Which Medium Format Camera for Landscape?

[ShunCheung]

My main interest in photography is nature, landscape and wildlife. I

have a very good AF 35mm system with long lenses for wildlife

photography, including birds. However, the 35mm film is too small for

enlarging to large display prints, mainly for my landscape work. So

medium format is the obvious answer. However, I am facing the dilima

that I am sure many of you have faced.

 

What I need is a small medium-format camera that is easy to carry

along with my 35mm gear. All I need is probably 2 to 3 lenses, mainly

a wide angle for landscape. A range finder such as the Mamiya 7 seems

to fit my needs, especially 6x7 gives me a larger film. However,

I'll also lose all the advantages of an SLR: spot meter, good macro

capability, etc. My other choice is a 6x4.5 SLR. With some new AF

bodies being introduced, that seems to be a good alternative as well.

But the cameras aren't as compact as the Mamiya 7 (or 7 II).

 

Are there any suggestions and additional ideas? Thanks in advance.

[milco_van_klingeren]

I would suggest a MF camera like a Horseman 985 with 3 lenses.

This is a view camera with the possibility of Macro. Also the quality of the lenses should not be a problem, with a reasonable price.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Pentax 6x7. Not small, but the lenses are exceptional. Likewise a Hasselblad 500/CM, which is smaller than the Pentax and much more versatile than a 645 camera. My favorite Landscape camera was a Fuji GSW690. This was a fixed lens wide angle (angle of view equal to a 28mm for a 35mm camera) rangefinder built around an extraordinary lens.

[ShunCheung]

Thanks again for the suggestions so far. Please keep in mind that I am keeping my 35mm system which consists of some big and long lenses. That is still my primary camera(s). I am planning to get into medium format to suppliment my 35mm system. Therefore it isn't very practical to get a big medium-format camera such as a view camera or a 6x7 SLR bacuase I cannot carry so much stuffs. Essentially, my choices are limited to a light-weight range finder or a small MF SLR.

[russ_arcuri]

Most successful landscape photographers use graduated ND filters to bring the total contrast of a scene in line; this helps prevent foregrounds from being too underexposed against a bright sky. Also, many landscape photographers use polarizers to intensify the contrast between clouds and blue sky.<p>

 

This also means you need an SLR. You really can't position a graduated ND filter precisely without one. Likewise, you can't easily see the effect that the polarizer will give without an SLR.<p>

 

The Pentax 67 is the de-facto landscape camera if you don't want to go to large format, probably in large part because of these issues.<p>

 

If you don't ever plan on trying to use a polarizer or ND filter, then the Mamiya 7 would fit the bill.

[andreas_carl]

I can't imagine carrying two complete sets of cameras with lenses and accessories into the field. If you want to supplement your 35 mm gear with a high quality medium format camera, I strongly recommend the Fuji 690 GSW. It's an incredibly sharp camera and ideal for landscapes.

[andreas_carl]

With "ideal for landscapes" I meant, has the right lens and the right negative size. If you use polarizers or ND filters regularly then the rangefinder design will limit you and you would be better of with a Pentax 67 like Russ suggested.

[brian walsh]

Russ Arcuri suggested that the relative difficulty of using graduated ND filters and polarizers on the Mamiya 7 vs. on a rangefinder:

 

"...[M]eans you need an SLR. You really can't position a graduated ND filter precisely without one. Likewise, you can't easily see the effect that the polarizer will give without an SLR."

 

Russ is right in that it is requires more care (and, initially, a steeper learning curve) to get good results with ND filters or a polarizer with a rangefinder than with an SLR, but it does not follow, as Russ suggests, that "This...means you need an SLR." The polarizer is easy to work around (look through it and adjust it before mounting it, in the same postion, on the lens), and the ND problem is solvable with some experience and (perhaps) some extra exposures. Some of us are willing to work a bit harder in some areas to enjoy the wonderful wide angle lenses and lightweight, handholdable and packable rangefinders.

[stephen_poe1]

If you are interested in this question, please read the posting at <a href="http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Own">http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Own,</a> where a photographer with very similar problems is asking for help and getting interesting suggestions.<p>

[russ_arcuri]

Re: Brian's comments above. Of course, there are no hard and fast rules about this sort of thing. I have used polarizers with my Mamiya TLR, for example. It was (IMO) a pain in the backside, but it can be done. I certainly wouldn't recommend the procedure Brian outlines for long-time or regular use.<p>

 

Using graduated ND filters is difficult enough with an SLR (lining up, stopping down lens to make sure horizon line is properly placed) that I would never recommend it to rangefinder users. Just because it can be done via trial and error with a rangefinder doesn't mean it's practical or productive to do so. Often times the light's changing so rapidly or the sky is going from interesting to boring quickly enough that trying to make the image look "right" with a split ND filter on a rangefinder would mean not getting the shot at all. Hence my comment about requiring an SLR for this type of thing.

[paul_wilson2]

Shun, there are still advantages to an SLR, but I'd like to address the two you mention.

 

Spot meter: Go buy a Sekonic 508. It's small and you'll have an incident meter(handy). If you don't like the 508 get some other spot meter.

 

Macro: I don't think MF macro is really worth it. To take advantage of the extra film area, you're going to have to work with higher magnification than you would in 35. In other words, with a shot of a bug at 1:1 with a 6x4.5, the bug is going to be the same size on film as it would using a 35mm camera and a 1:1 lens. Also, a fine-grained film and a good macro lens such as a Micro-Nikkor can yield amazing results.

 

Russ, have you tried ND grads with a rangefinder? It's not that hard. The first thing to do is take some test shots at different apertures. This will allow you to make a scale of offsets for different apertures. I probably wouldn't want to use an ND grad with a hard line though.

 

Finally, I don't know how strong you are Shun. However, I know you have some big lenses for your 35mm system. Weight might be the overriding factor in making your decision. I for one wouldn't want to carry around a 500/4 as well as a Pentax 67 outfit.

[paul_wilson2]

One other thing.

 

If you decide to go for an SLR, you might want to consider a 6x6 with a waistlevel finder. A Hassy or a Bronica SQAi with a waistlevel finder are probably no bigger than a 6x4.5 SLR with a prism. The lenses aren't much bigger either and you'll have the advantage of a bigger neg.

[bobatkins]

Shun, I'd ask if you are really SURE you want to drop $2000+ on yet

more stuff to haul around! The lure of MF is obvious, but just how

many large prints do you make (or intend to make)? Cost is a side

issue, but MF processing and film (per shot) costs more, and if you

shoot slides, you need a MF projector unless you just want to look

at them through a loupe. You can't scan them (yet) with any decent quality,

affordable scanner, though that may change I guess.

 

I think we both shoot similar subjects, and I've dabbled in MF a

little with a Fuji GS645 (folder) and Yashica TLR. After that, I'm

not really sure I'd go much further in MF for my needs. In fact I'm

thinking of selling the GS645 folder (feel free to contact me if

anyone is looking for one!). I'll keep the Yashica for the odd time

I want to experiment, but I doubt I'll go much further in MF.

 

To get better 35mm landscapes I might invest in a 24mm T/S lens,

which can be shot at optimum aperture (f5.6-f8) and tilted to

maximize DOF. As another thread points out, DOF at larger formats

becomes more of a problem unless you have tilt capability.

 

If I was really serious about MF landscape work, I guess I'd go

for the Pentax 67, but you have to hold one to realize just what

a large and heavy hunk of metal it is. I'm not sure I'd want to haul one

(and several lenses) around with me on long trips as well as a full

set of 35mm gear.

[niloy_hil]

Going up to MF is obviously a more pleasure path for many many people,

just like going up to LF or down to APS or any other directions. It's

at least not something very unusual. However, carrying a 35mm SLR and

a MF SLR does seem requiring an unusual back.

 

I'd suggest several options:

 

1. Get a light MF with a zoom, such as the new Fuji 645.

 

2. Get a fixed RF, such as Fuji 690 or 645.

(Even the 690 can be too heavy.)

 

3. Get a Hasselblad, also get a HB-lens to 35mm-body adapter,

use the Hasselblad system + HB-to-35mm adapter + 35mm SLR body.

Depends on the widest MF lens you have and the widest 35mm lens

you want, you might need to carry the widest 35mm lens as well.

(for example, the 28mm or wider).

[ShunCheung]

Once again a big thank you to all of those who provided suggestions. This is yet another good example that photography involves a lot of compromises.

 

Those who "know" me from the Nature Forum might realize that I travel quite a bit. I always feel that it would be nice to have those beautiful landscape images in larger slides. Before I went to Kenya in 1997, I got in touch with a fellow traveller in out group. I found out that he was bringing his medium-format camera in addition to his Nikon F4 and 300mm/f2.8 lens, etc. Initially I thought he was crazy until I realized how small his Mamiya 7 was.

 

Actually that person also has a very complete Hasselblad system. Depending on the situation he uses that or his Mamiya 7 (or his 35mm system or his large-format camera). I guess he has the best of both worlds (or all worlds) if you can afford it. Unfortunately, I can't.

[paul_wilson2]

Shun, you mention slides so I assume you'll want to project them. If you get the 7, the only option is the ProCabin projector. This is

~$1200(about half that if you can get one in Japan). There are more options for 6x6. This means that the Mamiya 6 might be a viable option and it's even more compact than the Mamiya 7.

[julian oliver bell, photog]

What I now use is a Graphic Century with a 6x9 rollfilm-back with a 100mm apo-symmar with rangefinder focussing down to 1 meter. The rig weighs in at about the same as a hasselblad with standard lens. The camera folds up with the lens. Cost me about a $1000 including a couple more 6x7 and 6x6 backs. I was able to adjust the rangefinder myself. It has got a mat glass back so polar and grad filters are no problem. There are also some basic front lens movements and long enough bellows for close-up. I also use a 65mm f8 super-angulon that weighs in at 280 gm including the little lensboard. You can get something similar from Horseman or Linhof.

It is an easy camera (no mirror slap, quiet landscapes) for shooting off the tripod using the viewfinder although I'm not sure about using it for portraits yet, there I still prefer my old hassy with 2x converter.

Another 2ct worth.

 

Julian

[john_macpherson]

Off topic, but a hint to work around the supposed polarizer problem on

rangefinder cameras.

<P>

I use a Fuji GSW6x9 and use the pola filter a lot. When I bought the

polarizer I also bought one of the smallest pola. filters (of the same

brand name/type) they had in the shop (30 or 35mm or thereabouts), and

put a cord round it and epoxied it on. I can wear this around my neck

and use to assess the scene, rotating the front for effect, then

transferring this setting to the filter on the rangefinder, using the

alignment mark engraved on the filters as a guide.

<P>

It is VERY convenient and useful. And no problem. Hope this helps you.

<P>

My preference for a MF to take where weight is paramount? Take the big

6x9 Fuji. SHARP SHARP lens, croppable to panoramic, and you can cut

razor sharp 645 and 35mm images from that big negative. AND it needs

no battery to keep on working. It is very light for what you get. JOHN

<

[john_c.]

Shun: I've gotten some beautiful SHARP landscape chromes with a Rolleicord Va TLR that I picked up in mint condition for $300. I had a bright screen installed for another $150. You can get a new B+W bay-1 polarizer for it for $93 from B&H, and it works easily and well. The camera itself is built like a tank and the shutter will never fail. Very light to boot. Impressive for a camera built in 1957. The fact that the lens can't be changed helps you to concentrate on composition. All you need extra is a light meter. Granted, it's not a substitute for a Pentax 67-II, but picture-taking needn't be complicated nor expensive. For me, at least, the Rollei brings back some joy after using a 35mm system and a 4x5 system. Good luck to you.

[larry_johnson]

Gentlemen, you all have good and reasoned responses. I'll add my recommendation of the Pentax 67 system, starting with the 55mm wide angle lens. After 30+ years with Nikons and good Nikon glass I was increasingly frustrated that my efforts to produce a fine 11x14 (or larger) print yielded works more like Monet's than Fielder's. Yes, I was utilizing MLU, solid tripod, 50 and 100 ISO films -- the whole list. The fact was, simply, the negative was too small.

 

About 5 months ago I rented a Pentax 67 and a couple of lenses and did the same routine: the results were stupefying! Since buying my 67 equipment in December (God bless KEH), I've grown to three lenses (I'll get another next month) and the Lowepro Phototrekker AW bag. [in the past two months I've stopped carrying my 35 gear, and have sold off a body and four lenses -- I wasn't going to use them for serious shooting any more.]

 

The difference is grounded mainly in a changed approach to photography. With the 6x7 format, more of my picture is printable. And, while the process of picture MAKING is slower and requires more effort, the results now speak for themselves. I've heard that Ansel Adams considered it good outing if he captured 2-3 images on film. It wasn't because he was impaired, it was because he was discerning. I've found that knowing my images will have the potential to stand up to a 20x24 inspection, I'm working differently and exercising greater discretion in pre-visualizing and setting up for my exposures. My results are worth it.

 

Six months ago I came close to buying the Mamiya 7 system. I liked the way it fit my hand, and the glass's reputation was unquestioned. But the key issues of precise framing, using graduated neutral density and polarizing filters, and a broad array of available, PROVEN, lenses convinced me to look elsewhere. When I considered the 645s I was put off by the fact that the format still wasn't much bigger than 35, there were hidden costs for additional backs (and problems with leaks, film flatness, etc.), not to mention that the whole group was becoming a consumer electronics show. With 6x6, the name brands were too expensive, and too much negative was wasted. As for my P-67, I'm aware of its shortcomings (noisy operation, mirror and shutter movement), but I'm able to live with them for the other rewards [insert your own analogies about gorgeous women who chew gum, eat crackers, etc.]. In today's world of integrated circuit boards, micro processors, and gee-whiz displays, it's absolutely anachronistic, and that's what I love about it. It's dependable -- solid and simple -- and makes wonderful pictures.

 

What it comes down to is this: figure out what is MOST important to you. Put together a list of three prospective systems. If possible, borrow or rent each for a weekend. Then, start eliminating them by how they meet your criteria. No system will be perfect, but one will come out on top. Next, learn to use it well, and how to work around whatever you believe its shortcoming/s is/are. Practice. Buy a good loupe and a large wastebasket. Grow.

 

Best wishes, Larry Johnson

[pete_su]

I don't do a huge amount of landscape photography. I do a mix of travel, people, and some landscape with my 35mm. But, the darkroom class I'm taking had a unit on 6x6 cameras, where we were to shoot with TLRs. After doing this, I can see why shooting with a 6x6 and waistlevel finder would be really great, especially for landscapes. It takes a bit of practice to learn how to compose in a square, but the waist level viewing is just so much nicer than eye level on a tripod that I'm almost ready to buy a used Hasselblad or something and a spot meter to go at it.

 

I have an annoying habit of shooting too many horizontals in 35mm, because I hate flopping the camera over on its side, especially on a tripod. I can't imagine what flopping a Pentax 6x7 over for a vertical must be like. :)

 

I think the best suggestion so far is to rent some stuff and see how you like it. There is no other way to know what you will like. Some people like squares, others hate them.

 

Personally, I don't think I'd have the gumption to haul a large 35mm outfit and a small medium format one around with me.

[lanierb]

This is now totally off topic to the original question, but I wanted to address Russ's concern about graduated ND filters with a rangefinder. Russ: I originally had exactly the same concerns and for that reason I never even bothered bringing my grad ND's along with my M7. Then one day I happened to have them along and I was taking a landscape and thought, what the heck, I'll take the shot I want without it then slap one on the front guessing where to put it and see what happens. I took two exposures, moving the filter in between and 'lo and behold the first guess turned out perfect. Since then I have been doing the same thing a lot with generally excellent results. The funny thing is it's even faster than using them on an SLR because I don't have to push DOF preview and swing the filter back and forth, etc. I just slap it on, take two or three quick shots, and I'm done. (A polarizer does take slightly longer because you have to unscrew it and then screw it back in but that's really never bothered me.)

Since you plan on keeping your 35mm system and just want a Medium Format rig strictly for your landscapes I think either the Hasselblad SWC 38mm with a A12 back (newer style around $2500 in EX++ condition with the back) Or the Fuji GSW 6x9 (about $900 used). Both lenses are by far superior than anything else out there, and isn't that what really matters???lens quality. The SWC with a back is really quite compact, and reliability is outstanding. While the Fuji is rather large and not sure about it's longetivity. Also the Fuji's rangefinder is less than desirable.

 

I may be biased cause I have the Blad bug and can't shake it. I love the square format for landscapes, especially in B&W, as I think the square gives the image that "gallery" look.