A *real* medium format camera - Am I worthy?

<p>Colin, where do you live? There might be a P.N member nearby who can show you their toys.</p>

<p>In the meantime, check out Youtube! There are any number of camera demos and tutorials. <br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/fraserhopewell">http://www.youtube.com/user/fraserhopewell</a> has several Bronicasaurus vids.</p>

<p>First, let me say that I did not read all the responses, so if this has been said before, I apologize. This may seem obvious, but I would think of your options as falling into 3 broad categories: SLR, TLR, and Rangefinder. I would start here, and decide which of these categories you want to move into. See if you can try out each type in a camera shop if you haven't handled them before. Do make the mistake that any of these is not a real medium format. At the pinnacle of each category is one of the best medium format cameras made (Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, and Mamiya 7II). Myriads of amazing images have been made with cameras in each of these three groups. </p>

<p>Then decide what type and size negative you want. If you really like square, don't get a 6x4.5. If you like 6x7, then only 6x7 will do. At this point, you will probably have only a few camera options left. </p>

<p>Once you have decided which type of camera you are most comfortable with and what size negative you want, buy the best you can afford. Let's say you want a 6x4.5 SLR: I would get nice Mamiya or Contax with a single back and single lens before buying the entire Bronica kit you could get for the same price.</p>

<p>In the end, finding a camera you like, that you enjoy using, and that you can be comfortable with is far more important than how the camera stacks up against any other camera in a test. Don't think in terms of a "real" medium format camera, doing so may cause you to reject perfectly good options that might be a perfect fit (like, for example, a Yashica TLR or a Fuji fixed-lens rangefinder).</p>

<p>FWIW-you sound like an active fellow, who needs to pack fairly light and be quick with the camera (to catch the 2 year old in motion). It also sounds like you may be most comfortable with a camera you raise to eye-level (as opposed to waist-level). Given this, you might consider a Rangefinder if you haven't already. I find them to be very fast in use.</p>

<p>Adventurous, eh? Thanks for characterizing me thusly! I will certainly make sure to consider every option. Narrowing it down in the series you've suggested, Jeremy, seems like a wise way to go. And I have to say already that I really like the rangefinder experience, just going from my Electro 35 and even the Argus. It's reassuring to see the image "line up" in the viewfinder before clicking the shutter.</p>

<p>And Greg, I'm in the Chicago area, loosely speaking. Northern Indiana, to be precise. Not sure if anyone of similar interests is nearby, though I'd definitely welcome the news if so!</p>

<p>Oh, and in response to the earlier post, it's helpful, if discouraging, to know that my scanner is a limiting factor as well. I'd have thought the 8800 was pretty decent, but naturally I know there are higher-quality options out there. Good thing I've saved all my 120 negatives and positives up 'til now... maybe one day I'll get an Epson V700 or something and see how good they really are.</p>

<p>I've had brief experiences with the types of medium format cameras mentioned here, but am still looking for one that really works for me.<br>

In view of your question, some points I would bring up are:</p>

<p>6x6 Folders - Some folders are scale focus, which didn't work for me as I'm too afraid of mucking up by focusing "blind". Even on a relatively more "modern" vintage folder, the combined viewfinder/rangefinder is small, though works pretty well. Some are not very fast to operate either (e.g. separate film winding and shutter cocking mechanisms). On the plus side, they don't weigh much, are/were cheap-ish even when refurbished and if you're shooting in the sun at f8, scale focus isn't that inaccurate.</p>

<p>Yashicamat TLR - Generally happy with the handling and pleased with the picture quality, except that the image on the viewing screen was really dark (used it indoors) and was difficult to determine sharp focus. Also doesn't have interchangeable lenses. Mamiya interchangeable lens TLRs are reputedly very heavy.</p>

<p>Bronica SQ-Ai - Good piece of equipment, but might be too bulky and heavy for chasing a kid around or going canoeing. Then again, I'm short (1.7m/5' 7"). Lightest set-up is probably with the WLF (no exposure meter), but even then, official weights are about 1.5kg.</p>

<p>Fuji GA645 - Just received this, so can't comment on picture quality. Seems small and portable enough. Only downside I can see is it's relatively noisy in operation and I may require some time to adjust when changing from my manual 35mm SLR as everything is operated through a dial and LCD screen.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Ingemar, get a Hasselblad and never look back!</p>

<p>For taking photos of kiddos, I would strongly recommend AGAINST a waist-level finder or TLR. I prefer them for what I do, but I'm not trying to follow a moving subject. The fact that the image is reversed makes it extremely difficult. You'll figure it out eventually, but not after wasting many, many rolls of film and missing a lot of shots.</p>

<p>I would also go the Bronica SQ route, but I would also budget for a prism.</p>

<p>I really loved my Minolta Autocord till it was stolen no mirror slap great ,,,just a sweet sweet lense I miss it much</p>

<p>Wow, Zack, that's emphatic! And you're not the first person to mention that steep learning curve with the reversed-image framing. The Bronica SQ does start to seem like the obvious choice.</p>

<p>My only concern is, will it get left behind on family trips? Making a book of my favorite pictures from the past couple years has been pretty illuminating for me... I've learned a lot about which circumstances (and, to a lesser extent, gear) lead to the images that appeal to me most. And in general my favorite pictures are from my favorite places. Or just beautiful, interesting settings you don't see very often. For me it's about capturing that sense of place and the way we felt there, so perhaps those earlier posters were right -- I should think about something fairly portable and durable.</p>

<p>Also, the repeated mentions of antique folding cameras are starting to sink in... even though they may fail the ruggedness test, they are indeed easy to bring along, even more so than a TLR, but still seem like they'd have that "special" feeling upon taking them out. And if I've paid closer to $100 than $400 for one, I'll probably feel a lot less bad about, say, setting it down on a stump or forgetting to bring it in from the car overnight.</p>

<p>Maybe I should get a TLR for landscapes *and* a folder! Square is indeed lovely, but 6x9 is weird enough to be charming too. And humongous, of course. And my less-than-stellar scanner could still accommodate those negatives.</p>

<p>One thing against Bronicas - mirror slap. Sorry to annoy all you obvious Bronica fans, but every Bronnie I've picked up has gone off like a trench mortar. KERPLACK! The things practically leap from your hand, and I'd say they're much happier on a tripod than being handheld. It's not just the sound, because I've seen quite a few handheld Bronnie shots showing distinct signs of camera shake. I've really wanted to like Bronicas in the past - after all they look quite stylish and are affordable - but I couldn't stand to be wearing earplugs all the time I was using one ;-)</p>

<p>Also the old Mamiya C2 - C330 range are real heavy and cumbersome beasts, and having interchangeable lenses kind of defeats the object of the TLR concept, doesn't it? Might as well get an SLR and have done with it.</p>

<p>Thank goodness nobody has mentioned Kievs yet! And a 'Blad, lens and prism for under 400 bucks, come on get real!</p>

<p>That really doesn't leave a lot in the square format. So are you sure that you're wedded to the square Colin?</p>

<p>Actually, not so much. Square's nice, but I also just checked the photo.net classifieds for anything fitting the criteria or recommendations here, and am realizing the benefits of widening my search!</p>

<p>Not sure if anyone here has said it, but the KEH guy did: I could get an old Pentax 6x7, technically, and just squeak in under (ok, a little over) budget. Seemed to us, though, that the 645 systems offered a lot more bang for the buck.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, that Fuji GA645 is cool and all, and I've found lots of lovestruck write-ups about it online, but it too seems to have the noise drawback, not to mention not feeling quite so "exotic" as a TLR or SLR. I mean, I don't have to be under a cloth hood with a wooden tripod or anything, but I'd like my "special occasion" camera to look and handle like more than a big 35mm point-and-shoot!</p>

<p>Already started the Father's-Day campaigning for a vintage folder, by the way. I can't say I've been very subtle about it, either. Some va-va-voom piece of bellowy, pre-war goodness seems like exactly the sort of (surprisingly affordable!) thing folks would love to give a photographically inclined dad, wouldn't you think? </p>

<p>Methinks Mr. Rodeo has been bucked off and landed on his head a few times too many. :)</p>

<p>ANY MF SLR will have a big mirror flapping about, making loud 'Kathunk!" noises. I think the Pentax 6x7 has a reputation as the the camera most likely to trigger a major earthquake, yet even it produces crisp images. As for the "Leaping out of your hands..." <a href="

<p>FWIW, I like the square format. It's slightly rare and different (certainly in today's DSLR overrun world) , and usually produces unique images. Composing for SQ format is requires a slight change in how you 'see' the world, which is often refreshing. </p>

