Still debating on my final medium format camera. Need advice.

[brian steinberger]

I don't mean to be so negative but this ever-repeated idea of manual focus lenses just "snapping" into focus is such a myth. If you are really critical about focus, no manual focusing will ever match autofocus for speed.

For me it has to do with focus throw. Hasselblad lenses have a long focus throw and many of my Hasselblad lenses are rather stiff to turn quickly anyway. My Mamiya 645 lenses are the newer N lenses and the focus is smooth and fast. I think many would agree that if you can focus any lens on an SLR from close focus to infinity quickly you can see the image “pop” into focus easier as well. Works great on my Rolleicord as well.

 

[OAPOli]

Yes it is about focus throw. The Hasselblad 80mm has roughly twice the throw of the P67 90mm. If you have the time then you can really fine tune the focus with the Hasselblad but even then there is a margin of uncertainty where you are within the DOF. All good but it's fiddly. A shorter throw gives you more confidence but also means you can over/under shoot more easily.

@osullic if you can try one the early Bronica cameras with the integrated focus you would see how the subject quickly "snaps"! The focus travel is almost too fast on those.

 

[Craig]

I don't think any any medium format camera is suited to small children running around. As much as I hate to say it, a modern phone is probably the best tool for that.

Next choice would be the best AF 35mm SLR you can get, which in film is probably a Nikon F6.

 

[RezaLoghme]

How about taking photos of your kids when they are not fast moving?


Then your Rolleiflex is a perfect tool.

 

[RezaLoghme]

A Hasselblad is much slower to focus; the helicoid travel is slow so that the subject never "pops" quickly in focus. In addition, you need to raise the WLF (and loupe) upwards before starting to compose and focus. With the P67, you just raise the camera to your eye and the subject pops nicely in focus via the microprism.

Small kids running around is the hardest thing to focus on reliably. My AF subject-tracking Sony struggles with that.

I would like to second that, having owned a couple of Hasselblads. And even with an Acute-Matte screen, focussing via the WLF is a bit hit and miss.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think many would agree that if you can focus any lens on an SLR from close focus to infinity quickly you can see the image “pop” into focus easier as well. Works great on my Rolleicord as well.

Isn't this like saying that the speedometer on a car when moving the accelerator down to the floor as the car moves forward suddenly "pops" at say 60 mph if that were your predetermined, necessary speed to be achieved whereas it is the gradual change through there range of speed that suddenly gets to a given speed? The necessary predetermined focus spot for X distance is gradually reached but the "pop" suddenly arrives at that distance

In reality there is nothing "magical " in the "pop" in relation to manual focus lens. My auto lens "pops" in just the same way when I use it to focus on my subject

pentaxuser

 

[cowanw]

A Contax 645 is really what you need!

 

[campy51]

I have bought, sold and used many medium format and what I have learned as a casual photographer is, if you want color go digital. I only shoot b&w film and develop myself. I had a excellent 500 C/M but to focus fast it requires you to reposition your grip to go from near to far, I couldn't do it in one rotational grip so I could never get a focused shot of my grandkids. The Bronica SQ-A was much faster. I had the Mamiya 6 and it was great but didn't want to tie up that much money for occasional use so I sold it to fund my GAS. I have a few Rolleiflex and a Kowa Six which is also easy to focus, but I got a good deal on a Fuji GA645 and if you don't mind slow autofocus it's size and quality is great. If the kids are just sitting around and not running it works great. If using on a tripod then anything is good.

 

[osullic]

It's funny how people's opinions can be so different. I shoot both film and digital, and try not to get overly sentimental about either - but good colour results would never be something I'd attribute to digital and not film.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted. Maybe you mean, that if you want colour results, then digital is the smart choice here - an argument I'd agree with. Shooting B&W does allow one to use higher ISO film (compared to shooting colour film), which gives more leeway around exposure settings suitable for capturing moving subjects.

 

[mshchem]

Every serious medium format photographer deserves to have a Hasselblad and a Fuji "Texas Leica" at some point in their journey.

One of my favorite outfits that I let go of when I acquired the Blads was Bronica SQAi. Had a motor grip, ttl flash, AEIII prism, spot/averaging metering aperture priority auto. Terrific camera!!

 

[retina_restoration]

If you ask 20 people for their preferred medium format camera, you're likely to get 20 different answers: people like what they're familiar with.
Same goes for me — I prefer my Hasselblad over all others.

 

[Arthurwg]

2000 Euro will be not enough if you like to have the camera in good shape and more than one lens only from Hasselblad or Pentax 67.

f a lens or the camera body may fail and will not be repairable, a replacement will be cheaper than a CLA on a Hasselblad or Pentax 67 device.

IMHO, none of this is true. I don't think Sanug is speaking from personal experience.

 

[campy51]

It's funny how people's opinions can be so different. I shoot both film and digital, and try not to get overly sentimental about either - but good colour results would never be something I'd attribute to digital and not film.

Or maybe I just misinterpreted. Maybe you mean, that if you want colour results, then digital is the smart choice here - an argument I'd agree with. Shooting B&W does allow one to use higher ISO film (compared to shooting colour film), which gives more leeway around exposure settings suitable for capturing moving subjects.

If that was directed at me, what I mean is it's so much easier and definitely cheaper.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Wasnt the OP asking for a relatively modern replacement of his Pentax 645?

 

[osullic]

Well, we're getting slightly off-topic here, but being easier and cheaper is not unique to colour photography. It's also easier and cheaper to get B&W results digitally. Somehow I don't think easy and cheap are the main priorities here.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Did OP say something about their B/W vs. colour preferences?

I read the initial post differently - looking for an alternative for his failing Pentax body. But I don't understand why the OP wants to move away from that system instead of simply buying a new body.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Your Rolleiflex 3.5f sounds a great camera, so why get another reflex/SLR?

A rangefinder would be a contrast and the Fuji GW670 could be just in your budget. The larger GW690 is actually cheaper ... it's a bit of a monster (I have one) but a lovely camera to use. If I could afford it, I'd get GW670 as the right compromise.

PS. I also have a 3.5F, and other TLRs, they're great but a different shooting experience than a rangefinder.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't mean to be so negative but this ever-repeated idea of manual focus lenses just "snapping" into focus is such a myth. If you are really critical about focus, you've simply got to fine-tune back and forth, and that takes time done manually.

Having said that, of course autofocus is not infallible. It needs to be not only fast but also accurate. Autofocus systems don't always realise exactly which part of the scene you want in focus, though modern systems that detect faces and eyes are pretty good.

Other than Pentax and Contax 645 auto focus system what are alternatives? Did Mamiya make an auto focus 645? A Pentax AF could be had in OP budget, it is now 30 years old, how good is the auto focus?

 

[abruzzi]

Did Mamiya make an auto focus 645?

yes, and it gradually morphed into a body that could take digital backs as well. There a few models that straddled the analog/digital line, and could use both film and digital backs. The 645 AFD and 645 AFD II. The earlier 645 AF is auto focus as well. The AF lenses for that line range from mostly reasonable price to crazy expensive.

 

[RezaLoghme]

yes, and it gradually morphed into a body that could take digital backs as well. There a few models that straddled the analog/digital line, and could use both film and digital backs. The 645 AFD and 645 AFD II. The earlier 645 AF is auto focus as well. The AF lenses for that line range from mostly reasonable price to crazy expensive.

I did not know that MF AF SLR cameras exist, just looked it up.
Yes, if it has to be a MF with all the modern trimmings, the 645 is probaby "it". I would only buy such a special and rare camera from a proper dealer, in top condition - which means top $$$.

Personally, I always saw the point of MF as the contemplative alternative to a roll of 36 images on a 35mm film.

 

[osullic]

Other than Pentax and Contax 645 auto focus system what are alternatives? Did Mamiya make an auto focus 645? A Pentax AF could be had in OP budget, it is now 30 years old, how good is the auto focus?

Contax, Fuji, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax all released autofocus 645 film cameras.

 

[Analogski]

In college the 60s we were taught to use a TLR for press work, have you tired to use the sports finder? We would use fast film, F16, zone focus. It worked pretty well, was the standard in the 60s to early 70s when TLR were common in the field. I have not used a Rolli in a very long time, my Yaschia 124 and Ds have the fold down front with the window for the sports finder.

Yeah, still trying to figure it out. But it messes a little bit with my brain because the little glass window beneath the sports finder turns the damn world upside down...
But does zone focusing work on a Rolleiflex? And are the results ok?

I guess f/16 only works with flash or under broadcast/sports lighting. Using a Rolleiflex in a domestic home, you are probably going to be working around f/4 at 1/60 with ISO 400 film. You could shoot ISO 3200 film to allow for 1/125 and maybe f/8.
(You can obviously use a smaller aperture outdoors in (good) daylight.)

Interesting! Is that THE formula for flash photography with the Rolleiflex? I'm thinking about buying a flash and do some work indoors, but I have no experience at all how to synchronize it all.

IMHO, none of this is true. I don't think Sanug is speaking from personal experience.

Same here. A Pentax 67 body here in The Netherlands kost around 800-1000 euro. With a 105 lens or a couple of other lenses, you can get a pretty nice set for 1500 to 2000 euro. For 2000+ you'll get a 67ii with lens.
A Hasselblad with one lens can also go for around 2000 if you look long enough.



Oh, and a Pentax 645n is here more expensive than a 67. I also thought about it. It has a good lightmeter and nice autofocus.
Much better than my old Nikon F4... That was a damn transformer robot.

For a 35mm autofocus camera om thinking about a Nikon F100. But this topic is about a medium format

 

[rduraoc]

Thanks Guys!

Maybe it's a form of GAS... But still... I have already tried a Pentax 67 in a shop nearby. Love the SLR feeling. No struggle with focus as I have sometimes with the Rollei. But I'm fairly in love with my 3.5f.

But I find it hard to focus fast with small kids running around. I'll like to get a Hasselblad loupe. Maybe this cam make faster focusing possible due to eliminating the world around me. But I don't know if that will work.

"Small kids running around" is precisely what led me back to autofocus in MF. I'm more concentrated on getting the shot than on the camera itself. I'm using a Pentax 645N, love the ergonomics except for the weight.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Contax, Fuji, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax all released autofocus 645 film cameras.

What is the name of Hasselblad's 645 Autofocus film camera?

 

[RezaLoghme]

"Small kids running around" is precisely what led me back to autofocus in MF. I'm more concentrated on getting the shot than on the camera itself. I'm using a Pentax 645N, love the ergonomics except for the weight.

I don't want to be overly critical but how long are kids "small and running around", how desirable is it to take photos of them running around, how different is that from sports photographers snapping football players, and does all that really require the purchase of an AF camera when in the age of photography AF is a quite recent introduction compared with pre-1980s cameras way back then to Daguerrotypes when everyone happily snapped soccer and Duke of Queensberry boxing matches without Autofocus?

What about "Oi, kids, stand still so daddy can quietly adjust his Linhoff!"

Or using a fast lens with some good DoF, and a 400 ASA film, and a well lit room, or letting Usin Bolt, I mean: the children do their "fast running around" outdoors? Hasselblad's V system lenses have a 1/500 max shutter speed. Besides nailing the focus, having a fast shutter speed (easier with focal plane shutters, like most 35mm cameras) is key.

And if you insist on snapping them while "running around", wouldn't a bit of motion blur actually add a lot the snap?