I'm new to medium format, what camera would be best for me?

<p>Just for argument's sake, analogies are lamer than a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.</p>

<p>I've shot with an RB, and RZ, a Pentax 645, and a Pentax 67 (and the 67II). I agree with earlier comments that the RZ is basically a studio camera. I found hand-holding it to be awkward at best; it was much happier on a tripod. I recall it was also very heavy. The 645 was very easy to handle, and fun to use. I really like the 67 (though the viewfinder tended to be dim) and the 67II even better. Easy to handle and built like tanks. A disadvantage of the 67s compared to the RZ in that, working with a tripod, the whole camera has to be shifted to get a vertical image, whereas the RZ (and RB) have rotating backs (again, they're basically studio cameras). There's also an issue with camera shake at certain slowish shutter speeds on the 67; even with mirror lock-up, the shutter itself causes the camera to move, which can result in blur. That said, I still think it's my favorite camera. Great lenses, simple to operate. Really satisfying "clickKLAK" when you trip the shutter.</p>

<p>James, that's a pretty violent response to my posting, but if you don't like the message, that's no reason to shoot the messenger!</p>

<p>FFS don't get a holga. Extremely limited exposure controls, meaning that you won't learn anything. Choosing between F11 and the OTHER F11 is not photography. <br>

Also, don't Holgas even lack shutter speed controls? Aren't their aperture controls a lie?<br>

If you absolutely MUST get a plastic camera, get a lubitel.<br>

I bring my ETRS system to quite a few places. It's huge but NOTHING compared to the RZ67 and GS-1.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>There are plenty of REAL photographers making real stuff with Holgas.</strong><br>

Yes, Richard, but that is entirely beside the point, and those "real" photographers would probably not chose a Holga first. This type of photography is special-effect, limited, and not representative of medium format (and at this point, more of an affectation that one is likely to find in Shots Magazine). One might as well simply stick on a Lensbaby or use an iPhone. Presumably the OP wants the smaller grain and sharper image of medium format. There's little point in using the more expensive rolls of MF film and associated costs if these advantages won't be realized.<br>

People keep pointing the suggestions back to either Bronica or Mamiya 645 for good reason.</p>

<p>And by the way, I think it pointless to tell the OP how he should spend his money, whether on a car, a digital camera, or his education. That is his business, and that's what parents are for.</p>

<p>C'mon, all! Have you forgotten what your impression was when you saw a 6x7 piece of film that meant something to you on a light table? You were in awe! Right? Wasn't that a tremendous motivater to drive the art of Photography to betterment in ones life? Photography happens to be expensive. Wish it wasn't so, but it is. I'm not advocating anyone to throw money into the wind either, but what does that really mean? I think that hard work should be rewarded. The best rewards we all got was seeing a great result on film from a period of struggle as we drove to understand the dynamics of the camera and how it related to our sense of creativity. Medium format camera's deliver that reward. I use a Pentax 6711, but in this case I'm not goin to beat the drum for a preference. Medium format camera's are just awesome for Photography. Deciding on which one really isn't, or shouldn't be that tough.</p>

<p>What will you be photographing? Although limited to one lens, a Rollei TLR with a Zeiss Planar 2.8 lens is as good as it gets for your $700. TLRs are excellent for sitting portraits, suitably discreet for street and candid photography, and take a good landscape. They support a gamut of accessories, including close-up lenses, filters, and a prism. <em>Bon shooting!</em></p>

<p>What will you be photographing? Although limited to one lens, a Rollei TLR with a Zeiss Planar 2.8 lens is as good as it gets for your $700. TLRs are excellent for sitting portraits, suitably discreet for street and candid photography, and take a good landscape. They support a gamut of accessories, including close-up lenses, filters, and a prism. <em>Bon shooting!</em></p>

<p>Hasselblad 500C, with 120 A12 Back and 80mm 2.8 C Lens<br>

All of that can easily be found for $700. It's fairly compact and great for hand held shooting, and it's built like a tank. Parts are readily available (Hasselblad still sells 500 series variants). I've had that set up for over ten years and the only the only thing I've had to do it is replace the light trap on the film back. It cost $18 dollars directly from Hasselblad and took me 10 minutes to do myself. My camera and lens and back are all from 1964.<br>

Mamiya RB and RZ are great cameras if you're gonna have it on a tripod most of the time. The Pentax 67 is also a great camera and it's cheap but it's really gigantic. I have no experience with the other cameras discussed on this forum, other than a Holga. Buy a Holga in addition to what ever camera you decide on. Don't worry about film, it will be around forever, especially B&W.</p>

