What mediumformat camera should I go for?

77seriesiii · Sep 6, 2009

something the OP posted was a desire for street photography. Rollie's are very light and in my opinion, a waist view finder is very beneficial for street photog. People are becoming camera sensitive and obviously someone holding a box holding a very obvious lens to their face are taking a picture of something/someone. now do the same thing with a waist finder and you will be ignored as quickly as all the other homeless/insane people. AND if you are like me or my wife...we tend to talk to the shot. This trait aids in the people ignoring you. Seriously, I've been ignored w/ a waist finder but am instantly noticed when using a prism view finder. Go with the Rollie and since you are far north I would get the 2.8. As far as the going patriotic...great camera and def more flexibility. I like my rollie.

Erick

Uncle Bill · Sep 6, 2009

I am partial to the Rolleiflex Automat with a Schneider 75 3.5 lens I am using right now. Now I will be blown away when I get my Rolleiflex E with the 80 f2.8 Planar lens. What I love about using this particular medium format system is cropping is reasonably easy in the darkroom, in case of the Rollei (Minolta Autocords and Yashciamats fall into the same camp) they only have one lens and are reasonably light compared to other systems.

cooltouch · Sep 7, 2009

Bill, having owned several Rolleiflexes over the years, I suspect you might not be blown away as much as you expect by your new E with the 2.8 Planar. Of all the Rolleiflexes I've owned, including an E with a 2.8 Planar, my favorite was an Automat with a 3.5 Schneider. Don't get me wrong, the E was a great shooter, but I still liked that old Automat the best. Let me know if you don't want yours anymore, and I might be interested in it I wish I would have held on to mine now. Clean Rolleiflexes, even the 3.5 Automats, have become quite collectible, and are now out of my immediate price range. For this reason, I'm planning to pick up a clean Yashica Mat. Wish I wouldn't have sold my Mat 124G either.

I have been scanning a lot of medium format slides and negatives recently, and honestly I have to say that the photos I took with the Mat 124G as as sharp, if not sharper than any of the photos I took with other MF cameras I've owned, which include probably a half-dozen Rolleiflexes, a Bronica EC-TL, a Mamiya C330, and a couple of Zeiss Super Ikontas.

It is for this reason that I would recommend the Yashica Mat, whether the plain Mat, the 124 or the 124G. Most people regard the Mat's taking lens to be sharper than that of its predecessors.

Michael

sharris · Sep 7, 2009

I read the OP and the follow ups and hope this response is still in line with original thought. I've been enjoying my Rolleicord V. Has the same taking lens as the more expensive Flex and as my MF interest with this square 6x6 format is portrait and still life for the most part, I don't mind the additional step of charging the shutter manually; its all a slow, tripod mount zen-like process for me. And the cameras are just beautiful to look at. I also just recently decided upon a Mamiya 645 as a complementary MF purchase. The landscape orientation and SLR MF may provide me more impomptu shooting opportunities. And I like the idea of 16 shots per roll too.

fmajor · Sep 7, 2009

Hello AndersPS -

It seems your question is greater than simply which brand/model of camera to buy. I also use a 35mm SLR and enjoy it for street and general use. However, i just bought into the medium format (Minolta Autocord TLR 6x6cm) and really, really enjoy it.

The ground-glass, waist-level viewfinder is an absolute joy to use! I compose soooo many photos, but am much more selective about what i actually photograph. This camera type is really helping me enjoy photography so much more.

I especially like the *restrictions?* the TLR imposes on me. With my SLR cameras, i can change lenses mid-roll easily whereas with my Autocord, i really have to work for my composition b/c i can't just swap out my fast, wide-angle for a telephoto and then put on a *normal* lens and then back to the wide-angle.

If you're wanting to really slow down and investigate your photography, i think the TLR (one of the more well-regarded brands) camera is a great way to get into medium format. There is something special about the square 6x6cm format also, but that is definitely my opinion and taste.

frank

Pumal · Sep 7, 2009

Get a Yashicamat and see how you like it. Learn to compose in 6X6. Then try a Hasselblad C500. Learn the beauty of a large negative. Then try Mamiya 6X7 Pro SD( they are dirt cheap now a days.)

olleorama · Sep 7, 2009

Hej Anders!

I think you should get a cheap tlr to see if you like waist level finders and get a good feel for the format. They can been had dirt cheap on tradera. There's one easternflex going for under 400 SEK (roughly £30) in a few hours (no, not mine...).

I think most people exaggerate the weight of the RB67 system. I have no problems shooting with it handheld, if the film is fast enough or the light is good enough. And I have no problem carrying it around either. It's of course slower than 35mm, but weight? It's a non-issue for me.

