Impossible question: the perfect MF landscape system?

[andrew_elmore]

<p>Dave,

 

<p>In response to a similar set of requirements to yours, I chose the Mamiya RB67 for my work last year.

 

<p>Coming from the 35mm world, I am blown away by the size of the negatives and chromes. I'm also very pleased with the ability to fill the whole page when printing on 8x10 without cropping.

 

<p>I tend to obsess about future-proofing my equipment, and this was one of the reasons I chose the RB67. It's mechanical, so won't require limited-availability parts (and won't require batteries!). The lenses can be used on the RZ67, for which digital backs are available, if I choose to go that direction in the future.

 

<p>The main drawback to this camera is the weight. I have the impression that some 4x5 cameras are lighter. And rental lenses are not available in Northern California to the same degree that they are for Hasselblads, for example.

[knut_anders_dyvik]

Should one not actually choose MF-system based on the lens quality, rather than from the body. If so, which MF system would come out best overall?

[abrepsom1]

Hi Dave,

 

apart from just one little point (price), here is the perfect camera set for you:

 

a 6x9cm Ebony SW23 with 3 Rodenstock lenses (55mm / 100mm / 150mm equivalent in 35mm to 24mm, 45mm an 70mm)

 

I would also vote for the Mamiya RB67, but for serious landscape photography, you'll soon find you can't do without tilt and that is where all the other systems (i.e. non view cameras) fall short.

 

The set I have described above is not heavier than a Canon 1D with 3 lenses. The Ebony SW23 is 1,3 kg, lenses are between 200g and 400g.

 

If you are interested, take a look here:

 

http://www.aenderbrepsom.com/articles_49287.html (set is splittable)

 

Regards

 

Aender

[jonathan_ayers3]

Medium Format Landscape Camera

 

I choose the Rollei SL66 because

6x6 format

Exchangeable backs

DOF, and mirror lock up

The in body shutter lowered the cost of maintaining lenses.

Superb lenses, although hard to find, are available from 40mm to 1000mm with bayonet filter mount.

Exchangeable view finders and screens

All mechanical camera that is very reliable, and simple to use

Tilting front and extended focus range

Economical service if needed

 

My second choice is a Pentax 645N2

 

Compact body with DOF, and mirror lock up

1 body, and the following lenses, 35m/m, 45m/m, 75m/m on camera, 120m/m, 200m/m, filters for the 35mm lens, 67m/m filter set with adapter ring, fit in a Domke F2 bag

Excellent lenses, sometimes economical, are readily available. 35m/m to 600m/m

Excellent meter and auto focus for the grab shot.

Pentax service has been excellent so far.

Batteries have been an issue in very cold weather. Lithium batteries a must, other wise NiMH rechargeable batteries work great

The film can be advanced from mid roll to end if needed.

 

Both systems have worked well for me. I have used the SL66 for over 20 years, and the Pentax 645 for 3 years, which replaced my Pentax LX system.

[john_mccauley]

If you choose a Hasselblad, I have a Hasselblad carosal projector that has been used about a dozen times. Cheep, email me at johnmccauley7@msn.com.

 

John

[wayne_crider4]

Except for the fact that you like to use grads, I'd be telling you to pickup a cheap but good folder and fool around with it for awhile, and I think to tell the truth that's the best bet till you wrap your head around whether medium format is better then digital. I've shot every format except the pano's and they all have their plus and minus aspects such as price, weight, bulk, pack size, accessories etc.

 

Personally I found I prefer eye level viewing and that 645 was large enough for me. Certainly it's cheap enough nowadays. But to tell you, I think MF is being equated by top end 35mm digital right now, and that if you want to separate your photography and take it to another level you really need to shoot 4x5. It's a format with a whole different approach but it shows itself in comparison even in magazines. I may have a good eye, but I can always tell the difference when looking at a LF photograph compared to the smaller formats. I have a problem tho between good 35mm digital and any MF.

[richard_clough]

Hi Dave,

 

All MF cameras are very much alike, as are all 4x5's, etc. Film fanatics pick a camera model and work with it until everything is second nature. It seems that no matter how hard it was to master, once you have done so it you believe your camera is the best in the world.

 

That said, focus on your lense selection. You're buying a system, and the quality of your photographs will be more dependent on the film you use and the quality of the lens than by the make of your camera. How many guys you know who have multiple cameras of whatever brand, but have that one or two favorite lenses they always seem to use.

 

First, think about the photos you want to take, decide what focal length lens you need to do what you want, then choose the system you want based on that assessment.

[philippartridge]

If you use mostly wide angles, dof is not a big problem for the MF formats - most lenses are fine at f11-f16. It's a shame to rule out rangefinders just because of the ND grad 'problem', but your preference; I had to dial back the stock PKS settings for my Mamiya 7 65mm, quite a shock just how good those lenses are.

