Need help choosing a MF system.

[Slixtiesix]

Have you thought of a Pentax 67 so far? Regarding Hasselblad, I would also recommend a 553ELX. Good compromise between price and age. Hey, someone mentioned the SL66! Great too, but the choice of wide angles is rather limited. The 50mm is nice but only when stopped down to f8...f11. The 40mm is very large and heavy. These cameras are almost 50 years old now and very complex. One should plan for an overhaul sooner or later, but as long as they are going, they´re really great cameras.

 

[lxdude]

$1k goes pretty far in Bronica land... I think I'm still just under that with effectively all keh sourced (very recent) "ex+ to ln-" condition stuff. Some better deals are out there, but also some not.
ETRSi Body,WLF, prism finder non-ae, (2) 120 backs, (1) 135w back, 75EII/2.8, 150PE/3.5, speed grip, caps, hood, few odds and ends.

The 645 ETR series and 6X6 SQ series are both reasonably priced, and the SQ is more like the Hasselblad 500 series than the earlier S2/S2A. I will not dispute the Hasselbladistas regarding the desirability of Hasselblads, but the Bronicas allow you to acquire more for the money. They perform well, and the way prices are now, you can't really lose any money if you move on later. They handle well, and the lenses are quite good. I got a Bronica ETRSi to get my feet wet in MFfor not much money, and haven't been inclined to move to anything else. I instead acquired more lenses and accessories,and I've been happy with it so far.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Have you thought of a Pentax 67 so far? Regarding Hasselblad, I would also recommend a 553ELX. Good compromise between price and age. Hey, someone mentioned the SL66! Great too, but the choice of wide angles is rather limited. The 50mm is nice but only when stopped down to f8...f11. The 40mm is very large and heavy. These cameras are almost 50 years old now and very complex. One should plan for an overhaul sooner or later, but as long as they are going, they´re really great cameras.

I had looked into the SL66 when I first started planning all of this out, but finding one for under $1000 that is in good working condition seems to be pretty rare from all that I have seen on the forums and the auction site. Of those that can be found only include an 80mm, but I want at least a wide angle to start. I have seen 'blads come up with a 50mm or 60mm Distagon for under $1k. As for the Pentax 67, another beautiful camera, but as I mentioned above, I've decided that if I'm going to have to get a new enlarger anyway, I'm just going to make the jump to 4x5.

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

I still don't see where we disagree. I reread what I wrote several times and it amounts to saying that making a 16 x 20 with a Hasselblad, properly used, is no big deal. In our old camera club, we had several members, including myself, who made 16 x 20 enlargements from 35mm negatives whenever needed. I grant you they were not 20 x 24s but we were not trying to set any records. Wonderful stuff Beutlers Sol. I don't drive 1600 miles to see anyone's photographs.......Regards!

 

[Alan Gales]

You asked about the early Bronica S2 and S2a's. i used to shoot Bronica EC's and I also had an S2a at one time. I preferred the EC over the S2a but I think that was just because I was so used to the EC.

The early Bronicas before the S2a had brass gears that used to strip out when you advanced the film. If you buy one of these cameras advance the film by turning the knob and not folding out the crank lever and using it. The S2a fixed this problem with steel gears instead of brass. The later EC's had steel gears as well. Another problem with the S2a and earlier models is that they had a focus problem from the factory and could not focus on infinity. This is an easy fix and if you buy a camera that has not been realigned you will still probably need to replace the material that the focus screen sets on due to age. There is information on the web about replacing the material with moleskin. The only real problem with the S2a is age and a lack of people who still service them. If you can buy one and get it CLA'd it should be problem free for many years.

The early Bronicas used helical focussing and had focal plane shutters. I also owned a Mamiya RZ67 which was known for close focussing. My EC could not focus as close as my RZ but it did pretty good in comparison. One warning about the focal plane shutter. It is loud!

There were three lines of lenses for the early Bronica's, Nikon, Bronica and Komura. I owned the 40mm Nikkor, 50mm Nikkor, 75mm Nikkor, 135mm Nikkor, 150mm Bronica and 200mm Nikkor. I found the Nikkors all to be sharp except for the 135mm. The 150mm Bronica made an excellent portrait lens.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Thanks Alan for another very informative post! Sounds like I can eliminate the older Bronicas unless I can get one from a known source as I don't feel like having to deal with correcting focusing issues if it is anything beyond replacing some foam. I'm assuming these issues were all resolved with the SQ series? Prices are looking good on those as well.

