What made you choose your brand of MF camera

<p>I started out as a 35 mm snapshotter, ended up doing a lot of closeup work involving static subjects, e.g., flowers. I was never fully satisfied with the image quality I got -- ISO 25 Kodachrome, MicroNikkors, flash illumination don't give slides that will enlarge more than 10x -- so thought about moving up in format even though it meant using ISO 100 E-6. Sorry, I didn't like Velvia.</p>

<p>I have and studied a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography. In his discussion of which format to choose, Blaker makes the point that increasing both linear dimensions of the frame by less than twice isn't worth the trouble and expense. Twice 24 x 36 is 48 x 72. Following that reasoning, 6x7 is the first step up from 24x36 and nominal 6x9 (56 x 82) is better still. Ain't no 6x9 SLRs to speak of (we don't mention the Optika in my house) and at the time there was no GX680. At the time my SLR choices were Mamiya and Pentax 6x7s.</p>

<p>I ended up with a 2x3 Speed Graphic, later supplemented by a Century Graphic and haven't looked back. You can read about my adventures here: <a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf">http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf</a></p>

<p>Press and view cameras don't look like system cameras, but they are. The big difference between them and cameras generally seen as system cameras, e.g., Nikon, Hasselblad, is that with a press or view camera the user creates the system. With Nikon and Hasselblad (and others like them), the manufacturer creates and the user buys.</p>

<p>Harry, I didn't think much about features, didn't need many. Back then I thought I needed at least 6x7, to be able to focus and compose through the lens (SLR, press and view cameras offer this), high flash sync speed (leaf shutter), and the ability to work at a wide range of magnifications (accepts all sorts of lenses). Cost was a consideration; I bought before the bottom fell out of the market for used RBs and Mamiya lenses to fit them. Cost notwithstanding, I found the RB too heavy and slow-working, and mounting non-Mamiya lenses on an RB didn't seem easy.</p>

<p>Sorry for the apparent double post, I started to edit and ran out of time before I was finished. This version is better. Moderators, I'd appreciate it if you deleted my first post on this subject.</p>

<p>I started out as a 35 mm snapshotter, ended up doing a lot of closeup work involving static subjects, e.g., flowers. I was never fully satisfied with the image quality I got -- ISO 25 Kodachrome, MicroNikkors, flash illumination don't give slides that will enlarge more than 10x -- so thought about moving up in format even though it meant using ISO 100 E-6. Sorry, I tried and didn't like Velvia.</p>

<p>I have and studied a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography. In his discussion of which format to choose, Blaker makes the point that increasing both linear dimensions of the frame by less than twice isn't worth the trouble and expense. Twice 24 x 36 is 48 x 72. Following that reasoning, 6x7 is the first step up from 24x36 and nominal 6x9 (56 x 82) is better still.</p>

<p>Ain't no 6x9 SLRs to speak of and at the time there was no GX680 to tempt me. Yes, there were indeed 2x3 Graflex SLRs and 6x9 Mentor, Makiflex, Optika, Pecoflex and Arca Swiss SLRs as well as Graflex-like SLRs from the UK. None can be used with wide angle lenses, all were expensive, all had major limitations. Back then my plausible SLR choices were Mamiya and Pentax 6x7s.</p>

<p>Harry, I didn't think much about features, didn't need many. Back then I thought I needed at least 6x7, to be able to focus and compose through the lens (SLR, press and view cameras offer this), high flash sync speed (leaf shutter), and the ability to work at a wide range of magnifications (accepts all sorts of lenses).</p>

<p>Cost was a consideration; I bought before the bottom fell out of the market for used RBs and Mamiya lenses to fit them. Cost notwithstanding, I found the RB too heavy and slow-working, and mounting non-Mamiya lenses on an RB didn't seem easy.</p>

<p>I ended up with a 2x3 Speed Graphic, later supplemented by a Century Graphic and haven't looked back. You can read about my adventures here: <a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf">http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf</a></p>

<p>Press and view cameras don't look like system cameras, but they are. The big difference between them and cameras generally seen as system cameras, e.g., Nikon, Hasselblad, is that with a press or view camera the user creates the system. With Nikon and Hasselblad (and others like them), the manufacturer creates and the user buys.</p>

<p>Mamiya 645 (Pro / Pro TL) for compactness, price and SLR simplicity. I used to shoot Mamiya RZ67 as it was high quality and cheaper than Hassy. I switched to Fuji GX680s for additional quality and the front lens movement - if you have a 10lb camera why not have lens movement!</p>

<p>I didn't choose the RB, it chose me! A friend told me he had an RB for sale, I said.. Why not!</p>

<p>I ended up with a Rolleiflex 3.5 C Xenotar more or less for free in a "borrow it because nobody else is gonna use it" sort of a deal at my mom's art center. Its a beater on the outside, and I had to tidy up the shutter after only one roll when the entire camera locked up in a heart-stopping moment of terror. So far the total cost has been $20 for a proper neck strap and a few hours of frustration and triumph fixing it. <br>

