newbie lost in maelstrom of questions

<p>i am into photography since i was a kid; so i experienced the analog times; my father even bought b&w film for me to practice because they were cheaper these days as color just became standard.<br>

when canon released their first dslr i bought one and followed the markets game till i switched to nikon; i'm still happy with my equipment but i want to get away of this computer, back to the real darkroom;<br>

doing so i decided to go mid- format and this is where drama begins; we got no-one who is that into analog mid-format i could learn from or get some help to decide what to buy; even the shops sell these cams more as kind of trinked than serious gear;<br>

so the assortment is not that great and i'd like to handhold a cam and don't buy via ebay,..<br>

i can choose between a</p>

<ol>

<li>hasselblad fc/together with aT* 2.8/80mm no.5877410, two A12 magazines , waist-level finder, and a Sonnar T* 2.8/150mm for €1800 / $ 2411</li>

<li>hasselblad 2000 FC with magazine A12 and A16 , a Planar T* 2.8/150mm for €1250 / $ 1675</li>

<li>hasselblad 500cm plus 2,8/80mm and magazine € 1600 / $2150</li>

<li>mamiya 645pro plus 2,8/80, winder and ttl prism € 690 / $ 925</li>

<li>mamiya 645 super m, plus 2,8/80, ae-prism and magazine €850 / $1140</li>

</ol>

<p>maybe a 3/35mm for about €400 / $ 535<br>

so what am i going to do ?<br>

fine arts and portraits in the studio, landscape; b&w only!.<br>

i intend to develop my film myself, no scanner, no digital device at all ! except a light meter and the studio lights;<br>

well i hope you tell me go with mamiya, it's good enough and get the 3/35mm for landscape,... cause i guess there is a lot more to invest;<br>

if you could spend some of your time would you please be so kind and post any information and device ?<br>

thank you;<br>

best regards n.j.<br>

</p>

 

I don't know if you're outside the US if you can order from KEH, but if so I'd check that out. They have a

14 day return policy and 60 day warranty. You could get a nice 500 cm with 80 Planar and A12 back for a lot

less than you've listed. A 150mm lens wouldn't seem applicable to landscape.

<p>After many years of trying them all (med format film cameras) I have happily settled on a Mamiya RB 67 Pro SD. The only disadvantage is the weight, which will not matter in the studio on a tripod. Overall, I get the best results of any medium format I have used with this camera. You can get one at KEH for well under $1000 used in almost new condition. Extra lenses are $200-400. I prefer the results to Hasselblad, Pentax, Rollei etc.</p>

<p>I can't answer all you questions, However I would stay away from the old Hasselblad FC cameras with the old focal plane shutters, they are fragile and parts are no longer available. <br>

I would go with either the 500cm Hassleblad or Mamyia<br>

You should try handling them and see how you like working with them, I am sure the Mamiya would be fine for what you are doing<br>

The Hasselblad 500cm has the shutters in each lens rather the camera body, It is the nice classical way to work with the waist level finder. </p>

<p>Nikolai,<br>

It is my personal opinion that you are making a big mistake going with Hasselblad, whilst brand new Mamiya RB Pro SD 6x7 gear currently flooding the market and selling for pennies on the dollar.<br>

You are not going to listen to this advice, but I will give I anyway:</p>

<p>Brand new Mamiya RB kits with body, back, and ultra sharp phenomenal bokeh lenses are selling for $400 to $600 plus about $50 shipping to Europe from this seller here: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Brand-New-Mamiya-RB67-Pro-SD-KL-127mm-f-3-5-Outfit-/320626641201?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4aa6d64931#ht_2412wt_1135">http://cgi.ebay.com/Brand-New-Mamiya-RB67-Pro-SD-KL-127mm-f-3-5-Outfit-/320626641201?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4aa6d64931#ht_2412wt_1135</a></p>

<p>Here is what the Mamiya RB Pro SD with 127mm lens kits looks like in 3 dimensions: <a href="http://www.mamiya-usa.com/rb67-pro-sd-overview-quick-time-vr.html">http://www.mamiya-usa.com/rb67-pro-sd-overview-quick-time-vr.html</a> </p>

