Lightweight MF camera recommendations?

[illawarraflametree]

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!

 

[Prest_400]

I would be thinking Rangefinder, and if you have a high budget there are good options. Top of mind would be GF670/Bessa III, Plaubel Makina 67 or such option. However, if it must be mechanical it might be down to just the Plaubel Makina series?
My main Medium format has been a Fuji GW690, which also came as regeared and remasked in 6x7 and 6x8. The older interchangeable Fuji RFs were made in 6x7 and 6x9. They are large and comical given the enlarged 35mm factor, but light hovering 1.5kg and fully mechanical.
As of compact 6x6, you have many folder options, but reconsider "super duper cheap" as most of these are old and condition can vary. Honestly I am used to the more modern double gauss lenses that even the Tessar Types have some character and not as sharp wider open. I purchased a Super Ikonta IV to compliment my Fuji 6x9 during a trip. As of TLRs there are many nice options like Yashicamat, Autocord and Rolleicord, Rolleiflex.

You might want to read through this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ortable-camera-with-multi-coated-lens.215032/

 

[Nitroplait]

Last year I got a Super Ikonta IV for cheap (because speeds from 1/30 and below was unstable).
I didn’t have high expectations - experiences with Agfa folders years ago did not impress me.

However, the Super Ikonta turned out to be an amazing medium format travel camera.

No more bulky Rolleiflex when traveling.

 

[Rick A]

I bought a Fuji GW670iii earlier this year for a group tour we were going on, very handy since I couldn't take any of my field cameras, I packed several rolls of fast film since everything had to be hand held, no room for a tripod. We road trip quite a bit by car so I always have at least my 4x5 kit and depending where we are headed sometimes my 8x10 as well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In general, "lightweight" and "medium format" intersect only in folding cameras and plastic TLRs or box cameras.

That said, there are a lot of folders from the 1920s to 1950s that will produce excellent images. A Moskva 5 is on the heavier side of that class, but has a coupled rangefinder and a very good Tessar-type lens. Get one with the frame mask and you can choose at loading time between 6x9 and 6x6 (the 105 mm lens is a nice portrait length for 6x6).

Go a little older and simpler, and scale focus folders from the 1920s or 1930s can still do good work and weigh half as much as a Moskva 5.

 

[retina_restoration]

Most of the recommendations you're going to get are cameras that don't come remotely close to "light weight". The Fuji GW670iii weighs 3.25 pounds. The Zeiss Super Ikontas are excellent cameras, but they are quite heavy. The Voigtland Perkeo is very compact, has a great lens and is one of the most lightweight medium format cameras I have ever used.

 

[GregY]

Most of the recommendations you're going to get are cameras that don't come remotely close to "light weight". The Fuji GW670iii weighs 3.25 pounds. The Zeiss Super Ikontas are excellent cameras, but they are quite heavy. The Voigtland Perkeo is very compact, has a great lens and is one of the most lightweight medium format cameras I have ever used.

Yes. not to mention the Fuji GW series are a big bulky camera.
The Plaubel Makina is small but heavy & expensive & the wide version is hard to find.
A medium format that is small, light and can also loaded w 35mm is a pipedream.
The Perkeo comes closest to hitting the mark

 

[ChrisGalway]

Are you up for a Mamiya 7ii ... with the 65mm lens (or the std 80mm)? The downside is that it will probably cost more than the rest of your trip to Europe!!! The upside is that it is a fabulous travel camera. Weight around 1.28kg or 2lb13oz, so not light or compact, but it's a delight to use. (There is another downside, it has a 6v battery so you need to take a spare!)

Or perhaps a TLR, you can get a very nice Rolleicord with a Xenar or Tessar lens for a modest price, or splash out for a Rolleiflex with a Planar lens?

Enjoy your trip!

 

[pbromaghin]

I have travelled with several 6x6 Ikontas, a 6x4.5 Super Ikonta and a 6x9 Voigtlander Bessa 1. They all were light, easy to carry, and provided quality negatives, whether with Novar, Tessar, or Color Skopar lenses.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Inexpensive MF camera with fixed lens, focal length <= 50mm? Dream on.

 

[ntenny]

I travel all the time with folders, occasionally with a Rolleiflex, always in a carry-on backpack (with a bunch of other stuff). However, folders won’t take 35mm adapters (no exceptions that I know of, but maybe there are some surprises out there), and there are few fixed-lens cameras with wide-angles (there’s the Rolleiwide, but it’ll cost a pretty penny).

When I handled a GW670III in a shop, I felt like it was too big and bulky for me; it’s compact compared to a MF SLR, but I wouldn’t really call it a “lightweight” camera.

How critical is that wide lens for you?

-NT

 

[radialMelt]

I used to travel with a Plaubel Makina 670. A lot heavier than it looks but as technically a folder, packed up super small.

I now use a Mamiya 6 (the "new" one) which packs up nearly as small, is much lighter, and has a wide-normal option. Worth taking a look at.

 

[GregY]

I used to travel with a Plaubel Makina 670. A lot heavier than it looks but as technically a folder, packed up super small.

I now use a Mamiya 6 (the "new" one) which packs up nearly as small, is much lighter, and has a wide-normal option. Worth taking a look at.

