Landscapes with medium format

[baachitraka]

Rolleicord: 6x6

 

[baachitraka]

What matters is spending a lot of time, wearing good shoes ;-)

I wish I could have shot them with triotar but on that xenar was in play...

 

[Ariston]

Plus 1 on the Hasselblad and 50mm. I use mine with any of the focal length lenses. For me it depends on the distance from the subject and the square format gives you the ability to crop vertical or horizontal not having to rotate the camera for the original shot.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

Jeffrey, I just perused through your albums and you have some truly stunning work. Well done!

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you have an RB already you can always do multiple shots and use a stitching program to make a full size panoramic. As long as you keep the camera level on all points during the sweep and verify the nodal point you can make huge images. I just did a recent take that was 13,000 pixels on the long side. I have done slightly bigger too but the PC starts to gag on such megapixel sizes.
View attachment 233473

OR use the Hasselblad SWC OR the Hasselblad with the 30mm Fisheye lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have never found the Hasselblad limiting for cityscape or landscape. Besides Hasselblad has always advertised "Square is the perfect format." So why would one ever think that the square format is anything less than perfect?

 

[Luckless]

I have never found the Hasselblad limiting for cityscape or landscape. Besides Hasselblad has always advertised "Square is the perfect format." So why would one ever think that the square format is anything less than perfect?

Because some people know better than to take the word of a marketing department trying to sell them a product line with limited options as an unquestionable truth? ...

...

...

Yeah, I totally do about 95% of my work in square format now, but that doesn't make other formats any less valid, just less used.

 

[Ian Grant]

Some years ago, over 30, I was in a similar position where I wanted something more than my Mamiya 645;s or 35mm slrs for shooting landscapes, now I'd been shooting LF at work for a decade the camera wasn't particularly portable as it was large and heavy.

I weighed up shifting to an RB67, then realised why I wasn't happy with my 645 cameras. I was often running out of DOF and having plenty of experience knew I needed movements, front tilt was enough. I also looked at the weight and portability of the RB67 and realised something like a 5x4 Wista 45DX could be the answer. I went in that direction and haven't regretted it.

Like the OP I hankered for a wider more Panoramic camera and settled on a Gaoersi, but that was after 20 years of occasional frustration, a 617 back was no good as wanted to use a WA lens, I opted for a 90mm and 75mm, never using the 90mm and absolutely loving the 75mm with the 617 format, it's a standard lens in the vertical, an extra wide horizontal (unless I flip it 90º).

There's valid points about Square format as well. I used to carry a Leica M3 alongside my LF kit, but just wasn't using the images, then I bought a Yashicamat 124 on this forum around 2007, I'd used TLRs before an Mamiya C33 & C3 until they were stolen but always cropped the images, now I found the square format. So these days I carry the Wista 45DX (or another 5x4 camera) and a TLR, here in the UK a Rolleiflex, and when in Turkey/Greece my Yashicamat 124 which I leave there..

It's important to realise yoou see different depending on the format, I really prefer to shoot full frame, I'd know where I'd crop at the taking stage and it's very intuitive.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because some people know better than to take the word of a marketing department trying to sell them a product line with limited options as an unquestionable truth? ...

...

...

Yeah, I totally do about 95% of my work in square format now, but that doesn't make other formats any less valid, just less used.

I agree the other formats are not less valid and I sometimes use them, but in the end we all really know that square is better.

 

[voceumana]

All of the 6x7 SLRs are heavy enough that the sharpest photos are going to be done on a tripod with the mirror locked up. If "square" isn't your preference--and it really is a preference--the Bronica GS-1 offers 6x7 in the lightest weight of the 6x7 SLRs. Still, it belongs on a tripod with MLU for the sharpest photos.

If you want a hand held camera and don't want to use 35mm, then the Fuji GW690's and GSW690's are good options. The Plaubel Makina 6x7s are an option, but they tend to be expensive. None of these have interchangeable lenses. Of course there is the Mamiya 7, but, again, then tend to be expensive.

Most 4x5 field cameras are around the same weight as the Mamiya RB67, so it really is an option to consider.

It really comes down to what works well for you--for me, the critical issues are the ability to focus easily (I have some eyesight limitations) and moderate weight/ease of handling. My 35mm RF (Bessa R2) is the easiest to handle and focus for hand held shots, and my Nikon FM2N comes in a close second. None of my MF cameras handle as easily for me.

 

[GLS]

6x7 projectors are rare and incredibly expensive. Good deals can be found on 6x6.

Not the Hasselblad option, I assume? The price for that has always seemed very high.

 

[logan2z]

All of the 6x7 SLRs are heavy enough that the sharpest photos are going to be done on a tripod with the mirror locked up. If "square" isn't your preference--and it really is a preference--the Bronica GS-1 offers 6x7 in the lightest weight of the 6x7 SLRs. Still, it belongs on a tripod with MLU for the sharpest photos.

If you want a hand held camera and don't want to use 35mm, then the Fuji GW690's and GSW690's are good options. The Plaubel Makina 6x7s are an option, but they tend to be expensive. None of these have interchangeable lenses. Of course there is the Mamiya 7, but, again, then tend to be expensive.

Most 4x5 field cameras are around the same weight as the Mamiya RB67, so it really is an option to consider.

It really comes down to what works well for you--for me, the critical issues are the ability to focus easily (I have some eyesight limitations) and moderate weight/ease of handling. My 35mm RF (Bessa R2) is the easiest to handle and focus for hand held shots, and my Nikon FM2N comes in a close second. None of my MF cameras handle as easily for me.