<p>Brand new additional lenses for this camera Kit are selling on KEH.com for $160 to $250!<br>

<a href="http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Medium-Format/system-Mamiya-RB/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=RB&ccode=6&cc=55976&r=WG&f">http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Medium-Format/system-Mamiya-RB/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=RB&ccode=6&cc=55976&r=WG&f</a><br>

The 127mm KL lens that comes with the kit above is second to none.<br>

Please consider this carefully.</p>

<p>I would get the Hasselblad, because the lenses are far better than the Mamiya RB lenses, even when taking the extra film area into account. Of course, this is opinion, albeit opinion gleaned from experience. Despite (some) conventional wisdom, there is a very real difference in the image quality that can be obtained from one camera to the next. Many feel that the RB is a fantastic portrait camera; getting a sharp image out of it is not nearly as easy as it would be using a Blad or one of the Fuji rangefinders for example. You may or may not be someone who likes softer portraits. Sharpness, however, is not the only factor important in making quality images. <br /> I would look at examples of images made by photographers whose work you respect, and try to see of you can see the similarity in the rendering of the respective equipment used. Of course, using the same model of camera as a great photographer will not make one a great photographer...<br /> The idea is to match the quality of a systems lenses to the particular style you have, like, or wish to develop.<br /> I am probably the only one responding here who would <strong>not</strong> recommend KEH. My opinion of that company is not nearly as high as it used to be, due to some personal experiences.<br /> I <strong>would</strong> recommend David Odess (http://www.david-odess.com). He apparently is who he says he is. I bought a camera from him a few years ago and was extremely pleased with it.<br /> Yes, you will pay a lot more for a Blad than for an RB in comparable condition. You will be paying for the quality of craftsmanship put into the components, and, of course, the legendary quality of the Zeiss lenses. Again, in my opinion, the premium you pay is worth it. I was never able to get sharp images at maximum aperture with any of the 4 or 5 RB/RZ cameras I owned, but they are fun to use because of the bellows focusing.</p>

<p>All that being said... there are other cameras that can be had for $500 or less, that boast incredibly sharp lenses: ALL of the Fuji rangefinders, from 645 t 6x9, and of course, the venerable Rolleiflex tlrs. You only get one, non-interchangeable lens with each of most of these, however. Hope this helps.</p>

 

<p>I bought brand new $4000 Mamiya RB 210 APO and 250 APO lenses which contain heavy Flourite low dispersion glass for about $700 apiece.</p>

<p>An experienced user commented that the Mamiya APO 250 and Zeiss 250 Superachromat are neck and neck in terms of critical sharpness, and that the Mamiya APO lenses blow away the Zeiss Hasselblad regular glass.</p>

<p>I am POSITIVE the Mamiya RB 127 KL wide open is as sharp as any Zeiss in the same focal range wide open - I am a very critical eye in regards to lens resolution capability.</p>

<p>The real superiority comes in negative surface area. 6x7=42. 6x4.5= 27</p>

<p>Printing to 8x10 or 16x20 size, a 6x7 negative will have 50% more area than a blad 6x6 (which will need to be cropped to 6x4.5 area).</p>

<p>With all that money you are about to spend why not invest in a Mamiya or Pentax Digital Medium format.</p>

<p>Yawn....</p><div></div>

<p>Less than $1000, actually...<br /> I am <strong>positive</strong> the user was not very experienced at the time the photograph was made.</p>

<p>"With all that money you are about to spend why not invest in a Mamiya or Pentax Digital Medium format."<br>

Because he said he wants to do film himself. Besides, MF digital would be way more.</p>

<p>For MF, (medium format) portraiture on a budget, don't exclude TLR's, (twin lens reflex) cameras.<br>

Many like the Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, and Yashica Mat. For interchangeable lenses though, I like the Mamiya "C" Series with the fantastic "180mm-Super" lens for example. <br>

The 180mm-Super is almost world class (some claim) in it's resolution and sharpness. Just some more thoughts.<br>

With patience, that camera and lens combination can be purchased in the $300.00 price range or less, (225 euro).</p>

<p>If you are from Europe, look at the UK bay or ffordes.com. The former is cheap, the later comes with a warranty.</p>

<p>Anyway you omited the Bronicas for some reason (SQAi or ETRSi). From you list, I'd take the M645 Pro. The FC hassies are too old. the 500C/M is nice but expensive.</p>

<p>thank you for all your answers and support; after further research and a very useful link i am going to buy a mamiya rx IId setup, i think, though it's a bit pricey again it has the most potential fur upgrading, maybe ging digital again one day; I don't like the look and feel of a h1-4 or mam645 which i handheld both;<br>

do i need a special magazine for the rxIId? or will a normal rx do ? i'm going to get a polaroid mag too to train my skills where ever i am as well as a 110/2,8 for the studio and a 50/4 for landscape;<br>

i hope this combo fits and my decision is a good one;<br>

if something is wrong with it please tell me; otherwise thanks again ; i'll stay online at this forum trying to learn and some day may be participate;<br>

best regards nj</p>

<p>Hasselblad w/lens & back approx. $1200 USA dollars<br>

Also, look into Mamiya 7ii and Fuji rangefinders.</p>

<p>The RZ67 ProIID, can use the original "RZ Pro" film backs, and the "RZ ProII" film backs.</p>

<p>In the ProII line there were at least three different backs made; one each in 6X7 for 120 or 220 film, (for ten or twenty frames per roll), and one in 6X4.5 that uses 120 film, (for 15 frames per roll). I don't think they made a 645 back for 220 film.(?)</p>

<p>From the original Pro line there was also a 6X6 back, for those wanting a more economical [square] slide projector option. These backs are usually very expensive, as they weren't produced in large numbers, and only during the early days of the original RZ Pro.</p>

<p>For Polaroid backs, (using Fuji instant film now days), do not buy any backs marked "545" or "545-i", as film for these backs is really not available anymore.</p>

<p>Any of the cameras in the RZ line are fine machines, and should provide you with years of service.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would get the Hasselblad, because the lenses are far better than the Mamiya RB lenses, even when taking the extra film area into account.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Horsehockey! I have a Hasselblad with 50 80 and 150 mm CF lenses, and they are great lenses. I also have a friend who has the Mamiya RB67 Pro S with lenses of similar focal lengths. You know what? They're good. They're better than good. Pay no attention to the folks who say otherwise, because it simply is not true. Oh yes maybe if you test the lenses on an optical bench for raw performance numbers the Zeiss lenses might look more attractive, but in real world applications the differences don't add up to a hill of beans. If you can't get absolutely drop dead gorgeous photographs from an RB or RZ, the problem isn't with the gear, it's with the operator. With Mamiya RB/RZ 67 gear selling as cheaply as it is right now, the decision is a no-brainer.</p>

<p>Hmmm...<br>

so the BMW I always wanted is a complete waste, seeing that a K car will do just as well. After all, they are much cheaper than new BMWs right now...</p>

<p>So the Mamiya cameras are the equivalent of Chrysler's K-cars, while the Hasselblad is the equivalent of a BMW? I don't think so. Your argument is invalid.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the legendary quality of the Zeiss lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's just it: the problem with legends is that they transcend normal evidence, and tend to foster a somewhat irrational, unquestioning cultural belief in them.</p>

<p>My take has always been that every manufacturer's lens lineup has some lenses better than others, and some lenses which may trump the competition while others fall behind the competition. My testing, plus tests I've seen elsewhere, plus knowledge of the attributes of various lens designs, have confirmed this.<br>

So I would expect some of the Zeiss Hasselblad lenses to be better than some of the Mamiya RB/RZ lenses...and vice versa.</p>

<p>When it comes to medium format lenses, I like 'em fast, so I worry more about the max f-stops than the nuances of sharpness between brands.</p>

<p>I also pay heed to glass types - anything stamped APO, ED or ULD is bound to be very good, at just about any aperture (in part because it's also likely to be a more recent design).</p>

