Deciding on MF.

<p>I thought for a while now. I shoot slides with low photog. </p>

<p>I thought of a P67 or a Hassie. Budgetwise I might want to spend $500US not incl lenses to maybe $1,000US. </p>

<p>Is the P67ii still holding to a good price out there? What about the Hassie's? Some are going for $300US. Which ones would you suggest, there are much out there. I don't need a light meter as I would have a external light meter. Or would Hassie's lenses be too pricey for a hobbyist like myself? Mamiya are too heavy. </p>

<p>I probably only get 3 or 4 lenses ever on MF. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>The prices are climbing! Don't see anything like that here in Canada. Even KEH is way higher.i owned a Pentax 6x7. The reasons i chose it over the Hasselblad was rectangular image, more like a Elephant sized 35mm. The reasons i hated it..hard to make contact sheet, with all negs on ONE page. Carrying a few lenses in medium format simply awesome! i feel same way about DSLR with their humungous sized lenses. Guess once, one uses a Leica, the world is different.<br>

So to make this advice simple. Get a Rollei, Mamiya or other TLR. Its Medium Format. There are no other lenses except for the very Earth Bound Mamiya. The joy of a Rollei esp the original Rolleiflex is automatic loading. The newer Rolleis were based on the Rolleicord, the cheaper version. Very capable.<br>

I traded the P67 and all its lenses for a Leica M6 at Samys, in LA.<br>

Truthfully in 20 years of ownership, less than 100 films thru it!<br>

Samys could see that easily. Good trade as they, "Samys" could rent my system to fashion and editorial photographers.<br>

120 medium format a problem with processing.</p>

<p>A hasselblad 501cm was the best and most fun medium format film camera I owned. The square format shook up my standard way of seeing landscapes, and that was a good thing (there will always be compositions that look best as rectangles, others that look best as squares). I enjoyed some of the inherent advantages of film (e.g., shooting with the sun in the frame, relatively low cost). But I also enjoyed the advantages of digital (immediate feedback), and I'm increasing skeptical about the future of film and film processors, especially in color.</p>

<p>Depends on what you want - for handheld and outdoor use the RB / RZ is a pain. The Hassy is much more portable but expensive. Jason makes a good point on the Mamiya - I replaced my RZ with two outfits. I got a Fuji GX680 outfit which is even more massive than the RZ but does have full front lens movement and Mamiya M645 for walk around stuff. I have to say that neither system gets the use of and SLR system and using the Fuji is a special event.<br>

It is a question of price and weight - the Hassy is possibly the best choice as it is portable but the lenses are expensive. The RZ is very good quality and reasonably priced but the system is not that portable and is best used on a tripod. The 645 systems form Pentax, Bronica and Mamiya are all very attractively priced and portable but the quality is not quite as good as the larger format systems.<br>

I shoot B&W and slide in MF - the B&W I do myself as processing in Canada is almost impossible and the results are poor. Slide is expensive to have processed but complex to do at home - I use Vistek who do a great (but expensive) job. I am fortunate enough to own a Nikon 9000 scanner so I do all my own scans although I still like to print B&W in a wet process as I never quite get what I want using digital.</p>

<p>I agree with Jason that 6x7 is awkward for contact sheets. 12 shots of 6x6 fit nicely onto an 8x10 sheet; you can only get nine of 6x7, but there are ten shots in each roll. Also, holding the P67 vertically without a tripod is tiring. Worst of all is the amazing kick that the camera delivers every time you take a picture -- the mirror slap and focal-plane shutter motion are both loud and physically dramatic. For these reasons, I don't shoot the P67 all that often, for all that it is an excellent system in many other respects.</p>

<p>I also have a Mamiya TLR. 6x6 is not always a convenient format, in that many images would like to be rectangular. You can always crop, but then you might as well be shooting 645. However, the Mamiya is a wonderful camera to shoot. It's quiet, and the waist-level finder's magnified view is large and clear. And unlike most TLRs, the Mamiyas have interchangeable lenses. Changing the lens is a slow process compared to an SLR's bayonet mount, but it's better than having to carry two cameras as you would with a Rollei. The only major downside of TLRs is the parallax between the viewing and taking lenses. This isn't an issue with distant subjects, but up close (for portraits, especially with longer lenses) you'd want to practice to get used to compensating for it, or shoot from a tripod with a paramender (a clever little gadget Mamiya used to sell that allows you to compose in the viewfinder, then move the camera up exactly the right amount to put the taking lens exactly where the viewing lens was so that you get exactly the shot that you saw -- though this is useless if your subject is moving).</p>

<p>Lastly, I have an old German 6x6 folding camera, the sort of thing that back in the 1930s was probably considered "pocket-sized" though it's larger and much heavier than what we would call "pocketable" today. It actually does fit into my jacket pocket. It's a nice little thing, and it has a coupled rangefinder. Something like this would certainly give you MF in a relatively convenient package. The main downside is the lack of interchangeable lenses and a complete lack of modern amenities and accessories.</p>

