New to medium format. Help needed!

Hi everyone!

I own a couple of 35mm and I would like to try 120mm in order to get higher quality image, depth of field and just to try something new.

Thing is, I have absolutely no idea which model to take since they all have their pros and cons. I am not a big fan of waist level and TLR might not suit my needs even tho I am open to suggestions.

I will mostly use the camera to shoot portraits, landscape and architecture and I was aiming at the below models/brands. Some insights would be more than welcomed!

- Pentax 645n (35mm for landscape and a second one for portraits)
- Mamiya
- Hasselblad
...

Thank you!

The best quality lenses you can afford. Camera is less important beyond functioning.
Hassleblad has good lenses as does later model Mamiya. Probably other late model medium format cameras as well.

@Kowloon, I've always been pragmatic when it comes to exploring a new format/system: just see what's readily available and affordable, and then decide if it sufficiently suits my needs. In terms of medium format, this has landed me with a very basic Mamiya m645 system and a Bronica SQ system. The latter I find preferable in terms of robustness and reliability, although its complexity also makes it more vulnerable at the same time, I guess. So far, so good, however. Both systems can be used with waist level finders or reflex finders, which is generally the case for medium format SLR systems.

While there are surely quality differences in optics between systems, there are likewise quality differences between different lenses within the same system or brand. Frankly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an arguably 'bad' lens among the main medium format systems and just the increased real estate compared to 35mm is a significant improvement in overall image quality even if you're not buying Hasselblad. Both my m645 and Bronica systems were comparative bargains, and optically, I've never noticed differences that are meaningful to my photography. I also don't see a meaningful difference in terms of technical quality between my Bronica photos and my friend's Hasselblad prints. Maybe we don't print big enough, or maybe there are just many other aspects that have a more profound influence on the ultimate impact of a photograph.

So mine is really a vote for pragmaticism. Mind you, that's just one way of approaching the issue. Any other approach can be just as valid, depending on what matters most to you.

There is no one perfect medium format camera system. Things to consider are:
- the aspect ratio(s) you tend to print in
- do you use tripods
- does the camera need to rotate to change orientation, and if so can you use it easily on a tripod when you need to
- is it comfortable to hold for a session if not using tripods
- can you carry it to the picture
- can you find repair services and parts
- how quiet it is and does that matter
- do you need movements for things like architecture
- will your portrait subjects be comfortable in front of it
- number of frames per roll and how that affects cost and need to reload the film quickly

That isn’t a comprehensive list, but I’ve owned too many medium format cameras and could have avoided buying most of them if I had considered those points. The good news is most of them were excellent, but just not for me. Or at least not for all things I hoped to use them for.

You really need to put your hands on a few before making a jump. Just about every single one from all major manufacturers. Bronica, Mamyia, Pentax, Hasselblad (among TLR style from Yashica, Rollei and some others) will give you a larger negative. But virtually each one handles differently and each will require different budget to make the best of them. TLRs are basically single spending item, with exception of adding some filters, SLR style delivers much larger system based choices, that give flexibility, all at a price.

While you're going to see improvement in image quality, 35 mm can deliver goods of astonishing quality. MF will not make you a better photographer.

I am also perplexed by your "depth of field" wishes. There is nothing in MF that differs from 35 mm in that sense. I say more, due to much larger lens / focal length choice, you get to play with DOF in a lot more ways, and in a much smaller easier to handle set up.

Add Bronica to your list.

Not much to add to all the good advise already given. There is no perfect medium format camera. Think and talk and test and then simply take the leap. Very good odds that the first camera you get won't be your last. Get one and plan on shooting it for six months minimum before deciding if you should try another.

Condition is the real important factor.

If you're use to 35mm with its 3:2 format, you might like Mamiya like an RB67 or RZ67 better because it has a 6cm x 7cm format. Hasselblad is square format 1:1, or 6cm x 6cm. Hasselblad is lighter. Both come with eye level viewfinders if you don't want to use the waist level viewfinders. The 645 is 6cm x 4.5cm about half the other two so I'm not sure it makes sense to upgrade but it is lighter and more like a 35mm. Have you considered a scanner for the medium format film?

A lot of good advice has already been offered above.
I would add that among MF SLRs, the most ergonomic is a Hasselblad, as well as being the most compact.
If interchangeable lenses are not required there are twin lens reflex cameras and folders, which can be compact and easy to carry around. Repair and service doesn’t seem to be a problem.
At this time in history, repair and service availability is an important concern. The Pentax MF SLR was never that popular compared to Hassy, Bronica, etc. and as I understand today servicing and repair can be chancy. About Hasselblad: my 2000FCM, bought new in 1980, can no longer be serviced. I would suggest doing some research about repair facilities for any camera being considered.

