Deciding on MF.

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by raymondc, Jun 11, 2011.

  1. I thought for a while now. I shoot slides with low photog.
    I thought of a P67 or a Hassie. Budgetwise I might want to spend $500US not incl lenses to maybe $1,000US.
    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.
    I probably only get 3 or 4 lenses ever on MF.
    Thanks.
     
  2. 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.
    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.
    I traded the P67 and all its lenses for a Leica M6 at Samys, in LA.
    Truthfully in 20 years of ownership, less than 100 films thru it!
    Samys could see that easily. Good trade as they, "Samys" could rent my system to fashion and editorial photographers.
    120 medium format a problem with processing.
     
  3. stp

    stp

    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.
     
  4. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  5. 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.
    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).
    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.
    If I were to buy another MF camera, it would either be a Hasselblad or maybe one of Fuji's 6x9 rangefinders.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
    *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.
    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.
     
  8. 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.
    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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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?
    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.
     
  11. " If you want something Hasselblad-like (in terms of body shape) but much less expensive, you might look into the Bronica GS-1."
    I would have thought an SQAi would be a more obvious choice.
     
  12. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  13. I been looking at fleabay, how are they Hassie 500 CM or ELM? Around three hundred bucks.
    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."
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.

    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  16. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  17. 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.
    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.
     
  18. "I shoot slides with low photog."
    Hi Ray,
    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.).
    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.
    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.).
    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.
    All the best, regards
     
  19. I meant slides with low light photography, shooting off a tripod 98% of the time. I do landscapes and cityscapes only. Not need flash.
    I won't be able to afford a projector. So it is scanning or get lab to print or look on a lightbox.
     
  20. Hi Ray
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Regards,
     
  21. "Q.C., I have no idea where you would get a "full" 500C/M that you would actually want for $300 sans lens. [...]"

    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).
    Both including all relevant bits, but without lens and magazine. Both last year. Both off eBay.

    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.
    I have not paid as much as Eu 200 (about $ 280) for any single one of them.

    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.

    In short: yes, it certainly can be done.
     
  22. 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 .
     
  23. 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 .
     
  24. 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.
    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.
     
  25. 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.
    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.
    Brace for incoming I suppose...let the flames rise! :)
     
  26. I agree/disagree (respectfully) to several posters. Yes, 6x7 is awkward for contact sheets, and my
    setup (body, WLF, metered chimney finder, half a dozen lenses, 2x extender
    & 3 macro tubes is 95 pounds!
    Also, using most 6x7 cameras
    vertically (on its side) without a tripod is tiring (to say the least. For
    these reasons (and others), I don't shoot the 6x7 all that often, having said
    that - it is an excellent system in other ways.
    I used to have several Mamiya TLR’s (C220/C33)[sold them for
    more 645 gear]. 6x6 can be a fairly convenient format, in that many images seem
    to come out better in a rectangular format after cropping. I got very tired of post shooting cropping and
    then I just got (thru Photo.net) a Mamiya Pro TL 645. It (Mamiya) is a
    wonderful camera to shoot. It's quiet, and the eye level prisms view is large
    and clear.
    A Mamiya Pro TL body (manual focus) with
    a brand new 80 or 110mm lens from KEH listed as "LN", by the way, for
    $200-300) – and ‘down by the *bay you can find other even better deals [buyer
    beware as always].
    Anyway my best advice is to look at
    how YOU compose/shoot and decide which film/camera format (645, 6x6, 6x7, or
    even 6x9. I have had great scans sof 120
    Fujichrome (20-30MP equivalent).
    Oh well, just my $0.02.
    Good luck
    Derek
     
  27. Q.G. de Bakker [​IMG][​IMG], Jun 12, 2011; 07:16 p.m.
    "Q.C., I have no idea where you would get a "full" 500C/M that you would actually want for $300 sans lens. [...]"

    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).
    Both including all relevant bits, but without lens and magazine. Both last year. Both off eBay.

    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.
    I have not paid as much as Eu 200 (about $ 280) for any single one of them.

    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.

    In short: yes, it certainly can be done.​
    Those are not 500C/Ms, Sir :) The ELs go for quite a bit less than the non-electronic versions due to the extra size and weight (and weirdo batteries), and the 500Cs are much cheaper than the C/Ms. They are mechanically indentical (I think the only difference is a user-replacable screen on the C/M), but they are generally much older cameras.
    I'm not saying those aren't good deals, mind you. I'm just saying that's not the $300 500 C/M kit you told me you could get :)
     
  28. You are right, Zack. Those were not 500 C/Ms. I just took the last two Hasselblad cameras i bought as an example.<br>However, though the EL(...) models do indeed sell for less, an anniversary model (though nothing more than a regular one with a plaque attached) usually sells for more than 500 C/Ms.<br>I don't agree that 500 Cs "are much cheaper". Or rather, i haven't noticed they do in my 'market watching' activities. I haven't notice any big difference in price between 500 C and 500 C/Ms, apart from the one the 'usual' spread in price will show: you come across people asking twice to three times as much as other people do for comparable 500 C/Ms (or any other model). But that difference between your and my view could be due to variations in where we watch, when we watch and what we watch to get an impression of what the market does.<br><br>Now i feel challenged to get a complete, working 500 C/M set for about $ 300 ... ;-)<br><br>Prices vary a lot, and given time and a tiny bit of luck, i'm sure that i could do that though. Price variation is something you need to be able to judge.<br>A large part of the wide range of asking prices for (seemingly?) similar camera bodies reflects the sentiment of the seller: does he/she think the camera being sold is a priceless bit of machinery, destined to make him/her rich in one single transaction? Or is the thing being sold as an obsolete bit of metal, a thing in the way of the new digital gear that's now in use? But an also not insignificant part of it reflects condition. Quite a few sellers not only know the condition of the the gear they are selling, but (luckily) also are not that unscrupulous to hide the fact, but let the asking price reflect the condition. Something the buyer needs to be able to appreciate and judge correctly.<br><br>One other thing to keep in mind: though the difference in age between a 500 C/M and 500 C can be as much as 37 years, it can also be as small as 1 year. The difference in age between a 500 C and a 500 C/M can well be smaller than that between two 500 C/Ms.
     
  29. Hi
    No matter the age, being able to change the focusing screen and to use one with a grid can be of interest to someone that does a lot of cityscapes.
     
  30. A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5

    A 6x7 negative is a full format larger than 6x4.5

    Therefore a 6x7 ngative is really a full format larger than 6x6 when printing 5x7 or 8x10 16x20.

    Finally Mamiya RB has a 6x8 motor back that puts 9 images from a 120 roll on a single contact sheet.

    In short camera fanatics prefer Hassy 6x6. Discerning Photographers prefer Mamiya RZ, RB, and Mamiya 7 6x7.
     
  31. Hey Ray:
    It's always a loaded question when asking which is the better choice. All the top brands are wonderful. That's why they are top brands. Several posters will be objective and answer your questions and concerns. Many of the people here will make grand statements, about the equipment, as if it's a religious experience, that they can't backup. Negative size, quality of glass, and all that other bull is secondary to you finding a good camera that fits your style and budget.
    Great photographers have shot with all the cameras mentioned. If you're proficient with post processing, whether wet or dry darkroom. You can get a masterpiece out of any camera...Like the old saying, "It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Get a camera that works, then work to get the images that please you.
    Who the hell cares what paintbrush Picasso used?
     
  32. "Like the old saying, "It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Get a camera that works, then work to get the images that please you. Who the hell cares what paintbrush Picasso used?"

    Picasso did.

    If it's the fight in the dog that counts, it pays to take care to select the right dog.

    Anyone who thinks the quality and peculiarities of the tool do not matter hasn't mastered the craft enough to notice how they do.

    Must be some sort of religious experience that makes people profess publicly that they believe that the tool does not matter.
     
  33. Discerning photographers, Andre, do not let their composition be dictated by the confection sizes paper comes in. Not back when photos would indeed end up on paper. Not now, when most aren't.<br>6x6 images do not end up cropped to 6x4.5, unless you want then to be. I'm looking at a beautiful image made by David Smith at the bottom of this page. Can't imagine what practical purpose would dictate it should be cropped to an oblong size. Maybe you can enlighten us, tell us what we're missing here, Andre? ;-)<br><br>P.S.<br>Things change fast: the image is gone, but replaced (for now) by another nice square composition by David.<br>Maybe it will have disappeared too when you or i return to the page. But don't let that make you lose sight of the point, being that only camera fanatics obsess about format, say silly things about "discerning photographers" preferring a particular format. Free your mind of such silly thoughts, Andre, and let the concern about the image take precedence over such gear oriented silliness. ;-)
     
  34. There are painters who have done masterpieces without using the brushes that Picasso used.
    But maybe they should had you around to tell which ones were right. Your bias is beyond belief. My point is there are many fine cameras one can buy, not just the one you advocate. The right tool(s) are subjective.
    I stated that the tools were secondary. I never said they didn't matter.....Imagination and creativity...where do you buy those at?
     
  35. I'm largely with Andre on this one. If you actually use it, 6x7 feels like a whole new world over 645 and 6x6.
    On the other hand, the OP is right: the RB/RZ are way heavier than 'blads. The 'blad is a truly lovely design, fits the hand perfectly, and if you can compose to the square, makes brilliant prints.
    The correct thing to do is to use both. Oh, yes. At least at KEH, used 'blads are holding their value quite nicely. I'm sure you can find "deals" on 'blads on ebay, but there's no guarantee that it'll work and you're on your own if something goes wrong. In the ten or more years that people have been claiming that used camera prices are dropping, no camera you would actually want to use has dropped in price at all.
     
  36. What bias would that be, Phil? What did i advocate?<br>See the bias ("bull") that is dominating your (!) thinking?<br><br>Anyhow: it's a silly (to put it mildly) suggestion that the tool would not matter. It does.<br>Which tool is right for the job depends on what you want, and what you like. Of course it does. But don't take that to mean that all considerations regarding equipment is "bull".<br>It "is the fight in the dog". So select your dog carefully.
     
  37. Apparently Mr. de Bakker you didn't read my original post carefully. First, it wasn't addressed to you. It was (if I have the right to an opinion) about several post and the fact that all the top brands can produce excellent results, and he (Ray) should find one that fits his taste and budget. There were some grand statements about which ones were better, and I still say that's (bull) It was not directed at you, and the fight in the dog was in reference to hard work and creativity, thus the reference to post processing.
    I'm just sorry you weren't around to steer me in the right direction, when I got started.
     
  38. Ray. One thing you do want to consider is the cost of scanning. Paying others quickly gets expensive - in Canada I
    was paying about $30 for good 6x8 scans and not a lot less for 645. I then bought an Epson which probably can be
    made to give good scans but I found it very slow and tedious. Eventually I got a Nikon 9000 and glass holder which
    solved my problems but cost $2,500. Whatever you decide you should factor scanning into your budget.
     
  39. The Hasselblad V system (500 etc.) uses leaf shutters, which have the advantage of flash sync at all the shutter speeds.​
    Andy L, thanks for confirming this!
    (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.)​
    Oh, brother! And we're supposed to pay for advice from these clowns!
     
  40. One final thought: Many people say that the Mamiya RZ and RB are studio only cameras. They say this primarily because the cameras are boxy and have zero sex appeal compared to Rollei, Hassy, etc.
    Appearances are deceiving: these are precision crafted machines with very sharp optics with beautiful bokeh.
     
  41. I have a Epson V700 scanner. I might get a used Coolscan 8000 as they are cheaper. My 35mm isn't that sharp with my present V700.
     
  42. Andre Noble , Jun 13, 2011; 12:14 p.m.
    A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5
    A 6x7 negative is a full format larger than 6x4.5
    Therefore a 6x7 ngative is really a full format larger than 6x6 when printing 5x7 or 8x10 16x20.
    Finally Mamiya RB has a 6x8 motor back that puts 9 images from a 120 roll on a single contact sheet.
    In short camera fanatics prefer Hassy 6x6. Discerning Photographers prefer Mamiya RZ, RB, and Mamiya 7 6x7.​
    Define 'discerning photographers.' I would bet money that there's an almost 50/50 split between magazine photographers that use Hasseys and RBs, and has been since the RB came out. Does that mean that Leibovitz and Mapplethorpe are not discerning photographers? Or does that mean that RB users are less discerning than 4x5 users? Or that no one actually prefers the square format?
    Personally, I bought a Hasselblad because I like 1950s and 60s photography, and couldn't afford to shoot and scan 4x5. But now I prefer the square format.
     
  43. Hi Ray
    There is no doubt that flatbeds are not the best film scanners you can find, but the ones you can call the best are too expensive, as the bill a specialized service will charge you if they use drum, Imacon or Hasselblad scanners (don't even atempt to check the price of one of these...).
    Nikon is now out the film scanner market.Models like the 8000 or 9000 got a good reputation but prices for used scanners are not the "softer" ones, as far as I can understand.
    Ref to your V700, as a flatbed the larger the negative the better and 35mm is not its best format for it. Also, some people try to "squeeze" quality and end up with not so good results as if they use the scanner at lower resolutions.
    Probably it is not your case but I leave you links to an interesting V750 review (but most things also apply to V700). Besides being interesting to read it all, the first one goes direct to a page referring 35mm and the second to MF:
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_4.htm
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
    Your opinion about V700 and 35mm film reminds me of Paul Gallagher, a UK Fine Art photographer that says he uses a V750 to scan his LF (4x5”) and MF (6x7, he uses a Mamya RB67) negatives but hás some doubts about it being “good enough” for 35mm ( but we don’t know if he’s considering large prints and exhibition quality or not).
    Regards,
     
  44. "A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5"
    Why? I almost never crop an image - virtually everything I do is composed as a square, and I see nothing wrong with that. 6 X 6 wins hands down every time over 645 in my opinion, especially for projection.
     
  45. Hi Ray,
    Not sure you're still checking in on this thread, but as has been alluded to, prices are on the rise. Last year, almost to the day, i bought a EX Cond RB67 Pro-S w/WLF from KEH for $149. Today, 17June2011, the same item is $349 - $200 increase in 1 year!!! I'm super happy with my RB67, but for your stated purpose maybe the Hassie is the way to go - format notwithstanding.
    I have a total of $520 (including all shipping charges) invested in my RB67 Pro-S system. This comprises the Pro-S body w/WLF, Sekor C 180mm lens, Sekor C 65mm lens, and 120 Pro-S back - all in EX condition except my 65mm is like new and the most expensive item at $200.
    Unlike many, i use my RB67 Pro-S on the street albeit with the superb Tamrac N45 padded leather camera strap. However, *most* folks aren't willing to carry 'inconvenient' stuff around like i am. Maybe one of the Bronica camera's would satisfy your Medium Format cravings?
    As has been mentioned, you will eventually gravitate to what you initially wanted in the 1st place. If thats a Hassy, just go there right away, suffer the pain and ENJOY IT!!! I went through this same dilemma, was willing to 'spend' (the weight of the Mamiya RB67 Pro-S +backs and lenses) to accomodate my choice and am sooooo pleased with my choice.
    As to the quality of Hassy/Zeiss lenses vs Mamiya, well thats simply a choice of taste as there are superb photographers/artists in both lines. The issue of format size does matter, but again, if excellent results are available with both, the amount of up-sizing won't matter too much.
    For me, the P67II was a no-go consideration from the beginning based on user's accounts of tripod-rocking mirror slap (and my preference for a WLF and integrated bellows rack).
     
  46. Thanks, yeah .. I think maybe the Hassie might be the way for me. While SLR might be more practical. I do like a box system than a SLR for the experience factor. It is more smaller than many 6x7. It is also square format which is the same horizontal or vertical, more simplicity but smaller neg size.
    Could be my own Xmas gift this year with just one back and one lens.
    Really want to transfer most of my 135 work to 120 :D
     
  47. Just found this thread again ... Ray, the Hassy was my Christmas gift to myself two years ago. If you like some of that 'old camera' look, feel free to save some money and buy a C lens instead of the newer CF lenses. Do buy a hood though - you should always have one.
    Also, you can save some $60-$100 by buying a Kiev waist-level finder instead of the Hassy version. It fits without any problems, although it's a bit more fiddly to get it open; sometimes it doesn't pop up just right, and I need to readjust the sides before I can use the magnifier. Still, it's a good-sized discount, so it's probably worth considering. If nothing else, the savings will pay for the lens hood.
     
  48. You can save even more by not buying a camera without a finder.<br>Cameras with finder (and focussing screen and wind knob or crank - alll these parts should be included. Why even rear and front protective covers are often included for no extra charge) do not sell for more than those you have still to find the missing parts for.<br>People who sell all the parts that go together do so to maximize their profit, and you do know when buying an 'undressed' camera that you are being 'fleeced'. So boycot such sales. You'll thank yourself for doing so.
     
  49. I dunno Q.G. That may be true for personal sales, but when I bought my Hassy 2 years ago I saved about $50 by getting a 'body only' from KEH, and buying a back and Kiev WLF on ebay. Fifty dollars doesn't seem live a lot, but when the final price is $300, $50 is a pretty good amount of savings. I probably could have shaved off even more, if I had gone with a 'bargain' body instead of the 'very good' body. I saved about $100 between back and finder, and then spent an extra $50 on a nicer body.
     
  50. It seems KEH is in the business of exploding *everything* and selling, for as much profit as possible, all the bits and bobs for each separately. They do offer "outfits" and that can be a great way to go if they have what you're looking for.
    I was really frustrated that my EX Mamiya Pro-S body didn't come with body caps - they were an additional buy for around $20. The camera is really more in VG condition cosmetically and mechanically EX (it came with new light seals), but to me a camera body is 'complete' only if it has caps - just as it came from the factory (same for lenses). Maybe there were other bodies available w/caps for a higher price - meaning mine was cheaper b/c it didn't have caps....
    I've otherwise got great buys on the big auction site - but it requires the buyer to be very, very well informed about the item you're interested in (it's known quirks/faults - what to look for/avoid) and specifically the item for sale (as well as the Seller - unscrupulous or good).
     

Share This Page