Looking for compact option and only one lens!

Fujifilm GW 690 - the one with interchangeable lenses

Something to consider is a Zeiss Super Ikonta such as a 532/16 or 532/16 (metered). The tradeoff is they have a fixed lens and are folders but the good side of the folders is that you will never find a smaller 6x6 that can fit in your jacket pocket. They are a bit heavy and are RFs but they take awesome photos and are fun to shoot with. You can get a very nice one with case for around $250-$300.

Thanks for the advice. Id be much more inclined to give two lenses a go now. maybe one for landscapes and one for street shooting.

 

I was hoping to maybe grab something in more of the rangefinder body style than the tlr box style

 

Break the bank - you can sell gear when you return. A Mamiya 7II and two lenses is easy to carry. The 150mm is superb, but you can't shoot tight head shots with it. Just be sure to stop down a bit to get adequate DOF. and you have several of the best wide angle lenses available within the system.

Break the bank - you can sell gear when you return. A Mamiya 7II and two lenses is easy to carry. The 150mm is superb, but you can't shoot tight head shots with it. Just be sure to stop down a bit to get adequate DOF. and you have several of the best wide angle lenses available within the system.

 

I ended up buying a Mamiya 6 in the end. Got it with the 75mm, looking to expand and buy the 150 next. Amazing camera to work with. The fact it collapses is a very underrated feature!

I ended up buying a Mamiya 6 in the end. Got it with the 75mm, looking to expand and buy the 150 next. Amazing camera to work with. The fact it collapses is a very underrated feature!

I'm glad that you chose well and are happy.

 

I noticed several respondents advocating the Hasselblad SWC. I can see why this is such a well loved camera - or perhaps such a well loved lens is more appropriate, since the whole thing is basically a 38 mm Biogon with a film back. 90 degrees diagonally of top sharpness on a square format...yum!

 

The one downside of the SWC is that it doesn't play that well with digital backs; some of the ultrawide magic is lost with the hefty crop factor, and then there are issues with corner softness and colour casts because of the "optically true wideangle" design of the Biogon.

 

I found that I can emulate the SWC in a whole other digital manner: a 37 x 37 mm digital back, a Mamiya 645 AFD, and a Mamiya 24mm ULF fisheye. When "de-fished" to rectilinear format, you do get "90 degrees diagonally of top sharpness on a square format".

It was made as a "press camera" to replace the Graflexes, but it's a really good general shooter -- the Rapid Omega (LINK)

I would go with a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord ( if that’s more the budget), I’d even consider a Mamiya C330 (as a bow to the destination, and you could get interchangeable lenses). And last, Seagul made a version, but that’s more toy camera territory. I’d also look into close up lenses for these, but the classic 75/80mm should get you far and the finder opens a slightly different perspective. Also, you actually see what’s in focus as opposed to a Mamiya 6/7, Plaubel Makina 67 (the most compact you could get) or other range finders. And overall the Rolleiflex is a pretty compact package with few moving parts. But you need a light meter...

Hey everyone, having trouble doing research and need to throw it over to the Photo.net community!

 

I am going to Japan for the first time later in the year (very excited, hit me up with any recommendations). I thought it'd be really cool to shoot the whole trip on medium format. It is such a photogenic country and I'd love to bring it to life on the larger format.

 

As I'll be travelling around heaps everyday I wanted your recommendation for a compact medium format camera that wont break the bank and a single lens for that camera that'll let me capture my whole trip!

 

Many thanks

Wow...you are in for a treat. I have been to Asia and you will want to take more pictures than you have film for. If it were me, I would go budget friendly with a Yashica TLR. They are plentiful on Ebay and quality cameras can be found. I have had 4 Yashica TLR's and you can really do well with them. They are not too big and are built very sturdy...great for travel. Worth looking into. Look for the latest model you can afford as the lenses increased in quality with the newer models. Good luck and have a great trip.

........... later in the year.........

 

carlin_plumb, Apr 6, 2018

Yeah. I think that boat has long sailed. Or plane taken off.

 

It would be nice, though, if Carlin came back to post some pictures from the trip.

 

Maybe even just tell us what camera they settled on and how it worked out.

