Please Recommend a Great Entry Level MF Camera

Theo Sulphate · Dec 9, 2015

Poisson Du Jour said:
... Put an ultra-wide angle lens on 35mm and you have a sprawling, atmospheric scene, but in MF no such equivalent fun exists...

Well, you could buy a 30mm lens for a Hasselblad (19mm equivalent in 35mm format), but I can't imagine who would do that...

Poisson Du Jour · Dec 9, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Well, you could buy a 30mm lens for a Hasselblad (19mm equivalent in 35mm format), but I can't imagine who would do that...

Neither could I, in terms of cost and practicality... [emoji6]

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Mikkornat · Dec 10, 2015

I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

aRolleiBrujo · Dec 10, 2015

no format is obsolete, just the operator without imagination is. Do as you like, and as you wish, no matter what way you choose, it shall not be unwise. We could always use help keeping film alive and well, as it should remain, although, many creations of mankind, and of nature, have, and yet, we still thrive.

Poisson Du Jour · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

Primarily it is the enlargement size, but all photographers have their own reasons for MF. True, you can print to a respectable size in 35mm (as I still do) but there is a very real limit where visual quality will suffer because of the smaller format. This is not an issue at all in medium format where quite large prints can be made (all things else being equal such as lenswork etc.). I routinely print to 80x70cm on RA-4 media; I cannot print larger because this is the maximum dimensions printable on the machinery. Technique plays a part in how well you go in MF too. The best lenses can cost a fortune, but you can get by easily with run-of-the-mill optics and have a beaut lot of fun getting started. The downside with MF is that it is slower to work, cameras are usually (but not universally) heavier, especially the lenses (very few zooms to speak of) and you are restricted to 10 or 12 exposures for each 120 roll, so you have to make every exposure count. If bracketing is your norm, then MF probably isn't a good choice, though brackets of 2 or 3 per roll are common (I certainly do that in challenging conditions).

You could always cut your teeth with a TLR (e.g. Mamiya C330 or similar). At least if you don't like the format it is not a fortune splurged for nothing.

Who and where has said that medium format is obsolete? Cameras are available. So too are lenses. And film! That doesn't ring as 'obsolete' to me. :confused:

sagai · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

Well, in a nutshell ... for me 35mm is a blended stuff like Famous Grouse, whereas MF more like a single malt kind of think like Balvenie.
I have never been into LF, however I suspect it could be in this sense a single barrel cask strength single malt stuff.

Further digital is a like Jack Daniels, Johnny Walker, etc. that noone really minds even if you blend with a coke.

bo eder · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

Who says it's obsolete? You can only talk obsolete when you're in the realm of the digital camera because all that stuff gets better as computers often do, so today's wunderkind DSLR will be obsolete in a couple of years. As far as film cameras go, if it's still serviceable and fixable, like a musical instrument it will never be obsolete because you as the artist will make it play, and you'll have bigger negatives that will trounce any full-frame DSLR today. And you'll still have those negatives for decades that you'll always be able to scan.

I've been playing around with my just acquired Bronco SQ system and I am digging it. Compared to 35mm, the 6x6 negative is huge, and it's resolving power can only be surpassed by an even bigger negative (like 4x5). You should check out some MF work, there's a super high-resolution, creamy quality to the prints, it's addicting. My 35mm negatives look "amateur" next to MF.

Now whether or not I'm making a good photograph of something is another issue

Mikkornat · Dec 10, 2015

bo eder said:
Who says it's obsolete? You can only talk obsolete when you're in the realm of the digital camera because all that stuff gets better as computers often do, so today's wunderkind DSLR will be obsolete in a couple of years. As far as film cameras go, if it's still serviceable and fixable, like a musical instrument it will never be obsolete because you as the artist will make it play, and you'll have bigger negatives that will trounce any full-frame DSLR today. And you'll still have those negatives for decades that you'll always be able to scan.

I've been playing around with my just acquired Bronco SQ system and I am digging it. Compared to 35mm, the 6x6 negative is huge, and it's resolving power can only be surpassed by an even bigger negative (like 4x5). You should check out some MF work, there's a super high-resolution, creamy quality to the prints, it's addicting. My 35mm negatives look "amateur" next to MF.

Now whether or not I'm making a good photograph of something is another issue

Read Post #42.

