medium format SLR help needed

Alan Gales · Mar 18, 2021

If your DIacord's screen is too dark then the Mamiya C330s and the C220f had the latest and brightest screens in them. Lenses are crazy cheap.

DREW WILEY · Mar 18, 2021

TLR's and SLR's are poles apart in what they conveniently do, so belong on totally different threads. Sure, one can put a waist-level finder on an SLR, or conversely, a heavy prism finder atop a TLR; but that's like putting a saddle on a harbor seal and asking it to gallop.

Donald Qualls · Mar 19, 2021

I don't think a waist level finder is badly out of place on an SLR, especially a medium format one. For some things, they're easier to use that way, and if you're transitioning from TLRs, you're used to the mirror imaged view.

agfarapid · Mar 19, 2021

I've used the M645 and the RB systems for years. I've had the M645 the longest (since '78) which was bought used back then, has never given me any problems and consistently produces excellent results. Like the OP, I choose medium format TLR and SLR's for the large viewing frame which is great for eyes tired of looking at computer screens and digital backs.. Between the RB67 and the M645, I prefer the M645 for times when I want to move and shoot quickly, using the WLF and when I want to shoot more than 10 frames. I prefer the RB when I want to slow down my process, taking more time to compose and shoot. BTW, I don't find the RB very heavy and have gone hiking with it in the woods for hours without a tripod. Regarding the electronics on the M645 (both original an Super versions), these are all manual focus, and the electronics are pretty rudimentary.. I always carry of bunch of cheap 6v batteries with me and they last pretty long. From your posts, probably either of the two Maniya's would work for you. A Pentacon 6 might nice as well, but the ergonomics are somewhat cumbersome, but you might want to consider that as well.

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2021

One thing is certain - you're not going to hang an RB around your neck for long! With even a minor lens selection, it would be heavier than my 4X5 kits. Most of its lenses are also rather slow, or dim in terms of maximum viewing aperture, at least compared to certain other MF SLR systems; another thing to think about. But they can be found at bargain pricing these days.

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2021

Donald - I have a flip-up waist-level hood for my P67. But I never use it at waist level, and in fact, only install it when I need maximum compactness combined with minimal weight. Their chimney hood is a way better device, but tall. I ordinarily use a prism finder, which is especially well suited to the intuitive ergonomics of the P67; after all, it was designed to handle like an oversized 35mm SLR. If I wanted to shoot TLR, somebody gave me one. Reminds me of all those Rollei TLR'S used by the yearbook staff in High School. They trashed them. But the school had plenty of money, so kept buying em.

Grim Tuesday · Mar 19, 2021

I have the waist levels for my Hasselblad and for my Pentax 6x7 and while both are SLRs, the Hasselblad feels much more natural than the Pentax to use with the waist level finder. Just as natural as a Rollei. I just think the Pentax's ergonomics aren't built for it (though it vastly improves for waist level finding with the rosewood grip, though that kinda defeats the point of making it lighter and smaller by ditching the prism). The hasselblad I find much more natural with the WLF than a prism.

Donald Qualls · Mar 19, 2021

I use my RB67 with the waist level finder sometimes -- I install the chimney if I want a meter, and the prism if I need to use a long lens (or get the camera up high on a tripod), and the waist level when I want to shoot low POV or minimize the weight. I've owned TLRs most of the past fifty years, though, so I'm not completely lost with the mirrored viewfinder. And the RB has the revolving back, so which is very nice for a heavy camera with a rectangular negative.

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2021

Well, the RB's are solidly built. I just wish that, for something that size and weight, there would be a 6X9 back option. The only 6X9 SLR I'm aware of is an uncommon Plaubel model, itself something of an army tank. For me, the seemingly minor gain in surface area of 6X9 actually equates to a noticeably richer print more in line with what I expect from a view camera. And I love the longer rectangular proportion. Somebody will probably mention the Fuji GX 6X8; but that's an electronics-dependent studio animal which doesn't make a lot of sense for me personally. When I want view camera features, I use a real view camera. When I want greater potability and spontaneity, I reach for a MF SLR or RF. I don't want something in-between.
I also have 6X9 roll film backs for my 4X5, for when those are appropriate.

Donald Qualls · Mar 19, 2021

There is a 6x8 back available for the RB67, but there are some hoops to jump through to get even 56x77 mm frames. You have to have all the correct parts, and then (IIRC) you only get the maximum frame in verticals because of limitations in the body opening.

