters, you have to consider when the vibration occurs. If it thumps like a mule when the second curtain closes, it matters not to the picture, but feels like it should.
All you can reasonably do is test your own set up- tripod, camera, film, the whole shooting match.

 

[dpurdy]

Did it

Did it

Did it

And my photographs have improved out of sight.

I am glad somebody is happy. though I thought the last line was going to say "And my pictures were blurry!!"

Dennis

 

[Thanasis]

I am glad somebody is happy. though I thought the last line was going to say "And my pictures were blurry!!"

Dennis

I love the 'blad. I'm even getting better at using it without a tripod. It's not exactly my favourite street-shooter but with good light and film with ISO 400 or greater, excellent street photographs can be made.

 

[Soeren]

I found the shutter vibration to be significantly worse than vibration from mirror slap (especially with the 67II, which had better mirror damping than the older P67), both in unscientific testing, AND in actual use. The unscientific test I did was simply to hold my hand flat, with the palm up, and then set the camera in my hand without gripping it. Then I tripped the mirror up to see how much vibration I could feel, then fired the shutter. I could barely feel the vibration from the mirror, but the shutter kicked like a mule. I did this with both a P67 and a 67II. Both had significant shutter induced vibration.

I also experienced shutter vibration problems in actual use, and using MLU didn't make that much difference. The problem I had was when shooting 1:1 (or more) macro at slow shutter speeds. Even with a solid tripod and head, I had to hang a lot of weight on the camera to get the sharpness I wanted.



That's exactly the way I felt about shooting square format. If I'm going to print from a 645 image, I might as well shoot a smaller 645 camera and get more shots per roll. Plus, a 6x7 image allows for quite a bit of cropping and still have a decent size image to print from.

You are not in any case confusing the downmovement of the mirror with the shutter?? I may sound a bit offending but is in no way meant so. The mirror going down really kicks.
Kind regards

 

[max_ebb]

Max -

Looking at your prior post history, I see this is a pattern for you to attack anyone who disagrees with you, and to slam anything other than Mamiya.

Please, let's keep it civil and keep out the profanity, OK?

Do you make a habit of making up ridiculous lies about people? You're saying that I "slam anything other than Mamiya"? For the first several months that I was registered on this forum, I was shooting a P67, and then a 67II, so you are obviously way off on that one. I was NOT "slamming" the P67, I was simply relating my personal experience. I have never "slammed" any brand of camera. I've had enough of your condescending know it all snotty attitude. Go find someone to harass and make up lies about, and leave me alone.

You are not in any case confusing the downmovement of the mirror with the shutter?? I may sound a bit offending but is in no way meant so. The mirror going down really kicks.
Kind regards

No, I am talking about the kick when the shutter opens, not after it's closed. Obviously, any vibration after the shutter closes is not going to cause softness of the image. When I did the test holding the camera body in my hand, I used a long shutter speed so I could feel the kick when the shutter opened. I don't think your post sounded the least bit offending. You simply suggested a possibility, and were very polite about it. It's too bad that everyone can't be that civil, and that some people have to be so snotty when they disagree. I was simply relating my own personal experience. Disagreeing with someone's opinion is one thing, but when someone tells me I am wrong when I am only relating a personal experience, they're basically saying that I'm either lying, or full of crap.

 

[JRJacobs]

Max -

You are imagining things.
I never said you were lying, "full of crap", nor was I uncivil - please get a grip and learn to be civil yourself.

Incidentally, I notice a year ago you had quite a different opinion of the Pentax and vibration when you posted this:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

maxx Ebb: "As far as shutter vibration goes, I have never had any problems with it (Pentax 67). I use a heavy duty tripod, and always use MLU for slow shutter speeds (and/or when using macro tubes). I don't have any lenses longer than 165, but I do a lot of macro work (using all three tubes together giving magnification higher than 1:1) where camera stability is just as much of an issue as it is with long lenses.

I also used an RB for a about a year and a half. IMO, pentax lenses are sharper than mamiya lenses, and they're also substantially faster than comparitively priced mamiya lenses. Everybody's requirements are different. I have no need for multiple or revolving film backs. For me, P67 beats RB67 hands down"


Now you are shooting with Mamiya and all of the sudden Pentax 67 is gives you unsuitable shutter vibration when shooting Macro???

 

[panastasia]

For what it's worth,
Quite some time ago when I was thinking of MF and buying a Hassy, a person who owned the largest camera collection in the world, named Jack Naylor (was once the CEO of the company I now work for - he recently passed away), told me not to be foolish and buy a 6x6 Bronica instead - same thing in his opinion (He didn't have a Hassy in his collection). This clearly implied that he thought the Hassy wasn't worth the cash for a 6x6 (6x4.5 for rectangular prints). I took his advice, somewhat, and bought the 6x7(6x8) RB instead. No regrets - never a problem with performance, and the KL lenses are top of the line, equal to Zeiss glass from what I hear from many who use both.

My next jump in format size will be 5x7, or 8x10, if If I decide to go that (sheet film) route. For now I shoot 2x3 sheet film with the RB.

 

[Soeren]

Max
I must say Im really puzzled about your statement.
In my little trial I mounted a laserpointer on the lens and pointed it at a Mirror 10m away producing a dot on the wall right next to me. To me in this case the shutterinduced movement where much less than the mirrorinduced movement. Now at this moment I place my camera a P6X7 on the palm of my hand the way you descripe. Tripping the shutter with a caple release I still get the same result, mirrorinduced vibration is worse. Even using the little "trip mirror up with shutter release" trick gives me the same feeling.
So lets agree to disagree on the P67 issue and agree on recommending a Zenza Bronica SQAi

 

[max_ebb]

Incidentally, I notice a year ago you had quite a different opinion of the Pentax and vibration when you posted this:

Have you never had circumstances or seen evidence that caused you to change your opinion about something? Although I was doing quite a bit of macro work at the time I posted that, most of it at the time was significantly less than 1:1. Also, I wasn't setting my tripod on padded carpet at the time. When I started using a room with carpet and pad, that's when I had to start hanging weight on the camera to keep it stable. The biggest factor though, is at that time, I hadn't printed the negs larger than 8x10 yet. When I printed 20x24, I started seeing some softness due to shutter vibration that I didn't know was there.

Now you are shooting with Mamiya and all of the sudden Pentax 67 is gives you unsuitable shutter vibration when shooting Macro???

I switched back to a leaf shutter system BECAUSE OF the shutter induced vibration. I think I already made that perfectly clear. Nowhere did I use the word "unsuitable". Once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I said that I felt that an RB or RZ is "better suited" for studio use, but I clearly said that was IMO (in my opinion). I did NOT present the opinion as if it were absolute indisputable fact (like you have presented your opinions). I believe you could easily find a lot of people who would agree that an RB or RZ is better suited for studio work than a P67. Also, having a rotating back and changeable backs started looking more advantageous than I originally thought. I very much liked the P67 for landscape work.

Now, PLEASE find someone else to harass.

 

[max_ebb]

Max
I must say Im really puzzled about your statement.
In my little trial I mounted a laserpointer on the lens and pointed it at a Mirror 10m away producing a dot on the wall right next to me. To me in this case the shutterinduced movement where much less than the mirrorinduced movement.

But you did see some shutter induced movement? How solid was the tripod you were using? Was the tripod on carpet/pad? Did you try hanging weight on it and see if it helped?

Now at this moment I place my camera a P6X7 on the palm of my hand the way you descripe. Tripping the shutter with a caple release I still get the same result, mirrorinduced vibration is worse. Even using the little "trip mirror up with shutter release" trick gives me the same feeling.
So lets agree to disagree on the P67 issue and agree on recommending a Zenza Bronica SQAi

When I did the experiment with the camera body placed on my palm, it was with my 67II body. I never tried it with the older 6x7 body. From what I can remember, I believe that the 67II had better mirror damping than the 6x7/67 did. Unfortunately (in my experience), even though there was less mirror vibration with the 67II, it had just as much shutter vibration as the 6x7/67.