<p>If I were to buy another MF camera, it would either be a Hasselblad or maybe one of Fuji's 6x9 rangefinders.</p>

<p>You might consider a 645 camera. These are far lighter than any of the 67 SLR's. And the negative size is sufficiently large enough to produce prints or chromes far superior to 35MM. The Pentax 645 and the Mamiya's are dirt cheap and highly capable. Plus their lenses not having shutters aboard, are much cheaper than Hassy glass.</p>

<p>Could someone give me a quick run down on the costs? Ie. a basic body, any finder (WLF is fine), no need meter and a price for a normal lens and a slight wide angle like a 28mm on 135 format? So I get an idea of what is feasible. </p>

<p>*I rather not get 645. Mamiya is too big and heavy. TLR etc .. is not my style. Main use is color slides for outdoor landscape and cityscape photography. Maybe even overseas travel.</p>

<p>Contact sheets isn't something I need. I just scan the film into Lightroom. When I want to work on it further I grab it out again.</p>

<p>Sounds like you're set on an SLR format then. If you want something Hasselblad-like (in terms of body shape) but much less expensive, you might look into the Bronica GS-1. If you want something more like a conventional 35mm SLR, but shooting 120/220 film, then the Pentax 67 is a good choice if you think you won't mind the noise and vibration of the shutter/mirror actions.</p>

<p>For prices, consult Adorama.com and KEH.com. From what I see in a quick glance at both of those, the Bronica looks to be less expensive than the Pentax, which in turn, not surprisingly, is cheaper than the Hasselblad. For the Bronica, you'd need a body, a finder, a back (probably 120, since at this point there aren't very many options in 220 format), and at least one lens.</p>

<p>I would take Craig's advice and look at the prices on KEH.com their EX standard is very good. Wide angle lenses can be expensive so you may want to look into Bronica, Pentax 645 and Mamiya 645. If you want a metering prism and wide angle lenses these systems are much cheaper and more like an SLR in handling.</p>

<p>I been looking at fleabay, how are they Hassie 500 CM or ELM? Around three hundred bucks. And for the lenses go old or more modern?</p>

<p>I shoot off a tripod mostly even with my dSLR and 35mm fSLR. Yeah .. the Hassie does have some allure. I shoot slow film only.</p>

<p> " If you want something Hasselblad-like (in terms of body shape) but much less expensive, you might look into the Bronica GS-1."<br>

I would have thought an SQAi would be a more obvious choice.</p>

 

<p>Ebay is the way it is. You may get lucky and find a nice one for not much, or you may come across a real lemon. But to be honest, unless the seller is honestly totally clueless (many pretend to be to protect themselves against obvious faults - oh, I dunno anything about cameras...), then assume that an extremely low price is an indication of shape or wear or both. As ususal, use common sense etc. beware of seller with feedback below 100% positive, firm return policy and so on.</p>

<p>If it is portability you are after, then the ELx models are not what I would recommend. This is also why they are cheaper than C models. They require a power source, battery adapter, as the original NiCads are probably shot at this stage. At any rate, the bodies are not the system components that are the most critical. Fully functioning lenses and backs are much more so. Safest route is to buy lenses and backs that have recently been CLA'd, as they do take some wear and tear. Concerning "old" or "new lenses, if you read through this forum, you will see many posts discussing the pro's and con's of getting C, CF, CFi or even CFE lenses. Regardless, make sure they have been serviced, unless almost brand new of course.</p>

<p>Which brings me to my last point: there is, in addition to the purchasing cost of a Hasselblad system, a certain "cost of ownership", meaning service. It's not a question of "if" rather "when" components will need to be sent in for a CLA. Obviously milage varies, but unless you buy something which is virtually straight out from servicing, budget in for these costs as well.</p>

<p><strong>I been looking at fleabay, how are they Hassie 500 CM or ELM? Around three hundred bucks.</strong><br>

There's no way you will get a 500cm for $300 or anywhere close. You're not adding up the true cost--after you figure in a finder, magazine, and lens, it's more like $1k, and that's for stuff that's usually beat up or old (or both). It's silly what people claim is "excellent" or "mint" on ebay. That kind of equipment is KEH's "ugly." </p>

You will, Scott, you will.<br>Prices have dropped quite a bit, and it is indeed possible to get a prefectly good Hasselblad body, sometimes even with ditto magazine (and sometimes even with a lens attached) for as little as $ 300. You can get fine lenses starting from $ 250. A complete working Hasselblad kit (camera, lens, magazine) could be yours for well short of the $ 1000 mark.<br>But as Ingemar wrote, it's a matter of knowing what to go for, what to let pass. You need to be able to recognize a good body, or lens. And then still you need luck.