<p>Thought I should add to the confusion. For me, the only reason to go to medium format is image quality and you just don't get much of a jump in IQ with a 6x4.5 camera when accounting for less depth of field. If you want to print square ( I LOVE the square image but itis not everyone's cup of tea) then go for the Bronica SQ series - a basic Hasselblad will cost the same but additional lenses are usually 2x what the equivalent Bronica glass will cost you. The whole WL finder is also a whole zen thing that you either love or hate.<br>

If you want a rectangle and want to go in the field get either a Fuji rangefinder (fixed lens but killer quality and rather light weignt for it's neg size) or your original choice the Pentax 6x7. A basic Pentax w lens can be had for under $600 from KEH - first class glass and easily hand holdable particulalyl if you trip the mirror first. It handles like what you are used to and at eye level is among the most ergonomic of the medium format slr's. The results from a Pentax 6x7 neg should meet anyone's standards. The only thing the Pentax gives up is an interchangeable back and in this era of scanning I assume you are always using color neg film anyway.</p>

<p>I would second the Rollei TLR suggestion. Reasonable size, very quiet, maximum quality with minimum complexity. Budget for a clean and lube, which can be had for under $150.<br>

Also, I don't think anybody's mentioned my personal favorite, the Minolta Autocord. A little smaller than the Rolleiflexes, better film handling, superb lens. Cheaper than a Rollei, too, these are selling on ebay for a maximum of $300. Many will need a CLA, again available for less than $150. Be aware that many used ones have the focusing knob broken off due to people trying to force the lever through dried-up lubricant. <br>

A Holga will be fun after you've got some experience with medium format, but not for a starter.<br>

You don't say whether you have darkroom experience, but if you don't, try to take a darkroom course at your local community college, art school, or museum. You won't know how beautiful a black and white print can be until you've made some medium format silver prints in the dark. (Scanning + Inkjet doesn't count.)</p>

<p>You folks are pretty amazing. Four pages of "get this camera" responses, none from the OP and still no response from him to why he wants MF in the first place. Those of us with a lot of film experience, mine goes back 50 years, know the what and why of MF or large format. I suspect the OP is a troll and is LOL at all this verbiage without a coherent response from him. Maybe I'm wrong, but...</p>

<p>Eric, I understand you. It looks to be common this days. Maybe the OP had a momentary photographic passion that dissapeared after a momentary bike driving obsession or with a strong hi-fi momentary wish... who knows.<br /> Anyway, he posted two days ago. Still on time to answer.</p>

<p>Jose and Eric (and someone else, earlier on), good points!</p>

<p>As you say, it would have been much more constructive if the OP had followed up quickly with some feedback on his needs, to help drive the conversations, and allow responders to better understand his interests. Maybe he still will? We are indeed a democratic and altrustic lot here, providing sincere replies to a question from a new poster and not demanding interaction from him to better consider his needs. I now make it a habit to check the PNet profile of a poster and where he is coming from. This often helps me in my reply, at least regarding the nature of the effort I will put into it. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to come in for a few minutes and then jump out of this site. The passion of a lot of members for their particular approach or preferred photographic tools is seen in the enthusiastic replies. While the members of this site may be taken advantage of at times, their keen responses here at least shows the generous nature of many members toward newcomers as well as their love of their hobby or profession.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've researched medium format cameras a lot and i still have no idea which one to get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Coles, after all the good advices and thoughts given to you, there's only one thing left you can do: buy one. <br /> The only basis for deciding wether MF is for you or not, is <em>your</em> experience.<br /> No one and nothing will prevent you from what you'll find out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect the OP is a troll and is LOL at all this verbiage without a coherent response from him. Maybe I'm wrong, but...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but I know I've definitely enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Honestly, it's probably a bit overwhelming for someone new to get so many opinions. I've been tracking and reading up on medium format for a while (and large format, after reading Ansel Adam's Camera and Negative) and eventually I picked up a used Pentax 645N a few months back off ebay, and is in a box in a closet somewhere (a Holga would have been cheaper, but like someone else said, I def need aperture and shutter speed controls). Reading those two books gave me more appreciation for the art and technical aspects of photography.</p>

<p>Regarding the Pentax, the SLR-like ergonomics make it easy for a SLR user like me (I typically use a digital Pentax k-5), to feel comfortable with it. It's a great camera, I just need to get away from the computer and take some photos with it. And yes, the shutter sound, as loud as it is, is very satisfying. I think I'll take it out for a spin once it stops raining!</p>