I wanted your recommendation for a compact medium format camera that wont break the bank and a single lens for that camera that'll let me capture my whole trip!

I think if such a thing existed, everyone would have one!

Hey everyone, having trouble doing research and need to throw it over to the Photo.net community!

 

I am going to Japan for the first time later in the year (very excited, hit me up with any recommendations). I thought it'd be really cool to shoot the whole trip on medium format. It is such a photogenic country and I'd love to bring it to life on the larger format.

 

As I'll be travelling around heaps everyday I wanted your recommendation for a compact medium format camera that wont break the bank and a single lens for that camera that'll let me capture my whole trip!

 

Many thanks

 

A SINGLE lens will ALWAYS be a compromise.

 

The normal 80mm lens has been used for decades.

But as a single lens it is a compromise; sometimes it will not be wide enough, and sometimes it won't be long enough.

A SINGLE lens will ALWAYS be a compromise

I always shied away from buying one of the limited range of zooms for my M645s. Now I'm thinking they might not be too bad, since most of my old Mammy lenses have shown themselves to be fine performers on a DSLR or MILC.

I think if such a thing existed, everyone would have one!

hehe^^

Wow...you are in for a treat. I have been to Asia and you will want to take more pictures than you have film for. If it were me, I would go budget friendly with a Yashica TLR. They are plentiful on Ebay and quality cameras can be found. I have had 4 Yashica TLR's and you can really do well with them. They are not too big and are built very sturdy...great for travel. Worth looking into. Look for the latest model you can afford as the lenses increased in quality with the newer models. Good luck and have a great trip.

 

The OP ended up going with a Mamiya 6 which sounds like a good option given their requirements.

 

This thread and similar ones raise a question for me. What does "compact" mean to people when it comes to medium format cameras? Because I don't think of a 6X6 TLR as compact. ;)

 

And there's a related question I have. Why choose a medium format camera over a 35mm?

 

I choose a medium format camera when I may want a quality print that's larger than what I can get from a good 35mm camera/lens combination. Are there other reasons?

 

And if that's the reason one would choose to use a medium format camera, can you get those shots that are suitable for large prints while shooting handheld? If not and you're bringing a tripod with you anyway, how compact does the camera itself really need to be?

The OP ended up going with a Mamiya 6 which sounds like a good option given their requirements.

 

This thread and similar ones raise a question for me. What does "compact" mean to people when it comes to medium format cameras? Because I don't think of a 6X6 TLR as compact. ;)

 

And there's a related question I have. Why choose a medium format camera over a 35mm?

 

I choose a medium format camera when I may want a quality print that's larger than what I can get from a good 35mm camera/lens combination. Are there other reasons?

 

And if that's the reason one would choose to use a medium format camera, can you get those shots that are suitable for large prints while shooting handheld? If not and you're bringing a tripod with you anyway, how compact does the camera itself really need to be?

 

Compact compared to a RB-67 ;)

 

But even in the 35mm world, there is the comparison my cousin and I did in the 1970s; Olympus OM1 vs. Nikon F2.

The OM1 was a lightweight compact compared to the F2.

But the OM1 was still bigger than the little Rollie.

 

I think of it as partially nostalgia and doing something different.

WHY would I shoot 35mm, 6x6 or even worse my 4x5 view camera, when it is so much easier to shoot digital.

Compact compared to a RB-67 ;)

 

But even in the 35mm world, there is the comparison my cousin and I did in the 1970s; Olympus OM1 vs. Nikon F2.

The OM1 was a lightweight compact compared to the F2.

But the OM1 was still bigger than the little Rollie.

 

I think of it as partially nostalgia and doing something different.

WHY would I shoot 35mm, 6x6 or even worse my 4x5 view camera, when it is so much easier to shoot digital.

 

Right, but the OM1 or the F2 gives you something you don't get with a Rollie and that's versatility. I shoot digital, 35mm, and medium format but I don't have any particular nostalgia for MF at all. I do appreciate that there are benefits to a larger negative but when do those benefits really come into play and do they come into play at all with hand-held shooting?

 

Now, this is something I've heard more than directly experienced, - that a large print won't be sharp unless the camera is supported somehow. Maybe that's my real question.