Given you can mount (almost?) any 2x3 Graflok accessory on the revolving back, it's tempting to wonder how much could be shaved off various things, with the aim to be able to use, say, a Graflex 23 roll film holder. No, not going to take a Dremel to mine -- but if I had a spare, non-working body I might be tempted to hack at it a little and see what's possible. There's also the P adapter, originally for mounting Polaroid pack film backs and similar -- not sure if that gains anything on dimensions, though.

wiltw · Mar 19, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
I don't think a waist level finder is badly out of place on an SLR, especially a medium format one. For some things, they're easier to use that way, and if you're transitioning from TLRs, you're used to the mirror imaged view.

I have a 135 format SLR with interchangeable finders (Topcon Super D), and using the standard waist level finder does seem to be trying to make a seal with a saddle gallop. Viewing a tiny 24mm x 36mm image is so much different from even trying to view a 43mm x 56mm image (645) or 6x6 image or 6x7 image.

Donald Qualls · Mar 19, 2021

wiltw said:
Viewing a tiny 24mm x 36mm image is so much different from even trying to view a 43mm x 56mm image (645) or 6x6 image or 6x7 image.

Not all SLRs have such a tiny frame, though.

The RB67, for instance, actually has a 7x7 viewfinder (I've seen TVs smaller than the RB67 viewfinder), with guidelines for the 6x7 frame (that also work great when you mount a 6x6 back) including bars that click into place to remind you you've rotated the back to vertical. I don't have a mask to use with my 6x4.5 back, but haven't had trouble, it's just the middle 2/3 of a 6x6 frame, and the vertical/horizontal guides are "wrong" because with horizontal film transport, you get a vertical frame. Haven't found it to be a problem.

wiltw · Mar 19, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
Not all SLRs have such a tiny frame, though.

The RB67, for instance, actually has a 7x7 viewfinder (I've seen TVs smaller than the RB67 viewfinder), with guidelines for the 6x7 frame (that also work great when you mount a 6x6 back) including bars that click into place to remind you you've rotated the back to vertical. I don't have a mask to use with my 6x4.5 back, but haven't had trouble, it's just the middle 2/3 of a 6x6 frame, and the vertical/horizontal guides are "wrong" because with horizontal film transport, you get a vertical frame. Haven't found it to be a problem.

I absolutely agree that not all SLRs have tiny viewfinders....why I differentiated 135 format from medium format. I was just pointing out that what works well for one size format can work poorly in a smaller format waist level finder.

Donald Qualls · Mar 20, 2021

wiltw said:
I absolutely agree that not all SLRs have tiny viewfinders....why I differentiated 135 format from medium format. I was just pointing out that what works well for one size format can work poorly in a smaller format waist level finder.

I might also mention that I have a Recesky (35mm TLR) and a Konstruktor (35mm SLR), both kit-built, and both default to waist level (the Konstruktor has a chimney finder option, but that's still mirrored -- and doesn't have pentaprism or pentamirror, though mine likely will eventually). They aren't terrible to use, though I have an advantage in being quite myopic -- I just lift my glasses and I can get close enough to the focusing screens to see good detail (now if they only had decent focusing screens -- another thing to work on).

Sirius Glass · Mar 20, 2021

wiltw said:
I have a 135 format SLR with interchangeable finders (Topcon Super D), and using the standard waist level finder does seem to be trying to make a seal with a saddle gallop. Viewing a tiny 24mm x 36mm image is so much different from even trying to view a 43mm x 56mm image (645) or 6x6 image or 6x7 image.

I have not found that the view finders on 135 format slrs to be small. I have found the view finders excellent on Minoltas, Nikons and Canons. The view finders on Hasselblads are also generous.

wiltw · Mar 20, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
I might also mention that I have a Recesky (35mm TLR) and a Konstruktor (35mm SLR), both kit-built, and both default to waist level (the Konstruktor has a chimney finder option, but that's still mirrored -- and doesn't have pentaprism or pentamirror, though mine likely will eventually). They aren't terrible to use, though I have an advantage in being quite myopic -- I just lift my glasses and I can get close enough to the focusing screens to see good detail (now if they only had decent focusing screens -- another thing to work on).

Note that my comment about 135 format waist level was NOT pertaining to a chimney finder...simply star downward at the ground glass, with no assistive optics! I have both a conventional waist level finder and a chimney find for my Topcon Super D...I see a very different subjective value difference!

Donald Qualls · Mar 21, 2021

The chimney on the Konstruktor is an option only; the basic kit includes only the standard waist level finder (with flip-up magnifier, like almost all waist level finders). The issue with both the Recesky and Konstruktor has more to do with the coarseness of the focusing screen texture (the Recesky one seems to be more like pebble grain than matte or ground finish) than with difficulty seeing the image; both are around f/5.6 when focusing (the Recesky has an f/10 or so taking lens, if the aperture plate is inserted during assembly, and the Konstruktor has its f/13 or so aperture at the shutter, which pops up with the rising reflex mirror). I need to dig in the bags of Nikkormat parts I recently received to see if there are any focusing screens in there -- I know there are one or two prisms.

tballphoto · Mar 23, 2021

Its funny, i decide on the RB67 and i suddenly see that the price for functional cameras, without any mechanical issues has somehow gone up 2-300 in the last month. And lets not discuss the cost of fully functional film backs that arent held together by hope and a prayer. Almost makes buying a hasselblad body seem a smart move and wondering how many years it would take to find an affordable lens for it.

Or how many of those damnable mamiya 645s are just as expensive as an rz67 but how sad so many "nearly mint" mamiya 645 have non functional prism viewfinders, AE that wont work, shutters that are non moving..... oh so damned lovely.

ruilourosa · Mar 23, 2021

Cut the cra9 and buy and hasselblad...

Donald Qualls · Mar 23, 2021

tballphoto said:
Its funny, i decide on the RB67 and i suddenly see that the price for functional cameras, without any mechanical issues has somehow gone up 2-300 in the last month.

That's just a factor of you actually looking carefully, with a "is this one worth my hard-earned money?" attitude, vs. looking with a "I wonder what MF SLR I should buy?" mindset.

tballphoto · Mar 23, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
That's just a factor of you actually looking carefully, with a "is this one worth my hard-earned money?" attitude, vs. looking with a "I wonder what MF SLR I should buy?" mindset.

I was using the same mindset from the get go. The hard laughter is how many "mint condition" cameras have broken parts.

Donald Qualls · Mar 23, 2021

In the Inigo Montoya voice, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

jerrybro · Mar 23, 2021

"...Almost makes buying a hasselblad body seem a smart move and wondering how many years it would take to find an affordable lens for it."

I used the birth of my first grandchild 9 years ago to buy my blad. My only regrets today are that I don't get the time to shoot it as much as I want and I didn't buy all the lenses I wanted at the same time. There are some bargains out there and I wouldn't bet on them getting cheaper.

jerrybro · Mar 23, 2021

"...Almost makes buying a hasselblad body seem a smart move and wondering how many years it would take to find an affordable lens for it."

I used the birth of my first grandchild 9 years ago to buy my blad. My only regrets today are that I don't get the time to shoot it as much as I want and I didn't buy all the lenses I wanted at the same time. There are some bargains out there and I wouldn't bet on them getting cheaper.

jerrybro · Mar 23, 2021

But I repeat myself.

Sirius Glass · Mar 23, 2021

tballphoto said:
Its funny, i decide on the RB67 and i suddenly see that the price for functional cameras, without any mechanical issues has somehow gone up 2-300 in the last month. And lets not discuss the cost of fully functional film backs that arent held together by hope and a prayer. Almost makes buying a hasselblad body seem a smart move and wondering how many years it would take to find an affordable lens for it.

Or how many of those damnable mamiya 645s are just as expensive as an rz67 but how sad so many "nearly mint" mamiya 645 have non functional prism viewfinders, AE that wont work, shutters that are non moving..... oh so damned lovely.

ruilourosa said:
Cut the cra9 and buy and hasselblad...

jerrybro said:
"...Almost makes buying a hasselblad body seem a smart move and wondering how many years it would take to find an affordable lens for it."

I used the birth of my first grandchild 9 years ago to buy my blad. My only regrets today are that I don't get the time to shoot it as much as I want and I didn't buy all the lenses I wanted at the same time. There are some bargains out there and I wouldn't bet on them getting cheaper.

The sooner you buy the Hasselblad, the sooner you will get to use it and enjoy it.

As a wise man said " New Cut the cra9 and buy and hasselblad..."

medium format SLR help needed

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency