Can't decide on format!!! help!

[elaine_lim]

Help help!! After weeks of researching into medium format cameras, I

still couldn't decide on a format! These are what I gathered:

 

645: good format for printing, personally feel it's pleasing to the

eye. BUT considerably smaller than say 6x7. Qn: I reckon the maximum

enlargement size I would print is 16x20, more often 12x16. Will 645

size result in grainy and poor resolution prints in those sizes?

 

6x6: Good for composition, no need to tilt the camera, especially on

tripod stands. Maximum usage of lense area (square in circle),

therefore the weight of the camera is fully justified? BUT only a

small percentage of images look good in a square format, most of the

time you'll need to crop to 'normal' format, thus a waste of film

etc.

 

6x7: Biggest size of all. A 6x7 camera can also take 6x6, 645

formats. BUT, I personally find 6x7 format without the 'punch' like

645 format, it's still almost a square anyway. Camera body and lenses

are significantly heavier than 6x6 giving only a 1cm advantage.

 

6x8 or 6x9: Hard to come by, expensive, mostly fixed lens cameras.

BUT I love this format! (Maybe an old folding camera for fun?)

 

I'm going crazy settling for one format just to change my mind after

a few days. Other criteria: $$$, weight (for travels). Also I can't

decide on whether I want one with metering or without............. I

seriously don't mind doing things the manual way, but maybe having

metering means I have another option to play with?

 

Please advise!

[mel_brown1]

A 6x4.5 will be completely adequate for 16x20 prints. A 6x6 will offer no improvement.

 

The aspect ratio of a 6x7 is only slightly different from a 6x4.5. The former prints to 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24 with virtually no cropping. The latter prints to a 12x16 with virtually no cropping. There's really not enough difference in their formats to be concerned with.

 

The 6x7 has a lot more than a 1cm advantage over 6x6, assuming standard print sizes. That's because the 6x6 effectively becomes only a 6x4.5. But if you don't plan to print larger than 16x20, it really won't matter.

 

That you want a camera for travel pretty much dictates a 6x4.5. You could add an old folder, but that would push the total weight back up to that of a 6x7.

 

I think it's great that format is your top priority, because it sharply narrows the field of cameras from which to choose. But don't obsess over the physical format. Choose the one you like best, then for the odd print, crop as needed to get the effect you want.

[james_kuhn]

Elaine. . .For me 6X6 has always been my favorite format. I like it because I can get a landscape or portrait image by cropping from almost anywhere on the negative. Also, it's a pain having to turn a MF and flash on it's side for a portrait during a wedding or an event. I much prefer moving back a little and cropping after the fact. "BUT only a small percentage of images look good in a square format. . .", I have found just the opposite to be the true. More and more I find myself leaving an image square when I could just as easily crop. Of course, the reason there are choices is because not everyone has the same taste and style and that's a good thing.

 

Good luck,

 

J.

[donald_brewster]

It sounds like you are looking for a medium format rangefinder. Look at the Mamiya 6 or 7, and the Fuji 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders if you haven't already. All are great for travel. The Mamiya also give you a limited range of lenses to choose from -- a small system camera if you will. Get your hands on a few of these at your local pro shop and see what feels right.

[david_henderson]

This is an impossible question for anyone but you to answer. It just depends what format of images you like best. On the face of it you might want to discount the square since in your view( which isn't mine by the way) only a small proportion of images suit it. You seem to be drawn towards the most angular shapes. If that suits the way you prefer to compose, then do it.

 

A few comments.

 

Unless you are going to splash out on a very new solution like a Contax or Pentax 645N you'll find the metering options from many MF prisms quite limiting by comparison with 35mm. Could be a good time to learn to use a handheld meter to save weight as well as giving(my view) better exposure options. Using spotmetering from a prism is a bit of a pain when the camera's on a tripod.

 

Second, a lot of people will disagree but if you go 645 then 20 x 16 prints are on the edge from conventional print processes. You can get it from a drum scan/LightJet with ease, but from conventional printing routes you'll find that some shots will work and others just don't. 20 x 16 from a good 67 is much easier. Personally I also find that 645 looks a bit cramped- not enough room for foreground and sky. I find this also when I crop to 645.

 

Actually a 67 tranny or neg looks a lot bigger than 66 because the sizes are only approximations. 66 is actually about 56mm square. A 67 neg is 56 by 71 in reality, so it's both relatively bigger and less square than you might think.

 

You can crop nice panoramics and semi-panoramics out of 67.