Best $20 I've ever spent. The rollei is as nice a camera as i could have hoped for. It just <em>works.</em><br>

I like that it has:</p>

<ul>

<li>75mm xenotar: the sharpest lens I've ever used. it also has very interesting bokeh wide open, kinda swirly but soft and diffuse</li>

<li>no mirror slap or shutter vibrations: helps take advantage of said lens and lets me shoot handheld 1/30 easily, and 1/15th in extreme situations</li>

<li>no fluff: this is a metal box with a lens for viewing, a lens for shooting, an aperture, a shutter, and a film advance. no silly menus to fiddle with or batteries to worry about</li>

<li>6x6 frames: which is an ideal format for me to compose in and lets me crop in a darkroom on my own time after visualizing in camera.</li>

<li>Flash sync at all speeds: great for location shoots</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I wanted 6x9 for creative freedom and the possibility to crop.<br>

It had to fit into my setup with my Nikon LS 9000.<br>

It had to be simple, reliable, robust.<br>

It had to be handled with gloves at extremely low temperatures.<br>

It had to survive 50° C or 122° F without quirks.<br>

It had to be without any electronics or batteries.<br>

It had to have the best optics money can get in this class.</p>

<p>Result:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fuji GW 690 III</li>

<li>Fuji GSW 690 III</li>

<li>Plaubel 69W ProShift Superwide</li>

</ul>

I started with a Rollei 2.8F TLR. Small, light, built like a swiss watch, and very easy to use. Then bought a Rollei 6008i

and loved the system but dealer support and service was terrible (at least here in the U.S.). A short time with the Mamiya

7ii which was compact and the results were amazing (great glass) but the system has it's limitations (I had no issues with

it being a rangefinder - I use and love Leica RFs) for portrait and closeup work. Still have the 2.8F and looking here on

Photo.net forums for the next MF system, Likely to go with Hasselblad - the prices for used are so low and the system

offers everything I found lacking with the 6008i and Mamiya 7ii.

<p> It started like this.1st camera I ever used was a 126 Kodak borrowed from my sister for a school field trip to the LA zoo. Then I caught the bug. I begged for a camera of my own. I got for my birthday a Sears (actually Ricoh) 126 with focusing lens,one shutter speed & auto exposure. That served until I was a teenager & knew I wanted a professional camera (which at that time meant a 35mm SLR..at least to me). Instead I got a Minolta Hi-matic AF. It took good pictures but I wanted to understand photography & was expecting something like a Pentax K1000. Anyway a few years later,as a young adult,with my own money I bought a K1000 & cherished it. <br>

As the years went by,I discovered that wasn't good enough & I needed a 'Real' professional' camera & at the time that meant medium format.Not having a lot of money the progression went like this:1. Lubitel (bought from an advert in the back of a photo magazine),2.Yashica TLR...both being TLR's & real professionals using SLR's (which I couldn't afford) I needed better or so I thought. 3.Kiev 88 (back of the magazine advert again $499.00 a huge expense at the time) broke on the 3rd roll of film through it. Returned it. Upon advice of a friend I decided lens interchangibility/quality was more important than viewing system and so ended up with..#4.Mamiya C33 later upgraded to C330 (still have,very happy with) . However still I longed for a medium format SLR. First one (excluding the kiev) came from a camera show (Bronica Ec-tl) loved it. Then hard times hit and I sold it. Then I did without a medium format SLR for years (still had & used the Mamiya TLR but somehow felt slighted cos it wasn't an SLR). Then I found a really great deal I couldn't pass up on a medium format SLR. A used Kiev 60 upgraded by Kiev USA with documentation. In spite of my earlier bad experience with the kiev 88,I bought it & still own it & have had no trouble with it. However,I also treat it very gently & don't trust it...I've probably put 100 rolls through it. Then finally I found a good deal on a 'real' medium format SLR..a Bronica SQ. Someday I'll own a Hasselblad (I can afford one now,but why?with Bronica,Mamiya,Kiev & Yashica (I've got a Holga too but didn't count that).</p>

<p>When I first bought MF I wanted a 6x6 slr camera. I knew it would be bought used, so second-hand availability was a factor. Essentially my choice was Hasselblad or Bronica. I'd seen photographs from both and voted for the Bronica because it was sufficiently cheap to allow me to put the lenses, accessories, filters etc that I judged I'd need together quickly. After all I could always upgrade to a Hasselblad later if photography became vitally important to me. A few years later Hasselblad approached me and offered loan of a new 501CM and lenses, and I used that alongside the Bronica for a while - a rather clumsy arrangement or so I found. I couldn't see a material difference in the images whether through a loupe, projected or printed so I couldn't see any justification to ditch my Bronica equipment in favour of a still very expensive Hasselblad.</p>

<p> After a while it was beginning to dawn on me that not every scene I wished to photograph was suited to the square format. Further I was being approached by rather too many security guards who were telling me that I couldn't photograph there with my big slr and a tripod. I bought a Mamiya 7ii/3 lenses to complement (not replace) my Bronica. This gave me format flexibility, a better chance of getting usable results handheld, and lightweight, it would get me shots that I couldn't easily get with the Bronica. </p>

