Looking for recommendations for my next camera

[Sirius Glass]

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

Are you Sirius? Hasselblads & Rollei SL66 & Bronica or Kiev 6C.... smaller than a Rolleiflex TLR ?

Part II: Medium Format Cameras (Rollei v Hasselblad) — InTents Adventures

Part I: The Joy of Medium Format Film So you are interested in medium format film photography. There are a litany of follow-on questions including: where do I get film, how do I develop film, and what kind of camera do I use? There's a bit of good and bad news when it comes to medium format film

intents-adventures.com

A Rolleiflex does not have interchangealble lenses for it is not in the ball park. I am talking about the Mamiya C family.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

Sharpness itself does not make an image, even if in many cases it contributes to viewers' experience.

Seems like you have a good thing going. And Zone System is fine to know, but do keep in mind lack of its use has not prevented great images from being made. it may be too much for the time being though. I would suggest checking out your sources of choice to evaluate images, which ones speak to you, then trying to emulate them. Eventually this process becomes ones own and from trying to copy someone else, it becomes intuitively own.

Digital, that includes phone camera, are great in making a faster self-development of photographic eye possible.

Quality difference between 35 and MF is naturally there, but not all MF cameras will give experience that is going to be helpful to everyone. Their ergonomics alone may help or be a detriment. Important to handle one before purchase, or get one with return option, or as others have mentioned, there are some safe choices that will not devalue within next few years but selling back may not be as easy as it seems (I'm no longer sold on film's hold though, so am not so sure film cameras will continue to keep their value for more than next 3 years)

Folders look good, mostly work fine, but many are used in zone focus mode, which puts sharpness in the chance department. Older folders (especially) can easily have optical path out of alignment, which throws out any effort in trying to be as precise as possible when focusing it. Then outcome is not as sharp and when sharpness is the goal, disappointment may be next.

Hence my point, sharpness is not something to focus on as much, certainly not beyond reproach. It is still a key element in getting framed image come out as intended, but lots of sharp-crappy images have been made that left lasting impression on most everyone who has seen them.

Try to separate sharpness from overall look of your images. Take the two on separate but parallel paths. Composing as one and key element, then seeing how change of focus point may have made it better, if at all. Eventually these things will converge as your photographic eye matures.

 

[dynachrome]

A few things - There is a Mamiya TLR lens with a depth of field preview for the taking lens. An AF lens may need to be calibrated if proper focus is nit bring achieved. A manual focus lens will only need to be adjusted if infinity focus is off from what the distance marking shows. At other subject distances correct focus would be achieved by looking at the image in the finder. The other possibility is that the reflex mirror is out of adjustment. This would not be the case if any of your photos are sharp. The 50/1.4 New FD lens is sharp at every distance if used properly. At its closest focusing distance it would not be quite as sharp as at greater distances. In its closest range, the 50/3.5 New FD or earlier 50/3.5 FD SSC would be sharper. Finally, it is generally accepted that a 50mm lens is not ideal for close portraits. Better alternatives would include the 100/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/4 Macro or if you have a lot of money to spend, the 85/1.2.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

A Rolleiflex does not have interchangealble lenses for it is not in the ball park. I am talking about the Mamiya C family.

If you read through the thread, you will learn (post 26) that the OP backtracked on his desire for interchangeable lenses, as a way into MF cameras with good prime lenses. And to your other post (#49), it was the OP (also post 26) who raised the idea of a MF folder generally, and a Perkeo II in particular.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Then you get it. Maybe sharpness is the wrong term for it, but you get what I mean.

At this point, you have learned as much from us as we are able to tell you. This thread will continue on while we all recite the catechisms of our learned wisdoms, to wit: Hasselblads are better for everything. Portraits need long lenses. Leicas make the best images because hey Cartier-Bresson. It’s all shite without a tripod. Et cetera.

Save yourself this spectacle. Go over to Central Camera this afternoon. Ask the nice man behind the counter to show you some small light entry-level MF cameras that don’t cost a fortune. Fondle them. Buy the one that appeals to you. Ask the nice man behind the counter if you can bring it back and trade it in on another camera, once you have a better sense of what works for you. Buy some film. (And a light meter — I prefer an old used Sekonic Studio Deluxe but that’s another matter of religious dispute.) Go shoot. And come back to the thread next week and tell us what you learned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a Certo SuperSport with a very sharp Zeiss lens. It was missing it 645 adapter but that did not matter since the viewing ports did not line up with the 645 numbers on Kodak or Ilford film.

