Wanting multi lens Medium Format system, on a budget.

trythis said:

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?

Click to expand...

6x4.5 is half of 6x9. In the film world, "half-frame camera" usually means a camera with an 18 mm x 24 mm gate that uses 35 mm film. A full frame 35 mm camera has a 24 x 36 gate, also uses 35 mm film. To add to the confusion, 35 mm cine cameras have 18 x 24 gates and when 35 mm still cameras with 24 x 36 gates were used their format was called double frame 35 mm.

In this context, "punk" means bad or poor. Sorry, Pioneer, you got it backwards. Bigger is better, smaller is worse.

trythis said:

He was deflated becasue 2x3 looked better than 645?

Click to expand...

No, he was deflated because 2x3 (the actual size is 2.25" x 3.25", 57 mm x 82 mm, and some nominal 2x3/6x9 roll holders have gates as short as 78 mm; 6x9 is a lousy metric approximation to 57 x 82, note that some 6x9 folders have gates longer than 82 mm) is twice as big as 645 and looks twice as good as 645 on a lightbox.

Sorry, Pioneer, although there is indeed 2.25" x 3.25" sheet film for most of us 2x3 is a roll film format. 120 film in a roll holder with a nominal 2x3 gate.

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

4x5 is 4" x 5", is larger than 2x3 (we call 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 2x3 because 2x3 is easier to say and to type).

Since no one has spelled it out in this discussion, nominal 6x6 is in fact 2.25" mm square, nominal 6x7 is 2.25" x 3.25" and nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112. I don't believe there was an ANSI or is an ISO standard for the 6x7 and 6x9 formats, with both formats gate dimensions vary a little from manufacturer to manufacturer. 120 film was invented by Kodak and all of these formats, except, I think, 612, were originally defined in inches.

Steve Smith said:

That's what I did when I acquired a 65mm Super Angulon lens (althouh it's slightly more than just a box).

http://stevesmithphoto.webs.com/pano612.html


Steve.

Click to expand...

Looks gorgeous!

trythis said:

Sorry, my post is kinda long, but I want to give people the info they need for useful answers. I tried to be thorough to prevent having to navigate my needs all the way through the thread.

I am newish to medium format, and haven't really been shooting film very long (8 months), but I hope long enough to know a bit more about what I am looking for. I have been studying cameras and film nightly for my own enrichment.

Click to expand...

Was in a similar situation regarding going upto MF a while back, I ended up buying the Mamiya RB67 and it has been wonderful to use ever since!
One of my requirements was to be able to build a system around it, and the RB seemed to afford all that just right. It also wasn't so expensive that if I bought it and wanted to return it, it would be a mistake.

Also not a big fan of the Square format, I prefer a more rectangular format which made more sense with the Mamiya.

trythis said:

I have my own small, low tech machine shop, and don't mind digging deep into a camera to fix something or making something up. I cant afford perfect, fancy and highly sought after equipment. However, I don't want to have to do this every time I put a roll through the camera; if I can fix it once and use it for a year or two, that sounds fine. Almost all my cameras have been through this anyway.

Click to expand...

Given the workhorse nature of the mamiyas, that would probably suit you very well.

trythis said:

I don't want some complicated electronic gizmo and an unrepairable, crappy Russian camera collection is not something I want.

Thanks! I know its a lot to read through and think about!

Click to expand...

One more advantage with the Mamiya RB67 - everything's mechanical. No lost frames cos batteries dried out or its too cold or warm for them to work.

Add in a PC-sync adapter/PC cord and use any modern flash - at full sync speed.

My experience coincides with Dan Fromm's in posts 23 and 51. The small press cameras can be much more versatile than other roll film cameras for someone able to adapt and modify their system. The owner isn't limited to one camera maker's lens mount. The bodies are usually quite easy to repair, if necessary. They can be modified extensively.

Personally I own both a Mamiya 645 1000s and a Mamiya RB67 Pro S. I'm partial to the RB even though it is heavier it's 1. all mechanical 2. has great macro abilities even without extension tubes. 3. I absolutely adore the 6x7 format. If I'm going out for the day I normally will lug along the RB I have no trouble shooting it handheld down to a 1/60 sec. and I'm 6'4" and 300 lbs so carrying it in a bag doesn't bother me. I picked it up off the bay with 1 pro sd 120 back, 90mm f3.8c lens and waistlevel for $300. My M645 is the camera I take out if I'm strapped for time or plan on hiking/walking a fair distance I find the 80mm f2.8 to be an amazingly sharp lens and having 1/1000 sec. shutter speed is nice though I can't say I've needed it for any action shots yet. I picked that one up with the 80mm f2.8 and unmetered prism at a local camera shop for $180 and I'd rate it 8/10 as far as condition goes. My $300 RB67 on the other hand is absolutely mint. If I had to do it again and could only get one I'd go with the RB there is definitely a wow factor when you look through that waistlevel finder, and the 90mm is a good all around lens which I find to be plenty wide for anything I'm doing.

I still get the wow factor with the TLR I am using. Same with the 17mm FD lens. I do not get that with the folding cameras, but the scans from their negatives often do.

Dan Fromm said:

Since no one has spelled it out in this discussion, nominal 6x6 is in fact 2.25" mm square, nominal 6x7 is 2.25" x 3.25" and nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112. I don't believe there was an ANSI or is an ISO standard for the 6x7 and 6x9 formats, with both formats gate dimensions vary a little from manufacturer to manufacturer. 120 film was invented by Kodak and all of these formats, except, I think, 612, were originally defined in inches.

Click to expand...

Conversion of 2.25" to metric yields 57.15mm,

• yet Bronica SQ (6x6) had 55.6mm x 55.6mm frame
• Bronica GS-1 (6x7)had 55.6mm x 69mm frame
• and Mamiya RB67 (6x7) had 56mm x 68.4mm
• and Pentax 67 (6x7) had 55mm x 70mm frame

Methinks you meant to say nominal 6x9 is 2.25" x 3.25"

Oddly, Hasselblad coming from a Swedish company and Rollei coming from a German company, only broadly stated 2.25" and never provided real specifications of the frame size in millimeters. Whether or not any 'medium format' camera ever produced an image area as tall as 57mm is to be disputed until someone takes a metric ruler to a Hasselblad or Rollei negative.

wiltw said:

Whether or not any 'medium format' camera ever produced an image area as tall as 57mm is to be disputed until someone takes a metric ruler to a Hasselblad or Rollei negative.

Click to expand...

Measuring the negatives:
Mamiya 645AF 56.5 x 42.5mm
Pentacon 6 56 x 56mm
Kiev 60 57 x 56.5mm
Kiev 88CM 55 x 55.5mm (not a hasselblad, but the backs are interchangeable)

Measuring the film gate (because I've only just gotten it and haven't put a roll through yet)
Graphlex "23" Graphic 82.5 x 57mm

wiltw said:

Conversion of 2.25" to metric yields 57.15mm,
Methinks you meant to say nominal 6x9 is 2.25" x 3.25"

Click to expand...

Yep. Stupid typo. Thanks for the correction.

Dr Croubie said:

Measuring the negatives:
Mamiya 645AF 56.5 x 42.5mm
Pentacon 6 56 x 56mm
Kiev 60 57 x 56.5mm
Kiev 88CM 55 x 55.5mm (not a hasselblad, but the backs are interchangeable)

Measuring the film gate (because I've only just gotten it and haven't put a roll through yet)
Graphlex "23" Graphic 82.5 x 57mm

Click to expand...

Hey, the Pentacon achieved the 57mm vertical! I still wonder about Hasselblad and Rollei.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Another unmentioned option is a Kiev 88. If you think about going down that road, get one that has been overhauled by Hartblei, or one of the ARAX rebuilds. Then you'll have a reliable, functional camera, and a selection of lenses ranging from 30mm fisheye to 500mm telephoto. The real reason to buy this system is the lenses - the camera bodies may have been of questionable build integrity but the optics are every bit as good as their German cousins, at a fraction of the price.

Click to expand...

Or a Kiev 66

You're going to get a million answers, and I admit I skimmed your long post, but yes the Mamiya 6/7's are expensive but have perfect glass! (Mamiya 7 II owner with 43mm, 65mm, and 150mm lenses).

However the RB67 / RZ67's are also great! (RZ67 II owner with 50mm, 90mm, and 180mm lenses). The Hassleblad guys will always say their lenses are better but the fact of the matter is both are similar in quality, and the Mamiya prices right now are GREAT so it's like getting a Hassy for 1/4 the price. So I support looking into an RB or RZ system.

Again I didn't see your price but I got my entire kit on eBay for around $600 if I recall.

> I would NOT recommend an un-modified Kiev 60

I use an unmodifiedf K60 for some years with no problems,. The meter doesn't work, but tha doesn't count for me.

You can have a 45-mm-lens for that camera: MIR 3,5/45. The lens is quite good.

You want to do medium format on a budget. For 645 format either a Bronica Etr, Etrs, or Etrsi, with a 75mm, then add a 40 or 50mm wide-angle and a 150mm tele. Bronicas are dirt cheap right now. For 6 x 7 format an Mamiya RB 67 Pro S all mechanical, built like a tank. Lenses are excellent, and being given away for what they are worth. Another option is the Pentax 6 x 7 with an assortment of lenses. Not as good a bargain as the Mamiya but the body and lenses are excellent. For square format a Rollei MX or MX-EVS with either a Tessar or Xenar lens. Both will render sharp contrasty images. Hasselblads are pricey but you can add to the system piece by piece and lens by lens as bargains crop up. Probably one of the best built of the medium format modular systems. Good luck with your search.