New to medium format -> need advice!

James-EG said:

So my question is, what camera should I be looking to trying to buy? I would love to get a camera in the style of the Hasselblad cameras but obviously they are far too expensive ...

Click to expand...

Not too expensive, rather the costs make you wait longer until you have money to buy the next lens. But it is worth it. I inherited a Mamiya C-330 with three lenses and every device known to man for it, including the paraminder and prism. I sold all of that to buy a Hasselblad. That was the best thing I ever did photographically. I never looked back.

Noble said:

How much?

I would consider a complete kit a camera body, 75mm PE lens, manual speed grip, 120 back, and a prism finder.

Click to expand...

The 75/2.8 E-II lens is excellent. It came after the MC lens and before the PE. I have both the E-II and PE 75's and haven't seen any difference, though they are not the same optically, as is sometimes claimed. The E-II is around 25 to 30% less expensive, though both are pretty cheap these days. The PE has half-stop detents, but myself I prefer full-stop detents, so for me that's not important. The E-II also has the full-metal construction of all the lenses before PE, but the use of plastic on PE lenses was so well done that I don't think it detracts.


About lens designations. There are three basic designations for ETR lenses: E, E-II and PE. MC stands for multi-coated and was not the actual series designation, but because the lenses say MC on them and not E, that became the default designation. It works OK because all MC lenses are E series. Bronica has claimed that the "MC" was eventually dropped from their E-series lenses, as multicoating had become nearly universal, but I have never seen a lens other than E-II or PE without MC on it. From what others have told me, only the 105/3.5 E lacked the MC designation.

About E lenses: The original lenses had silver front sections, and there was a basic assortment of five lenses. Later E lenses had black front sections and were optically different, and there were more: seven E prime lenses, two E-II primes, two E zooms made by Schneider, an E tilt/shift 55mm made by Schneider, and 2X teleconverter. The two E-II lenses were the 75/2.8 E-II and the 500/8 E-II.
Later lenses are all PE, except that Bronica offered both the 500/8 E-II and the newer 500/8 PE. The 500 PE was top-notch optically, but was much more expensive than the E-II (which was pretty expensive itself), so they offered both (kind of like Canon's "L" lenses and their regular lenses). There were some new focal lengths in the PE line including a fisheye, different zooms, plus a 1.4X teleconverter.

The MC lenses are still very good, other than the aforementioned original 75/2.8 with 58 mm filter thread and the 150/4.
In my experience I have seen little difference between the 150/3.5 MC and the 150/PE, except some flare reduction in the PE. I have both the MC and PE 40's, and while there is some improvement near the edges and somewhat less flare with the PE, I like the look of pictures from the 40 MC a lot.
So, what I'm saying is, the MC series is no slouch. If money is an issue, don't hesitate to buy MC instead of PE. They are considerably less expensive in most focal lengths. Especially for someone getting their feet wet to see if they like medium format, having the latest glass is not that important. I bought MC lenses (and a 75mm E-II) when I was just wanting to see if I liked 645 format or even medium format in general. If I had not gotten any PE lenses other than later lenses available only in PE, I still would have some really nice results.

Thanks for that information lxdude. Also Sirius Glass, I see what you mean but I still don't think it would be worth me trying to buy a Hasselblad and getting top-of-the-range equipment when all I am interested in so far is trying out MF, especially since I am on a tight budget. Also I don't think it would really be worth it buying Hasselblad then finding out that MF isn't for me.

Thanks again

Sorry to post in here again but I didn't want to start a new thread for this small question, I found a Bronica ETRSi starting at a good price for me and it comes with two lenses (75mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.8), however when I emailed the seller he said that the lenses have fungus in them, is it difficult to clean them?

Thanks

James, skip it. You have better things to do with your life. A better camera will come along and want to go home with you.

lxdude said:

The 75/2.8 E-II lens is excellent.

Click to expand...

I know I own it.

lxdude said:

The E-II is around 25 to 30% less expensive, though both are pretty cheap these days.

Click to expand...

Yes it tends to be more expensive when purchased on it's own which is why I suggest people just get it as a part of their initial kit. Often you can get a kit with all the latest or best goodies for a lot less than buying individual pieces later.

lxdude said:

The PE has half-stop detents, but myself I prefer full-stop detents, so for me that's not important.

Click to expand...

Why would someone want less control?

I actually ended up getting a Rollei 6008i when I started wanting to upgrade parts of my old ETRS package. At today's prices it's better to just get the whole kit at a good price and know you have basically all the features in the newest model.

James-EG said:

Sorry to post in here again but I didn't want to start a new thread for this small question, I found a Bronica ETRSi starting at a good price for me and it comes with two lenses (75mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.8), however when I emailed the seller he said that the lenses have fungus in them, is it difficult to clean them?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Run!

You don't want to fool with fungus. If not caught early enough fungus etches the glass.

I wouldn't want the camera either. It's been stored in the same environment as the lenses.

James-EG said:

Sorry to post in here again but I didn't want to start a new thread for this small question, I found a Bronica ETRSi starting at a good price for me and it comes with two lenses (75mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.8), however when I emailed the seller he said that the lenses have fungus in them, is it difficult to clean them?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Crap! Didn't even see this post. Do NOT buy anything with fungus in it. Even if you get something that looks good on the web there is a small chance it has fungus in it. Inspect it carefully when it arrives. Bronica ETRS gear costs more to clean and repair than it does to just buy a new copy. I've checked prices at reputable place to get a Rollei SLR lens CLAed. $150 is a price I've heard multiple times. That is NOT going in and opening the lens and cleaning fungus off an element in the middle of the lens. That's going in and knocking some loose dust of some of the elements. And if the fungus etches the glass? You're screwed.

Noble said:

Why would someone want less control?

Click to expand...

Full detents only give me greater control. That is one of the things I always really liked about Nikon lenses. I can put the ring anywhere I want between stops without it falling into a half-stop. I have always used transparency film, and for me a quarter or third stop difference is visible. I have often figured my exposure and then given a bit more or less to get just what I want. I work by feel a lot, and it's easier to quickly click a stop or two by feel to adjust for shade or light without half-stop detents. With full stops, I can start at maximum or minimum aperture on any particular lens and know when I'm at for example 5.6 by feel, and very quickly. Not so easy when there are more detents, closer together. Half stops are pretty easy to figure out without detents, anyway.

Now that said, I use mainly Pentax in 135 format now, and most of my ETR series lenses are PE. So half-stops are something I can live with, just not what I'd rather have. It's also not as big a deal now because most of my work is more deliberate.

Noble said:

Why would someone want less control?

Click to expand...

Full detents only give me greater control. That is one of the things I really liked about Nikon lenses. I can put the ring anywhere I want between stops without it falling into a half-stop. I have always used transparency film, and for me a quarter or third stop difference is visible. I have often figured my exposure and then given a bit more or less to get just what I want. I work by feel a lot, and it's easier to quickly click a stop or two by feel to adjust for shade or light without half-stop detents. With only full stop detents, I can start at maximum or minimum aperture on any particular lens and know by feel when I'm at for example, 5.6, and very quickly. Not so easy when there are more detents, closer together. Half stops are pretty easy to figure out without detents, anyway.

Now that said, I use mainly Pentax in 135 format now, and most of my ETR series lenses are PE. So half-stops are something I can live with, just not what I'd rather have. It's also not as big a deal now because most of my work is more deliberate.

Okay thanks again for all the help! I definitely won't consider it in that case!

Smart move, James, regarding the fungus. There are lots of good clean cameras and lenses out there.

Excuse my double post. Bug report sent.

Thanks, there's a couple more I could try and buy and there always seems to be loads of lenses about so I'll hope they don't go too expensive on the auctions!

Thanks again,

Just one more recommendation: Don't buy junk.

In my experience with ham radio and cameras, it is better to have a few higher-quality items than many that are junk.

On the other hand, I know what it's like to have a tight budget...

I purchased an ETRSi kit piece by piece through KEH, all bargain grade for about $420. Body, AE-II metered finder, Speed grip, 120 back, 75/2.8 PE lens with hood, 150/3.5 PE lens. I think it would be a good first medium format camera. My first camera was a TLR, a pretty cheap one (not a Lubitel) and it still takes great pictures.
After that, I had purchased a Pentax 645 which is pretty much like a big 35mm camera. In my opinion that is a great camera. It is affordable used, the lenses are affordable. The metering is great, the motor winder is great. Downside was that the viewfinder was strained my eyes. I had the original 645 but have handled the 645N, I prefer the original (oddly) just because the interface is more intuitive to me.

I had a hasselblad, fit and finish were mind-blowing. It feels right in your hand, it's easy to load. The C lenses are getting old, CLA's are almost a necessity. I liked the EV numbers and the linking of the aperture/shutter dial. With all that being said, I couldn't afford a metered finder, let alone a makro planar.

ETRSi+++++++++++

Medium format camera

I bought a used Rolleiflex 3.5 F about 20 years ago for around $ 700. It has the Planar lens and has a working meter. Therefore, you could probably get a Rolleiflex with a Schneider Xenotar and non working meter for less than my type. The Xenotar is supposedly just as good as the Planar. Also, since I use a hand held meter I really didn't need a working meter on the camera.
If you want to go interchangeable lenses, the Mamiya 6's and 7's are supposedly very, very good. The price may be a little higher, though.
Fuji also made some good MF cameras also as the 645 and I think also a 6x6.

Cheap MF photography

If you want to get into Med Format real cheap, Holga's can be bought new for around $ 50 or so to try it out without having a lot of money tied up. There may even be one like this with a better lens and body. Seagull used to make a 6x6 that was very reasonable, but for about the same price you could probably bet a used Yashica.

DaveO said:

If you want to get into Med Format real cheap, Holga's can be bought new for around $ 50 or so to try it out without having a lot of money tied up. There may even be one like this with a better lens and body. Seagull used to make a 6x6 that was very reasonable, but for about the same price you could probably bet a used Yashica.

Click to expand...

For $50 one can buy a real used MF camera.

James-EG said:

So my question is, what camera should I be looking to trying to buy? I would love to get a camera in the style of the Hasselblad cameras but obviously they are far too expensive, so I have been looking at ones like the Bronica ETRS and S2a, also the Kiev 88, these have had mixed reviews from what I have read so I would like to hear your opinions and suggestions on other cameras. I don't really want to get something like a Pentacon Six, as they work basically the same as a 35mm camera and I would like something new, but I would consider a TLR if that's the best way to go for MF. I would like to get the best possible image quality too.

Thanks, James

Click to expand...

Hi James! I know this is considerably after the fact but I went through the same thing just recently and got incredibly advice. Went with an RZ67. Thread here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Basically a medium format camera is not all that different than a 35mm camera. Don't be intimidated. It's easy!

Shooting 645 is definitely a step up from 35mm. If you like square then 6x6 is the way to go. If you don't like square and are going to crop then you would be better off shooting 645 in my opinion.

If you like rectangles and want the best quality then 6x7 is what you want. The disadvantage to 6x7 is the bulk and weight. Another disadvantage to 6x7 is that some 645 cameras have autofocus, matrix metering, and auto film advance etc. if you like that kind of stuff.

Buy what you like and can afford and don't worry about the critics. After all it's all about the image, right?

Wow! I just answered this thread again without realizing it. I sure hope the OP has found a camera by now.

One significant, and often overlooked advantage, of the Mamiya TLRs is that they use a bellows focus. This is both an incredible blessing and a curse in that it allows ridiculous levels of close focus but the "curse" is that one needs to remember bellows factor. That being said I believe they made the right choice.

Maybe I missed a post: WHY you want to change from 35mm to MF ?

I guess because we ALL like large negatives.