I really like the cameras you commented here. Im not the biggest fan of square images but I think its just because I am not used to them and I love that it has a meter. Does the fuji?. And then the massive gw690 which I have considered in the past but I shied away from it because its a rangefinder. To be honest, after the year or so Ive been shooting film i haven't even looked through a rangefinder except a digital Leica years ago and I though it was the weirdest freaking thingWell, I've done a lot of walking with my RB67 and no tripod - in town and everywhere. It's not that heavy, though Hasselblad is lighter and smaller.
For eye-level viewing, RB67 prism is like Soviet-era tank, so I use waist-level instead. Eye-level prism for Hasselblad is nice!
Maybe consider TLR like Yashica 124G (has meter) - decent quality for the money.
Also possible is something like Fuji GW690III - if you like rangefinders and one lens.
Ive never really been good at composing square photos (I only know that because of my phone cameraI'm going to throw another suggestion:
Kiev 6c
You can find them CLAd on ebay. Excellent and inexpensive lenses. Cheap body. Takes 120 or 220 film. Has a reputation for shutter slap but this is undeserved. You simply have to use a cable release and can take sharp pictures handheld down to 1/8.
Great advice. Ill just do that. Buy something ill have fun with.You have so many choices! Actually you can definitely hand hold a speed or crown graphic, they were made for that. But then you'll have to use a rangefinder if you're not on a tripod. Remember, with a 6x6 camera you can always crop the square image. That's what people did to print onto rectangular paper before the 645 and 6x7 formats were invented. Any of the cameras mentioned on this thread can make great pictures. You can just buy one that you think you might like and try it. If you don't like it you can probably sell it for what you paid for it and try something else. Have fun and don't sweat it too much.
if you dislike a tripod so much, You may want to check into some MF rangefinders.As far as quality goes, You can't do much better than Hasselblad but, they may be out of your budget and also benefit from a tripod.Hello, I just joined this forum so bare with me pleaseI hope Im posting this is the right spot as well. Anyway, I am deciding between 3 or 4 cameras, The pentax 645, mamiya 1000s, and surprisingly the rb67. That is about my price range so if there are any other cameras you recommend feel free to post. I am mainly wanting a medium format camera for architecture, and some landscape so Im in no hurry but I would rather not use a tripod. I do have one but its just annoying. I don't mind slowing down but there are times where I have to take the picture pretty quick but most of the time I don't. To be honest, I am not sure if I will need interchangeable backs or not because I have never used a camera like this before so I guess I will take your word for that and I have had thoughts about wanting one on my 35mm lol. I know that the Pentax system has a built in light meter which I hear is very good but the mamiya doesn't so i don't know how long it takes to use a light meter or how expensive a good simple light meter costs? Also, looking around at photos taken by these, I can't seem to find good photos taken with the pentax, i don't know if it's because i just don't like how the pentax looks compared to the 1000s or if no one is posting great photos on flickr and such. But I did find some super amazing shots on youtube from the pentax 645n, I think they have the same quality? I also did however find great photos taken with the 1000s and amazing photos with the rb67. So if anyone has some stellar shots with the pentax or any of them please post them. Sorry for sounding like such a noob but i guess I just am. I hope thats enough information for you to help me with this decision and if you need any more just ask below, I usually respond pretty quick. Thanks.
You can indeed, and this "feature" has been widely advertised by Hasselblad's marketing literature. However, I believe it is the wrong approach. Choosing a 6x6 with the intent of eventually cropping to, say, 2:3 is adding an unnecessary level of complexity to the process. In my case, if I shot a picture with the intent of cropping it later, I would forget what I originally had in mind by the time the negative gets enlarged in the darkroom - but that's just meRemember, with a 6x6 camera you can always crop the square image.
+1 on that. If you have architecture in mind, a Mamiya 6x7 rangefinder with 43mm is hard to beat (and certainly as good as the famed Hasselblad 38mm), although this is clearly out of the budget you mentioned in the first place.if you dislike a tripod so much, You may want to check into some MF rangefinders.As far as quality goes, You can't do much better than Hasselblad but, they may be out of your budget and also benefit from a tripod.
I am actually secretly considering a speed graphic and I am sure it would be tons of fun. Thats the only 4x5 camera I have done any searching on though. you think thats something I should get? I wont be able to hand hold it I don't think
... I love that it has a meter. Does the fuji?. And then the massive gw690 which I have considered in the past but I shied away from it because its a rangefinder...
Ya I really like seeing exactly how the picture will turn out without any parallax. Im not completely sure but are rangefinders usually exact on what is in the frame? Or does it cut off some of the image at certain distances? I ask because a gw690 is in my alley for sure.It should be noted that some MF cameras don't have instant return mirrors, a feature invented 70 years ago already. Do a search if this feature matters to you. For me, it's a deal breaker.
The only reason I would like a built in meter is because meters are just so expensive. Maybe if I can find a good 100 dollar meter. I don't need flash or anything fancy on the meter just an accurate reading like an in camera meter would work so if you know of anything that would be great too. I have some pictures here of what I take. My town is pretty boring so I cant get much out of it but i try my best. The square photo was my first time using a 6x6 camera lent to me from a friend but the quality was very bad for some reason, it could have been my fault when i scanned it.The Fuji GW series does not have a meter.
