MF camera like Nikon F4

[samnc0]

I had a good time shooting my 35mm Nikon F4 today, and I am trying to find a MF camera similar to the F4 in that it need not be totally electronic (i.e. OK to have dedicated knobs for everything, no menus on LCD screen)

I really need one with auto exposure, and would prefer AF, but that isnt critical. A camera with easy to load film and auto-advance film would be helpful to me. Any suggestions?

Also, what kind of film do you recommend for MF?

 

[salihonba]

Pentax 6x7 will fit your need

 

[2F/2F]

Pentax 67, Pentacon Six, Kiev 60, and other similar cameras would be a good place to start. If you truly need all that auto stuff, perhaps a newer AF 645 would be the ticket...but here is a hint that will save you lots of money and get you much better results: You DON'T need all that stuff.

Edit: BTW, many medium format SLRs have not only metering prisms available, but also auto exposure prisms. Lack of auto focus is really the deal killer for most of them if going by your criteria.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Pentax 645 will give you every thing except AF. Fairly cheap.

 

[verney]

Mamiya 645. Low cost if manual focusing is ok, AF is also available but AF-bodys and lenses are more pricey.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Contax 645 has everything you mentioned.
But you should be aware that all AF MF cameras are slow compared to a sophisticated 35mm SLR.
I think the prices for used and "like new" Contax equipment are really fair in these days but I don´t know how much you are able and willing to spend. They do not build this camera anymore since 2005 but it still can be serviced.
I would recommend simply to use the same film as you do with 35mm ;-)

 

[elekm]

Once you add autofocus to your requirements, then you also add electronics, which usually includes autoexposure, LCD screens, etc. And as others said, you push up the price considerably.

Maybe you should simply look for a simpler camera with all manual controls. Medium format requires (or should require) more careful thought, because you get fewer shots per roll -- unless your shooting 220 with a 6x4.5 camera. Actually, all photography should require careful thought.

 

[Q.G.]

Most MF cameras concentrate on the very few parameters that need to be set, trying not to put a mass of unintelligible 'modes' and 'automatisms' between the camera and the photographer.
So you get to set the shutterspeed, the aperture and focus. That's it. Child's play.
Once you get to deal with cameras at that level again, keeping photography as simple as it really is, you really don't need auto-thingies anymore.

But if you want auto-everything, and a manual that takes months to read from cover to cover, a Hasselblad H-series camera may be the thing for you.


I'd recommended Kodak Portra NC for colour, Kodak T-Max for black and white.

 

[stradibarrius]

The Pentax 645N will do everything you ask. The original 645 did not AF but the 645N does. good selection of lenses and about the size and weight of a Nikon F5.

 

[ic-racer]

Rollei 6008AF

Auto exposure, auto focus, easy to load and auto advance.

 

[keithwms]

Mamiya 7ii (albeit no AF).

Film: Fuji or Kodak 160, Fuji pro h (400) and z (800) for c41; astia 100F and provia 400x for slides; fp4+ and hp5+ for b&w are my standards.

 

[RJS]

I am finding that the new films (35mm) and lenses are so good that MF is becoming something of a dinosaur unless you print very large (16X20 and above). I love my SL66 for its tilting front and interchangable backs that make it more than just a bigger 35. But it's the only one hat does all that, makng it for me worth the tripod! I don't think I would bother with a 645 - not enough better than 35, and Hasselblad (I had several) won't do what the Rollei will it's just an oversize, slow roll film cameras that requires shutter CLA often!

 

[Cor]

I am finding that the new films (35mm) and lenses are so good that MF is becoming something of a dinosaur unless you print very large (16X20 and above). I don't think I would bother with a 645 - not enough better than 35,

..Have heard that argument before:6*4.5 being not enough better that 35mm.

I disagree based on my own experience (YMMV off course). In 35 mm I shoot Ilford Delta 400 at 250 ASa, souped in Xtol, Olympus OM4, standard 50mm Zuiko lens.

In 645 I shoot (shot, until it is repaired again..sniff) Bronica RF645 on HP5, Xtol at 250 ASA, 65 mm standard lens.

I see a big difference in being the 645 prints sharper, smoother tonality, less grain (and I print these negs larger than the 35mm ones).

Best,

Cor

 

[verney]

I am finding that the new films (35mm) and lenses are so good that MF is becoming something of a dinosaur...

Haven't people teen telling this for decades?

 

[Mark Antony]

Haven't people been telling this for decades?

Yep they were wrong then they're wrong now- just try Delta 3200 in 120 then 35mm. RJS experiences aren't mirrored by me.
I use 35mm for when I need fast operation or a film that I can't get in 120. The tonality and superiority are visible even in smaller prints with a good MF camera if you can stand the slower operation of some cameras.
My Rolleiflex has a better quality than my M4-P, of that there can be no doubt. The lenses on the Leica are superb but can't match in quality/price ratio most MF cameras.
In fact 35mm is being supplanted by other capture mediums for me except for Kodachrome and faster speed B&W. Fine if you're in love with the miniature format aesthetic or a certain camera but remember those improved 35mm films are also often available in 120 where they create an amazing quality image.

Of course personal style, and preferences dictate most peoples options, but to state 35mm is as good as MF quality wise is false.

 

[JRJacobs]

Agreed - I love m 35mm kit, but no comparison to my MF negs.

To the OP - Pentax 67ii is most like a overgrown 35mm SLR than any other system.