Which MF System For Me?

<p>Sorry if this is a frequent subject, but I would like to solicit advice for getting into medium format film. This would be for hobby purposes, probably just snapshots, some family portrait and maybe landscape. I want to buy used, either on my local CL or from KEH or something. I see a lot of Mamiya 645 bodies come up on my local classifieds, so that is a candidate.</p>

<p>My priorities:</p>

<ul>

<li>SLR</li>

<li>well made (ie, durable and reliable)</li>

<li>simple (manual operation is fine, but I would like a built in meter)</li>

<li>affordable (less than $500 for a body + normal lens)</li>

</ul>

<p>I currently use a Nikon DX DSLR and pair of Nikon film bodies (FE2 + FM2). I want MF because I like film and I like controlling DOF. </p>

<p>Regarding lenses, I'm mainly interested in the moderate wide-angle to short telephoto range. I would probably want to start with a normal and maybe add wide + short-tele at a later point. </p>

<p>Regarding viewfinder, I'd like to be able to swap between waist-level and eye-level finders. </p>

<p>Regarding aspect ratio, I think I would prefer to avoid square. This may be an ignorant comment. Is this dictated by the back? Or camera specific?</p>

<p>Any comments will be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>"Medium format" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive terms. The equipment costs twice that of comparable small format gear. Medium format SLRs come a la carte - body, finder, back(s) and lenses are all sold separately. Even if you find something in your price range, film plus processing approaches $20/roll. Digital is an option, even as later upgrade, but hardly "affordable".</p>

<p>If you want 16"x20" prints (or larger) with no discernible grain, it may be worth the expense. If you want to be seen with a camera described as "old fashioned", it is an expensive toy. Big cameras shake too, so you need a sturdy tripod to get sharp image for those big prints.</p>

<p>Been there, done that. Welcome to the club.</p>

<p>Medium format is VERY affordable today, as long as you don't need digital. Mamiya 645 is a good choice, but a Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya TLR (C220 or C330) will give you a much larger negative and shallower DOF (if that's what you need). Both have interchangeable lenses, available at reasonable prices. My C330f with three lenses cost about USD 400. Compare to a so-called "full frame" DSLR.</p>

<p><strong>EDIT: </strong>I am currently watching an eBay auction for a Bronica SQ-A 6x6 SLR, with body, back, prism with meter and 80mm lens (50 mm equiv) at USD 350, so that's another good choice.</p>

<p>Edward, "affordable" is a relative term. In my post, I defined "affordable" as less than $500. I also said I want to buy used. I can find numerous used MF kits in my area for significantly less than $500 - most include at least one lens and numerous accessories. I'm not sure where you get the idea I am motivated to be "seen" with the camera. </p>

<p>Hey thanks Les. I have thought about TLR, but I just think I might be more comfortable with an SLR. Thanks for the suggestions. </p>

<p>6x7 has twice the area of 645, so if large prints are important then the larger format the better.</p>

<p>The Pentax 6x7 is easy to use and relatively cheap. I've seen bodies plus the 90 mm lens for $400 on Craigslist. But they are also heavy, bulky, loud and the focal plane shutter kicks like a mule on a tripod. But because of the weight I've also been able to handhold mine with the 45mm lens down to 1/30 sec and get razor sharp images.</p>

<p>The RB/RZ bodies are more versatile but are even bulkier than the Pentax.</p>

<p>My favorite for price vs. quality is the Koni-Omega 6x7 which I've seen for $200 with 90mm lens. Excellent optics, but it is a rangefinder which you may not want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A good TLR is among the most versatile medium format cameras. It's a good way to start in medium format, affordably, and you can add a system SLR or other MF camera later if the bug bites. It can handle candid snapshots of people, landscapes, just about anything pretty well other than macro photography. The lenses are often very good, even the simpler triplets on the consumer grade Japanese TLRs.</p>

<p>TLRs were even popular for around a decade during the 1960s for news photographers and even sports photography of boxing at ringside - you can see 'em in use ringside at many boxing events from that era. There's no mirror blackout so you get an uninterrupted view. And many TLRs can be used with non-optical "sports" finders - just a crude peep-sight affair built into the hoods. Prefocus on the desired zone, stop down and the results are usually pretty good. And the larger negatives allowed for cropping. But by the late 1960s-early '70s 35mm cameras surpassed the TLR.</p>

