tomscott Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>I am looking into medium format (something with a little more control than my Brownies). I would like to keep it under $100 and in 120 film. So far I have looked at the Yashica Mat, Yashica Baby 44, Ricoh Auto 66 and the Ricoflex Model IV, and was wondering if any of you have any opinions, experiences or suggestions concerning any of these models, or other suggestions in that price range. Or if anyone has something they would like to trade for a rangefinder, I have several different models.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_4525289 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>How low "under" $100 do you wonna keep the price tag? Nice looking TLRs are a bit higher unless you are ery lucky. However $200 would buy almost everything in a good condition in the exeprion of the Rolleiflex. ;)) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachelle_m. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Hi Curtis,<br> I haven't tried the Ricoh models, but you certainly can't go wrong with a Yashica -- the Mat, D, 12, and 124G are all good models to start on (I have 3 myself). I wouldn't go with the Baby 44 (or any other 'baby's) since it doens't take 120 film. I think it's 127 -- which you can find online, but it's definitely not as available as 120 -- and then you would have to consider finding reels to process it, if you do that yourself. Minolta Autocords and Rolleicords are also good options, but will probably be above your budget.<br> If you're buying online, make sure the seller is one who specializes in selling photo gear and knows what they're talking about (and can guarantee that shutter speeds are accurate and that the camera is in good working order).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendell_kelly Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>If you opt for a 4x4 camera, you'll be assuming that 127 film will continue to be available. A camera which uses 120 film is a safer choice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonsignore_ezio Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>The only real reason to go for 4x4 (127 film) as a user is the possibility of projecting so-called "super-slides" with a normal 35mm slide projector that takes 5x5 slide frames. I own and use three 4x4 TLRs (a Rollei Baby, a Yashica and a Topcon Primo Jr.) for this purpose. The process of locating 127 slide film (or cutting/respooling your own from 120) is a PITA, and finding the elusive slide frames for 4x4 slides require the determination of a treasure hunter, but the results are worth the effort; a presentation of super-slides will literally kick the socks off people, who know but digital images.<br> Unless you want to join this league, forget 127. Also, I notice you mention but TLR cameras as possible solutions. Is there a specific reason for this preference? If so, then one of the latest Yashica models is probably the best price/quality compromise, and by some looking around you should be able to find a good one well below your price ceiling. But, why dont include folders in your list? A nice Ikonta or Solinette would deliver very much the same result as a Yashica TLR (and even better, if you stumble e.g. in an Ikonta with Tessar lens), would be in the same price range, and would be way more practical to carry around. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_gilday Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Are you dead-set on a TLR? If you've used rangefinders in the past, and like them, you might want to look at the Koni-Omegas and Rapid-Omegas; an M or 100 model can frequently be had in excellent shape for under $100. They're fairly large and fairly heavy, but are *very* high-quality cameras which produce absolutely stunning results. Just make sure you get one with a 120 back, rather than 220.<br> I have a couple of 'em, and they really are a joy to use: 6x7cm, 120 or 220 film, interchangeable lenses, coupled brightline viewfinder/rangefinder with automatic parallax correction, synchronized leaf shutters to 1/500, built-in lens shades, nearly bulletproof build quality.<br> Only real downsides are they're big, they're kind of heavy, and they aren't nearly as overhyped as, say, a YashicaMat 124G...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>The Yashica 4x4 would be an option for superslides. The Gepe glass mounts, I had my camera store order several boxes of that, (also 828),. So, the mounts ae still made and available. Besides that, a great Yashica would be the Yashica D. It's cheaper that the Mats and more depenable. Of the many TLRs I own and have own, I found the film winding knob models, Yashica D, Mamiya C220) to be less prone for problems than those that have a film crank, ( Yashica Mat, Mamiya C330). The film cranks have been known to jam. They are still great cameras. But the others, such as the Yashica D) have fewer problems. Especially when they are old.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_foreman1 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think Mike's recommendation is right on with the Koni-Omega! TLRs are cool too, just almost all of them that I can think of use the square 6x6 format. _Have you considered the folders, the better ones might be straining the budget, but I think for 6x9 you're in with a URF. Speed/Crown/Century Graphic is something to look at, but a ready to shoot outfit for 200 is also a bit tight waht with backs and lenses. Do some research though the Graphic line is a good budget MF where you have some flexibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomscott Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Thanks for the input, I definitely want to stay with 120 film. I didn't realize that the 44 meant 4X4 or 127 film (still learning). I am not dead set on a TLR although there is something about looking down into ground glass that I find appealing. I am looking at a Rapid Omega 100 on an auction site but, the seller doesn't know if it is in working order.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Some advise for beginners:<br> Stay away from folders. They didn't age well and almost all have serious issues when it comes to lens alignment, film flatness, shutter condition. It is highly unlikely that you will get the best results unless you know what to expect and how to fix it.</p> <p>TLRs have a better design, but are awkward for beginners. I am not a big TLR fan and find most of these cameras too limiting. The Mamiya C series is a notable exception, but these are more expensive, although I got my C33 for €70 or so.</p> <p>If you are into classic camera photography, get a modern incident light meter. Guestimating wastes money and film and you just will not get perfect exposure for best image quality. The Sekonic light meters are excellent but expensive (I have the L-508), so maybe an older Minolta Autometer III would be a better choice for beginners.</p> <p>Don't get cameras that only use "exotic" film formats. No 127, no 220 etc. Period.</p> <p>So the best cameras are rigid couple-rangefinder cameras (expensive) or single-lens reflex cameras. Really ancient ones like the <a href="00PX8K"><strong>Pilot Super</strong> </a> might fit into your budget, else there are the Kowa, Mamiya, Bronica etc system cameras which are more reliable and only a little bit above your budget. The big plus is that (unlike folders and TLRs) SLRs usually have a closer minimum focus distance of less than 1m/3.3ft and have interchangeable optics which makes this type of camera very versatile.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>the seller doesn't know if it is in working order.</p> </blockquote> <p>This means it <em>is</em> broken and unrepairable/very exensive to fix.</p> <blockquote> <p>I am not dead set on a TLR although there is something about looking down into ground glass that I find appealing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Virtually all medium format SLRs have a waist-level finder and ground glass focusing, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Medium format folders from Zeiss are a good way to get into medium format cheaply. If you search this forum for words like "Novar" and "Nettar" you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about. They are not easy to use however. Most lack coupled rangefinders unless you want to shell out lots of bucks. My advice would be to look for a clean, 50's vintage Zeiss Nettar with 4.5 Novar lens. Barring that you should be able to find a Rolleicord III TLR for around $100.00. Be aware these models have rather dim focusing screens. If possible try the camera before buying.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_gilday Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>I know I'm usually the cynic, but I wouldn't automatically assume that "I don't know if it works" *always* means "it's busted", as Bueh suggests - especially where the Omegas are concerned. If you've never used one before, or at least read a manual, there are all sorts of things - shutter-release lock, dark-slide interlock, film-advance lock at the end of the roll - that could bewilder someone unfamiliar with the camera, and prevent them from figuring out whether it's working or not. If the film-advance works smoothly - and cocks the shutter, the shutter fires correctly when you press the release, and the rangefinder operates in a logical fashion, it's probably workable.<br> If I were you, I'd ask where the camera came from; watch out for ones that have been in attics or basements for a decade or two, and hope for one that was just sold by a police department.