<p>I bought a Bronica, mainly because it was what I could afford, 6x6 has nice lenses (also very affordable), and the right level of automation - mainly aperture priority metering. I can't say I will be replacing it with anything else any time soon it still does everything I want it to. Now if only there was a lab in Whitehorse...</p>

<p>Poverty - The Mamiya TLR's that I use were known at the time thirty years ago as "poor man's Hasleblads".</p>

<p>I ended up with the Pentax 6711, with several lenses, after my first Medium format run with a Hasselblad CM, and Hasselblad ELM. Throughout those years after getting bored with Weddings, the reason why I picked up the Camera was for Landscapes. I went with a Fuji GX-680, after the Hasselblad, Knowing that I had a habit of packing the frame, so with the square of the Hasselblad wasn't going to be an option even though the masks were available, I didn't want to rob the potential of the film size. Struggling with the Fuji, for not too long because of the weight issue, I found that the Pentax 6711, was the perfect match for me, even losing the extra CM, from the 680, I found that the 6x7 was the way I really saw things. It made tremendous sense to me, and my Photography reflected that. The Pentax 6711 is light, there is a lens line up, chosen wisely, perform as well as the best. I have used this camera for about 13 years now and it has never presented a problem in the field for Landscapes. I'm constantly amazed at how the Pentax 6711 is revered as being too heavy, as the camera weighs in a 2.7 lbs. I know I have been in other forums on this weight issue, but hey? Habitually locking this camera up to a tripod, I understand that it can be handheld, but I believe the Pentax 67s place is on a tripod under control from potential vibration issues. An issue of any mirrored camera, but to me I'll consider the tripod as insurance. Time away, costs of rooms, gas, distances, are issues I consider in the field, so I'll take all precautions to bring back the goods. A little work, works for me.</p>

 

<p>Handling speed: light meter integration (I come from 135/ Kleinbild and use MF as a hobby)<br>

Vibration: leaf shutter<br>

Format: 6x6, because of 6x6<br>

Quality of lenses: Ain't a real bad one in this area, right?<br>

Lead me to Rollei 6008i.<br>

The downs of it: optics prives still high, yet everything cheaper than a non-crop DB. Here in Germany color film ist developed for under $3.<br>

But an Pentax 67 would be interesting, too - and cheap it is.<br>

And a viewfinder Mamiya would also be very interesting, too.<br>

And the Rolleiflexes are so silent...</p>

<p>Klaus</p>

<p>For me, it was all about the lenses:<br>

- Availability of <em>fast </em>lenses - for astrophotography<br>

<em>- Affordable </em>and plentiful supply of lenses etc. on the used market (even some in my home town)<br>

<em>- Range </em>and number of lens offerings: fisheye to long telephotos<br>

- Focal plane shutter and very short flange registration distance - enabling <em>easily adapting </em>onto telescopes, or 3rd party lenses - including (although I was unaware of this at the time) the MF lenses from several other manufacturers</p>

<p>Also swaying me were:<br>

- "WYSIWYG" SLR viewing with bright vertical option (WLF etc.) and interchangeable focus screens<br>

- Low-light (eV -1) TTL metering option<br>

- No battery drain in long exposures<br>

- Useful features like reversible mirror lock-up lever, self-timer, dof preview on camera<br>

- Portable enough to replace a 35mm SLR system</p>

<p>So this led me to my first MF camera, a used Mamiya 645 1000s with 80/1.9 lens, 20 years ago this June. I still use it.</p>

<p>This past decade has seen me take detours into 6x6 (Arax/Pentacon, and most recently Rollei SLX) and 6x9/Polaroid (Mamiya Universal).</p>

<p>But I always come back to the Mamiya 645 system as my favourite. With all those unique M645 lenses, I took the major step of adding a compatible 645AFD and an old Kodak digital back, nearly 2 years ago, and so it remains my primary system in the digital age, also taking film backs when I choose. A Canon 5DII (with the Mamiya lenses) takes over for most low light stuff.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It was easy: wife told to buy Haselblad.</p>

<p>K.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It was easy: wife told to buy Haselblad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're a lucky, lucky man! ;)</p>

<p>My wife keeps telling me to <strong>sell </strong>some camera stuff! She has a point...there's a tonne of stuff I keep <em>meaning</em> to sell.</p>

<p>I bought every one of my MF cameras because they were incredibly cheap; usually found in the junk bin and almost all of them for less than $100. I've gotten a few duds in the process and a whole bunch of gems. Same story for the lenses. <br>

As for brands, I've ended up with one or more of the following brands: Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya, and Yashica. Love em all!</p>

I shoot Pentax and Rolleiflex cameras. I prefer the Pentax 67 for general shooting as there is a wide assortment of

lenses and accessories available for it. The 67 is a good choice for landscapes, and for portraits, it does most things

very well.

 

For simple fun, I like Rolleiflex TLR cameras. They are somewhat compact and light (compared to the Pentax 67 or big

DSLR), quiet, and vibration free. I also love the quality of the lenses.