Looking for recommendations for my next camera

[etn]

Folders do not offer interchangeable lenses.
SLRs are smaller that TLRs.
TLRs do not stop down to see the depth of field.

Sirius, no personal offense meant, I am a Hasselblad fanboy as much as you are - but I have to disagree with that 2nd statement here.

A Hasselblad 500 (which is probably among the smallest MF SLR out there) with a 80mm C lens and a back without slide holder will indeed be pretty much in the same ball park as a TLR in terms of volume, but still somewhat larger. Any other Hassy lens is larger than the 80mm. Besides, the SLR has a more "horizontal" layout whereas the TLR is more "vertical".

The SLR vs TLR debate is actually pointless, let's not get into that. Two different philosophies for different purposes. The answer is obviously to have both (and a Leica, and a Nikon F, and a MF rangefinder, and and and )

 

[Laurent]

I was going to bump this thread myself and glad it got bumped for me.

I took the last week to zero in a little more on what I'm looking for, and I really do want to try a medium format camera, particularly a 6x6. I like the idea of big square negatives and prints, even though I know that printing a 6x6 will either waste paper or lead to cropping. But as someone who likes LPs, I gravitate towards this kind of presentation. I also realized that in trying be less conspicuous, I often shoot with my camera by my waist, or hanging from my neck. So something with a waist viewfinder might be just what I'm looking for, so I've been looking into TLRs trying to figure out if they're the right choice for me.

Also, since folder cameras were mentioned in this thread I've dug into those quite a bit. I'm particularly referring to folders from the 50s-60s. It really seems to me like they all are pretty much the same. Some with somewhat better lenses, some with coupled rangefinders, some move the film back instead of the lens to focus, etc., but overall it's pretty much the same camera. The examples of photos that were taken with them aren't bad, but more often than not they're not quite as sharp as I'd want. Also, looking at a lot of them on ebay, most have scratched or fungus-y or hazey lenses. A folder 6x6 would be ideal tho - extremely portable and a big negative, but seems like it would be a hassle to find the right one, or at least necessitate buying a few and keeping the best one. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though!

What are some other possible 6x6 cameras that I may have overlooked? I am not interested in 6x7 cameras despite being a bigger negative yet close enough to 6x6. 10 exposures per roll is not enough for me.

An honorable mention is the Fuji GS645. Also a folder but newer. Seems like the lens is pretty sharp. But the 6x4.6 negative gives me pause. A minor quibble is that when the camera is horizontal it shoots portrait and to shoot landscape it has to be tilted. I'm sure I would get used to it a few a roll or two though. If the Fuji was a 6x6 I'd have one by now.

Lastly, I'm still considering a 35mm rangefinder, and while I found an M mount that could work for me quite well (Bessa R2), I'm realizing that the M lenses are truly a money pit that I'm not sure I want to dive into. LTM lenses are plentiful and cheaper than Ms, and some were even made not that long ago. LTM cameras are also quite affordable (Canon 7..) If I wait for the right deals, I could probably find a decent LTM camera + lens and a medium format camera and still be within my budget. Am I being naive? Are the Leica Ms really that much more unique than everything else, including their predecessor?

Many have spoken in favor of TLR, and I could not agree more. My YashicaMat (which I stupidly sold) was a great camera and got me hooked to this form-factor.

In the darkroom, printing 6x6 means you get the rest of the sheet for your test strips, I find it works well at least for me.

 

[etn]

Mt favourite all-round camera is the 1970s Leica CL. The Summicron-C is a wonderful lens, and the Rokkor equivalent is just as nice (and is cheaper). You can mount many M and LTM lenses on that body from Leitz to Canon lenses and beyond. It's small and discrete. It's a winner IMHO.

Glad to read this - as a matter of fact I just found a CLE + its 3 lenses (28, 40, and 90) today. Cute little camera and great price, I could not resist. Although I already have a Leica, my primary interest for the CL/CLE are the smaller size and the 40mm lens. Finally got one after all those years I was looking!

 

[GregY]

Glad to read this - as a matter of fact I just found a CLE + its 3 lenses (28, 40, and 90) today. Cute little camera and great price, I could not resist. Although I already have a Leica, my primary interest for the CL/CLE are the smaller size and the 40mm lens. Finally got one after all those years I was looking!

Good score etn. I use the CL cousin with a 28mm all the time.....even though i have an M4. Sometimes i just load it up with TMY-2 and set the hyperfocal distance for f8 & it's a point & shoot.

 

[4season]

However, I'm looking for something sharper yet.

What does "sharp" mean to you? Feel free to link to any photos which you feel have some of the qualities you seek. Do you want the sense of being able to see every blade of grass clearly delineated?

And what would you say about the sharpness of these photos: Not too bad perhaps?

 

[Hassasin]

The Bronica EC Hassassin recommended is pretty massive & loud by comparison.

Be fair, with lens on it is pretty much what a Hasselblad is, just feels more solid and refined. Body is larger, but without a lens that does nothing to making photographs. Focusing is butter smooth with all most all lenses. Loudness is also in quite same ballpark as most MF SLRs, Hass included, just as is the case with all others, only with a different vibe to it. Then add instant return mirror, superior ergonomics, and even if on a scale it is somewhat heavier (not by much, and in some configurations actually lighter than Hass) and you have a contender. Even the 300 mm lens is not dwarfing the camera and handles rather easily.

It is a model long out of production so there are other considerations. I am only speaking to the product, its design, quality manufacture, fit and finish.

If one wants to prioritise LIGHT package, none of the 6x6 SLRs are in the running.

 

[GregY]

Be fair, with lens on it is pretty much what a Hasselblad is, just feels more solid and refined. Body is larger, but without a lens that does nothing to making photographs. Focusing is butter smooth with all most all lenses. Loudness is also in quite same ballpark as most MF SLRs, Hass included, just as is the case with all others, only with a different vibe to it. Then add instant return mirror, superior ergonomics, and even if on a scale it is somewhat heavier (not by much, and in some configurations actually lighter than Hass) and you have a contender. Even the 300 mm lens is not dwarfing the camera and handles rather easily.

It is a model long out of production so there are other considerations. I am only speaking to the product, its design, quality manufacture, fit and finish.

If one wants to prioritise LIGHT package, none of the 6x6 SLRs are in the running.

H, don't feel like I'm picking on you. I was agreeing with Sanders. Compared to a Rolleicord a Hasselblad is massive too & any focal plane shutter camera is noisy compare to a Synchro-Compur shutter.

 

[Hassasin]

H, don't feel like I'm picking on you. I was agreeing with Sanders. Compared to a Rolleicord a Hasselblad is massive too & any focal plane shutter camera is noisy compare to a Synchro-Compur shutter.

++

 

[etn]

What does "sharp" mean to you? Feel free to link to any photos which you feel have some of the qualities you seek. Do you want the sense of being able to see every blade of grass clearly delineated?

Assuming the OP has proper technique (which I have no reason to doubt), the first steps toward "better sharpness" should be to load a finer-grained film, close the lens 2-3 stops from maximum aperture (or more if depth of field is desired), and use a tripod.

This should already achieve a lot. The Canon 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/2.8 mentioned in the 1st post above should be pretty good enough, certainly as good as other small format primes of that era.

Next steps would be to move to medium format. (+ repeat the steps mentioned above as necessary)

Going for the "absolute best glass" in small format is a money pit, as it is reaching diminishing returns. As good as it is, it will be outperformed by the cheapest MF glass out there.

 

[GregY]

What does "sharp" mean to you? Feel free to link to any photos which you feel have some of the qualities you seek. Do you want the sense of being able to see every blade of grass clearly delineated?

And what would you say about the sharpness of these photos: Not too bad perhaps?

4s, I'd like to know as well what the lack of sharpness is with the OP's FD lens. I have friends who sold lots of photos to climbing and ski magazines, taken with a Canon A-1 and period lenses.

Assuming the OP has proper technique (which I have no reason to doubt), the first steps toward "better sharpness" should be to load a finer-grained film, close the lens 2-3 stops from maximum aperture (or more if depth of field is desired), and use a tripod.

This should already achieve a lot. The Canon 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/2.8 mentioned in the 1st post above should be pretty good enough, certainly as good as other small format primes of that era.

Next steps would be to move to medium format. (+ repeat the steps mentioned above as necessary)

Going for the "absolute best glass" in small format is a money pit, as it is reaching diminishing returns. As good as it is, it will be outperformed by the cheapest MF glass out there.

