What is a pro medium format camera

[Cheryl Jacobs]

With the fall out in the medium format market I dont know which makers have legs, Hassy or Rollie? Spending a lot of money for a system that is no longer supported does not make a lot sense to me. Who is still making cameras?

Paul, it depends on what you consider "a lot of money." I bought my Bronica with 75mm 2.8 lens, 150mm 3.5 lens, three backs, a winder, prism finder, and a few other accessories, all in pristine condition, for $750, and that was a few years ago. I've since bought a mint 40 mm lens for a whopping $125. As Nick pointed out, the line is still supported, and even when it isn't, it's easy to find replacement parts and places to service them.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A professional camera is one with a backup on hand in case any problems arise.

 

[Eric Rose]

The real issue here is a non-professional trying to pass themselves off as a professional. Just because you take money for a job doesn't make you a professional. According to the dictionary a "professional" is a person who is expert at his or her work. Clearly this was not the case in this situation. An expert would have taken the time to fully inspect their equipment prior to the shot, an expert would have taken a backup body, an expert would have mastered the camera before taking it out on a paying job.

To continue whining will only serve to make you appear even less professional than you already do.

 

[max_ebb]

Mathematically 645 and 6x7 are far closer to each other than either one is to 4x5 (which is about 10x13cm). I'd be suprised if many people could tell the difference between the 645 and 6x7 in a blinded comparison.

I have printed quite a few 16x20's and 20x24's (color) from 6x6 and 6x7 negs, and I can see a substantial difference between the two. After printing from 6x7, I would never want to go back to 6x6/645.

 

[max_ebb]

Photography isn't done with a calculator and 4x5 tends to be better than 6x6 from a mamiya 6, but not substantially.

Not substantially? How much printing have you done from 4x5 negs? Personally, I find the difference to be like night and day. No matter how you slice it, there is 4X the amount of information on 4x5 film than there is on 6x6.

 

[paul ron]

you are absolutely correct saying the RZ is not a pro camera. It's a plastic, electronic, last ditch effort by a company going under to stay in the market in the hope someone will buy that junker. I'd give you $50 for that piece of crap!

Seriously, the RB is the workhorse of the Mamiyas and are built like Russian tanks.

The problem with Pro equipment is that when you use it alot, it needs service. If you don't use it, it still needs service. Only a pro can afford to keep his equipment serviced and in top condition because he earns a living form his tools unlike amatures that expect a 35 year old camera to operate as if it were still new. It could, just have it serviced!

Now back to your RZ... where did you buy it? Did you get it new? Is it a Flea-Bay treasure?

 

[DrPablo]

I have printed quite a few 16x20's and 20x24's (color) from 6x6 and 6x7 negs, and I can see a substantial difference between the two. After printing from 6x7, I would never want to go back to 6x6/645.

Ok, then in your technical understanding of the media please justify why you feel there is a "substantial" difference between the two. This is a contention that doesn't make much sense to me.

So have you actually taken the same photo with the same lens on a Mamiya 6 (cropped to 645) and a Mamiya 7 and then enlarged them to the same output for comparison? If not then these anecdotes are just rhetoric.

 

[epatsellis]

Paul,
Two things come into play, aspect ratio and negative size.

The 6x7 format scales quite neatly into a 8x10/16x20, but you had better get your composition right, as once you start aggresively cropping, your advantage goes right out the window.

Enlarging a 6x6 negative to 16x20, you only use a little bit larger than a 6x4.5 area, with the 6x7, you use quite nearly the entire negative. In reality, the difference in magnification ratios aren't quite as severe as it may seem, as you tend to crop a little with a 6x7, but not nearly as much as you do with a 6x6.

