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

[RezaLoghme]

But does zone focusing work on a Rolleiflex? And are the results ok?

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.

Caution: this comes from an autodidactic dilletante such as myself. But it sounds as if you are still in the process of mastering the basics of photography. Like several members said before - use your gear (a Rolleiflex TLR has been used by many pro photographers), maybe take some courses....a new camera/system will throw you back into managing its idiosyncratic features.

 

[osullic]

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

H1 for sure was developed first and foremost as a film camera. The H series evolved into a digital line, but other H series cameras may also be compatible with film backs - I'm not that familiar with the system.

Fuji and Hasselblad had a partnership for the H1, and the camera was released in Japan as the Fuji GX645AF.

 

[RezaLoghme]

H1 for sure was developed first and foremost as a film camera. The H series evolved into a digital line, but other H series cameras may also be compatible with film backs - I'm not that familiar with the system.

Fuji and Hasselblad had a partnership for the H1, and the camera was released in Japan as the Fuji GX645AF.

Every day is school day! I love Hasselblad, but I had no idea about the H1 (and looking it up, I know why). The Rolls Royce Camargue of Hasselblads?

 

[osullic]

I don't really get the Camargue reference - I'm not really a car guy - but around the turn of the new millennium, Hasselblad knew that the future of photography was not in clinging hopelessly to their V system. Equally, I don't think they foresaw how quickly digital would take over. (Did anyone?) Hasselblad's compromise was the H series of autofocus 645 cameras that came out in 2002. I don't know how successful the line was overall, but it kept Hasselblad afloat I guess, and was aimed squarely at professional studio photographers.

It has a modular design, and while initially developed as a film camera, as I said, the H series morphed into a line of digital-focused cameras. Lenses were developed in cooperation with Fuji (rather than Zeiss) and I read somewhere years ago that they also worked with Minolta on the autofocus system. I believe the H system overall performed just as you'd expect from Hasselblad's reputation and high standards.

Now that everyone has moved on to mirrorless systems, Hasselblad promotes more their new X system, but you can still access info about the H6D on their website.

H6D-100c

www.hasselblad.com

 

[Paul Howell]

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?

In most cases, covering news shots would be at infinity, but as I recall, once you have your distance figured out zone focus works pretty well. Many news photographers in the 40s and 50s used 4X5 Speed Graphic and other press cameras without the rangefinder as they got really good at judging distance. In WWII most of the U.S Army's Speeds did not have rangefinders. I only shot a Rolliflex once or twice, don't recall how the sports finder works. With Yashica 124 and D, the front panel of the viewing hoods folds down and clicks in the down position, the back panel has a viewing slot the back window and the from window creates the spots finder. Viewing done at eye level, but no paralex correction, need to give the shot some room for imperfect viewing.

Here is a link the the yashica 124 manual, shows how the sports finder works.

https://cameramanuals.org/yashica_pdf/yashica_mat-124g-english.pdf

 

[RezaLoghme]

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?

In most cases, covering news shots would be at infinity, but as I recall, once you have your distance figured out zone focus works pretty well. Many news photographers in the 40s and 50s used 4X5 Speed Graphic and other press cameras without the rangefinder as they got really good at judging distance. In WWII most of the U.S Army's Speeds did not have rangefinders. I only shot a Rolliflex once or twice, don't recall how the sports finder works. With Yashica 124 and D, the front panel of the viewing hoods folds down and clicks in the down position, the back panel has a viewing slot the back window and the from window creates the spots finder. Viewing done at eye level, but no paralex correction, need to give the shot some room for imperfect viewing.

Here is a link the the yashica 124 manual, shows how the sports finder works.

https://cameramanuals.org/yashica_pdf/yashica_mat-124g-english.pdf

*cough*
OP said "something intuitive and relatively fast to operate", now we are talking Speed Graphic stories.

 

[Dan Daniel]

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?

The little glass window beneath the sports finder is for focusing. Only. There is a mirror behind the magnifying glass and when you deploy the sports finder, the mirror swings down. You can now focus while using the sports finder, a major problem with other sports finders. So you can have the cmaera at eye level, follow kids or such easier, and be able to check focus in the process. Not as fast and smooth as, say, an integrated rangefinder camera, but better than needing to close the sports finder, use the waist level to focus, reset the sports finder, and hope your subject hasn't moved much.

