Lightweight MF camera recommendations?

[dave olson]

I can only speak of the medium format cameras I own; One is the Fuji GF670, which allows you to shoot either 6x6 or 6x7. It folds up, bellows, a fixed lens most rave about, an incredible viewfinder, and costly. A second is my Mamiya 7II, it offers the ability to change lenses for wide, normal, and distant, very costly. The selection is no way near to a 35mm system. I always carry mine in a bag. The third is my Pentax 6x4.5, it is not compact rather a cube. It provides for interchangeable lenses. I also use a Rolleiflex TLR 6x6. Not a folder but. I have never held a Makina; its Nikon lens gets raves, but it is expensive, and repairability is questionable.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you want to use 35 mm with spool adapters (I missed that preference) I'd suggest a Baby Speed, Baby Crown (Graflok mount on these), or Century Graphic, with an RB67 ProS or ProSD 220 film back. This back will also feed 120, though it's mildly annoying to have to advance ten more frames when you reach the end instead of having the frame counter freewheel, but with the slightest modification to the first turn-around roller it does a bang-up job with 35 mm film. And it will mount to the 2x3 Graflok mount on a Century or Graflok Baby Speed or Baby Crown. And all of those are lighter, more compact cameras than the RB67, of course (I think I've owned a couple motorcycles that were lighter than my RB67). With a correctly calibrated Kalart rangefinder and a 65 mm Angulon you get wide angle (like a 35 on 35 mm) and ease of operation similar to a WWII vintage separate-window RF 35mm camera -- but 6x7 frame. You can also mount a 6x6 back if you want square (Graflex 22 are easy to find), and Mamiya even made a 6x4.5 back for the RB67 for a while (I have one).

Of course, with the Graflok mounted roll film backs, you can switch films or formats in under a minute (dark slide, unlatch the mount, install new back and latch in, pull dark slide).

 

[baachitraka]

===============folders=================

Voigtländer Bessa 66 (Heliar or Skopar) or Perkeo

Agfa Isolette III (Solinar) but you may need CLA and new bellows

Zeiss Ikon Ikonta (Tessar. Novar is good too)

===============TLR===================

Zeiss Ikonflex (very bright screen)

Rolleicord Va/Vb. Rolleicord V comes with dim screen but focus and wind knobs on right side)

=================RF==================

Fuji rangefinders

================plastic================

Holga, Holga Pinhole

Diana

 

[Paul Howell]

At the price, if OP is good judging distance or uses a rangefinder, the Kodak Tourist is folder, came in several levels, the top of the line with 4 element 101 with leaf shutter featuring top speed of 1/1800 of a second. Die cast aluminum body, pretty good coating for the lens. Downside is respooling 120 film onto 620 spools. With enough time to find a dozen spools to reload before leaving. At 6X9 with a decent 4 element lens, it should resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM.

 

[retina_restoration]

At the price, if OP is good judging distance or uses a rangefinder, the Kodak Tourist is folder, came in several levels, the top of the line with 4 element 101 with leaf shutter featuring top speed of 1/1800 of a second. Die cast aluminum body, pretty good coating for the lens. Downside is respooling 120 film onto 620 spools. With enough time to find a dozen spools to reload before leaving. At 6X9 with a decent 4 element lens, it should resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPM.

The fatal flaw of the Kodak Tourist is that the bellows are a plastic material that is almost certainly going to have lots of pinholes in it by now. I have not seen one that didn't have compromised bellows.

 

[Paul Howell]

Mine is still light tight, I use it a few times a year, carry it with one of my 4X5s. Still that's just mine, for trip I guess it would better to pass. I have no experience with the Seagull 645 folders, anyone use one? Might be hard to find.

