New to MF...Which camera to start with?

My photography is outdoor landscape. I'm thinking I would like a

Pentax 67. Am I thinking right :)? Or would something else be better?

 

Thank you,

Rick

It's a terrific camera. If you're shooting landscape and doing a lot of hiking, the weight/size might be a negative. If you get one, make sure it's one with mirror lockup. I think the early models didn't have it. And with the big mirror on this camera, it will help.<p>

In 6x7, a Mamiya 7 would be nice if you like the rangefinder thing. Or a used Bronica GS-1, which is almost as large/heavy as the Pentax, but (I think) easier to handle. I also like waist-level finders, especially for landscape. I'd look into a used Hasselblad 500 series. An older one in good condition can be found at reasonable prices nowadays. You'll pay for the glass, but in my opinion, it's worth it if you like to make big prints. If not, then the cost isn't really worth it. The Hasselblads are also noticable smaller/lighter weight than the Pentax and are actually pretty comfortable to shoot handheld (for many people anyway). Depending on your style, an interchangable back is also nice if so you can conveniently shoot two different films (color & bw or the same film rated for different exposure/development) <p>

Don't rule out a TLR. They're a nice, inexpensive way to start into medium format and see if it's for you or not. A good old Rolleiflex has excellent glass and will give you great results. Just get one in good condition. Even the Yashicas or similar will do a good job.<p>

.... Plenty of options... The best advice is probably to rent a few if you can and try them out before investing a lot of cash.

The Pentax 67 is a really good camera, the only drawback, as said before, is its weight and size. But in 6x7 you won't find anything much smaller if you want an SLR. I think the price is also reasonable, and another very good thing about the pentax system is that if you need a small all around body, you can buy a 645 and put the 6x7 lenses on them. They won't autofocus though, like the newer dedicated 645 lenses. If I needed 67, I'd surely look into the Pentax system. As portability and interchangeable film backs are an issue for me, I use a smaller Bronica SQ-A.

Thanks for the quick replys. Any advantages over 6x7, 645, or 6x6 formats?

 

Prices are nice on use MF right now.

 

Rick

The advantages and disadvantages are pretty straightforward. 6x7 or 6x9 gives you the

most negative size, so they will usually have the best tonality and can be enlarged the

most. This means the lenses have to cast a larger image circle, so the cameras and lenses

tend to be larger than 6x6 or 645. 6x9 has the aspect ratio closest to 35mm which is nice,

but you only get 8 shots on a roll and there are not many cameras in this format (some

Fuji cameras, some very old folders, and roll film backs for large format cameras). In 6x7

you get some more choice -- the Mamiya 7 system is very compact and has some of the

best lenses made for medium format. It is still expensive though, and it is a rangefinder

system, so that can be a plus or minus depending on what you want to do. For outdoor

landscape the Mamiya 7II is great, especially if you prefer wide angles -- the 43mm lens

(about a 21mm equivalent) is phenomenal, as is the 80mm. Frankly, all the lenses are

excellent, but they are slow -- f/4 for the 80mm and f/4.5 for the rest. Lens choice is a bit

limited. The meter is not that amazing, so you might want a handheld meter if you shoot a

lot of chromes. <P>If you prefer telephoto landscape, the Pentax is a much better choice. I

have not used it, so I cannot really comment on it. It is basically a giant SLR. The

viewfinder is nice, it is heavy as a load of bricks and it makes a lot of noise. It also takes

great pictures from what I have seen. My one piece of advice would be to get it only if you

plan on using a tripod all the time. If you want hand-holdable 6x7, the Mamiya 7II is a

much better idea. <P>6x6 is square, so if you want panaramas or to make borderless

shots, you need to do some cropping. The negative is big enough to allow this, however.

Hasselblad has a great system that has a ton of lenses and bodies, a lot of stuff available

on the used market, and again, some of the best lenses in MF. You get two extra shots a

roll over 6x7, and you have detachable backs, so if you want to change from color to black

and white or from ISO 100 to 400, print to slide etc, you can do so easily in the middle of

a roll. Assuming you spend the money on extra backs that is. <P>The modern 645

cameras tend to be more automated than their bigger brothers. If you are a fan of

autofocus, autoexposure, this is where you want to be. I don't know much about it, but I

am sure there are some great cameras. The negative is still a lot bigger than 35mm so you

have bigger enlargements and better tonality. Personally, I feel if you are going to lug

around the extra bulk of a MF camera, you might as well maximize your image size, so I

use 6x7 and 6x6. Mamiya and Hasselblad.

I have the Polaroid 600se with mamiya 6x9 roll film backs and a Plaubel

proshift 6x9 for landskabs.

 

But If I was starting out I will go for a Fuji RF 6x9 as a first camera or a TLR.

 

www.micbach.dk..........."Photography workshops in Spain"

If you get a late model 2.8F Rollei, you will not be sorry!

The Pentax 67 or Mamiya RB/RZ67 are great cameras and great studio cameras, but they (IMHO) are too heavy for hiking.

 

Get a TLR. A Rollei 2.8 or even a Yashica MAT, LM, or 124 (NOT the 124G). All these have 4 element lenses, are relatively light weight, and rugged. You can visually crop to a 4x5 vertical or horizontal ratio in the viewfinders without moving the camera, or shoot full frame 6x6. There are Bay 1 to 49 mm filter adapters which will let you use a variety of filters.

 

Good shooting.

 

PS: For landscapes, try Delta 100 rated at 50, and develop in Rodinal 1:50. Outstanding images.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

It depends. If you need all the verstatility that SLR provides and don't mind the weight, Mamiya RB67 or RZ67 could be another system to look at. The three major advantages of RB/RZ over the Pentax would be:<br><br>

 

1) Bellows focusing (1:2 magnification with the standard lens, no tubes (if you need close focusing))<br>

2) Rotary film back (once you try it, you will want it for all cameras)<br>

3) Excellent mirror dampening mechanism<br>

 

The disadvantages of course are the weight (6 pounds) and couple quirks (top speed 1/400s, no B speed on RB lenses (only T), mirror lockup a little hassle). <br><br>

 

If, on the other hand, the portability and ease of use is your primary concern, Mamiya 7 would be something to look at. It's a rangefinder and the lenses are rumoured to be the sharpest lenses in medium format . It's a pricey toy though.<br><br>

 

Yet another contestant would be Bronica GS-1 (SLR), which is lighter than Mamiya but has no bellows and no rotary back. Mirror brakes are OK for handholding (if you want to handhold 4.5 pounds of a camera).

The biggest issue with Rangefinders is the use of filters. It's very cumbersome to use polarizers and near impossible to use Graduated ND Grads. You'd almost be limited with a rangefinder camera if you shoot landscapes and slides in high contrast scenes (you could always shoot print film). If you go with a 6x7 RB/RZ, you run into the issue of weight (not really that bad if you don't go on extended hikes - 15+ miles). Since you will be carrying all that bulk and weight anyways why not just skip MF and embrace 4x5? You'll have movements and a very large negative.

I highly recommend the Pentax 67 for landscape photography. I shoot scenics with mine professionally and absolutely love my Pentax 67 system. I strongly disagree with those who recommended a rangefinder or especially a TLR. With either of those types of cameras, it is extremely difficult to use a polarizer or graduated neutral density filters, the two most used filters in landscape work. Pentax lenses are first rate. I use the 90-180mm f5.6 zoom and it is optically superb. I also use the 300mm ED and its performance is simply stunning. The wide angles are also excellent and their short range zoom is very highly rated, although I have no personal experience with that particular lens. If you want to view from the top, Pentax makes two of that type of finder for the 67. The finders are interchangeable, of course. I use the TTL match needle finder and have found it to be quite accurate as an averaging meter. The camera and lenses are a bit heavy, compared to some other medium format systems, so you'll need a good tripod. However, in my opinion, any serious landscape photographer will want to use a tripod. With the use of proper technique, 6X7 images are big, beautiful and sharp.

I constantly hike with my Pentax 67II system with 5 lenses. You will need to carry them in a backpack rather than regular camera bags. I carry a monopod and use it as a hiking stick. But for longer hikes I will carry only 3 lenses or simply use my 35mm Contax gears shooting ISO 50 Velvia. Pentax 67 optics are amazingly good. You won't regret it.

Landscape shooting usually means walking, hiking, sometimes climbing, looking for the right places and the best points of view (often at sites not reachable by car). Because of this, weight is an issue here. Pentax 67 is no doubt an excellent system; very high quality, very versatile. But it's heavy. And it uses heavy lenses, and calls for a heavy tripod. The first mile of walking you don't care; the second mile you have second thoughts; the third mile you regret it; and you still have to walk back. I'd say the ideal is a rangefinder system: compact, light, and usually with better performance of wide angle lenses.

When I first got into MF, I had long been sighing for a Mamiya 7. Since I couldn't afford one, I opted for a used Fujica G690BL with a normal lens. The results were better than I expected. Soon I got two more lenses: a wide angle and a short telephoto. Three lenses usually suffice for landscapes, and the optics are truly excellent. I strongly recommend this system.

 

Good luck,

 

Fernando

Fuji 690bl with 100mm interchangable lens going right now for $450 'buy it now' on ebay. Good condition, solid brass, great rangefinder camera. Has lenses from 50mm to 250mm. Stellar.

 

Cheers.

Do like I did: first, a Yashica C, then a Yashicamat 124, then a Rolleiflex, then another Rolleiflex, then an Ikoflex, then the hell with it--a Fujuca G 690 BL (6X9 format)....this within 16 months. (notice I skipped right over the Hasselblads.)

Very Difficult question.

 

I have used numerous MF cameras and they all have good attributes and none are perfect. Not even one, zero in the 690 range are perfect.

 

Basically i would start with how big you want to enlarge. Then decide if you want a RF or a slr camera.

 

I ended up in the 670-690 range, but there are very few super spectacular modern cameras in that range.

 

I had several older huge versitile MF cameras (similar to the mamiya press) that were nice, but none were quite sharp enough for me.

 

I owned a fuji G690BL (nice but heavy), Mamiya 7 (very sharp), a few Pentax 67's, and finally a Pentax 67II. The Mamaiya 7 had very sharp lenses and miles ahead of the Mamiya press, but too expensive for me. The 43mm lens is like $1500 min used.

 

The Pentax 67 and 67II lenses are all over the board. Some are razor sharp and some are just average IMO. That said the Pentax 67 300mm F4 EDIF lens (3G) was the sharpest MF lens I have ever used. Very nice and even sharper than most 35mm lenses I have used.

 

I have yet to try out Bronica, Mamiya or Pentax 645 cameras, because I always thought 670/690 was a 2x step ahead.

 

In the end, I now feel that 4x5 LF is what I should be using for big enlargements, but for MF for now I drift towards the Fuji GA645ZI, Fuji GSW690II (35mm equiv fixed lens), Rollei 6008 (various sorts, but lenses are stupid $) etc etc.

 

Still I look for the sharpest lens vs format.

 

I have a drum scanner and i feel that the max best sharpest enlargement is 16X out of a super sharp lens. I usually stick with 10-12x though.

 

16x for a 645 would be 27 x 36.

 

16X for a 690 would be 36 x 48.

 

Maybe this might help.

