What Medium Format Camera to Use - Weddings

[photographyvictoria]

Hello,

My name is Eunice and I'm a wedding photographer (and portrait and fashion photographer) based out of Victoria B.C. I am looking to buy a good medium format system that will not be too bulky since I cart around about 50 pounds of gear when I shoot weddings (for 12 hours) as it is. I was wondering if anyone can offer suggestions. I'm hoping for something where I can buy multiple backs and esp. something that will allow polaroid backs becuase I like to do emulsion transfers as a hobby.

Thank you in advance,
Eunice
Wedding Photography Victoria British Columbia
Portrait Photography Victoria British Columbia
Fashion Photography Victoria British Columbia

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hasselblad - flexible [lenses, viewfinders, analog or digital], multiple backs including Polaroid, abundant supply, still supported.

Steve

 

[palewin]

Also look at the Rollei 600x series (6006, 6008, etc.) While Hasselblad has been the most popular "interchangeable everything" MF system in the U.S., the Rollei series has been the most popular in Europe (or so I have read). The Hasselblads are usually slightly lighter, the Rolleis have a few more features. All of the Rolleis are motordrive, which could be an advantage in wedding photography (that was the deciding factor when I got mine, along with better built-in metering).

 

[Paul Howell]

What is your price range? Old but cheap, but still reliable are the Mamyia Press/Universal and Konica Rapid. Both rangefinders, with interchangable lens, backs and polaroid backs, lens lines are limited, the Konica has only 3, but the lens are good quality. The Konica was a favorite of wedding shooters, quick handling.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Mamiya 7 system doesn't have backs, but loads like a large 35mm camera. Takes 220 film, too, so the weight of film backs is not a factor. I have a Polaroid back for it that works great.

The optics are great.

 

[glbeas]

The Mamiya AFD645 is a good one still in production that has all the accessories available you are asking about and then some. Takes 120 or 220 in the same back, and it's autofocus, and theres a zoom available.

 

[keithwms]

If you want to do emulsion transfers then let me suggest a daylab enlarger; then you can shoot chromes in small or medium format, and enlarge to 4x5 polaroid at your leisure.

For wedding stuff I think I'd take a 35mm SLR and a 645. yes, 6x6 is great... and I love squares... but for portraits you will likely be cropping to ~645, and you get quite few more exposures per roll with 645. The 645 systems offer as much (or as little) automation as you like, and interchangeable backs, AF or manual focus, etc. These things may or may not be a consideration depending on how you shoot. Speaking for myself, at an event I would want every ounce of automation and transportability, and I'd definitely want two bodies on hand.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Eunice,

I agree with Paul's endorsement of the Koni-Omega 6 x 7 rangefinder system. Great lenses, large negative, and interchangeable magazines, and quick shooting are the plus points. Problem: It seems to me that some of the Koni-Omega equipment is selling for higher prices on E-Bay than it was some months ago.

Since virtually all the prints you'll sell will be in "standard" paper sizes (not square), I'd opt for a 6 x 4.5 system such as the ETRS if I decided not to go with a 6 x 7 system. ETRS equipment is still a steal and you get more shots per roll than with 6 x 4.5.

Konical

 

[Allan Swindles]

I'd have to say Hasselblad. Now if you could do without multiple and polaroid backs then without doubt it would be a Rolleiflex TLR - or even a Yashicamat. The're light, very portable and it only takes seconds to re-load, in fact it's possibly quicker than routing around your bag for a spare back, then checking if it's loaded or is that the one I exposed earlier, deciding, attaching it to the body and removing the slide. Believe me, been there, done it - hundreds of times. I really do love my 500CM but for weddings my Rollei 3.5F is hard to beat.

 

[Michael W]

I'd second the recommendation for the Mamiya 645 system. Perfect for fashion, portraiture, weddings. Wide range of lenses & bodies. Going very cheap on the second hand market. If you are patient you can buy well.

 

[MattKing]

Eunice:

I looked at your website, and like your work.

What are you using now?

You are getting good results with your current equipment, so I assume that you are looking to move to MF because you are either using 35mm, and want the higher quality from the larger negative, or are shooting digital, and have now seen the light .

I used to shoot a fair amount of weddings using a Mamiya C330. That camera fits well with my mode of work, and I was very happy with it for many years.

I've only shot one or two weddings in the last couple of years. During that more recent period I began acquiring both Mamiya 645 equipment and Koni-Omega equipment, but not really with the intention that it be used for wedding work. At my most recent wedding shoot, I did take my Mamiya 645 as a backup, and I did shoot some shots with it, but I am not convinced that, when it comes to weddings, it is as well suited to my individual needs as the C330 is.

With respect to Koni-Omega, I would be reluctant to recommend them as a primary wedding camera. They are wonderfully well designed for that purpose, but around here it is very difficult to obtain parts or service for them. They are also big, so you need to like that in a camera, before you consider using them.

With respect to the Mamiya 645 equipment, I think I could get used to using it for weddings, but it lacks one feature that I really like on my C330 - a leaf shutter orientation. I use fill flash when I shoot weddings, and although I do have one leaf shutter lens for the Mamiya 645, for me it is not as intuitive or convenient to use as the lenses on the C330.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for wedding work, it is really important that your camera is well suited to how you like to work. That is why I asked what you are currently using, because something similar in layout and approach might be best.

In addition, it is important that it be easy to maintain your camera, because as you probably already know, the hectic pace at weddings can be rough on the equipment (not to mention the operator!).

Finally, it has always been my approach that for weddings it is really important to have backup equipment. If you agree, you need to budget for the associated cost.

Hope this helps.