 

[GregY]

If you want to use 35 mm with spool adapters (I missed that preference) I'd suggest a Baby Speed, Baby Crown (Graflok mount on these), or Century Graphic, with an RB67 ProS or ProSD 220 film back. This back will also feed 120, though it's mildly annoying to have to advance ten more frames when you reach the end instead of having the frame counter freewheel, but with the slightest modification to the first turn-around roller it does a bang-up job with 35 mm film. And it will mount to the 2x3 Graflok mount on a Century or Graflok Baby Speed or Baby Crown. And all of those are lighter, more compact cameras than the RB67, of course (I think I've owned a couple motorcycles that were lighter than my RB67). With a correctly calibrated Kalart rangefinder and a 65 mm Angulon you get wide angle (like a 35 on 35 mm) and ease of operation similar to a WWII vintage separate-window RF 35mm camera -- but 6x7 frame. You can also mount a 6x6 back if you want square (Graflex 22 are easy to find), and Mamiya even made a 6x4.5 back for the RB67 for a while (I have one).

Of course, with the Graflok mounted roll film backs, you can switch films or formats in under a minute (dark slide, unlatch the mount, install new back and latch in, pull dark slide).

Cool ideas Donald, but neither small nor light, considering the OP wants it to augment a 35mm camera for a trip to Europe.....

 

[abruzzi]

ok, this suggestion is a bit left field but I love my Horseman VH-R. Unfortunately their prices are climbing, but they're like a 6x9 or 6x7 folder but they don't fold, they're just very very minimal. They have a very good 63mm lens. It was designed to be interchangable, but they never made alternate lenses, so your stuck with 63mm unless you hack something up (I was working on a 3d printed lens board for a 105mm lens, but I have to make some changes to the design.)

The back ss interchangeable. They were designed to use standard small "6x9/2x3" graflock backs. Horseman made 6x9 and 6x7 backs, and I believe others made 6x6 backs as well that should fit. Because they are rigid, I doubt any of them have the alignment issues you see on some folders.

Here is the challenging part--they originally came with a pull out sports finder (the rear half fits into the cold shoe and the front half pulls out of the lens board.) The sports finder is sized for 6x7, not 6x9. You could always find a shoe mounted glass viewfinder if you prefer that to the sports finder. One for a 28mm lens on 135 should be pretty close. Second is that focusing is scale focusing. I haven't found this too much of a problem since 63mm on 6x9 is moderatly wide so has decent depth of field, I tend to stop down to ƒ11 or ƒ16 giving more DOF, then mosty I just use hyperfocal focusing.

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

I'm a folder fan so this will be a bit biased (unlike all the other responses here!) In 6x6 I have Voigtlanders, Agfas, Baldas, Frankas, Konicas, Zeiss-Ikons, etc. The real downside with these old folders is that very few (if any) have decent viewfinders; they are all tiny and usually have low contrast rangefinder patches. At one time I owned a Fuji GS645 which had a pretty nice finder (and a built-in meter which was nice) but I sold it as I didn't really get on with 6x4.5 format and the electronics are a bit of a time-bomb. Of all of my current 6x6 folders I prefer my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta IV which is much lighter than the previous Super Ikonta generations and has a reasonably decent viewfinder/rangefinder patch.

However if I had to decide on a travel 6x6 purely on photo quality I'd take one of my Rolleiflex or Rolleicord TLRs. Much more rugged than any folder, no bellows or alignment issues, great viewfinders (once you get a decent screen) and amazing photos from any of them. Plus they're great conversation starters when traveling.

 

[blee1996]

Lomo LC-A 120 meets most of your requirements. I use it on trips and like it. But it is not the most reliable camera.

 

[Maris]

My Lubitel 166 TLR on my lightest tripod comes to an all up weight of 2Kg, more if a film is loaded. A clean Lubitel TLR is a cheap and workable if limited camera with a surprisingly good lens. BUT I would never travel anywhere
with just the Lubitel. It was built way back in the Soviet command economy by people in a hurry who did not always check their work.

Mooring Posts and Birds, Noosa
Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford Classic VC FB photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 16.3cm,
from a Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Lubitel 166 TLR camera.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

A Pentax 67, late-generation (1991-1992) will be a good choice. Crop down to 6x6, or any other format from the full 6x7 frame. Trouble is finding one of these cameras that will be reliable going forward; they are not the best buy if you should land one from e.g. 1969 to 1975, having been thrashed, bashed, belted and bruised professionally in that era, then summarily dumped on eBay ready for unsuspecting buyers to pounce. No spares are available in the event of the need for repairs. Upside is damned good and plentiful supply of lenses, one of which is the SMC Pentax 67 75mm f2.8AL (asph.) lens, albeit at grossly over-inflated cost now (I bought mine 14 years ago for $900; now I see them going for $6,0000 to $7,000!! Ugh! Profit taking!); others still exist in the stable to whet the appetite. Alas, the more lenses, the heavier the kit becomes (ask me about that ...), so not actually a lightweight MF kit, but an exceptionally capable and versatile one, with sound effects thrown in for good measure!