Hi Rick,

We have all been through your same question. You are absolutely on the right track. Read between the lines here. Those who are negative on the Pentax 67 perhaps have never owned one. If I were to rank my 120 cameras by which one gives me more successful wow shots per inch of film, the Pentax 67II is #1 with the Fuji ZI #2. Think back through the years of Outdoor Photographer, I still have the very first issue in my basement. Before the magazine became Outdoor Digital it used feature the finest in film which included hundreds of photos that said Pentax 67 and Velvia below the best shots featured. I actually went from 35mm to large format 4x5 and then to medium format to backup the large format. Rick you said Landscape Photography which is pretty expansive in itself. There is Grand Vista to Intimate Landscape. There is Night Landscape to Microcosm. The Pentax 67 will handle all of it with the exception of Night Photography. In landscape I find 6x6 ok for Intimate Landscape but 6x7 or larger for just about everything else. The Pentax 67II gives you a phenomenal though the lens metering system that I have used with incredible results metering to 30 seconds. As mentioned elsewhere, gradated neutral density filters and polarizers are extremely helpful. That rules out many successful shots with the Mamiya 7(great camera but extremely overpriced) and the TLRs (my Autocord is just as sharp as my Rolleiflex). Those who say you can not do long hikes with the Pentax are just foolish. After hiking with a complete 4x5 system through Alaska, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Dakota, the Pentax 67 feels like a breeze and I am 50+ years old. By the way do not be afraid to try large format. In 4x5 your enemy is time and wind. In fast changing light or with wind that will not let up, I grab the Pentax 67II. My Pentax 67II system consist of just two lenses, the 55mm and the 200mm which share the same filter size and are both extremely sharp with great color rendition. From the Jeep I use a Studex tripod. On hikes I use a carbon fiber tripod with a heavy duty ball head. For night photography I use totally non electronic cameras, 4x5 Ebony, Koni Omega, Mamiya c220F with its faster 2.8 lens, and I just did some 20x20 night prints from an Agfa Isolette III. The Fuji ZI is great for street as well as landscape photography. Which reminds me that my son has a Fuji 6x9 65mm, another great camera, and he says that his next camera in going to be a Pentax 67. Maybe what it boils down to is really not the camera but studying the great photographers. May I suggest three books: Steve Simmons -Using the View (field) Camera, John Fielder -Photographing the Landscape The Art of Seeing, and Roger Hicks -Medium and Large Format Photography Moving Beyond 35mm For Better Pictures. Have fun!!!

Dear Tim,

 

Thanks for the plug! On the subject of Pentaxes, though, you presumably have late ones. In the late 70s the place I worked had to run three 67s, in order to make sure we had two working ones...

 

One option nobody has suggested is a 'baby' Linhof. I used ST IVs for years and now have a heavily modified Tech 70: rangefinder removed, trapdoor in roof for extra rise. Very small and surprisingly light, though the backs are big and heavy. Even the old Lonhof-selected lenses were good but I now use mostly a current Apo-Symmar 100/5.6. A friend who used Pentax 67 was sufficiently impressed that he went to Tech IVs too.

 

Of course they're slower than reflexes, but not a lot, and the movements can be very useful.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- recently heavily revised)

My first camera was a M645 with MLU, then came 1000s, which in my opinon a fantastic camera if you like mechanical stuff. I then bought Yashica 124G and P67. All these cameras are excellent. You can check the pictures I made here - www.prashanteju.de

I would suggest to check -

1.the largest print you want to make 2. the weight you want to carry.

 

The only thing that bothers me sometimes with P67+55mm is the DOF issue which nobody has mentioned otherwise it is an excellent landscape camera.

For really enjoyable landscape work you need a tripod, a level, and a camera that has movements. I hike solo all over the mountains with a Horseman 6x9, three lenses, and carbon tripod. It's a load but it works, very versatile if you are a strong hiker. You can take snapshots with anything, but eventually you can't beat a perfectly level camera with rise/fall for added sky or foreground. That it works well hand held is a bonus so get a 985, it's the best model. The rotating back on a VH/R is overkill because the bed projects into verticals unless you drop it, and it's viewfinder is too busy. Good luck.

P67 is too big and heavy for my style of photography. If you can rent one, do it. Go on a

hike. See how it feels. I have both a Minolta Autocord (TLR) and a Fuji GW690III. Both are

as light or lighter than a Nikon F5. I also have a Pentax 645, which I love, but I feel I will

have to sacrifice for cash. Too many cameras means you never finish rolls of film.

 

My advice: really ask yourself if you can live with the size and weight of the P67. I'm sure

the quality is great. It's the useability that would frighten me.

Generally speaking, compared to other brands' MF gear, you need a heavier/sturdier

(or more expensive carbon fiber) tripod to handle the Pentax's mirror slap. This can

substantially add to the weight of your gear for your outdoor landscapes.

 

Do you have budget limitations? I see you asking about 645 and 6x6 too.

Pentax 67 is the best option for photograph of landscapes, produces a negative of excellent quality and is the ideal format in my opinion. Its lenses are the best !!!