 

[GregY]

A Rolleiflex does not have interchangealble lenses for it is not in the ball park. I am talking about the Mamiya C family.

Sirius, like your post, I was responding to Sanders' previous one. The Mamiya C family was not mentioned....in fact the opposite. "fixed lens Mamiyaflex"....was. Nobody said Rolleiflex had interchangeable lenses.....but the SL66 did

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, like your post, I was responding to Sanders' previous one. The Mamiya C family was not mentioned....in fact the opposite. "fixed lens Mamiyaflex"....was. Nobody said Rolleiflex had interchangeable lenses.....but the SL66 did

The SL66 was my first choice, but Samys Camera in 2007 advised that I choose the Hasselblad V series and not the SL66, Hasselblad 200 series and Hasselblad 2000 series because of Samys advise that parts and service were, in their opinion beginning to show signs of problems. That changed my direction. Since I have seen nothing to refute that since then.

 

[GregY]

The SL66 was my first choice, but Samys Camera in 2007 advised that I choose the Hasselblad V series and not the SL66, Hasselblad 200 series and Hasselblad 2000 series because of Samys advise that parts and service were, in their opinion beginning to show signs of problems. That changed my direction. Since I have seen nothing to refute that since then.

Sirius we all know you're a big big Hasselblad fan....... but in the OP's context of "less than 1k"....it's a pipe dream. He also mentioned maybe getting another 35mm and an MF for $1k. Without knowing how he's scanning/printing in greater detail it's a gamble to say where he'll find the 'sharpness' he's missing.

 

[r_a_feldman]

At this point, you have learned as much from us as we are able to tell you. This thread will continue on while we all recite the catechisms of our learned wisdoms, to wit: Hasselblads are better for everything. Portraits need long lenses. Leicas make the best images because hey Cartier-Bresson. It’s all shite without a tripod. Et cetera.

Save yourself this spectacle. Go over to Central Camera this afternoon. Ask the nice man behind the counter to show you some small light entry-level MF cameras that don’t cost a fortune. Fondle them. Buy the one that appeals to you. Ask the nice man behind the counter if you can bring it back and trade it in on another camera, once you have a better sense of what works for you. Buy some film. (And a light meter — I prefer an old used Sekonic Studio Deluxe but that’s another matter of religious dispute.) Go shoot. And come back to the thread next week and tell us what you learned.

+1

You need to get hands-on with the camera(s) of your choice. Find what YOU like best, not what we are used to using and thus like best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius we all know you're a big big Hasselblad fan....... but in the OP's context of "less than 1k"....it's a pipe dream. He also mentioned maybe getting another 35mm and an MF for $1k. Without knowing how he's scanning/printing in greater detail it's a gamble to say where he'll find the 'sharpness' he's missing.

I agree, today's prices make that goal hard to come by prices like that for quality equipment. Which specific processing path, film or digital, can make a great deal of difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

You need to get hands-on with the camera(s) of your choice. Find what YOU like best, not what we are used to using and thus like best.

Holding cameras in ones hands is the best way to find the right camera for oneself. Way back when I sold cameras, I would not put a large camera in a small person's hands nor a small camera in a large person's hands except to make the point that what matters most is how a camera feels for that particular person.

 

[4season]

Vintage folding cameras are one area where a person might still find a solid medium format bargain to last a lifetime. I imagine that a big reason why they remain relatively inexpensive is because the lack of modern amenities scares would-be buyers away. And it's true that few such cameras offer rapid-wind film levers or a coupled rangefinder. But the more experienced photographer who has spent any time with large format cameras will find them models of comfort and convenience.

Fuji GS645 was a more modern take on the folding camera, and had mine worked reliably, it would have been a favorite. I wasn't performing my own camera repairs at the time, so I don't know whether a lasting fix is possible, or whether the camera simply was designed as a consumable item. And at current asking prices even for cameras sold as "parts/as-is", I won't be exploring this any time soon.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Vintage folding cameras are one area where a person might still find a solid medium format bargain to last a lifetime.