Reliability is the key issue to consider, as with all MF cameras now. Shop carefully.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

My Lubitel 166 TLR on my lightest tripod comes to an all up weight of 2Kg, more if a film is loaded. A clean Lubitel TLR is a cheap and workable if limited camera with a surprisingly good lens. BUT I would never travel anywhere
with just the Lubitel. It was built way back in the Soviet command economy by people in a hurry who did not always check their work.

Mooring Posts and Birds, Noosa
Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford Classic VC FB photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 16.3cm,
from a Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Lubitel 166 TLR camera.

What are those birds doing??

 

[Maris]

What are those birds doing??

I'd estimate that, like seagulls everywhere, they are seeking advantage and opportunity. Hanging around the boat harbour and the river-side picnic ground is a good strategy.

 

[GregY]

A Pentax 67, late-generation (1991-1992) will be a good choice. Crop down to 6x6, or any other format from the full 6x7 frame. Trouble is finding one of these cameras that will be reliable going forward; they are not the best buy if you should land one from e.g. 1969 to 1975, having been thrashed, bashed, belted and bruised professionally in that era, then summarily dumped on eBay ready for unsuspecting buyers to pounce. No spares are available in the event of the need for repairs. Upside is damned good and plentiful supply of lenses, one of which is the SMC Pentax 67 75mm f2.8AL (asph.) lens, albeit at grossly over-inflated cost now (I bought mine 14 years ago for $900; now I see them going for $6,0000 to $7,000!! Ugh! Profit taking!); others still exist in the stable to whet the appetite. Alas, the more lenses, the heavier the kit becomes (ask me about that ...), so not actually a lightweight MF kit, but an exceptionally capable and versatile one, with sound effects thrown in for good measure!

Reliability is the key issue to consider, as with all MF cameras now. Shop carefully.

Taylor, I agree, the Pentax 67 is a great camera, but like the RB67 it is far from lightweight (roughly 2.25 kg w a lens). It might be a great choice for driving around sites in Iceland or the American SW. I used it for photographing rodeo & I thought the 45mm was spectacular.
At the same time it is big & bulky & not a camera i'd choose for hiking/climbing....or spending the day walking around any European city.

 

[mshchem]

If you want to use 35 mm with spool adapters (I missed that preference) I'd suggest a Baby Speed, Baby Crown (Graflok mount on these), or Century Graphic, with an RB67 ProS or ProSD 220 film back. This back will also feed 120, though it's mildly annoying to have to advance ten more frames when you reach the end instead of having the frame counter freewheel, but with the slightest modification to the first turn-around roller it does a bang-up job with 35 mm film. And it will mount to the 2x3 Graflok mount on a Century or Graflok Baby Speed or Baby Crown. And all of those are lighter, more compact cameras than the RB67, of course (I think I've owned a couple motorcycles that were lighter than my RB67). With a correctly calibrated Kalart rangefinder and a 65 mm Angulon you get wide angle (like a 35 on 35 mm) and ease of operation similar to a WWII vintage separate-window RF 35mm camera -- but 6x7 frame. You can also mount a 6x6 back if you want square (Graflex 22 are easy to find), and Mamiya even made a 6x4.5 back for the RB67 for a while (I have one).

Of course, with the Graflok mounted roll film backs, you can switch films or formats in under a minute (dark slide, unlatch the mount, install new back and latch in, pull dark slide).

This is a great suggestion. Easy to pack and carry too.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Taylor, I agree, the Pentax 67 is a great camera, but like the RB67 it is far from lightweight (roughly 2.25 kg w a lens). It might be a great choice for driving around sites in Iceland or the American SW. I used to use it for photographing rodeo & I thought the 45mm was spectacular.
At the same time it is big & bulky & not a camera i'd choose for hiking/climbing....or spending the day walking around any European city.

