Sharpest Hand Held MF Camera

[2F/2F]

Indeed. "Sharp enough" should definitely be the goal of the quest as opposed to "sharpest".

For one thing, as I touched on above, "sharpest" will have more to do with technique and the specifics of the shot than it will have to do with the specifics of the lenses in lab tests. Some people will be able to get a sharper shot with a "worse" lens than someone else could get with a "better" lens.

However, as far as bang for the buck in terms of quality, do yourself a favor and check out how cheap some very fine old cameras are going for. "Sharpest", "sharp enough", and "cheaper than dirt" might even all be attainable with the same camera. Old user Rolleis and several other cameras aren't that much more than a new tricked-out Holga.

 

[3Dfan]

By reputation, I mention the Kodak Medalist rangefinders.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Mamiya 6 by a large mile!

 

[MattKing]

You don't wish to walk around with the RZ67?



(I'm trying to convince myself that I can spend all day with 10 lbs. over my shoulder.)

I went to B&H recently, trying to find the MF camera for me...and my top two were the RZ67 and 7II.

10 lbs.?

If you are carrying 10 lbs., even with an RZ67, you are carrying a big kit - lots of lenses and accessories.

No matter what system you choose, if you carry a big kit, it will be heavy (Pentax 110 SLR excluded ).

Instead, you should be looking at how light a portable kit can be.

RZ67s are bulky, but when you consider how the built in bellows allows for smaller and lighter lenses, and how the rotating back makes prism finders less important, you may find that a travel kit is more compact than you might think.

To give you an example, I have used a Mamiya C330 for years. I used to shoot weddings with it, carrying three lenses and using a prism finder. With one lens, it is comparatively big and heavy. With two lenses (e.g. a 65mm and 135mm) the kit isn't much bigger, but much more flexible. With three lenses (55mm, 80mm and 135mm), again not much bigger, but very flexible.

The prism finder is important for weddings and other environmental work, but otherwise can be omitted.

I have a left hand trigger grip for my C330 that also works with an RB67. I don't know if it will fit the RZ67.

I find the grip plus the C330 to be very hand-holdable. I've tried the RB67 with that grip, and it isn't that much heavier.

By the way, I do own a Koni-Omega Rapid M with 58mm and 90mm lens. It too is large and fairly heavy. I got it to get into 6x7, and I like it, but there are issues with the film transport/backs that I have that I am not particularly happy about. If I was looking for my first MF camera, it probably wouldn't be my first choice.

I think you should consider the RB67 or RZ67, if you find that you like it. Essentially, I'm saying go with your gut.

I would lean toward a later model of the RB67, because the investment is lower, so once you become fully cognizant of how well or poorly it works for you, you can make a decision whether or not to keep it, and if your decision is that you don't want to, you can most likely get most of your money back.

Hope this doesn't meander too much, and is of some help.

Matt

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I have used RZs, Bronica 6x6, TLRs etc and my view is:

MF RF every time. No mirror slap improves slow speed sharpness a lot...lighter....better ergonomically etc There is just no way you can generate the same smoothness from an SLR without the mirror locked up, which i not possible hand held.

The Mamiya 7 produces the sharpest negatives I have ever seen. Put Delta 100 in and develop with FX-39 for a staggeringly sharp neg. Mamiya 6 is supposed to be similarly sharp although the collapsible mount on that version might introduce some reductions in resolution at wide apertures. The Bronica RF645 is pretty darned close is not right there with it, but the neg is of course smaller. Both whip the late model Bronica SQ series lenses I once owned, although these ares still very good.

The idea of a mirror and GG viewing on a TLR giving improved sharpness is flawed. mirror alignment can vary and must be perfect as must a rangefinder. Besides, the RF system provides better focus accuracy with shorter FLs. TLRs can also become misaligned from a clonk (due to the moving lens platform, just as an RF can be...only adjusting the RF is no bother!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Please do not even think about carting about an RZ for hand held work!!!! If you must have an SLR for longer lenses etc, pick something lighter - blad or Pentax/Mamiya 654 - an AF 645 SLR might suit your uses - certainly Salgado got on just fine with his....

 

[jd callow]

The collapsible mount on a well maintained Mamiya 6 is as good as the 7. The 6 not needing to be rotated and being slightly smaller might help to level the playing field with the 7, but the 7 should produce in most instances a slightly bigger enlargement as there is no replacement for displacement. I don't know enough about the fuji RF's, but the same may apply.

 

[Steve Smith]

Please do not even think about carting about an RZ for hand held work!!!!

I happily use my RB67 hand held with the left hand grip. It's certainly not everyone's idea of portable though.


Steve.

 

[emanded]

Thanks for all your comments - there's certainly alot to chew over.
Whilst I'm doing this I might try out my RZ67 on a local trip out, hand held........I'm down the gym working out in preparation!
It seems the Mamiya's have the vote at the moment and possibly the 7 as it seems to be alot cheaper than the 7II (not seen many 6's around) but as I say, I shall chew it over and research a little more.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

What, not even a monopod?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

The 7mk2 has a better viewfinder and a number of other improvements you might appreciate - they are not that much more.

I was not knocking the Mamiya, but resolution tests on Hevanet (the guy is thorough) have it to the Mamiya 7 lenses - its splitting hairs as the two are both ridiculously sharp.

Not rotating the camera I guess has its benefits, but once cropped to 645, the 6x7 neg does nudge it appreciably ahead on a 20x16 print in my view. I struggle to see in the square format so for me even a vertical finder like the RF645 is preferable. I have never seen a resolution test of the RF645, but all I can say is that they are up there with the Mamiya 7 to all intents and purposes.

You guys carting about RB/Zs.... I could, but I wouldn't - masochists!

 

[Robert Budding]

I must admit that I do love my Mamiya 7II. It does have limitations, such as close focus. But I prefer environmental shots anyway, so that doesn't bother me. On the plus side, the lenses are superb, and the kit is small and light enough to carry about all day.

 

[srs5694]

MF RF every time. No mirror slap improves slow speed sharpness a lot...lighter....better ergonomically etc There is just no way you can generate the same smoothness from an SLR without the mirror locked up, which i not possible hand held.

In theory, you could focus with the mirror down (or guesstimate focus, measure the distance, use hyperfocal focusing, etc.), lock up the mirror, then frame the subject in a WLF's "sport finder" or use an auxiliary viewfinder. This is of course awkward and throws away all the advantages of an SLR over other cameras, but it might be an acceptable solution if you want to get maximum sharpness on one or two shots.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

A Hasselblad with a sturdy neck strap, A12 filled with 400-TMY2 and Bob's your uncle down to shutter speeds of 1/focal length.

I have a Hassleblad and a Mamiya 7ii.

The MF cameras I actually use are my two Mamiya 7ii(s).

I load Kodak 400 TMY-2 or Fuji Acros 100 in one body and Fuji Color Film in the other body.

Clarence is my uncle.

Bob is my Manx

 

[vic vic]

all new/modern medium format cameras are sharp enough not to be bothered about it ...
the question is, which one is (or can become with use) more comfortable to hold, and which one can take lower shutter speeds ...

mamiya 7 , almost like point and shoot camera, or like bigger leica with huge negative size inside.
rolleiflex tlr, especially since it can take lower shutter speeds relativly to reflex ones like hasselblad v or rollei 6008 (the hy6/afi seems to be a bit less vibrating for the improved mirror action but doesnt seem a too dramatic diferance). i would say rolleiflex and mamiya7 are the bests here, with just that principle differance in viewing method/experience ...
linhof technikas (with superrollex backs) also should be mentioned here, though bigger than rolleiflex and mamiya7, but actually it can be advantage in some way.
hassalblad swc models are very good in hand, just need a bit getting used to since they have no real grips like mamiya7.

i dont know all the cameras out there ... but ...
hassleblad and rollei reflex cameras are very good in hand, it is just that they have a mirror that require a faster shutter speeds. mamiya reflex cameras (rb and rz models) work about the same way as hassleblad and rollei but they are not that good in hand actually cause they are bulky.

 

[keithwms]

In theory, you could focus with the mirror down (or guesstimate focus, measure the distance, use hyperfocal focusing, etc.), lock up the mirror, then frame the subject in a WLF's "sport finder" or use an auxiliary viewfinder. This is of course awkward and throws away all the advantages of an SLR over other cameras, but it might be an acceptable solution if you want to get maximum sharpness on one or two shots.

This is what I do with the rb67 when I do use it handheld. I use the side grip, but I don't use the trigger on that; instead I use the standard double cable release for MLU, triggering that with my right hand. Simply delaying the release for the leaf shutter, one can get acceptable handhelds at very slow speeds. If you just throw the mirror and the shutter at the same time you will of course get some vibration in there (though it's actually not quite as bad as it sounds because of all the mass damping)....

Even on the Mamiya 6, if I feel like the exposure is going to be so long as to be affected by finger impulse, say 1/15 or longer, then I just use the timer.

In general, these leaf-shutter systems have many advantages for handheld work.

 

[jd callow]

Not rotating the camera I guess has its benefits, but once cropped to 645, the 6x7 neg does nudge it appreciably ahead on a 20x16 print in my view. I struggle to see in the square format so for me even a vertical finder like the RF645 is preferable.

I seldom if ever crop the square and find the 6x7 ratio to be undesirable (it isn't formal like a square or dramatic like 2x3). Some like chocolate others vanilla. A 20 x 20 from a mamiya 6 will be as sharp as a 20x23 from a mamiya 7, but the 20x23 is larger. The 7 has a better range of lenses, and is still in production which are very compelling reasons to go that route.

 

[AutumnJazz]

10 lbs.?

If you are carrying 10 lbs., even with an RZ67, you are carrying a big kit - lots of lenses and accessories.

No matter what system you choose, if you carry a big kit, it will be heavy (Pentax 110 SLR excluded ).

Instead, you should be looking at how light a portable kit can be.

RZ67s are bulky, but when you consider how the built in bellows allows for smaller and lighter lenses, and how the rotating back makes prism finders less important, you may find that a travel kit is more compact than you might think.

To give you an example, I have used a Mamiya C330 for years. I used to shoot weddings with it, carrying three lenses and using a prism finder. With one lens, it is comparatively big and heavy. With two lenses (e.g. a 65mm and 135mm) the kit isn't much bigger, but much more flexible. With three lenses (55mm, 80mm and 135mm), again not much bigger, but very flexible.

The prism finder is important for weddings and other environmental work, but otherwise can be omitted.

I have a left hand trigger grip for my C330 that also works with an RB67. I don't know if it will fit the RZ67.

I find the grip plus the C330 to be very hand-holdable. I've tried the RB67 with that grip, and it isn't that much heavier.

By the way, I do own a Koni-Omega Rapid M with 58mm and 90mm lens. It too is large and fairly heavy. I got it to get into 6x7, and I like it, but there are issues with the film transport/backs that I have that I am not particularly happy about. If I was looking for my first MF camera, it probably wouldn't be my first choice.

I think you should consider the RB67 or RZ67, if you find that you like it. Essentially, I'm saying go with your gut.

I would lean toward a later model of the RB67, because the investment is lower, so once you become fully cognizant of how well or poorly it works for you, you can make a decision whether or not to keep it, and if your decision is that you don't want to, you can most likely get most of your money back.

Hope this doesn't meander too much, and is of some help.

Matt

(5 lbs. camera + 2 lbs. AE prism + 1lbs. motor winder [I'm lazy in that respect] + 2 lbs. lens)

I'm really only interested in the 50mm, and maybe a macro lens. MAYBE a longer lens for portraits...but I'm more of the environmental portrait type.

When I held an RZ67, I just loved the way it felt, but not the weight. I even liked the waist-level finder. But, I have no light meter, I like to shoot slides, and I really do not know the sunny 16 rule...so perfect exposure is a must for me. I suppose I could carry around my F100 with me, and forgo the AE prism...but it weighs pretty much the same, and takes up more space. I probably wouldn't end up getting the motor winder, but I'd like to give myself some leeway for one.

 

[eddym]

But, I have no light meter, I like to shoot slides, and I really do not know the sunny 16 rule...so perfect exposure is a must for me. I suppose I could carry around my F100 with me, and forgo the AE prism...but it weighs pretty much the same, and takes up more space.

A good spot meter or even an incident meter would be cheaper and probably more accurate than an AE prism. Plus it would teach you more about photography. A waist level finder would be even cheaper and much lighter. I've carried around an RB67 kit, and it can be a back-breaker!

 

[Shangheye]

Totally agree with Eddy'd comment. I have just switched to a waist level finder from an AE prism and use a light meter...I am a total convert. Lighter, less obtrusive on the street, and infinite more compositional choices...e.g. from lower down etc. Meanwhile, the lighter weight means less shake. K

 

[AutumnJazz]

Well, I suppose a really nice light meter costs as much as the prism would. And would be lighter.

 

[benjiboy]

Well, I suppose a really nice light meter costs as much as the prism would. And would be lighter.

And much more versatile.

 

[Greg_E]

Well, I suppose a really nice light meter costs as much as the prism would. And would be lighter.

I wouldn't entirely agree with that statement as the handheld meter I would consider really nice is about $700 new (Sekonic L758cine). But for the price of a good usable and accurate handheld meter, then yes I would agree. The little Digisix meter is working very well for me in incident mode, and you won't find much smaller. I use this meter from digital to film pinhole and it seems to hit the mark each time, so no complaints. Though it looks like they may have killed it for the too expensive Digiflash (Digisix is no longer listed at B&H).

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Try a Lubitel for a change, you would be surprised!

Philippe

 

[donbga]

Try a Lubitel for a change, you would be surprised!

Philippe

Yeah, you've got that right. You will be wondering why in the hell you purchased the camera in the first place.