 

[johnha]

I shoot various MF gear: Mamiya 645, C330f, Bronica SQ-B and Pentax 6x7. As you appear to be looking for a system I'd suggest either a Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya 7 (otherwise I'd suggest a variety of 6x7, 6x9 & 6x12 'rangefinders' or a Hasselblad XPAN) - Note: I'm in the UK and don't know what you could get for $1000 (UK prices seem more expensive - especially Mamiya 7 lenses).

The lack of an interchangeable back on the Pentax 6x7 is easily solved by a second body (acts as a backup too). Two P67 bodies are not going to be significantly larger/heavier than an RB/RZ with two film backs. As you only get ten 6x7 shots on a roll of 120, the advantage of interchangeable backs starts to fade anyway.

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks Alan for another very informative post! Sounds like I can eliminate the older Bronicas unless I can get one from a known source as I don't feel like having to deal with correcting focusing issues if it is anything beyond replacing some foam. I'm assuming these issues were all resolved with the SQ series? Prices are looking good on those as well.

What you are doing is replacing the old foam with moleskin. Here is how to do it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142186376/The-Bronica-Focus-Problem

The later Bronica SQ series was a totally different camera and used leaf shutter lenses like the Hasselblad. The SQ series had no focussing problems that I am aware of.

 

[TheTrailTog]

I shoot various MF gear: Mamiya 645, C330f, Bronica SQ-B and Pentax 6x7. As you appear to be looking for a system I'd suggest either a Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya 7 (otherwise I'd suggest a variety of 6x7, 6x9 & 6x12 'rangefinders' or a Hasselblad XPAN) - Note: I'm in the UK and don't know what you could get for $1000 (UK prices seem more expensive - especially Mamiya 7 lenses).

The lack of an interchangeable back on the Pentax 6x7 is easily solved by a second body (acts as a backup too). Two P67 bodies are not going to be significantly larger/heavier than an RB/RZ with two film backs. As you only get ten 6x7 shots on a roll of 120, the advantage of interchangeable backs starts to fade anyway.

Hi John, thank you for your input. At this point I've ruled out any medium format larger than 6x6. I had looked into the Mamiya 6's, but the prices for those and the 7's are definitely out of my budget. As for wanting the ability to swap backs, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, it would be nice to have the ability to swap between B&W and color film. Second, it would be nice to have the ability at times to have backs available for different levels of development; n, n+1, etc.

 

[TheTrailTog]

What you are doing is replacing the old foam with moleskin. Here is how to do it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142186376/The-Bronica-Focus-Problem

The later Bronica SQ series was a totally different camera and used leaf shutter lenses like the Hasselblad. The SQ series had no focussing problems that I am aware of.

If we ever cross paths, remind me that I owe you a drink for your help...lol Thanks for the link to that article. After your previous post, I did a quick read-up on the focus issues and I found several threads referencing that article, but couldn't find the actual article, only some dead links.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The focus problem on the Hasselblad is quite a bit different. There are 3 little foam pads behind the mirror, between the mirror back and the back plate. It requires disassembly of the camera and removal of the chassis rear frame. This, of course, necessitates a Hasselblad jig or a calibrated dial caliper to reassemble the chassis at the correct chassis length after the pad replacement is done. Otherwise, you'll have a "long body", or a "short body", and focus will never be right (or perfect). To make maters worse, there are probably no, as in zero; used Hasselblads where that foam is not deteriorated. They're ALL that way. If you use it for distant subjects and infinity, then fine. But at 3.5 feet, your focus can be so bad as to be worthless.

A Hasselblad repairman can quickly make this adjustment. I have watched Mike at Samys Camera on Fairfax adjust another customer's camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

If we ever cross paths, remind me that I owe you a drink for your help...lol Thanks for the link to that article. After your previous post, I did a quick read-up on the focus issues and I found several threads referencing that article, but couldn't find the actual article, only some dead links.

You are most welcome. I'd be happy to drink a couple beers with you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, the Hasselblad techs would probably roll their eyes at me at the way I do things, but I don't feel like they'd tell me that it was wrong, outright. Maybe ignorant and more involved that the factory way, but I believe they'd say I had the right idea, and that it was a workable one. I suppose there are techs that would just leave the powdered missing foam pads in there and adjust the mirror stops, or the focus screen pegs to compensate and leave it at that.

Did you notice that I did not criticize your description of the repair. It approximates what a Hasselblad repairman would do.

