What's the most reasonable MF setup for landscapes, etc?

[dorff]

I have Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya RZ 6x7 systems. Of the two, the Pentax is definitely the better one for landscapes. For RZ, you have a 50 mm ULD and 37 mm fisheye to choose from. In Pentax, there are 37 fisheye, 45/4 and 55/4 lenses. The 45/4 is as close to ideal as possible. I would recommend that you get the P 67 II body, even if it is a bit expensive, as it has all the features that will make your life easier for landscape shooting. The RZ will of course work, but it is twice the size and the working method is quite different. You can put the AE finder on it, but that makes it only bigger and heavier still. As I have said in another thread, I fit a Pentax 67 II body with 45/4, 55/4, 75/4.5, 90/2.8 and 135/4 lenses, plus handgrip, set of extension tubes and a few boxes of film into a Lowepro MiniTrekker. It is relatively portable that way, if you are an average+ guy. I am not particularly strong and I can handle it. You will need a good tripod for either. In the case of the Pentax to tame the mirror slap and shutter bounce, and in the case of the Mamiya to put your mind at ease that the beast is not going to topple over into an abyss or mud pond etc. If you shoot verticals, the RZ67 and RB67 are great, as the back swivels through 90 degrees. For the Pentax, you'll need an L plate or a really good tripod head.

I use 645 Mamiyas too, and they would be great for portability for landscapes but I haven't got a really wide lens for them yet. A 35 would be good, and a 40 would have been perfect except that it doesn't exist. My widest is a 45/2.8 and it is okay stopped down but vignettes very badly wide open. The lens availability hampers their suitability for landscapes, but for most other general purpose photography the 645 is a sweet format indeed. One can easily print 24" and larger from it. If you want to, you could invest in a Pentx 645 and 67 combination. The 67 lenses are compatible on 645 via an adapter that allows full aperture metering etc.

Did you ever use Fuji Acros? Before using CMS 20, try comparing Acros with it. The Acros will develop perfectly in most if not all developers, including Rodinal, and is a ton cheaper in 120 format too. The grain from a 645 negative doesn't show up by 20" yet. How large do you want to print?

 

[R.Gould]

I use old fixed lens cameras, mostly a collection of folders or one of 3 tlr's I have, light to carry, no need for big outfit bags, which is a godsend with my old arthritic shoulders, and all bar one are 6/6, I have one 645 folder,
Richard

 

[markbau]

I guess mirror vibration might be a problem on a Pentax 67 if you don't lock the mirror up!

 

[cjbecker]

I guess mirror vibration might be a problem on a Pentax 67 if you don't lock the mirror up!

It's also the shutter vibrations that can shake the camera.

I do still think the Pentax 6x7 is one of the best medium format cameras, the lens selection is amazing. 75 tilt shift. Enough said.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Man, thanks for all the thoughts so far, really making me think about what I want. I guess I am reluctant to go with less than 6x7 because in the final analysis I really just want to get away from the small negative and focus on getting the best quality. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm ready for 4x5 - mostly because of the $ to shoot, I would have to find a 4x5 enlarger, etc - I just don't know how much I could actually shoot it at this point.

Regarding the 6x4.5 and 6x6 camera setups - Let's say the body, and 3 lenses - a wide angle, standard and medium telephoto lens - are they really that much smaller and lighter than a 6x7 setup? I mean are we talking a pound and a few fractions of an inch difference, or are we talking like 3 lbs lighter and several inches smaller all the way around?
When I shot 35mm it was usually with a Maxxum 7 or 9 body w/ vertical grip, and wide to medium zoom plus a tele zoom - so that's about the size/weight I was used to carrying. I don't think I would mind a little more bulk and weight for so much better quality at this point, but...then again, maybe I would on a hike?

 

[baachitraka]

Fuji GF670W: For landscapes(6x7 and 6x6).

RB/RZ 67: For Portraits(May be you don't need too many lenses for this).

Otherwise, just one TLR for everything.

 

[Alan Gales]

Regarding the 6x4.5 and 6x6 camera setups - Let's say the body, and 3 lenses - a wide angle, standard and medium telephoto lens - are they really that much smaller and lighter than a 6x7 setup?

Yes, the cameras and lenses are both smaller and lighter. My Hasselblad feels like a feather compared to the RZ67 that I used to own. It's also much smaller.

I used to own an RZ67 with three lenses (50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm). Put them all together in a back pack and you can compare the bulk and weight to my Wehman 8x10 kit.

You really need to handle some of these cameras before you buy if that's possible.

