Need help choosing a MF system.

[Alan Gales]

I do not shop at Walmart either. So you do have good taste!

The only thing I like about Walmart is those pictures of Walmart shoppers that are on the internet. Those are pretty tastless!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you haven't committed yet to a camera system, I know it would mean getting a new enlarger (but those can be had, with a little patience, for somewhere between cheap and free if you watch your regional Craigslist) but I'd go to a 6x7 or a 4x5 before I'd go to a 645. The 645 size is just not that much bigger than 35mm, film-wise, but not that much smaller, camera-wise, than a 67. And unless you're doing a lot of back-country hiking (>10 mi each way), an RB with two backs and two lenses isn't THAT heavy. This is of course assuming you want to shoot rectangles. I know how I would approach this now, for myself, but I have different requirements than you do. I have a pair of Rolleiflex 2.8E bodies (one for color, one for b/w). They're "normal" lenses of course, but after shooting with them a lot, I don't feel like I'd really need wider very often (a square sees a lot more sky/foreground than a rectangle, so it can feel 'wider' than a rectangle shot at the same focal length). And if you really feel it isn't wide enough, you can get a Rollei panorama adapter and compose 6x12 and 6x17 scenes (or even a 6x72 for 360 degree panoramas, if you are really good at keeping the camera level). So it's all relative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I looked at 645 as a choice for 120 film. I realized that 645 is not much of an improvement over 35mm and I decided to use 6x6 instead. I would not recommend 645 to anyone.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I looked at 645 as a choice for 120 film. I realized that 645 is not much of an improvement over 35mm and I decided to use 6x6 instead. I would not recommend 645 to anyone.

I would caveat that with: I would only recommend 645 if someone has a burning need for the automation that is available in 645 (auto-exposure, auto-focus, motor wind) and insists on going medium format. A Mamiya 645 does have some very good glass for it, and it handles like a big 35mm SLR.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I looked at 645 as a choice for 120 film. I realized that 645 is not much of an improvement over 35mm and I decided to use 6x6 instead. I would not recommend 645 to anyone.

I used to think this but then I got a Fuji GA645. Amazing results and blows 35mm out of the water.


Cascade Falls Trail Mill Valley FujiGA645 FujiAcros D-761-1 8min30sec 22C 1minAg2x 2012-08 VSmac 9000 Scan-120812-0002 c FFws by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


Near Makena State Park, Maui FujiGA645zi Fuji Acros HC-110dilH 9min 19C 30secAg1x 2012-12 VSmac 9000 Scan-121231-0003 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Alan Gales]

I would caveat that with: I would only recommend 645 if someone has a burning need for the automation that is available in 645 (auto-exposure, auto-focus, motor wind) and insists on going medium format. A Mamiya 645 does have some very good glass for it, and it handles like a big 35mm SLR.

I agree. I used to own a Pentax 645Nl with auto-everything, matrix metering and a huge viewfinder. It was really fun for shooting people at parties and events. It handled about as well as a 35mm and produced really nice 8x10's and 11x14's.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hi TFC, thank you for chiming in. I haven't committed to anything as of yet. No system will be committed on until it is actually paid for and in hand. I'm just the type of person that likes to do a fair amount of research before committing to anything. Call it a blessing or a curse...lol I do actually plan to do a fair amount of backpacking. This would primarily be in the White Mountains of NH, so rugged terrain and usually at least 10+ miles round trip. This is another reason why I previously mentioned that if I'm going to go bigger than 6x6 I think I will just make the jump to 4x5. I mean, if I'm going to have to get a new enlarger and carry extra weight anyway, I might as well go all the way and make the jump to large format.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi TFC, thank you for chiming in. I haven't committed to anything as of yet. No system will be committed on until it is actually paid for and in hand. I'm just the type of person that likes to do a fair amount of research before committing to anything. Call it a blessing or a curse...lol I do actually plan to do a fair amount of backpacking. This would primarily be in the White Mountains of NH, so rugged terrain and usually at least 10+ miles round trip. This is another reason why I previously mentioned that if I'm going to go bigger than 6x6 I think I will just make the jump to 4x5. I mean, if I'm going to have to get a new enlarger and carry extra weight anyway, I might as well go all the way and make the jump to large format.

