Wanting multi lens Medium Format system, on a budget.

[hsandler]

For cheap and cheerful in an SLR, consider the Bronica ETRSi or SQ-A(i). Both have mirror lockup, which is important for many. I have an ETRSi, but if you want a small portable kit, don't rule out the SQ-A, because then you can get by with just a waist level finder and a lighter tripod, as you wont have to tilt the camera on its side. Both sync at up to 1/500 if you like fill flash. I like that the shutters are electrically timed, as that means they stay accurate.

 

[Bob Marvin]

I agree with that and have stopped using my Pentacon 6, but the Arax 60 version of the Kiev 60 that I bought to replace it has been quite reliable and lets you use the same P-6 mount Zeiss Jena lenses. Some of the Ukrainian lenses aren't bad either. I would NOT recommend an un-modified Kiev 60, or the far more complex Kiev 88 (even in its Arax iteration).

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I like your suggestions. A little research shows the Mamiya and competitor Bronica look like good contenders. I like using fill flash so I might glance at the etrs (?) for a bit. I spent all my time researching 6x6 and larger cameras because that is what I found in flea markets. Some KEH models of the Bronicas are in my price range so far!

You will probably be very happy with either Bronica or Mamiya. I think the build quality of the Mamiya is a touch better than the Bronica, especially the backs. I've made plenty of great photos with both brands.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

How about the RB 67? Get it from KEH.

Jeff

 

[cliveh]

Are you hoping to buy new or second hand. I know you say you can't afford a Hasselblad, but old ones can be picked up quite cheap and because they are a systems camera, it should do everything you want from a 6 X 6.

 

[trythis]

Definitely used. Typical camera buying transactions for me: Nikon FE $20 couldn't focus properly, someone had attached the film plate in reverse, so the door couldn't close right, camera had been dropped, slightly dented prism, but works perfect after my "repairs". My Yashiacamat 124 ($60) worked for a week, then locked up. I took it apart cleaned the shutter and it works fine now. I have several decent old 35mm cameras I have paid around $6 for that needed shutter work (konica auto s2, canonet ql17.) I dont consider new anything; I only consider KEH's BGN and UG when I look there.

If I could buy a Hassy c series, two lenses (even just one for now), WLF and a couple of film holders for $300 I would, but nobody will sell that kit for $300. I might be able to scrounge up a kit made with one of these systems even if it requires some repair that I can do. My normal camera budget is $30, I stretch it from time to time (ie, my TLR), but going to 300 is nutty for me.

I am not in a hurry, but knowing what I am looking for will give me what I need to know when I find that killer deal out there.

 

[SafetyBob]

A used RB has lots and lots of options available and it is dirt cheap to, but is much more "old school" than the Mamiya 645 Pro or Pro TL. That key point of can you live with 645 or would you rather have......well, everything, then go with an RB. 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 are all yours with an RB. You can find those BGN at KEH all day long. Glass is wonderful too.

While I love my old Press camera, but you can count on a good overhaul at some point with them. Think about it, 1950's and 60's era at best......that was a long time ago.

The point of "what do you want" in medium format is absolutely correct. 645 or what? May I suggest that if you want to get your feet wet, go with 645 first. You can always sell the stuff and it gives you a good idea of what medium format is all about. It won't matter if you print directly from film or get it digitized first, either way, 645 will impress you with the "upgrade" from 35mm film. If that's good enough, great. If not, 6x6 6x7 and/or 6x9 will be next and even more wonderful.

That's why a few have emphasized the RB.....with the proper backs, you can have every medium format size covered. It has been a few years ago, but I saw a wonderful landscape photo of a field of flowers, a tree and a farm pond in color from a 6x9 negative. Granted the photographer had nailed the picture with perfect composition that image was truly brought to life with medium format. The power and emotion that was brought to table was undeniable.....if that's what your looking for, then get the RB. Don't know exactly for sure what I am trying to explain about the "power" and "emotion" coming to life.......then get a 645 and prepare for a nice trip on the medium format adventure, because soon you will be wondering if you REALLY need that 4x5 camera.........

Promise.