<br> One other thing you might want to consider is what kind of photography you like to do, and what kind of film you like to use. A rangefinder like the Omegas works well for most sorts of photography, whereas most folders don't work super-well for close-up portraiture (scale-focus and parallax), and a TLR works okay for just about anything.<br> Film choice is tied to format: Omegas are 6x7, which is probably the most popular MF film format, and which anyone who can handle 120 film can deal with; it enlarges to standard print sizes with little or no cropping, which is quite nice. TLRs are almost always square (6x6 for 120 film, 4x4 for 127 film), which is convenient - there's no "horizontal" or "portrait" orientation to worry about - but means you inevitable have to crop to make "normal" prints (5x7, 8x10, 11x14... you get the idea). Not a bad deal if you shoot portraits, but a PITA if you shoot landscapes. (You *can* have square prints made, but that may or may not suit your aesthetic.) Folders can be 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x9; the latter are almost certainly most numerous. The catch is that - as I and dozens of others here can attest - getting prints - even 4x6 proofs! - made from 6x9 color negative film is unbelievably difficult. (You basically have to use one of a handful of pro wedding/studio portrait labs, who may limit what films you can shoot, and/or impose other restrictions on you.) Obviously, you can scan your negatives yourself, but it's something to think about. (You could of course even print them yourself, optically, if you have a wet darkroom and a 4x5in color enlarger, but that way lies madness.) That said, a 6x9 transparency (slide) is a thing of beauty. :) (...one you'll almost never be able to project, alas. But, believe me, on the lightbox, it'll knock your socks off.) 6x4.5 is nice, in that you get 15 or 16 shots per roll of film, and is basically the same proportion as 6x7, but *all* the old 6x4.5 cameras are by necessity in "portrait" format, and if you shoot landscapes a lot, having the camera sideways all the time can get old, quick.<br> Also, keep in mind that not all old folders have shutters with flash sync - and of those that do, not all will work with modern, electronic flashes. (And, annoyingly, some of those that do, only do so at certain shutter speeds, argh.) Depending on what kind of photography you do, that can be a deal-breaker...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>*all* the old 6x4.5 cameras are by necessity in "portrait" format, and if you shoot landscapes a lot, having the camera sideways all the time can get old, quick.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not entirely accurate. All 645 non-SLR cameras are portrait format, and all SLRs are landscape format. Unfortunately, there is no 645 SLR with a rotating back.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_gilday Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>J.E.G., if you're going to pick nits, I feel compelled to point out the Kiev 645, which is a portrait-format 645 SLR. :) Note I did say "old 6x4.5 cameras"; I don't consider the ETR-family "old", for example, nor the Pentax or Mamiya 645s...<br> Also, there's a 6x4.5 back for the Mamiya RB67, which if course has a rotating back... but that's being *really* pedantic. :D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k5083 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I love folders but agree they are not the best first MF camera. A TLR could be, although the older ones will have the same shutter issues and will be harder to fix yourself (if so inclined), being buried in the camera. Even the very cheapest in both of these categories will threaten to bust your budget if they are reliably promised to be in working condition. On this forum, bottom-feeding for sub-$100 cameras has made tinkerers and amateur repairmen out of many of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Odd-brand Japanese 120 TLR's are not overly expensive. I got a fine Laurelflex (Tokyo Optical/Topcon) for $75 at a camera show quite a few years ago. Got a fresnel screen for it from Rick Oleson recently. But, try a TLR first, they are a matter of taste -- not an approach that really appeals to me. (I got the Laurelflex since I'm a Topcon fanatic.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomscott Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Ok I'm starting to get the picture. I do shoot alot of landscape and I get the impression a TLR is not the best suited for this purpose? Now does a 6x7 format still use 120 and you just get less per roll, or am I still not getting it. This is one concern after looking at the difference in price of 120, 220, and especially 620. But I already know from previous threads how to deal with the 620. Also I didn't realize that MF SLRs used waist level finders so that changes things some as well. Once again thank you all very much, you have been quite informative.