Options for a medium format camera

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF
Hi all,
first of all I want to say how happy I am to have found this forum.
As a recently returned to film photographer I am pleased to find so many like minded people.

Now- to my question.

I want to get a medium format camera and am not sure which one to get.
The reason I want one (other than basic GAS) is that I am flying to London to visit my ill grandmother and wish to capture a good portrait of her, on MF, before it is too late.
In addition to that I plan on attending a music festival in Belgium and wish to make a series on the people visiting the festival - also on MF.

My requirements are thus:
  1. Light weight & compact. This is a must since I will be traveling by Plane,car and train over a period of two weeks and wish to keep ny equipment as close to me as possible.
  2. Capable of giving me a shallow depth of field suited to portraits. This means capable (or equiped) with a 80mm (or longer) 2.8 (or larger) lens.
    Here are a couple of examples of the level of "separation" I am looking for.
    (small disclaimer - neither photos by me and the original copyright belongs to the two awesome photographes who took these photos).

  3. Sharp! The difference between a sharp protrait and a soft one are huge and I am willing to pay the premium on this.
  4. Cheap. I know, this one doesn't fit in with the pervious two - but I'd like to hear the cheapest options you can think of.
  5. One last thing - I prefer 6 by 6, though I am open to other suggestions. That said - I don't fancy 645 at all...

Now, build quality is important obviously- since travel can strain cameras as hell (the only camera I have which I feel truly break proof is my M6 which will be coming with me on both trips for 35mm needs) but it isn't the top priority.

Thats it.
Hit me with ideas

Thanks!
 

Christopher Walrath

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,175
Location
Milton, DE USA
Format
Analog
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

If you looking to size I would suggest a Mamiya 7II. It's a rangefinder, a bit on the heavier side and rather highly priced. Not by comparison to some other MF cameras but they ain't cheap. You could get a lot more bang for your buck picking up a used Mamiya RB67 system. It will take up more room but leave you with many more financial options. Welcome to the group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,931
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
As far as rangefinders go, there is also the Fuji's, and I think for the money, the Mamiya 6 is a great choice, and from what I've learned, possibly has more options than the 7 for the money. How about an inexpensive Jap TLR, The Yash's aren't that big, although, they aren't as convient as a RF---HMMMM-DECISIONS, DECISIONS, DECISIONS.......
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
Welcome to Apug!

I wont be much help here because I shoot 6x7 & 6x4.5. The 645 is for compactness and light weight - mostly for hiking up mountains and long treks - but 6x7 gives me everything I want but light weight. If I intended to have only one camera I think it would be 6x6 because it's a compromise in many ways. I don't enlarge bigger than 14x17" and can't see much difference between formats as far as image quality goes, but I like the bigger/heavy cameras for really sharp hand held shots and large viewing screens for precise focusing. You might do well with the Mamiya 6 rangefinder for traveling. I don't own one but hear good reports about them from people who travel.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
A Hasselblad 500-series camera together with 60 mm and 150 mm lenses fits the bill perfectly.
(Yes, nowadays, they are even cheap!)
 
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF
Thanks for all the replies

Aren't the 6x7 cameras uncomfortably big for traveling?

Q.G. - At the moment the option at the top of my list is a 500cm with 80 2.8- so likely thats the route I'll go with. I'm just intrigued to see if there are options I haven't thought of yet...
 

archphoto

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
960
Location
Holland and
Format
4x5 Format
Light weight 6x6 ? > Rolleiflex/Rolleicord, Yashica TLR, interchangable lenses > Mamiya C220/C330

After that it becomes heavier and heavier and more bulky upto the RB67.

Peter
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Another vote for either the Hassy or the Rollei. I've got a Rollei 2.8E and I really like it for the compactness/portability and image quality. I used to shoot a Hassy, but found I wasn't using it enough to justify keeping that much money tied up in a system. When I went back into shooting MF, I went with the Rollei, for the optics and for the fact that I could carry pretty much just the one little box plus a handful of rolls of film, making it ALMOST as convenient as 35mm. I got my 2.8E on Ebay for $500, in good mechanical and cosmetic condition, so if you keep your eyes peeled, you can get them at a reasonable price.
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan

Yes, even the wonderful Hassy is considered heavy compared to other cameras with the same format. Rangfinders were already mentioned, that's why they're popular for traveling. I go places with my RB67, so I wouldn't consider a Hassy much of a problem for me, but I also love my 645 for more adventure - wilder places - and around people. It's not very intrusive, or intimidating, to people being photographed.
 
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF
I saw that the Rollei 2.8 is a Planar 80 2.8 like the Hassy.
Is it capable of the exact same shallow depth of field and sharpness?