<p>As far as Kodak going bankrupt, I think that was management's fault for falling asleep at the wheel. Fuji seems to be doing ok, even innovating with its latest digital offerings. Hopefully they'll be enough photo students, enthusiasts, and yes even hipsters to keep film going for a while longer. (I do worry about getting 4x5 film in the near future.. that to me seems like a film format that may not make it, and one I really like.. the pain level a bit too high for most people).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David, I read somewhere recently (probably the recent Photo Techniques mag) that there are more black and white films on the market today than in 1990. Kodak's recent Portra colour film upgrade is good news (hopefully someone will continue it when the dust settles in Rochester), as are the fairly recent new colour films from Fuji (also new Fuji MF film cameras as well as digital), B&W films from Adox and others, and the appearance of new B&W photographic papers to complement those from the giant Harman-Ilford and to replace dead Agfa and Kodak offerings. If one can still make Daguerrotypes, cyanotypes and other vintage prints these days, I doubt that film and traditional photography will disappear altogether, although it may get more expensive. MF film cameras are for me a sweet spot in photography, permitting high quality from decent and not overly expensive systems. And a cheapeer route to that than digital MF or 35mm full frame systems.</p>

<p>The notion that one should call off the hunt for a used Medium format camera because there won't be any film around to put in it, is just ludicrous.</p>

" And a cheapeer route to that than digital MF or 35mm full frame systems."

 

And more expensive than large format.

<blockquote>

<p>"The notion that one should call off the hunt for a used Medium format camera because there won't be any film around to put in it, is just ludicrous."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? That's like saying that electricity is for some reason going to become unaffordable or unobtainable, but that's no reason not to buy a digital camera. Because you can always make your own batteries.<br>

In my lifetime I've seen the demise of: Gratispool, Ferrania, Gaevert, 3M, Polaroid, Konica, Agfa and now possibly Kodak. There are probably many more defunct film manufacturers that I can't even remember now. In the last decade, professional processing labs have gone from one in nearly every major city to one in the entire country, and even that's diversifying from film more and more. How big and clear does the writing on the wall have to be? </p>

<p>Amateurs have mostly processed their own film and prints, so who really cares if the professional photofinishers are scarce (One in a country of 330 million; hard to believe that!). "Push the button and we'll do the rest" was never really the only option for craft and art photographers, and perhaps really only appealed since 1888 to the point and shoot crowd. It is so easy to process black and white film, and only mildly more difficult for color film, that photofinishers are not of prime importance, and in any case amateur market photofinishers do a pretty good job with that.</p>

<p>As mentiioned , there are more film types available now than in 1990, before the digital sweep. Darkroom black and white work is one of the most interesting and rewarding activities for the amateur photographer, and the print papers are quite plentiful, despite the exit of Kodak, Agfa, Konica and some of the smaller companies, because there are others (Agfa multicontraat is now being oproduced in more or less the same form by another company, and Fujifilm's Crystal Archive colour print paper is used by many labs, namely those that print for the consumer using traditional wet chemistry from both digital and film media). Harman (Ilford), Freestyle Arista (made in Czechoslovakia), Adox, Foma and Fotokemika are all making photographic papers for the B&W darkroom. Fujifilm (also a major digital and film camera producer) makes colour paper, among others.</p>

<p>Writing on the wall? Well, I guess it depends what sort of wall you are looking at. I wish that the digital anti film group would get a life and get on with their work. I am very happy to use both systems for their specific qualities. Without the high quality of MF film photography (and of course even higher in LF) I could not make prints of the quality that digital just approaches in the smaller sizes, and at a much higher equipment investment.</p>

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>Photographers were making photos long before any of those companies were founded. </p>

<p>I don't see it as a problem. Even if eventually I have to put emulsion on my own glass plates. I have all the recipes for dev and fix. I can make my own if need be.</p>

<p>That will only increase the perceived value of such things.</p>

<p>And, I just recently bought some fresh AGFA film. Rollei brand AGFA film.</p>

<p>There is no reason, not, to buy a digital camera. There is no reason, not, to buy a film camera.</p>

<p>I agree with Don. Digital is something but film is something else, but both take pictures !<br>

So the best thing to do, is go out there do what you love to do (take pictures:) and stop urguing which system is best. BOTH !! Each at it's own field and use.<br>

Now back to the OP question.<br>

Dear Coles, my suggestion is to start with 6X4.5 format by spending less than half of your bugdet in a hamble Bronica ETRSi with the standard 75mm lens. You will learn, as we all did. Easy and affordable system without spending a fortune. If you like it then you can go on, if you don't you can sell it and get your money back as interest for MF Cameras is fairly high these days. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no reason, not, to buy a digital camera. There is no reason, not, to buy a film camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p><div></div>