 

[Mike Bates]

Wide angle landscapes tend to want to show details in larger prints. For that reason alone, I'd be after as many square millimeters of film areas I can afford, considering the entire system of camera, enlarger, and film costs.

Hasselblads are incredibly nice camera systems, particularly the lenses. However, if you plan to print 8x10, 12x16, 11x14 (i.e. rectangular), you're throwing away film area. Think of it as a "virtual" rotatable back for 6x4.5 captures.

A good sturdy tripod will help capture landscape details. Like many things, you have to pick two characteristics from the set of sturdy, lightweight, and cheap. Don't spend your entire budget on a camera if you don't have a decent tripod.

I prefer 6x7 systems because they're plentiful, relatively cheap, and generally have very good lenses. I realize that's incompatible with your current enlarger, so you may rule them out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wide angle landscapes tend to want to show details in larger prints. For that reason alone, I'd be after as many square millimeters of film areas I can afford, considering the entire system of camera, enlarger, and film costs.

Hasselblads are incredibly nice camera systems, particularly the lenses. However, if you plan to print 8x10, 12x16, 11x14 (i.e. rectangular), you're throwing away film area. Think of it as a "virtual" rotatable back for 6x4.5 captures.

A good sturdy tripod will help capture landscape details. Like many things, you have to pick two characteristics from the set of sturdy, lightweight, and cheap. Don't spend your entire budget on a camera if you don't have a decent tripod.

I prefer 6x7 systems because they're plentiful, relatively cheap, and generally have very good lenses. I realize that's incompatible with your current enlarger, so you may rule them out.

8"x10" can hold a 8"x8" photograph.
11"x14" can hold a 11"x11" photograph.
16"x20" can hold a 16"x16" photograph.

So I just destroyed your logic to justify a 645 format. We all know that Hasselblad advertized that "Square is the perfect format." So just get over it. ==> Jes' Sayin'

 

[Mike Bates]

If you print 8x8, you didn't print 8x10. ==> Jes' Sayin'

 

[Alan Gales]

8"x10" can hold a 8"x8" photograph.
11"x14" can hold a 11"x11" photograph.
16"x20" can hold a 16"x16" photograph.

So I just destroyed your logic to justify a 645 format. We all know that Hasselblad advertized that "Square is the perfect format." So just get over it. ==> Jes' Sayin'

Yeah, but can you buy 8"x8", 11'x11" or 16"x16" picture frames at Walmart?

 

[Slixtiesix]

If the final product needs to be a rectangle, I would not use Hasselblad at all! Or at least I would use a A16 Back so you do not waste too much film, that´s okay.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Some very valid arguments for the different film sizes. I can say that from experience I was perfectly content printings shots from Tessar based Rolleiflexes and from Mamiya m645's up to 11x14 and even got some unsolicited sales of prints at that size. At the time I was shooting Plus-X souped in HC-110. I haven't decided 100% what combo I will be going with this time around, but am thinking either TMax 100 or Acros in DD-X. Also, I wasn't too worried about wasting film as I do like square format shots for some things and it was nice come printing time to have different crop options to play around with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, but can you buy 8"x8", 11'x11" or 16"x16" picture frames at Walmart?

Maybe not, but real art stores and frames stores have them priced from inexpensive to higher quality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you print 8x8, you didn't print 8x10. ==> Jes' Sayin'

One prints 8"x8" if the composition is square. The composition dictates the print format; the camera format is merely a suggestion for the composition.

 

[Mike Bates]

That's the point. If most of your compositions are square, optimize your film area by choosing a square format camera. Otherwise, a rectangular format will deliver more useable film area.

Of course, film area isn't the only consideration when choosing a camera.

 

[hsandler]

I recently switched from a Bronica ETRSi, which is 6x4.5, to a Bronica SQ-A, which is the same thing, but 6x6. The reason was to have a more portable light kit. With the SQ-A, I can use the light waist level finder all the time, and a lighter tripod as well, since I don't have to flop the camera over on its side. I expected to crop to the mainly 8x10 compositions I did before. However, I tend to compose to fill the viewfinder I have in front of me, so I'm now making mostly square final images, and liking it.

 

[Alan Gales]

Maybe not, but real art stores and frames stores have them priced from inexpensive to higher quality.

I'm just joking with you! I don't shop at Walmart.

I like square and I like the 4X5 aspect ratio. I always felt 35mm a bit too long on the long side for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm just joking with you! I don't shop at Walmart.

I like square and I like the 4X5 aspect ratio. I always felt 35mm a bit too long on the long side for me.

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