<p>Finally, there are generational changes. I cannot speak for Zeiss, but I have noticed that Mamiya really stepped up to a new level from 1989 onwards: every MF lens I can think of that they released from that year has been regarded as top notch: starting with the Mamiya 6 lenses; then the RB67 KL lenses and RB/RZ APO teles and ULD wideangles; then the APO teles and 120mm Macro for the 645 line; then the Mamiya 7 lenses; then some new 645AF ULD & APO teles; lastly the 645AF 'D' lenses, and the new collaboration with Schneider for 645AF LS lenses.</p>

<p>So when someone says something like "In my experience, the RB67 lenses are not as good as the Hasselblad ones", the question always arises: When was your experience played out? And with which particular lenses?</p>

<p>Nikolai, sadly this is mostly what you get when you go onto the web to ask about equipment. People fall into camps to espouse why their choice is best. The truth is it doesn't matter much. All the major makers cameras and lenses are good enough. I've used Hasselblads for 15 years and currently use Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya Super 23 and Bronica SQ-A. I own these three because I like to have a choice of format size. They are all good systems for the work you want to do. Pick what you can find in good condition and can afford and get busy making pictures. There is no "better", just different. Any one of those cameras or lenses is many times better than any photographer. Don't make the novice mistake of thinking that equipment will make you a better photographer, it won't. The best camera is the one you'll pick up and use.</p>

<p>I cant't stand non-commital answers like the last one. The truth is, after working with a particular lens for a while, a photographer instinctively knows what kind of beast he is dealing with when he points the lens towards subsequent subjects.<br>

<br /> The truth is, some modern medium format camera lenses consistently deliver lp/mm of resolution on film in the 60's and another manufacturer's lenses consistently deliver resolution in the 90's.<br>

<br /> The former can still produce pleasing portraiture, particularly in the 6x7 format. But for most uses, I will take the lens that can resolve 100+ lp/mm on film any day. I will feel more confident with a sharper lens, hence I will end up using that lens more. Same positive qudos geoes for wide angle lenses with little to no distortion<br>

<br /> For example, while not perfect, I have found the Mamiya RB 67 KL series 65mm wide angle lens to be well controlled for distortion despite it being a retrofocus design.<br>

<br /> Finally, lenses have personalities. Two lenses may be of different sharpness, but have other qualities that make the less sharp lens more appealing. For example, I am a Nikon man through and through. Their lens build quality and performance is very high. But there isn't much of a signature there, if you get my drift. I still like them, though because at the small 35mm format, lens sharpness is even more important than in medium format photography.</p>

<p>No worries Andre, I see your point. As experienced users we can bang ears all day discussing carefully controlled resolution tests and fine points of lens "personalities". However, you aren't talking to a 30 year medium format veteran, you are addressing the OP who is a medium format novice. I maintain the issues you site have little bearing on someone selecting their first camera/lens. Although I'm aware of them, I don't get my information on lens resolution, contrast and OOF rendering from the web, I test them myself with real subjects. My own work with these cameras and lenses show the differences between them maybe real but <em>very</em> small. Nothing a beginner need worry about. As a teacher, I rather see a student step into <strong>any</strong> of the top brand systems and get busy working on making compositions and prints than worrying about if what they are using is sub par because they don't have KL, Superachromat or APO lenses. </p>

<p>I see it so regularly on web forums and hear it mimed by my students. A newbie goes into a forum to ask for equipment advice and gets opinions based on what the person thinks is the "best", at whatever cost, for them and completely forgetting the experience level and needs of the individual asking the question. Often heated discussions ensue over individual opinions of what they love and what they "can't stand". This equipment-centric focus is well meaning but infects impressionable beginners with the wrong priorities. Award winning pictures <strong>can</strong> be made with <strong>any</strong> good quality, serviceable MF equipment. I would just as soon recommend an affordable, easy-to-use, quality twin lens reflex to a beginner before I saddled them with APO lenses, any lens test they didn't do on their own, or the fine differences in optical personality. </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with using top tier equipment. There is nothing wrong with chatting about it in a forum with like-minded users. But, as experienced users, it is our responsibility, when a poster declares themselves a novice, to forget about ourselves for a minute, tone down the hyperbole and focus on directing them to solutions that are easy to acquire, understand and use, solid performing and achieve good results that provide a positive picture making experience. </p>