You'll probably find that a good 4x5 field camera with a 90mm lens and a 150mm lens, darkcloth, half-a-dozen holders, and a meter will weigh LESS than an RB67, two backs and two lenses, and it will still fit in the same size backpack. Look for a Tachihara, Shen-Hao, Ikeda-Anba, an early Zone VI (Tachihara clone - the later Zone VI cameras were fancier, had longer bellows draw, and cost a fair bit more) or for the very light-weight, a Toyo 45CF. All of those should be available used within your budget. While not as small or as light, you could also consider something like a Sinar F (which can be collapsed down fairly small despite the monorail), and is quite inexpensive these days. I have a Sinar F that I bought as a teaching tool for my Intro to Large Format class and I can fit it, two lenses, my meter, film holders, and various accessories in my Lowepro backpack. In the backpack, it is easy to carry it for long periods of time. The Sinar F was bought at KEH for under $200.

 

[TheTrailTog]

You'll probably find that a good 4x5 field camera with a 90mm lens and a 150mm lens, darkcloth, half-a-dozen holders, and a meter will weigh LESS than an RB67, two backs and two lenses, and it will still fit in the same size backpack. Look for a Tachihara, Shen-Hao, Ikeda-Anba, an early Zone VI (Tachihara clone - the later Zone VI cameras were fancier, had longer bellows draw, and cost a fair bit more) or for the very light-weight, a Toyo 45CF. All of those should be available used within your budget. While not as small or as light, you could also consider something like a Sinar F (which can be collapsed down fairly small despite the monorail), and is quite inexpensive these days. I have a Sinar F that I bought as a teaching tool for my Intro to Large Format class and I can fit it, two lenses, my meter, film holders, and various accessories in my Lowepro backpack. In the backpack, it is easy to carry it for long periods of time. The Sinar F was bought at KEH for under $200.

My previous foray into 4x5 was with a Nagaoka field camera with a 90mm and a 210mm. Combined with a dark cloth and a handful of Fidelity Elite film holders it was very lightweight and manageable for going backpacking.

 

[MattKing]

I've recently put together some demonstration prints for discussion with some friends. I printed them 11x14 from TMax 400 negatives shot in my Mamiya 645 Pro. All were shot on a tripod.

You need a magnifier to see the grain, and I am very happy with the tonality.

With modern films, 6x4.5 is as good as 6x7 used to be.

Of course all the other sizes are better as well.

And because I like to project slides, and have a projector that will handle 6x6 and smaller, 6x4.5 serves me well for that as well.

I'm not giving up my RB67 soon, but I don't hesitate to recommend 6x4.5.

 

[flavio81]

You'll probably find that a good 4x5 field camera with a 90mm lens and a 150mm lens, darkcloth, half-a-dozen holders, and a meter will weigh LESS than an RB67, two backs and two lenses, and it will still fit in the same size backpack.

True, but the RB is far quicker to operate.

Last weekend i was practically using the RB as a "press" camera to take some marching crowd shots -- i ran quickly to be far ahead than the lead of the crowd, faced them, focused in advance to a certain distance and hit the shutter button as soon as the crowd snapped into focus. Then i could quickly advance the film, cock the shutter and do the thing again. All handheld of course. And yes, you can run while carrying a RB.

I don't think i could do that with a field camera.

 

[flavio81]

I looked at 645 as a choice for 120 film. I realized that 645 is not much of an improvement over 35mm and I decided to use 6x6 instead. I would not recommend 645 to anyone.

Interesting.

In my personal (and more or less limited) experience, a well-exposed, well-focused shot on 35mm Ilford Delta 100 using good lenses gets very close to a 6x4.5 shot using Ilford HP5+ 400 with regard to sharpness and graininess. In other words with 6x4.5 you can go down two ISO stops and one technological generation (regular film vs T-grain film) and still mantain the same level of quality. Or viceversa.

Now, i like the 6x4.5 format a lot because you can get 16 shots from a roll. And, you can put Neopan Acros 100 or Ilford Delta 100 or TMax 100 on it and be stunned with the results. And having a big negative means contact prints are easier to examine, scratches and dust are less bothersome, etc.

Regarding 6x7, the jump in quality is there; now you are approaching large format quality. I have some 6x7 shots done in Neopan Acros 100 that you could swear were done with a 4x5 camera. The images have a crisp three-dimensional look, that people seem to be "inside" the print, their souls captured inside. It is not a photograph anymore, it's more like an hologram.

The RB67, armed with Acros, is in this sense a very different camera from the rest -- it does not produce pictures anymore; instead it captures people, freezes them, and fits them inside a piece of paper. It is scary!

I own about 15 or 16 cameras and if i had to keep one it would be the RB, no doubt about it.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hi flavio, thank you for your input. The RB/RZ's are undoubtedly nice cameras from all that I have seen. However, as I mentioned before, this will be for mostly tripod-based work and if I'm going to go bigger than 6x6 (which would require me to get a new enlarger) I'm just going to make the jump to a 4x5. My Nikon F2 system more than suits my current needs for running around and shooting.

 

[Mike Bates]

I like 4x5, but it operates at an entirely different pace than medium format gear. Film costs could also be substantially higher, but that tends to be mitigated by the slower operating mode that takes fewer shots.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

True, but the RB is far quicker to operate.

Last weekend i was practically using the RB as a "press" camera to take some marching crowd shots -- i ran quickly to be far ahead than the lead of the crowd, faced them, focused in advance to a certain distance and hit the shutter button as soon as the crowd snapped into focus. Then i could quickly advance the film, cock the shutter and do the thing again. All handheld of course. And yes, you can run while carrying a RB.

I don't think i could do that with a field camera.

Flavio-

while that may be true, that's not what the OP is looking for- he wants to photograph landscapes, not shoot parades. Speed of operation is not a consideration for what he wants to do. And should he get the burning urge to shoot action photos with 4x5, he can always get a Speed Graphic and a couple of Grafmatic backs and be just as fast as you are with the RB, but have a negative 4x bigger.

 

[flavio81]

Flavio-

while that may be true, that's not what the OP is looking for- he wants to photograph landscapes, not shoot parades. Speed of operation is not a consideration for what he wants to do. And should he get the burning urge to shoot action photos with 4x5, he can always get a Speed Graphic and a couple of Grafmatic backs and be just as fast as you are with the RB, but have a negative 4x bigger.

Agree. Landscapes don't move too much

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like 4x5, but it operates at an entirely different pace than medium format gear. Film costs could also be substantially higher, but that tends to be mitigated by the slower operating mode that takes fewer shots.

4"x5" allows so many more ways to screw up a photograph than MF or 135. It opens a new universe of mistakes and screw-up. That is why I love to use it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agree. Landscapes don't move too much

Except during earthquakes they generally do not move around.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Except during earthquakes they generally do not move around.

Don't forget landslides and volcanic eruptions

 

[flavio81]

4"x5" allows so many more ways to screw up a photograph than MF or 135. It opens a new universe of mistakes and screw-up. That is why I love to use it.

This quote is good enough for a signature.

 

[miha]

How true. I've made two exposures today with the dark slide in place. I did notice it before I started to pack the camera though.

 

[TheTrailTog]

How true. I've made two exposures today with the dark slide in place. I did notice it before I started to pack the camera though.

Not sure how I managed it, but I never did that before. My biggest issue was that I had a tendency of not flipping the dark slide after taking a shot, so when I went to shoot something else later I wouldn't realize I had already exposed that sheet.

 

[miha]

We should work in a tandem, then?

 

[Sirius Glass]

This quote is good enough for a signature.

Using a focal plane shutter
Lens open
Pull darkslide
Take exposure
Replace darkslide
Flip two sheet film holder
Pull darkslide
Crank focal plane shutter up ... $#!+ I just put a diagonal exposure across the film!

 

[miha]

You can't make an exposure with the lens open.