The Mamiya 6 MF is a gem.... loved mine.
But the OP did say mechanical which neither the Mamiya 6 or 7 are. (sadly)

 

[Donald Qualls]

The original Mamiya Six folder is 100% mechanical. Some versions have automatic frame counting, some have self-cocking on film advance, and some offer choice of 6x6 or 6x4.5. They're lighter than a Moskva 5, but likely more expensive. The lens is very good (Rokkor branded Tessar type), but if it lacks a frame counter system it can be hard to see the frame numbers of some film brands through the yellow window (because the film is further in than most, due to focusing by moving the film plane instead of the front standard).

 

[GregY]

To the OP, folders are slower to operate. depending on your expectations & shooting style, a Rolleiflex/cord or the Fuji 645 wide might be a better choice

 

[radialMelt]

The Mamiya 6 MF is a gem.... loved mine.
But the OP did say mechanical which neither the Mamiya 6 or 7 are. (sadly)

Woops missed that detail. Thanks for the correction!

 

[flavio81]

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)

If you are considering 6x6 then you should consider 6x4.5, since a 6x6 image cropped to print sizes means using an effective 6x4.5 negative size, the Thinking Man's format!! Reject the Square!!

The fuji 645 folders are the closest to what you want.

Next in line is the rolleicord TLR (6x6), it is really small and light. Some models can be converted to 6x4.5.
The Mamiya C220 is much bigger and heavier, but I would still choose it as a travel camera, imo.

Next, the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. But prices are astronomical.

Besides that, in 6x7 you can fit a waist level finder on the Pentax 6x7, and a 90/2.8 SMC lens and it would perhaps be the lightest 6x7 setup you can get. Far lighter than the RB67.

I was thinking about picking up an old Soviet folder honestly as those are super duper cheap or some kind of TLR

IMO it does not make sense because the traditional folders struggle to create really high resolution shots on medium format film. At the end you'd be better using a 35mm camera.

 

[GregY]

Woops missed that detail. Thanks for the correction!

The Mamiya 6 mf is my choice! Brilliant camera.

 

[MattKing]

The desire to use 35mm adapter spools will exclude most folders - at least any one that uses a little (usually) red window at the back to track film frames.

 

[flavio81]

When I handled a GW670III in a shop, I felt like it was too big and bulky for me; it’s compact compared to a MF SLR, but I wouldn’t really call it a “lightweight” camera.

I once had a GW690 for a simple repair task. I was unimpressed with the build quality, I expected better.

But i was OK with the camera size.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless you pint square a 6X6 is the same as 6X4.5, on the lighter side a Mamiya or Pentax 6.45, not to expensive, the lens for the Mamiya are not as expensive as other systems in that it uses leaf shutters making the lens are a bit lighter. The Mamiya 6.5 is not mechanical, but the shutter is holding up rather well I have seen many posts about failed shutters. I would go with the 1000S model for the higher shutter speed and depth of feild preview feature. There is a fast 80mm 1.8 that would useful for low light.

An odd ball choice would be a Yashica D, The last model with the 4 element taking lens and 2.8 view lens. It is light, all mechincal, decent lens, and although not Rolli rugged build quaility is far. Downside is that the shutter is not self cocking and uses a knob to advacnce the film rahter than a crank like the 124G.

 

[GregY]

Unless you pint square a 6X6 is the same as 6X4.5, on the lighter side a Mamiya or Pentax 6.45, not to expensive, the lens for the Mamiya are not as expensive as other systems in that it uses leaf shutters making the lens are a bit lighter. The Mamiya 6.5 is not mechanical, but the shutter is holding up rather well I have seen many posts about failed shutters. I would go with the 1000S model for the higher shutter speed and depth of feild preview feature. There is a fast 80mm 1.8 that would useful for low light.

An odd ball choice would be a Yashica D, The last model with the 4 element taking lens and 2.8 view lens. It is light, all mechincal, decent lens, and although not Rolli rugged build quaility is far. Downside is that the shutter is not self cocking and uses a knob to advacnce the film rahter than a crank like the 124G.

The downside of the Mamiya & Pentax 645 is they're not that small. It seems the OP is also carrying 35mm. So i guess it depends on how/where you're travelling.
A couple of years ago I had the use of a P645 when i visited the Chamonix Valley. I needed some long lens stretch so the Rolleiflex wouldn't do. The P645 w 3 lenses was a hefty Pelican case load. Thankfully for me a colleague couriered it to my hotel and when i travelled on i couriered it back. Great results and terrific lenses....but not exactly svelte.
I have a system like that in Canada now, but wouldn't take it on a Euro trip....
If i could get away w one lens as the OP suggests w/ a preference for wide, I'd go with the Fuji 645 wide.

 

[xya]

As said above, lightweight means folder. Have a look at my website for comparison https://www.120folder.com/compa.htm

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblads are not heavy until one starts using a prism. The same can be said for Bronicas.

 

[loccdor]

A typical old 6x9 folder has a resolution pretty darn close to a 35mm camera, especially if the 35mm camera is using a very contemporary lens. Like a Tamron or Sigma made in the last 10 years in Canon EF mount for example. As long as you're not losing resolution by flatbed scanning it. Have you considered that maybe you just need to use a slower, more fine grained film in 35mm?