"Modern" Medium Format Camera For Starter? (I like Pentax 67ii, but...)

<p>I am looking to get into shooting medium format on film! I really like what I see from the likes of a Pentax 67ii - especially the SLR form factor because I am coming from that background. However, many of those cameras are old and I am worried about buying one that doesn't work or needs contest repair.<br>

Are there more "reliable", modern tech, medium format film cameras that have similar characteristics to the Pentax 67ii? I am looking to spend less that $800. I will primarily be doing portrait and street photography-type work but I'm not afraid to hold a heavy camera and manual focus to get the shot I want. <br>

Any suggestions are appreciated! I guess what I am asking is, what medium format film camera would you suggest to purchase in this day? It is worth it to find a used Pentax 67ii, or would the likelihood of finding on that will last and work well too small?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>You'll find "modern " MF film cameras rather thin on the ground. Basically the market for them disappeared so people stopped making them. </p>

<p>And in any case, if they did exist they'd cost way more than your budget. You may not want to buy a relatively old MF film camera, but I'm afraid that's what your budget will stretch to- and that's a fraction of what these cameras cost new or lightly used 15-20 years ago. Anything you buy for $800 or less is going to be a bargain in terms of what its capable of delivering, image-wise. <br>

But you're right that there's a need to be careful in what you buy. Many of the MF cameras available on the used market started off being used fairly heavily by professionals, and when they were replaced have seen sold on a few times by amateurs who didn't use them much but got disillusioned by the cost and sometimes difficulty of repair and the fact that most of these cameras were made to be serviced and adjusted every year or thereabouts. The short version is that there's a lot of cameras/backs/prisms/lenses out their that as well as being old, are not in great condition and may even be less than fully functional. Few of these cameras will have been serviced since they were professional workhorses maybe a decade or more ago. Meanwhile the price of the equipment may have dropped but the cost of getting them serviced or repaired hasn't. Neither is it getting easier to find repair sources or spare parts. In many cases its just easier and cheaper to buy a new body or back than to get one fixed- fuelling yet more substandard components on auction sites.</p>

<p>So unless you're prepared to accept some risk over and above what you'd get from buying say a new Dslr, I'd suggest to stay away from this market. If you are, then take steps to minimise your risk. </p>

<p>* If possible buy a camera with a known provenance. This is getting more difficult.<br>

* Buy from a source that will provide some credible warranty. It may cost you more to buy from someone like KEH, but they are more likely to stand by a camera that doesn't work than someone on eBay you don't know much about.<br>

* Buy a brand where you know that there's a credible spares/repair service available </p>

<p>And before you jump, work out how much its going to cost you to use the camera- film/processing/printing/ & maybe scanning costs unless you intend to do these yourself. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would look for a twin lens Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. Your budget allows for camera cost and over haul. Later models can be hand with prism but I prefer the waist level for unobtrusive image making!</p>

<p>Reliability is inverse to complexity, so any SLR is going to be inherently less reliable than, say, a TLR or rangefinder.</p>

<p>Questions to ask yourself: 1) Do you need or want to use interchangeable or zoom lenses? 2) If so, what budget have you for lenses? 3) Do you really <em>need</em> an eyelevel finder? 4) Is weight and size an issue?</p>

<p>The answers to the above will automatically narrow your choice of camera.<br /> 1) Only SLRs and expensive rangefinders take interchangeable lenses - with the exception of the heavy and cumbersome Mamiya C2x and C3x series TLRs.<br /> 2) Good lenses can, and do, cost more than a camera body.<br /> 3) Medium format SLRs and TLRs with a prism-finder are quite heavy and bulky unless you go down to the 645 format.<br /> 4) Smallest size and lightest weight are going to be got from a rangefinder, followed by a fixed-lens TLR.</p>

<p>Cheapest option and probably the most reliable, while keeping good image quality, would be got from a TLR, and they're also a good compromise on size and weight.</p>

