The ultimate, cheap, travel, medium format rangefinder

<p>If you're shooting 120 film, then as Kelly has noted, you better pack your own! I shoot 120 travelling all the time, but I have my own stash at all times.<br>

I agree with the others so far: best optics performance, ease of use, etc. Mamiya 7 or 7II. If you are going to make large prints as you say, and expect to see best quality, then 6x7 is the way to go.<br>

Next best choice also mentioned: the Fuji GS rangefinders. Still readily available, not the $$ of the Mamiya, and excellent optics.</p>

<p>#1 avoid antique cameras for important journeys<br>

#2 realize that old shutters freeze or underperform when they get frigid cold unless you have them winterized (remove & replace lubricant, re-adjust shutter speeds etc)<br>

#3 realize that "sharp" isn't the same as high detail resolution. Most digicams are "sharp," especially if you consider their exceptional depth of field. <br>

#4 if you don't like 35mm rangefinders you probably won't like bigger ones. But if it was me and I had to shoot film, that'd be my traveling format. Good 35mm may blow away average MF if you get good scans.<br>

IMO the best-ever MF rangefinder was Graflex XL (Zeiss lenses, 6X7) but you can't trust em because the focusing mechanism was designed to break under stress (rather than damaging the lens) and the mecanism simply wears out. Very hard to find a reasonably good one.<br>

If this trip was mine I might want to take a PAIR of digicams, rather than gambling on one bigger camera. </p>

<p>Maybe an old Mamiya TLR or Yashicamat if working. Also, for ultimate inexpensive, get a plastic Holga! Get 3 or 4 in case one breaks or gets stolen, though i don't know who would steal 1.</p>

<p>My older brother was worried is old Minolta Himatic 35mm RF was too old for a long trip. Thus he bought a brand New Nikon F3 about 1 month before the trip. The F3 died/jammed a few days before the trip; so he bought a 2nd F3 and had it airfreighted in. Thus he used his 1960's Minolta; my dads 1947 Kodak Vigilant 620 and his 3 day old Nikon F3!</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure there is a good solution to your problem -- in general, cheap, good optics, and very reliable are not easy to find simultaneously. However, I have experience with some of the cameras mentioned in similar conditions:</p>

<p>Mamiya 7 II - I have used mine in conditions down to -30 Celsius (and up to +45), and had no problems. Be aware that this camera has an electronically controlled shutter, and if the batteries die, the camera is useless. When I did my work, I would spend no more that a few hours in the cold, and then return to a reasonably warm (0-10 C) vehicle; I also had many spare batteries. Mamiya made an external battery holder that allows the battery to be kept inside your clothing where it will stay warm while powering the camera; if you choose this camera, and intend to use it for prolonged periods in the cold, I would consider finding one of these. The wide angle lenses for the 7 series, which are the real gems that make this camera worth having, have large exposed glass surfaces that are difficult to keep clean in rain or dust. The camera and lenses are not, by any reasonable definition, cheap, even if you buy them used. Their resale value is quite good, so it might be that you could buy what you need and sell it when you're done.</p>

<p>Fuji GA645 and GA645W - I have both of these, they are inexpensive and the optics are stellar. They are also electronically controled autofocus cameras that are completely dependent on batteries, and if there is an external battery holder available, I am not aware of it. However, you could buy 3 of each of these and enough batteries to last the rest of your life for the price of a Mamiya 7 and two lenses. The cameras are giant point-and-shoots with a sliding cover that protects the lens, and are much easier to use in bad weather than the Mamiya 7. It is true that 645 has less ability to enlarge than 6x7, but with a fine grained film like Provia I have not been unhappy with the 645's output up to perhaps 40 x 60 cm, and have gone larger depending on the subject matter.</p>

<p>Other options - I would also consider a mechanical 645 (like the older Mamiyas) or 6x6 (like the Hasselblad); they do not have the battery dependence issues of the 7 II or the GA645, they are relatively cheap, and they are not so large as to be a burden to carry. The ability to use a film magazine for rapid loading is worth considering -- if you've ever tried to load a camera like the Mamiya 7, or even the almost automatic loading GA645, in the wind, rain, or dust, you'll appreciate the ability to simply switch magazines. A modern weather sealed digital like the Canon 1Ds Mk III, or the less durable but cheaper 7D, could also be an option. If I were in a must-get-the-shot situation in really harsh conditions, I'd think about a weather sealed digital with a single zoom lens simply because the camera never needs to be opened and because CF cards are much easier to change and protect than rolls of 120 or 220 film.</p>

<p>As others pointed out, the problem with the Mamiya 7 is that after the trip and looking at the results you may become too attached to sell it.</p>