Kowloon said:

Hi everyone!

I own a couple of 35mm and I would like to try 120mm in order to get higher quality image, depth of field and just to try something new.

Click to expand...

In 2023, your third reason is the best justification. You can get a higher quality image than 35mm film from digital, and there are only a few medium format lenses which can give you the same control over depth of field as easily available wide-aperture lenses for 35mm film.

Kowloon said:

I will mostly use the camera to shoot portraits, landscape and architecture and I was aiming at the below models/brands. Some insights would be more than welcomed!

Click to expand...

There's no right answer for everyone. IMO, a camera like the 645n has the lowest learning curve for someone coming from 35mm film, but it also gives you the smallest "bump" in so-called image quality. For DOF control, you can use Pentax's 105mm f/2.4, but you'll need an adapter. Mamiya and Contax make 80mm f/1.9 and f/2 lenses respectively which don't require adapters for their 645 cameras.

The "King" of fast medium format lenses is the Hasselblad 110mm f/2. But even used, that lens can cost over $2000. For purposes of depth of field, it's roughly equivalent to a 60mm f/1.1 lens for 35mm film.

So my suggestion is that you handle each of the cameras and decide based on your own personal preference and budget.

I personally don't like using the box-type SLRs (Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, etc...) with a prism finder. Just awkward to hold. Having an integrated grip or 45 deg prism makes things better.

There's the Pentax 6x7 which is an oversize and very heavy 35mm SLR. The normal lenses (90 and 105mm) are overpriced but the rest of the lenses are accessible and excellent.

Camera is less important beyond functioning.

Click to expand...

I'd say the choice of camera body is pretty important. It determines how you interact with the camera; if you hold it at eye level or not; whether the shutter release is in a good place for you,..

I can't comment on Hasselblad; I've never touched one. They are expensive and people say they're very, very good. All the accessories you're likely to want exist for a Hasselblad. But, if I had spent that kind of money on a camera, I might feel inhibited from doing some of the stuff I do with my cheaper cameras! Also, it seems to me internet fora like this have a lot of posts from people who jammed their Hasselblad.

The Pentax seems like a good camera for hand-held use. For landscape and architecture photography, I would expect to want a tripod at least some of time. (myself, I'm often impatient, and want to cover some ground hiking in between photos, and those days I leave the tripod behind). But if I'm using a tripod, an eye-level finder can be a pain. The WLF allows you to use the camera low down more easily. I don't think I'd buy a MF camera that can't take a WLF. Also, if you decide on the Pentax, get the 645N ii, which has mirror lock-up. The mirror is bigger on a bigger SLR, and can shake the camera, and reduce the advantage of using your tripod.

My 'best' MF camera is a Mamiya 645 Pro (It allows either a prism or a WLF. I have both, and wouldn't be without both.) I like the lenses I have, but I don't have the 35mm; the 45 is as wide as I usually want to go. There is an issue with some of the Super/Pro/Pro TL cameras (the later ones with polycarbonate bodies); there's a little part of the mirror rest - a spring with a plastic block attached - that breaks (for some people) and as far as I know no spares are to be had. Some people will caution you against these cameras, but I have had no trouble with mine.

+1 on adding Bronica to the list to consider.

I'll throw in one more suggestion, with apologies because it doesn't relate to your list at all. I have a Century Graphic; it's a baby field camera, for roll film. I use it mostly on a tripod, and I focus on the ground glass at the back (there is a rangefinder, which can be set up to be correct for one lens, so it can be used hand-held, but it's by no means the easiest camera for that). It has basic lens movements - like having a tilt-shift lens. I have film holders for 2¼x3¼ inch ('6x9'), 6x7 and square format. If you want one, they're mostly in the US. Whereas some of the MF SLRs are quite like using your 35mm SLR, this camera is a completely different experience.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Hasselblad is lighter

Click to expand...

Only without a lens and film magazine. Otherwise it's as heavy as any.

Ergonomy is another place where one needs to handle it to see how much some odd design quirks fall in the hand. It can be great or just meh.

I would recommend going with the 645 for two reasons. The format is similar to a 35mm which you are already familiar with. The square (6x6) is not natural at least to the way I see things. I visualize in rectangular terms. Secondly I find using 120 film superior to 35mm as the film base is thinner and results in sharper images especially if you are enlarging the image.

Bronica SQ-A with side grip and prism. Much quicker to focus than Hasselblad.