Jeff Kubach · Sep 7, 2009

Rolleiflex or RB67 whould be my choice.

Jeff

fschifano · Sep 7, 2009

Any of the cameras mentioned can be used hand held. Hasselblads and the similar Bronica SLR's, and even the Mamiya RB/RZ cameras, have been used successfully that way for event (wedding, Bar Mitzvah, etc.) photography for years. So whoever tells you it can't be done is just plain full of it. Weight and size are relative, and your ability to use any of them depends on your strength, endurance, and size. A Pentax 67 would be huge for some people. It's just a moderately overgrown 35 mm SLR for me. Similarly, I have no problem using an Hasselblad. The Mamiya RB/RZ cameras are a bit of a stretch, though still relatively easy to manage for me; but I wouldn't ask my 110 pound lady friend to carry one.

All the cameras mentioned, save perhaps the Yashicamats, have far better than average lenses; so this to me is not a terribly important consideration. What is important is that any system camera you choose has the right lenses and combination of features for your intended purpose, and that's where you must do your due diligence when researching which to buy.

The real advantage that medium format has over smaller formats is simply a bigger negative or slide. That trumps almost everything else when it comes to image quality, and it is why I think 6x7 is almost perfect if you prefer the a rectangular format over the square. Simply put, you get to use more of the negative because you need to crop less. The more information you can use, the better your final image quality will be.

AndersPS · Sep 7, 2009

fschifano said:
The real advantage that medium format has over smaller formats is simply a bigger negative or slide. That trumps almost everything else when it comes to image quality, and it is why I think 6x7 is almost perfect if you prefer the a rectangular format over the square. Simply put, you get to use more of the negative because you need to crop less. The more information you can use, the better your final image quality will be.

What does "crop" mean?

Thank you all for your oppinions on this matter. Now I just need to save enough to buy one.

Sirius Glass · Sep 7, 2009

AndersPS said:
What does "crop" mean?

Thank you all for your oppinions on this matter. Now I just need to save enough to buy one.

Crop means reducing the area of the negative that is printed to "cut out" unwanted portions of the full negative.

Steve

Venchka · Sep 7, 2009

In the case of 6x7 vs. 6x6, crop also introduces the need to "crop" a rectangle from a square 6x6 original for printing. However, I print both formats full frame if I framed correctly in the camera.

vics · Sep 7, 2009

Go for the Swedish camera! The HB doesn't strike me as very simple to use, but you'll never have to move up! I shoot MF with a Rolleiflex 3.5F. But you're in Sweden, for goodness sake!
VS

Sirius Glass · Sep 7, 2009

vics said:
Go for the Swedish camera! The HB doesn't strike me as very simple to use, but you'll never have to move up! I shoot MF with a Rolleiflex 3.5F. But you're in Sweden, for goodness sake!
VS

Two really good points: it is a local product with plenty of support and the Hasselblad is a system that will allow you to grow in many directions including crossing over the the darkside and doing digital.

Steve

AndersPS · Sep 8, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Two really good points: it is a local product with plenty of support and the Hasselblad is a system that will allow you to grow in many directions including crossing over the the darkside and doing digital.

Steve

I´ve already a digital camera. Bur it´s more fun to shoot with a oldschool camera. You have to think twice before you shoot. And I think it´s important to learn about old cameratechniques and printing. I´m bidding on a Pentax MV and I think I´m gonna give it to my son as a birthdaypresent. That gonna be his first camera.

I think it´s leaning against a Hasselblad, but it´s pretty expensive, so I think I´m gonna start with a Rolleiflex, because it´s less expensive. It´s a tough decision to make.

///Anders S

2F/2F · Sep 8, 2009

I too prefer "old school" cameras for most things, but I think you should "think twice" about your reasoning in the following statement:

AndersPS said:
...think twice before you shoot.

How does this apply to film only?

It does not...but it does apply to most good photography. (I do not say all good photography, because some pix are best when they are just shot, without being thought about twice, or even once for that matter.)

When you get down to it, the only important differences between film and digital are technical differences. If you are not thinking twice when shooting digital, then simply start doing it.

There are a million reasons to shoot film instead of digital, but I never understand the "think twice before you shoot" reason.

Willie Jan · Sep 8, 2009

you forgot to mention what you are going to do with it.....

I had a pentax 645nii, but bought a hassy 501.
After lens tests i found the hassy nicer than the pentax.