<p>Please let us know what sort of folding camera you wind up with - I've been itching to buy one of Certo's colored-leather beasts. A few months ago I was shooting the shot-to-death Antelope Canyon, when a German tourist saw my SQ. "Analogue!" he said, with surprise. He had some 9DMK4 monster digicam, but he stood and watched me shoot for several minutes. I don't know if he was amazed at the camera, or the 'stupidity' of this Yank, shooting an obsolete dinosaur. LOL! I can only smile when I imagine this same fellow's reaction when he stumbles across a photographer shooting a 50's era antique! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>KERPLACK! The things practically leap from your hand</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true of the older Bronica S2 and S2a. The ETRS and SQ do not have that bad of a mirror slap in my experience. That being said, if the camera has the ability to pre-release the mirror, it's always a good idea.</p>

<p>How about the Bronica ETRSi. Works like a 35mm SLR, has a wonderful large and bright viewfinder, great lenses, and won't break the bank. </p>

<p>I would not recommend a TLR for chasing kids, nor a RB67, or a Hassleblad .. all great medium format cameras which I've used and enjoy .. but for under $400 an ETRSi is a lot of camera which gives excellent results and is fun to use .. </p>

<p>Yes Colin, I'm quite against the waist-level for moving subjects. Then again I'm also a bit prone to air sickness, so you can probably see the similarities :)</p>

<p>I've owned a few good folders here and there, and would probably still own several, if I was the kind of guy to keep camera gear I'd rarely use. The Agfa Isolette and Ansco Speedex folders are excellent for the money; they're basically the same, with some minor variations in certain model years. A friend has a Welta which is quite excellent, and I've often threatened to hit him over the head and take it from him. Buuuuuuut he's bigger than me. The Weltas are all in German/Metric though, so guessing distances is a bit harder.</p>

<p>If you don't mind something bigger and heavier (not Bronica big), you might consider a Graflex. The Century model uses 2x3 film (which is silly), but there is a back for it that accepts 120, for a 6x9 image. The roll film back is often sold with the camera. If it has a bulge on the back (rather than being square when folded up), it probably has the roll film back. It may also come with a ground glass viewer, but it will be extremely dark. They were dark new, so getting a clear one today is borderline hopeless.</p>

<p>When shopping for an old folder, you obviously want to be sure the bellows are flexible and have no light leaks, and the focusing still works. KEH (or similar) will usually do that for you. But there are two other very important things to consider. The first is that if the camera has a rangefinder, there is a good chance that it will have become uncoupled, and may no longer work properly. The camera will still work, but you'll have to estimate distances. Many cameras include a DoF scale though, so this is easier than it sounds.</p>

<p>The other thing to bear in mind is that almost every name-brand folding camera came in two or three versions throughout most of their model years, just as cars come in standard, SE/LE, and LX/LTD versions, indicating where they fall on the price scale. A Welta with their own lens (forget the name right now) might cost $40-$120 depending on condition, but with a Schneider or Zeiss you should expect to pay $150 or more. These are also much rarer, and will often have better (and more durable) shutters in the lenses. They cost what they cost largely for collectability reasons, but not entirely. If you can swing the extra price of an upgraded model, you'll often see better contrast, slightly less lens flare and ghosting(but still worse than if you had a hood), and occassionally better sharpness. However, the difference in performance between the 'upgraded' and the 'top of the line' is often extremely small, while the difference in price is generally very large.</p>

<p>I like the Graflex the best. Of all the 120 folders I've had (and there have been a lot!), that was the only one that I seriously considered keeping when I sold off my collection. And really, if I shot landscapes often, I'd still own it.</p>

<p>Oh, and on mirror slap: I've found that it doesn't matter as much as one would think. It's a much smaller problem on a big heavy MF camera than a 35, since the Bronica/Hassy/Pentax has lots of mass to resist the tendency to move when the mirror does. Stick to the 'shutter speed higher than your focal length' rule, and you should be fine. I've actually found mirror slap to be a much larger problem with 80s 35mm cameras, as they often use lightweight polycarbonate bodies rather than metal, and because you're more likely to have the balance point in front of the camera, whereas with a Bronica or similar the balancing point is farther back, closer to your hands and face.</p>

<p>Thanks, Zack! It's mildly embarrassing, though probably not very surprising, to admit I didn't know *any* of the stuff you mentioned. Never heard of Graflex, never thought about balance points and body mass as they relate to mirror slap. (I did watch the video Greg linked to, though, which was pretty compelling empirical evidence, I must say.)</p>

<p>Dave and Michael's points about the ETRS are well taken, too. A couple days ago pretty much <em>everything</em> in the list at KEH's medium format page was just gibberish, and I'd as soon click on "Bronica ETRS" at the top of the column as I would on "Rollei Twin Lens Reflex" at the bottom. Remember when you didn't have any frame of reference for any of this stuff? </p>

