lightweight medium format camera

[jessica_kresse]

I am currently pursuing a documentary project where I am often in low light conditions photographing a

moving subject. I have been using a 35mm for agility but I want a bigger negative. I need a light medium

format camera that I can hand hold or could easily use a monopod with. I have considered a rangefinder

but I have heard that they do not take good close ups. I have three lenses with my 35mm and I am

particularly fond of taking images fairly close. Does anyone have some advice? I am looking for a film

camera. Thank you.

[janne1]

Moving subject, low light, wouldnt the 35mm be more suitable in those conditions? Mamiya has a 80mm 1,9 lens for their 645 system, i believe rollei also has a 80mm xenotar that is 2,0. I am sure there are others too.

[nancy s.]

Most Medium format gear was designed to be used in a studio on a tripod. That is why it came into being.

 

As a result, MF gear is often cumbersome in a "streat" setting.

 

That being said, I use a Mamiya 1000s. It is boxy and sometimes hard to hold (like holding a box) and you do have to watchit.. the shutter release is "right there" in two places and fires easily (many photos of the floor etc. to prove it).

 

Also, because MF gear is both heavy and cumbersome, it is easy to get camera shake etc.

 

I am almost thinking you might want to look at one of the old Kodak cameras (like a brownie). The lenses weren't so hot, but they produced a large negative. I don't think they used 120 film tho.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I own a Bronica RF645 - it's light, compact, and the lenses are stunningly sharp. But I still use 35mm for low light because the lenses are much faster. All the same, the RF645 is fantastic when there is plenty of light and I don't want tight head shots. Also be aware that you will need to stop down MF cameras to get enough DOF in many situations. Play around with the DOF calculatore and you'll see what I mean:

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

[jessica_kresse]

Another question. Do any of you know how close you can get to a subject with a rangefinder?

I have been trying to find this out but I just ended up confused.

[bueh]

Jessica, medium format has a much shallower depth-of-field than 35mm format. This makes focusing much more difficult, especially in low light conditions and with a moving subject.

<p>

<abbr title="medium format">MF</abbr> rangefinders most often only focus down to about 1m (3.3 feet) with a normal lens. But thanks to their mirror-less design they are better to hand-hold than <abbr title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> when using slow shutter speeds. Keep in mind that the mirror of <abbr title="medium format">MF</abbr> <abbr title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> is much bigger than in 35mm, so these camera have more camera shake unless used in mirror-up operation on a tripod.

<p>

Some folder cameras are lightweight <abbr title="medium format">MF</abbr> rangefinders. The latest of them is probably the Fuji Fujica GS645, but most are pretty vintage. A fully working, <abbr title="clean, lube, adjust">CLA</abbr>'d folder is a nice picture-taker. The Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas ($$$) and the Soviet Iskras ($) have a very bright viewfinder that can still be accurately focused in low light situations.

<p>

But again, for moving subjects in available light a 35mm camera is much more convenient, it's more economic and you have faster glass. While it is quite difficult to focus in low light, the Yashica Lynx 14 rangefinder with its fast 45mm f/1.4 lens delivers pretty nice results.

[joe tarrant]

Fuji made a couple of autofocus 645s which had a max aperture of F4. The autofocus would help in low light. But it's still an F4. I've held one and it's light and very handholdable. Google for "ga645 review". Dante Stella used to have a great review of the GA645 on his website but he's moving host and it's not there any more. Or yet. Whichever.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I can get fairly close with the 100mm lens on my Bronica RF645 (same perspective as a 60mm lens on a 35mm camera). Generally I can shoot waist up shots easily. But I usually shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 to get enough DOF when the subject is that close. For low light you'd be better off with a 35mm cmaera and an f/1.4 lens.

 

Have you considered a 35mm rangefinder? They really shine in low light. They're great if you don't plan to use lenses over 90mm. And you don't have to spend a fortune. Some of the Japanese fixed-lens models are really nice and have fast lenses. Perhaps a nice Canonet or Olympus RC or RD. The Konica RF sports the Leica lens mount. Also there's a nice AF Konica with a fixed lens that's really quiet. For more info see:

 

http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm

 

For what it's worth, I use both 35mm amd MF. The 35mm is for low light and the MF for most other times. But I also must add the the Bronica RF645 is my favorite camera - and you can get a nice body and normal lens for under $1,000. For more info on the RF645 see this site:

 

http://shutterflower.com/RF645%20review.htm

[spanky]

Bueh and Robert are correct when they describes the shallow dof and the effect this has on getting critical focus. I use a RZ67 ProII and while it is heavy at first one grows into it quite well and it's a fun camera to use.

 

For you I would suggest renting or purchasing a Pentax 67II. I rented one for a day and found it wonderful to use. The TTL penta prisim is a nice feature. People also complain about the weight of this camera but at almost two pounds lighter then the RZ well, I couldn't see any problem with the weight. People also complain about camera shake but I also shot that day without using the mirrior lock up feature with a roll of FP4 and my shutter speeds were all at 1/125 and higher. If this becomes a concern for you just go to a higher speed film.

 

The only drawback to the 67II was you don't have interchangeable film backs but I find I rarely need this since I can blow through a 10 frame roll (which is what you get with 6x7) fairly quickly.

I also found my resulting images a little less sharp then what I get with my Mamiya but as I said this was a rental rig and the 110mm lens I used was pretty beat up looking.

Good luck.

[spanky]

Sorry I meant to say the 105mm which is considered the standard lens for the Pentax 67 family.

 

Oh and if you don't mind printing square or cropping to a rectangle the Rolliflex and Mamiya twin lens reflex cameras are pretty light although I've never actually used one before.

[riccardo_mottola]

personally I think your requests are a bit contrasting. In 6x6 and 6x7, 3.5 or 2.8 are

considered pretty fast... and lenses apart the 50mm equivalent get much slower; all

rangefinder (35mm and medium format) tend to be more cumbersome or impossible

to use in close-up. The 35mm SRL is popular for some precise reasons, after all. It

does a bit of everything. Thus I would think about

<ul>

<li> stay with 35mm but try to make your neegatives of higher quality: choice of film,

developer, care in use and exposisiton help. Improve the printing process.

<li> use a MF rangefinder. My father gets stunning result with a Plaubel Makina (new

type, Japan made) which is no longer manufactured though. Folded, it is incredible.

Older cameras can have good results (old zeiss ikons and russian cameras) but are

slower to use, often have only a view finder and not a range finder

<li> learn to handle a box camera fast (rollefilex SLR come to my mind... ther is even

one with autofocus)

<li> use a TLR. Fast to handle. Excellent quality. Very steady, so you can compensate

lens speed by handling a 1/30 or 1/15 without aid. Works well on a monopod. The

only drawback is focusing closer than 1m: not possible without accessories which

may be cumbersome / hard to find / expensive.

[robert_marvin]

Re: close focussing with a TLR, Rollei Rolleinar close-up lens sets are high quality, easy to use, and not terribly expensive used. The Rolleinar I would let you focus about as close as a 35 mm SLR with normal lens and the Bay.I size would also fit Japanese TLRs like the Yashicamat or Minolta Autocord.

Nevertheless, even though I'm almost always shoot MF and love my Rolleiflex I'd be tempted to use a 35 mm SLR for the type of work you describe. A TLR would be the best MF compromise IMO.

[ben_ballard]

35mm is probably best for low-light, especially low-light non-flash action shots. You can cheaply find f1.4 lenses, and if you want a rangefinder to focus more easily in low light, many 70's era japanese rangefinders fit the bill and are inexpensive.

 

But if you must use MF, there is an advantage. You can go with much faster film, such as 3200 ASA. In 35mm this film is very grainy, but that is more tolerable in MF. This would allow you to use smaller apertures for greater depth of field, so you might then be able to pre-set the focus based on a guesstimate of distance. A TLR is probably the lightest-weight Medium Format camera, and the japanese TLR's (Yashicamat, Minolta Autocord) are the cheapest way to get a decent Medium format. You might also consider a 120mm press camera such as the Graflex XL or Mamiya Press. The Mamiya 6 or 7 series rangefinders would also be excellent, but much more expensive.

[www.antiquecameras.net]

<p><a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/fujirf.htm">Fuji 6x4.5 Rangefinder Cameras</a>

[mark f]

Two ideas:

a Mamiya TLR is easily handheld (no mirror, leaf shutter)and will focus extremely close. The problem with the C220 or C330 is that the framing becomes increasingly inaccurate as you get close due to parallax error. You can get used to that and it is probably usable if you practice getting the framing right. The other choice would be a Pentax 645. It has about the best mirror damping of the medium formate SLRs and is easy to use hand held. I've used both and I think the Pentax with a monopod would probably be the best bet.

[bwbob]

At the end of the day nothing beats a 35mm Slr for your purposes, moving subjects, close ups, etc. Trust me, I love medium format but not for the purposes yo've mentioned. Fast 35mm lenses and a good macro will take care of your needs.

[fast_primes]

Jessica,

 

Have you considered going digital and getting a dslr, and possibly using the lenses you already have(if Nikor, Canon EOS or Pentax)? Digital now exceeds film in overall quality--especially at low light work! Many say dslrs match medium format film in quality.

 

Otherwise consider the Mamiya 7 or Bronica RF645. Most of their lenses focus to at least 1 meter.

 

Good luck.

[charles_mason]

"Most Medium format gear was designed to be used in a studio on a tripod. That is why it came into being. As a result, MF gear is often cumbersome in a "streat <sic>" setting."

 

Hmm, Rolleiflex, Playbel Makina, Mamiya 6 and 7, Fuji 67--68--69 rangefinder line, Pentax 6x7, many old cameras such as the Zeiss Ikon's, even the venerable Hasselblad and many others are all perfectly usable outside the studio and function perfectly well on the streets. Most of these above were designed to be handheld, and all are easily done so. So I find this statement a bit erroneous.

[mike_earussi1]

Switching to digital will be your best bet as you are not going to get everything you want in a MF camera. That said if you do prefer film, the Pentax 645 is the lightest weight and most compact MF SLR made (you'll need an SLR if you want to do close-up or macro work), and the manual focus version of it can be picked up cheap today.

[craig_tomash]

Have you considered the Bronica ETRSi 645 (MF SLR system). Very portable, easy to use handheld in the field, comes with a variety of options lenses, backs, viewfinders, etc. Has great close up capabilities..... Something you might want to consider... I would not trade my ETRSi system and lenses for any other SLR film camera.

[csafdari]

The answer is: Mamiya C330 TLR with the appropriate lens. You can get as close as you want, and the paralax correction mechanism will ensure that your picture is composed properly. The lenses are excellent and can do all the right speeds. But, you'll have to compete with me in locating the lens on Ebay

[vince_n.2]

Mamiya 7 or Fuji GA645ZI

[jean-louis llech]

Disordered thoughts : "low light conditions and moving subject" together are a problem, as a moving subject needs a rather high speed, and low light often means slow speeds.<br>

Low light + moving subject means IMO a powerful flash. <br>

Now, about synchro speeds : with leaf shutter cameras, like Hasselblads 500s you will have a high flash sync speed up to 1/500s. With a focal plane camera, like Mamiyas 645s, Rollei SL66, Hasselblad 200, Pentax 67 etc... the flash sync speed wil be slower.<br>

The larger the format of the camera and the focal plane shutter, the slower the flash synchro speed, between 1/30s and 1/60s.<br>

Rangefinder cameras like Mamiyas 7 and 7 II have a lens shutter and allow flash synchro at all shutter speeds.<br>

But, if you also need close-ups, that's another problem. For close-ups, rangefinder cameras are maybe not the best ones. A Mamiya 7 or 7 II can focus at 1 meter with 43, 50, 65 and 80mm lenses, and 1.8 m with the 150mm lens. <br>

Many twin lens reflexs have a parallax compensation system between the two lenses, but this system is rather complicated, and not for rapid shooting.<br>

If you really need closer than one meter, you'd better use TTL cameras. Take a look at Rollei 6008 AF cameras. They aren't really "light" cameras, (nor cheap ones) but they have everything else you need.<br>

With a 45 deg. prism, the autofocus, and PQS leaf shutter lenses, you can reach a synchro speed of 1/1000s.<br>

Of course, if your project allows using a flash....<br>

[bueh]

Jean-Louis, please, who needs fast flash sync in low-light situations? While flash (especially with 2nd/rear curtain sync) is quite handy in these conditions, you would rather drag the shutter to get some of the available light unless you want to destroy the atmosphere.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00EkmN-27340884.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="10">

<br>

<i>

Kiev 60, Volna-3 80mm f/2,8 MC, EPP with 1/3 push cross-processed, Metz mecablitz 30 BCT-4

</i>

</center>

[jean-louis llech]

"who needs fast flash sync in low-light situations"<br>

Not in low-light, but for a moving subject.