Yes indeed.... the MF negative is a huge advantage ....in tonality especially

 

[eliya]

The problem is he won’t know what’s important until he has a camera in hand to test his presumptions ..... He needs experience, and he’s not going to get it from reading posts on the internet.

I agree with the first statement, but I'll modify it: Until I try I wouldn't know the compromise I'm willing to make. Am I ok with a bigger camera that produces a better image quality? Or maybe I'm willing to compromise on quality for portability. However, there are truly so many different cameras out there, simply jumping in and picking one at random would be ridiculous. This is why I'm here asking questions and looking for opinions so I can direct my purchase/experiment.

What does "sharp" mean to you? Feel free to link to any photos which you feel have some of the qualities you seek. Do you want the sense of being able to see every blade of grass clearly delineated?

And what would you say about the sharpness of these photos: Not too bad perhaps?

Sharpness, I think, is a bit subjective. It's possible that what I mean is acutance, or maybe even starker contrast (although I'm not a fan of overly contrasted shots). Additionally, composition and subject matter also play a role. I can go further into this last point, but I think we would get lost in matters that are more and more subjective. I've seen photos by Arthur Tress (San Fransisco 1964 book) that are fairly sharp! Also Bruce Davidson (although a good amount are artistically out of focus) . I have also seen work by a lot street photographers which I consider to be pretty sharp. I know this last one is surprising considering they shoot on the move and probably zone focus.

The two photos you attached are sharp, but personally I strive for more clarity and sharpness. Some of this, again, is the subject matter. The one of the glasses on the tray - it's almost like the eye doesn't know where to focus, everything looks less sharp than it can be. This is probably because you shot multiple glasses that are curved and reflect the light differently. I think this is what makes it an interesting photo! But it makes it hard (at least for me) to use it to explain sharpness. My photos with the 50mm 1.4 Canon lens are as sharp as the two you attached, some are possibly sharper. Yet, I'm looking for something else. Maybe sharpness is the wrong term for what I'm looking for, but this is why I'm interested in cameras where I can try several different lenses of the same focal length, particularly 50mm, and find the one I like the most and keep it.

I would also like to add that I think the Canon 50/1.4 is capable of sharper results at close distances, but as they increase things are becoming less sharp and sometimes even a bit flat looking. Someone mentioned a UV filter, and maybe that's part of it!

Assuming the OP has proper technique (which I have no reason to doubt), the first steps toward "better sharpness" should be to load a finer-grained film, close the lens 2-3 stops from maximum aperture (or more if depth of field is desired), and use a tripod.

I should probably conduct a test to see the difference between shooting with a tripod and shooting handheld. Tripods just won't be much practical for a lot of my applications.

Going for the "absolute best glass" in small format is a money pit, as it is reaching diminishing returns. As good as it is, it will be outperformed by the cheapest MF glass out there.

This is very much in the vein of the responses I'm looking for. If the format is limited then it is just that. I also accept that different cameras and different negative sizes all have different purposes.

 

[GregY]

eliya, one element that isn't obvious in your search.... are you looking at print results? How big are the prints? Or are you looking at scans of negatives or prints? Do you process & print your own film? What is your print process? Are you using the best films available for your purpose? Any one of these steps could give results that make you question the sharpness of your lens.....

 

[Hassasin]

There is nothing "unsharp" about 35 mm film images. And it's not even about using most exotic glass to get there. But comparing 35 to MF is not a fair logic, for very obvious reasons.

I still beg to differ on the notion that cheapest MF glass will outperform any 35 mm one. I suppose that would depend on how low do we go on that "cheapest" choice, but this argument has little to do with reality anyways.

But I also do not agree with going for the sharpest is the best way to improve photographic skills. This logic is more like going for more pixels will better a photograph, and there is overwhelming evidence that is not even remotely close to true.

 

[eliya]

eliya, one element that isn't obvious in your search.... are you looking at print results? How big are the prints? Or are you looking at scans of negatives or prints? Do you process & print your own film? What is your print process? Are you using the best films available for your purpose? Any one of these steps could give results that make you question the sharpness of your lens.....

For my own work it's mostly been scans, but I've been developing my own film and recently started printing too. Only a couple of prints so far on 5x7 paper. A master printer I am not, but I think the results are decent so far. I've been using TriX 400 and Tmax (100 and 400). Going to most likely stick to Tmax from now on.

FWIW, I am not saying that 35mm can't produce sharp images! I just want something sharper, that's all. I like 35mm. I enjoy it. I want more options within that format, and also to try a bigger format.

But I also do not agree with going for the sharpest is the best way to improve photographic skills. This logic is more like going for more pixels will better a photograph, and there is overwhelming evidence that is not even remotely close to true.

I don't disagree, but curious to hear what you mean exactly. I try to take as many photos as I can and in different settings, try different things. Been reading Minor White's book about the zone system. Also been reading about composition and framing. Part of why I started developing and doing my own printing is to improve my skills. I want to be in touch with the images throughout the entire process and oversee it all. I also think that these formats were really made to be seen printed on photographic paper. Good prints look almost 3d like. This rarely if ever comes across scans.

 

[GregY]

eliya since we're now talking scans, what scanner are you using & i it capable of the best resolution of your negatives?

 

[eliya]

eliya since we're now talking scans, what scanner are you using & i it capable of the best resolution of your negatives?

Scans weren't done by me. They were done by the lab where I used to send my film to get developed. I believe they used a DSLR setup to make the scans. 300 DPI.

 

[4season]

Sharpness, I think, is a bit subjective. It's possible that what I mean is acutance, or maybe even starker contrast (although I'm not a fan of overly contrasted shots). Additionally, composition and subject matter also play a role. I can go further into this last point, but I think we would get lost in matters that are more and more subjective. I've seen photos by Arthur Tress (San Fransisco 1964 book) that are fairly sharp! Also Bruce Davidson (although a good amount are artistically out of focus) . I have also seen work by a lot street photographers which I consider to be pretty sharp. I know this last one is surprising considering they shoot on the move and probably zone focus.

The two photos you attached are sharp, but personally I strive for more clarity and sharpness. Some of this, again, is the subject matter. The one of the glasses on the tray - it's almost like the eye doesn't know where to focus, everything looks less sharp than it can be. This is probably because you shot multiple glasses that are curved and reflect the light differently. I think this is what makes it an interesting photo! But it makes it hard (at least for me) to use it to explain sharpness. My photos with the 50mm 1.4 Canon lens are as sharp as the two you attached, some are possibly sharper. Yet, I'm looking for something else. Maybe sharpness is the wrong term for what I'm looking for, but this is why I'm interested in cameras where I can try several different lenses of the same focal length, particularly 50mm, and find the one I like the most and keep it.

Very interesting! I think it may not necessarily be "sharpness" or even "acutance" that you seek per se, but you are seeing certain qualities in photos that you admire, and that's a great starting point.

I found a link to what I believe are the Arthur Tress images in question:
https://arthurtress.com/artworks/nggallery/artworks/san-francisco-1964

And assorted images attributed to Bruce Davidson:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=bruce+davidson+photographer&atb=v381-1&iax=images&iai=https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Bruce-Davidson-Brooklyn-Gang-photography-book-1959-Twin-Palms-publishing-Afterhours-Sleaze-and-Dignity-3.jpg&ia=images

Bear in mind that particularly with black and white film images printed onto fiber-based paper, the final image may look very different from a straight print made with no manipulation! Dodging, burning-in, bleaching (potassium ferricyanide bleach might be more accurately called a magic elixir), and toning, are just some of the techniques used.

And of course, there's no shortage of tools available for working with scanned images from film.

Film grain can be your friend too: Sharp-edged grain can add "bite" to your work. Here's a gritty example that I'm fond of:

Ilford HP5 film processed in Cinestill DF96 monobath. And as you are probably realizing by looking at the corners, I did not shoot it with an apochromatic wonder-optic, but an Ilford disposable camera. And since it was equipped with a flash, and the face of the sign was backlit, I used the flash.

As for my previous two sample images, they were made using a Zenit 412 SLR + 50/2 Zenitar lens (I paid around $25 for the set) @ f/8. But the film used was an unusual one: Ferrania P30 is not a standard panchromatic film, and I haven't totally figured it out yet.

Who knows, maybe your current camera is too good!

BTW, totally agree that my photo of the drinking glasses has an odd focal point. Because I grabbed a single shot without much thought.