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Also, there's a 6x4.5 back for the Mamiya RB67, which if course has a rotating back... but that's being *really* pedantic. :D</p> </blockquote> <p>Only if you had mentioned the 645 back for Hasselblads or the Rolleiflex SLRs. I have never seen a Kiev 645 in the wild, I wonder how many were made. However, like those back options it don't consider it a "true" (native) 645 camera but more a modification of a larger-format camera.<br> I don't think of cameras with "modern" electronics as really "classic" or old, but let's face it, the M645s are 35+ years old and quite vintage in this regard for a young MF beginner.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_gilday Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>6-x-whatever is the image format, in (rounded up, sometimes way up) centimetres; 120, 220, and 620 are film formats. 120 is, today, basically *the* medium-format film; 220 is double-length 120, but without backing paper. Cameras (or camera backs) that take 120 cannot generally use 220, though there are a few exceptions. As far as I know, all folding 120 cameras, and all 120 TLRs, are "120 only". 220 is, for all intents and purposes, now a dead format, with very limited, ever-dwindling film availability, hence warnings to watch out for 220 film backs. (You might also come across the occasional 70mm film backs for some cameras, which are another great-in-theory, but now basically obsolete, medium-format film size, and if you start looking at old folders - especially from Kodak - there are all sorts of other long-dead formats, as well. But I digress..)<br> How many images you get per roll of 120 depends on the image format: 6x9 gives you 8 shots; 6x7 10; 6x6 12; and 6x4.5 usually 16, sometimes 15, depending on the camera. If you're used to 36 shots on a roll of 35mm film - or a hundred or more shots on a memory card - you might find find yourself reloading alarmingly often.<br> You certainly *can* shoot landscapes with a TLR, but I find it particularly unwieldy, especially on a tripod; to be fair, I'm not a huge fan of TLRs at all, so I'm probably biased. :) If you're a big user of polarizers and other similar filters, however, a TLR might work out better than a rangefinder, as - though it's fiddly - they can be far closer to what-you-see-is-what-you-get where filters, et cetera are concerned. Some much-overlooked TLRs in the roughly-$100 range are the Flexarets; there's a well-respected fellow on eBay (Cupog) who regularly sells fully-overhauled ones. They don't have the cachet of the better-known brands, but you can get a good, clean, top-of-the-line Flexaret for about what a well-used bottom-of-the-line Yashica-Mat costs...<br> Most MF SLRs have waist-level finders available, but I honestly can't think of a 120 SLR that's available for under $100. Even a Pentacon or a Kiev is generally more than that, especially if you'd like one that actually works. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>I do shoot alot of landscape and I get the impression a TLR is not the best suited for this purpose?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, you can shoot any subject with any camera. Landscape is not really that demanding. Many great landscape pictures were made with 6x6 cameras and standard lenses. But "best suited" are cameras with interchangeable lenses (for wide angle and telephoto framing), good control over composition and depth-of-field and a rectangular, possibly larger format. In short, a 645, 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 system SLR.</p> <blockquote> <p>Now does a 6x7 format still use 120 and you just get less per roll, or am I still not getting it.</p> </blockquote> <p>6x7 cameras like the Mamiya RB67/RZ67, Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 and Fujica 6x7 rangefinders use 120 film (with a regular 120 back) and get 10 frames per roll. 6x6 gets 12 frames and 645 15 or 16 frames. The larger 6x9 gets only 8 pictures.</p> <blockquote> <p>This is one concern after looking at the difference in price of 120, 220, and especially 620.</p> </blockquote> <p>You want 120. Trust us.</p> <blockquote> <p>Also I didn't realize that MF SLRs used waist level finders so that changes things some as well.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, then research a little more and check out some cameras in real life if you can.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markus.berndt Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>If you settle on a TLR I would recommend a Flexaret. These were made in the former Czechoslovakia and supposedly the Minolta Autocord was modeled after the Flexaret. It is among the lightest TLRs I own (and I own too many to mention any numbers). If you go for one with a Belar lens, you'll get a very nice Tessar clone (not the three element Mirar lens!). There is a seller on Ebay from Czech or Slovakia with good reputation who sells them for around $100, and they come CLAed (I did not buy mine from him, so I am not speaking from experience here, just looking at the Ebay feedback). I would look for a Flexaret with a winding knob and not the lever which is reputed not to be reliable.