<p>The 6x6 negative also gives you access to many good older and very inexpensive enlargers. Most Durst medium format enlargers before the 1980s were limited to 6x6 maximum. The negatives are plenty large enough to allow for vertical or horizontal rectangular cropping if you prefer, and some TLRs include grid screen aids to assist in composing for aspect ratios other than the square.</p>

<p>And if the MF bug does bite you may decide later you'd rather try 6x8 or 6x9 rather than the 6x7 format. That opens up possibilities for some Fuji SLRs and rangefinders. The 6x9 format was also popular in folding cameras, a quirky pursuit all its own. One of my favorites is an Agfa Isolette 6x6 folder that I restored myself, with the goal of recreating the contact prints I made as a kid in the 1960s using a shoebox sized contact printer. I just need to find some proper contact printing paper. I like it so well I'm considering a 6x9 folder of some sort just for contact prints of landscapes, to complete the retro vibe of my old family photo albums.</p>

<p>I love my Rapid Omega 100 for its large negative and sharp lens and my Mamiya C330 for the square aspect and great macros, but my current favorite is my Pentax 645N. This is very much an overgrown 35mm SLR in the ease of use and ergonomics. Actually even though it is quite heavy, I find it easier to handle than some smaller 35mm SLRs. The meter works very well, the viewfinder is a joy, and the lenses are sharp and pretty cheap (at least for the non-autofocus ones). I also really like the information inprinted on the film (outside the pic). <br>

The only thing it doesn't check off on your list is a waist level viewer. It is also not quiet. But a good one with a 75mm A lens should come in around your price. Highly recommended if you don't mind working with the smallest of the med formats.</p>

When I was in your shoes, I started with a Mamiya RZ system, but it was too heavy/bulky for me to want to feel like taking anywhere. So I switched to a Bronica ETRSI with a 50/75/150 lens set. I especially like the 150/3.5 MC; gotten some very nice portraits with it. The meter in my AE prism is erratic so I carry a handheld meter, but no big deal. Prices on ETR system components seem quite low as well. You should be able to put together a decent kit for $500.

<p>Mike - thanks for the thoughts on the Pentax 6x7. I'll probably be using the camera handheld most of the time. I checked out the Koni Radid Omega on the auction site. Looks cool, but I don't think I want to go with a rangefinder.</p>

<p>Lex - you are making me want to keep TLRs in the conversation, I won't dismiss them just yet ;)</p>

<p>David, thanks for the note about 645N. I've seen some of these on my local classifieds and it looks interesting. </p>

<p>If 645 is enough film real estate for you, it's hard to beat Mamiya for value. My whole kit, including 1000s body with waist level finder, 35, 55, 80, 150 and 210mm primes cost me less than $400.</p>

<p>Thanks Cory. I think 645 is enough to get me started. If I want more, I can always climb the ladder (probably inevitable).</p>

<p>How do you like the finder on your 645? A large finder is one of the allures of MF. Is the waste level finder bright enough when used with 2.8 or 3.5 lenses? Sounds like a nice deal. How is the 35mm? This is a pretty strong W/A on the 645, right? Also, do you have the 2.8 or 1.9 version of the 80mm? Any comments about favored or disfavored lenses in your line-up?</p>

<p>I'm liking what I hear about the 1000s.</p>

<p>http://women-and-dreams.blogspot.com/2013/02/mamiya-m645-1000s-80mm-f19.html</p>

<p>I'm ashamed to say, I haven't actually gotten around to finishing my first roll with that kit. Hard to find the time with a 7 month old at home. As far as the finder goes, I've had no issues, but it's a waist level finder, so no meter and, of course everything is reversed left to right. The 35mm equates to about 22mm on 35mm format. Mine is the older C version that is reportedly only so-so. I think there is a newer version that is supposed to be better. I went with the 2.8 version of the 80mm to save money, since I don't do much portrait stuff.</p>

<p>I think I'm gonna try to get out this evening and finish that roll. Then I'll just have to find time to process it.</p>

