MF Question

[jan_de_ridder1]

Hi,

 

I set out to buy a rolleiflex 2.8f a while ago, based upon the

following basics:

 

- I like shooting standard lenghts (best buy for money)

- I shoot B&W mainly (Tri-x + D76)

- I shoot mainly Architecture and industrial scenes (detail/Crop)

- I don't like Wide angle all that much

- I use tripod 99%

- I use a lightmeter/spotmeter

- 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9; I have no preference, I crop anyway

 

I went for the rollei because I like the design

 

Having read up on MF possibilities I now find I am able purchase any

MF camera with at least the standard lens, this caused to read up

further on the different cameras, this really started complicating

matters, there is something in all of them I like and instead of

bringing my choices down to say 2, they have gone up to 7;

 

Mamiya RZ/RB

Rolleiflex 2.8F

Rolleiflex 6008

Pentax 67

Bronica SQ A or B

Hasselblad 501C/M

Mamiya 7

 

Now interchangeable lenses are not issue, but the fact I may ever want

to is a good argument.

 

Weight and size is not an issue, I'm 2 meters high and 1 meter wide

(broadest point :-) ) and have arms like dorian pillars and hands the

size of a steinway keyboard.

 

Negative format is not an issue, as long as minimum 6x6

 

Film changability, not a big thing I shoot Tri-x most of the time, and

use ND filters sporadically

 

Lense quality is important, not sharpness or Lines per what have you,

the "footprint" (learned this expression in another thread) is, I do't

want the sharp digital look, like mamiya 7's tend to approach.

 

What is important is that I want the camera to last, and must be

reliable (will this rule out any battery operated camera ?(

 

I have a thing against Hasselblad, although I could afford one, I have

a thing against their pricing policy

 

 

Anybody got some pointers here ?

[eric friedemann]

A post you might find interesting:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DpRq

[robert_nancarrow]

I've had or have most of the cameras on your list and based on your comments I can say the Rolleiflex 2.8F or GX is the camera for you. Bob.

[mtk]

Hi Jan! Interesting dilema......Just some thoughts....I just purchased a RB67...not much money but what a BEAST! I do all landscapes, no portrait or studio work.

 

I have a pair of M645's, (standard and a 1000s). with that pair of bodies, I have one 80mm lens, 2 standard prisms, 3 inserts and all of the caps for less than 200 bucks from KEH. Since you are cropping anyway, would the 645 format be a problem? These bodies do have batteries, but keep in mind this is an electromagnetic shutter and batt's last forever unless you are using the B setting. Bottom line.. rock solid reliable, excellent optics, simple operation and very inexpensive. I shoot exclusively plus X for BW, and keep the other body for color. By taking this approach for the price of one body is less than the cost of one film back for the RB, I have essentially the same size and weight, but am getting a backup body as well instead of two film backs.

Otherwise, I agree with the previous poster(s) the Rollie is a great choice.

Have Fun! Mark

[jon_martin2]

Yeah,

 

I've shot with a few of the cameras you mentioned, and I can say that I enjoyed the Rolleiflex f2.8

 

I have also used my friend's Hasselblad 500cm a little, and I like it as well. Zeiss lenses are wonderful, and the color is simply great. Subjective yes, so you may want to borrow one or more of these to see for yourself. Search out a buddy that owns one, and gain their trust. Between the two though . . . if you don't care about expanding you lenses too much . . . I would recommend the Rolleiflex. I find it very comfortable to shoot with (and a work horse to boot!).