 

The prosumer digitals are close nowadays (sensor MTF is climbing above most lenses) and the focal length availability is a huge advantage for my work anyway; but for the careful worker, MF is wonderful, with a different look; but you will need top class field technique, processing, scanning and PP. A very time-consuming exercise I have found.

 

The 4x5 vs MF comes down to how much time you can spend on each shot and how many shots you want from each session...the MF systems can be much heavier than a light 4x5. The only MF SLR system that ever tempted me was the Contax 645..in my experience, lens quality is far bigger an issue than format, from using 645,6x6,6x7 and 6x9. Larger than that, they are all specialty cameras, narrow focus only.

 

For Wayne's benefit, I can tell the 4x5s too, that stationary, staid look, all planning and no spontaneity, like the world just ended, windlessly ;-)

[daniel_jenkins2]

wouldn't go into the field with my fuji GW690/65mmwide lens. perfect format for landscape as well as figure and architectural. a quick, sharp and relaible camera, contrasty lenses proven by time and a simple moving part construction. when i'm in the bush i use my RB67 to keep the ute from rolling down the hill. and i keep the digilux 3 as a backup. lunapro meter and a corkscrew, torch, swag and my dog.

 

happy snapping.

 

dj in oz

[dave_parry]

Again, a big thanks for everyone's thoughts on this matter.

<p>

<i>If you use mostly wide angles, dof is not a big problem for the MF formats - most lenses are fine at f11-f16</i>

<p>

Without wanting to get into a in-depth discussion about DOF, circles of confusion, print sizes and viewing distance, I understand the DOF lost on say a 6x7cm camera makes using f11-f16 comparable to using f5.6-8 on 35mm. I do a lot of near-far vertical shots on 35mm with a 24mm lens (and 16mm on digital), and find it would be very rare for me to be able to shoot as wide open as f8, and f5.8 is out of the question (see examples below).

<p>

<A HREF=http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/beardownproductions/Dave/Peak/woolpax05.jpg>Like this,</A><A HREF=http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/beardownproductions/Dave/scotland/speanriver01.jpg>and this.</A>

<p>

I need to be at f11 really (thus f22 on 6x7) and as far as I understand on most MF lenses you've got nowhere else to go past f22 if i want to hedge DOF a bit more and (albeit with the risk of diffraction cutting in). I see the immense advantage that 4x5 has for movements here.

<p>

The Mamiya 6 or 7 rangfinders look tremendously handy as a travel camera, but the price tag is way above me and having to guess where grads were going is a non-starter in my eyes at least.

<p>

As far as lens quality goes, the main reason i've not really taken this into the equation is as i'd be operating in the f11-22 range I would hope that all lenses made by top brands for professional MF systems aught to be easily good enough when stopped down. I would have thought that as long as I avoid any real dogs then it aught to be not a problem.

[warren_williams]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned a medium format press camera like the baby linhof or speed graphic. No ttl metering but an endless choice of top quality lenses, wide variety of roll holder sizes, light weight (especially for a kit which includes wide angle lenses) and very packable and in the US these are cheap.

 

FWIW I think 4x5 is worth a look because it forces a certain deliberate process which I've found to help my eye to see better.

When photographing buildings, I feel myself designing the photo on the ground glass rather than just taking it by triping the shutter when looking through a viewfinder. In this case less immedate is better.

 

Warren

[nelson_legallee]

Dave : There are a lot of good ideas here but my favorite is the Graflex XL system. Not a reflex camera but a dependable system with lots of lenses (47 mm through 270mm) SW body can use the 47mm add a 1" spacer and you can use all the other lenses. Roll backs 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 all available and all this equipment is available on E bay at great prices. Many lenses are Zeiss or Rodenstock. If you are set on 4X5 then think about a cheap Graphic View II. Again built like a tank, roll backs and film holders readily available. Have fun.

[allen_prier]

Dave, Have you considered the Rollei system? I've got the 6008i, I just love it 6x6 backs, as

well as 645( easy to rotate from H to V )w/pressure plate to hold the film very flat.

Also has mirror lock-up. Stunningly sharp Schneider and Zeiss lenses.

I'll bet you could find some great used buys right now.

Sorry I'm not selling mine, it's time to blow the dust off, and shoot film in Alaska

Good Luck

AllenPrier

[dave_parry]

I'll be honest, the Rollei system looks good with the integral meter etc but the whole battery thing puts me off. When I think about NiCads get flashbacks to the 1980s when it took days for anything to charge up and minutes for it to run down again. Not to mention bad clothes and mobile phones the size of shoeboxes.

<p>

Plus questions of the suitability for being away from civilisation, chargers etc and suceptability to moisture etc etc. Not to mention they're still pretty expensive. I'm not against batteries per se (never had any problems with the NiMHs in my D70) but the fact that i know little about the Rolleis but I already know theres battery issues sets alarm bells ringing. I do get the impression they're intended primarily for studio use.

