Thinking about which MF to get -- looking for additional discussion!

[OAPOli]

@-persimmon-tree- the VF has a bright frame with parallax compensation for 6x9 and 6x7. The clip-on mask is to aid framing if you are using the multi-format back crops. The bright frame would still move but not the mask obviously. From the picture you have a single-format back.

@Paul Howell the multi-format backs also require a mask for the film gate (for 6x6 and 6x4.5) and are advanced using the red window. The 6x7 version has automatic advance for 6x7, red window for the crops.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Image show 6x7 back so you should confirm:

View attachment 371533

That is a separate back that I got in addition to the 6x9 that comes with the camera -- my bad that is not clear from the photos

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

@-persimmon-tree- the VF has a bright frame with parallax compensation for 6x9 and 6x7. The clip-on mask is to aid framing if you are using the multi-format back crops. The bright frame would still move but not the mask obviously. From the picture you have a single-format back.

@Paul Howell the multi-format backs also require a mask for the film gate (for 6x6 and 6x4.5) and are advanced using the red window. The 6x7 version has automatic advance for 6x7, red window for the crops.

You seem super knowledgeable about these cameras, and there isn't a ton of info online. I may send you a message when it arrives if I have any questions, if that is okay. Thanks so much for your input -- googling about this camera is a bit difficult.

 

[OAPOli]

@-persimmon-tree- check at the bottom of https://butkus.org/chinon/mamiya.htm

There are about 8 links to manuals from the Mamiya Press series of cameras and accessories.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

@-persimmon-tree- check at the bottom of https://butkus.org/chinon/mamiya.htm

There are about 8 links to manuals from the Mamiya Press series of cameras and accessories.

epic, thank you!

 

[MARTIE]

And this one

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00229/00229.pdf

 

[dave olson]

Medium format: 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x6, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12. Which is better is, all are good. Your selection depends on you, and the question of how large you want to enlarge your prints. I started with Mamya 6x4.5 I added a Pentax 6x7 MLU because a negative or transparency is a thing of joy to work with. Along the way, I added a Rolleiflex TLR, a Hasselblad 6x6, and the incredible Fuji 6x7/6/6x6 folder. I've never wanted to explore beyond 6x7.

 

[SMD]

Some people do like square images. I'm just not one of them. I have had friends and family members with very expensive 6X6 cameras and Zeiss lenses. They nearly always ended up cropping the image rectangular.

They did not get it how to frame for square. Got me some time but I think I figured it out. My first trick was to look for double subjects. Meaning positioning both somewhere on one of the diagonals. Than I noticed the best shot are with the two subjects at the 2/3rds. In a second step I realised it is only an adaptation of the golden ratio to square. So my philosophy is altering the golden ratio to 6x6.

The logic behind square is ... , but potentially crop the shot either way.

I dont think that is the logic behind it. The logic behind it is the best use of the lens circle.

I recently aquired a photo album, with pictures that are by my guessing from the 30s or early 40s. It has mostly family shots, excursions, etc. They are all square and are very well framed.

 

[ChrisGalway]

The logic behind it is the best use of the lens circle.

I recently aquired a photo album, with pictures that are by my guessing from the 30s or early 40s. It has mostly family shots, excursions, etc. They are all square and are very well framed.

Yes, from a technical standpoint, a square format makes best use of the lens circle. Artistically, surely it's personal preference. I've always preferred the square format, and my current hobby is medium format stereo using colour transparency film, where the square format works well (think of old stereo cards, two approximately square photos side-by-side).

 

[SMD]

Konica Rapid is a great cameras with great lens, only issues is the rachat style advance, The rachat is prone to wear and tear, after 50s years will not be repairable.

I wonder if a machine shop could not mill a new ratchet?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello!

First of all, I want to say I love this forum and the wisdom provided here -- I've been posting a decent amount of questions and was always helped substantially.

I bought a Pentax 67 as my first entry into serious MF (I've used a Holga before). The winding mechanism almost immediately broke, and the seller agreed to take it back for a full refund. I'm now wanting to do more research about which camera I should get. I've always really liked the look of the Pentax 67, and went for it on sort of an impulse, but I want to make sure to explore my options in more detail.

I mostly take 35mm and am interested in half frame for everyday photography. I want to use MF for more planned out, slow photos. I'd like to be able to carry it around in a backpack and ideally go on some short hikes, but I'm not going to be carrying it on crazy 10 mile hikes, doing street photography, or carrying it around for very long periods of time. It will mostly be used for street and nature scenes and portraits. I also don't need ultra super mega high definition sharpness. More sharpness is better, but I'm not going to be making gigantic massive prints of everything I take. I am just a hobbyist and am fine with very mild concessions in quality that you can only witness when looking at things ultra close up, for a lower cost. I expect to shoot almost entirely on a tripod.

I'm interested in 6x7 SLR ideally, but one rangefinder is also here. The camera is unlikely to get heavy use. I may shoot 4 rolls a month, on a heavy month.

I don't want to spend more than $1,000 on everything I need to get shooting (body, lens, finder, etc).

Current options I'm considering:

Pentax 67 MLU
Pros: I like the look and workflow on the one I used, good array of lenses, seems fairly available
Cons: seems prone to breaking (may just be my experience), cost

Mamiya RB67
Pros: modularity, availability, all mechanical which I like
Cons: Have heard that it is also prone to breaking randomly and suddenly, but not sure how accurate this is. Size seems inconvenient but not that big of a deal for my usage.

Fuji GX680
Pros: Really cool modularity and options, lens movements are interesting to me, I kind of like that it's a bit insane, cost is good
Cons: lots of electronics which seem hard to replace and prone to breaking at their age, gigantic size

Bronica GS-1
Pros: cost is good, I like the modular options and handles and such
Cons: from what I've researched, it's harder to find a version in really good condition because fewer were made. Build quality seems somewhat lower than rb67

Fujica GM670​

Pros: lower cost, seems really easy to use, all mechanical and I haven't heard anything about them failing or being very difficult/expensive to repair
Cons: rangefinder rather than SLR. I don't like this as much for framing. Also, the fact that it is a smaller and lighter camera is weirdly a slight con for me. I like being forced into a very very slow workflow, but I realize this is a bit of a silly "con".

I am open to also trying out an even cheaper 6x6, maybe a cheap TLR, and then continuing to wait and save up. Not that interested in Hasselblad. Would consider other options like the Kiev 60, but doesn't seem to have any distinct benefits.

Any insights here are much appreciated. I am continuing to do more research, but every time I've posted here, I always heard something new! Thanks.

Don't forget to consider the Mamiya6MF It may be tough to get within your budget but has the pro of portability and optical greatness.

 

[SMD]

my current hobby is medium format stereo using colour transparency film,

I am into that too. Do you project? I want to know how to make a metalic screen. Buying is not an option as they are rare to find and transport is a problem.

 

[Hassasin]

If square is to best use lens circle, then crop either way afterwards falls into the same logic. But … square was to avoid flipping camera and TLRs are prime reason why that happened, or at least took hold for good.

Then square can be very powerful format to compose within, yet that is not how human eye sees the world.

it’s not a debate, there are not enough horses to advance this argument. It is just another subjective personal preference.

 

[ChrisGalway]

I am into that too. Do you project? I want to know how to make a metalic screen. Buying is not an option as they are rare to find and transport is a problem.

No, I use an optical viewer (mainly the one from Matej Bohac).

 

[DREW WILEY]

6X6 camera makers made extra money on optional film stretching devices, just in case people changed their minds. Weegee had one of those. That's back when Rubbermaid still made film base as an alternative to acetate or PET.

 

[SMD]

6X6 camera makers made extra money on optional film stretching devices, just in case people changed their minds. Weegee had one of those. That's back when Rubbermaid still made film base as an alternative to acetate or PET.

Now you just have to convince the anamorphers that they dont have to buy expensive lenses but instead stretch the film before and let it spring back after shooting it.

 

[OAPOli]

If a rangefinder is under consideration the Konica Rapid is a great cameras with great lens, only issues is the rachat style advance, it is pull push that gives the Rapid its name, advances the film and cocks the shutter. The rachat is prone to wear and tear, after 50s years will not be repairable. Other option is a Mamiya Press or Universal, with 6X7 back. I have used a Universal for over 30s years, I have both the 6X7 and 6X9 backs, 4 lenses, and the grip. I shoot a couple of rolls with it yesterday, as I am getting older it gets heavier and heavier. Another advantage of the 645 system, so much lighter.

I wonder if a machine shop could not mill a new ratchet?

The film advance isn't on a ratchet but on a trapped roller clutch which is quite robust. What happens though is that the grease in the clutch dries and stiffens, causing it to freewheel in both directions. Other issues I've had: 1) the gear rack slides on a flat nylon bushing which developed tears; 2) the gear rack had too much play on its guide posts. All these issues were fixable.

 

[MattKing]

Discussions about maximizing the use of a film frame more accurately reflect current film and used camera prices then they do the circumstances in place when most of these cameras were current.
With respect to square vs. 6x4.5, back then, most of us didn't care about a wasted portion of a negative when we used square format cameras professionally.
With square, we did care about having to reload more frequently, or spend more time with instructions for the pro lab.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Then square can be very powerful format to compose within, yet that is not how human eye sees the world.

It is true that when we simply scan the scene our attention is essentially panoramic. Square images seldom work well for landscapes. There is frequently too much foreground. But when we focus on specific subjects or objects our vision narrows, both figuratively and literally.

For example, if I take a picture of several people sitting on our living room sofa I make a landscape orientation oblong image or crop a square image to a landscape orientation. But if only one person is sitting on the sofa including the whole sofa in the picture will look odd. A square image focusing on the single subject will be a much stronger composition.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Scanning scenes? My aunt was a famous muralist and art Professor. She was adamant that the world is taken in with a clockwise circular movement of the eye. But even I, as a little kid, got into arguments with her over that. Curators and Critics would try to explain her almost rotational personal compositions on some philosophic basis. But what none of them realized is that she was blind in her right eye, and that is how she actually perceived things - as a round, rather than a wide ellipse like normal vision.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

Another vote for Hasselblad:
In 1966, we shot 20 to 30 rolls a day with a 500C, 500EL, 50, 80, and,150 and 2 C12 magazines--and NEVER had an equipment failure.
Shooting fashion shows meant having the other magazine loaded quickly, and that was my job when starting out .
Have shot from 35 to 8x10, and my 501CM is my "go to" guy.
Even had a colleague drop his 500C from a ladder, and after he stopped screaming about his disastrous move, he climbed down the ladder, picked up his 500C, and continued the shoot without missing a beat (slight pun there ).

 

[loccdor]

Old Voigtlander 6x9 folders are pretty reliable as the level of complexity is lower such that less stuff breaks. If you don't need macro ability, and are comfortable using a tripod and stopping down to f/16 or f/22, they can sometimes be found for less than $100 in good condition. I actually prefer these cameras to medium format SLRs for tripod landscape use, there is no slap from a mirror or large shutter, and they have a convenient T mode. You can fit modern filters and hoods on them by getting an appropriate adapter. They also fit in your pocket and are great for traveling. Pretty efficient way to get started if you mainly do landscape.

 

[Pieter12]

Another vote for Hasselblad:
In 1966, we shot 20 to 30 rolls a day with a 500C, 500EL, 50, 80, and,150 and 2 C12 magazines--and NEVER had an equipment failure.
Shooting fashion shows meant having the other magazine loaded quickly, and that was my job when starting out .
Have shot from 35 to 8x10, and my 500CM is my "go to" guy.
Even had a colleague drop his 500C from a ladder, and after he stopped screaming about his disastrous move, he climbed down the ladder, picked up his 500C, and continued the shoot without missing a beat (slight pun there ).

Everyone's experience is different. I recently spoke with a well-known fashion photographer who told me he would never do a shoot without at least 3 Hasselblad bodies, as at least one would inevitably develop a problem.

 

[jwd722]

Well I have had an RB67 for many years with many rolls of film through it and nothing has broken suddenly or randomly.
It's a bit on the heavy side but I'm 74 and don't seem to be unable to carry it and 3 lenses for several miles/hours.
My money would be on the RB, built tough and a joy to use. Even looking through the WLF is a sight to behold (no pun intended). Oh and top notch glass as well.

 

[MFstooges]

I dont think that is the logic behind it. The logic behind it is the best use of the lens circle.

Or as a mean to cheap out in production cost and making lenses with smaller elements