<p>For those who use a waist level finder: how is the learning curve with respect to the reversed image? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>No problem at all with the reversed image!</p>

<p>Sounds like a Mamiya 645 series or a Bronica ETR series is what you need. I say "series' because there are multiple variations of each. Both are 645 format. The difference is that Mamiya uses a focal plane shutter while the Bronica has a leaf shutter. The focal plane shutter goes to higher speeds but the leaf shutter gives flash sync all the way to 1/500, which made it popular among wedding photographers and others who needed to do fill flash outdoors.<br /><br />A waist-level viewfinder is not practical in 645 unless you're only ever going to shoot horizontals. To shoot verticals you really need a prism finder.<br /><br />You can definitely find a complete outfit -- body, lens, finder, film magazine -- for $500 or less, maybe even with an additional lens or two if you're lucky. The bottom has fallen out of the medium format market since digital came along, maybe even more so than 35mm. Film and processing, unfortunately, are significantly more expensive than 35mm.<br /><br /></p>

I would get a Mamiya 645 with a prism to begin with. However, the waist level is an inexpensive addition and is nice for taking shots near ground level.

 

Avoid the 645E. While it does have a bright focusing screen and offers both metered manual and aperture priority automation, it's not that much less expensive than the 1000s (the 645J is even less than the 645E). There are no viewfinder options for the 645E and there's more plastic in the construction. I once had two that I did weddings with but when digital called, I sold one. I actually prefer my 645J to my 645E.

<p>I would think about going for as BIG a negative as you can, to maximize the quality gain going up from 35mm. That is why I went with a 6x6. That said, the 645 is a bit to a lot more compact and portable than the 6x6 and 6x7 format cameras. If you envision going to 6x6 or 6x7 or even 6x9, why stop at 6x4.5? Maybe for portability you still want the 645 even when you have a 6x7 system.</p>

<p>The 645 is rather interesting. It is 6 in one dimension (same as a 6x6) but 4.5 in the other. Well if you print rectangular, 5x7, 8x10 etc. it works out OK. The 6x6 you loose image when printing rectangular. So you get into the rectangular vs square discussion. Also being a rectangular format, to change from H to V, or V to H, (depending on the camera) you need to use an eye level prism, so that you can rotate the camera. The Mamiya RB67 series solves this by rotating the back of the camera, so you can shoot H or V using the waist level finder.</p>

<p>I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and a digital Nikon (35mm ratio). And from my experience, neither square nor rectangular is BEST. It all depends on the subject. I have many times shot a square subject with my DSLR and had to live with dead space on the side when printed rectangular. And I've shot a rectangular subject with the 6x6.</p>

<p>You can put a 6x4.5 back on a Hasselblad, although I have not seen it often. Maybe other cameras have a 6x4.5 masking plate that could be put on the camera to reduce the image to a 6x4.5 format, I don't know.</p>

<p>I guess one of the things that I am trying to say is to think hard about where you are going, and if it does make sense to get a 6x4.5 or go for the larger format. Maybe it does, maybe it does not. This is a personal decision. I went straight for a 6x6.<br>

<br />Another factor is the enlarger. There are many 6x6 enlarger which will also do 6x4.5, but less 6x7 enlargers and even less 6x9 enlargers. For 6x9 you may have to get a 4x5inch enlarger with a 6x9 negative carrier.</p>

<p>A 6x6 TLR is a viable option, but for the most part you are stuck with the ONE lens on the camera. I know of only one series with interchangeable lens, the Mamiya C330. The TLR and SLR have and different approach to shooting. Like square and rectangle format, neither approach is perfect for everything. I like the light and quiet of the TLR. I could do a shoot in a library and not disturb others. Sooner or later I will get a TLR also.</p>

<p>Sorry for bouncing around with my thoughts</p>

<p>I use an Mamiya RB67. It meets all your requirements except built-in meter and possibly the weight. I'd go with the RZ67 if you insist on the meter although that's something to break. </p>

<p>However, either RB or RZ67 will:<br>

-fit your budget<br>

-provide 6x7cm, non-square pictures.<br>

-RB or RZ's are double the negative size of 645 (6x7 vs. 6x4.5). I believe 6x8 might be available, but not sure on this point.<br>

