want to try medium format in addition to a M6 ttl

[fotografz]

Tom,

after all this input may I suggest that you sort of answered your

own question right at the start. You said you've seen the Mamiya

7 II and liked it. It is a stellar performer, and a rangefinder of

demure size for the 6X7 neg. it provides. It sync's to 1/500th of a

second which is great for fill flash outdoors. It is very easy to

focus in darker indoor situations (especially with W/A lenses)

where MF SLRs are more difficult to focus without a magnifier.

The tonality mentioned in this thread is very much the reason to

use a MF camera. Also, you can severely crop a 6X7 image and

still produce a fine grained, smooth toned enlargement.

 

Would it be that a 35mm camera could be used for every

application. Life would be oh so much easier. But it ain't so...

[david_goldfarb]

You will see richer tonality in medium format prints at any size. You also get more options in film choice (setting aside all the consumer films not made in 120/220), because films that might be too grainy for 35mm (unless you like grain for aesthetic reasons) become quite viable in 6x6 or 6x7. Do you want the look of Tri-X with better grain than TMX in 35mm--shoot Tri-X in 6x7, and you have it. I shoot almost no B&W in 35mm anymore. I use 6x6 even for snapshots that I intend to enlarge to 5x5 inches.

 

Check out the MF Digest forum on photo.net, where the question of what first MF camera to get has come up quite often.

[masatoshi_yamamoto]

Bill wrote: "What is it that you think you will be able to do with 120 that you

can't do with 35mm? You can make bigger enlargements with less grain --

that's about it!"

 

I respectfully disagree. I have recently used my Fuji GSW690 to shoot summer

street festivals which start in late afternoon and go into evening. It is really

nice to be able to use 800 speed film into twilight, be able to stop down

somewhat to keep backgrounds behind subjects recognizeable, and still have

reasonable shutter speeds. The 8x11 inch prints from 800 speed 6x9 negatives

are slightly better in terms of grain and sharpness than the same size prints

from 100 speed 35mm shots, but the content is much more pleasing to me

because of the flexibility afforded by the extra film speed. So to answer your

(possibly rhetorical) question, that's one thing I can do with 120 that I can't

do with 35mm. A Leica with a fast lens and slower film would not provide the

same results, since in a print of the same size, the depth of field would be

much less.

 

Another example would be cropping. I can carry my GSW690, with its fixed

lens, and take a picture with a lot of elements, then later (weeks, months,

even years) decide exactly how I want to crop it. Even if I take out half of a

6x9 negative, I still have something like a 645 negative, about 2.5 times

bigger than a 35mm negative. I realize this is contrary to that HCB-type ethic

of no cropping, printing with film sprockets and film brand showing, etc., but I

find my prints more satisfying if I give the raw material time to age in my

mind, then edit, crop, and print with a more detached editorial eye. You are

much less bound to the original shape of the negative. Want square?

Panoramic? You can crop all of these and still have enough negative for good

quality. This ability to crop helps overcome some of the mobility and speed of

handling limitations of the admittedly clunky Fuji rangefinders. It's also like

carrying an extra lens, except you never have to stop to change it.

[ralph_barker]

<p>Unfortuantely, you didn't mention any specifics about what you want to shoot with the MF camera and where you want to do so, Tom. My suggestion would be to tightly define those factors first, and then choose an MF camera accordingly.</p>

 

<p>For me, interchangeable backs (along with interchangeable lenses) was a big issue. Combined with lens quality concerns, I went with a Hassy about 10 years ago. It is definitely not as convenient in the field as a Leica M, but it's a different style of photography. </p>

 

<p>If you just want to experiment with the larger film, the suggestions for TLRs are good. The Yashica and Rollei are relatively compact, but have fixed lenses. The old Mamiya C330 is considerably larger, but offers lens interchangeability. Or, if you want a more modern MF camera, try renting before you make the plunge.</p>

 

<p>Hassy w/ 80mm lens, Tri-X processed dr5</p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/fashion/rwk0700-0809a-350mdr5.jpg">

</center>

[larry_roohr]

Tom,

 

If you'd like to just stick your toe in without getting too wet, you might consider the Koni Omega models. 6x7 rangefinders with interchangeable lenses and removeable backs (for some models). You can pick up a body, normal lens and back for less than $200 on ebay. The lenses are sharp and the backs have a mechanism that pushes the film flat for exposure. If it's not your cup of tea then you just resell it.

 

Larry

[raymond_tai]

Tom,

 

The economist in me will always encourage people with money

to spend it freely. If you wish to try medium format photography

then by all means do so. I recommend the Rollei 6008i starter

kit with 80mm f/2.8 Planar. It is modern SLR with spot, mulit-

spot, matrix, AE, built-in motor, etc. That is what I use when I

have a tripod and all the time in the world to take a picture. If you

prefer to shoot handheld then I recommend you stick to the

Leica.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Medium format versus 35mm allows one hide the clutter of the portraits backgound easier........two shots both at 1/250 @F5.6 with the MF and 35mm can be taken......The longer MF lens when @F5.6 will allow one to hide ugly background clutter in outside portraits....Sure the 35mm camera can open the aperture more to get the same effect; but then the shutter speed drops to 1/125..

[tito sobrinho]

Hi Tom: I will follow Steve advice and buy a Hassy SWC. It follows the LUGERS modus operandi. Fast shutter measured in miliseconds, decisive moment a la HCB well made, blah, blah etc. Has one advantage i.e. you could use 3-4 backs for the Zone System practice (N-2 N-1,N, and N+2)

[sergio_ortega6]

Tom,

 

I'm a long time user of Leica rangefinders, as well as the Fuji rangefinders, the Rollei TLR and the Hassy SWC.

 

I recently got the Mamiya 7II and a couple of lenses. The M7II is the closest thing in MF to the Leica 35mm rangefinder experience. I imagine the Bronica 645 RF would provide the same experience as well. The Fuji rangefinders, while good cameras with excellent lenses, have way too many drawbacks (all mentioned above) as quick users. And the aperture priority exposure system of the M7II makes it the equal of the new Leica M7 as a quick user.

 

I have not used any of the above other cameras since I got the Mamiya 7II, including the Leicas. About the only thing I miss are the fast lenses of the Leica. And don't let anyone tell you there is no difference between 35mm and 6x7 negatives. You'll clearly see the difference, no matter what the size of the final print.

[Allen Herbert]

Why!are you going really large or like carrying around loads of gear.

[furcafe]

I think you have it backwards in your last sentence, Kelly. To get

the same narrow DoF as the medium format shot w/the 35mm

camera, you would open up a stop or so (e.g., f/4) & *increase*

the shutter speed to 1/500.

 

--------------

 

"Medium format versus 35mm allows one hide the clutter of the

portraits backgound easier........two shots both at 1/250 @F5.6

with the MF and 35mm can be taken......The longer MF lens when

@F5.6 will allow one to hide ugly background clutter in outside

portraits....Sure the 35mm camera can open the aperture more

to get the same effect; but then the shutter speed drops to

1/125.."

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Christopher,

 

You write

 

"Medium format versus 35mm allows one hide the clutter of the portraits backgound easier........two shots both at 1/250 @F5.6 with the MF and 35mm can be taken......The longer MF lens when @F5.6 will allow one to hide ugly background clutter in outside portraits....Sure the 35mm camera can open the aperture more to get the same effect; but then the shutter speed drops to 1/125.."

 

I respectfully disagree� Because a 250 mm lens won't give you the same field a 250 mm lens will on a medium format. You'll need a 150mm lens on a 35mm camera to cover the same field and converesly a 400mm lens should be used on a medium format camera to obtain the same field a 250 mm will cover on a small format camera.

 

Optic tells us the only really in focus area of a subject is the exact plan where the focusing of the lens is done. Any other part of the subject which appears sharp is a consequence of the circle of confusion for which our eye cannot separate two distinct points.

 

The circle of confusion is something heavily influenced by at least two factors (the film granulation set aside) : the coefficient of magnification of the image and the distance of observation of the final print. A convention has been set about the generally accepted values of the circle of confusion which is reflected by the engraved DOF scales on the lenses. I don�t remember the exact figures, but they are different for a small format camera than for a medium format (and large formats have also their own standard values). Practically speaking, due to the smaller enlargement values generally accepted for a medium format image, the value retained for the circle of confusion is greater than for a small format camera. In fact, the standard circle of confusion retained for a 80 mm lens on a medium format camera being greater than with a 50 mm lens for a 35mm camera, despite a longer focal length, the 80mm is considered to have the same DOF on a medium format than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera for a given aperture. And all the lenses equivalent in field obey the same rule.

 

Don�t forget a 250mm lens on a medium format having 80mm as standard is equivalent to an 150 mm lens in 35mm format and the applicable DOF table is exactly the same an 150mm lens for 35mm has� The transition between perfect focus to the out of focus areas is ever a continuous process (whatever the �bokeh� looks like and appears to be more or less brutal to the eye). So a 250mm lens won�t give you a more sensible difference of sharpness between in focus (in fact zones within the circle of confusion and zones out of it) for the same aperture on a medium format than its equivalent in field coverage: an 150mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

My personal opinion is it is practically easier to obtain a more distinct separation between sharp and blurred areas with a small format camera because most lenses will generally have a greater maximum aperture (and a more useable one) than a medium format camera lens.

 

Let�s take an example:

 

Using a 90mm f/2 at f/2.8 will lead to a more abrupt transition than using a 120mm f/4 at f/5.6 on medium format (each lens being set one aperture closed down from their maximum aperture). As you�ll need to close the 90mm f/2 to f/5.6 to find the same DOF based on the different value of the circle of confusion for each format.

 

The rule of decrease of DOF with focal length only applies within the same format due to the increase of diameter of the circle of confusion with the increase in format. At equivalent field covered and identical aperture, the DOF will be the same whatever the format.

 

Friendly.

 

François P. WEILL

[Alex_Es]

Hi Tom,

 

TLRs are nice cameras. The old Mamiya is a heavy guy but wonderful with interchangable lenses and grips. The Rollei is a Rollei, period. But my favorite medium format cameras are the Mamiya New 6x6 with 75 and 50mm lenses and the Fujica Professional GSW690 with 65/5.6 lens. Both are relatively light and handle almost like Leicas.

 

Do go for medium format, Tom. It is a revelation.

 

When you see your 6x9 slides you will wonder, however briefly, why you ever bothered with the small stuff. The image practically jumps into your lap.

[tom_tong]

Thank you so much.

 

I am now packing all my Nikon stuff to get room for a MF camera with one or two lens initially. I quite like the SWC but understand that it is not that easy to use/handle. Still thinking of the Mamaya 7.

Best Regards,

[furcafe]

Francois:

 

I agree w/you. I actually was disagreeing w/Kelly & I quoted his

post.

[tom_tong]

Thanks for all the advices.

Bill, yes you are right that I am not really a photographer. Photographing is just one of my hobbies, the same reason why people own more than one match though one is enough to tell the time of the day. Hobby is a waste of money if one cannot afford.

I think photos taken with a MF camera will have a difference look than those taken with a 35mm cameras disregard the size of the output and this is the reasons why I wish to have a try. Since I like the feel of RF, I have ordered the Mamiyi 7 II, with a 43mm lens. When I later get the film scanner, I hope I can post some photos here to share. Thanks and regards,