<p>It's really illuminating to start to see the distinctions and appealing qualities of each; I really appreciate everyone taking the time to explain. I also hope someone else in a similar situation eventually (or immediately!) finds this thread and gets as much out of it as I have.</p>

<p>Thanks again. Off to find out about Graflex with 120 backs and Bronicas that aren't SQs... A sentence I never thought I'd hear myself saying... </p>

<p>Colin, Graflex is a brand that was mainly known for 4x5 press cameras. If it was the 40s or 50s, and you worked for a newspaper, you pretty much shot a Graflex. Unless you had to travel of course :) But personally, I don't consider old 4x5 cameras worth buying as a regular-use camera. Aside from being expensive to use, many of them have warped just enough over time that they don't hold the film quite flat anymore. That's why I really like the Century. Having the roll back dodges a lot of those issues, and you'd need to print pretty big to even see a difference.</p>

<p>If you have any more questions, fire away. I'm not particularly knowledgable on Bronicas, but there are obviously people here that are.</p>

<p>Say, Zack... if you're still there... I'm intrigued by this Graflex Century with the 120 back. But I'm not having much luck finding one for sale. Is this what you're talking about?</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Large-Format-Folding-Cameras/1/sku-LF039990652290?r=FE</p>

<p>And do you have any idea where I should look for a 120 back? Haven't seen anything at KEH or Adorama so far, but the problem may be that I just wouldn't recognize one if it were sitting on the table in front of me!</p>

<p>Also, could you say any more about why you liked it so much? Better than the Agfa/Ansco, and the Welta that had you contemplating personal assault?</p>

<p>Oh, I didn't see your response when posting mine. Now I see why you dig the Century... as opposed to the 4x5s. What about compared to a regular medium-format folder?</p>

<p>One more: This one comes "w/ins." Are those the magic words I'm looking for?</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20414261.html</p>

 

<p>How good are you at working with manual settings? Are you familiar with the sunny 16 rule and the derivations from that? If so, you could always find a very inexpensive folder that requires manual control. They're definitely attention-grabbers and are interesting to use. Not necessarily the best, but might be nice to try.</p>

<p>I've gotten results I liked with an Argus C3, for what that's worth... I'm getting better and better with visual light-metering, and I do know the sunny 16 rule. Let's hope that's enough to keep me in good shape... I don't know that I can afford a quality glass system that does much else for me!</p>

<p>A question I've been dying to ask -- for some of these old uncoupled rangefinders, or scale focusing systems... does anyone ever use another means of determining the precise distance to the subject? I'm thinking a laser/sonar tape measure or something, or even one of those monoculars golfers use to judge the distance to the cup... isn't there any more accurate way to guess how far away your subject is, if your camera doesn't include a means to derive it?</p>

 

<p>Just for comparison, I've owned a Miniature Speed Graphic for many years, with a Carl Zeiss Tessar.</p>

<p>I can't remember the last time I used it. Compared to a 645 folder, it's like a lunchbox even when folded.</p>

<p>I also have a system 2 1/4 SLR with lenses which I almost never use. It's as heavy as the lunchbox. Nearly useless with a flash.</p>

<p>ISO 100 color print film is amazingly forgiving. The sunny 16 rule will get you through a lot. If you want a light meter, I recommend a General Electric DW-68 which you can get for five or ten dollars. It's the only model from the 50's I have ever encountered which always seems to work. Doesn't need batteries. Doesn't work well indoors. Avoid the Westons, Ikophots, etc. which will cost more but are less reliable in my experience. At least five people will now post their own light meter favorites, but at least I have given you a head start.</p>

<p>As for distance, it seems that you are an outdoor worker, so get to know the depth of field of your medium format camera's lens at the various apertures you will be likely using, and set it so that you have infinity at the outside. Or just get an RF folder or a TLR.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Got it. Thanks.</p>

<p>And since you've, um, augmented the topic with the light-meter thing, I'd like to ask an offshoot question myself: Where do you guys get this stuff? I'm running into some sourcing troubles. For instance, when you mention the DW-68, I say "great!" but then can't remember finding <em>anything</em> for five or ten dollars at KEH, which is the main place I know to look.</p>

<p>And this talk of finding a quality Yashicamat for $100 seems to be more like sighting a unicorn (a unicorn whose shutter speeds are accurate, no less), plus the only folding cameras that seem like viable options for me are the (admittedly reasonably priced, it seems) ones at Certo6. I mean, it's not like *I* can effectively recondition a 50-year-old camera myself, unless electrical-taping holes in the bellows counts. So when people mention a Welta for $40, I just kind of scratch my head.</p>

<p>Prices in Adorama's used department seem consistently a little lower than KEH's, but maybe that reflects a higher level of selectivity/restoration at KEH. And living in northern Indiana, I occasionally go down to Indianapolis for work and check out Robert's Camera, where I actually got a few of my Pentax lenses, but I'm not sure how much they'll have in the way of medium format.</p>

<p>And naturally I keep checking and sorting through the Photo.net classifieds, but selection there's a little wanting as well. So is it Craigslist? Swap meets? The dreaded and iffy online auction site?</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing, and if your source for nice used gear is a closely held secret, sorry to ask!</p>

 

I haven't found eBay as iffy as others. There have been a few times when I received an item that wasn't working or

wasn't as described, but I always got a refund - most sellers are conscientious enough to give you a refund, and for

the ones that aren't there's Paypal claims. (For backup, make sure the Paypal payment comes from a credit card, and

you can file a credit card complaint as well if Paypal isn't cutting it.) In the past I've found it easy to get a reasonably

priced TLR there - for example, a C220 with 80mm lens for $150 - but the prices seem to have gone up. Maybe it's

true that the market for these is making a comeback, or the people who have been overpaying for Seagulls from Lomo

are finally figuring it out or something.

<p>I would like to bring in a 'lower-end' and 'inexpensive' perspective to what had been said. My experience of medium format is through using Zeiss folders. My father used a Yashica TLR camera until the late 70's but by the time I had started secondary school, he had given up the square negative for a Konica (possibly C35) early autofocus camera. His style of photography suited the Konica and he never missed the Yashica. I have to say that I was quite fascinated by that old Yashica. All our pictures had to be taken with the sun on our face. We were outdoors and this suited me well. The Konica and its built in flash went pictures indoor and I remember them less. <br>

I started reading about medium format some time late last year. My boss' boss, also a keen old camera hack gave me two rolls of Astia and two of Provia. These 120 rolls stayed in the fridge as I decided what I could get. I did read a lot about the Holga brand but having used quality systems like Olympus OM and Bessa R and compatible LTM Leitz lenses, I wanted a camera that would allow me to be more in control of the image rather than leave things to chance. So the Holga was not for me. I started reading about folders and picked up a very cheap 1956 Zeiss Ikon Nettar for 8 UK pounds. That would be somewhere around 12-13 US dollars? The lens was grubby and the double exposure prevention system was a little unreliable but the bellows were fine. I gave the exterior a bit of a clean and had the lenses exterior elements gently cleaned. I loaded an expired roll of Astia and went out for a walk. Distance focusing and and Sunny 16 metering were the order of the day. The lens is a Novar f6.3 and the shutter being a Vero. This was a low end Zeiss Ikon Nettar and my research had indicated that shooting around f11 and f16 were the only way to go. For the night shots I used my Sony A100 low end dslr and found that the camera was sufficiently stable placed on railings to handhold the shutter for 20 seconds. The daytime shots were easer.<br>

The results were revealing for my first 120 roll and the limited outlay. Here is a thread about it - http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YRZg<br>

As I was running a second roll through Nettar the higher model Ikonta became available at 30 UK pounds. This one came with a spotlessly clean Tessar 3.5 lens and a Compur-Rapid shutter that went up to 1/500. The only issue being that the pre-war model had one of those flip up viewfinders. Once again, the lack of a rangefinder made one count the focusing distance. I have to say that I have found the focusing remarkably easy. Sunny 16 metering is also remarkably easy and I have got used to carrying my old Canon S30 as a light meter in low light. The lack of a PC connection is frustrating. I have ordered an accessory rangefinder that I intend to use hand-held as the camera lacks a shoe. Here are some pictures from the Ikonta - http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YfL2<br>

I would recommend that you buy a cheap folder and shoot outdoor as much as possible. ISO100 print film gives a lot of latitude but in my personal experience Velvia 100 has been rather easy to use as well in goodish light! I would like to get a Rollei TLR in time as I can't imagine affording a Hassy in the short term. However, the folders provide remarkable portability and that they were intended to be used hand-held makes for a very pleasing shooting experience. <br>

Lastly, my mother who has very poor eyesight commented how sharp the images from the Ikonta/Tessar had been when the parents visited me in early April. She had not seen family images like that since my dad was shooting with his Yashica TLR. This made me love this pre-war Ikonta even more! </p>