Alot comes down to personal preference, I shoot 6x7 (RB) and 6x6 (Hassy) and each has it uses, however if the end result is konwn to be ~16x20 or larger, the RB gets used(unless it's b&w, then it's 8x10..) the 1.4 or so difference in magnification will make a difference. If I didn't have an RB outfit, I'd just shoot with the Hassy, and not worry about it. Some people need to assert that what they have is so much better than anybody elses, and the photography/image gets lost worrying about the best camera/lens/film/lightmeter/tripod/etc.



erie

 

[jd callow]

Not substantially? How much printing have you done from 4x5 negs? Personally, I find the difference to be like night and day. No matter how you slice it, there is 4X the amount of information on 4x5 film than there is on 6x6.

There is 4x the information and the lens eats up 1/2 that with lower resolving power.

I've probably only printed a couple thousand 4x5s to 20" or larger and probably 5x as many from 6x6. 99% in colour and on medium to slow films. The difference between the mamiya and the 4x5 is not substantial (at least not from the angle of obsessing about sharpness and grain) and something most would not be able to notice from 2 1/2 to 3 feet away. There is a substantial difference in local contrast, which I believe is where the 4x comes into play.

 

[naturephoto1]

I have not shot or printed enough from my Mamiya 7II and the 4 associated lenses that I have for the camera. I will say that the lenses are extremely sharp. However, I have not found that taking images with the Mamiya 7II and its lenses on the same Velvia films are as sharp as my 4 X 5 with associated lenses when printed digitally via a Chromira machine up to 24" X 30" and larger.

Rich

 

[keithwms]

Ok, then in your technical understanding of the media please justify why you feel there is a "substantial" difference between the two. This is a contention that doesn't make much sense to me.

So have you actually taken the same photo with the same lens on a Mamiya 6 (cropped to 645) and a Mamiya 7 and then enlarged them to the same output for comparison? If not then these anecdotes are just rhetoric.

Paul I guess those of us who use 67 and 68 and 69 just enjoy wasting more film. You caught us

Look, I shoot squares when I plan to print squares. Sure you can crop 6x6 to a vertical or horizontal 645, but you waste several exposures on your roll to do so. With an RB/RZ you turn the back and that's it.

And a difference in enlargement factor of 1.2 may not sound like much but it is almost the difference between a 16x20 enlargement and a 20x24 enlargement. So if your routine work is up around there, then it is a consideration. Yes, you don't worry about this when you are doing 11x14s shot on Delta 100, or chromes or chromogenics or whatever, as I said before. But I prefer b&w films with bite, like fp4+ and hp5+ and such, and for those the extra territory on the neg is important to me (and apparently to others with a lot more experience). In fact I normally shoot 6x8 on my RB. N.b. I tried and really liked the fuji gx680 system but ultimately opted for the RB for various reasons. This was after some time doing 645 on fujis and and then 66 on the mamiya 6, which I still truly adore. I'm not knocking anything I am just stating my own preference.

Anyway, the real selling point of the RB/RZ in my opinion is not enlargement factor, it is the rotating back. In any one session, you might pop off your 67 back and put on a 645 back, or a polaroid back, or whatever. You can even shoot to 4x5 sheet film and make pretty big ~8x8cm squares. It's a highly modular camera system with many tricks.

I guess I am just still stunned to read that someone wants to ditch an RZ pro2c because of one incredibly rare experience with a faulty back! Alright I am going to let this go now...

 

[DrPablo]

Look, I shoot squares when I plan to print squares. Sure you can crop 6x6 to a vertical or horizontal 645, but you waste several exposures on your roll to do so. With an RB/RZ you turn the back and that's it.

No you don't, because as you know there's more to a camera than an aspect ratio. If you're going backpacking for 3 days, you're bringing your Mamiya 6 with you and not your RB67, plain and simple. You're not going to take the RB67 just so you can have a rotating back, adding however many foot-pounds to your hike. (Forgive me, you're a physicist -- adding however many joules to your hike )

Having 12 cameras with 12 different aspect ratios is a nice luxury. But I don't think it's fair to overstate the difference between 6x6 and 6x7 even when you need to crop -- I just made a 16x20 enlargement from a cropped 6x6 frame shot on ISO 400 print film (Portra 400 VC) and the grain was only visible in the print under unimportantly close scrutiny.

Would I be happier if my Hasselblad had a rotating 6x7 back instead of a fixed 6x6 back? I probably wouldn't care much, having seen the output it produces. And I certainly wouldn't give up the flexibility and portability of the Hassy just for that one difference.

As for the original post, I'm not paying attention. It's always easier to blame someone other than yourself.

 

[jd callow]

Rich,
You need to do it on an enlarger to know the difference. Scanning isn't the same. The largest optical enlargements I've personally done is 32". From memory I don't remember the 6x6 or 6x9 lacking sharpness or exhibiting much grain. I have a handful of 16,20 and 24" prints from 6x6 here with me now and they look tack sharp and grain free (the highlights do show 'texture' on close inspection). I've done digital enlargements of my 4x5 to 4' on the long edge and 5' for the 6x6. At 4' the 4x5 looked great and very smooth, the 6x6 had big juicy grain

Don't get me wrong there is a difference between formats (mf and 4x5), but the differences are far less than one is lead to believe by reading the posts on photo forums.

 

[Abbazz]

As the late French photographer and reviewer Chenz once said:
"A professional camera is any camera that can be used to earn an indecent amount of money."

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[keithwms]

Having 12 cameras with 12 different aspect ratios is a nice luxury.

Paul that's the whole point. I have one camera with 4 different aspect ratios, it is an RB. With it I shoot 645, 67, 68, and 7x7.

No point in carrying on about this, do your own thing.

 

[DrPablo]

I'm not carrying on about it, and I'm quite happy with my own camera choices, so that's not the point.

I remember when full frame digital came out and there was endless debate over whether there was a meaningful difference between 24x36 versus 15x24mm -- and that debate continues.

If the answer to that question is still up for debate, then shouldn't that underscore how minimal the difference is between 6x6 and 6x7?

 

[Moopheus]

Seriously, the RB is the workhorse of the Mamiyas and are built like Russian tanks.

You need to use a sledge hammer to change the shutter speeds?

 

[ben-s]

You need to use a sledge hammer to change the shutter speeds?

LOL. Thanks

 

[keithwms]

Paul I shoot 68 on the RB, mostly. Enlarge ~645 to 11x14 and that is a ~6 fold enlargement. Enlarge ~6x8 to 11x14 and that is ~4.4 fold. Yes I am rounding off the film sizes.

If you look at 645 in the 68 frame, that is a ~1.3x crop factor, so to speak. Not so severe, but again, when you are talking about printing 16x20 versus 20x24, there it is. 24/20=1.2x and 20/16=1.25x. So it translates into one extra enlargement size, roughly speaking. All I am saying is that if you are going to make 20x24 enlargements, then it is a consideration. You can consider it to be important or you can consider it not to be important, your choice!

I never said that these things matter at low enlargement. And I also said that these effects are probably less important for chromes and chromogenics. I also said that I like to shoot fp4+ and hp5+ which do have some grainy character... so my comments should be read with all those provisos firmly in place! Paul, I think you had an allergic reaction to my comments or I wrote them without enough qualifying statements... whatever.

And I do agree that the leap from 35mm to 645 is more significant than from 645 to 67 or 68 etc.

Let's not continue this is in this thread, we can continue elsewhere.

I apologize for apparently diverting this thread off course (though my imprssion was that the O.P. bought the RZ with these thoughts in mind...)

 

[genecrumpler]

"Best \"MF camera

For light weight and easy usabilbity in the field, the hasselblad is probably a good choice. OTOH, trying to get a 20x24 print from a 6x6 negative can be a challange. I usually stay with 11x4 inch prints with the Blad. The Pentax 6x7 system is also good, but one needs to try a few lenses to find the good ones. I'm lucky in that respect, as I own and use the newest 55mm F4.0. It is very sharp (156 lp/mm@f5.6, pretty much diffraction limited @5.6). The 105mm I have is crappy. The 200mm is OK.

If you can go to a large camera store and look at several MF cameras, you will be suprised how compact the Hasselblad is compared to other 6x6 and 6x7 cameras. If you are a sharpness nut like I am, you will never be happy until you use a 4x5 or larger. So all are a compromise. A 16x20 from 4x5 is the same enlargement as a 4x6 drug store print from 35mm!!!!

For studio work, it seems that you have some excellent equipment.

 

[Eric Rose]

A pro camera is a any camera a REAL professional uses. I have seen some stunning photos taken for clients usings cheap plastic cameras.

 

[Daniel-OB]

Eric
A pro camera is a any camera a REAL professional uses. I have seen some stunning photos taken for clients usings cheap plastic cameras.

Things happen sometimes. It does not go with professiona work.

 

[Daniel-OB]

I got a lot of accusements which I consider as good advices.
The cameras were checked prior let it go in the bag, and all worked fine.
Spare camera was there too.
At shooting spot all were fine too, until I asked myself “where is my slide”. Hairs up.

There are times when photog can think about the camera, and there are times just no even and split of second for it. It has to perform itself. I just go and use it, my mistake. Seems my Leicas spoiled me.

The format consideration is interesting too. As we compare 69x56(Mama) with 56x45 (Hassy) I assume we talk about use of full frame, which I practice in the case of Leicas-R and my F6s too. But viewfinders of last two allow me that.
However I found RZ finder (WL finder) not so accurate, so I always make a room, say 2 mm all around and crop (I am VERY picky on composition, one fail more). How about Hassy or Rolley 6008i finder I do not have an idea. This moment I can assume that Hassy is similar to Leica-R accuracy so it is 56x45mm I can count on. Also Rolley 6008i, after review, looks that too many things can go wrong.

I think that 6x6 has “revolving” back by format, so no difference. I can always recall “my” composition for 56x45 so crop properly, and more I can, if need, to have say 56x48 too.

Here I would be on the side on Mamiya. 16x20(from 56x45) and 20x24(from 67x54) means to me a lot. On 20x24 I make 4.5” margine all around and with 16x20 and 4” all around. Using even the same molding for the frame 20x24 to customer looks he is getting more for his money, and it make me much better food.

Also having Apo-Rodagon 105mm enlarging lens I cannot make 20x24 print from Hassy, or I have to switch to wall enlargement.

Larger camera in front of customer make some additional “impression” too.

What I could extract is: get a sticker “SLIDE” on the camera, and might be write on the ground glass too. I just cannot afford it happen again.

The only remaining question is:
.I have the best mamiya lenses (all new), say 50 mm ULD, and do not complain on them. If 40 mm Distagon (Zeiss) can make-up for format difference (56x45 against 67x54) I would go with that, but it will call for two times slower film. However I use Mama with tripod so the film speed should not be an issue. Well, than I could use that slower speed and with 67 too. Or someone knows other way around to equal that issue.
And I do care, to the very end, for "sharpness as I want to be", tonality, "bokeh", and I use ONLY B&W. And I do care how lens see the face (face bad spots elimination), not one as Macro lens see.

Thanks to all for so good advices.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want to shoot Hasselblad, don't get the 40mm for wide-angle stuff. Get the dedicated Superwide camera- the 38mm lens is absolutely distortion free, and takes the standard bayonet 60 filter. The 40 is a retrofocus design, so it is not as distortion free, is much bigger/heavier, and takes huge specialized filters. For enlarging from 6x6cm, get an 80mm enlarging lens. Then you can get 20x24 on the baseboard.

 

[Daniel-OB]

KeitHMS
Paul I shoot 68 on the RB, mostly. Enlarge ~645 to 11x14 and that is a ~6 fold enlargement. Enlarge ~6x8 to 11x14 and that is ~4.4 fold. Yes I am rounding off the film sizes.

Is there 6x8 for RZ too? (I think you mean 56x82mm), and with which lenses you use it?