I'm seeing 3.5kg with my 67 and 45mm lens. Yes, well... still not lightweight...
I lugged the camera around Iceland for 3 weeks 6 years ago, but the main problems were not the weight, but keeping it dry and operative. One, the 67 is by no stretch water resistant much less waterproof. Two, at temperatures of 5°c to 3°c and below, the winding mechanism becomes retarded — harder and much slower, with a decayed return of the lever to home. It really requires greater care in order not to stress (or break!) the mechanism with force.

For bushwalking (day and overnight) I take my phone and my Olympus XA, snug in a waist-belt fitted lash. Won't be fine art standard, but it is still a long-living analogue record of my comings and goings. And there is gain without the pain!

 

[jgoody]

If you elect to go TLR, a Minolta Autocord is an excellent "Rollei Type" camera. In any case with a TLR pickup some Rolleinar close up lenses appropriate to your camera - they come in three sizes for different cameras, as well as three different powers. The beauty of the Rolleinars is that they have a cu lens for the viewing lens with a prism to give accurate framing and focus.

 

[mmerig]

Hello everyone! I'm thinking about taking a trip to Europe early next year and wanted to pick up a lightweight mechanical MF camera; ideally 6x7 (but anything 6x6 or up is fine), ideally letting me put in 35mm adapter spools, and ideally having a 35mm equivalent lens of 50 mm or wider (wider much preferred). I was thinking about picking up an old Soviet folder honestly as those are super duper cheap or some kind of TLR, but honestly this is uncharted territory for me and I don't actually know how much any of these weigh or any of the problems they might have. I already have an RB67 but I am not keen on lugging that thing around while on holiday

I imagine there are probably not many (any?) cameras that meet all of my preferences (I realise "lightweight" and "mechanical" are often mutually exclusive! so I would still be open to hearing about electronic cameras for example), but it would be nice to hear recommendations from all of your experiences and any tradeoffs and pitfalls to watch out for with any particular make of camera. The only absolutely necessary requirement is that it's relatively light/easy to travel with, and medium format. I'm already covered in the 35mm department. Thanks all for any advice!

As suggested earlier, a baby crown graphic could be a good choice. Here are some weights for comparison:

2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Grafamatic holder (6 shots, sheet film) 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg

2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Horseman 6 by 9 roll film back (8 shots) 3.125 lbs 1.42 kg

Voigtlander Bessa II 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg

Nikon F with Photomic T finder and 50 mm f1.4 lens 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg

Nikon F3 with 45-mm pancake lens 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg

Rollei 35S 0.78 lbs 0.35 kg

The Crown Graphics are relatively cheap. The roll film back adds some bulk, but the 120 film is cheaper than sheet film ($1.37 per shot of 2 by 3 roll versus $3 per shot 2 by 3 sheet). The roll film back gives a little bit bigger negative. The 65- to 100-mm lenses are all quite small. The 90 mm is slightly wide, and for 6 by 9, similar to a 40-mm lens on a 35-mm camera. An 80-mm may be ideal for you (equal to a 35-mm lens on a 35-mm camera). The 65-mm lens on 6 by 9 is close to a 28-mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

A downside to the graphic is that with wider lenses (< 75 mm) the sport finder cannot be extended and used at infinity, and small viewfinders for 65-mm or wider are harder to find. Usually, I use a Graflex finder on top of the camera for a 90-mm lens and imagine the rest beyond it. I don't use a rangefinder. The wider lenses need to be stopped down around f11 or so, anyway, so zone focusing is not that difficult. A homemade distance scale can be fastened to the standard's rail for wide lenses (the cameras usually have one for a 100-mm lens already).

I am pretty sure I get better resolution with the 2 by 3 than a 35 mm. I often take my baby graphic on mountain trips with lots of hiking/easy climbing. I switched to it from the Voigtlander because the Bessa viewfinder is so small and the lens and bellows blocks some of the view. It's much handier to carry though. I use an old army canteen holder on my belt.

More important than the weight, I think, is the ergonomics. The Crown Graphics take some getting used to. I wouldn't bother with the 35-mm adapter spools. Keep it simple.