I have 6x6 and 6x9 folders, a Bronica SQ-A with an assortment of lenses and finders, and a Yashica 124g TLR. For casual, informal, and travel sorts of work I find myself grabbing the TLR. If I have something serious to do, the flexibility of a "system" camera like SQ-A is the winner. But in the end only you can decide. Since film cameras are nearly always going to be a used gear purchase, you can likely get most of your money back by selling it on if you decide it wasn't the right decision or the right specific camera.

A medium format SLR with an eye-level finder is going to be heavier than any camera you have used. That prism is one big, heavy hunk of glass, sometimes weighing as much or more than the camera body itself. Also, because the normal lens for medium format is 80mm or so, depth of field is going to be less for any lens with a similar field of view as a 35mm camera. Unless you get a TLR or rangefinder, get used to using a tripod. Part of the better image quality you are seeking from medium format will be negated by camera movement and vibration unless you use a tripod or shoot faster (grainier) film.

guangong said:

I would add that among MF SLRs, the most ergonomic is a Hasselblad, as well as being the most compact.

Click to expand...

Ergonomics are very personal.
I used to sell Hasselblads, Mamiyas and (a few) Bronicas.
I'm very left handed - my right hand has limited dexterity.
Hasselblad 500 series cameras are very awkward for me to use. Bronicas were a bit better.
I've had years of satisfactory and enjoyable use from Mamiya 645, Mamiya 6x6 TLRs and the Mamiya RB67.
All said in support of the proposition that you will need to discover for yourself what suits you best.

I'll add one that is usually forgotten, but significatly cheaper than most of the others so far mentioned--Horesman VH-R. This is setup like a technical camera (thinkg Linhof Technika) with a rangefinder for focusing and view finder for framing. It is probably a bit clunky compared to the SLRs, but has the advantage of being able to shoot 6x9 (same sapect ratio as 35mm / 1.5:1). Lenses are very good (and generally inexpensive), plus you can treat it as a view camera with gound glass focusing, and hundreds of third party lenses. If you go this route you need to make sure the lenses you buy all have the correct cam so that the rangefinder works (third party lenses won't have a cam, so require ground glass focusing.)

I personally have the VH (which doesn't have the rangefinder so is used fully as a view camera.) and its a great camera (albiet large in this context.)

Lots of great advice so far, so I’ll go ahead and give you some really bad advice! Start with a folding camera. They are available in 645, 6x6 and 6x9. Tessar lenses are great and even the cheaper Zeiss novars are no slouches. They’re very light and compact. Did I mention cheap?

They are an easy entry into using 120 film and once you get more idea of just what you want to do, you can sell it (or keep it) and move up to one of the systems people have been recommending.

Just an opinion on one of the points you bring up: Give a waist level finder a chance, you might like it. They're light, offer a different perspective (lower), and for many, composing a flipped image makes evaluating the composition easier as a degree of abstraction from things as we see them in front of us is built in.

MattKing said:

Ergonomics are very personal.
I used to sell Hasselblads, Mamiyas and (a few) Bronicas.
I'm very left handed - my right hand has limited dexterity.
Hasselblad 500 series cameras are very awkward for me to use. Bronicas were a bit better.
I've had years of satisfactory and enjoyable use from Mamiya 645, Mamiya 6x6 TLRs and the Mamiya RB67.
All said in support of the proposition that you will need to discover for yourself what suits you best.

Click to expand...

That’s why there were so many different cameras for given formats.
However, despite the delicate shutter mechanism of the two original Hasselblad models, ergonomic design was largely responsible for its widespread success. As i recall, at beginning Bronica was not known for reliability (but anything was more reliable than 1000F).
At this time i am attempting to adjust to newly acquired ZI Super Ikonta A. I am attracted by its small size, at least 1/3 smaller than my 6x4.5/Fuji. Right now, find shooting for horizontal frame is awkward. A new challenge.

I think we scared him away.

On the subject of MF SLR ergonomics.

I would not have used the words "Hasselblad" and ergonomics in the same sentence, excepting that I just have. I had a Rollie SL66 and it wasn't any better.

Fitting the left-side handgrip/shutter release to a 'Blad improves handling no end. The shutter release is always ready under the index finger of the left hand to fire at the decisive moment. The right hand is free for focusing as the camera is held firmly by the left. The right hand can move quickly from focusing to winding on the film without altering the grip on the camera. Even more improvement with the addition of the quick-focusing lever.

Exakta was correct when they decided to put the shutter release on the left. It makes for much quicker handling. Not so sure about their putting the wind lever on the left.

Love my Blad, and very much like my Mamiya 7.

But for the fully monty of experience, nothing beats a Rollei. Fixed lens, easy film loading. Nothing can go wrong, except your own composition and metering.

Buy the best equipment that you can afford, [READ: Hasselblad]. That way is something goes wrong you will only have yourself to blame.