Need help choosing a MF system.

[Alan Gales]

I don't believe that (entirely). And yes, they DO care about profit only because of the biting monkey on their back with the voracious appetite, called income tax. And it's NEVER enough. Like whipping a horse to try to get a nose. But take away all that for another look, and I believe in most companies, you'll find good people. Their sense of excellence is driven by profit motive, yes. But somewhere in there is wanting to do the right thing. Were it not true, the "big greedy company" that some love to hate would have been gone long before.

The problem is that the large companies are corporations so they own a responsibility to their shareholders. The only concern of the shareholders is profit so you end up planning for the short term instead of the long term in order to keep the shareholders happy.

You say that you don't believe me entirely. You are optimistic which is a good quality to have. I've just seen too much. Just tainted, I guess.

 

[Arklatexian]

I would like to put my two cents in for a Hasselblad. You said you will use a tripod and you already have a nice MF enlarger. My experience has been that if you can't make a 16 x 20 from a square negative (either vertical or horozontal) from a Hasselblad with that outfit, you would not not be half trying....Regards

 

[MitzyG]

I have a Mamiya 645 Super and a Mam C330. The TLR cost me $250 and the 645 I traded for a camera I paid approximately $200 for (a Crown Graphic). I also am about to pay $200 for a couple of extra lenses and some other things, so they def fit your price range. I don't care about having extra backs for the 645 but they are well under $50 each from my research. The 645 takes a gorgeous photo. I have heard to stay away from Supers but mine is the love of my life. lol

 

[Alan Gales]

I took down my post as an off-topic rant. But I will let stand my belief that companies are operating under duress. A simple real estate contract made in that condition is voidable. Strip away everything and you'll see that a 3% profit margin is nominal in the corporate world. If 3% is greedy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Friend, I think we have both brought up good points on a very complicated subject. I admit that I was ranting too. Let's get back to helping the OP find a camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

I prefer 4x5 for landscape over medium format because of camera movements. If you buy a 4x5 you can use a 6x7 roll film back on it if you wish.

I forgot to mention that there is also the Fujifilm GX680. It's a monster medium format camera that does provide some movements. The Fuji lenses are said to be tack sharp.

I used to have a 6x7 back for my 4x5 camera. I found it a lot easier to see what I was doing with movements shooting 4x5. In fact I like my 8x10 even better. I admit my eyes are far from what they used to be but people who shoot medium format digital on view cameras tether to a lap top to see better what they are doing. It's just something else to think about.

 

[Alan Gales]

That was settled long ago. A Hasselblad. They do what a MF camera needs to do, and there's not enough parts in them for something to go wrong. Somebody invented "ingenious simplicity", and put it in a chrome shell with pretty leather, and a fancy list price, and there you have it. But the dirty little secret is there's just not much to go wrong, because there's really not that much inside one.

I used to own a Hasselblad 500/cm with 80mm Planar. It was a wonderful camera. I still preferred my RZ67 for portraiture but the Hasselblad over all was a better camera. Now, I prefer my Wehman 8x10. Of course it's a pain to shoot hand held.

Which Hasselblad and lens/lenses do you own?

 

[TheTrailTog]

In fact I like my 8x10 even better.

That was something else I had mildly entertained as I think I could be quite content doing 8x10 contacts. However, that would be hard to pull off within my budget and I certainly wouldn't be able to pick up an enlarger for it any time soon, at least not with the prices I have been seeing.

Thanks again everyone for the great input! You have all definitely given me some great food for thought. I still have another month or so until I get my profit sharing from work, so still plenty of time to mull things over.

 

[Kirks518]

For $1000 you could get a lot.

I'm thinking for $1000 you could get:

RB67 Pro S w/90mm or 127mm and a back ($250-$400?)
6x4.5 back ($75)
50mm ($200)
Prism ($100)
Enlarger to handle the 6x7, but in the meantime, use the 6x4.5 back ($no clue)

And as an example, there's this complete kit on the big auction site right now as an example (no relation to me).

 

[TheTrailTog]

Definitely lots of great deals to be had. THIS is another one I had been watching that would have been great. Any of the cameras mentioned are definitely more than capable and an argument could be made for any of them, as this thread has illustrated. Most likely it will end up boiling down to what kit can be had for the best value at the time I have cash in hand.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I went though a number of cameras before landing on a Hasselblad. Yes, they are more expensive, but I'd have spent much less had I started there. That said, there is no point to a square format if you don't see that way. If you like the M645, get two of those instead of extra backs. That builds in a bit of redundancy too because things do break.

 

[TheTrailTog]

I don't think I've ever had a problem "seeing" in one way or the other. I shot for a while almost exclusively with Rolleiflexes, but have also shot a lot of 35mm. I find that what format I "see" things in depends more on what I'm shooting with at the moment as my composition tends to change to suit whatever gear is in hand. That said, often times when I would shoot with a Rolleiflex I would often "see" and compose in square format, only to crop when printing to fit whatever paper I was using. It's a really bad habit that I know I need to work on as the scene itself should dictate the crop, not the equipment.

 

[Alan Gales]

That was something else I had mildly entertained as I think I could be quite content doing 8x10 contacts. However, that would be hard to pull off within my budget and I certainly wouldn't be able to pick up an enlarger for it any time soon, at least not with the prices I have been seeing.

Thanks again everyone for the great input! You have all definitely given me some great food for thought. I still have another month or so until I get my profit sharing from work, so still plenty of time to mull things over.

Instead of an enlarger you could buy an Epson V750 scanner and scan 8x10. You can get really nice 16x20's doing that. If you occasionally want anything larger you can get your negative drum scanned.

You could still contact print and you would have a scanner to post your photographs to the web.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would like to put my two cents in for a Hasselblad. You said you will use a tripod and you already have a nice MF enlarger. My experience has been that if you can't make a 16 x 20 from a square negative (either vertical or horozontal) from a Hasselblad with that outfit, you would not not be half trying....Regards

I disagree. I have done it many times.

Are you limited by equipment, technique or knowledge?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer 4x5 for landscape over medium format because of camera movements. If you buy a 4x5 you can use a 6x7 roll film back on it if you wish.

I forgot to mention that there is also the Fujifilm GX680. It's a monster medium format camera that does provide some movements. The Fuji lenses are said to be tack sharp.

I used to have a 6x7 back for my 4x5 camera. I found it a lot easier to see what I was doing with movements shooting 4x5. In fact I like my 8x10 even better. I admit my eyes are far from what they used to be but people who shoot medium format digital on view cameras tether to a lap top to see better what they are doing. It's just something else to think about.

I use both for landscape. The OP wants to use MF for landscape; he did not state that he wants to use a 4''x5" camera.

 

[TheTrailTog]

For the record, not at all ruling out 4x5. I'm mainly looking at MF as I already have a MF enlarger and I posted in this forum as there is no general type of forum to pose the question of choosing between MF or LF. Also, just to note, this whole thing is just for me personally. It will be my "man cave", my place of zen. I am under no delusion of trying to be the next Ansel or anything like that, just looking for a creative outlet for unwinding. The prints may never even see the light of day. I stated 8x10 and 11x14 prints as I don't feel like 5x7 is large enough to get a feel of a print and my current print washer goes up to 11x14, so I would most likely be printing 8x10 and 11x14. 11x14 is also the largest I have ever printed to date, but have always wanted to try printing larger at some point, which is why I mentioned possibly 16x20 in the future. On the topic of scanning, I already have a flatbed scanner. Any scanning would be for the purpose of sharing the end product, a wet print. I have no desire to scan negatives to get an end result.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two 4"x5" cameras. The 1928 Graflex Model D is a hand held portrait camera. The Pacemaker Speed Graphic is mostly used hand held and on a tripod with the 90mm and 210mm lenses with and without movements.

 

[Alan Gales]

I use both for landscape. The OP wants to use MF for landscape; he did not state that he wants to use a 4''x5" camera.

Sirius, if you reread the OP's first post he says that he hasn't ruled out large format.