<p>Most unreliable SLRs, and to be avoided are: Kowa 6 and Super 66, Pentacon 6, Kievs, Mamiya Super and ProTL 645s (although not the old metal-bodied 645s). Some would lump older 'Blads in the unreliable category as well. As I said, anything that has more to go wrong than a shutter and wind-on mechanism probably <em>will</em> go wrong at some point in time.<br /> TLRs are generally very reliable. For example, I inherited a 1959 vintage Yashicamat that still works perfectly without having had a single service or repair. Cams and prisms need occasional adjustment or alignment in a rangefinder.</p>

<p>Edit: The above are generalisations before someone jumps up and mentions Koni-Omega's, Mamiya Presses, Universals or the like. There are exceptions to the above broad categories.</p>

<p>Medium format for street photography? You need something light, unobtrusive, and above all quiet. The only camera that fits that description would be one of the TLRs like a Rolleiflex / Rolleicord or Yashicamat. If you have to hold the camera to your eye, they have "sports finders", but the real advantage of the TLR is the unobtrusiveness of the waist level finder. You'll get used to the reverse image quickly and the shutter is virtually silent. Get a Yashicamat to see if you like it and then exchange it for a Rolleiflex for better quality. The Rolleis were so well made they last forever - and there are still quite a few reliable repairshops.</p>

<p><em>>>I will primarily be doing portrait and street photography-type work but I'm not afraid to hold a heavy camera and manual focus to get the shot I want. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I wouldn't rule out the Mamiya TLRs. Dude, if they were good enough for Diane Arbus, they're good enough for you, so at least do a bit of research. You can probably get a good one very cheap, because they're out of fashion. In fact, I think they've *always* been out of fashion.</p>

<p>I know a Mamiya TLR looks like a bar fridge with lenses, but the size and weight issue is overstated. Most of the size of a Mamiya TLR is the volume of air it contains. A C330f with lens weighs about 1700g (3lb 12oz) which is way less than my Mamiya RZ (2495g or 5lb 8oz with lens and film holder).</p>

<p>Having said that, the mass of a Mamiya TLR may be a good thing. The guy who used to run the TLR forum on the Mamiya USA site was once accosted by a mugger, in Rotterdam. The mugger woke up in hospital. The Mamiya C2 was OK.</p>

<p>But I digress. TLRs are good for portraiture, because you have no moving mirror to black out at the moment of exposure. I'm not much of a portrait guy, but I find this feature is useful. The Mamiya TLR lenses are excellent portrait lenses, and you could look for a 105, a 135, or a 180, depending on how you see.</p>

<p>Another good thing is Mamiya TLRs have the straightest film path of any medium format camera. The film comes off the spool tangential to the film plane, and there's no 180-degree bends to interfere with film flatness, like you get in most reflex cameras. That flat film plane lets you use large apertures more effectively.</p>

<p>Downside is of course there's no interchangeable backs, so if you load it, you're stuck with it. Another thing is that big TLR is not at all unobtrusive, but on the other hand people will see you and just think you're a harmless eccentric horsing around with a poxy old camera.</p>

<p>A cool thing is that people willl sometimes ask about your camera. Their eyes just light up when they see that waist-level screen, like they can't believe it.</p>

<p>The 67ii can be used for portrait work but is not as natural for that as the leaf shutter cameras. There are two leaf shutter lenses for the Pentax, should you want to go with a higher flash synch speed than their other lenses. For natural light portraits, the 67ii does fine. The 67ii is expensive even now, so that may not be an option. The Pentax 67 is a more affordable way to go. Strangely, there are some on the used market that are barely used. There are even some lenses that are new or near new condition for sale. If you get a mint body, the reliability is quite good. I have 3 bodies and have used them since the late 80's with only minor adjustments needed. For covert street work, the Pentax's can be a bit loud tho. </p>

<p>Coming from a Pentax 67 and 645 background I can say from experience that they are built really tuff and don't break easily. So if you buy one that is in good working condition it will probably stay that way for a while. But if you're worried you can also buy one from KEH which has a 6 mt warranty.</p>