-revolving film back so you don't have to move the camera on the tripod when you switch from portrait to landscape shooting.<br>

-Change extra film backs in the middle of a roll so you can switch from different color films or to BW film in the middle of the rolls.<br>

-SLR with mirror up option.<br>

-Swap between waist-level and eye-level finders but the eye level finder will add extra cost. Most RB's are sold with the waist level. I use eye level most of the time although waist level is good for macro and low shots.</p>

<p>One thing. Leave some money for a good tripod. Good luck on whatever you decide.</p>

<p>Bokeh's great. Here's a sample of normal 90mm lens on the RB67. (equivalent about 45mm-50mm on a 35mm camera).</p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5169/5262942856_b8e77bc4a2_z.jpg" alt="" width="504" height="640" /><br>

<p>Here's 50mm (equivalent 28mm)<br>

<img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5281/5270429762_bb58f11c37_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="521" /><br>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks everybody.</p>

<p>Gary - I think you did a good job describing my dilemma. On the one hand, 645 is convenient but not a HUGE step up from 135. WRT square composition vs. rectangular, I think I am primarily a rectangular man. Of course I Instagram, and so the square format is familiar to me. But I have probably never cropped my film/digital shots into the square format. If I am composing in the square format, it would obviously be different but I am skeptical whether this will agree with me in the majority of times.</p>

<p>I should consider 6x7 or 6x9 systems. Any suggestions for an SLR in that format?</p>

<p>6x7-Mamiya RZ67<br>

6X6- Bronica SQ-A</p>

<p>Pentax 645 you wont be disappointed.</p>

<p>Chip I have always been a fan of the RB67 and just purchased one from KEH this summer. Waist level finder, body, 120 back, 127, 180 and 150 soft focus lenses, the whole package shipped was about $350. Oh yeah, got a grip too. I prefer the waist level finder over the prism finders but you can add a prism for not a lot more money. I have no problems following movement, focusing or composing. Takes a little getting used to but not much. And I love that big 6x7 negative. If I were to try something else it would be the Pentax 67. Always wanted one and may yet buy one. Can't beat the prices on these film cameras nowadays and they are as good as ever.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I do not know of a 6x9 SLR.<br>

I only know of a Fuji rangefinder in 6x9.<br>

I think there were folders that were in 6x9.</p>

<p>Actually I think a 645 is a huge step up from 135. BUT, while you are in the 6x"something" world (120 film), my head says "why not go the little bit more" to a 6x6 or 6x7. Although in the case of the RB67 and Pentax 6x7 that is not a little bit, but a whole LOTA bit of size and weight increase over a 645.</p>

<p>In my case I went to a 6x6, a Hasselblad 500cm. And no it was NOT expensive. I bought it used for less than what I paid for my Nikon D70. That was really good for me, otherwise I could not afford it. But it was upsetting how much its market value had dropped, so that I could afford it. And for me the Hasselblad was lighter than a RB67, which for someone past middle-age, weight starts to become important. Although the RB67 has always been attractive in my eye, maybe one day I'll get one, just to have it. It would make a great studio camera.</p>

<p>Do you NEED that large a negative? <br>

In most cases, probably not, because your final print will not be LARGE. So the magnification ratio of frame size to print size will be relatively low, compared to a 35mm image.<br>

However, if you do have gigs that call for LARGE print, it is nice to have the larger negative, so the grain is not apparent.<br>

And for artistic stuff, where you might do a LARGE print, it is nice to have the larger negative.<br>

That is why there are still guys and gals shooting 4x5 inch and larger sheet film cameras.</p>

<p>In my head the steps are:<br>

- sub 35mm full frame<br>

- 35mm full frame<br>

- medium format; 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 (6x7 is probably the largest MF enlarger you can find, 6x9 would probably need a 4x5 enlarger. 6x9 is probably the largest format you can do on roll film, before you have to switch to sheet film.)<br>

- large format; 4x5 inch sheet film (largest somewhat reasonable size enlarger to use)<br>

- larger format; 5x7 and larger sheet film</p>