 

[GregY]

As suggested earlier, a baby crown graphic could be a good choice. Here are some weights for comparison:

2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Grafamatic holder (6 shots, sheet film) 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg

2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Horseman 6 by 9 roll film back (8 shots) 3.125 lbs 1.42 kg

Voigtlander Bessa II 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg

Nikon F with Photomic T finder and 50 mm f1.4 lens 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg

Nikon F3 with 45-mm pancake lens 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg

Rollei 35S 0.78 lbs 0.35 kg

The Crown Graphics are relatively cheap. The roll film back adds some bulk, but the 120 film is cheaper than sheet film ($1.37 per shot of 2 by 3 roll versus $3 per shot 2 by 3 sheet). The roll film back gives a little bit bigger negative. The 65- to 100-mm lenses are all quite small. The 90 mm is slightly wide, and for 6 by 9, similar to a 40-mm lens on a 35-mm camera. An 80-mm may be ideal for you (equal to a 35-mm lens on a 35-mm camera). The 65-mm lens on 6 by 9 is close to a 28-mm lens on a 35 mm camera.

A downside to the graphic is that with wider lenses (< 75 mm) the sport finder cannot be extended and used at infinity, and small viewfinders for 65-mm or wider are harder to find. Usually, I use a Graflex finder on top of the camera for a 90-mm lens and imagine the rest beyond it. I don't use a rangefinder. The wider lenses need to be stopped down around f11 or so, anyway, so zone focusing is not that difficult. A homemade distance scale can be fastened to the standard's rail for wide lenses (the cameras usually have one for a 100-mm lens already).

I am pretty sure I get better resolution with the 2 by 3 than a 35 mm. I often take my baby graphic on mountain trips with lots of hiking/easy climbing. I switched to it from the Voigtlander because the Bessa viewfinder is so small and the lens and bellows blocks some of the view. It's much handier to carry though. I use an old army canteen holder on my belt.

More important than the weight, I think, is the ergonomics. The Crown Graphics take some getting used to. I wouldn't bother with the 35-mm adapter spools. Keep it simple.

Certainly not the most discreet rig to travel with.
Going through airports w sheetfilm wouldn't be my choice these days either....

 

[mshchem]

I love the Fuji Rangefinders, just weighed one, 6x8 GW680III, 1540 grams, not too bad. 9 shots per roll with plenty of real estate, dependable, no batteries etc. You'll need a meter, or a cell phone app.

 

[Besk]

While my medium format camera of choice these days is a miniature Crown Graphic for travel I would obtain a folder of some sort for use when enlargements are anticipated and use a small 35mm or digital camera for everything else.

Just make sure the folder is in good condition and you are familiar with it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

ey were designed to use standard small "6x9/2x3" graflock backs.

From what I've read, Mamiya RB67 backs will not fit the Horseman mount due to clearances.

 

[loccdor]

I had a quick look at the OP's post history to try to figure out the workflow - they appear to be using a basic flatbed scanner.

With this information, using a decent 6x9 folder with 35mm adapters will offer a resolution advantage over a 35mm film shot.

If they were using a ~4800 real dpi digitizing/enlarging method, this would not be the case and I would suggest 35mm instead.

You can figure out a method for film advance with the number of turns of the take-up spool and tape over the red window. Sacrifice an expired test film.

I like the Voigtlander 6x9s. They range from $80-$400 for the pre-war. The lenses are sharp enough for a flatbed when stopped down.

 

[OAPOli]

1. Whatever you end up getting, make sure to test it 4-5 times before going on the trip;

2. Using 35mm film in a MF camera is usually a bit a of a kludge involving scotch tape, backing paper scraps, a dark bag and dubious film flatness. To each his own but I would avoid that on a trip;

3. MF cameras from 6x4.5 to 6x9 with a fixed lens will usually have a 75-100mm lens, which is equivalent to 32-44mm;

4. Since you have a RB67 you would need to define "lightweight" For me it's <1kg and >1.5kg is heavy.

I would recommend a Minolta Autocord TLR (<1kg, automatic, discreet, 75mm lens, not too expensive).

I would avoid folders. Generally, they are inexpensive and lightweight but awkward to hold, lack automatic features and have small VFs.