<p>I've had my Pentax 67II new since 1999 within the year it was released and have never had a problem with it. I use it for landscape work, love the balance of it the way it transports on the tripod while hiking. It has all of the pertinent features one needs when in the field and like all good camera's it has a working process that is comprehensive and reliable. The 67 lenses are legendary for image quality, but also legendary in the weight category. The weight of the 67II itself is not to be confused with the weight of its predecessors. The 67II body weighs 2.7 Lbs, so Pentax had weight in mind when they designed the 67II. Since film is not going away like many have thought for years now and since the fear and the wishing of it going away by some has only driven interest in film to secure its place for a forseeable future, if I didn't have a 67II, but know what I know about this camera, I would get one in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>Wow! Thank you for all the thoughtful responses. From what I am reading, it sounds like it is worth it to get a used Pentax 67 (I'm looking at the 67ii) so long as it has some sort of warranty or guarantee that it is in working condition. I also saw some 67 on KEH for very reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Anyways, thanks! I can't wait to get my hands on a medium format camera. I have on question though, why is the market disappearing for medium format? Is it because of DSLRs with high megapixel capabilities?</p>

<p>Well the, MARKET is shifting throughout as there are many factors to consider, one of them being iPhones to place at one end of the equation, but megapixels from DSLRs have nothing to do with the reality of producing a fine print in comparison to medium format. A fine print can be made with both, but what is ones preference is the point. There are those that tout the DSLR catching up to medium format. What does that mean? What film is used? What scanner? What DSLR? I'm one who is convinced that a properly exposed transparency scanned via a Tango scanner 600MB at 16bit utilizing advanced color space modules, printed via lightjet, provides a print that ends the discussion. But my eyes could be flawed.</p>

<p>Aside from just wanting to shoot on medium format for the sheer "quality" of the print, I believe film has a certain aesthetic that is oh so beautiful - I just want try try something different from 35mm and DSLRs.</p>

<p>If you like the Pentax 67 II, I'd say "get one!" - I haven't (ab)used them and can't ravish about their quality but to be somewhat realistic: It is hopefully still possible to get them repaired although they have such modern features like an all electronic shutter. - In doubt contact a repair tech before you buy something.<br>

The last somewhat affordable 35mm SLR inspired MF body I am aware of was an Exakta, pretty similar to the infamous Pentacon Six and using the same lens mount too. I have a Pentacon Six which hasn't let me down <em>yet. </em>(But thats probably just a question of time... - So no, I am not recommending them.) - My main MF system are the Mamiya TLRs Dave mentioned. - I'm no big fan of 35mm inspired SLRs. - IMHO MF shines on BW film and there you need color filters which are no fun to focus & compose through. I also believe WLFs and chimney finders are worth getting used to for portrait work since I'm a bit tall. Also holding a Pentax at eye level is quite a chore. - Further the Pentax lenses have a less impressive minimum focussing distance which might get annoying with portrait work in mind and extension tubes in your pocket.<br>

There was a Pentax 645 which is more modern than the 67. Right now Pentax are building the most affordable and low light capable MF-DSLR for that system. - I guess that fact makes the old lenses not cheaper.<br>

Sorry I don't know a modern long lasting inexpensive MF camera. - In general I trust the mechanical stuff more than anything battery dependant. - A lot of these purely mechanical cameras just gum up and can be reanimated for pretty cheap by independent repair techs. Although all warnings posted above are of course true and it makes a huge difference if otherways busy enthusiasts just posessed or professionals used a camera.</p>

<p>The market for film MF was always largely driven by professional users, with some real, high user and better off amateur enthusiasts. The cameras were expensive, and filtered down into enthusiast use once the top end of the market replaced them. That's a simplification of what is a complex scenario but it's right more often than wrong. So really, your question about the pretty much complete disappearance of new MF film cameras asks why professionals stopped buying MF film cameras and bought "35 mm" Dslrs and sometimes MF Dslrs or backs instead. </p>