<p>Q.C., I have no idea where you would get a "full" 500C/M that you would actually want for $300 sans lens. I bought mine two years ago, and I paid about $450 for one in about an 8/10 condition and with a Kiev viewfinder. Now you can definitely get one for $200-$300 in various conditions, but I doubt it will have the WLF or a back. It's also possible that I spent more on the back than I needed, but that's at most a $50 adjustment to the price.<br /><br />That said, if you only want to own a few lenses and a single back, I strongly recommend the Hassy. If you want to own more than (arbitrary number) three lenses and/or multiple backs, it adds up FAST. You can buy two or even three Bronica backs for the same cost as a single Hassy back with the same specs. I just paid something like $150 for a non-electronic early 90s back in very good (but not excellent) condition. A like-new one may have been around $250 or $300.</p>

<p>If you do go Hassy though, I would stick with the 500 or 501 ... I probably wouldn't even bother with the other models. The biggest advantage to the 503 is that you can buy a motorized grip (for $300) or a metered prism (about the same), and they work better with digital backs. The 200-series has a focal-plane shutter, which allows you to use some very expensive f/2 and f/2.8 lenses. The newer models also have a gliding mirror, which makes using long telephotos easier. But electronics and accessory selection aside, all non-focal plane models after and including the 500C/M are about the same mechanically, since the lens actually does most of the work.</p>

<p>Do you need more modern lenses? Probably not. I personally prefer the older ones myself because of how they render skin tones when using black and white film, but they newer ones have better coatings. My 80mm is one of the (slightly) more modern CF T* lenses, and my others are C and C T* lenses. It is much easier to change shutter speed or aperture on the CF lenses though; they are linked by default on the C lenses.</p>

<p>The P67 (along with the II) uses a focal plane shutter. I was under the impression that Hasselblads might use more leaf shutter lenses. Is that accurate? If so, for flash photography, the Hasselblad would be more flexible.</p>

<p>Also, that focal plane shutter gives a bit of a kick, even after the mirror is locked. A solid tripod, head, and custom QR plate are highly recommended. For handheld shooting, I would prefer a Hasselblad. The P67II is ideal for backpacking and outdoor shooting in natural light.</p>

<p>The P67II's metering prism is the most reliable in-camera meter I have ever used. It makes the results of N---n and C---n's meter seem randomized by comparison.</p>

 

<p>The Hasselblad V system (500 etc.) uses leaf shutters, which have the advantage of flash sync at all the shutter speeds. One cool thing about those lenses (or the ones I've used anyway) is that the shutter dial and aperture dial are linked, you can hold down a little button while you turn and they turn together to keep the same EV (and the EV is labeled) so you can use it pretty easily with those guides that tell you what EV for what lighting conditions, so long as you remember to move it up and down in your head to account for the film ISO.</p>

<p>The Pentax 67 is cool because it's basically an SLR made for Andre the Giant. If you do use flash, you have to remember that because it uses a huge horizontal travel shutter, its sync speed is only 1/30. (One of the usual suspect photo gear magazines did a review on Ektar 100 film a year or two ago, and made the mistake of getting a guy who doesn't actually shoot 120 film to review the 120 version - so he pulled his P67, which he hadn't used in probably 10 years, out of the back of his closet and shot a roll in the studio with flash using 1/60 shutter. Then he couldn't figure out where to take the film for processing, even though he lives in NYC, and when he finally succeeded he had frames that were half blacked out by the non-synced shutter. At least the guy who reviewed the 35mm version was good.) It does have an available TTL meter prism, which is nice. It can also be had for less money than a Hasselblad.</p>

<p>"I shoot slides with low photog."<br>

Hi Ray,<br>

I retained the above words from you and I wonder if you intend to keep shooting slides when you get a MF system, and how do you use them (projection, scanning for integration into a digital workflow, sale for publishing, etc.).<br>

IMHO, if you intend to stick with slides you should start choosing the MF (6x7, 6x6, 6x4,5) as this can make a difference if you want to project and even to scan them, as well as deciding if a square format suits you or if you require a rectangle framing for your images.<br>

Also important is to know what kind of photography you usually make (studio, location, on the move, use of flash, kind of subjects) to get a system that is the best match (if you do studio or tripod is not the same as handheld; flash for portrait doesn't require the same sync speed as fast moving subjects; sports are different from landscape, etc.).<br>

After these steps you come to costs and your budget, but I think buying a cheaper camera that doesn't fulfill your needs will not be a good decision.<br>

All the best, regards</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I meant slides with low light photography, shooting off a tripod 98% of the time. I do landscapes and cityscapes only. Not need flash. </p>

<p>I won't be able to afford a projector. So it is scanning or get lab to print or look on a lightbox.</p>

