Which medium format for entry level?

<p>My budget is £200 (would be purchasing on ebay), what sort of medium format camera would fit me? I am new to medium format, i was thinking about the mamiya 645. any help would be appreciated.</p>

<p>People seem to be able to find Bronica ETRSi sets for that sort of money. Mamiya 645 would be good too.</p>

<p>If you can get a Mamiya 645 or ETRSi kit for that money, you won't be going wrong. Both are great systems. Another good option is a TLR - a good Mamiya C220 or C330 with a lens and waistlevel finder can be had for under 200 from Ebay or a regular dealer. Keep in mind that anything for that budget is probably not going to come with metering so you'll probably want a handheld meter.</p>

<p>You also might consider a manual focus Pentax 645 with 75mm lens.</p>

<p>I'd suggest a Pentax 645 as well, but I'm finding that used lenses are very hard to locate. I just wonder if folks are saving them for use on the 645D.</p>

<p>The Mamiya M645 system is an excellent choice for medium format beginners. I am not up-to-date of the prices, but a M645 Super + motor grip and AE prism is a very neat camera that handles a lot like a manual 35mm SLR and makes shooting fast and easy.</p>

<p>You can buy an excellent Rollei TLR Automat 4 for $250.00. I did! I liked it so much I sold my more exoensive Rollei 3.5 E. The Automat 4 or the later MX-evs are a great deal when found in good condition. I am printing 15 inch square and images are sharp, could easily go 20 inch square( wet darkroom). One of the great buys in used cameras right now. The Tessar design lens is very high qualty.</p>

<p>Gotta love the ETRS systems these days going dirt cheap. Lenses are plentyfull n cheap as well. The camera preforms very nicely n takes razor sharp pics. With a speed grip, focusing lever n a couple nice lenses you can score a nice kit for about $250.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 645 is a very good, reliable camera. Consider also a Mamiya TLR (C220, C330).</p>

<p>I'm personally very fond of TLRs, and in your budget you can get a very good one - I got a very nice Rolleiflex MX for about $150, you can easily get a good one for $200 or so and put the rest of your 200 pounds into film.</p>

<p>The Fuji GS645S is a nice starter MF camera. The 60mm lens is ridiculously sharp, and I prefer the slightly wider angle of view it provides.</p>

 

<p>TLR because it's simpler, there is less to break, all in one piece, relatively compact, nice big 6x6 negatives. For under 200 pounds, a nice Yashica-MAT 124G, or perhaps a Mamiya C220 with 80mm f/2.8 lens. </p>

<p>I can vouch for Bronica Etrs cameras providing first class results. Much equipment is available at reasonable cost. The major downside with most tlrs is the inability to expand your system. With Bronica and similar systems there are many such opportunities.</p>

<p>Don't get too excited about using ebay. At the moment, Ffordes have two complete Etrs at £199, and an complete Etrsi at £219. Remember Ffordes usually give a good guarantee.</p>

<p>I think a TLR Mamiya with lens 2.8/80mm is a good start.<br>

Regards!<br>

Peter</p>

<p>+1 on the Ffordes suggestion. I just got an ETRS from them, and it was almost like new. Certainly the cleanest used lens I have ever seen, and the body and back are without scratches. Paid 199 GBP for it (well, actually more like 400, but only because I added an AEII metering prism, speed grip, extra 120 back and a lens hood).<br>

On top of that, their service is excellent.<br>

Henrik</p>

<p>MF SLRs if you're shooting on a tripod, TLR if you're shooting handheld. They're all great, and the results are so substantially different from 35mm. I would shoot more MF if I could afford all the stuff for increased processing and printing.</p>

<p>I'll jump in once again (i do from time to time) to point out that if there is a difference in 'handholdability' between TLRs and SLRs, the SLRs have the advantage.<br>

But it would be more 'realistics' still to point out that there is no difference.</p>

<p>i've been trying to decipher between cameras for quite sometime as well. my budget is a little higher though.<br>

would anyone care to help discern the major differences that are less obvious between say, the mamiya 645 and pentax 645n?<br>

and on top of that i can't make up my mind if i even want a 645 medium format or 6x7. with the 67 i'm looking between mamiya's rx and rb and pentax's 67II.</p>

<p>someone please help, haha i'm pretty lost.</p>

<p>Johnny<br>

Personally, if I were considering a 6x7, I would get the biggest film format I could, so 6x7 rather than 6x4.5. Simply because if you are going big, go for it. <br>

THEN I would think about the bulk, size and weight of a 6x7 vs the portability of a 645. And if that was OK, I would go 6x7.<br>

The RB is the oldest model, but it is still good. And you can get some GREAT deals. I've seen RB67 kits with 3 lenses for less than the price of one Hasselblad lens.<br>

The other consideration is printing. Enlargers up to 6x6 are a lot easier to find than 6x7 or 6x9 enlargers. If you can find a 4"x5" enlarger it will easily handle the smaller 6x7 or 6x9 negatives.</p>

<p>The initial step into MF is complicated, more complicated than buying a 35mm film camera or a DSLR.</p>