 

[cjbecker]

A hasselblad 3 lens kit is very similar in weight to a p67 3 lens kit. Wide normal tele, and wlf.

The p67 is just slightly heavier.

 

[Alan Gales]

A hasselblad 3 lens kit is very similar in weight to a p67 3 lens kit. Wide normal tele, and wlf.

The p67 is just slightly heavier.

I just weighed my blad body with waist level finder and film back. My postage scale says 2lbs 3oz.

I quickly looked on the web and it was said that the Pentax body weighed 4lbs for the earlier model but the latest model Pentax ll weighed in at 2.7 lbs. My scale is good but I don't know how accurate the Pentax information is.

 

[tron_]

I'm biased towards the Mamiya RZ67 with the 50mm f/4.5 ULD for landscapes. The 50mm is the best lens I've had a chance to use.

Other than that I would consider the Pentax 67, Mamiya 7, even a Hasselblad 5XX would be nice.

You could try out the Graflex-Norita/Norita 66, Exakta 67, Pentacon Six, etc.

 

[Rick A]

If you dont mind respooling 120 onto a 620 spool, a Kodak Tourist is probably the hot ticket. They are light weight, fold down to fit in a jacket pocket, shoot a 6x9 negative, and the lenses are pretty danged good. They can also be modified to accept 120 on the feed side, no need to open up the take-up side. Examplethere was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Klainmeister]

Got a M7II for sale....

...besides that shameless plug, I think there's a lot of good suggestions here. I'm a recovering landscape photographer and went through a lot of MF cameras before settling happily on the M7ii, but now want to continue my LF work. Anyways, the Fuji GF670 would be my personal next choice because it's practically pocket-able. Next would be a LF or mini-LF rig with a changing back. The 6x9 is so lovely to work with...

 

[AOCo]

I just weighed my blad body with waist level finder and film back. My postage scale says 2lbs 3oz.

Maybe so, but both 150mm and 50mm will be 2lbs each.

 

[ntenny]

Folders are some serious fun, but as MF cameras go they aren't that good at technical image quality. Especially in the larger formats, they tend to have concerns about film flatness, rigidity, and rangefinder alignment (those that have rangefinders at all), and very few of them have *really* superb lenses in the same class as the best MF system cameras or TLRs. (I've got a Bergheil with a Heliar that's truly scary-sharp---my Rolleiflex gets jealous of it---but I couldn't afford that camera if I hadn't inherited it. Normally a Tessar-type lens is about as good as folders get.)

Don't get me wrong, I love folders and I think every photographer ought to have a few---but comparing them to Mamiyae and Pentaxen isn't really apples-to-apples.

-NT

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Man, there are so many options it's making my head spin just trying to make sense of it all. Maybe I am looking at this from the wrong angle, and the weight or bulk doesn't matter all the much if it's a relative thing. I'm kind of a nut in that I will put up with a bit of "discomfort" or "misery" packing the kit around if it will give me exactly what I want.

With respect to landscapes, almost everything in the frame is in focus, and I routinely shot between f5.6 and f11 on my Minolta lenses. Would this translate to about f11 to f16 or so on a MF lens? This would probably give decent depth of field for those kind of shots, but . . .

. . . what if I'm taking a nature shot of a flower or a particular feature in the landscape and I want some blurred areas in the background. How do these different brands of lenses fare when we start considering that? Or is it a particular look to certain lenses and not necessarily an entire manufacturer's lineup?
I liked the Minolta lenses I had, especially the manual focus Rokkors with my XD-11 years ago, for the nice bokeh and smoothness to the out of focus areas of the shot. I actually do not care as much for some of the more recent Zeiss and Nikon lenses in 35mm format because although they are razor sharp, and use a lot of micro contrast to do it, the out of focus areas do not have that creamy / perfect blur look going on that I like so much. They make for some "harsh" areas in the photo.

So out of all these suggestions, does that line of thinking make any of the recommendations stronger or weaker? Maybe I'm just way out of my league here...and don't know what I'm talking about or if it even applies to MF like it did to 35mm work?
Thanks so much for sharing all your info!
Jed

 

[Klainmeister]

Sounds like you need to get a Pentax 67

 

[baachitraka]

There was a long discussion here in apug about which format is more suitable for macro work and many were biased to small format.

 

[emjo]

I chip in here with my knowledge, well it's mostly opinions really, you get the idea

The leap in quality is from 35 mm to 6x4.5. The cost of film etc at 6x4.5 is manageable also. As pointed out wide-angle lenses may be a problem. There are several SLR's that allow both landscape (the aspect ratio of 6x4.5 is wider than 35 mm) and close up work. Several have internal exposure metering which helps a lot. I have, and am very fond of, the Fuji GA645Zi. Easy to use and is there always. There is also the old Mamiya 645.

The 6x6 and 6x7 formats. Pentax 67 (and versions thereof) are bulky but have a number of lenses that may be attractive. I do not own one but have seen lovely images from it. The Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder, light and easy to carry, has sharp lenses and internal exposure metering. As a rangefinder it is really nothing to shoot flowers with. You get it for its sharp lenses more or less.

A Fuji GW690I/II/III is not that expensive and is a camera I would recommend you to try out, even though it is a rangefinder. Being of the same aspect ratio as 35 mm film it is perhaps easy to adapt to? The negatives are huge!

4x5"? Too bulky in my opinion. The tilt/swivel/other movements of the front and back standards are the reason to go down that road in my opinion. Those movements are a bit of a revelation in photography but also very time consuming to get right. I shoot it mostly for fun and mostly in B/W as the colour film is expensive. If you are into the meditative way then 4x5" is the way to go. It is great fun, but I would not recommend it immediately as a step up from 35 mm.

It is a slippery slope and you probably want to try LF at some point, but for now a simple 6x4.5 would represent a huge step up in image quality. If you are not happy with that then a Fuji GW690 would be my next choice (if landscape centered), or a Pentax 67 if you can take the extra weight (for more general work). If film cost is an issue then go for Pentax 67. Decisions, decisions...

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Oh my goodness. It just gets crazier... ... I think I'm going to have to sit here a while and look at all these options and figure out exactly what I want.
Thanks for all the suggestions. This might take me a while to sort out properly!

 

[polyglot]

Definitely seconding the suggestion above that you should handle any equipment first. The differences in size and weight can be dramatic, and you might decide that the larger gear is fine anyway.

I took an RZ, 3 lenses (65 MLA, 110, 180) & 3 backs on a 5-week lap around Eurasia in 2011 and it was no problem at all. It all (except tripod) fit in a backpack with room spare for a DSLR, though I had to keep the bulk of my film stash in another bag.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Definitely seconding the suggestion above that you should handle any equipment first. The differences in size and weight can be dramatic[...].

+1
This should definitely be at the very top of your list. A touchy-feely first.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

+1
This should definitely be at the very top of your list. A touchy-feely first.

I can see there are just so many options of not only different brands, but formats and shooting styles in MF, it's amazing. Coming from a 35mm SLR background where the only big difference is the brand, and almost everything is the same...

Just saw the weight of a Fuji GA645zi is only 2lbs! From what I can tell, the 55-90mm lens would be like a 35-55mm equivalent of what I'm used to. If the 6x4.5 negative is a "good enough" step up, do you all think I would be too limited on the wide end? With the small footprint, light weight, and rangefinder (no mirror slap!) maybe this would be an ideal hiking camera?

 

[emjo]

...
Just saw the weight of a Fuji GA645zi is only 2lbs! ..... maybe this would be an ideal hiking camera?

It IS!

http://jabcam.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/fuji-ga645zi/
http://jabcam.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/random-gallery-vacation/
http://jabcam.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/random-gallery-in-concediu-2012/

 

[AOCo]

If you're looking for nice bokeh, close focusing ability, and don't mind the bulk and weight, Pentax 6x7 sounds like the best option (with 2.4/105 lens to start with).

 

[jspillane]

Mamiya RB67/RZ67 for close focusing on a tripod is fantastic. But if I needed bellows and hiking I would just take a 4x5. The whole "film is more expensive" thing is kind of deceptive, as you shoot far, far less, with a higher percentage of keepers. For what it's worth, I think the sweetspot with MF is 6x6, as a large percentage of the 6x7> cameras end up being bulkier than a 4x5. (Many) others will disagree.

I have a Hasselblad 2-lens kit (60mm CB and 120mm C) with macro tubes, and what I love about it is that even if it isn't the ideal for every situation, I feel I can do anything with it in an unrestricted manner. It's small enough to hike with, good for landscapes, good for portraits, great with a flash, great on a tripod, easy (in my experience) to hand hold... The whole kit, including filters and tubes, is probably around 6lb. If 6x7 is essential, I would recommend looking at a Bronica GS-1 set up. Having moved from a TLR to using interchangeable backs and lenses, I would have a very hard time moving back. The ability to move between different emulsions mid roll is a huge feature that would personally keep me away from the Pentax 67.

I third holding different cameras if it all possible. Liking the way a camera feels in your hands is more important than any other consideration.