Matt

 

[Steve Smith]

With respect to Koni-Omega, I would be reluctant to recommend them as a primary wedding camera. They are wonderfully well designed for that purpose, but around here it is very difficult to obtain parts or service for them. They are also big, so you need to like that in a camera, before you consider using them.

I agree. My father used to use them for weddings and if they are in perfect working order they are very well suited to wedding work. However, they can suffer from dried up grease in the wind on ratchet mechanism causing overlapping frames which you will only find out about after processing the film.

I have never photograped a wedding myself (and I don't ever want to!) but on the few occasions I have done anything remotely similar (christening, anniversary party, etc.) I have used my Bronica ETRS with hand grip and prism (and Vivitar 285) and I find it works very well. So much so that I have decided to keep it. I was going to sell it after I bought my RB67.


Steve.

 

[eddym]

Good advice so far; I'd just like to make a comment on the 6x6 vs. 645 decision. Back when I was shooting more weddings, I found that I preferred the square format because I did not have to switch between vertical and horizontal compositions. Especially in group shots, you may find yourself shooting a large group in one shot (requiring a horizontal orientation) and a couple the next (an obvious vertical). If the 645 camera is on a tripod, that means taking the time to reorient it; with a square format, that is not necessary.
Also, I found that many wedding shots lent themselves to a square composition, and cropping was not called for. But if it is, then it is very easy to do in the viewfinder without changing the orientation of the camera.
I have even found myself wishing there was a square format 35mm camera, or maybe a format in between 35 and 120.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have even found myself wishing there was a square format 35mm camera, or maybe a format in between 35 and 120.

127



Steve.

 

[dpurdy]

Personally I think Hasselblad is the best choice. I use a Rolleiflex TLR for some portraits and I deliver the prints square and I don't think any one has ever objected. Not a fast enough camera for general use though, to slow to focus to do candids.

I also use a Pentax 67 for groups of people because it has a good wide angle lens and is rectangular. Rarely a wedding goes by that I don't curse that Pentax for one reason or another. Fidgity film loading and limited flash shutter synch.

 

[Woolliscroft]

Mamiya 7II: good range of superb lenses, easy to load and takes 220, bigger negs, very light and portable, flash sync at any speed, good big 6x7 negs, quick accurate rangefinder focusing, near silent operation, switching from portrait to landscape format is as easy as with a 35mm camera. No mirror or shutter shock.

David.

 

[Silverhead]

I'd second the recommendation for the Mamiya 645 system. Perfect for fashion, portraiture, weddings. Wide range of lenses & bodies. Going very cheap on the second hand market. If you are patient you can buy well.

What he said. KEH has some great deals on lenses.

 

[Nokton48]

Definately Hasselblad. I use two 500CM's, and two 500ELM's when shooting weddings. Having six A24 backs loaded with Fuji NPZ -does- help speed things up.

Fast handling, rugged, relatively light in weight, good/easy availability, dropping in price

-Dan

 

[Doug Webb]

Saw your website and your work is fantastic. Not sure you can get everything you want with one system. Polaroid transfers from medium format are going to be tiny. If you are looking to transfer images from anything smaller than 4x5 without scanning the transfer and enlarging from a scan of the transfer, you may be disappointed in the final product, I have tried to enlarge from scans of transfers and I was disappointed. Also if you are using autofocus on whatever format you are using now, you may find that manual focus will slow you down in medium format during a wedding, it is slower for me to focus medium format than 35mm, but may not be for you. I was hooked on medium format when I switched from 35mm and you may be as well.
Good luck,
D.W.

 

[Allan Swindles]

Any conclusions, Eunice,
Hass. will give you everything you need but it costs. Mamiya, Bronica maybe cheaper alternatives but still nice cameras. I don't think there are any BAD cameras these days, I can remember the days when some Jap. cameras arrived minus various small screws to hold things in place. Not so today, but I've still not come across any thing that comes close to the precision of my 500CM and Rolleiflex 3.5F, 'cept the Olympus OM system that is.

 

[Chazzy]

Another vote for the Koni-Omega M (or the Rapid Omega 200).

 

[eddym]

127



Steve.

Yeah, I know. But it has flatness problems. And I'd prefer a film width somewhere between 35mm and 120.
Boy, am I ever daydreaming!

 

[Jack Lusted]

Writing not as a photographer but in my day-job mode as clergyman I have noticed that those photogs who are constantly mucking about with their cameras are nothing but an irritation to everyone. And it is getting worse with d******. Generally the best photographers are the most inconspicuous - and they tend to take the better photographs. I've noticed that they use either TLRs - esp. Rolleiflex or Leica. They also seem not to use as much film from what I've noticed.

Just my 2d worth.

Jack

 

[gandolfi]

when I was trying to be a pro photographer, I did a lot of weddings, and I had the fortune only to do the images with my Diana!!!

the Diana can make images of what the couple feels reather than what they looked like, but it takes some humour and courage to do this, as the risk is quite high...

anyway - it is light!

 

[Allan Swindles]

SLR/TLR

Writing not as a photographer but in my day-job mode as clergyman I have noticed that those photogs who are constantly mucking about with their cameras are nothing but an irritation to everyone. And it is getting worse with d******. Generally the best photographers are the most inconspicuous - and they tend to take the better photographs. I've noticed that they use either TLRs - esp. Rolleiflex or Leica. They also seem not to use as much film from what I've noticed.

Just my 2d worth.

Jack

I would agree, Jack, when I switched from using my Rollei TLR to Hasselblad I was horrified to hear the clunk of the mechanism when taking pictures in church, so attention grabbing and so unlike the softness of the TLR shutter. With diffused flash no one knows you are there - TLR's every time.

Allan Swindles