OK if all that you said is true, then why all these recommendations for old used MF cameras? Can you recommend a new model MF camera? I'm beginning to think that MF is obsolete for a reason, but I don't know what's the reason.

sagai · Dec 10, 2015

I would not even consider the punched paper tape as obsolete.
There could be however some tough obsolesence issues when using it.

For MF, manufacturers still producing the 120 films therefore it has nothing to do with obsolete.
MF cameras might have however obsolesence problems with replacement parts and the availability of service outfits.

But seriously, a well equiped RB set costs less than an iPhone.
My C330f with a 80/2.8 costs the same as a new l308s light meter.

mooseontheloose · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
Read Post #42.

OK if all that you said is true, then why all these recommendations for old used MF cameras? Can you recommend a new model MF camera? I'm beginning to think that MF is obsolete for a reason, but I don't know what's the reason.

Your OP requested as "best bang for your buck" entry-level camera - which is why people have probably been recommending cameras that have been discontinued for some time - in most cases they are relatively cheap and still work well, and even if they don't, a CLA won't break the bank. A brand-new medium format system will cost a lot more money, even if it's a camera that has only been somewhat recently (last 5 years) discontinued. I'm thinking Hasselblad and Mamiya (both have digital MF systems that can use film backs), Horseman SW612, Fujifilm GF670, Rolleiflex 2.8FX, etc. The exception, of course, is the Holga, but I'm guessing you're not asking about plastic or lo-fi cameras.

Alan Gales · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

When I said obsolete I meant that they are not making medium format film cameras any longer. It's getting harder to find parts for them and also to get them serviced. The same goes for 35mm cameras unless Nikon still makes that FM whatever.

Ford Model T's are obsolete too but I knew a fellow who owned a Model T pick-up which he restored. He drove it in parades and entered it in car shows and had the best time with it.

Fortunately, you can still buy film for 35mm and medium format cameras and gas for a Model T. Just don't forget to add lead to the gas.

Theo Sulphate · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

The image quality of MF is far superior to what you'll get with 35mm. Not just better detail in larger prints, but the depth of the color or tones.

MF is hardly obsolete - because digital MF is so expensive, the only realistic choices are the older (film) bodies.

Once you've got an eye-popping 16x20 print from MF on your living room wall, you'll understand the appeal.

sagai · Dec 10, 2015

Alan Gales said:
When I said obsolete I meant that they are not making medium format film cameras any longer. It's getting harder to find parts for them and also to get them serviced. The same goes for 35mm cameras unless Nikon still makes that FM whatever.

Ford Model T's are obsolete too but I knew a fellow who owned a Model T pick-up which he restored. He drove it in parades and entered it in car shows and had the best time with it.

Fortunately, you can still buy film for 35mm and medium format cameras and gas for a Model T. Just don't forget to add lead to the gas.

obsolete is more like "no longer in use", whereas it is not the case for MF but for Model T.

georg16nik · Dec 10, 2015

Mikkornat said:
I'm glad I asked this question. I had no idea there was so much to consider when going to MF.

Maybe I should ask, what's the advantage of MF over 35mm? I just thought they took better large pictures. But now y'all tel me that MF is obsolete. If it's a better format for some, how did it end going obsolete? That's strange, no?

The advantage/disadvantage of MF vs 35mm been regularly discussed on APUG - just search around.
Both camps are deeply invested in gear and most likely have more lenses and camera bodies than decent prints, printed by themselves.
The 35mm vs MF or LF is BS - Photography is about visually aesthetic prints not film or gear size.

bgibb187 · Dec 10, 2015

The overwhelming majority of fine art photographers still shoot MF and LF film. While people are still making and selling photobooks you're going to have a hard time making a case for the obsolescence of medium format.

Kirks518 · Dec 10, 2015

LF and MF FILM (not digital) are also the only acceptable medium for archival purposes. I doubt it will be going away any time soon.

MattKrull · Dec 10, 2015

Kirks518 said:
LF and MF FILM (not digital) are also the only acceptable medium for archival purposes. I doubt it will be going away any time soon.

