simple mf questions...120 vs 220, wl finder, tlr, lenses

[chris_markiewicz]

hello. i have only shot 35mm to date and have been considering a mf

camera. i have been following this forum for a while and i have a few

easy questions...

 

what's the difference between 120 film and 220 film?

 

waist-level finders - coming from a 35mm, i have no experience with

these? what are the advantages/disadvantages?

 

tlr - i haven't chosen a camera yet, and i often see tlr's while

looking around. is there anything special about the two lens cameras?

 

finally, lenses - i have a nikon slr and a few lenses. are there any

mf cameras that would let me use them? i'm guessing not - since it

seems that all mf lenses are quite expensive, compared to 35mm.

 

thanks for your time.

chris

[q.g._de_bakker]

Chris,<br><br>220 film is twice as long as 120 film, and holds twice the number of frames. It still fits on the same spool, because whereas 120 film has backing paper along its entire length, 220 film only has a paper leader and trailer.<br>220 is harder to get (though if you have a good source, it's as easy to get as anything else ;-)), and there are fewer emulsions available in 220 format than 120 format.<br><br>The first thing you'll notice when using a waist level finder is that the viewfinder image is left-right reversed. Tracking a moving subject than becomes rather tricky. Until you get used to it. And you will do just that. Fairly quickly too.<br>The main advantages are in the way you see the viewfinder image: you can often use both eyes, and it adds a level of separation between you and the subject. Instead of looking at your subject directly (through a peep-hole), you are looking away from it, at a projected image. Makes photography more of a well-considered occupation, less of a "grab" thing.<br><br>TLRs are special in two ways: they don't have a large flapping mirror, and most have fixed lenses, no changeable lenses.<br>The fixed mirror (part of the viewing system above the taking lens) makes using a TLR quieter, and there's less camera indced shake. The downside of that is that you do have parallax problems: with the viewing lens sitting above the taking lens, you don't see exactly what the taking lens does. Only a problem at close range though.<br>Most TLRs not having changeable lenses (the Mamiya TLRs being one exception) obviously limits you to using one lens (80 mm standard lens) only. This isn't necessarily bad though. Some TLRs come/came in different versions, each with a (again fixed) tele- or wide angle lens. To use all three, you would need three complete cameras.<br><br>Most (not quite all, but close) 35 mm format lenses can not be used on MF cameras. First, because the image circle they project is too small to cover the larger MF format. Second, because they are put in mounts that make then sit much closer to the film (typically 25 - 30 mm) than is possible in MF reflex cameras (lens flange to film distance typically 80 mm and more). Some telephoto lenses however would be usable, but would need their mounts changed rather drastically.<br.The other way round, MF lenses on 35 mm format, is no problem. There are several adaptors available that allow you to put MF lenses on 35 mm cameras. The image circle of MF lenses is large, and their intended lens flange to film distance is large enough to allow insertion of the adapter.

[thomas_sullivan]

to add to the above commenters excellent synopsis.........tlr's also do not have the "black out" of slr's. There is no mirror flopping up and obscuring your view at the time of exposure, and thus you continue to see the subject DURING exposure....a handy item if taking pics of people...you KNOW if they blinked.

 

I own a Mamiya TLR, and although larger and heavier than most TLRs, a true joy to work with, plus the advantage of interchangable lenses.

 

In your research don't ignore the Range Finder type MF. Mamiya 6's and 7's and the Fuji ones also. Some really nice cams for the price in there.

 

Then there are the SLRs.........way too long a list to even start...

 

and last but not least, you have to decide on the format........MF is not just one size. You have 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9.........probably more that I forget, but those are the typical ones. Generally the larger the negative size, the larger (and heavier) the cam. But, then the larger the neg size, the better the final print.

[will_legge]

To add more:

 

Some cameras can take both 120 and 220 film without adapters or

different film backs. Others require different backs for each type of

film. A few can only use 120 only.

[chris_markiewicz]

great answers - thanks! although thomas raised one more question - rangefinders. i think i get the idea of these - two images are projected through the eyepiece - and you can tell that the subject is in focus when the two are aligned. is that right? is there any particular advantage to that - or is it just another approach?

 

again - thanks for the answers. right - i haven't really decided on much of anything yet. brand, format (6x7, etc), or anything else. i'm currently looking at the mamiya rz67 because it seems to be *relatively* affordable, i like the idea of a 6x7, and it seems reputable enough. i've been watching auction sites and reading these forums for a while. just a matter of convincing myself to get the cash together.

 

chris.

[j._bradley_deal]

Getting use to a Square instead of a Rectangle is also a challange at first. All TLR's are 6x6 (4x4 in 127 film) You have to learn to compose differently. The upside of that is you can crop with ease. Ditto everyone above as well.

[peter_evans4]

How are you thinking of using a medium-format camera? (What kind of things do you want to photograph?)

[paul_sorensen]

What I found to be the most interesting and useful aspect of using a waist level finder is kind of hard to describe. For whatever reason, when I use a WL finder, I feel like I am looking at a photograph, rather than the viewfinder of a telescope. I think that it is from being back a little bit and being able to judge the entire frame more completely. Whatever the reason, it made a huge difference in my photography and I think it even affected my photography when using an eye level prism type camera. I strongly recommend getting something like a TLR even if you only use it a little because you will be practicing that way of seeing and improving your shooting.

[chris_markiewicz]

to peter's question - i confess that i have no great need for a mf camera. i would like to use it for semi-formal-ish portraiture and landscape photos. beyond that, it's just a toy like the 35mm.

 

to give the whole story - i keep debating about what to do next. digital has the instant gratification appeal to me, but i love the idea of having negatives. and admittedly, that money would probably be better spent on a photography class. but i'm thinking i'll start by renting a mf camera for a few days. unfortunately i'll all too aware that a new camera won't improve the photographs.

 

chris

[pavelp]

Chris,

 

I agree with you that spending your money on photography class is a wise investment into one's photography.

 

To your rangefinder question: the camera is focused by aligning two images in the viewfinder. None of these images comes through the lens, they are created by rangefinder/viewfinder. The advantages to rangefinders are:

 

1) The brightness of the viewfinder does not depend on the lens used (you can use quite slow lenses and still see the same bright picture in the viewfinder).

 

2) Rangefinders are easy and quick to focus.

 

3) Because you are not looking through the lens, there's no need for other lens or a moving mirror, which greatly simplifies both camera and lens design. Rangefinder lenses are said to have an edge over SLR lenses. Also, wide and ultrawide lenses are more common with rangefinders. On the other hand, there's few really long lenses for rangefinders.

[q.g._de_bakker]

To supplement the "rangefinder" bit:<br><br>Because rangefinders basically are measuring distance by triangulation, they are great with wide angle lenses (more acurate than ground glass focussing), considerably less acurate with long focal length lenses.<br><br>Rangefinders and TLRs have the same problem, that since you're not looking through the taking lens, parallax will be a real pain at close range.<br>And you don't see what a filter does, in particularly using a polarizer is a bit cumbersome.<br><br>Other than that (and ignoring the fact that most have a fixed lens too), they are another good choice.<br><br>The SLR principle has its advantages over both TLR and rangefinder though. Sometimes, you just need to see what the taking lens sees.

[richard_cochran]

One more comment about rangefinders. Because the viewfinder

doesn't project an image onto a screen, the viewfinder can

be quite a bit more compact than an eye-level prism on a

SLR or TLR. It doesn't show depth of field at all -- everything

appears in focus through the viewfinder. This can be an

advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the shooting situation

and your preferences.

[peter_evans4]

<p>Chris, a Minolta Autocord is a TLR that has an excellent reputation.

See <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/autocord.html"

title="This website has a lot of other interesting material too.">this

page</a> for a digestible summary. (I've used one, but only very briefly,

so can't really judge.) The reputation isn't sufficiently excellent to push

up the prices. You'll probably find the screen dark, but I have a feeling

that if you found it <em>impossibly</em> dark you'd be wasting your

money on anything similar but brighter. Whether intriguingly or

infuriatingly, it will be utterly unlike what you're used to. It's light

enough to be carried around. <s>Chicks may dig it.</s> [sorry, must be

serious.] Don't judge it

after just the first roll; give yourself a bit of time to get used to it. But

after you've used it for a few rolls, you'll have a better idea of

what you want, and when you resell it you won't lose much money. Who

knows, you may even decide that you like it.</p>

[dean_matsueda]

Yes, for me, taking a class in photography was really worth the money but I think you can

do both -- take a class and pick up a MF camera if you're heart is not set on an RZ. I have

the Mamiya RB which you can pick up for about half the price of an RZ from keh.com and

you'll have money left over for a class (or perhaps get a 645 or a 6x6 TLR).

 

And I should mention that if you don't already have one, you'll most likely need to get a

relatively sturdy tripod so you might want to factor that cost into your budget as well.

 

But whichever MF camera you decide on, the most important thing is to just do it -- now!

You'll love it... I was blown-away when I got my first roll developed and with the prices on

MF kits nowadays, it's a great time to jump in!