<p>

Having said that, the SL66 does look superb, but these are still expensive and apparently not amazingly available compared to the pentaxs or mamiyas.

[jonathan_ayers3]

I also have had battery problems with 6000 series cameras. I use a spot meter for exposure determination for landscape photography. Subject brightness ratio compensation by development has allowed me the option to work in almost all light conditions. The SL66 became my choice of M.F. camera, in fact I sold my Hasselblad system as I aquired Rollei. Today I might consider Hasselblad because the availability of bodies and lenses. I spend a lot of time walking with a camera, and this is why I abandon 4x5. Most of my prints are below 11"x16"enlagements so M.F. meets my needs. The total production of SL66 cameras was about 15,000 units. I imagine most SL66 users keep there equipment for a long time.

[susie_frith]

Hi Dave,

You have quite a problem. Ask 20 people and you'll get 20 answers, all of which are right! I have use Linhofs for 25 years and get on well with them; from 67 up to 10x8, both Technikas and Kardans. The rangefinder is good when you don't need to use the adjustments, but they are there for when you do. You also get 100% image on the ground screen. Using adjustments on MF is hard work, the image is small and the change on the screen is very subtle, also there are instances when they will not help at all; you have to stop down. The 53mm Super Angulon stops down to f/22 by the way. There is a simple chart available to tell you how much to stop down, based on the lens extention difference between near and far focus points, very easy to use.

 

I think your best bet would be to find a good dealer and go and play with the cameras you shortlist. Any reasonable camera will give good results, so I don't think brand need play a big part inyour choice, but how you get on with them is very personal and will make the camera a pleasure or pain to use. You might be able to hire it for a weekend to confirm your choice.

 

Like you, I'm in the UK and get stung with import duty and VAT and Parcelforce charges for everything I bring in!

 

Best of luck, Susie

[wayne_c]

Several people have mentioned Ukranian/FSU Tilt lenses favorably.

 

If your going to use the Ukranian glass and are on a serious budget, why not choose a Ukanian/FSU body? A KIEV 66 with a 45mm (equivalent to 24mm on 35mm) MIR lens lens will set you back about $400 total, before the cost of the tilt lens.

 

My 45mm stopped down to F8.0 outperforms my older version of the Schneider 48mm F8.0 Super-Angulon on a Graflex XL-body (all metal).

Wayne

[dave_parry]

OK well I've had a few weeks now to chew over the options....thanks to everyone who replied, I really appreciate it, all this information is incredibly useful to me.

<p>

I've come to a few conclusions...sort of. Firstly, if I was going to go for 6x7 I'd get a Pentax 67 without a doubt. However the more I think about it the more I am put off the 6x7 simply because of the lack of depth of field for near-far landscapes, which may be even ore pronounced with large prints viewed fairly close. I think recomposing most shots to fit within the DOF limits would severely stifle my creativity. And as far as I can tell there are no wide angle tilt lenses for 6x7. It?s a real shame since the 6x7 format would be a great overall compromise between portability and resolution.

<p>

6x6 square format does tempt, and although there are good deals on old hasselblad bodies available the price of lenses alone for Blads and Rolleis mean it?s a bit of a non-starter, leaving only the Bronica. I do think a rectangular format would suit me better for most shots, so seems a bit of a waste to crop to 645 and throw away all that emulsion, and waste even more of the image circle (which surely is the point of 6x6s).

<p>

So at the moment I'm torn between 645 and 4x5". The more manual nature of 4x5 doesn't really put me off (and having tilt on every lens is a bonus) but the real sting in the tail is the running costs. The film and developing costs would be in the region of ?5-6 per shot for 4x5 quickloads, compared to 50p for 645 and 27p for 35mm. If I was in the business of selling a dozen prints every week for ?300 a pop this would be small change, but I'm not. I know I'm likely to shoot more frames of 645 than 4x5", but probably not twelve times more.

<p>

Which leaves me with 645. I do worry that top end pro DSLRs will, or already have, caught up with 645 in some way, but the price difference will pay for a hell of a lot of film, developing and scanning in the interim. On one hand 645 seems small at the side of 6x7, but taking into account the hartblei tilt lenses available for mamiya/pentax I do feel I could end up with ultimately sharper landscape images (albeit slightly grainier) using tilt on 645 than with compromised DOF on 6x7.

<p>

So when push comes to shove I'm looking at the Mamiya Super/Pro/TL lines and the Pentax 645/N/Nii. The former are by far and away the most attractively priced on the used market right now, and greater availability. Lenses in particular, and since they've recently stopped making the manual lenses it means there?s a lots new stock around going cheap. Also the hot swappable backs do attract me to the Mamiya (and futureproofing against affordable digital backs?), but then again the vertical tripod socket of the Pentax looks like a great feature, but is it enough to make me put up with a 92% finder? Christ knows.