[joseph_verdesca]

I agree with Donald - the 6x7 Mamiya 7 (has meter) and 6x9 Fuji (has no meter) rangefinders are excellent, very portable (given the size of the negative), reasonably priced in the case of the Fuji 6x9, flexible in terms of interchangeable lenses (in the case of the Mamiya), etc. The rangefinder design also allows use of slower shutter speeds without camera blur from mirror slap.

 

Primary drawbacks are rangefinder design (I prefer SLRs, but everything is a compromise), lack of interchangeable lenses (in the case of the Fuji, and price (in the case of the Mamiya 7).

 

I would suggest that you go and rent these two systems for a weekend or two to get a sense of whether they match your passion. As far as 120 formats go, the sight of a 6x9 Velvia slide is typically even more eye opening than a 6x7 and more closely resembles the 6x4.5 format that you are tending toward (plus gives you an extra cm). Now the 6x17 is another thing altogether...

[jackflesher]

Just buy one and start shooting -- then you can agonize over your decision later ;-) (kidding!)

 

IMO, for travel and not planning on printing bigger than 16x, you could really get away with 35mm, so 645 will give you everything you'd ever want and then some. Plus, there are plenty of 645's with various features to choose from. OTOH, the Mamiya 7 is an awesome travel rig, but more limiting for all-around photography than an MF SLR. And FWIW, I agree that there is no practical difference in format aspect ratios between 645 and 6x7. Also, keep in mind that on a roll of 120 you generally get 8 frames of 6x9, 10 frames of 6x7, and up to 16 frames of 645. While I don't find the additional film cost to be a huge consideration for travel, carrying more film and changing film more frequently can be.

 

Cheers,

[Robin Smith]

Elaine

 

You are worrying way too much. Just buy a camera and use it. Buy something s/h to start with - if money is a real issue then I suggest an old Hasselblad 500C w 80 or a Mamiya TLR, Minolta Autocord or a s/h Bronica ETRs or SQ etc. etc. I wager that once you have an MF camera all this will fade away as, to be honest, the main thing that is different is that the film is much more picky than 35mm, expensive to buy and process, necessitates an MF capable scanner if you are digital person, MF capable enlarger and so on. 35mm is easy; MF is much less so. I think the main thing is to decide whether you actually like MF at all - not the format details themselves. Also ask yourself honestly how many shots you will produce that will be enlarged over 16 x 20 each year. Differences between the formats will not be much at this size. I like the square, but I am sure I could live with any other MF format too - in a way getting to know how the films and cameras work is a much bigger deal than worrying about the format. I worried too, but all the endless debate about which format is better matched to an 8 x 10 is rather pointless, because you are not always printing an 8 x 10, you might/ might not want to crop, you might prefer portability over ultimate quality and on and on it goes. Don't obsess about it. Pick a camera that you think you could live with in terms of carrying it about and operating it and just buy it.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

6x9 can be initially expensive, (particularly the roll film adaptor if you go for LF) but LF lenses are dirt cheap... I have 47, 90, 150, 240, 360, 480, 600 and 900... what would that cost you on a MF SLR?

 

Weight, size and speed of use are factors: what will you use it for?

[mike_scott2]

If you can, get your hands on some of the cameras you're considering to try them out for yourself - rent, borrow, barter... You've got more to consider than format, which camera design suits your style of shooting - an SLR, TLR or a rangefinder? Are you looking for a studio camera or a field camera? Do you expect to shoot hand held or with a tripod? Flash or natural lighting? Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

I've got an older Fuji 6x9 rangefinder that I picked up at a reasonable price - great glass, huge image size, light weight (though a little bulky), but I hardly ever use it. I prefer an SLR, so I usually use 35mm or borrow a Hassie when I want to shoot MF�

[elaine_lim]

>>Second, a lot of people will disagree but if you go 645 then 20 x 16 prints are on the edge from conventional print processes. You can get it from a drum scan/LightJet with ease, but from conventional printing routes you'll find that some shots will work and others just don't. 20 x 16 from a good 67 is much easier. Personally I also find that 645 looks a bit cramped- not enough room for foreground and sky. I find this also when I crop to 645.

 

David, why so if 645 is of similar ratio to 67?

 

I'm not sure I can rent cameras, being in Sydney, Australia. Any Sydneysiders here know where I can rent MF cameras? That's most probably the best way to find out what's right for me, especially in terms of luggability and ease of handling.

 

Definitely would love to use a handheld meter. I suppose if I want to shoot quick, there's the F80 to rely on.

 

Though some of you said that it's reasonable to enlarge up to 16x20 from 35mm negs, I've tried enlarging to 11x14 from a good negative, and it turned out to be not of the same kind of resolution as from say a 8x10. Not as crisp, I would say. This, and the reason that I'll be starting a 2-yr photography course next year, prompted me into thinking about MF.

 

I was initially thinking of GS-1 or SQ-Ai, but I don't think I'll be able to afford these, not even second hand ones (let's not forget enlarger processor print washer!). Looking thru some of the threads here, it seemed that the Mamiya Super 23 is not too bad: interchangable lenses, 6x9 format with other format maskings, fully mechanical so I can really learn, and not too expensive. Is that a good choice?

 

Thanks guys, while I also wish I can just go and buy one and start shooting, I do have to consider seriously which is best for what I need for the budget I have.

 

More advise would be great! :)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Dick,

 

I noticed that you have avoided mentioning the name Sinar this time, but i still have to ask: are you somewhow trying to turn this Medium Format Forum into a Large Format Forum?

;-)

[geoff_mcauliffe]

So buy a 4x5 Speed or Crown Graphic and get 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 rollfilm backs for it! Problem solved! :-)

[elaine_lim]

Dick, mostly landscape, architecture, and travels (overseas or short trips to national parks around NSW). Some portraits, but mostly fun shots.

 

The camera definitely needs to be able to be handheld, although I do use the tripod for most shots. And like I said b4, I don't see myself printing beyond size 16x20 (that's abt the largest the enlarger I have in mind can go!).

[elaine_lim]

4x5 Speed or Crown Graphic? Heavy??!

[mike_scott2]

"mostly landscape, architecture, and travels (overseas or short trips to national parks around NSW). Some portraits, but mostly fun shots. The camera definitely needs to be able to be handheld, although I do use the tripod for most shots."

 

That narrows things down a little - you wouldn't need to worry about flash issues, turning a 645 or 67 on its side for horizontal or vertical compositions. Now, how about filters? ND grads and polarizors are easier to use on SLRs, while a red filter for B&W or infrared works nicely on a rangefinder or TLR (you don't need to view through the dark filter). I also see you mentioned some darkroom equipment, so I assume you're working in B&W and printing yourself. I'd suggest an inexpensive TLR as a good intro to MF - I've read great things about the Yashica 124G if you can find one. My wife worked with a Lubitel for a couple of years before moving up to a second-(or third)-hand Hasselblad. Even a US $20 Holga would let you experiment with the format, providing exposed film to handle in the darkroom. Remember, the softness and vignetting are a 'feature' of both the Lubitel and the Holga. ;^)

[bob_chong]

Good luck finding anywhere to print 6x9.

 

And if you do find them, have fun opening up your wallet.

[dave_t]

If a 4x5 Speed is too heavy, try a 2x3 Century Graphic or a Horseman or Linhof 69 (the latter two might be kinda pricy, even very old ones). Actually as a system these things are lighter than SLRs, since the lenses are often far lighter than their SLR counterparts. Also the movements are really nice for architecture and landscape.

 

But assuming that you're not seriously interested in press/technical cameras, can you deal with a 60's-early 70's vintage SLR? Like a Bronica S2A or a Rollei SL66? The S2A is a bit cheaper and easier to find stuff for. They're big, clunky, noisy and square, which you don't seem to like (and which I like, and seldom crop), and you have to be careful about the condition, but good ones are excellent values.

Lenses and accesories take some hunting down but are quite a bit cheaper than similar vintage Hasselblad kit (well, the Rollei HFT lenses are not).

 

Actually, the best advice is to try as many different ones as possible, the next best is just to buy something and really use it.

[les_campbell]

The difference between 35mm and 6x4.5 is much greater than the difference between 6x4.5 and 6x7. Moving up to any MF size will give you the WOW factor when looking at your negs/slides.

 

I have the Mamiya 7 -- it IS great, but it's best for travel and landscapes; it can't take a tight headshot. But as for 6x7 being almost square, well, what it is almost is an almost perfect ratio for enlarging to 4x5, 8x10, 16x20, etc.

 

As for a meter -- no meter or meter/finder for any current MF camera that I'm aware is on a par with the meters on today's top 35mm SLRs. They're usually center-weighted, and predictably fooled. But time and practice will get you used to your camera's meter and it will work for you almost all the time.

 

For cost, weight, and a great quality lens, I'll cast another vote for the Fuji rangefinders. It's a fixed lens, but what a great one. You can often find a used 6x7 model for under $1000 US.

[david_chilvers]

Earlier this year I brought a Broni rf645, very light and easy to carry( it was brought for going abroad on trips) I wear glasses and couldn`t really get on with the viewfinder. I shot half a dozen rolls through it and part exchanged it because of the view finder and the glasses combination. I won`t go into what i then purchased but found myself disatisfied. so, I spent a weekend looking back through my trannies to evaluate the situation. My RZ pleased me the most( I`ve still got it and use it when I can drive near the location)But the quality and enlargebility of the rf645 slides coupled with the ease with which you can move around with it really has put it at the top of my list as the all rounder. Hand holding is a breeze with it and I`m considering reinvesting in one again.( and putting up with moving my eye around) Scanned at home on the 8000 gives me A3 prints that keeps me smiling with the ability to crop heavily and still maintain good detail.

You don`t know what youv`e got till you lose it comes to mind:-)

 

Cameras tend to be like cars" you either like a particular model or you don`t"

 

Hope you get some peace soon.

 

Dave C

[cp_wong]

"6x8 or 6x9: Hard to come by, expensive, mostly fixed lens cameras. BUT I love this format! (Maybe an old folding camera for fun?)

 

I'm going crazy settling for one format just to change my mind after a few days. Other criteria: $$$, weight (for travels). Also I can't decide on whether I want one with metering or without............. I seriously don't mind doing things the manual way, but maybe having metering means I have another option to play with? "

for your case, i vote for medium format RF,

choices include : bronica RF 645, mamiya M6/M7 RF, Fuji 69 RF ( 90, 60mm, equivalent to standard, wide angle in 135 format respectively.

as u like 69 format, it's just an grossly enlarged version as 135 format.for money, i think u can get a nice second hand RF in the market, e.g. Fuji 69 RF at a low price, then the other options of RF above.quality : no worry at all, or just have a look at the RF session in this site.

But mind u that there are also drawbacks:

1/ can change lens, but for me , it is a pros as i don't need to bring too many lens , and figure out which lens i have to use.

2/ no metering, but u can get a very portable meter , enough for your use, with a weight of 3-oz , and size 2x3x2cm., actually u can attach it to the hotshoe of the camera body.e.g. Voitlanger VC meter

3/ filter use, it will be a agony in using filter in RF, esp. neutral grad.

4/ u may need to bring lots of films when travelling , as i roll 120 take 8 shots in 69 format, and 16 in 645 format.

5/ silly shot: namely, sometimes u just fully attended by the scene, and take silly shots, as u haven't open the lens cover:)

6/ i own pentax 645 systems, and Fuji 69 Rf ( 90mm one), i like both of them , but my use pattern will be: if i have to hike in hot summer for 15-20 km, i will use Fuji 69 instead of pentax system, as pentax one will be too heavy, with 3 lens, body, flash and tripod (carbon fiber) weighs up to 20 lbs.

7/ my 2 cents : Fuji 69 + small meter, preferably 60mm , (~28 mm in 135 format)

happy shooting!!

[joseph_ho]

645-20x30-looks plenty good

 

pentax ones have the tripod thread on two sides so the square has no advantage on the pod if you will crop to a rectangle in the end.

[Don Harpold]

Hello Elaine,

I also am fairly new to MF, I started with and still have an RB pro S with a 90mm, 50mm and 127mm, great camera, but BIG and hard to carry. I recently purchased a Hasselblad and love it, as far as the 6x6 format I like it. the regular 5x prints are great. So now the RB sits in its case. By far the best and smartest thing I did was to lay out the money for a Sekonic 408 spot meter, I think it has made all the difference in my photos. Hope you fair well. Don Harpold

[dave_bazzel1]

I just want to emphysis what Joseph mentioned above. My Pentax 645N has tripod mounts on the bottom AND side. I have attached plates from RRS and find this to be a perfect solution since I never have to flop over a big camera with this set-up. Additionally, I find square format impractical and a bit of neo-modern photographic hype from those who are mesmerized by overly expensive German glass. Ask yourself: "do I really see EVEYTHING as compositionally square?" If not, and you crop it, you immediately get the performance of a 645 with 3 to 4 less exposures per roll. 6x7 and 6x9 are fine but with modern emulsions you would need to enlarge to some very large sizes to justify the extra cost and weight. Frankly Elaine, as an old Nikon 35mm user I think the design, performance and technology of the Pentax 645N is the best thing (for me) since sliced bread.

[wim_van_velzen]

I like the square very much. Has nothing to do with German glass. My older Zenzanons (Bronica EC) do the square job precisely the same.

<br><BR>

Square fits in very neat in how I see the world and how like to put what I see in a composition.