Before the 645, I had a pentax 67 which i also used for weddings. Shooting out of the hand is a real issue. If you always take a tripod there is no problem...

I wanted a camera that was mechanical so it still works after 20 years, not that heavy on my back when walking and good quality. I measure light with a pentax spotmeter. I use it for trips and some nature shots. My wife shoots with a compact digital pentax w60 for holliday pics, and i take the fine-art pics...

AndersPS · Sep 8, 2009

2F/2F said:
I too prefer "old school" cameras for most things, but I think you should "think twice" about your reasoning in the following statement:

How does this apply to film only?

It does not...but it does apply to most good photography. (I do not say all good photography, because some pix are best when they are just shot, without being thought about twice, or even once for that matter.)

When you get down to it, the only important differences between film and digital are technical differences. If you are not thinking twice when shooting digital, then simply start doing it.

There are a million reasons to shoot film instead of digital, but I never understand the "think twice before you shoot" reason.

What I mean by saying "think twice" means that if a photo dosen´t look good on a digital camera you can shoot more pictures without any costs. With a film camera you can shoot many pictures but if they are bad they cost you extra. You need to develop before you can see the result. I not mean that it´s hard to develop but it cost you chemistry.
It´s a charm and exiting not see the picture once you´ve pressed the exposurebutton. This is getting dizzy and I just babble.

I get your point too.

Venchka · Sep 8, 2009

Trivia question....

Which is larger? Or more specifically, which occupies more space in your camera bag?

Leica M5 + 35mm/2.0 + 50/2.0 + 90mm/2.8 + hoods for all 3?

Hasselblad 501cm + 80mm CFE Planar + A12 back?

"Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?"

Wayne

Pumal · Sep 8, 2009

olleorama said:
Hej Anders!

I think you should get a cheap tlr to see if you like waist level finders and get a good feel for the format. They can been had dirt cheap on tradera. There's one easternflex going for under 400 SEK (roughly £30) in a few hours (no, not mine...).

I think most people exaggerate the weight of the RB67 system. I have no problems shooting with it handheld, if the film is fast enough or the light is good enough. And I have no problem carrying it around either. It's of course slower than 35mm, but weight? It's a non-issue for me.

You must be the Green Hulk!!

keithwms · Sep 8, 2009

Venchka said:
Which is larger? Or more specifically, which occupies more space in your camera bag?

Leica M5 + 35mm/2.0 + 50/2.0 + 90mm/2.8 + hoods for all 3?

Hasselblad 501cm + 80mm CFE Planar + A12 back?

"Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?"

Wayne

Well, a mamiya 6 with a 75mm lens is a lot smaller than both options....

Venchka · Sep 8, 2009

Wrong

keithwms said:
Well, a mamiya 6 with a 75mm lens is a lot smaller than both options....

Spoil sport.

olleorama · Sep 9, 2009

Pumalite said:
You must be the Green Hulk!!

Thank you very much sir, but I guarantee you I'm not. Just an ordinary guy. Well, I did wrestling for most of my teens, and still train a lot. But I am no hulk, I assure you.

With the rb, I carry the body, the 90 mm and a two backs. And the usual stuff (cable release, a few films, a few filters). With a 35 slr, it doesn't take so much before you are on the same weight. A few lenses a motorized winder etc.

I used a 500cm before I went digital (and went back to film again), I can't recall it as being any lighter than my rb. Seriously, the rb is bigger, but most of it is air anyway, and any mechanical camera has the basic amount of mechanics in it. The mirror is a big bigger, the glass maybe, but the planar weighs at least as much as my 90 mm C.

olleorama · Sep 9, 2009

AndersPS said:
I´ve already a digital camera. Bur it´s more fun to shoot with a oldschool camera. You have to think twice before you shoot. And I think it´s important to learn about old cameratechniques and printing. I´m bidding on a Pentax MV and I think I´m gonna give it to my son as a birthdaypresent. That gonna be his first camera.

I think it´s leaning against a Hasselblad, but it´s pretty expensive, so I think I´m gonna start with a Rolleiflex, because it´s less expensive. It´s a tough decision to make.

///Anders S

Since you live quite close to me, you are welcome to borrow my RB for a day or to if you like.

jgcull · Sep 9, 2009

I saw what looked like a good deal on Hasselblad gear the other day, then saw a better deal this morning. Someone in our local camera club is unloading this:

Hasselblad 500c/m 80mm, Hasselblad Magnifying Hood (52096), Kiev prism finder, 2 backs, 2x conv, + Extras.$550

Just seeing it makes me want to buy... but I already have the stuff.

What mediumformat camera should I go for?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency