Newbie Q: Why so many "quirks" in MF camera designs?

[scott_mcloughlin]

I guess mine is an historical and/or engineering question. I've been

researching different MF options, and it seems that many of the camera

systems have "quirks." Stuff like "cock the shutter before you change

the shutter speed" or "don't remove the lens with the blah metering

prism attached" or "the X will jam if you don't Y" - and general stuff

like that. And lots of discussion of film loading and transport and

bad frame spacing and what not; issues with bounce and slow flash sync

from focal plane shutters - sheesh!

 

How come? I have a nice FM3a. Worked out of the box. Load film. Change

lenses at will. Change shutter speed at will. Mount most AF lenses on

a manual focus body. Focus, meter frame and shoot. Flash sync at a

comfortable 1/250. Simple DOF preview. Trouble free rewind. The thing

- the system, I guess - just works.

 

Just an example, and I'm sure there were/are "quirky" 35mm systems.

But why aren't the myriad MF systems out there designed similarly - to

"just work"? Is it an issue with expense? Is it issues with leaf

shutter based systems?

 

Just curious I guess, but I AM seeking to pick up a MF system (maybe

an used RZ or 'blad - but at least something 6x6 or larger with SLR

focusing and interchangable lenses).

 

So if there is a "quirk free" MF system out there, I'd also love to

know :-)

 

Thanks much.

 

Scott

[w._veena]

I like my Rollei 6008 system. No quirks so far. Flash sync at any speed, change your lens whenever you want. Built-in metering. But most other modern MF systems are quite quirkfree as well.

 

Wolfgang

[gaius1]

Try the Contax 645 AF. Works exactly like a 35mm SLR but with 120 film.

[Uncle Goose]

No problems with my Bronica ETRSi on that, seems more something for the (overpriced) hassies.

[rick_waldroup3]

I own a Mamiya C330 system and their are certain things you must do before changing lenses, firing the shuttter, etc. But this is not a huge hassle. After you learn a camera and how it must be operated, it becomes second nature to you and shooting it becomes no problem. It seems the older the camera, the more "quirks" it may have. This reminds me of the learning curve on my DSLR where in the beginning I felt more like a button pusher than a photographer. Everyone learns eventually to adapt.

[marck mcgill]

This is a bias due to the fact that most people just can't refrain suggesting the purchase of the only camera they've ever seen, rather than weighing well up the goods and bads of various brands and systems, and eventually keep the mouth sealed with folks stepping up from 35mm and seeking for a straightforward gear.

 

Secondarily, it is a fact that MF cameras are mostly much more versatile than 35mm (think at the removable or rotating back feature, just to recall one...) and all these accessories - some of which are in common with previous production lines: think about stuff of the Mamiya Press in common with the RB67 - are very hard to engineerize each in respect to the other.

 

However: ever tried to put a non-AI nikkor lens on your FM3? What about one of those fisheyes which require the mirror-up facility?

[simon_platt1]

Scott,

Most modern medium format cameras don't really have quirks. Many of the things you describe are from people working older cameras or those that were not very well made.

The only difference with most medium format cameras is if they have leaf shutter lenses then both the body and the lens must be in the same state. This is a simple matter of mechanics. On cameras such as the hasselblad you can only take the lens off when the camera and lens are both cocked and the lens will only go back on if they are both cocked. The Rollei mentioned above is exactly the same but because it is fully motorised the camera is always coked as are the lenses. Other cameras such as the Bronica series you ned to remmeber as the lens can be taken off in either the cocked or uncocked state and you can put a lens on with the body in either state.

 

If you FM3 had a shutter in the lens it would have exactly the same issue.

Someone not used to an FM3 would say that it was quirky if they had been used to using a fully automatic camera with a 28-300 mm lens.

They would then say 'What is all this metering Stuff' and 'why change lenses'

You cbasically get used to the system you have and then the operations seem simple. I use both Hasselblad and Bronica and they both just work 'out of the box'and give superb image quality.

 

On your impending choices the RZ is a large and heavy camera, brilliant for a studio but maybe a bit heavy to carry outside.

Hasselblads are fantastic but the lenses are expensive, Rollei's are good with the same lenses as Hasselblad. They do however depend on battery power to work. No battery no pictures.

Don't forget Bronica, the SQ range is good with good lenses and there are a lot of them around at grweat prices.

 

Once you get into MF photography you will use your FM3 less and less.

The next step from there is to get a Large format field camera.

 

Simon

[simon_platt1]

Scott,

Most modern medium format cameras don't really have quirks. Many of the things you describe are from people working older cameras or those that were not very well made.

The only difference with most medium format cameras is if they have leaf shutter lenses then both the body and the lens must be in the same state. This is a simple matter of mechanics. On cameras such as the Hasselblad you can only take the lens off when the camera and lens are both cocked and the lens will only go back on if they are both cocked. The Rollei mentioned above is exactly the same but because it is fully motorised the camera is always cocked as are the lenses. Other cameras such as the Bronica series you need to remmember what you are doing as the lens can be taken off in either the cocked or uncocked state and you can put a lens on with the body in either state.But meix them up and it will jam.

 

If you FM3 had a shutter in the lens it would have exactly the same issue.

Someone not used to an FM3 would say that it was quirky if they had been used to using a fully automatic camera with a 28-300 mm lens.

They would then say 'What is all this metering Stuff' and 'why change lenses'

You basically get used to the system you have and then the operations seem simple. I use both Hasselblad and Bronica and they both just work 'out of the box'and give superb image quality.

 

On your impending choices the RZ is a large and heavy camera, brilliant for a studio but maybe a bit heavy to carry outside.

Hasselblads are fantastic but the lenses are expensive, Rollei's are good with the same lenses as Hasselblad. They do however depend on battery power to work. No battery no pictures.

Don't forget Bronica, the SQ range is good with good lenses and there are a lot of them around at grweat prices.

 

Once you get into MF photography you will use your FM3 less and less.

The next step from there is to get a Large format field camera.

 

Simon

[simon_meeds]

Bronicas have been likened to chinese puzzle boxes, and that's a good thing (usually). This certainly applies to my ETRS and I believe also applies to SQ and GS.

 

The lens can only be removed if both camera and lens are cocked. the back can only be removed if the dark slide is in place. Later ETRS backs have two catches which have to be held simultaneously before being opened (even later ones, from the ETRSi era, have a catch which if I remember correctly prevents the dark slide from being removed while the back is detached from the camera). There is a lock on the shutter release to prevent unwanted exposures.

 

Someone recently characterised loading roll film as difficult. I pondered that I was loading 127 roll film when I was 8 years old and in some ways medium format was like going back to an old friend. It's not difficult, but maybe a little more involved than loading a 35mm cassette into a motorwind camera or a card into a digital. Maybe it is similar to the pleasurable ritual of filling a pipe with tobacco against the simplicity of pulling a cigarette out of the packet (note that I am a non-smoker).

 

There are probably some more of these sort of things that have slipped my mind at the moment. I thought my ETRS had locked up when I was on the top of a mountain the other week. Before panicking I removed the speedgrip and it was free - maybe the speedgrip wasn't engaged on the winder mechanism, but nothing serious. I haven't had any other problems in the year since I bought it.

[Ed_Ingold]

The closest you will come to 35mm functionality is probably with one of the eye-level 645 SLRs, like a Mamiya or Contax. If you are willing to forego interchangeable backs, consider the Pentax (and others).

 

Since they have focal plane shutters (mainly), you do not have the complicated coupling mechanism between the body and lens of leaf shutters. The flash sync speed is limited primarily because of physics - large shutters move further and weigh more than small shutters.

 

If you want more flexibility and a vast array of good, used equipment, by all means consider an Hasselblad. RZ's are another choice, if you are willing to carry a camera the size of a shoebox. A Hasselblad kit is about the size and weight of a professional SLR.

 

The tendency for Hasselblad cameras to jam is overstated. You can't cause a jam by attempting to attach or remove an uncocked lens - the lens simply won't turn. Jams are caused by wear or poor maintenance.

 

There aren't "myriad" MF systems out there because the demand isn't there. In fact, there aren't as many systems now as there were last year. Uh, why aren't there "myriad" new 35mm cameras coming out? I think you know.

 

MF cameras are slower to operate, but produce vastly better quality than 35mm film. Like anything, it takes practice to use one efficiently without thinking.

 

If you are troubled by "quirky" MF cameras, you sure ain't gonna' like large format. What could be simpler than a view camera, for example, yet "quirkier" in the sense you have defined - sheet film, film holders, dark slides (every time!), open the lens for focusing, close it for taking, cock the shutter, must use a cable release, must use a tripod (unless you do the WeeGee thing).

[rod_sainty2]

Hi Scott, fair questions and they have good answers. Remember, there is far more design variety between different medium format systems than in 35mm systems.

 

Some of the operational quirks relate to specific advantages provided in modular medium format systems that are lacking in 35mm. Removeable backs, for example, allow rapid film changes, including change in mid-roll, and many pros find them essential. Remember that 120 film is much larger and thinner than 35mm film. However, removeable backs involve extra bulk and a dark-slide, and the more complex film path raises questions about film flatness when film is left in the back for a time. Many pros shoot all the film in a single session, so they have no worry on that issue. You might not shoot that way - so you may not want to choose this type of system. That simplifies things. Another advantage is leaf shutter lenses that have offered synch at 1/500th for decades. Many pros need them, but they involve another complexity in the sequence of cocking over 35mm shooting. Do you need them?

 

Other operational quirks involve the metering, usually contained within an optional metering head because many pros didn't need such things when these systems were first designed. Pros often have substantial money tied up in lenses and bodies, and manufacturers knew they couldn't afford to alienate their (smaller than 35mm) user base by making gear obsolete (note this difference with 35mm). So, for example, the original Pentax 67, current until 1999, uses a fine chain to link the metering prism with the aperture set on the lens, and an order has to be followed in removing the head. Not so with the standard, non-metering head. But a benefit is that the mount and linkages of Pentax 67 lenses haven't changed since their introduction in 1969 and all are compatible on the newer 67II that has (like your FM3A) aperture priority auto operation as well as full manual, AND it can spot meter and multi-segment meter, which the FM3A cannot, and do so with the same 1969 lenses. Other MF brands have similar stories of longevity of design integration.

 

You mention "trouble-free rewind". MF systems don't need to do that!!

 

If you want a 35mm-like system, then obviously Pentax 645 or 67II are good candidates. But then you won't have some MF advantages offered in other systems that cause the quirks. With the 67II you'll get the film size, a simple film path like 35mm, accurate spot metering and viewfinder displays, and good handling. But don't expect the 67II to be as quick in handling as the FM3A, simply because it is bigger and heavier. The synch is 1/30th because of the huge focal plane shutter. Long lenses require steps to dampen vibration, and that can be done. BUT it has a mirror lock - which your FM3A doesn't. Your choice! Cheers.

[david_holland1]

I'd like to take a stab at a direct response to the first series of questions. I don't really know the answers, so this is pretty much wondering "out loud."

 

My sense is that for the most part, historicaly, the main buyers of medium format cameras were were replacing large format equipment and thus viewed medium format cameras as being less complicated, more convenient, and less quirky than what they replaced. If you compare a view camera to an early MF rangefinder, it would seem that downsizing and engineering improved focusing and streamlined film transport, but at the cost of complication and negative size.

 

Further, most of those early buyers were probably pros whose heavy use soon made dealing with a particular camera's quirks second nature. They may often have worn their cameras out and replaced them with ones just like them rather than elect to incur the cost to replace them with better engineered but more expensive cameras in order to get features they didn't really need or didn't want to learn. Some pros will spend money on photo equipment for the pleasure of having it rather than to maximize the bottom line, but certainly not all fit in that category.

 

In addition, thinking back, major changes and the addition of bells and whistles occurred at a much slower pace in the pre-electronic era. Couldn't that be expected to reinforce the value of long standing habits and decrease the disadvantage of quirks?

 

Even now, with the demise of medium format widely predicted, Mamiya has continued to offer their batteryless RB67 virtually unchanged since 1970, quirks and all. My guess is that by the time it disappears from the catalog, it will have nothing in common with a modern camera except a lens and a light tight box. I've never taken a camera apart, but other than a shutter, it may not have anything more in common already.

 

Since the RZ was introduced in 1982, Mamiya has offered it in paralled with the RB. Other than an electronically controlled shutter compared to a fully mechanical camera, most of the differences between the two relate to the RZ having fewer quirks.

 

I note that B&H has both in stock new, with the RZ body priced about 50% above the RB. However, the lenses and backs are almost the same price and the RZ is offered in a kit that costs a bit less than body, lens, and back purchased separately. When all is said an done, a three lens setup costs about the same new for either one. Money, it would seem, is not the only reason in this modern age to put up with quirks.

 

In fact, you can buy a Pentax 645N that is about as modern, feature filled, and quirk free as today's 35mm offerings. With three comparable lenses, it costs less than either Mamiya.

 

A final muse is that one might suspect that elimination of quirks by mechanical rather than electronic means brings a tradeoff of size, weight, and reliability that may not always be attractive. I note that in general at least, the bigger the negative, the fewer features and more quirks you're likely to encounter.

 

Anyone who has paused to reflect on the initial questions might find this link of interest: http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0100sb_timeline/

[skygzr]

There's plenty of quirky 35mm cameras, as well (most of them older). How about the Exakta, which has a left-handed film advance and a built-in knife blade?

[alejandrokeller]

I have not much to add about the details of hof MF works, but I want to say once more that it is just a question of versatility: you can do about anything you like with a MF camera (e.g. change any single component to fit your need). 35mm cameras are in comparison non-flexible point and shoot devices ;-). The quirks that you are refering to are just protections. For instance, I wonder what will happen if you make a bulb exposure of several minutes with your FM3a (great camera BTW) and try to change your lense "at will" in the middle of the exposure. I have never try that in my F100 but I do not think I will either.</p>

<p>BTW, ALL of the "advantages" that you described about your FM3a are available in MF as well, and you do not even need to rewind the film (because the film is never rewinded). Maybe lens compatibility through all models for decades would be an issue but, for that specific point, Nikon is an oasys in comparison to almost all camera makers.

[alejandrokeller]

BTW, my Hasselblad 503CXi works like out of the box. Never, not even at the begining, have I had a single problem, quirk, chinese puzzle issue, or whatever you want to call it.

[OCULUS New York]

Scott,

Sounds like you've been reading up on Communist-era cameras (some still being sold in the new free world). I don't know that their quirkiness is a function of their format/size, but rather, bad engineering (read: reverse engineering or copying), bad/cheap metallurgy and even worse, commune-inspired (read: irresponsible) manufacturing and construction.

 

Decades-old Russian and Chinese clunkers have taken on a whole new cache among "starving" artists/students (read: light leaks are chic!), but at least through web sites like this, you should know what you are getting into when you buy one.

 

Usually, the maxim of "you get what you pay for" applies, but sometimes you "get more than you bargained for" too...

 

good luck.

[pavelp]

The MF cameras were designed for pros and it was assumed that MF user knows what they are doing and is capable to remember how to get around minor quirks.

 

Fixing each of the quirks may require a major change in the design of the camera and it can run up the cost. So the designer needs to find a compromise between perfect camera that nobody can afford and the cheap camera that it unusable.

 

As the complexity of a system increases, so does the chance of quirks. I get more bad pictures with a dSLR just because of the sheer of knobs and levers that needs to be set correctly. On the other hand, on a MF system, it's just three: aperture, shutter speed and focus.

 

Quirk free system: well, for it's worth, I like Bronica's user interface. They are known for their interlocks (sometimes it seems like it's just an endless series of interlocks preventing you to fire the camera, but once you get used to it you develop a ritual and then you start appreciating the interlocks). On the other hand, Bronica's user interface is very logical and easy to use.

[erik scanhancer]

I tried about everything to disturb the Rolleiflexes 6008/6008i/6008AF: removing the lens

during mirror lockup, removing the lens during long exposures, removing the back during

exposure, closing down the aperture during long exposure, opening it during exposure,

changing exposure modes during long exposure, turning off the camera during exposure

and so forth. These cameras took it all

with a smile. Someone mentioned that the shutter in the Rolleiflexes be cocked because of

the built in motor drive, but that is not the case. These lenses work with lineary motors

that work fully independant from the camera motor. Techically there is no shutter cocking,

just shutter operation in real time by these "motors". When you remove the lens with the

shutter open halfway an exposure, the system will simply reset it the next time the lens in

mounted and checked for an exposure cycle. I wouldn't know of any 35mm system that

has such few quirks. These cameras have flash sync up to 1/1000 sec (depending on how

fast the shutter is); a simple DOF button that can be depressed and the aperture will stop

down, even in program modes; very smart film loading: you won't even have to change

over empty spools, just rotate the film insert; built in laminar drawslide for removing

backs; light metering inside the camera, not the prism; stray light compensation for the

use of a hood viewer so that measurements remain reliable; and I could go on and on. This

system really kicks ass when it comes to quirk free operation.

[stephen_kruft]

Gosh, I don't know. But I agree older MF cameras do have quirks. Then again, so do old 35s. I had a short attention span when I was younger. The first time I tried to load a Leica M2 I got no pictures, and I got none when I loaded a Hasselblad for the first time and put the film upside down. Some cameras have odd ways to open the backs (try a Mamiya C330S - not F -without instructions). I think it is just that in earlier days people were expected to read the instructions and learn a series of steps and cautions that did not come naturally.

[tak_l._poon1]

i would just add a few words here on how the picture cycle works. for a 135 camera with film plane shutter, when you press the shutter, the aperture closes down, the mirror flips up, one of the shutter blade moves, followed by the other, the mirror drops back and the aperture opens. then the motor drive or winder advances film and resets the shutter. with a modern MF camera like the rollei6008, when you depress the shutter button, the leaf shutter closes, the aperture closes, the mirror flips up, then the shutter opens and closes, the mirror returns, and the aperture opens, and finally the shutter re-opens again, the film advances. all these are completed within 1/3 of a second. the shutter movement is 2 times that of a 135 camera. considering that the mirror, the aperture blades are several times heavier and larger than that of a 135 counterpart, with more intertia that needs a larger force to move it and damps it, this is an engineering marvel. Tak