<br> I have a Flexaret IVa which I like very much. It is not automatic, in that it does not cock the shutter when you wind the film but it has a double exposure prevention mechanism (later models are automatic, however). The IVa does not have a fresnel lens in the finder, but I have not found this to be a problem. The finder is pretty bright, even without a fresnel lens (aka bright screen). It also advances the film initially to the correct position after lining up the start markings on the film backing paper properly (no red window).<br> I also have a number of folders, which I do not use nearly as frequently as my TLRs. And I agree with the comment that has already been made about their tendency for light leaks. For starters I would also stay away from 620, but once you start collecting TLRs (and you probably will), take a look at the Kodak Reflex II. It has a fantastic lens and comes with a fresnel bright screen (I have three of those :-)<br> Good luck!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>I think I paid just under $200 for my Yashicamat 124G some years ago; I forget if my costs were under 200 for just the camera, or for the camera and some other stuff I got to upgrade to medium format. My overall feeling is that you might be better off with a budget of under $200; this way you might have a wider range of mechanical serviceability in the units you might come across. I've seen some pretty good deals for around $125 plus over the years; there's something about going under $100 that implies that the seller might not have a lot of faith in the camera. Not totally true, but a general trend. For used cameras, KEH is the only place I've bought from without inspecting the equipment first. Okay results there.</p> <p>I think you should aim for the $125 and up price range; reject anything with any kind of implied mechanical problems. Scratch and dent? Who cares. Needs a clockmaker? Send it on to the Great Clockmaker in the Sky. </p> <p>While I've never had a repair bill over $175, I've never had one under a hundred, either. So, if it's "cheap" and it needs repairs to work, it's just temporarily underpriced. I imagine the other models are okay, but I haven't tried them. THe Yashicamat is a good worker.</p> <p>There is also an American company called Seagull that markets new TLRs, I think, in the under $200 price range. I am not totally sure about that, but if I had to choose between buying something I knew was broken for $100 and saving a little longer for an under $200 model that is in great working condition, I'd choose the latter. Once the camera arrives, if it is in good working shape, it will probably serve you for a decade. Worth a few weeks' wait. Good luck. J.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Of course, buying a classic camera for overhaul or recreational use; that would be a different story with the budget. A five dollar find at a garage sale might be a great score there; but, buying an older model to break into medium format with hopes of progressing further, I think future progress would be better grounded on a better working unit. The overhaul stuff is for guys who are already doing the expert tinkering, I think. Good luck. J.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janne_moren Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <blockquote> <p>As far as I know, all folding 120 cameras, and all 120 TLRs, are "120 only".</p> </blockquote> <p>Yay, I get to be pedantic too! The Yashica 124G takes both 120 and 220, simply by rotating the film pressure plate. I guess the plain 124 does as well. That said, stick with 120.</p> <p>A TLR takes just a bit getting used to, but it's a really versatile, reliable type of camera. If you do landscapes only I would probably not get one - I would not look at a folder either. For that I'd seek out a Bronica SLR; they're pretty compact and lightweight (especially compared to a Mamiya SLR) and can be had very cheaply. Format is only 6x4.5 of course for the cheap ones, but since you often want to crop fairly wide that gives you about the same result as with a 6x6 in practice, and with more shots per roll.</p> <p>For street photography I find a TLR to be really good. They're generally light and easy to use on the go - just look down at the camera to shoot - and the lower angle is often preferable to eye level in street scenes. People react more favourably to a TLR than an SLR or rangefinder too. It doesn't look big and intimidating, and you're not hiding your face behind it when you shoot. And it is even pocketable: I discovered over the New Year that my Yashica 124G actually fits in my coat pocket. Big pockets to be sure, but still.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now