When these threads go on like this it's hard to remember everything said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, if you reread the OP's first post he says that he hasn't ruled out large format.

When these threads go on like this it's hard to remember everything said.

Your post is #47. This is post #46.

I have two 4"x5" cameras. The 1928 Graflex Model D is a hand held portrait camera. The Pacemaker Speed Graphic is mostly used hand held and on a tripod with the 90mm and 210mm lenses with and without movements.

 

[Kyon Thinh]

Get the mighty GX680, you wont regret it. I moved from RZ67 and will never look back, and for the used price right now it is a steal.

 

[Alan Gales]

Your post is #47. This is post #46.

OK.

 

[Arklatexian]

I disagree. I have done it many times.

Are you limited by equipment, technique or knowledge?

I must say that I AM confused. What do you disagree with and what have you done many times? By other's standards I may be limited by equipment but I have all I want and I am damn sure not limited by technique nor knowledge. I have been doing darkroom work as an advanced amateur and sometime professional for over sixty years......

 

[Sirius Glass]

I must say that I AM confused. What do you disagree with and what have you done many times? By other's standards I may be limited by equipment but I have all I want and I am damn sure not limited by technique nor knowledge. I have been doing darkroom work as an advanced amateur and sometime professional for over sixty years......

I have two 35mm C-41 prints that are 24"x36" in my living room. Drop by and see me in Los Angeles and I will show those to you. I also have four 20"x24" black & white prints from 6x6 120 taken with my Hasselblad.

 

[jcc]

Rollei 6x6 SLR system. They're not really selling, so you can find a kit for WAY under your budget. Fit the swappable back too. (Shameless plug: I might have one available if you're interested.)

 

[gone]

It would make more sense to go w/ a Crown Graphic, even a smaller 2x3 if you don't want to carry the 4x5 bodies. With the right film and good developing/metering, 120 enlargements can go to LF size, as long as you're reasonable on the upper limits. You can put a roll film back on the Graflex with your desired format, keep separate backs loaded w/ different films, have complete freedom of what lens and what shutter to use, you get a little movement, etc. I never thought of a 'blad as a landscape camera, more of a studio camera. I tried shooting them on the street and found a TLR MUCH easier, and the lenses were sharper too. 'blads do break, and they are not cheap to repair either. I never got used to that annoying "whooomph" shutter on them either. Not much can go wrong w/ a press camera, and if something needs fixing you can do it yourself. Portraits? Just put a Heliar lens on it and you're good to go.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hi Momus, the Crown Graphics are near the top of the list for me should I go the LF route. Here's where I'm at right now and my reasoning...

Top 3 Choices​

Mamiya 645 - The newer incarnations are very budget friendly, meet my requirements, and I wouldn't need to buy a new enlarger. Plus I found I had some old accessories still such as 120 inserts. I could easily put together a nice kit under $700, which would keep me well under budget, leaving cash for more film or paper or allow me to get a better tripod or a camera backpack.

Hasselblad - While this would very likely max out my budget, 'blads would meet all of my wants, I wouldn't need a new enlarger, and the lenses are arguably amongst the best MF lenses ever produced. Also, they are all mechanical, which for my personal tastes is an added bonus.

4x5 Press Camera - Yes, with this I would need a new enlarger. However, a nice kit could easily be put together for under $600, leaving plenty of cash left over for an enlarger and a good enlarging lens.

What I've Ruled Out​

Any MF Larger Than 6x6 - Yes, there are lots of great cameras out there where I could easily put together a nice system cheaply and have cash leftover for a new enlarger. My train of thought on these is if I really want to get more negative resolution and I have to get a new enlarger anyway, I might as well just make the full leap to 4x5.

4x5 Monorail - Yes, these can be had for a song, but they lack portability. I want something that I can put into a backpack and going hiking with.

Still Considering​

Bronica S2/S2a - These seem to be a cheaper version of a 'blad and I could easily put together a full system on a budget, they're mechanical, and I wouldn't need to get a new enlarger. Anybody have any thoughts on these when thrown into the mix?