Best "in the field" Medium Format camera

[dpbours]

<p>I use the Mamiya TLR C330F. Wonderful.<br>

Basically a Rolleiflex with changeable lenses!<br>

And much nicer priced, with great results. I can recommend it to anyone, and lighter than a Mamiya RB or Hasselblad set. Thumbs up for the Mamiya C330F!</p><div></div>

[dpbours]

<p>Example of the output of the C330F. Scanned on an Epson V700, no pp only usm when resizing.</p><div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>"[...] and lighter than a Mamiya RB or Hasselblad set."</em></p>

<p>The C330 is in fact a couple of 100 grams heavier (!) than a Hasselblad set of camera, 80 mm lens and magazine.<br>

;-)</p>

 

[dpbours]

<p>Really?! I didn't know that. I've been playing with the Hassie of a friend and it felt heavier. Well, he had the motor transporter on it and there is none of the Mamiya C330F, so there it might have been heavier.<br>

And the weight distribution will be different due to the different shape... The side pistol grip on the C330f makes it very easy to use and I use a finder with built-in exposure meter, which actually works! ;-)<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>I did the math now as well...</em><br>

( Hassie 500 CM = 600 grams ) + ( 80mm f/2.8 Planar T = 465 grams ) + ( Waistlevel finder = 80 grams ) + ( 120 back = 410 grams ) = Totalling Hassie set = 1555 grams.</p>

<p>C330F body = 1390 grams.... Really?! Never noticed it hahaha. Only the body. But the lense is light. Stilly you're right. The Mamiya C330F set is heavier than a Hassie set (if that one has no motorwinder).</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>I read that Denis Dailleux used the Mamiya C330 for his Cairo photos -- which are gorgeous. You can see his work at www.agencevu.com. </p>

[ian_grandjean]

<p><em>"The C330 is in fact a couple of 100 grams heavier" </em><br>

A: REALLY useful information (Also the idea of someone actually weighing camera gear amuses me ... "Oh, give me 500 grammes of Mamiya would you...")</p>

<p>and B:</p>

<p>How much IS a couple of 100 grammes?</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>The answer can only be given by this indispensable device.<br>

Just robbed it from the kitchen and added it to my set of instruments to write camera reviews.<br>

No reviewer should do without one. </p><div></div>

[philippartridge]

<p>Yes, but which camera did you use for the scale shot, Paul? Ha ha, maybe you could repurpose the scale as an MTF chart, the lines look pretty close together but they do not converge, unfortunately ;-)<br>

I put my Mamiya 7II plus strap, 65mm f4, tripod plate, batteries, B+W 010 filter, lens cap, no film roll on the kitchen scale - all up, it came in at 1480 grams. The tripod I use it with, Gitzo's 1127 plus the Markins Q3 ballhead plus the foam grips on each leg, all up weigh 1660 grams.The 80mm lens is also very light, and the 43 and 50 are not bad for what they bring to the table.<br>

For high altitude treks or many-day backcountry walks, it is a sweet 3.14 kg load. As you can imagine, backpack space is at a premium; for the camera plus rolls, spare batt, reciprocity data sheet, cable release and spare CR and lens hood, home is a (fairly waterproof) Lowepro waist bag, worn in front.<br>

Oh, and I must mention some of the other advantages of the rangefinders: speed of use, low bulk, normal camera shape (fits small bags), easy viewing in any light, easier holding in shooting position, low distortion lenses, low vibration leaf shutter, ergonomic shutter release and NO mirror.<br>

The DSLRs still do not deliver the MF film look, so a stitched DSLR image is not my go, and DSLRs are heavy systems, if you use almost any high IQ lenses plus batteries, cables, chargers, etc. I want to see how Sony's A900 delivers, with adapted CZ/CY primes; this DLSR, pilloried for its high ISO noise performance, has a CFA optimised for low ISO and is reputedly able to produce much better colour separation, and a spectrum modeled on film characteristics rather than the human eye. This colour issue is the bane of Canikon, who plumped for high ISO noise over low ISO colour performance as a trade-off. A lot of MF digital folks are getting on board with Sony - me too, now it is easy to adapt Zeiss and Leica R. best regards, philip</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>Hello Philip,</p>

<p>You convinced me once more this kitchen scale is a must for camera reviewers.<br>

Why did not I think of that before? It would have added immensely to my authority on Hasselblad cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_gardener]

This explains it all:<div></div>

[clark_yerrington]

<p>how many grams in a pound again....?</p>

[dpbours]

<p>Hahaha, as a unit of force or mass? ;-)</p>

<p>Rail profiles are also measured in pounds I just found out!<em> Wikipedia:</em><br>

"<em>Pound</em> is a <a title="Rail transport" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport" title="Rail transport">railroad</a> term that indicates the weight of <a title="Rail tracks" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks#Railway_rail" title="Rail tracks">rail</a> per <a title="Yard" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard" title="Yard">yard</a> . For example one yard of "132 pound rail" weighs 132 pounds."</p>

<p>Never too young to learn...</p>

[guido_h]

I use a Mamiya 7ii as well as a Hasselblad 501CM, and could not do without either of them.

 

The Mamiya fits into a waist bag and is the ideal landscape camera for hiking and mountain biking. Its shutter is virtually vibration-free and noiseless, allowing for 1/30s handheld with good technique. I get tack-sharp images with the flimsiest mini-tripod. The self-timer eliminates the need for a cable release. The built-in meter almost behaves like a spot meter, which is great.

 

The Hasselblad is my ideal tool for DOF-critical landscape compositions, panorama stitching, and macro work. Also, used Hasselblad lenses are more affordable than Mamiya 7 glass. I particularly like the Hasselblad's "instant image review" feature (that is, the ability to mount a Polaroid back). This camera excels on a larger tripod with the Manfrotto 3D Geared Head. I bring along a handheld spot meter, but at this point, yet another piece of equipment doesn't matter much anyway.