<p>mamiya 7 with 43 mm, all the way. except it isn't cheap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also I have been shooting 35mm rangefinder for the last two months and I still can't get used to the framing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you don't say what kind of 35 RF or what the problem was -- but if it's just that the framelines aren't exactly what you get -- it will be the same issues with MF rangefinders as well. just keep your subjects from getting too close to the edges. <br />i don't know why you aren't considering a good TLR [rollei, yashica or mamiya]. it <em>is</em> cheap, and does not have the approximate framing problem either.</p>

<p>Mamiya Super 23 or Universal. 6x7, 6x9 or 645 format options. Superb lenses. Interchangeable backs with excellent film flatness. Inexpensive. Bulky (6x9!) but not heavy. Big bright rangefinder or ground glass focusing. Very rugged. Always calculate a CLA for any camera/lens system.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your help! I think this is the best forum ever! :)<br>

As I am not convinced by 6x4.5 format, I don't want digital and Mamiya 7 is too expensive (I will get it one day), instead of only talking and thinking, I actually bought Koni Omega 200 to try if it works for me. I know that it is not the newest and smallest camera ever but it is 6x7, has interchangeable backs, apparently good optics and I paid only $130. I will let you know if I'm happy.</p>

<p>We look forward to it!</p>

<p>btw I found some interesting lenses tests at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html<br>

It seems that Mamiya 7 with 50mm f/4.5 and 80mm f/4 is just unbeatable</p>

<p>Yeah, the Mamiya 7 optics have a stellar reputation. But photographers still use other lenses every day... absolute sharpness is not really a big factor when it comes to determining what are great pictures. Worrying about lpmm's is surely the sign of a beginner, in my humble opinion. And the Mamiya has all the drawbacks of a rangefinder, so it is not really a camera suited for all applications (though for travel and landscape it is pretty excellent).<br>

Although I would strongly advise against this whole endeavour (see above), if your heart is really in it, go for the Mamiya if you can find a way to finance it.</p>

<p>RE: Square format; I NEVER print square, but my favorite camera is a Rolleiflex TLR. I have no problem thinking horizontal or vertical when I compose a shot (although I appreciate the chance to occasionally change my mind in the darkroom).</p>

<p>Despite having migrated to digital almost ten years ago, I still keep my Fujica GSW 65mm f5.6 690 II for the possibility of shooting film 6x9 landscapes. Bought used with very few rolls through it, I expect it to work for the rest of my life. Example below is cropped, but landscapes are what it is best at doing. As for compactness--it is what it is, but I'd rather hang it around my neck than some of my digital equipment.</p><div></div>

<p>The 690 II is not bad for human subjects, either.</p><div></div>

<p>fuji gw670iii: affordable, reliable, light, and sharp. a little longer than the mamiya 7, but it'll still fit in the same camera bag.</p>

<p>I recommend a Fuji GS645S for being small, compact, inexpensive and having great optics. The Fuji GS645W is also a great camera with a wide angle lens but somewhat harder to find than the GS645S.</p>

<p>If quality/price ratio is is important, the Fuji (c2000) GW or GSW 690 III rangefinders are probably the best buys. Maybe not quite as sharp as a Mamiya 6 or 7, they can be had in near mint condition for $600 to $800, much below anything else comparable that I know of. The problem with any RF camera is keeping the RF mechanism accurately adjusted and (especially with 6 x 9 format, probably less with the GW 670 III) assuring film flatness at the film plane.</p>

<p>I would be careful about tested sharpness of lenses. Resolution is not everything (contrast must also be considered) and sometimes the test may be reflecting some adjustmet problem of the camera-lens. Ultimate sharpness is less important if you are not printing up very large size images (say, 20 x 30 inch). Some well-known professional photographers use medium format cameras to make exquisitely detailed and toned B&W images of 8 x 10 or less.</p>

<p>Hasselblad XPan.</p>

<p>The GS645 with the 75mm f3.4 Fujinon is actually a folding camera. If the Koni Omega doesn't work out you will like the compactness of this camera that you might not miss the larger negative as much. FWIW, I have the GS645W with the 60mm f4. Great rangefinder and easy to operate.</p>

<p>@Ivan Eberle: "there are good reasons why so little documentary photography is being done in larger formats in the past 50 years or so. Lenses and films got so terrific that it became mostly unnecessary to use larger formats."</p>

<p>I think that is the nub of the matter: If the purpose of documentary is to record, and the amount of data recorded is dependent on what the medium can reproduce, then the lack of use of medium and large format film is the problem. You simply can not record the same level of detail on small film as you can on large.</p>