<p>What are the key choices?</p>

<p>Camera size, portability... 645 SLRs and rangefinders are relatively compact and carry-able. Ditto the Mamiya 6 and 7. I found a 6x6 SLR was more than I wanted to take anywhere. RB/RZ are bigger yet. Press photographers used to carry 4x5 Graphics, but it must have been a schlep. I decided I would accept a large MF camera; when I want something to carry around, I'll use a DSLR or smaller camera.</p>

<p>Film size... I have 35mm gear. I have my DSLR kit. OK, so what do I want out of MF? I decided if I'm going to all the trouble of a big camera, not a carry-with camera, I wanted the largest negative I could get without going to LF. I chose 6x9 perhaps out of sentimental reasons. My dad taught us photography with a 2x3 Busch Pressman rollfilm camera.</p>

<p>What are you going to do with the film? I like digital workflow to print, so I'm going to scan my MF. This is another reason for 6x9... With the larger film size, I have a better chance, using a flatbed scanner, of achieving image quality equal to or better than my DSLR. Better than with 645, for example. </p>

<p>For all these choices, your own situation and intentions may drive you in a different direction. </p>

<p>In my exploration, here are what looked like some easy entry points, all with different characteristics, uses, and utility. But, all these are relatively easy ways to start on MF:<br>

- Yashica MAT 124G TLR, probably $150-200<br>

- Mamiya C220 with 80mm f/2.8 lens, perhaps $250<br>

- Bronica 6x6 SLR, price?<br>

- Fuji 670, 680, or 690... the "Texas Leica," $500 to $1000<br>

- Mamiya Press, 6x7 or 6x9, 100 f/3.5, $250 to $400<br>

- RB/RZ, price?</p>

<p>Gary and Richard, thanks for the really useful input. You guys just gave me a little bit more to consider in deciphering between my choices. Although it would probably be in my best interest i don't think i could get myself to go with a TLR. I'm still caught in between 6x4.5 and 6x7.<br>

Now that you brought it up I may consider also bringing the negatives into a digital workflow. I was initially just going to keep it in the darkroom. But Richard, with a 645 bringing the negatives into the digital workflow i can't have somewhat comparable results with a 6x7 negative? Or what I'm asking is would 6x4.5 be equal or better than a DSLR?</p>

<p>Johnny, the smaller the negative, the smaller number of good pixels from the same scanning equipment, assuming both negatives were created with quality. </p>

<p>If you work from good scans (e.g. Nikon 9000 ED), 645 should produce better print image quality than a DSLR. If you are scanning with a flatbed, it's harder to answer. Hope this is helpful.</p>

<p>My experience has been that a well scanned 645 frame, properly exposed, can create a much larger frame that is perceptibly sharper than a FF 2-24 meg DSLR. Obviously subject matter, lenses, etc. play a large roll and results can vary.<br>

I own a Pentax 645 and my 645 files aren't as sharp as those from a Pentax 6x7 I owned years ago, much less than those from an old 'baby' Graphic 6x9 fitted with a modern Schneider lens. That said, I can stitch 3-5 frames from a Canon 5dmkII and the resulting file easily matches any of those in sharpness, if not film look.<br>

The original Pentax 645 or a Pentax 6x7 with mirror lockup, are both good ways to go. With the recent run on Pentax 645 lenses, the 67 system might be a more effective way to go and you would get frames sizes that would give better results scanned on consumer flatbed scanners.</p>

<p>I'd recommend Yashica 124G, and spend the rest of your money on films and processing.</p>

<p>I'll add to the confusion. I prefer 6x7 to 6x6, and either of them to 6x4.5, yet I'm incapable of leaving well enough alone, and own cameras in all three formats.... I also like TLR's, but considering the cheap price of used SLR MF gear today, I would leave them out of the equation for a first venture into big film. They are just too limiting for really exploring MF possibilities over time without having to add a new camera, and a new lens set down the road.</p>

<p>The ETRSi is a great 6x4.5 system to build upon, and it is the most compact of the SLR options in general. The SQa series is somewhat larger, but nearly identical in build and operation. It all depends on how sensitive you are to size and weight.</p>

<p>My favorite of all is the Mamiya RZ67 "photo brick", which happens to be the largest of the group, but has been used as a pro foundation for so many years that it not only offers the greatest system potential in general, but the best bargains in used lenses just because of sheer volume over time. It is also a current line, so it doesn't represent a dead end for a digital future.<br>

If I were to choose only one MF camera kit to build out within a budget, I would go with the RZ, and enjoy being able to get a really nice basic kit for $500, and fill it out very nicely over time with a couple more lenses, Polaroid back, grip, hoods, filters, etc. for another $1000. That is the value leader, and has the big image potential, but it's not a lightweight by any means.</p>

<p>I suppose it all comes down to how deep you want to dive into MF, and if it is going to become a religion thing where you ONLY use MF, and need light vs heavy, or if you intend to use MF in roles that suit it best as an addition to your 35mm film or digital kit.</p>

<p>Here are the three bodies for a general size comparison.... 6x7, 6x6, and 6x4.5</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4400054676_9b834e3234.jpg" alt="" /> </p>