Now, this is something I've heard more than directly experienced, - that a large print won't be sharp unless the camera is supported somehow. Maybe that's my real question.

 

This really depends on a number of factors . . . Look at the pro sports market? Most of those are hand held but at high enough shutter speeds to be tack sharp. The more difficult part is precise framing when the camera will move a little during the process of pressing the button. Some small desired detail may disappear from the edge of the frame while some undesirable small detail encroaches.

This really depends on a number of factors . . . Look at the pro sports market? Most of those are hand held but at high enough shutter speeds to be tack sharp. The more difficult part is precise framing when the camera will move a little during the process of pressing the button. Some small desired detail may disappear from the edge of the frame while some undesirable small detail encroaches.

 

I thought sports photography relied pretty heavily on monopods...

I thought sports photography relied pretty heavily on monopods...

 

Look closely at the sidelines of an NFL game . . . Most of the guys have a 300-400 lens on a monopod and 80-200 lens around their neck.

Look closely at the sidelines of an NFL game . . . Most of the guys have a 300-400 lens on a monopod and 80-200 lens around their neck.

 

Leaving the high end digital sports photography out of it for a minute. :)

 

Let's say you've got a MF camera with a mechanical shutter limited to 500 or maybe 1000. And you're shooting with a normal lens. Can you get a sharp enough photo handheld for a nice 24 x 24 print?

 

I know there's a lot of variables, but in practice would people want to use a tripod for something like that or could you get good results without one?

 

(I'm kind of hoping you say yes, you can get good results hand-held)

I used to shoot weddings with an RB-67 on a bracket, handheld, and make 20x24 prints from the Porta negatives. My answer would be use a tripod when it works better for you or if you can't hold a camera still enough to get the sharpness that you need.

 

BTW: Those sports shooters had the same lenses when they were shooting film . . .

Below is a picture of a few of the cameras I have. The two on the left are MF cameras. The other 3 are a mix of film and digital cameras that I consider compact.

 

The one in the middle barely qualifies and the qualification is that I can stick it in a pants pocket. The one on the right is a P&S and the only camera I've ever bought with travel in mind. It can survive and be used under 60ft of water.

 

 

The Fujica GS645 (2nd from left) is my most recent purchase and I got it because I wanted a compact MF camera. However it will barely fit even in a coat pocket and then only if you don't mind one side of your coat hanging about 3 inches lower than the other. It will fit in the side pocket of my commuter back pack which I do travel with. And you can reach the side pocket without taking the pack off, so it may work out.

 

Some overhead shots to given an idea of relative thickness:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I don't have anymore is the Agfa Isolette, - an early version which was truly pocketable.

Edited September 18, 2019 by tomspielman

I used to shoot weddings with an RB-67 on a bracket, handheld, and make 20x24 prints from the Porta negatives. My answer would be use a tripod when it works better for you or if you can't hold a camera still enough to get the sharpness that you need.

 

BTW: Those sports shooters had the same lenses when they were shooting film . . .

 

Great. That's very helpful.

I thought sports photography relied pretty heavily on monopods...

 

Only for the heavy stuff like 400/2.8

Or if you have to keep the lens up for an extended period of time. Such as waiting for a particular shot.

 

I shoot a 70-200 f/4 to keep the weight down, so that I can shoot free-hand.

I prefer to use my 70-200/4 free-hand. I get a much larger arc of coverage. Example, to follow a running back down the field for a TD. The monopod by comparison limits my arc of coverage, unless I pick up the monopod and free-hand it, or move/pivot my entire body around the monopod.

On a 2 game sequence, I use a monopod for the JV game (half or the entire game), so I can rest my arms for the Varsity game, which I shoot free-hand.

 

The young guys can free-hand the heavier f/2.8 lens.

So if I'm alright shooting hand-held as long as the light's good enough for a fast-ish shutter speed, then the Fujica might not have been a waste of money, - which makes me happy.

 

We'll see if it's compact enough to really make a difference. I like the results I get with the Yashica, I just don't like carrying it around. The Fujica is not as svelte as I had hoped but maybe it's just svelte enough. They clearly put a lot of effort into making it thin. It's only a little thicker than the Stylus XZ-2. But it's a little tall and a little heavy.