<p>I believe that we will some day regret that mankind has a pretty poor record of life in the 1980s and 1990s due the fashion for small film and worse still, poor quality digital. Many old images from the 1800s contain far more detail, and are better documentary images, compared to the rubbish left over from recent decades.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the relatively low cost of digital images has meant that more images are taken without the care and attention that used to be applied in the case of what was relatively costly film.</p>

<p>As regards the original question, some of the old folders are incredibly good for this purpose. Low cost, extremely portable, and with high quality lenses. Why not buy two Zeiss Ikon 6x9s? One for colour, the other b/w? They even slip into a pocket, and look so old that you won't risk being mugged for them.</p>

<p>That is an important point in many areas of the world one would like to visit.</p>

<p>The ultimate medium format for travel.<br>

Monday, August 30, 2010<br>

Wow. This thread is especially interesting to me. I am mulling over which medium to take or whether to buy an additional one. I have several trips coming up: 1 week in southwest landscapes and historical ruins, a week in LA area, and two weeks in France, mainly around Paris. <br>

Before on my trips, to Europe, I’ve taken 4x5, (Super Graphic); TLR, Rollei and Yashica, and 35mm Nikon 3a. My particular slant is in black and white film and in doing my own developing and printing when I get home. I seldom made prints larger than 11x14—but I am picky and wholly interested in quality. To consider your questions:</p>

<ol>

<li> "<strong>more than 2 months) in extreme conditions"</strong>. I don’t’ know if you’re backpacking, but if you are, that makes a massive difference. The best I”ve ever used was The <strong>Rollie 35</strong> for a month long trek across the Rockies. Nothing electronic! A total mini-beast—and the most compact metal full frame 35mm –with a zeiss lens!!! I also took a Rollei TLR with a Tessar lens---Far bigger, and more trouble. Travel simply beats up a camera. </li>

</ol>

<p>In Europe, If you’re shooting architecture, ruins, etc. The medium format is hugely better than 35mm. But for street, 35mm is better. <br>

<strong> "price</strong> - unfortunately this is very important factor for me, the camera has to be cheap." In medium format, rethink your TLR ban. They are more rugged, dependable, and faster to use than anything else. Remember the Rollei was used in the tropics and really everywhere. It is probably the most rugged beast you can buy---get a Rolleicord and never look back. Most bang for the buck--- However they do cost more to get serviced. So you could get a Yashica Mat---not as rugged, but the optics are nearly like a Tessar, and cheaper to buy and repair. You should also rethink your ban on 35mm. Any metal manual slr with a 50mm 1.8 lens will make a rugged back up.<br>

<strong>2. optics</strong><strong>. </strong>A good (not especially a Planar) medium format lens will be far superior in tonality and detail than a 35mm. Even my Yashica with a 3 element lens outperformed my good Nikon lenses. So you are not crazy to stick with 120 film.<br>

<strong>"weight/size - ideal camera should be small and light." Opps, you’re back to a TLR. Sorry. When you look a optics, price, reliability.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>OK, Tom. I’ll be curious to hear about your trip and be sure and tell use what you choose! Just my 2 cents!</strong><strong> </strong></p>

 

<p>At the end, I took two Pentacon Six cameras with me as I didn't have to pay for them (they are my father's). I'm happy with the results ( ) but I wouldn't recommend them - they are not reliable, heavy and difficult to focus. I'm planning to buy Mamiya 7 for my next trip. I was wondering if it could survive in really cold conditions (-40C). Do you have any other recommendation for this kind of weather? (only medium format film cameras)</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>btw I found some interesting lenses tests at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html" target="_blank">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm confused, are those figures on that site really in lines/mm? If so, why is the highest resolution listed 120 lines/mm? Is that the limiting resolution or is that where the contrast of the film drops off to 50%? I ask because when I took a look at Mauro Franic's 35mm Velvia shots of resolution test charts, I conservatively concluded that the film/lens combo resolved up to 150 lines/mm, which corresponds to 4.25 on these chart shots (pay particular attention to the Imacon scan, of course):<br>

<img src="http://rishisanyalphotography.com/ForumPostFiles/photo.net/MinoltaDSE5400vsImacon848.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://rishisanyalphotography.com/ForumPostFiles/photo.net/MinoltaDSE5400vsImacon848.jpg">Full Resolution Image</a></p>

<p>Of course, the contrast on the film corresponding to 150 lines/mm is pretty poor...</p>

<p>But back to my point: what am I missing here? MF shouldn't be resolving much less than 35mm due to poorer lenses, should it?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br />Rishi </p>

<p>this post continues here: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00behB</p>