First MF camera? Buying off eBay?

[hubert_seremak]

"But be aware that virtually all medium format TLR cameras deliver a square negative."

 

This is why I shoot with Rolleis, it is a plus for me, big plus, not a minus:)) - best format ever. Seems so natural, instead of 6x4,5 or 6x9 - at least for me 6x6 is perfect. Easier to compose for me as well.

 

give Rolleiflex (or even Rolleicord) a try, they are wonderful cameras. Easy to learn, tack sharp if stopped down to f/8 or f/11 (planars and Xenotars work nice even at f/4 but I love f/8 on these cameras)

 

a small problem you might encounter is gentle release of shutter button. I have problem with this an many photos come out not sharp, yet plain release cable works great. Some older types do not have cable socket, one of my old Rolleiflex Automat from 1935-1945 series hasn't one, yet this one has very soft release.

[hubert_seremak]

Q.G. de Bakker - a solution to handling and shaky photos with TLR is good strap - I use old Revue camera strap,

it is pretty wide and keeps camera almost stoned in my hands. You put the strap over your neck, look down,

compose, press, bang, there is the photo. Very easy. No need to worry about shaky hands as long as you do not try

to compose for 5 minutes :)

[q.g._de_bakker]

H.S.<br><br>A strap can indeed help to improve steadiness, and so help get better results.<br>But even at 1/500,

you will get better results by putting the camera on a tripod. (Just try and compare, and you'll see. Without fail:

handholding is not (as) good.).<br><br>So one thing about handholding is that every time we do that, we are

indeed losing image quality. The slower you go, the worse it will be.<br>But i know: you can get many pictures

handheld that you could not get if a tripod was mandatory. And a blurry picture is better than no picture at all (well..

most of the time anyway ;-))<br>Still: when we think that we can 'still' get sharp results handheld, at 1/15, we are

only deluding ourselves. We do indeed "need to worry about shakey hands", even at fast shutterspeeds. But

when doing that we must also weigh other things, like "will i get the picture at all if i first need to set up a tripod?",

or "do i feel like lugging around a tripod to begin with?" ;-)<br><br>So do not try to fool yourself (and/or others) that

is perfectly fine, no problem whatsoever, to take pictures handheld.<br>Instead, make it a conscious decision, to

take a picture handheld, and (!) knowingly and willingly accept the consequences of doing so.<br><br>The other

thing about

handholding (and the thing that has become 'on-

topic' in this thread) is this TLRs-are-better-at-it thingy. They are not. None of the reasons why they might be are

valid. No matter how often they are given.

[jack_welsh]

The best item I've found in hand holding a medium format camera. Be it a TLR, SLR,or a Mamiya Universal is that if you can find a grip holder that will work on your camera Get it! Makes it easier to carry, too.

[jack_welsh]

But, in the old days, because the taking lens is below the viewing one. They were the camera of choice for children photos.

[hubert_seremak]

Q.G - sure, you rare right, but this is truism, isn't it? Noone can compete with tripod if it comes to stability, sure thing. But the point is, at least my point, that TLR handheld will give better results at low speeds than regular SLR with the same speed - the slower speed the more TLR shines compares to SLR. One friend of mine can shoot with TLR a 1 second photo handheld and you would have problem to say it was handheld or tripod - unfortunately I am not that good heheh, I am ok with 1/15, but of course prefer 1/60 and more. Anyway, would you notice ANY difference between tripod and no-tripid with speeds like 1/250 or 1/500? Don't think so , and even if, difference would be negligible.

 

so, tripod vs handhels - tripod is always better

TLR handheld and SLR handheld - TLR is the winner, escpecially @ slower times.

[Landrum Kelly]

Although KEH always stands behinds its used equipment (in addition to selling more and more NEW equipment), I have found that sellers with lots of positive feedback on eBay are likewise quite reliable and will accept returns, if one can show that the item does not indeed fit the description. The reason is simple: they know that they cannot afford negative feedback and still do mass volume buying and selling on eBay.

 

I bought a ton of Bronica stuff on eBay near the end of 2007, and most of it turned out to be very, very good. Why a "ton"? Because it was so cheap,and because buying two or more copies of the same thing was the only way that I knew that I could have a backup if something failed--and this had to extend to nearly every essential accessory. When dealing with a bankrupt company, there is no other way to be sure that one can have backup: buy the backup when you buy the first copy. I was still paying a dime on the dollar, and the overwhelming majority of it has functioned exactly as promised.

 

Some of the equipment is darned near perfect, and the lenses are typically awesome--not quite Zeiss but in many cases very close in quality. The build is very substantial and heavy. I bought all the way from ETRSi to SQAi to GS-I, with all accessories. I have moved away from the ETRSi stuff, preferring to focus on the 6x6 (SQAi) and the 6x7 (GS-1).

 

Someday I will no doubt go through it and decide what can be discarded, but I cannot lose too much money: I didn't put that much money into the whole "spree."

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

With regard to rangefinders, I am indeed leery of buying off eBay. The shutters and the light meters are just not reliable, especially if you go back in years. Medium format is quite a different thing, in my experience.

 

--Lannie

[q.g._de_bakker]

H.S.,<br><br>You appear to have missed my main point, which is:<br>No, a "TLR handheld will <b>[NOT !]</b>

give better results at low speeds than regular SLR with the same speed".<br>Not only is there no reason to assume

they might do, but they really do not.<br><br>My second point was that claims like "One friend of mine can shoot

with

TLR a 1 second photo handheld and you would have problem to say it was handheld or tripod" are complete

nonsense too.<br>I am sorry, but i have to appear harsh: anyone who cannot tell whether a shot taken at 1 sec. was

taken handheld or from a tripod needs his or her eyes seen to in a hurry! The difference will be bigger than that

between shots taken with a Rollei and a Holga. There is no doubt about that at all. So i hope your friend has not

spent money on anything more expensive than a Holga... (and even when, he's not getting all he can out of that

Holga). ;-)<br><br>And yes, you can indeed tell the difference between a tripod-shot and a handheld-shot, both

taken at fast speeds, generally held to be 'safe', like 1/250.<br><br>Notice that though it indeed is a truism, 'some

people' still do not know? :-P<br>But that

was not the

main point.

[derek_stanton2]

I wouldn't buy an (old) TLR on ebay if it were my first experience with that form/format/model. KEH is great. I think i would

also trust www.kevincameras.com for Rolleiflexes.

 

"hand-holding a TLR is MUCH more natural than hand-holding an SLR. No mirror slap and you are holding the camera

against your chest instead of out in front of you with your arms."

 

Gotta disagree with that. What's "natural" to one individual is what that person is used to or expects, and that has to take into

account his lifelong experience with cameras. If a person has always used an SLR, that's what's natural. Rangefinder?

Same thing. Secondly, i can't imagine that looking down into a groundglass could be more natural than looking FORWARD,

directly at the subject matter. And, that doesn't even take into account that the TLR's groundglass is laterally reversed. How

can that be more natural? Sorry to 'pick' - i understand your point, but i completely disagree with it. : )

[bryan_lardizabal]

I recommend the Pentax 645 or 645n.

 

They're built like tanks and incredibly cheap for a starter Medium Format camera. Accessories and lenses are cheap but good quality as well.

[Landrum Kelly]

"I think i would also trust www.kevincameras.com for Rolleiflexes."

 

Derek is right, but I only found out about Kevincameras by browsing on eBay. Maybe the operative maxim ought to be, "Browse there, but buy elsewhere--if you can." The problem is that sometimes eBay is the only place that has what one needs.

 

Bryan is also right to recommend Pentax over some of the other brands, in my opinion, but, from what I have seen, the 6x7 line would be my preferred format--if one is going to take time to set up on a tripod.

 

John, have you given much thought to what you are going to use to scan?

 

--Lannie

[User_502260]

I have lots of Bronica SLR equipment now but I still sometimes use an old TLR. I find that with no moving mirror a TLR can be very stable at slow speeds even hand held. A tripod will always keep your camera steadier at slow speeds but in general I find TLR cameras easy to hand hold. Any TLR you get will not be very new. I would recommend that you spend the extra money and get it serviced before you use it. You will want to take some care in focusing properly and metering. Getting the camera serviced will give you the extra confidence that the shutter speeds are close to being correct.

[gt1]

I've bought and sold a Mamiya 645 Pro on Ebay, it was in the exact condition that the seller described and was in the same condition when I sold it. 6x4.5 isn't holding it's value as well as 6x6 and 6x7. I also bought a Mamiya RB67 on Ebay for very cheap. It was exactly as described. I tend to stick with sellers who have excellent feedback and who put up a lot of pictures of the equipment.

[john_photo]

QC,

 

Arent you a Hasselblad SLR user? I state this because with my Mamiya 7 I get very different results than I would get

with my Bronica SLR handheld.

 

With the Mamiya 7 I can achieve quite good results with 1/60th. I try and shoot at 1/125 every time but often depth of field constraints force a slower shutter speed. At 1/125th I can equivocally say that with a full frame schneider loupe I cannot tell the difference between these and those images taken on a tripod.

 

I never use my Bronica ETRSI without a tripod and MLU employed. Just not worth it. I even can see image degradation at 1/125 with the normal lens if I look close enough. I've come to the conclusion that all the MF SLR's from Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad etc (excepting Pentax with its superior mirror damping system) require the use of a tripod for critically sharp results.

 

Rangefinders have their purpose in Medium Format: Handheld photography. A Tlr should give near similiar results to the Mamiya 7 Rangefinder.

 

I'm of the opinion that a tripod is of marginal use for daytime photography with either a Medium Format TLR or Rangefinder.

[david_henderson]

John - in general I'd agree though my numbers are different and I have to start by saying that I accept a point of view that you can pretty much always tell the difference between a photograph taken on a tripod and taken handheld. Its just that there are people to whom the achievement of ultimate quality is really important, and some to whom it isn't. And there are circumstances in which getting the ultimate is important and others where it isn't - for example low enlargement sizes , long viewing distances. So there are times when the use of a tripod may not result in a photograph that is materially sharper, albeit that it may be measurably sharper.

 

But where I agree is that I can get a usefully better result handheld from my Mamiya 7 than with a Bronica. In the former case I have a better than even chance of a usable transparency at 1/30 and if I need it, then 1/15 is worth a shot. By "usable" I mean it could be printed/projected and would pass my stock agency's QC procedures. Using a Bronica with a prism and Speedgrip, I need two stops faster. I don't know why, and have no evidence to support any conclusions about mirrors, ability to hold each camera steady and so on. I just know that it's so and that I have a deal of experience leading to this conclusion. It may simply be the case that the shape and weight of the Mamiya helps me to hold it steadier, or that I might get a similar result with the slr if I took off the prism and Speedgrip from the Bronica and used the camera in a different way.

[asher]

David H wrote: <i>"there are people to whom the achievement of ultimate quality is really important, and some to whom it isn't."</i><p>

 

I couldn't agree more. It seems very common in many of the threads on PNet, that people get hung up on resolution, sharpness, grain/noise etc, when the photographs themselves are rarely worth the time it takes to look at them, at least in my opinion! Some of my all time favorite photographs (composition, timing, lighting) by my favorite influences would probably fail these silly tests miserably, even those shot with MF. There are other aspects of MF that distinguish it from 35mm. For me it's the longer focal length perspective on a larger frame. Yes, sometimes a tripod is called for, but sometimes it's just a hindrance. I would never venture to say "always use a tripod". These discussions comparing microscopic analyses are ridiculous. No offence, people, but you guys need to get out more often!<p>

 

Back to the main topic... buying off EBay has become less appealing than when I first joined EBay in 1999. Prices tend to go much higher, there are too many "power sellers" who don't have the resources to provide personal service, and there are more con people out there. HOWEVER, one can still find fair deals on good cameras: look for a private seller (high number of ratings but not in the stratosphere) with near 100% feedback, preferably based in the USA, who accepts PayPal, who posts several detailed photographs of all angles of the gear in question, and who has a fair return policy.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Asher,<br><br>You should see all this in the right perspective. If claims about sharpness (at ridiculously slow

shutterspeeds for handholding) are made, sharpness is the issue.<br>And if then someone goes on to claim that

that would be a matter of "microscopic analysis", it is indeed time again to use the word "ridiculous"... ;-)

<br><br>Speaking about perspective: you do not get a " longer focal length perspective on a larger frame" when

using MF, unless you are using a really long focal length lens (500 mm and up). Those are rather rare in the MF

world.<br>Perspective depends only on position: where you are relative to what you are looking at (or taking pictures

of). You use longer focal lengths to capture the same field of view on a larger frame. But then do not get a different

perspective as well, unless you move away from your subject. But then you change the field of view again, needing

an even longer focal length lens to keep that constant. And eventually, you end up needing one of those very long

lenses that are rare in MF to begin to get a convincing long focal length perspective in a larger frame.<br>Or short: if

you want a long focal length perspective, you would be far, far better of using smaller formats, like 35

mm.<br><br>No offence, but you would know that if you would get out more... ;-)

[asher]

QG,<p>

 

I've been shooting MF + 35mm for over 30 years- I get out PLENTY and actually use these tools in practice much more than I

write/talk about them...<p>

 

For a <u>fixed position</u> at a given scene with a <u>"normal" field of view</u>: An 80mm "normal" lens projected onto an MF frame

provides a very different "perspective" vs. a ~35mm "normal" lens projected onto a crop frame DSLR, vs. a 300mm "normal" lens projected

onto an 8x10 ground glass vs a ~15mm "normal" lens focal length for a digital point and shoot. Perspective does NOT only depend on

position. The size of the film or sensor on which the lens projects certainly affects "perspective" of the resultant image.<p>

 

AND.. with respect to all this miniscule sharpness BS, if your subject is moving at all, your tripod is not going to do squat. So unless you're

exclusively shooting landscapes in zero knot wind, a tripod will have a very limited effect on your magnified image quality. Subject matter

being personal preference, you will of course see differing opinions on the value of using a tripod.<p>

 

I'd love to debate more, but I'm heading out! Have a lovely day ;-)

[asher]

One last point- the definition of "perspective": "The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular

vision." Ergo, different "normals" focal lengths projected onto their respective formats will yield differences in object depth,

ie, different perspectives, as I described above.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Asher,<br><br>I'm sorry, but you have got it completely wrong. You really have!<br>From the same point of view, there only is one (!) perspective. No matter what you are using to capture that.<br><br>And "with respect to all this miniscule sharpness BS": you're right, it is complete "BS" to think it is miniscule.<br><br>And yes, a moving subject will cause blur. So will a moving camera.<br>Simple, isn't it? ;-)<br>

[asher]

QG,<p>

 

You seem to be a knowledgeable collector, but there is no way you can be a practicing photographer and still believe what you're writing.

You can keep telling me how "completely wrong" I am until you're blue in the face, but until you try this, your opinions (not facts) have

no credibility:<p>

 

Keeping in mind the definition of perspective verbatim from the dictionary: "The technique of representing three-

dimensional objects and <b><u>depth relationships</u></b> on a two-dimensional surface.":

<ol>

<li>Take one of your MF cameras with a normal 80mm lens and position it to photograph a scene with both near and far

objects.</li>

<li>Right next to your MF camera, place a small digital point-and-shoot with the lens set to 10-15mm (i.e. approx normal focal

length)</li>

<li>Take a photo of the same scene from the same position with each camera.</li>

<li>Actually LOOK at the photos</li>

</ol><p>

What you will see is a stark difference in the <b><u>depth relationships </u></b> of the near and far objects</u>. The <u>MF will tend

to compress the objects together, magnifying the distant objects</u> while the <u>digi P&S will render

the distant objects as much smaller</u> and the 2D <b>perspective</b> in the image will therefore make those objects

appear further away.<p>

 

AND Regarding tripods and sharpness: I am fully aware that any movement of camera and/or subject will affect

sharpness. My point once again is that if your subject is moving, any benefit of a tripod will be negligible, and may in

fact hinder your ability to get the shot, which is all the newspaper and magazine editors I've shot for care about. If you're

saying that "personal work" (i.e. "fine art", a term I don't like...) requires supreme sharpness, all I can tell you is that

some of the most stirring and compelling personal work exhibits I've seen were far from technically sharp.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Asher,<br><br>You should really try that before posting about it. It is perfectly clear that you

haven't.<br><br>Perspective is the same as long as you do not change viewpoint. You can change anything else:

focal length, frame size, digital or film... anything: perspective will be the same.<br><br>So go ahead and do what

you suggest, Try it! Please!<br>Also sit down, think a while, get some paper and a pencil, and try to understand

perspective. Than you will see not just with your eeys, but with your grey matter too that it cannot be any other

way.<br><br>Re tripods: i already made that point.<br>I also mentioned that we should knowingly and willingly do

that.<br>And that we should not (!) do is fool ourselves into believing that you can handhold and get 'sharp' results.

Have you read the boasts? There is something for you to rail against. ;-)<br><br>Anyway, this handholding thing is

usually, as here, used to extol some perceived advantage TLRs would have over SLRs. It's not real, only

imagined.<br><br>Finally: let's keep this friendly. I can assure you that i not only know and understand what i am

talking about. And i will not begin about what we should think about a self-confessed "practicing photographer"

who ... no. i will not. ;-)

[p._jeffrey_ungar]

John S.: I have good luck with eBay, but generally I have not spent more than $200, the sellers had close to 100%

feedback, and there were photos of the item from several angles. Overall, if KEH has what you want, I would still go with

them.

 

Asher: QG is referring strictly to geometric perspective, which is set by location, direction, and view frustum (read field

of view). The image formed by a lens will also show the effects of the apparent depth of field, and that *is* very different

for normal FOV lenses at the same f/# for different formats.

 

QG: Asher is referring to how the images look as formed by a lens, not an idealized, diffractionless pinhole, but I'm sure

you know this.

[asher]

QG<p>

 

Re: Perspective- upon re-reading all of our collective posts, I see that you are right and I am wrong- my apologies.

P. Jeffrey is correct above as well. It seems I was confusing my understanding of depth of field with relative depth perception (NO! Please- I do NOT want to start another debate! :-0). I should probably not engage in debates while doing too many other things...<p>

 

Now, the hand-holding/sharpness/TLR vs. SLR debate truly does seem ridiculous to me, for lack of a better word, in that the vast vast vast

majority of people who look at photos (myself included), either recreationally or professionally, do not examine photos so closely for

relatively insignificant differences in sharpness. And that comes from my experience, in practice, as a photographer and a viewer of photographs.<p>

 

Since we seem to have gone totally off topic from the OP, I will leave it at that.