Help in choosing 6x7 camera

[paul_frank]

I want to step up in format from 35mm. I really like the 6x7 format, but

there seems to be many options and I'm looking for some help. Here

are some specifics:

 

1. Cost is a big issue. I can spend in the $1000-$2000 dollar range only

and would prefer to spend much less. Right now I can't afford the costs

of 4x5 film/processing, so it has to be 120.

 

2. 70-90% of the time I work in the 24-28mm (35mm) range.

 

3. Pentax 67 seems a likely candidate, with a 55/4 lens, but I hear

about dof issues and I wonder if perhaps I should get a 4x5 camera with

a 6x7 back; then later on when I'm not a poor grad student I can step up

to LF. But what reasonably priced 4x5's are out there that can take a

45-55mm lens and allow for movements? All I can find in the archives

seems to be really expensive top-line cameras like a Linhoff.

 

4. I shoot vertically about 75% of the time, so a back that can rotate is

pretty much a must.

 

5. I'd like to look into a Century Graphic because all the movements I

really need are some front tilt and maybe rise, but it seems like I can't

put a 45-55mm lens on it.

 

Thanks for any help or advice you can give!

[jeff_drew4]

Paul,

<< . . . I shoot vertically about 75% of the time, so a back that can rotate is pretty much a must. >> What types of subjects fit this? A rotating back pretty much eliminates cameras that don't have them.

 

In the studio or outdoors? Have you thought of a used 4x5 rig with rollfilm back? I've seen many in your budget range. DOF differences or issues exist comparing MF with 35mm - no matter the camera. Do you need a field camera or a monorail? Budget for a decent tripod? Search the threads and I think you'll find a wealth of opinions on each of these queries.

[GerrySiegel]

The Century is a cheap way to get into MF. I see no reason you can't adapt a wide angle lens for it, the front drops for clearance, and the bellows will fold in. Getting a quality lens is another story,but its salable later on. The RB 6 by 7 is often available cheap used when scuffed and beaten, and it has that rotating back you say you need. You pay a weight cost for a rotating back of course. Meaning your back pays the price.

[david_goldfarb]

You can certainly find large format cameras that will handle a wide lens, usually with a bag bellows, but it's a bit unclear what all your requirements are. Bear in mind that a new ultrawide lens can be more costly than the camera you put it on, so you might consider whether a classic lens will suit your needs.

 

So a few questions to start with might be:

 

Monorail or flatbed, or if you just need wideange, will a dedicated architectural camera do (like the Cambo Wide DS or Silvestri)?

 

Do you want something ultralight that you can climb mountains with or is this for the studio?

 

Do you need something that can be handheld like a Technika or a Speed Graphic?

 

How much bellows do you need? What is the longest lens you might want in the future?

 

For just rollfilm, have you looked at cameras like the Galvin monorail--very light and affordable with full movements?

 

Check out the LF homepage for more info, and read through the LF forum (linked at the bottom of the LF page) for many answers to these questions:

 

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/

[vartan_grigorian1]

If you really need movements, then older 4x5 cameras need not be expensive. Use 5x4 cut film with a 90mm lens (~28mm equivalent in 35 mm). The processing costs will be higher, but you will use less film and probably have a higher percentage of sucessful photographs. 45~55mm large format lenses will need to be recent designs and will be expensive. The choice of usable cameras is also less (need for bag bellows sunken lens panels etc). If you end up using the camera less because of the film handling and general slow pace of things with LF then this is not a good choice. Lenses designed for 4x5 will be less than optimum for 6x7 and MF technical cameras are expensive.

 

MF cameras currently available in 6x7 format include:

 

1. The Mamiya RB/RZ has the rotating back, but is big heavy and slow to use.

 

2. The Pentax 6x7 is the best value system.

 

3. Bronica GS-1 is not a popular choice for some reason.

 

You then have the rangefinder options:

 

4. Mamiya 7

 

5. Fuji GSW670 etc.

 

All these choices are capable of excellent results, but some will easily blow your budget and are not suitable for everthing.

 

I hesitate to recommend the Mamiya Press range, because they are getting old and parts availability / servicing could become an issue. Otherwise they would be ideal with some versions offering back movements. It is up to you to decide what kind of photography interests you most before making an appropriate choice.

[greg_jones1]

Buy a Fuji GSW690III before they are all gone. It is 6X9 vs. 6X7, but the camera is a relative bargain in the medium format world at $1300 new. The lens performance is highly touted, and this gives you the wide angle you use a good deal of the time in 35mm. Easy to rotate the back-you just turn the camera on the side. 6X9 cameras burn film quickly, as you get 8 exposures per 120 roll. If you shoot transparency film or color neg, 220 is a good option when using 6X9 as you get 16 shots. The Fuji allows the use of both 120 and 220. Camera is a rangefinder of course, and not for everyone, but if budget is an issue, why not take a look?

[GerrySiegel]

The Century Graphic, which I am not pushing on you by no means-tilts are very very limited and rise the same on frt standard, originally had available an f8 Schneider 47mm Super Angulon lens. Now, I know the Bronica GS-1 6 by 7 is unpopular, but that can work for you. It has good optics available, a good build quality and I think they are being offered at deep discount promotions, thats what I was told anyway. It also has a finder that can be rotated for format change. Keep it on your list anyway.

[paul_frank]

I didn't expect so much help so soon - thanks. I should have been more specific. I do landscapes, and so I'm out in the field alot to portability is important. While I use wideangles alot, I need to be able to switch lenses. Rangefinders are not ideal as I use ND grads alot. Pentax seems great except for aforementioned dof issues, which is why I am condisering a field camera w/roll film back. But of course, the ability to use a 55m lens or wider with some limited movements would be necessary.

 

Hope this helps and thanks for the replies.

[vartan_grigorian1]

If you are doing landscapes I would suggest the Pentax 67 or the Bronica GS-1. The Mamiya RB/RZ; although just as good in its own way; is a bit too big and heavy for my liking and the RB is quite slow to use. A rangefinder will be limiting in terms of the ability to use filters and see depth of field effects. Movements would certainly be useful, but are not really essential for landscapes with wideangle lenses. You will miss fewer opportunities by using simple, fast handling cameras.

[nick_albano]

It seems that a 4x5 is really your ideal choice. IMHO, the processing costs are not as great as the difference in costs between the cameras and the lens. In medium format, you get a lot of expensive (o.k., very expensive) mechanical devices that really don't affect the quality of a landscape image. Just for instance, helicoid focusing (or rack bellows focusing), a viewfinder or a mirror raising mechanism, etc., etc. In large format, you get some very useful things that don't add a tremendous cost to the camera - like tilt and shift - but which are really useful in landscapes.

 

Let's add that most markets for landscapes may prefer 4x5s and any lens you buy for a 4x5 camera will work on any other view camera. Then think seriously about the price of lenses. Pentax and Mamiya lenses can cost as much - or more - than comparable view camera lenses (did I mention you will never need to buy a "tilt and shift" lens). For landscape work, 4x5 has a definite edge. I'll also add that you often only get to make the image once. If I'm walking off with only one shot, I want it to be the best that I can get (of course, that often does mean medium format or 35mm).

 

I also use an RZ and, by comparison with the 4x5, it's relatively light, has automatic metering (if I'm so inclined or I just want to check my exposure values), it's very fast by comparison with a view camera and it is handholdable (o.k. not for long).

 

I hope this helps - when I was in your shoes I tried medium format gear, but I ended up selling it and buying what some would consider an "antique" view camera (a Gundlach).

 

Enjoy

[david_goldfarb]

For landscapes primarily, you could start with a folding field camera like a Tachihara, which can be found used for a few hundred dollars, leaving plenty of cash left over for a lens or two (should be able to take a 90mm, possibly with a recessed board if you want a little more flexibility), filmholders or quickload-type system, polaroid back if you want one, a light meter, darkcloth, and a decent tripod. Some of these 4x5" wood field cameras are light enough to turn sideways, so a rotating back is not even a necessity, though it is highly desirable.

 

Most people find they shoot less film and have more keepers with large format, so film costs even out, plus with sheets you get the major advantage of individual development for each sheet. This allows you to control contrast by using the zone system or to shoot two or more sheets of one scene, process one sheet, then adjust development on subsequent sheets to change the contrast range.

[richard baznik]

"Bronica GS-1 is not a popular choice for some reason."

 

The only reason it's not popular is that the manufacturer does not promote the system. It's an excellent 6x7 system.

 

On the other hand, you seem to be certain that you need some movement for the lens, and you're not going to get that from a GS-1. You can rent a Pentax 67 and see what you think, but my guess is that you'll wind up with a 4x5 with a 6x7 back -- and you'll be happy with it.

[paul_frank]

Again, *for now* I've ruled out 4x5. The costs are just too much for me. What relatively inexpensive 4x5's can use lenses in the 45-55mm range?

[jeff_drew4]

For starter 4x5 rigs, check out Calumet. I've seen near mint units from a few hundred $ on up. Some smaller camera stores have them sitting in windows gathering dust. Shutterbug can get you several reliable choices. Your need for interchangeable lenses and 6x7 rollfilm format seems to be driving your choices moreso than swings & tilts. I currently use a P67 w/45mm on a Gitzo tripod - no problems with any of your concerns, AND a very fine piece of glass!

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

oh, an older technika(you'll need the WA attachment),,, the cadet 'wide'... any woodfield with interchangeable bellows... LF is much cheaper than MF right now.

 

www.mpex.com

[dave_schneider]

Our original poster may be a bit confused over the term "rotating back." Some backs on 4x5 cameras can be rotated by simply releasing a catch and spinning the whole back, some even allow you to use it at anywhere in the roation, not just 90 degree intervals. Nearly all 4x5 view cameras have a back that can be removed and the attached 90 degrees rotated. The exception are some models of field cameras where I believe you have to rotate the whole camera. The rotating backs (like the Toyo) add to the weight and are not really necessary for the work you describe.

 

If you need movements go for the used view camera. What is the depth of field issue you are concerned with? A 55 mm lens has less depth of field than a 28mm lens at the same aperture. If the negative you end up with is 4 times larger you don't have to enlarge as much to get the same print size so it's sort of a wash.