Well hold on there. If you are willing to go downmarket in TLRs, there are plenty of superlative TLR cameras for sale under $300 that don't have the name Rolleiflex on them: Flexarets from Meopta, Autocords from Minolta, Ikoflexes from Zeiss, Mamiyaflexes, Yashicamats, even Rolleicords. Any one of these cameras in good repair will blow the doors off of most any folding camera. Why? (1) Superior lenses -- most folders focus by moving the front cell of the lens group. (2) Better lens alignments to the film plane, because they are fixed in place, not moving on struts. (3) A superior focusing mechanism, instead of the zone focusing or indirect rangefinder focusing that most folders require.

I shoot folders from time to time. But the image quality is never up to what I can pull from a TLR.

 

[SIG970]

Might be worth starting out with a cheaper Japanese TLR and, assuming the experience/ergos/results are to one's liking, you could always proceed to look at more upmarket options. I just purchased a mint Ricohflex (new) Dia for $82 because $82 and it's a fine enough camera. If TLRs turn out not to be for you, one could always resell it at a very minimal loss. Folders are great, but I would tend to agree with Rolleiflexible. Hassy are also awesome, but you can only sell one kidney.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Might be worth starting out with a cheaper Japanese TLR and, assuming the experience/ergos/results are to one's liking, you could always proceed to look at more upmarket options. I just purchased a mint Ricohflex (new) Dia for $82 because $82 and it's a fine enough camera. If TLRs turn out not to be for you, one could always resell it at a very minimal loss. Folders are great, but I would tend to agree with Rolleiflexible. Hassy are also awesome, but you can only sell one kidney.

Welcome to Photrio

I started with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera, later was given an inexpensive German TLR, then a Voigthlander Vito II 35mm rangerfinderless camera and then settled on a Minolta SR-7. For decades I used Minolta SLRs upgrading occasionally. Then in 2004 I moved to Nikon N75 AF and 2007 to Hasselblad 503 CX. About 6 years later I started using a Pacemaker Speed Graphic and Graflex Model D 4"x5" cameras. So I started with medium format, stayed with 35mm for decades and moved back to medium format and wandered into large format.

 

[SIG970]

Welcome to Photrio

I started with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera, later was given an inexpensive German TLR, then a Voigthlander Vito II 35mm rangerfinderless camera and then settled on a Minolta SR-7. For decades I used Minolta SLRs upgrading occasionally. Then in 2004 I moved to Nikon N75 AF and 2007 to Hasselblad 503 CX. About 6 years later I started using a Pacemaker Speed Graphic and Graflex Model D 4"x5" cameras. So I started with medium format, stayed with 35mm for decades and moved back to medium format and wandered into large format.

Thank you. I've got an old Speed Graphic in a box somewhere, used to shoot it back in college - great cameras and entry point into large format. Should probably dig that out...

 

[BorHa]

Right now I'm shooting with a Canon A-1 with 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.8 lenses. I like the A-1 and it's been serving me well, especially after getting the 50mm calibrated and taking sharper photos. However, I'm looking for something sharper yet. I also wish the A-1 had the ability to spot meter and a quieter shutter/mirror slap (it draws so much attention every time it goes off). I've been looking at rangefinders because they're different beasts than SLRs, quieter, and I can probably take pictures at lower shutter speeds with less shake. Also considering medium format because pretty much everything I've seen that was shot on medium format cameras is beautiful and with very minimal grain.

My main requirements are these:
1) Have a wide range of lenses available. I'm not looking to collect, nor am I going to get a lens in every focal length. But I would like to, for instance, try different types of 50mm lenses and stick with the one I like the most.
2) Be somewhat compact. I don't mind something bigger and heavier than the A-1, but I take my camera with me in all types of situations. I ride my bike with it strapped to my shoulder, ride the train, etc. I've seen some medium format SLRs that are just way too big to lug around and want to avoid those.
3) under $1000 for the body, preferably the body + a lens.
4) built-in meter, but I wouldn't mind getting one of those attachment meters for the right camera.

The Leicas immediately come to mind, but the bodies are just too expensive. I know the M3 can be had for around or sometimes less than $1k, but that's really stretching my budget. Having to prep the film by cutting a longer leader is also a major turn off.

Are there cameras made with the M3 mount so they can accept different Leica lenses? I know there are several that were made with LTM, but I'm a bit hesitant. It's "last year's model" and to be fair, I don't know just how many lenses are available with that mount, or how many are affordable...

Another options is a Nikon F3. Very affordable and has a lot of lenses available! But an SLR still.

Like I mentioned earlier, I like the look of medium format cameras. The Fuji ones seem loved and appreciated by many. I heard that the Plaubel Makina 67 has a really great lens. I wouldn't mind getting medium format camera with a fixed fantastic lens.

I feel like there are a lot of options and opinions I'm not even aware of, and I would like to hear them all. Thank you!

Try a different format! A yashica TLR can open up new possibilities for you! If you’re sticking with 35mm, get a Nikon F. It’s quality is on par with Leica cameras and it’s quiet. It also only costs about 150.

 

[eliya]

This thread has been bumped a few times recently, so I thought I'll give an update.

I ended up buying a Leica M3 locally for less than a grand. It was CLAd in July so it was a no brainer. I actually started with the lens - I got a good deal on a Rokkor 40mm M lens, so that led me down the M camera path. I had a CL for a couple of weeks, and it was really light and compact but I returned it because that particular one had a couple of issues. The M3 is incredible! It's so much fun to use. It's light and compact, and I really can't imagine using anything else. I'm also happy that I can choose from a wide array of lenses to try on this thing, but again, the 40mm Rokkor/Summicron is beautiful and I have a hard time wanting to use anything else.

I did go to a store to try some cameras and it was a mediocre experience at best. I also looked at some cameras in person, and nothing grabbed me quite like the Leica. I still have my eye on medium format, but honestly I'm having so much fun with the Leica that I don't know if I'll add another camera anytime soon.

So if you are in the position I was in a few months ago and you're looking for a new camera, consider a Leica.

 

[benjiboy]

....but he's saying he wants something 'sharper'...... How would a T-70 provide different than his A-1 ?

I don't understand why the Canon FD 50 mm F 1.4 lens isn't sharp enough for the O P, it's recognised as one of the best standards lenses ever made , indeed I shot with one on various FD bodies for more than thirty years and it always gave sharp results. There's something wrong with either this person's lens,, camera , or technique.

 

[brian steinberger]

This thread has been bumped a few times recently, so I thought I'll give an update.

I ended up buying a Leica M3 locally for less than a grand. It was CLAd in July so it was a no brainer. I actually started with the lens - I got a good deal on a Rokkor 40mm M lens, so that led me down the M camera path. I had a CL for a couple of weeks, and it was really light and compact but I returned it because that particular one had a couple of issues. The M3 is incredible! It's so much fun to use. It's light and compact, and I really can't imagine using anything else. I'm also happy that I can choose from a wide array of lenses to try on this thing, but again, the 40mm Rokkor/Summicron is beautiful and I have a hard time wanting to use anything else.

I did go to a store to try some cameras and it was a mediocre experience at best. I also looked at some cameras in person, and nothing grabbed me quite like the Leica. I still have my eye on medium format, but honestly I'm having so much fun with the Leica that I don't know if I'll add another camera anytime soon.

So if you are in the position I was in a few months ago and you're looking for a new camera, consider a Leica.

Just curious how the M3 works with a 40mm lens. Since it has 50mm framelines do you just use the whole viewfinder? I’ve never looked through a M3 VF before. Just curious as I too am interested in a Leica to use with just 40mm.

 

[eliya]

Just curious how the M3 works with a 40mm lens. Since it has 50mm framelines do you just use the whole viewfinder? I’ve never looked through a M3 VF before. Just curious as I too am interested in a Leica to use with just 40mm.

Yeah I use the entire viewfinder, it matches up pretty well.

 

[Hassasin]

I don't understand why the Canon FD 50 mm F 1.4 lens isn't sharp enough for the O P, it's recognised as one of the best standards lenses ever made , indeed I shot with one on various FD bodies for more than thirty years and it always gave sharp results. There's something wrong with either this person's lens,, camera , or technique.

Most certainly FD 50 1.4 or 1.8 for that matter is a sharp lens. But one can always misuse anything.