Medium format for landscape

[philipward]

<p>A Pentax 6x7 with mirror lock up MLU (the older versions did not have this option) would be my weapon of choich.Big bright viewfinder that makes all the others look dim.Great for critical focusing in less than ideal light.More than one Blad owner was wowed when he took a peek thru the viewfinder. You can also use the 6X7 lenses on the Pentax 645 body with an adaptor.Very affordable.Used and abused a system like this for years,tough as nails.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Fuji 6x9 RF with super wide lens all the way, no doubt, I wouldn't even think twice personally</p>

[oistrakh]

<p>Really getting tired of people saying that Landscapes must be WIDE format. It really is quite possible to compose a square shot. The poster even explicitly said that he wants to try the square format!</p>

<p>

<p>It's trivial to print a 6x6 neg onto 8x10 paper. Simply crop 2 inches off the paper! I cut it off and use it for test strips. Or does it bother some people that they are "wasting" 2 inches of the "resolution" of the paper?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Mamiya RZ67 is second-to-none among system with interchangeable backs.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>A 6x7 or 6x9 format would be my suggestion, having owned 6x9, 6x7 and 6x4.5 formats. You can easily compose/crop a square image from a 6x9 or 6x7, and you still have the possibility of a wider format piece of film delivering a bit more detail than an equivalent crop from a 6x6 frame.<br>

Hasselblad systems are great but there are far less expensive options to get more 'bang for the buck' in terms of capability. As someone suggested you could buy two used Pentax 6x7 bodies for the price of one used Hasselblad and the Pentax bodies have a reputation for durability and reliability. A used 6x9 'Baby' Graflex provides some limited movement and is a very lightweight, inexpensive way to give a larger format a try.</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>Miniature Speed Graphic 2.25X3.25 or a Century Speed Graphic. No battery if you don't count the light meter. Film is kind of an issue. Joe</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I shoot square formats all the time and they are fine for landscape work. Recently however I been playing with a new 6x9 camera, a Mamiya Super 23. Pretty inexpensive to get into with a 100mm f3.5 lens. It's a rangefinder camera but what a rangefinder. Big and bright. Stopping the lens down for landscape work is yeilding very nice results. It also has rear bellows so you can carry focus or correct perpective. It handles pretty well too and fast to set up. I'm having fun with mine.</p><div></div>

[richard_markus]

<p>A Fuji GSW 6x9 may fit your needs. Although the back and lens are not interchangeable, it considered the Texas Leica of the medium format options. Solid and straightforward operation. Very sharp wide angle lens. Even has a built in level for landscapes. </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>"Hasselblads and others are not made 6x6 just so you waste some when you crop. They are designed to be shot and printed square"<br>

Always thought 6x6s were made because of the WLF. Which is why the RB was designed with the revolving back. If, a person wants to shoot in 645, 6x9, 6x12, then there is every reason to do so. But, with a 6x9, a person can crop square, or as a 6x7, 6x whatever and have more options. Printing square is fine. But, if printing to standard paper formats isn't being creative. Then, so is printing square. I would rather crop to fit the scene.</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>That's kind funny the guy suggests 6x6 wasn't meant to be cropped. Right, that's why so many hype adds I've seen over the years and in old mags and user guides and manuals pitch the idea that square allows for and is intended to crop. I've got a mag upstairs in the reading room with a two page Hassy add and most of the two pages deals with cropping so go figure... Personally I find some subjects lend themselves well to a square composition, but not as often as the portrait or landscape rectangular format.<br>

So how come they don't make square paper to print form these square negs??? </p>

<p>Medium format has too many suggestions to suggest. As already mentioned, The Century or Crown without RF make a nice compact 6x9 backpack and landscape camera, and that's what I travel with. My Crown kit including tripod and accessories for backpacking weighs 8 lbs. I also sometimes bring along an old 1955 Rolleicord III with the very nice 75mm Xenar. Almost always have a Holga in the car, and also shoot 120 roll film on my 4x5 Graphic cameras. The common denominator is 120 roll film. I'd suggest keep researching the pros and cons of a lot of medium format cameras and also reliability, cost of repairs, DIY repairing, and decided what you want to do with it and then try and get something in good working order. Myself, I like to work on Graflex Graphic cameras and have put together an extended kit of 2-1/4 x 3-1/4" (6x9), and 4x5 with many interchangeable lenses and such, along with a 4x5 view that also accepts all the lenses, boards and backs. Didn't happen over night. And only a couple of the cameras I've acquired have been in reasonable working order, if even easily serviceable. Most have required complete teardown, cleaning, and adjustment and calibration etc... If you just want to make photographs, get something working with a warranty and that someone can fix without breaking the bank, unless you don't care about cost. I care about weight for backpacking and travel, and if I can work on it myself and prefer vintage simplicity and no electronics or batteries. </p>

[kparratt]

<p>Louis M - you've made my day with that image. And the suggestion of the Mamiya Super 23 really is interesting, offering just enough perspective / focus plane control to give the image an edge, without the heavier investment of a fully specified tech camera. I've learned something today. Thanks.<br /> (Hmm, I'd always thought those Mamiyas with the "high forehead" rangefinders, a la Linhof's Press 70, were such ugly contraptions, that I didn't look any further. Therefor I never became aware of the bellows back. <em>Sigh</em> ... Such is the folly of prejudice!)</p><div></div>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>I would recommend a field camera. You can choose a 4x5 Crown Graphic for instance which allows you 4x5, 6x12 cm, 6x9cm, 6x8 cm, 6x7cm etc, all depending on wich back you use. You can also choose a field camera intended for 6x9 cm backs like the smaller version of the crown graphic, or a Horseman VHR / 980 etc, or a Linhof.<br>

Beware that on the Linhof cameras for 6x9 and 6x7 only Linhof roll film holders will fit and that these holders will not fit on a different brand camera. As long as you don't choose a Linhof, your camera and lenses will be cheaper than a Hasselblad.</p>

[lornahaddonphotography]

<p>I just wanted to contribute my support for the Hasselblad 503cw, I recently purchased one with an A12 back and it is the best camera I've ever had!!!!!<br>

I have digital Canon 5d mark II and I grab my Hasselblad everytime :)</p>

 

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I use a Hasselblad, but in all fairness I also use it for many other things than just landscape. But the reasons for me using Hasselblad is the interchangeable backs and lenses, compact size, good mechanics and convenience of shooting close-ups and with long lenses.<br>

As David Henderson notes, the choice of format is quite important. However, the camera type is also very much determined by needs; if interchangable backs are needed, then that rules out cameras like the Mamiya 7 and Pentax 67. If closeups and long lenses are important then that leads to and SLR or possible a field/view camera. If rapid operation is required then field/view cameras are left out. If light weight is needed then rangefinders are preferable and the list goes on. As this thread testifies, people have different ways of working and thus different equipment.<br>

I would also not get too worked up on aspect ratios of a format. Choose and aspect ratio that best matches your typical preference, but out in the field it would be foolish not to take a shot just because the visualization of the image doesn't match the aspect ratio of your camera. Also, digital technology means that stitching multiple exposures together to form one exposure is much easier than before (although I don't know if this is relevant for the photography that you wish to do).</p>

 

[sg_adams]

<p>That is a good point regarding interchangeable backs. Ease of lens change, speed of set up, and how one wishes to view the composition are all good things to consider. <br>

Though I backpack with only on 6x9 roll back on my stripped down Crown Graphic 23 to save weight, I carry at times five backs in the car (two 6x9, two 6x7, and one 6x6 depending on trip length, and intent, which I don't always know when I leave and thus variety.) I usually have fast and slow B&w loaded, Color Print fast and slow, and The 6x6 for whatever as it makes a lot of exposure, 12 compared to eight. <br>

But I'll add this to the above, I doubt any SLR or RF medium format camera is lighter than my Crown. And as soon as you start adding on an extra lens or two, the weight really goes up compared to my tiny 103mm 4.5 and 65mm 6.8 wide angle. The camera with the 65mm on weighs only 2 lbs. But, it is ground glass focussing only, and while it doesn't take long to get used to composing things upside down, it is a little weird at first. Because this rig is pretty light I have been able to use a tripod that weighs only two lbs itself and use a heavier carbon tripod around the car. The whole backpacking field rig complete with all filters, half a dozen rolls of film, one back, the two lenses, meter, release cable, lens cloth, gray card, tripod, and handy padded lunch tote carry case ($6.00) that holds everything perfectly, is a whopping 8 lbs. I'm thinking not too many 6x9 camera kits for landscape get anywhere near this. Probably closer to 12 maybe 15lbs. I've used my TLR backpacking a couple times and it just din't work very well. The Crown has movements, which I turned around the front standard and have fwd tilt which I use only a little but it makes a difference, and side shift, rise etc... It does require much more time to stop, set up, and make an exposure. I have figured an average of about twenty-five minutes when stopping to shoot a scene while hiking. I can make things go much faster when I need to but it's much more like large format shooting for me and part of the deal is being out there to make a couple or a few nice images maybe and not very different than shooting rolls of 35mm or SD cards with a thousand images. If I come home from a trip with two to four stunners I'm thrilled. <br>

I think get what you think you want and see how it works out. You can always get another camera, sell that one etc etc....<br>

Working with 6x6 is a lot different than 35mm. Printing or scanning, or just looking at 6x9 full frame images is really nice. I shoot a lot of verticals, and the 6x9 format is really sweet for this and allows for a lot of cropping and still retain a a lot of information. You can always crop an image, but you can't add to it, so when I can I like to shoot a little loose and fine tune it later. </p>

[thomas_m_duffy]

<p>I myself use a Bronica sq system I used to do weddings which is why I still have them and I now just do landscapes, wildlife ect ect. (Enjoy it much more lol)<br>

Each year I decide to get a different format for landscapes but I end up not doing it. I really enjoy my bronicas and would certainly never sell them. Especially with the market prices for them!<br>

Yes they are square but who cares, I actually enjoy square pics in the outdoors. It's something that is difficut to obtain with other formats except 6x7. But for interchangable backs it's a much lighter system than many 6x7 systems.<br>

I recommend this system if you don't mind cropping and "losing" some image. I also think it can be bought very cheap, backs and lenses are interchangeable and they are bullet proof. I never had a problem whith them shooting weddings or banging them around outside.</p>

[dave_parry]

<p>I would recommend the mamiya 645 (super/pro/TL vintage) as generally a good workhorse camera and very capable with landscapes. The only minor points are the need for a grip or adaptor to use a cable release, and the finder display only shows shutter speeds down to 1 second, but you can work around this.</p>

<p>However I found that after using the mamiya for a year that I just couldn't get the depth of field I needed for the type of landscape shots I take, even at f/22. If you like to take quite deep near-far compositions then I would say 645 is the largest format you can get away with using, and anything like a flat 6x7 or 6x9 system is going to be even worse.</p>

<p>If you need quite a lot of depth of field then ultimately no rigid medium format camera will satify. You'll need to either go with 4x5 or at least a 6x7 back on a 4x5 camera. (There is a ukranian tilt lens for 645 cameras but finding one is like trying to get hold of rocking horse faeces...).</p>

[gabrielle_intenzo]

<p>All the advice has helped a lot so far, but im still stuck right now between two things. At the moment I'm looking at the mamiya rz67 and hasselblad 500cm. I love the rz67 for the rotating back because i shoot a lot of vertical stuff. But I was looking at the manual and I was really confused about time exposures and mirror-up operation. I'm aware you can't do a bulb exposure for more than a minute, so I would have to use time exposures, which I'm quite confused about. Also the mirror-up explanation in the manual dosen't make much sense to me. Could anyone explain these to me in a little bit better detail?</p>

[rashed]

<p>I thought the RZ67 with 5 different lenses including the fish eye will do me a great job with Landscape photography but never beleived in stopping there, there fore I ordered the Toyo 45 Field camera with 2 different lenses and other eccessories, now I am looking for 10X8" one!</p>

[stephen_crowfoot]

<p>Re choices facing one re what equipment to use for 'landscape' photography, I recently purchased a Mamiya c330 with 55mm lens and of course an 80mm lens. Had 'blad setup before but needed to sell it to get out of debt! Yes the camera/lens weighs about 1.7 kg, but I get leaf shutter, direct viewing [with parallax correction needed] interchangeable lenses and most importantly I can afford the Mamiya c330 'system',[do not need interchangeable magazines/backs] So that was my choice obviously driven by my budget. Stephen C.</p>

[williammurrayphotography]

<p>My personal choice when I am not lugging large fromat is for Rolleiflex, the image quality is simply superb. I would also second Brad's choice of the Agfa (beautiful image btw Brad), I have a couple of the 35mm versions and the lens quality is simply fantastic, and there is much to be said for a camera that folds up.</p>

<p>I think one of the most important things when you are hiking is weight and secondly the volume of your pack that is taken up.</p>

[peter_weimann1]

<p>For your vertical stuff the Pentax 645 is very well suited, because it has two tripod mounts. One for verticals and one for horizontals. I love my P645NII for this, the quality of the lenses and for its low battery consumption. Check my website to see what it is capable of. A lot of the photos are made with the Pentax, even the action shots of the Knight Tournament series.<br>

I can highly recommend the Pentax.<br>

Regards<br>

Peter</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>Gabrielle, time exposures on a RZ only requires a cable attached to the "T" Socket of the lens chosen. The mirror will then lock-up for as long as you want, with minimal battery drain. To make an exposure, (open the shutter) depress the button on the cable. At the end of exposure, (close shutter), depress the shutter button on the camera.</p>