I enjoy shooting handheld and will sometimes shoot landscapes with my 35mm Leica. I don't print that large (8"x10" mostly) so the results are usually pretty good. But I do plan to start shooting landscapes with a MF camera and will likely go Hasselblad. I'm intrigued by the 6x6 format and some of my favorite photographers used it. The Fujis are another appealing option since I'm used to a RF and don't always want to have to carry a tripod with me. I will probably end up with both eventually

 

[wyofilm]

I agree the other formats are not less valid and I sometimes use them, but in the end we all really know that square is better.

Or ... the 80's song 'Hip to be square'

 

[k.hendrik]

any camera and/or film can be used for 'landscape' photography;
this is with RZ67 50mm and 16mm film.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/27185894158/in/dateposted-public/

 

[markbau]

I think a lot of this thread has put the cart before the horse. Some images work better square, many more benefit from a rectangle. Although I shoot 67 I have no qualms about printing square when the image needs to be square but I do find that the vast majority of my work prints better as a rectangle. You can print any neg square so there is no need to lock yourself into a camera that only takes a square image.

 

[BrianShaw]

... and you can print any square negative rectangular.

 

[craigclu]

I now use a Mamiya 7. Easy carry in the field and a moderate CF tripod gives all the stability one needs as the rangefinder style camera is so much easier to control. The glass is about as good as it gets, too. My SLR gear doesn't get much field exercise any more after switching.

 

[k.hendrik]

Orrr; shoot 2 6x6 next to eachother ! a 6x12cm landscape.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77846450@N00/21382125402/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Luckless]

I think a lot of this thread has put the cart before the horse. Some images work better square, many more benefit from a rectangle. Although I shoot 67 I have no qualms about printing square when the image needs to be square but I do find that the vast majority of my work prints better as a rectangle. You can print any neg square so there is no need to lock yourself into a camera that only takes a square image.

And with a square negative, there is no need to lock it into producing a square print...

I crop 2x3 captures to square, or 4x5s, and I crop square negatives to 4x5s, 2x3s, 1x2s, and even more. Depending on what the image I want to produce needs and what camera I had on hand at the time to capture it. [I prefer to not have to crop any more than minor final adjustment, but I don't have a butler following me around in life with a dozen cameras to ensure I always have the one I need close to hand.]

I have been considering picking up a 6x9 or wider format camera at some point specifically to do vertical landscapes.


There is no 'perfect' format, and no single style is always and completely superior to all others. [No matter how often some of us will comment about the greatness of a perfect square...]

 

[rayonline_nz]

I have used 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm medium format cameras. I prefer the 6x6 for general subjects, the 6x7 for portraits, and the 6x9 for landscapes.

Where are you that has warming weather at this time of year?

New Zealand Still not quite summer yet, we still get the odd storm until January. Often Christmas and New Years is raining.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Medium format slides are sooooo beautiful! What do you do with your slides? Project? Scan? Print?
Projection is probably the most limiting factor. 6x7 projectors are rare and incredibly expensive. Good deals can be found on 6x6. (That's one reason why I stick to 6x6... the other is that I love the square format, really "feel at home" with it)

I only have a good scanner with 35mm. 35mm I also have a projector. Sadly medium format, no projector and I just scan with a flatbed and print.

Both of the cameras you have use a ground ground glass viewfinder system. Are you using a waist level finder for both? Have you tried a prism with the Hasselblad to get a more traditional look-through, eye level type of viewing without reversal? I imagine such a prism for the RB67 would be very heavy.

Maybe you are more comfortable with a rangefinder-type viewfinder? Fuji GW690 or GSW690 might be worth a look.

There isn't any 'best' camera in an absolute sense. What works for some people won't work for others. Always difficult to know when I am looking at new gear how much there is a real problem with the equipment I have and how much I am just distracting myself from lack of focus in actually photographing.

I have the prism with the RB67, because it was cheap. I don't use it often though, it's so heavy. The Hasselblad, I only use the WLF.

 

[GLS]

I think a lot of this thread has put the cart before the horse. Some images work better square, many more benefit from a rectangle. Although I shoot 67 I have no qualms about printing square when the image needs to be square but I do find that the vast majority of my work prints better as a rectangle. You can print any neg square so there is no need to lock yourself into a camera that only takes a square image.

I almost always compose for the specific format I am shooting.

 

[etn]

Not the Hasselblad option, I assume? The price for that has always seemed very high.

Indeed, not the Hassy PCP80. But other brands are quite affordable. I bought mine (Liesegang Fantax) for 120 euros with a good lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I almost always compose for the specific format I am shooting.

+1, Read and play this ====> https://genius.com/Stephen-stills-love-the-one-youre-with-lyrics

 

[Ian Grant]

As I said in my earlier post in the thread I really wanted a MF camera with front tilt but went to LF instead.

Two years ago I made a small light MF camera with front tilt, It's quite practical in use as I have 2 Grafex RH10 roll film backs.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

As I said in my earlier post in the thread I really wanted a MF camera with front tilt but went to LF instead.

Two years ago I made a small light MF camera with front tilt, It's quite practical in use as I have 2 Grafex RH10 roll film backs.

View attachment 233576

Ian

While I could afford to buy the Hasselblad FlexBody or ArcBody with the lenses for medium format movements, I decided that if I am going to use movements I would do it using large format cameras. That removes the restrictions of those two cameras movements and provide a larger negative.