Bob E.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I've currently got a Pentacon 6, a Kiev 60, a Kiev 88CM, and a Mamiya 645AF. To counter almost everyone else, I've never had reliability issues with any of them, only once had overlapping frames (and I'm certain that I borked it when loading, and I can't even remember what camera it was)*.
I've got (almost) the full complement of lenses in P6 mount, Zeiss 50/80/120/180/300 and Soviet 30/65/80/90/250 (mostly multiple copies of each, I'll sell you some if you need).
The Zeisses are all fantastically sharp, but the soviet ones have their uses too (like my Volna has that petzval-esque swirly character in the right conditions), plus they're dirt cheap.

Best part is, they all also fit on my Mamiya 645AF via adapter, so I didn't need to buy into more lenses. But the P6 only goes as wide as 50mm (ok, there's the Mir45mm, but it's apparently not very good so I didn't get it).
So I've also got the Mamiya Manual-Focus 45mm and 35mm for the wide end. I'm not too impressed with the edge-sharpness of the 35mm (still yet to decide if it's typical or a de-centered element or something) but the 45mm is great.
Also consider that you can fit P67 lenses on M645 with an adapter (but not P67 on P6), the P67 45mm is very good from what I've seen, and costs not much more than the M645 45mm.

ps, I couldn't tell if you meant you wanted wider than 50mm MF, or 50mm in 135-equiv. If you want >50mm in MF, there's not much choice (only 1-2 lenses per system), but be aware of conversion-factors, ie a 45mm on 645 frames like a 55mm on 6x7 or 70mm on 6x9.

(*actually, for those concerned about P6-reliability, I've had more problems with my M645AF. On more than 2 occasions, halfway through a roll, it's "forgotten" that it had a film in and wound on as if it was starting a new one. So I've gotten a strip of blanks mid-roll, and I lose the ones at the end)

 

[mesantacruz]

I haven't shot with many different Medium Formats, but when looking for a good 'budget' Medium format, and great availability of lenses, i went for the RB. While it is a boat to tug along, i have to say that the optics are wonderful. It doesn't need batteries, and has always been reliable. As an aside, perhaps the RZ (just a bit more expensive) can take the newer lesnes, as well as the older RB lenses. The RB cannot take RZ lenses though. PC Sync works up to 1/500 which is awesome.

While the Pentax 67 is smaller, i believe the availability is slightly less, although it's optics are awesome as well.

Before you buy, you NEED to handle, as the size/weight of both the RB/RZ is considerable, and might change your mind. While the smaller 6/4.5 systems can be up to half the size of the RB/RZ.

 

[Alan Gales]

Interesting discussion. There's medium format and there's medium format. In his book Field Photography A. A. Blaker makes the point that moving up in format isn't worth the trouble unless, if I recall correctly, both dimensions of the frame are at least doubled. If you buy that, well, twice 24 x 36 is 48 x 72, which is lower and no longer than 6x7. And if you buy that 645 and 6x6 are too small. 6x7 is the first step up from 24 x 36.

Personally, I don't buy that but it is a very good point. There have been a number of people who have moved up to 645 from 35mm and been underwhelmed.

Another point is that if you are going to carry around a big, heavy 6x7 outfit why not just buy a 4x5. Of course some people don't like fooling with sheet film.

Lot's of choices!

 

[wiltw]

One comment about focal length comparisons with 35mm. Equivalency is typically measured on the diagonal. In theory, I suppose that's quite correct. But most of the time, when using wide angle lenses, my shots are horizontal. So the operative measurement might be the horizontal field of view.

Horizontal vs. diagonal is a non-issue with 6x9 and almost a non-issue with 6x4.5. But could be a factor is 6x6 and 6x7 comparisons.

Of course it all depends on your choice of subject and technique.

Sinar has long suggested the vertical direction comparison, to avoid the aspect ratio differences...

• 15mm on APS-C 14.9x22.5mm frame sees vertically the same as
• 24mm on 35mm 24x36mm frame sees vertically the same as
• 43mm on 645 43x55mm frame sees vertically the same as
• 55mm on 6x6 55x55mm frame sees vertically the same as
• 90mm on 4"x5" 90x120mm (actually 94x118mm if you measure a film holder!) frame sees vertically

 

[wiltw]

Back in the mid-90's when they were new, the ETRSi with speed grip, unmetered prism, 120 film magazine, 75mm lens and pro lens shade (the bellows unit) would have commanded $3100 new or $23-2500 used, yet today you can get all of that (but with a TTL metered prism instead) for $300 for the whole kit!

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting discussion. There's medium format and there's medium format. In his book Field Photography A. A. Blaker makes the point that moving up in format isn't worth the trouble unless, if I recall correctly, both dimensions of the frame are at least doubled. If you buy that, well, twice 24 x 36 is 48 x 72, which is lower and no longer than 6x7. And if you buy that 645 and 6x6 are too small. 6x7 is the first step up from 24 x 36....

I am really only an amateur, and far from an expert who is ready to write his own book, but the biggest jumps in visual quality in my experience come between 35mm and 645, then 6x9 to 4x5. You have to enlarge a bunch to spot a difference between a print from a 645 negative and a 6x7 negative. Unless you intend to print really, really big you are kind of wasting money by going to the bigger negative sizes. 8x10, and perhaps 5x7, may be the exception to this since you really don't need to enlarge those negatives. An 8x10 contact print can turn out quite beautiful yet only requires paper, a sheet of glass and a light bulb.

But then very, very few of us logically think through what we will use our negatives for and instead we tend to go as big as we can afford. Perhaps that is a male thing.

 

[trythis]

Back in the mid-90's when they were new, the ETRSi with speed grip, unmetered prism, 120 film magazine, 75mm lens and pro lens shade (the bellows unit) would have commanded $3100 new or $23-2500 used, yet today you can get all of that (but with a TTL metered prism instead) for $300 for the whole kit!

This is why I am enthusiastic about shooting film in larger than 35mm format. Compared to anything SLR in digital, 120 film (220 too) is cheap with expired lots on developing is cheap.

To answer a previous question:
I am not looking for anything more zoomy than 50mm (35mm equivalent ) I rarely use the 80mm - 150mm lens I have for my Canon FD set. If I could afford an L series f2.8 400mm I would shoot with it, but I cant, so I dont.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I am really only an amateur, and far from an expert who is ready to write his own book, but the biggest jumps in visual quality in my experience come between 35mm and 645, then 6x9 to 4x5.

One of my good friends went from 35 mm to 645 and was really pleased with the improvements he saw in what he could do. Better image quality for more or less the same composition, more in the frame at the same level of image quality.

Then he came for a visit and I showed him some 2x3 (6x9 in metric) trannies and he was deflated. Half-frame looks pretty punk next to full frame.

To be fair, a 2x3 tranny looks pretty punk next to a 4x5 one.

 

[trythis]

...clip.... Half-frame looks pretty punk next to full frame.

To be fair, a 2x3 tranny looks pretty punk next to a 4x5 one.

Translation required:

Half frame as in what? I am used to "full frame" meaning 35mm in the digital slr world, and "punk" means good or bad?

He was deflated becasue 2x3 looked better than 645?

Then why would 2x3 look "punk" next to 4x5 which is bigger?....confused.

 

[lxdude]

The one option wider than the 40mm is the Pentax 645 with 35mm lens-- equivalent to 21mm.

Oops!I forgot that the Mamiya 645 has a 35mm, too.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Oops!I forgot that the Mamiya 645 has a 35mm, too.

Mamiya 645AF also has a 28mm, if you're willing to fork over $5500, and Pentax 45 also has a 25mm for a slightly more reasonable $5k.

But yeah, 35mm on P645 or M645 and 45mm on P67 are the widest you're getting on any normal sort of budget (unless of course you want to shoot a 30mm Kiev Fisheye, scan, and de-fish in software, but even I'm not crazy enough to bother with that...)


Meanwhile, OP clarified a few posts ago as to wanting 50mm or wider in 135-equiv terms. In that case I'd highly recommend as a normal lens, a Zeiss MC Biometar 80/2.8 (less than $100, $50 if you're lucky) in P6-mount, then an adapter to your 645-of-choice (if not just use it on a P6).

 

[Alan Gales]

There is a definite difference between 35mm and 645. Shooting 6x6 is nice if you like square. If you plan on cropping 6x6 to 645 (square to rectangle) then you are probably better off shooting 645. Some wedding photographers preferred 6x6 because they didn't have to worry about turning the camera on it's side for portrait orientation. Also they could later crop the image in either direction. If you like rectangles and you want the best image quality then buy a 6x7. The downside is that 6x7 is bulky and heavy.

 

[wombat2go]

Hi trythis,
I see you have a small machine shop.
You might like to refer to my thread in "Camera Building" section for the metal body I made for medium format 6 x 7 and 120 film.
In my case I used a Pentax 6x7 90mm leaf shutter. Such lenses have a fixed register with inbuilt focus helicoid and allow for a simple body, although it has to be accurate to standards you should be able to get with vernier calipers and a guage table etc.

I really like my camera and enjoy using it and (even) I can take sharp photos with it.

I am getting set to build my second version, which will have a home built electronic shutter.

I am sure others on this thread can suggest other good fixed register wider lenses with leaf shutters that might suit you.

 

[Pioneer]

Translation required:

Half frame as in what? I am used to "full frame" meaning 35mm in the digital slr world, and "punk" means good or bad?

He was deflated becasue 2x3 looked better than 645?

Then why would 2x3 look "punk" next to 4x5 which is bigger?....confused.

For starters I believe that in this instance "punk" is good.

Next, 6x4.5 is considered half of a 6x9 frame, thus "half frame."

2x3 is actually 2"x3" sheet film, which is also equivalent to 6cm x 9cm, more or less. So 6x4.5 negatives do not look as "good" as 2x3 (6x9) negatives, though I don't think that the difference is really that obvious until your prints get very big.

Yes, the last statement is confusing since the meaning of "punk" seems to have reversed. Slang can be such a flexible language.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

As others have noted, there is an enormous increase in the quality of image from 35mm to medium format, but as you have found with Hasselblad, as desirable it is to add this jewellery to your kit, it can still command a prohibitive price. But concentrate on the WOW! factor of the larger image over 35mm: e.g. a 6x7 neg or transparency is a full 400% bigger than 35mm and has a stunning effect illuminated on the lightbox.

I wasn't all that rapped by looking at 645 images. It was after a friend here on APUG showed me a 6x7 that I got GAS in a very, very bad way...

And yes, well, I'm thoroughly biased but have a look at a Pentax 67 (modern-era version, not the very old and potentially unreliable 6x7 version) and a 45mm ultra-wide lens. The system is not as costly as one might imagine, but cost can reflect condition: mint specimens can command up to $800 for a body + TTL down to $250 for a well-used (and bruised) body with TTL prism — less with nothing on top. The system offers any of TTL prism, chimney or WLFs on the second hand market (again, condition varies from mint to mangled). Lots and lots of very high quality, renowned lenses for when you feel like experimenting with others e.g. adding a 90mm (standard) lens to a 45 (ultrawide in MF) or 55mm — this would set you up for 90% of photography. I don't think a P67, or most MF outfits, are fancy but they are still highly sought after by those with the drive to extract the very best imaging quality out of them. MF is very especially the way to go if you want to print BIG, and I mean really big (up to about a metre or more).

 

[trythis]

Had a look at the P67. Perfect for my desires, but I am not free to spend the money required regardless of how bad my GAS gets. Something to look for in a lucky deal.

 

[MattKing]

6x4.5 or 6x6 slides look wonderful when projected.

6x7 slides probably do too, but where a 6x6 projector can be found relatively easily/cheaply ....

 

[Steve Smith]

In my case I used a Pentax 6x7 90mm leaf shutter. Such lenses have a fixed register with inbuilt focus helicoid

Apologies for temporarily sending this thread of track but if you use this lens on a home made body, how do you cock and fire the shutter?

I am sure others on this thread can suggest other good fixed register wider lenses with leaf shutters that might suit you.

If you want to go down the DIY route and only want 6x6 or 6x9, the body of a folding camera mated to your lens of choice is a simple way of achieving this. When I was designing my 6x12 camera, I put the 65mm SA lens and its focusing mount onto a 6x6 body to check that I had the lens to film distance correct. It would have been a nice wide angle square format camera if I had left it like that but I had other plans for the lens.


Steve.