 

[dynachrome]

I have Canon 50mm f/1.4 SLR lenses going back to the two different FL versions to the chrome front early FD to the black front FD SSC and finally to the New FD. If you have an FD SSC or New FD in good condition and can't get adequate sharpness, it's not the lens. Some subjects do not lend themselves well to the standard split image/microprism focusing screen. This is why I prefer the AE-1 Program to the earlier AE-1. The Program model has interchangeable focusing screens. My Program has a plain matte screen in it now. I also have a grid type screen for it. If I know I will want to change screens frequently, I will bring a Canon F-1/F-1n/New F-1.

 

[eliya]

I have the nFD in pretty good condition, and I had its focused calibrated recently as well (I gotta develop what I shot with it since I got it back). Like I said, it's very sharp on objects that are close to the lens. Humans, animals, probably anything that has the geometry of a face (roundness, some parts protrude more than others) those look pretty sharp for the most part up close. You move away a few meters and it's not as sharp anymore. Again, it's not like it's blurry, but it loses some of the sharpness. Things become a little more flat. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe it is the split screen. If you believe the FD is as sharp as any other 50mm lens that is reasonably priced, then I would take your word for it. I'm still curious to try multiple types of lenses at specific focal lengths to figure out what it is I'm after.

 

[GregY]

I have the nFD in pretty good condition, and I had its focused calibrated recently as well (I gotta develop what I shot with it since I got it back). Like I said, it's very sharp on objects that are close to the lens. Humans, animals, probably anything that has the geometry of a face (roundness, some parts protrude more than others) those look pretty sharp for the most part up close. You move away a few meters and it's not as sharp anymore. Again, it's not like it's blurry, but it loses some of the sharpness. Things become a little more flat. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe it is the split screen. If you believe the FD is as sharp as any other 50mm lens that is reasonably priced, then I would take your word for it. I'm still curious to try multiple types of lenses at specific focal lengths to figure out what it is I'm after.

E, are you judging this from the 5x7 prints or from the negative scans?
Have you made notes on what the point of focus was?......or what aperture you took the photo at?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I still beg to differ on the notion that cheapest MF glass will outperform any 35 mm one. I suppose that would depend on how low do we go on that "cheapest" choice, but this argument has little to do with reality anyways.

Since that was my notion, let me say that I was not talking about bench performance of a MF lens compared to a 35mm lens. I was talking about how a 6x6 negative, shot through most any post-WWII lens, will far surpass the image quality of a 35mm negative shot with the best Leica can offer. That's a simple fact of the much larger negative sizes.

Of course there are many great 35mm cameras. And of course "sharpness" doesn't matter much for a lot of photographs. I spent years shooting the most primitive meniscus lenses I could find or make. I get it.

But there is an undeniable advantage of MF when it comes to image quality -- how the image takes on a sense of clarity and expansiveness, that is rarely accomplished with 35mm -- almost as if you can walk into the frame. I remember as a teenager looking at images in magazines, shot with Rolleiflexes and Hasselblads, and marveling at them, and being dispirited that my Canon TX couldn't begin to make photographs like those. At least, not with me tripping the shutter.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

there are truly so many different cameras out there, simply jumping in and picking one at random would be ridiculous.

Not so. You have a lot of information here. Go to a local camera store that sells used equipment. (There must be one left in Chicago.) Ask them to show you some of the options we have suggested. Pick one within your budget. Go shoot it. You will know far more in a couple of days of shooting than you can ever learn in a month of surfing everybody's opinions on the Internet.

 

[eliya]

But there is an undeniable advantage of MF when it comes to image quality -- how the image takes on a sense of clarity and expansiveness, that is rarely accomplished with 35mm -- almost as if you can walk into the frame. I remember as a teenager looking at images in magazines, shot with Rolleiflexes and Hasselblads, and marveling at them, and being dispirited that my Canon TX couldn't begin to make photographs like those. At least, not with me tripping the shutter.

Then you get it. Maybe sharpness is the wrong term for it, but you get what I mean. It's not just the fidelity of the image. It's even more so the photographer taking it, but you get exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[4season]

I think Ansel Adams shot this with a Zeiss Contax I, but then again, he was Ansel Adams:
https://www.christies.com/img/LotIm...nd_orville_cox_canyon_de_chelly_national).jpg

 

[GregY]

eliya, KEH has a small handful of Rolleicord Vb

I think Ansel Adams shot this with a Zeiss Contax I, but then again, he was Ansel Adams:
https://www.christies.com/img/LotIm...nd_orville_cox_canyon_de_chelly_national).jpg

I've seen several original prints of that image. It's my very favourite AA photograph!