 

And still, I keep looking at the Hasselblad Flexbody with its tilt movement, which would be even more ideal for landscapes (I guess)...

[yefei_he1]

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p> If you are to look into Koni Omega, make sure to consider Graflex XL as well. It's in the same layout as the Mamiya Press cameras, only much more compact, but still offers 6x9 format, not to mention all the Rodenstock, Zeiss, and Schneider lenses that it uses. Talking about 6x9 format, how about a Kodak Medalist? The lens is said to be excellent. Respool your own 620 film rolls can be a pain, though.</p>

[FilmPhotography-DuaneHorne]

<p>I own a Mamaya C220 TLR and a Konica Omega 100. Both are supurb cameras I would highly recommend. The KO weighs a ton, though but works like a charm.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Dennis, about the pound being a Railroad term. Saw on TV once, where they said that they got the width of Railroad track being 4' 8" to, I think the width of two horses.<br>

Have the C220, it is a great camera. And, a good choice for those that think the C330 series as being too heavy.</p>

[doug_gregory]

<p>My first MF was a C33 with a 105mm lens. From that experience 35mm never performed adequately. Since then I used the Mamiya Universal and Press cameras. While heavy, it provided interchangeable film backs, focusing back, and a small cadre of lenses, all of which (50mm, 65mm, 100mm, 250mm) provided me excellent results. The C330 kept sneaking back. I bought a Pentax 67, which performs well, but the long lenses were difficult to use without concern about mirror slap (I got lots of unsharp images). These cameras have made excellent images, but the weight of the system keeps it in the closet too much. The C330 sneaks back. So I tried the Pentax 645, which handles well, is reasonably light and has great lenses, all of which are now inexpensive in the A series. I am happy with its images too. Usually about 45meg when as a reasonbly sized TIFF file. The C330 keeps sneaking out the door with me. Why? I can fit the camera with 80mm, a grip, the 55mm, 135mm, 250mm in a small bag with a few rolls of film and a light meter. Using waste level viewing I find it very convenient, and it stays nicely on a reasonably sized tripod that I carry over the shoulder. Fair close-up capability. The filters are accessible and not too expensive at 46 and 49mm. I use Cokin filters too, including grads. I have even packed the lenses in a butt pack with the camera on a tripod. Cameras obviously don't make photographers, and photographers don't get younger. I'm still using that darned C330 system!</p>

[dpbours]

<p>After your post Doug, I'm looking carefully at the C330 standing on the little table next to me - afraid that it will sneak out the door at some point without me. ;-) Yep, I recognize the feeling.</p>

[ian_grandjean]

 

<p>Doug, a thought occurs to me. You mentioned using graduated filters,<br>

"<em>I use Cokin filters too, including grads</em>"<br>

How does you make this work on a TLR please? </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Jack, I am reading this subject post quite diagonally (wishing that the term "field use" might be more limited - that is, related to type of photography, final print size needs, interchangeable lenses or not, etc.) and noticed your remark regarding the 4 foot 8 and one half inch track width.</p>

<p>You may be right about the width of two horses, but it may go beyond that. I understood that it was the width of the Roman carriages. I also heard that the right or left side driving was also inherited from Romans (carriage crashes were also to be avoided) but cannot remember which side they drove on, the "right" side or the British side.</p>

[ray .]

<p>"in the field," Diane Arbus used a Mamiya TLR and Pentax 67.</p>

[rgb1]

<p>The Pentax 645 really does handle like a pro 35mm SLR, such as a Nikon F6/D3, so it would be the best choice for a field medium format. But size and handling are not the only reasons it's a great field camera. The quality of the SMC lenses is fantastic, yielding beautifully detailed images. You want to put color transparencies into some sort of light box to display them, they're so beautiful. Wide selection of lenses too, very cheap these days. And it has a big prism and eyepiece that renders a bright viewfinder image, easy to focus, with interchangeable fresnel options, and the eyepiece has diopter adjustment too.</p>

<p>If it's for the field, you must have durability, and the Pentax 645 is the most rugged of them all. The body is based on a rigid aluminum diecast, plated frame that is surrounded by a glass-fiber mixed polycarbonate armor 1.7 times thicker than normal coatings, with an extra-thick and precise stainless lens-mount plate. This gives you a body that's highly resistive to shock, while retaining the light weight and compact size required for it to be as mobile as a 35mm. This ruggedness has been verified time and again by the endless examples of cracked exterior casings caused by abusive drops, where the functionality and light-tightness and mating of lenses and film inserts were all left unaffected by the surface-damaging impact. At a wedding, one time, I put the camera on a high table (hip high) in a hotel lobby, dropped a film roll on the floor and bent over to pick it up, forgetting that the camera was attached to me via the flash cord to the battery pack on my waist. The camera went crashing to the uncarpeted marble floor, and I was sure I'd have to get the backup, but it was still working! It had impacted on the left side corner of the flash bracket (AF400T which also still worked), creating a slight dent there, and somehow, in the settling bounce to the camera side, the lens wasn't damaged. I used the camera to shoot the reception pictures and was sold on the claims for its ruggedness. That was 12 years ago, and I still use that same camera, without a repair stop, today. What more can you ask for?</p>

<p>Since medium-format digital cameras cost as much as cars, I'll be using the Pentax 645 for large or extremely-detailed image needs for the foreseeable future. I just wish the prices were what they are now when I bought my systems.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Arthur, you are probably right about the width of Roman chariots. I knew it had something to do with horses! Saw on the Tonight show. Where a person commented on the reason why the British drive on the left side of the road. He said that it came from the old days of knights and Jousting.</p>