 

I wish you well,

 

 

 

Jon

[bueh]

If you are against Hasselblad, you are a Mamiya guy. Especially if you have no problem with the weight and size of the RZ, it is a great camera and lots of inexpensive gear can be found on the used market nowadays. The 6x7 format is pretty handy and makes large rectangular, grainless prints. The revolving back of the R*67 cameras (borrowed from the Graflex) is one of the smartest camera designs -- I wish their 645 models had one, too.<br>

Yes, they need a battery, but you can use mechanical lenses from the RB if you don't trust electronics. Without power the shutter fires with 1/400th second on Sekor Z lenses. And yes, they need servicing sometimes, but they are pretty rugged in my humble opinion.<p>

I think your choice comes down to the Rolleiflex or a Mamiya. Both are widely available on the used market, but a quite different in operation. You have to check out these cameras and their lenses to see if you like their look. If you come to FFM I can show you mine.<p>

A larger negative size gives an even better look. My absolute favorite lens is the Ektar 101mm f/4.5 of my Miniature Speed Graphic (6x9), despite its age the pictures <em>look</em> gorgeous, but the camera is really a pain to use. So don't rule out large format or old plate/press cameras, their old-school lenses often produce wonderful results, but the super-slow approach to picture-taking is normally not my style. And even with a rollfilm adapter they are extremely cheap when compared to modern reflex cameras.

[derek_stanton2]

Jan -

 

If you buy 'used,' do you still have a problem with Hasselblad'd "pricing policy?" I'm not sure i understand what that means.....

 

I recently bought a 503CW + 80mm CFE for what i consider an 'excellent' price, used, but 'mint.' I also have a Pentax 67II kit, and used to have Mamiya RZ67II and Mamiya 6mf (and 645AF). Also a 2.8F Planar.... If you're looking for "footprint," i'd have to recommend Hasselblad/Zeiss. Mamiyas seem so 'neutral' to me. Pentax has 'character,' but i don't know if there's one consistent character across the lens line....

 

Gotta believe the Hassy and the Pentax (and the Rolleiflex) will last. I'm not so sure about support/electronics on the Rolleis. Bronica? Are they still in business? The RZ is quite nice, and perhaps the most versatile, but it's large....

[jorge_jimenez1]

It seems you don't have a problem at all. Just get the Rolleilex 2.8F

[nemeng]

<i>I have a thing against Hasselblad, although I could afford one, I have a thing against their pricing policy</i><p>

 

Jan, do you realise you can buy a excellent-condition Hasselblad 500cm + 80CF for less than the price of an equivalent condition 2.8F? Chances are it will already have a brighter focusing screen too :?)<p>

 

Last year I also wanted to buy a 2.8F or 3.5F, but found it v.difficult to find cameras which haven't been hammered to death, or are laughably overpriced.<p>

 

It was so difficult that after a couple of months I gave up and got a 'Blad. Found a good one at a good price in no time, and have been a happy user since :?)

[catherineadams]

I'm not as well versed as the others here, but I advocate the hasselblad. Used

prices are so reasonable, I'm thinking of another body. The lens are smooth--I

thought I wanted "sharp," but I discovered something more. CF lens are going

for a good price, even at KEH.

[stephen_kruft]

My first "real" camera in the 60s was a 3.5F and it was fine to use (and $250 at the time). It just has all the TLR features, good and bad, and of course a fixed lens. Then I used C330, which is heavier but has all the lenses, then Hasselblad. All were good experiences. I don't really have an overall preference because each has its own features and personality. Personally I would not get the Rollei now because I don't often use the normal lens and because of the cost.

[michael_dimarzio]

You have disqualified 645 format, but a used M645 Pro with a 50mm PC lens is a great tool for architecture.

[eric friedemann]

"(A) used M645 Pro with a 50mm PC lens is a great tool for architecture."

 

 

Since Jan somehow shoots architecture with standard (e.g. 80mm on 2 and 1/4 square cameras) focal length lenses; so he may not notice. But a 50mm PC lens on a 645 camera is of limited utility for architecture.

 

 

A 50mm lens on a 645 camera equals 31mm in 35mm format. This is simply too long a lens to be generally useful in shooting architecture- particularly in urban environments croweded with bigger and taller buildings and with less room to back up to get a building in frame.