That's quite a statement. I'd like you to clarrify and or expand on it please.
The Canadian Government, for example, requires all portraits of members of parliment to be "archival quality". This is defined by the print medium the final image is delivered on. The print must be archival. Inkjet prints using the correct ink and paper now meet the 100 year archival requirement. The associated digital image delivered (for web sites and such) must include a tiff file (an image file that is an industry standard and for which file viewers will always be able to be written so long as the digital file - housed in the archives of Canada - is available).
I personally know a photographer who does work for the government, meets all these requirements, and has a completely digital work flow.
Following that, as the structure of 35mm film and 120 film are identical (same emulsion, same film base, just cut differently), I fail to see how one can be considered "archival" and the other not.

georg16nik · Dec 10, 2015

Kirks518 said:
LF and MF FILM (not digital) are also the only acceptable medium for archival purposes. I doubt it will be going away any time soon.

All current MF films from Kodak, Ilford are coated on acetate base which is not archival.
While most 35mm (and MF) films from Foma, Rollei, Adox use archival poly base - like the LF films from Kodak, Ilford.

Alan Gales · Dec 10, 2015

sagai said:
obsolete is more like "no longer in use", whereas it is not the case for MF but for Model T.

We are splitting hairs here but: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete

Obsolete is no longer being made or no longer in general use. Well, MF cameras are no longer being made or being used by the profession they were intended. It's pretty much just us film enthusiasts shooting them. Film made wet plate obsolete but if you check out Large Format Photography Forum there are a lot of people shooting it. You can even buy new wet plate kits and brand new cameras designed for wet plate.

I'm afraid that I may have unintentionally opened a can of worms.

Sirius Glass · Dec 10, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Well, you could buy a 30mm lens for a Hasselblad (19mm equivalent in 35mm format), but I can't imagine who would do that...

I have the Hasselblad 903 SWC and last week I passed up not one, but two opportunities to buy the 30mm lens at a very good price. It is ok for a gimmick shot but rarely for serious work or sirius work.

Sirius Glass · Dec 10, 2015

MF is not obsolete and hardly dead. I have no problems getting parts, service or accessories. The quality of the photograph and the easier to handle negative are just two reasons that MF is still popular.

DWThomas · Dec 10, 2015

I would be tempted to argue that in quantity of photos, medium format hasn't been "in general use" for decades. Durn few hobbyists were laying out two thousand 1980 dollars for Hasselblads and the like. In my (flaming) youth, lots of MF was being shot, but in box cameras and folders, many/most with no where near the quality available in the high priced system cameras.

As I indicated upthread, due to the age of some of the available examples, there could be problems; often just dust embedded in thickening lubricant. And having said that, I'd offer that the likelihood of repairing an all mechanical camera is far higher than fixing a mostly electronic jobbie that has had electronic failures from "purple plague" in integrated circuits, delaminating flexible circuit harnesses, dried out electrolytic capacitors, or some of the other ills that affected electronic stuff a few decades back.

Alan Gales · Dec 10, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
MF is not obsolete and hardly dead. I have no problems getting parts, service or accessories. The quality of the photograph and the easier to handle negative are just two reasons that MF is still popular.

Try getting a Bronica serviced or parts for an SL66. I know why you shoot Hasselblad. It makes a lot of sense in a number of ways.

With some medium format and most 35mm cameras it may be better to trash them if they fail and just buy another used one. I was just warning the OP that with some of those 645 cameras (Contax, Pentax, Mamiya) with all the electronics in them they may become doorstops if you have a problem. With a mechanical camera it might make plenty sense fixing it.

Alan Gales · Dec 10, 2015

DWThomas said:
I would be tempted to argue that in quantity of photos, medium format hasn't been "in general use" for decades. Durn few hobbyists were laying out two thousand 1980 dollars for Hasselblads and the like. In my (flaming) youth, lots of MF was being shot, but in box cameras and folders, many/most with no where near the quality available in the high priced system cameras.

As I indicated upthread, due to the age of some of the available examples, there could be problems; often just dust embedded in thickening lubricant. And having said that, I'd offer that the likelihood of repairing an all mechanical camera is far higher than fixing a mostly electronic jobbie that has had electronic failures from "purple plague" in integrated circuits, delaminating flexible circuit harnesses, dried out electrolytic capacitors, or some of the other ills that affected electronic stuff a few decades back.

Back around 1985 I was shooting a Contax 139 with several lenses. I wanted a Hasselblad so bad but $2000 could buy a used car. A friend of mine sold all his Nikon gear and bought one with the 80mm. He then cried about not being able to afford any additional lenses.

Kirks518 · Dec 10, 2015

To be breif - the US government has all of their archival stuff done on film (LF and MF). It gets touched on in this recent/current thread - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Please Recommend a Great Entry Level MF Camera

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency