Starting in medium format

MaxFrank · Jul 19, 2011

I have certainly looked at the Hasselblad 500c/m, there's a 500c/m body, 80/2.8, WLF and back up for €800 but that's not exactly a steal in my book. Plus the fact that lenses are really expensive and they don't have normal filter threads I believe. Being a student I'm not exactly swimming in money

vpwphoto · Jul 19, 2011

WLF is what I use for everything except when I shoot it out of the airplane.
I bought mine when I wasn't swimming in cash either... but it has been worth every penny and the Digital Backs interface too.
My other favorite but I have never owned one is the Pentax 67

André E.C. · Jul 19, 2011

Get a good Rolleiflex and later you will see if another device is needed. Rolleiflexes aren't the most flexible of the cameras, yet they deliver other important things, like portability and optical quality, just to name a couple.

Cheers

brucemuir · Jul 19, 2011

MaxFrank said:
I have certainly looked at the Hasselblad 500c/m,
snip

and they don't have normal filter threads I believe.

A bay 50/60 step ring to whatever filters you already have is one way around this but I much prefer the bayonet system on the hasselblad.

Sirius Glass · Jul 19, 2011

MaxFrank said:
I have certainly looked at the Hasselblad 500c/m, there's a 500c/m body, 80/2.8, WLF and back up for 800 but that's not exactly a steal in my book. Plus the fact that lenses are really expensive and they don't have normal filter threads I believe. Being a student I'm not exactly swimming in money

Buying a Hasselblad mean that one waits longer between lens purchases. I only had one lens for my Minolta SR-7 until I had graduated college and been working over a year. It is amazing what one can photograph with 'only' a normal lens.

I too greatly prefer the baynette filters.

Steve

chrismasonstearns · Jul 19, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Buying a Hasselblad mean that one waits longer between lens purchases. ... It is amazing what one can photograph with 'only' a normal lens.
Steve

I found this too. When I started out with the Hasselblad, I had only the 80mm. It was very useful to shoot with only that lens for a year or so - to get a feel for the camera - before I bought a 150mm for portraits.

(When I was first learning 35mm, I did the same thing, shooting with only a 50mm lens for several years, because it was all I could afford. It was a Zeiss 50/1.7 on a ratty Contax 139. I took it to Europe, lost it, found it again, and just generally beat the hell out of it. It was tons of fun, and I learned to use it with my eyes closed.)

Currently I use the 150mm lens more, but that's because I shoot portraits most of the time. Eventually, I'll add a wide-angle (40 or 50mm) to my collection, and that will be pretty much a complete set.

About Steve's other point - that your first MF camera doesn't have to stay with you forever - he's right. It is a good idea to start with what you can afford, and then upgrade as you can.

But I know that I'll own, and use, my Hasselblad, for the rest of my life. And, with a little maintenance, it will last that long.

Neanderman · Jul 19, 2011

I shot for years with a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR. Then, one day, I was out shooting. I will usually see something that interests me and 'walk up to it', with a notion of my framing in mind. I will then adjust the framing by stepping forward or backward. On that day, I walked up, put the camera to my eye and saw the EXACT framing I had visualized.

The next day, I ordered a new lens. It was time to 'shake things up.'

drumlin · Jul 19, 2011

I still consider myself 'starting' in MF and analog photography in general. My first MF camera was a very inexpensive RB67. Great negatives, but I wasn't lugging that thing around, no way. Since you like 6x6, Id give a hearty vote for an inexpensive TLR to start with. The lenses are usually great, if not fantastic. I have a Yashica 124 and more recently found a Minolta Autocord, since my Y124 is giving me some trouble. Rollei's are nice, but more spendy. I've given thought to jumping to an SLR like a bronica or 'blad, mostly for the interchangeable lenses. Instead, I've contained myself to getting a couple sets of Rolleinars (close up lenses) that have been a refreshing 'mix-up' with the fixed lens TLRs.

When your starting, try to avoid GAS at all costs. Get a modest, competent camera and a good meter. Spend your money on film and developer and hone your craft. Sell some prints. Then buy a 'blad.

MaxFrank · Jul 20, 2011

Well my dilemma is always wether you buy something 'cheap' to start knowing full well that you will be buying a better alternative in the future, and switching brands means that basically all the money you have spend on it will be washed down the drain as I don't think these bodies will hold any of their already diminished value in the future.
Right now I have several options, the Bronica has been cancelled as an option since the brand doesn't exist anymore so repairs will be difficult. The first option is a Mamiya RB67 ProSD with a 50mm, 90mm and a 180mm lens, cable release, 120 back and 15 B/W films for around 500 euro. The other option is a Hasselblad 500c (wlf and a12 back) with a 80/2.8 for 650 euro, or a 500c/m body and 80/2.8 T* for 800 euro. So I really don't know what route to go down to. Maybe you can enlighten me with some great advice, which you have already given me so far, thanks for that

Athiril · Jul 20, 2011

I use my RB67 ProS hand held most of the time. My favourite camera.

vpwphoto · Jul 20, 2011

Like many of us I have learned the "hard way" in many areas of life my examples:

Cheap limited view camera... only to pine immediately for a better one... lost money and time and very frustrated with that.

Married a great practical women that cooks and balances the checkbook... dumped the "hot fun" women... I won on that one.

Bought rusty MGB thinking I could fix the body cheap.... looser!
Bought rust Free Mazda RX7.... that turned out to need an engine.... lost again!
Built a sailboat on the "cheap"... took 10 years... should have put $450 a year in a jar and just bought a finished boat after 10 years.

Bought a Hasselblad and grew the system... haven't bought a new lens in 14 years... and plan to keep it along with my wife..... great winning decision. Glad I didn't buy the heavy RZ system that was 35% cheaper at the time... the Hasselblad travels everywhere and goes where a 35mm can go... and gives negatives that can rival 4x5.

fmajor · Jul 20, 2011

I've never shot a Hasselblad, but i sure am pleased w/my Mamiya RB67 Pro-S, 65mm Sekor C and 180mm Sekor C lenses. It's much less spendy and i can't imagine a camera of this genre more pleasing...

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 20, 2011

vpwphoto said:
Like many of us I have learned the "hard way" in many areas of life my examples:

Cheap limited view camera... only to pine immediately for a better one... lost money and time and very frustrated with that.

Married a great practical women that cooks and balances the checkbook... dumped the "hot fun" women... I won on that one.

Bought rusty MGB thinking I could fix the body cheap.... looser!
Bought rust Free Mazda RX7.... that turned out to need an engine.... lost again!
Built a sailboat on the "cheap"... took 10 years... should have put $450 a year in a jar and just bought a finished boat after 10 years.

Bought a Hasselblad and grew the system... haven't bought a new lens in 14 years... and plan to keep it along with my wife..... great winning decision. Glad I didn't buy the heavy RZ system that was 35% cheaper at the time... the Hasselblad travels everywhere and goes where a 35mm can go... and gives negatives that can rival 4x5.

My Hasselblad is the reason I gave up on 4x5 too. Time honored lessons learned are the best ones. I too don't mind traveling with my Hasselblad. Out of all my cameras, if I could keep just one, that would be the one.

What I personally like about it is that it doesn't require batteries.
The lenses are in a word amazing.
With the 80mm lens it's very portable as it is sleek, compact, and fairly light for its size.
I can shoot it hand held at 1/30s by using a strap around my neck and resting it against my chest as I use the waist level finder.
The ergonomics are superb, and hand held the camera just fits so nicely in my hands. Focus with the left hand as I hold the camera with the right hand, and operate the winding crank and shutter release with the right hand.
It makes my tripod more compact, because I never have to rotate the camera, which also puts the center of gravity lower, which makes the tripod more stable and firmly planted.

I'm not saying that other cameras can't be just as good for various reasons. I'm just telling you why I love the Hasselblad so much. I have never tried a Bronica setup, or a Mamiya 67, so these are just observations. I hope they help you along in your decision making process.

Jeff Kubach · Jul 20, 2011

fmajor said:
I've never shot a Hasselblad, but i sure am pleased w/my Mamiya RB67 Pro-S, 65mm Sekor C and 180mm Sekor C lenses. It's much less spendy and i can't imagine a camera of this genre more pleasing...

I agree, (but with a 50 and 90,180).

Jeff

vpwphoto · Jul 20, 2011

My 500 system...
50 FLE, 80, 150 and 1.4 Hasselblad converter for the 150.

IF I had to go "lightweight"
60, 100 and 1.4 converter. I don't own the 60 or 100... but would like them.

DaveO · Jul 20, 2011

MF Cameras

If you're going to print 4x6, 8x10 or 11x14 you would have to crop a 6x6 negative, thereby losing the advantage over a 645 camera. I think the 645 would be a good starting point for MF photography.

DaveO

olleorama · Jul 20, 2011

I have used tlrs, mf slr and mf rf. My favourite mf camera is the RB67 (with the Super 23 as a close runner up). I used to own and lovingly use a hasselblad 500 C/M. Much prefer the mamiya. Why? I get more useable negative space from the mamiya. And the lenses are cheaper. I have one body, three backs, one pola-back, the 50, 90 and 180 mm, and I paid less than I did for just the 500C/M with one back and the 80. I can't honestly say I can see any difference in resulotion or sharpness from the two. The zeiss glass has more contrast, but you have to have two similar shots side by side to notice. Or at least I think I notice. They render a bit differently, that's for sure.

I should be biased towards hasselblad as I live in its birthplace, and have a short walk to their former headquarters. But I still prefer the mamiya.

I have no problem schlepping the RB system around, but then again, I deadlift 200 kilos and think that power cleans is a meaningful pasttime. YMMV.

MaxFrank · Jul 21, 2011

I am going to take a look at a RB67 ProSD set tomorrow night so I'll see if the weight is too much or not, but I think I'm fine with it.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 21, 2011

MaxFrank said:
I am going to take a look at a RB67 ProSD set tomorrow night so I'll see if the weight is too much or not, but I think I'm fine with it.

Good luck with your choice, and I hope you find something you really like. Take your time and don't rush into your decision. It took me four stints with different cameras before I figured out what I liked to use. Patience is definitely a virtue, so if you can, try test driving a couple of different cameras.

Have fun!

Klainmeister · Jul 21, 2011

Patience is indeed the way to go. I think I've spent nearly 3 years before settling on a camera. Thanks to rebuilding skills, I think I broke even, but there's a lot of photo opportunities I wish I had a proper setup for in the past. The RB67 is a go to system for many, and for a many a good reason. Let us know how it goes.

Sirius Glass · Jul 21, 2011

DaveO said:
If you're going to print 4x6, 8x10 or 11x14 you would have to crop a 6x6 negative, thereby losing the advantage over a 645 camera. I think the 645 would be a good starting point for MF photography.

DaveO

Why crop the negative? One can print a 4x4 on 4x6, 8x8 on 8x10, 11x11 on 11x14.

When I am using 6x6, I compose for the full frame, why would I recrop a photograph when I correctly composed it when I took the photograph?

Personnally, I found 645 was too close to 35mm to make it worth using 645. YMMV because this opinion is worth everything you paid for it!

ntenny · Jul 21, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Why crop the negative? One can print a 4x4 on 4x6, 8x8 on 8x10, 11x11 on 11x14.

Or cut that 8x10 down to 8x8, the 11x14 down to 11x11, and so on, and just print square. You can use the "leftover" strip of paper for contacts (or test strips or whatever).

-NT

Sirius Glass · Jul 21, 2011

ntenny said:
Or cut that 8x10 down to 8x8, the 11x14 down to 11x11, and so on, and just print square. You can use the "leftover" strip of paper for contacts (or test strips or whatever).

-NT

Yup, I do that too.

Steve

olleorama · Jul 21, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Why crop the negative? One can print a 4x4 on 4x6, 8x8 on 8x10, 11x11 on 11x14.

When I am using 6x6, I compose for the full frame, why would I recrop a photograph when I correctly composed it when I took the photograph?

Personnally, I found 645 was too close to 35mm to make it worth using 645. YMMV because this opinion is worth everything you paid for it!

The 'problems' arrises if you're photographing for other reasons than your own prints. Most ADs don't like squares in every project.

Alan Johnson · Jul 22, 2011

I have worked my way through seven different MF cameras excluding old folders and it has been very interesting.If you don't want to trade on ebay find a good reseller working on commission and it is not very expensive to do this.
I started with a cheap old Mamiya 645. 6x7 is too heavy for me as I tend to walk a long way.

Starting in medium format

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency