In need of a camera for landscape work

<p>I am looking for a camera to shoot landscape work. I am looking at medium format cameras, as i want to work with medium format before large format, as well as the convenience of medium format processing in my location comparative to large format processing. What are the best medium format cameras for landscape work within a relative price range of 800-2000, New or used including lens and body?</p>

<p>What format, 6x4.5 all the way to 6x9 covers a large number of options. :)<br>

.</p>

<p>A great combo would be a Hasselblad 500/CM w/ 45º NC-2 finder, A-16 back and a 60mm f/3.5 Distagon C T*. Depending on how much you get the camera and lens for, you could try to get an 80mm f/2.8 Planar C T* as well. Another great landscape lens is the 40mm f/4 Distagon C or CF, but that could cost you as much as all the other gear combined. I have all three and they work beautifully for landscape work. The 40mm and 60mm Distagons are so sharp, you need to handle them with <em>heavy leather gloves</em>! :-)</p>

<p>There are bargains galore these days in MF gear. If you want lighter cameras look towards 6x6 or 645. If you are a masochist and can deal with monstrosities , look towards the 6x7. Right now a used Mamiya RB kit (camera,lens,back,finder) can be had for under $300. The Pentax and Mamiya 645's sell for around the same. Used Hasselblad kits are selling for under $600, and the Bronica 6x6's are around $400.</p>

<p>Depending on the camera, for under a $1000, you can get a basic kit and 2-3 lenses.</p>

<p>This general question has been addressed on this forum recently. I suggest being more specific as to your intent with landscape work. For answers to your general question, do a search.</p>

<p>Cody, there are also many recent discussions on this. I just now searched on <strong>Medium format for landscape photography</strong> and found <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00Q4iB"><strong>this</strong> </a> ... among many others.<br>

However, you will find valid suggestions coming from all quarters, from the 6x4.5 users through 6x6, 6x7 and up to 6x9, including Hasselblad and old 1930's folders, speaking of folders, here is something you should really see. <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00UzI2"><strong>Medium format for landscape</strong> </a><br>

I've been using Hasselblad for years, and often wished for a FlexBody. A FlexBody with a late 50mm Distagon would be excellent, providing little shift (because the image circle wasn't intended for that) , but a very useful degree of lens tilt ... not much of that either, but enough to provide an impressive amount of focus control. Within your budget? Not likely, for camera + back + lens.<br>

Linhof Technika (III or IV) 6x9, if you're lucky within your budget.<br>

Or easily within reach, a Mamiya Press 23, which has a movable back, copy of Linhof Technika type back. With a 6x9 neg, that's 50% more than a Hasselblad.<br>

Hope to see you back here with some images.<br>

Cheers, Kevin</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for all the advice. I am leaning toward a 6x7 or 6x9 now. Mamiya universal, Mamiya press 23, Pentax 6x7's. Any advice on these cameras or any other options. Thanks for the input, it's greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>The landscape square images in my portfolio here is all shot with Hasselblad. It is a great, versatile system, and I cannot recommend it more highly. But there are followers of other systems who will undoubtedly steer you toward their favorite system. If you were to look outside of Hasselblad, I would probably consider only Mamiya and Fuji systems. The others have very limited component availability as they were never popular enough, never had the components in the first place, or couldn't stand up to the use and no longer exist<g>.</p>

<p>Michael, I think that the Pentax users would probably disagree with you. I had a Pentax 645 for a while, and it was an excellent system. The lenses were cheap and plentiful, and produced excellent images. Ir was a great system to sue when I didn't want to lug a Hasselblad around.</p>

<p>While you are thinking about which camera don't forget about camera support, it's a complete waste of time buying anything unless you have the proper control and positioning over the camera, having said that there is only one real camera for landscape work and that's the FUJI GX680III splendid negatives at 6 x 8 or smaller with the masks, excellent choice of lenses from 50mm to 500mm. Go take a look and see for yourself the real advantages of owning a Professional camera.</p>

 

<p>Which format will give you the best results depends on how big your final prints are. The Pentax 645 is certainly the easiest system to both use and carry around, but is better for smaller enlargements (depending on you own personal standards). 67 and 69 will obviously make better enlargements than 645 but are much heavier and bulkier. If you're really macho go with the Pentax 67 or the Mamiya RB/RZ system. But if you prefer to pack light then the Mamiya 69 Universal is good. My personal favorite, though, is the 69 Crown Graphic which not only gives you interchangeable backs but is good for close-up work and also provides some movements. </p>

<p>"there is only one real camera for landscape work and that's the FUJI GX680III" </p>

<p>Excuse me ... but, .... <strong>what ?!!</strong></p>

<p>Sounds like a sales pitch, and reveals little more than a profound lack of knowledge.<br>

Can anyone tell us, in percentage terms, how much of the 150 years of landscape photography has been made with a ... "FUJI GX680III" ?</p>

<p>Ditto the Pentax 645 recommendation. They are plentiful, reliable and relatively inexpensive. Perhaps not the greatest for wedding photography but great for landscape work. I am still selling images captured with my 645. As for ease of use, the cliche is true. The Pentax 645 and the 67, for that matter, are like 35mm SLRs on steroids. The 645n in particular, is quicker and easier to use than any Hasselblad when it comes to landscape work, in my opinion. The Pentax 35mm lens for the 645 is also one of the absolute sharpest of it's type available in MF and doesn't take a backseat to anything from Zeiss/Hasselblad in that range.</p>

<p>Don't mean to be too off-topic in what is obviously a film-centric discussion, but is there a reason for not considering digital? The cameras you are leaning toward are all box cameras, so apparently the movements aren't that important to you...<br /><br />Other than those biased against digital, the limitations re: print size, a possible aversion to learning Photoshop, etc. there are many reasons these days to take digital seriously.<br /><br />An interesting phenomenon is that many of us who have done MF and LF landscape film (I have used all the cameras mentioned except for the Fuji GX680 III, which is very heavy and clumsy, may as well be a true LF) strongly prefer true 3-color digital capture for landscape. Unfortunately, Sigma/Foveon is the only game in town on that, but the SD14 and a gaggle of the best EX Sigma lenses would provide you remarkably 'film-like' quality if you go that route.<br /><br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/">http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/</a> as a suggestion. There IS a tangible difference. Bayer demosaicing just doesn't work well for landscapes.</p>

<p>How come nobody mentioned the Mamiya 7 yet? ;-)</p>

<p>The problem w/ going to LF from MF is that, well, everything is different. You'll be going from roll film to sheet film, from a whole different DOF, and the movements in LF are what make things interesting. MF cameras as a rule have few to no movements. Might as well start w/ LF, and like most of us. the Graflex cameras are an excellent and affordable way to go. The Crown Graphic will give you most movements for landscapes, and the Graphic View (the II would be better but not a necessity) would be even better, but more inconvenient to pack up.</p>

<p>Have you considered the Pentax 67II? Excellent lenses are available for it, and of course, you can do mirror lockup as well. It does require a tripod for slow exposures. Also, if you're considering moving up to LF eventually, why not try a 4x5 and use a roll film back on it? That way you can cover a couple of bases with one camera and (if you choose) only one lens. You can pick up a really decent 4x5 for a song now.</p>

<p>Cody, I am thinking about selling my Mamiya 645 Pro (all manual) with Mamiya-Secor 55mm/2.8, 80mm/2.8 and 150mm/2.8 lenses (lens hoods, filters included), all in excellent condition. Let me know if that's something you'd be interested in.</p>

<p>Cody, have the Universal with the Model P focusing hood. Not selling it. Like it to much. But, it's a great camera. The Focusing hood gives it a groundglass back and the 6x9 back enables a person to crop 645,6x6,6x7,6x9 or whatever. Smaller formats have fewer options in cropping.</p>

<p>I used to shoot a Pentax 67II before I switched to the Canon 5D (don't hate me). It was great. There is a lot to be said for the Hassy's, but the Pentax was as solid as a brick. Good luck.</p>

<p>(Since no one has mentioned it yet....)<br>

IMO, the Bronica 6x6 system makes sense as an all-around compromise between negative size (good), availability (very good), weight (possibly the best in the 6x6 SLR category. <em>Much</em> lighter than most 6x7 systems), cost (good+), and durability (the lenses are excellent, the bodies do feature some plastic and are not as bomb proof as other MF offerings.)<br>

The 'PS' lenses generally perform very well. 'S' lenses are supposedly more variable, across the lineup as well as on an individual basis.<br>

SQ handling is slightly awkward, as there is no natural place to grab the camera; consider adding a manual grip/winder unit.<br>

The square format takes some getting used to, but can certainly be made to work! :)<br>

Most (all?) SQ bodies, except the motor drive-only SQ-AM, have MLU, and all the lenses allow long exposure w/o battery drain. <br>

More discussion: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00JcRH</p>

<p>(Just to stir the pot!)</p>

<p>Ya know....<br>

With your $2K upper budget limit, you should give the 6x17 format a look. You should be able to score a Fuji G617 on Fleabay. Horseman and Linhof also make fixed-lens 6x17 outfits. Noblex and Widelux make swing lens pano cameras, but I think the MF bodies will be out of your $ range.<br>

These cameras are generally more limited in application than the typical MF SLR, but under the right conditions, the format is just incredible! See

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/005icR<br>

Video of the G617 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16AH9sA8lA<br>

There are other panoramic 6x formats, including 6x12. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Honestly I think that with an old Fujica 6x9 rangefinder you can't go wrong. Possibly an older model with interchangeable lenses. Also the "newer" version (with fixed lenses) should be fine for your needs. They are quite cheap too (i.e. less than 1000 $).<br>

Here there are some samples of what can be achieved: http://fujirangefinder.com/folder.php?id=54</p>

<p>What I am missing in this discussion here, how large do you want to go with your landscape pictures! I guess, with an 645 camera you're very flexible, and the image quality is more than sufficient for most purposes, with film and with a digital back. My 2 cents!</p>

<p>IMHO someone who is looking for a camera specialized for landscape work should look for a camera with movements... whatever the format. There are a lot of situations where tilting is needed, also swing or even rise. I never used extreme movements but a bit of front tilt is, in my experience, <em>a must</em> for that task.</p>

<p>With a rigid type camera the only feature offered for "landscape work" will be a more or less lighter setup, but in my opinion this could be <em>the second</em> feature this kind of camera should have. Using TS lenses limit the lens choices in most occasions to one, perhaps two focal lenghts.</p>

<p>The bigger the format the better, and rectangular format better than squared. Starting with the smallest, a Rollei SL66 could be worth a look (I never used it), then any medium format folding view camera (the more sophisticated focusing system the more expensive), or like mentioned above, a large format camera with a 6x12 or 6x17 back.<br>

Of course there are other wonderful options, but most them will cost you a fortune.</p>

<p>I`d avoid large format cameras with focusing screens that need to be removed to install the roll film back (usually most large format cameras). These reducing backs are a pain to use, on mine this backs almost never fit as perfectly as I`d like (I use Linhof and Canham 4x5"s and Wista 5x7 and 8x10" cameras).</p>

<p>I were buying a new "landscape camera" in medium format, my favourite could be a Ebony non-folding 2x3 model, probably the SW23 or even the 23S.</p>

<p> </p>