Zone focusing is zone focusing. You have an F, yes? The moving black bars above the focus knob give an idea of depth of field/zone of focus.

Other cameras may do it more intuitively or more sophisticated, but the Rolleiflex did provide tools for most photographic situations. Heck, you can add a rangefinder to the sports finder if the upside down focus is not working.

 

[Paul Howell]

*cough*
OP said "something intuitive and relatively fast to operate", now we are talking Speed Graphic stories.

My point is that in the day, zone focusing for fast moving assignments was standard, not I would use zone focus if I could help it. I would think about a Pentax or Mamiya 645 system.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 have no such problems with the Hasselblad, but only your opinion of which is the best for you after having handled each of your choices ==> your choice is the only important opinion. Choose what you are most comfortable. I use the the 45° Hasselblad PME with an Acute-Matte screen and the focus pops in for me. I have the WLF because it came with the camera, but I have never used it based on my experiences with TLRs including the Mamiya C330.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Shooting my children who were really active was never a problem with a Hasselblad. Nikon slrs will also work. However shooting photographs of children with a TLR is difficult because of the left-right flipped image from using only one mirror.

 

[Paul Howell]

Craig said:


I don't think any any medium format camera is suited to small children running around.

Many photographers who specialized in children preferred a TLR as the waist level viewfinder got them lower to the ground level with the children's faces without having to kneel down.

 

[rduraoc]

@RezaLoghme , it actually depends on how you're approaching your photography. In the past few years I've been growing more and more interested in the photography itself, and less on how shiny, beautiful or trendy the gear is. Therefore, I've been moving away from older, manual cameras, and going back to AF and AE, as these give me more time to think about the composition, or to quickly adjust the exposure with the press of a button instead of fiddling with 2 wheels.

Regarding how long kids stay small and running around, it's certainly longer than it takes me to buy and sell at least 10 cameras.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I am just trying to understand how many photos (10? 100? 1000?) "kid running around fast" are needed in relation to one's entire book of snapshots.

@rduraoc I had some fully automatic Leicas with AF. Its probably me (an autodidact amateur). The die-hard pros would probably have no qualms mastering all the knobs, settings and options. Some of my best "action" shots (not fast moving kids but fast moving other objects) were taken with a Leica M4 (125s/f8) and some good intuition.

But, well, if someone wants to buy a new camera, sometimes it helps to build a good reason for doing so. I have done this many times...

 

[rduraoc]

I think we need to move beyond the kids example, even if it's a useful one. Nowadays I use AF and AE on most of my photography (not restricted to kids), as my go to camera is the 645N. It suits me in what I want from the camera, which to me is more and more a tool, and less and less an object of desire. I trust the technology to make my life easier and dedicate more mental space to the actual image I'm envisioning. It works for me, and it obviously depends on how one approaches the thing, and what one wants out of this hobby.

 

[MARTIE]

The beauty of most "auto everything" camera's, is that you can just switch it all off and go back to purely manual. Or even something in-between!

 

[RezaLoghme]

The (few) AF cameras I had never satisfied me - I guess it was rather me not being patient enough to learn how to use these cameras properly (e.g. setting f8 to ensure sufficent DoF in case the AF has its own mind).

Strangely, I love automated exposure, but not autofocus.

 

[rduraoc]

The beauty of most "auto everything" camera's, is that you can just switch it all off and go back to purely manual. Or even something in-between!

Fully agree, and one of the reasons, 20+years ago, that led me to Minolta instead of Canon or Nikon in 35mm: within my limited budget at the time, Minolta (and Pentax) was the only one that wouldn't make a decision for me if I didn't want it to. I remember being particularly annoyed when other cameras decided to pop up the integrated flash when they decided to, and not when I asked...

 

[john_s]

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.

As a photographer of children, I sometimes have to choose between MF (SL66 in my case which I love using) and the practicalities of a standard Leica M6 with a very good lens. Considerations include film+dev qualities, depth of field leading to shutter speed/aperture choices, and of course ease of use. At the end of the day, for me, the Leica wins.

Something with AF could help, I suppose, as my eyesight becomes not quite so acute and maybe my reaction times not so great.