Or are they different?
 

mcgrattan

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
505
Location
Oxford, Engl
Format
Medium Format
I'd probably go with a Rollei. Also, you'd be surprised how shallow the depth of field is at f2.8 on a 6x6 camera. You might even find a cheaper f3.5 Rollei gives enough foreground/background separation.

To illustrate just quite how narrow f2.8 is [that's a 90mm on a Salyut]:



Matt
 
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF

I actually haven't considered RFs because I find them to be too inaccurate for portraits.
What I mean is- because your not seeing through the lens, but rather the RF, its too inaccurate to build the frame properly.

I see this with my M6.
When doing portraits I return to my EOS system and use the M6 for documentary or environmental portraits.

Plus the RFs seem so much more expensive than Hassys or Rolleis- so it doesn't seem worth while.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF

Thanks for the example, but I think that example doesn't fit the situation because portraits (or rather the kind I plan on doing) are usually further away from the subject.
This photos is probably +- 3 or feet away from the camera, correct?
If I'm doing half or full body portraits I'm probably more like 7 to 10 feet away from my subject.
So 2.8 will be a bare minimum.
No?
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
The 2.8 on the Rollei is the same lens as on the Hassy, at least according to the manufacturer's labels. There may be inconsequential differences between them, but you won't see them. Take a look at this comparison:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html

They are more than capable of giving you the extreme shallow depth of field you are looking for.
 

Slixtiesix

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
1,407
Format
Medium Format
If you want to stay with one lens: Rollei TLR with 80/2,8 Planar/Xenotar. Otherwise try Hasselblad 501cm or 503cw.
Be aware that the TLR has a close focussing distance of about 3 feet. If you want to safe money try the Rolleicord Vb.
In all cases you will need an extra lightmeter, only Rolleiflex GX and FX have dependable built in ones.
 

thisismyname09

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
420
Format
Medium Format
GMMorris said:
I actually haven't considered RFs because I find them to be too inaccurate for portraits.
What I mean is- because your not seeing through the lens, but rather the RF, its too inaccurate to build the frame properly.
Click to expand...

As far as SLRs go, I know the pentax 6x7 is relativaly compact, they look like larger 35mm SLRs, though I know nothing of the prices or lenses.
 

edtbjon

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
391
Format
Medium Format
My personal shortlist, to fit what you want to do, would be something like:
A Rolleiflex with either a Planar or a Xenotar 2.8. (On a budget the camera will most likely be from the fifties or early sixties, but the Rolleis are very strong and sturdy.)
A Mamaya 6 with a 75mm lens. (OK, the lens is f/3.5 or even f/4, but that is still shallow enough and the lens is super-sharp.) You can get a 50mm lens later if you want to go wide too.
Possibly a Hassy with a 80mm, but it's heavier and needs a bit more learning.
On these three cameras, the glass is about the same when it comes to quality and sharpness. You'll need a microscope to tell them apart, given a clinical testing environment.
All of the cameras does have a "personality" and they are three very different cameras, but they are all also very good professional grade cameras.

My own MF cameras are all Hasselblad. An SWC, a 500 C/M and a 2003FCW with "enough" lenses to go with them. But that is according to what I want and "need". Your needs are a bit different.

//Björn
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
Like I said, I don't own a rangefinder so I can't really answer your question, but someone else will. I have a question for you: If your serious about doing portraits why don't you look at longer focal lengths? I would take O.G's suggestion as a good one. A 60mm for groups and 150mm for single - full length (standing) and head and shoulders portraits. The portrait taken with the 80mm would look fine as long as you don't compare it to one taken with a 150. You can guess which one is a better portrait lens. The 60mm, on the other hand, is an extremely useful general purpose lens for almost everything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mcgrattan

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
505
Location
Oxford, Engl
Format
Medium Format
If I'm doing half or full body portraits I'm probably more like 7 to 10 feet away from my subject.
So 2.8 will be a bare minimum.
No?

I think you'd still be surprised. I don't normally shoot that type of portrait, but I'm pretty sure this was at f4 or even f5.6:



There's still a fair bit of separation between subject and background.

I'm not trying to persuade you to buy an f3.5 camera, but if you were on a budget, I bet it'd still do what you want.
 

Anscojohn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
2,704
Format
Medium Format
All you want--and light and cheap. A Rolleicord III or later is reputed to be the biggest bang for the buck. At f 3.5, with a close-up portrait, the background shall be out of focus and separated no matter what. Keep in mind, also, separation can be achieved other ways--such as difference in lighting. And one thing I have always liked about the TLR for portraits is that, being no mirror black out, you actually see the expression when the exposure is made.
 
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF
OP
OP

GMMorris

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
25
Format
35mm RF

I have no problem with an external light meter but what lenses do Rolleicords come with?
Is there a 2.8 lens on any of them? Because I only saw 75mm f3.5 versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…