First Medium Format

[mizore]

<p>If I were getting a medium format camera and had a 35mm camera, I wouldn't get a TLR, but would get one of the SLR medium format cameras. Not having to worry about parallax and being able to change lenses is nice. The 6x7 sized negative are worth having if you've got street shooting covered with a 35mm camera or equivalent. As for meters, you can find old working selenium Sekonics around -- check it against a known good meter -- for $5 to $20.<br>

Handling 120 film is easier than handling 36 exposure 35mm, too.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Are there any qualitative differences between the Bronica lenses and the Mamiya RB lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not really. </p>

<p>Here's some perspective. MF systems made by the likes of Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad, and Pentax were meant to be tools that someone could bank a living on. These things are robust in mechanical design and in optical quality. Each system has some specific, outstanding lenses, but none are dogs.</p>

 

<blockquote>I also noticed that the maximum aperture of the Mamiya lenses is slightly smaller than some of the Bronicas</blockquote>

<p>Comes with the territory. As you move up in film format, the slower the lenses: around f2 for 135, f2.8 for 645 and 6x6, f4 for 6x7, f5.6 and slower for 4x5.</p>

<p>Here's how to think about it. The size and weight of lenses have about the same upper bound across the board. This has to be the case because of physical handling, manufacturing cost and tolerance constraints. Given the same aperture diameter, a lens that has to project a larger image onto the sensor/film plane necessarily projects a dimmer image.</p>

[philipward]

<p>Why not a Pentax 6x7?. I owned one for years and was very happy with it. SLR type handling and really bright viewfinder.Tough as nails and very reliable. Great lenses and that beutiful large 6x7 neg. Buy the later one with the mirror lock up option.No interchangable backs but you can do as I did and for the cost of two Blad backs buy an extra used body,if this is important.</p>

[bjcarlton]

<p>I second Philip's vote on the Pentax 6x7. I had two 6x7's, and now have a 67II. All great cameras, super lenses, and a lot easier ergonomically than the RZ (I rented one of them before I decided to buy my first Pentax). You can't swap backs on it, but that doesn't sound like it would be an issue for you.</p>

[dave_cattell1]

<p>Personally I would recommend you definitely get a MF system. The break from 35mm format does wonders for opening up your creativity, especially if you try a square format. Since I did it I am much more aware of the boundaries of the viewfinder.<br>

I don't think it matter too much which one you get.<br>

You could get an EOS film body too of course, as they're so cheap.<br>

Dave.</p>

[john_biskupski]

<p>Paul<br>

I'd suggest you keep it simple, get a Canon film camera which can use your Canon EF lenses and flash with. Then, if tempted by MF, by all means try the Bronica Sq or a TLR, all well recommended in the archives here. yashicamat and Rollei T are good economical choices, so too the Mamiya although much heavier. Or even try a Holga! Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[bkpix]

<p>Another vote for both systems.</p>

<p>And another vote for A2E/A2. Fabulous camera at unbelievably low price.</p>

 

[jenny_jaques]

<p>TLR Rolleiflex.<br /> Rolleiflex in favour of the cheap makes for the reason Kevin points out: build quality, driving the crank of a Rolleiflex is smooth and quiet. Unobtrusive, a joy to use.<br /> TLR in general because I find the reversed image a plus for composition. (Even more so the inverted image on a large format) You see the components with a fresh eye, like viewing a drawing in a mirror, the errors become obvious.<br /> TLR because you have the option of waist level shooting or hold up to the eye, whichever is appropriate for the situation. Waist level shooting again because it can be unobtrusive.<br /> Because I like to make photos around people in unposed situations, the Pentax 6x7 is the last beast I would choose. It is anything BUT unobtrusive ... EVERYONE WILL KNOW YOU HAVE A BIG SLR CAMERA IN THEIR FACE ... (certainly when you fire the shutter.)<br /> A thread from January discusses street photography. Scroll down to see contribution by <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00S3Iw">Esko Pohjanpalo</a> . Street photo in Shanghai.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<blockquote>

<p>TLR in general because I find the reversed image a plus for composition. (Even more so the inverted image on a large format) You see the components with a fresh eye, like viewing a drawing in a mirror, the errors become obvious.<br />TLR because you have the option of waist level shooting or hold up to the eye, whichever is appropriate for the situation. Waist level shooting again because it can be unobtrusive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are attributes of the viewfinder system. Not of TLRs.<br />SLRs, including the Bronica, have the same viewfinder, and do the same.</p>

<p>Most SLRs are, as the OP mentioned, "fairly" to highly "modular".<br>

Being modular is a thing TLRs do less well, the Rolleiflex even not at all.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>Get a canon body of some sort to ease the transition, but go for a Bronica as well. It's smaller then the RB67and a lighter. It's a bit nicer looking as well and unlike the RB, it's not as studio constricted. It's really a Hasselblad for mortals with limited budgets. I've played with an RB67 for a couple rolls, and i never fell in love with it. My first time with a friend's Bronica was a revelation, medium format, square and pretty simple and cheap. Love mine!</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Hi, I have a Pentax 645 with a 120 & 220 insert. 75MM lens, great condition,</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>As something to think about, you could try to get hold of an old folding medium format camera, they should only be a few dollars. while I doubt the quality of the lens will match modern lenses any you may be limited in shutter speeds and aperture, I suspect you could come up with some 'characterful' shots - and it will give you a chance to practice the wet side while the best deal in a more expensive camera comes up.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>I will take a second stab at this, if I may:</p>

<p>You have a wonderfully versatile system: digital SLR, a dozen lenses, macro, tele possibilities. So there is no need to replicate the same in MF now, is there? I would forget all the 3 lens MF SLR systems right now.</p>

<p>And the MF camera that can teach you the most may as well be fixed lens. And then you will learn a completely new way of seeing and taking pictures, and your pics will not be subject to the same old mirror slap of SLRs, etc etc.</p>

<p>How freeing it would be to resort to one focal length and a square format ... As others have said above: the harder, more fundamentally different a teacher/equipment change is, the more you learn and learn you decided to try with that new degree, did you not? So quit idealizing another 4 lens do-dat system only because it is MF SLR and go for the essentials of photography.</p>

<p>I just bought a Rollei, and its pictures (23 rolls now, 3 months) are so different from my previous 35mm style pics, I am a different man and am just learning which camera to take into which visual world. So both sets of pics become more into their own right and beauty. Good luck to you!</p>

<p>So, my suggestion - stronger than even before is get a Rolleiflex 3.5E and a lightmeter and be done with carrying that around and shooting marvelously different subjects and images as well. Have it CLAd and get the Maxwell screen ... Harry Fleenor did mine from 1963 to perfection.</p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p>Well, I found a Mamiya RB67 Pro S for a very good deal--The seller made me promise not to disclose the price. My budget, it seems, will need to be spent on something practical, like books or car repairs. Or film...</p>

<p>But I digress. Among other things, the camera kit included a Polaroid back and 2 year expired FP-100C film. It took me about 20 minutes to figure out that the Mamiya mount comes off the back of the camera to be replaced by the Polaroid adapter.</p>

<p>Once I got that sorted out, I wasted three exposures with the dark slide installed.</p>

<p>After I figured THAT out, I took my first picture, and entered a new era:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3936513118_22661ba04c_b_d.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>Wife and Dog, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, 127mm, f/3.8, 1/60th sec.</strong><br>

I don't have a scanner, so I took a picture of the polaroid with my 5D. The pic is tilted slightly vs. the sensor plane of the 5D, so it appears slightly keystone distorted.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what happened with the highlights on my wife's face--The film is definitely expired, but I was definitely metering for the dog and the foliage, so maybe I overdid it?</p>

<p>Anyway, it's got character, and I'm thrilled with it. I can tell this is going to be a lot of fun.</p>

<p>Thoughts and comments appreciated,<br>

-Paul B. Davis</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>It will be fine on film with the same metering.<br>

Polaroids are very contrasty. Expired Polaroid may be even worse.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert lee]

<p>Congrads on the camera. Completely different feel from digital ain't it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My budget, it seems, will need to be spent on something practical, ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A nice, heavy duty tripod for the RB, but I guess you already know that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what happened with the highlights on my wife's face- ... but I was definitely metering for the dog and the foliage,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, both the dog and the background are quite dark. Try metering for the face; increase exposure by a stop or so than indicated.</p>

<p>I find that the bokeh on the 127mm lens can be very, very attractive. I'd suggest waiting for some nice, late afternoon warm sunlight. Position the subject so that the light is angled from the back/side - get the specular highlights on the hair and background. Use a large refletor (a plain large white foam core board from an office supply store will do) to bounce some light onto the subject from the front.</p>

<p>Switch the back to portrait orientation, and come in closer to fill more of the frame. This will give more image separation to the background. Try a few exposures. Try positing the camera so it's a bit higher than the eyes and angling down a bit. The horizon doesn't have to be level either.</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

[vcallaway]

<p>Glad you are happy with it. I have a soft spot for starving students :)<br>

The polaroid film in the back is actually fuji. It is very sensitive to over exposure but holds shadow detail well. My guess is you are a 1/2 stop over exposed. Your canon will serve you better than the polaroid will.<br>

Before long your left arm will be larger than the right one. An RB with a 250 is better than free weights :) :)</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Well done on making the move, (deal aside), it's one thing to mull the idea and do the research but something else to make the step. the exposure of the animal's head looks spot on to me.</p>

 

[kurt_driver]

<p>Paul, you saved some money for tanks, reels, etc, right? The dark side awaits you.<br>

Edit: Another suggestion, find an old 120 folder. My Belfoca has a sharp lens, shoots, either 6x6 or 6x9, and fits in my shirt pocket. And 26 bucks!</p>