<p>Lots of reasons - getting to see the final product faster; faster turnaround on jobs; not needing to buy in film and processing. The avoidance of scanning if you wanted to buy a digital printer and control your own output. The assurance that you'd actually got the shots and the ability to put it right there and then if you hadn't. And more- much more. Behind all this there's a realisation from many that though you can make big and high quality prints from MF, this wasn't absolutely necessary for their work, and faster/more convenient/cheaper to run trumped absolute quality at very large print sizes.</p>

<p>Personally I had hundreds to thousands of medium to large prints made from medium format, using both now redundant techniques like R Types and cibas, but also the hybrid digital route using Tango scanners and LightJet/Chromira printers that Don Bright refers to above. No doubt that the digital prints from scanned MF were better on average. </p>

<p>But though I make far fewer prints these days, I have to say that I'm possibly happier still with the prints I get from a Dslr by making the print files myself and getting the print work done by a lab who mail the prints to me within 48 hours. And the prints are hugely cheaper. The thing they are not is quite so large. If I wanted to make a good 36" sq print I'd still reach for a MF slide and a drum scan. But at say 20" x 16" I can get what I and my few print customers want quite comfortably from a Dslr. So whilst you're looking for a different satisfaction from the act of making photographs -which I understand- I quite happily left a decade of MF behind and have no regrets either professionally or privately. I just don't need prints of a size where only a big neg/transparency will do. </p>

<p>Which just brings me back to the final point of my first post. MF can give nice results but are they results that you need and do you want to carry the cost? There's an awful lot of old MF equipment sitting at the bottom of cupboards, little used or unused because its big, heavy, or broken and they don't know how/can't afford to get it fixed, or because the sheer cost and waste of 120 film, processing and scanning is more than they want to spend. If I have to shoot 100 frames on a Dslr to get a single decent photo for my website it costs me nothing apart from time. If I want to make a quality A4 print worth hanging that cost will rise to about £10. If otoh I start from MF film my 100 shots will cost me about £100 and a quality scan and print another say £25. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Personally I think the Pentax 67 series is like wrestling Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you want a med format slr with the "feel" of the cameras you're used to using, a Mamiya 645 with an eye-level finder and grip or a similarly equipped Bronica ETRS or Pentax 645 would give you the "feel" you're after quite nicely. YMMV</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>...why is the market disappearing for medium format?<br>

As David said above, the medium format film camera market was dominated by pro shooters, so when publishers refused to accept film as a viable media, pros had no choice but to move to digital. Scanning film was an option to stay with MF film cameras but that turned out to be too expensive to produce a scan that publishers would accept. It is interesting to note that flickr has thousands of members in their Pentax 67 section, so there are lots of people still shooting this and other MF systems. Medium format film cameras are still in use in a big way, just that their use has shifted from pro to amateur. </p>

<p>Thanks again all! David and Steve, I can completely understand the need to go digital for professional work that requires one to know whether or not they got the shot, and have quick turn around speeds. I am looking to use this camera for my own interest, not so much professional work.<br>

I found a Pentax 67 used with the metered pentaprism finder and a 90mm 2.8 for $500. Should I jump on that since I am interested in that camera? For somebody just getting into MF, I don't see a need to pay more for the 67ii.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stay away from those labeled Honeywell and Asahi on the finder; they are getting too old now. If the one you're interested in says "Pentax", it is the one just before the 67ii came out and the one to get. Just make sure it is mint or close to it. If you are not going to use flash, the 90mm Pentax is fine. If you wanted to go with flash work, the 90mm Takumar is the leaf shutter lens. There is a 165mm leaf shutter lens as well. Also, the 150 Takumar is an inexpensive lens but a fine performer. </p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p><em>Stay away from those labeled Honeywell and Asahi on the finder; they are getting too old now. If the one you're interested in says "Pentax", it is the one just before the 67ii came out and the one to get. Just make sure it is mint or close to it. If you are not going to use flash, the 90mm Pentax is fine. If you wanted to go with flash work, the 90mm Takumar is the leaf shutter lens. There is a 165mm leaf shutter lens as well. Also, the 150 Takumar is an inexpensive lens but a fine performer. </em></p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

Steve, I won't be using flash. I'll be doing a lot of natural light work. What are the main benefits to the 67ii over the 67? Is there a difference in image quality?

 

<p>The image quality is about the same but you will miss fewer exposures with the 67ii due to the better meter (AE Prism).</p>

<p>Allow me to throw in some options here as well.A few months I made the switch to film MF for my portraiture work. If you want to do street photography, consider a MF rangefinder. For example a Fuji GS645 (350 euro for a good one) or Bronica RF (this will break your bank at 1000+). <br>

Another option could be to go for a Bronica ETR(S) series. This is the way I went because I found a very good deal at a reliable local dealer specialised in "vintage" cameras, as they put it themselves. It provides you with a modern SLR type of camera that can be tuned to your needs. There is plenty of accessoires available, such as waistlevel finders, metered finders, grips and of course decent lenses. Two or three lenses + body + non-metered finder + 2 film backs will probably cost you close to 800 euro. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there more "reliable", modern tech, medium format film cameras that have similar characteristics to the Pentax 67ii? I am looking to spend less that $800. I will primarily be doing portrait and street photography-type work but I'm not afraid to hold a heavy camera and manual focus to get the shot I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The last generation of 645-format film SLRs from the late 1990s meet your requirements. Modern tech like autofocus & manual focus confirmation, exposure and metering modes, built-in motor drives, data imprinting on the film margins, auto bracketing, TTL/OTF flash metering...</p>

<p>So look at the Mamiya 645AF or 645AFD, and the Pentax 645N and 645N II. The Contax 645 is similar in spec, but outside your budget. Bronica ETR(Si) are excellent modular 645 SLRs too, but they don't have that sort of modern tech.</p>

<p>You can use them with either the newer autofocus lenses or older, cheaper manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>The fairly boxy form factor of these later Mamiyas and Pentaxes is not as similar to a classic 35mm film SLR as the Pentax 67 II, but the integrated grip-drive makes them handle more like a 35mm SLR than earlier 645 SLRs. I have a Mamiya 645AFD and it handles like a chunky DSLR. I have no problems carrying it around for a few hours (and that's normally with a digital back attached, which is much heavier than a film back).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So look at the Mamiya 645AF or 645AFD, and the Pentax 645N and 645N II. The Contax 645 is similar in spec, but outside your budget. Bronica ETR(Si) are excellent modular 645 SLRs too, but they don't have that sort of modern tech.</p>

</blockquote>

Ray, the only reason I am opposed to the 645s is because I really want the highest quality possible. I am primarily going to be taking these photos just for myself and, along as I have light metering )so I don't need to carry an external digital meter), I think the 67 should give me the best quality for price and form factor. I don't doubt that the 645 would be easier and more familiar, though.

 

What do you think is a decent price for a used Pentax 67?

<p>A mint 67 with mint TTL prism== $570.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ray, the only reason I am opposed to the 645s is because I really want the highest quality possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough. I suggested 645 cameras because of your comment that "<em>I just want try try something different from 35mm and DSLRs</em>".</p>

<p>645 is 2.7x the size of 35mm film; 6x7 is 4.5x the size of 35mm film and 1.66x the size of 645. So both represent a major jump up from 35mm. </p>

<p>The jump is even bigger if you make prints with a standard 5:4 aspect ratio, such as 10x8 inch. 35mm needs a lot of cropping, whereas 645 and 6x7 both need only a little. </p>

<p>But there's no denying that given equally good lenses and technique, size wins - 6x7 will always have a discernable quality edge over 645.</p>

<p>It's not such an edge that I let it over-ride other factors concerning my camera choice, however. I used a 6x9 system for a few years in parallel with my 645s...and guess what...I no longer use the 6x9, but I still use the 645s!</p>