<p>Hi Ray<br>

So, if the weight is not a major issue the larger format will be better for scanning, and 6x7 has a slight advantage over 6x6.<br>

Other aspects as light meter doesn't seem to be a decisive factor as you said a WLF would be ok for you and by your types of photography you probably will use a handheld meter.<br>

If you go for the Pentax, see the differences between P67 and P67 II as this one has some new things and seems to address the film spacing issue of the former model. And if the older one is an option look for a version that can lock the mirror up.<br>

If the square 6x6 suits you, the 501CM is a good option and for cityscapes that don't require a wide the Planar 100mm f:3.5 is a must have lens, in terms of definition and no distortion. That one with the 50mm would make a good set, maybe complemented by the 150mm.<br>

C and C T* lenses are nice and much cheaper than the CF line. One of most obvious "inconveniences" being the use of a wire connection if you envisage the future use of a digital back (who knows if some day we see them cheaper in the used market? - This is not possible at all with the P67, but Hasselblad still offers the new backs for the V system). OK, CF lenses are newer and have some advantages but the price premium is high.<br>

Regards,</p>

<i>"Q.C., I have no idea where you would get a "full" 500C/M that you would actually want for $300 sans lens. [...]"</i><br><br>It may be luck helping me, but i do not find it that hard. I don't buy many cameras, backs or and lenses. The last two i bought were a perfect condition Moon landing anniversary EL/M body for (converted using today's exchange rate) $ 270. And a very good 500 C (only needed to have a part of the vinyl covering replaced - got that from Cameraleather as part of a full set, so rather too expensive for just that single, one bit of vinyl. But still...) i bought for (better sit down now) $ 98 Canadian (= US $ 103 today).<br>Both including all relevant bits, but without lens and magazine. Both last year. Both off eBay.<br><br>As for lenses: i put together a nice chrome C lens set - 50, 80, 120, 150 and 250 mm - for someone. And except for the flash synch of the 80 mm, all working perfectly. Surprisingly good looks too. And excellent condition glass as well. Would not have minded having and using those myself.<br>I have not paid as much as Eu 200 (about $ 280) for any single one of them.<br><br>Backs: to go with the 500 C, i found a NIB manual 12 magazine for $ 46. Had to change the light seals (since i do that myself, about $1 and 10 minutes), and then it really was like new.<br><br>In short: yes, it certainly can be done.

A Mamiya RB with (a brand new 127mm KL lens from KEH listed as "LN", by the way, for $140 - ) is not that much

larger than a Hassy.

 

Anyway my best advice is to skip 645 and skip 6x6 and go straight to 6x7. Then get yourself any enlarger and you will

be a King .

A Mamiya RB with (a brand new 127mm KL lens from KEH listed as "LN", by the way, for $140 - ) is not that much

larger than a Hassy.

 

Anyway my best advice is to skip 645 and skip 6x6 and go straight to 6x7. Then get yourself any enlarger and you will

be a King .

<p>I agree with QG. You can find a good Hasselblad kit for under $1.000. But not much under that (for a "complete" outfit) and probably not on ebay. The signal to noise ratio is just too low. Because that is, in my view, still a significant amount of cash - especially if you end up with tired old gear - I would want to know what I am getting and therefore only buy from trusted sources. KEH is very good. Their "graduating" system is conservative, to say the least.</p>

<p>Another good option is right here, under our noses: The classified board here on pnet. Most of our fellow members know what they are selling, so you are likely to get what you pay for - in the good sense. This is where I picked up my Blad outfit, 2 lenses and backs, Kiev prism, plus a boxful of other goodies for under a grand. My most recent purchase here was by putting up a WTB ad for an OM T10 macro ring flash, which was answered in less than 2 days. Not only did the member offer me that, but the oh-so-rare-as-hens-teeth cross-polariser filter that was sold as a separate option in the day and which is virtually impossible to find today. Except for silly money. I will always remain ever so grateful to both members.</p>

<p>Sticking my chin out here: Whilst I respect other peoples suggestions to get Bronicas, Mamiyas, Pentax etc. and whilst those are most certainly nice pieces of kit, in my mind, it is a bit like getting a Nissan GT-R, instead of a Porsche or Ferrari. No matter how nice the Nissan, you will always be lusting for "the real thing". The key is in the glass. Nothing beats Zeiss lenses, whatever people or MTF diagrams will tell you. I have recently converted a fellow photographer, who used to swear by his Canon EF, Mamiya 7 and Pentax 645 lenses, to Zeiss, which he is using with adapters with his gear. He will not use any other brand lenses from now on. It is only a question of time until he buys in to the rest of the system.</p>

<p>Get a Hasseblad system and be done with it. You know you will want to and eventually you may get there anyhow. No point in beating around the bush.</p>

<p>Brace for incoming I suppose...let the flames rise! :)</p>