The massive GX680III does -- and it has movements -- but that is definitely one for the tripod.
Not having an in-camera meter is not a liability in medium format so much. Usually the pace of making images is slower and more deliberate.
Also, by "architecture", are most of your photos those of structures in their entirety? If so, then perspective control lenses or perspective movements would be important. If, however, you concentrate on selected smaller features such as an archway, staircase, balcony, etc., then you may be able to use ordinary wide, normal, and medium tele lenses.
Heres just a website linkThe Fuji GW series does not have a meter.
The massive GX680III does -- and it has movements -- but that is definitely one for the tripod.
Not having an in-camera meter is not a liability in medium format so much. Usually the pace of making images is slower and more deliberate.
Also, by "architecture", are most of your photos those of structures in their entirety? If so, then perspective control lenses or perspective movements would be important. If, however, you concentrate on selected smaller features such as an archway, staircase, balcony, etc., then you may be able to use ordinary wide, normal, and medium tele lenses.
Thank you for your meaningful reply! I dont insist on not using a tripod its just not prefered but if I have to use one than I do. Its just not fun walking around with one because that is how I usually get to places especially with a heavy camera. The kind of architectural photography I do doesnt really require movements because the buildings I photography are usually at max 2 stories (i dont live in a city) and I could be completely wrong because my knowledge of movements it pretty small. And thank you so much for the meter recommendation.OP, pause a little and think again about what you want to accomplish. Shooting "architecture" as most of us understand it can require movements, especially vertical rise to eliminate converging verticals. This usually means a view camera. And it nearly always requires a tripod. If this is what you have in mind and you insist on shooting hand held, well, good luck.
You mentioned thinking about a Speed Graphic and someone mentioned having one and a Crown Graphic. I have a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Also a, actually several, 2x3 Crown Graphics. These are Pacemaker Speed Graphics with no focal plane shutter and shorter bodies. The only usable movement 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics offer is 19 mm of vertical rise. This ain't much. They have a little shift (turn the camera on its side to shoot in portrait orientation and shift becomes rise) but it is unusable with most lenses. My Graphics all have Graflok backs, will accept clip on and insertion type roll holders. A Graphic with a spring back will accept only insertion type roll holders. I use Graflex' own clip on types and Adapt-A-Roll 620 insertion type roll holders.
I also have a couple of 2x3 Cambo view cameras. Cambo's 2x3 international back accept only clip on type roll holders. Cambo's 2x3 bail back accepts only insertion type roll holders. I also have a hybrid Cambo (2x3 front standard, 4x5 rear, tapered bellows, ...) whose 4x5 Graflok back accepts all types of roll holders. I use an insertion type 6x12 Sinar and a clip on type Linhof 2x3 Super Rollex with the hybrid. They all have what are called reversible backs, which can be attached to the rear standard in landscape or portrait orientation. There's also a rotating back, saves the trouble (not much) of detaching the back, turning it 90 degrees and reattaching it.
Re hand held meters, shop for a used one. Coupla years ago I bought a cute little Sekonic L-328 at a camera show for all of $20. They're offered on eBay for similar prices.
Thanks! that clears up a lot. I guess I should man up and use my tripod. Ive always likes being able to just walk around with my 35mm though
if you dislike a tripod so much, You may want to check into some MF rangefinders.As far as quality goes, You can't do much better than Hasselblad but, they may be out of your budget and also benefit from a tripod.
You have so many choices! Actually you can definitely hand hold a speed or crown graphic, they were made for that. But then you'll have to use a rangefinder if you're not on a tripod. Remember, with a 6x6 camera you can always crop the square image. That's what people did to print onto rectangular paper before the 645 and 6x7 formats were invented. Any of the cameras mentioned on this thread can make great pictures. You can just buy one that you think you might like and try it. If you don't like it you can probably sell it for what you paid for it and try something else. Have fun and don't sweat it too much.
You can indeed, and this "feature" has been widely advertised by Hasselblad's marketing literature. However, I believe it is the wrong approach. Choosing a 6x6 with the intent of eventually cropping to, say, 2:3 is adding an unnecessary level of complexity to the process. In my case, if I shot a picture with the intent of cropping it later, I would forget what I originally had in mind by the time the negative gets enlarged in the darkroom - but that's just me
Choose a camera for the aspect ratio you want. The great thing about MF is that pretty much every format is available, including 3:4 (6x4.5 or 6x8) or 2:3 (6x9) up to more exotic ones (6x12, 6x17 etc).
As a side note, square format can be learned, even if it is not intuitive at first sight. Composing on a 6x6 ground glass is a different experience than on a cell phone, I'm sure you will get much better results.
Ive never really been good at composing square photos (I only know that because of my phone camera). But maybe, it could be a good learning experience.
Thats why I dont really want a 6x6 because I dont really like the format (my opinion might change though) and I always compose like I cant crop laterIf one crops before shooting, then cropping is not needed later. Compose before taking the photograph.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?