The ultimate, cheap, travel, medium format rangefinder

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Just for sheer image quality you would probably do as well with an older Canon 5D and a single prime lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good to see I was not the only one thinking this. If there is regular access to electricity or any other way to recharge the battery, I would rather get a fine dSLR like this one (or something small like the APS-C Sigma DP compacts) instead of messing with an old medium format camera with all its possible pitfalls. At least you see immediately when you made a mistake and wasted a shot instead of months later.</p>

<p>By the way, how many pictures do you plan to take? Will you take all your needed film right from the start or will you purchase (and develop) some "on location"? Do you have a reliable light meter in case your camera has none? Again, why a rangefinder at all for landscape?</p>

[tom_kondrat]

<p>but for example this guy ( ) uses Mamiya 645 pro (usually with 45mm lens) and I love the results!</p>

[tom_kondrat]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=690821">Bueh B.</a>: Canon 5D is not the cheapest camera as well, especially with a good prime lens!<br>

I will probably take most of the films with me, but I'm also planning to buy some on locations, as well as develop them there and send back home. I will take a light meter with me fo sure!</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon 5D is not the cheapest camera as well, especially with a good prime lens!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got mine for €770 and the EF 24mm f/2.8 probably goes for around €200. Still not "cheap" but affordable and much more versatile and useful than most suggestions above, some of which are rather pricey, too. And you can sell it with minimal loss and get your money back (as with all cameras -- as long as you don't break it).</p>

<p>Tom, when I first visited Tokyo, Japan, I had ideas like you. I scoffed at dSLRs ("expensive", not really like film) and went with a backpack full of films and three cameras (a Nikon F90 SLR, a Yashica rangefinder, the Iskra 6x6 MF RF and my Sekonic meter). I did indeed shlep most this gear with me on most days, but was pretty tired all the time and was always thinking, "Is this really a worthwhile shot? Will it really look good later? Or is it just a waste of precious film? And which camera should I use?" So shooting turned out not really fun and the few rolls of film I exposed were pretty "average" (at best). (I used the Yashica Electro 35 CC most of the time as it was lightweight and easy to operate.)</p>

<p>All this time my g/f was enjoying her EOS 20D which she had bought used for this trip. All the wonderful vacation memories were captured with this camera. The image quality was stunning and despite being a newbie she held up her end well. She shot countless pictures and while not all were masterpieces, together they form a beautiful summary of our experiences. And sharing them was just so easy!<br>

I with my dozens of film cameras got myself a dSLR a few months later.</p>

[janne_moren]

Of course, at about €1000, he could get a used Mamiya 7 and a lens. Since that level is out of the question, then so would a 5D.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Yea a nice goof -10C<br /> <br /> F=1.8C +32= -18 +32= 14 F!<br /><br />in the special case of -40C it is equal to -40F:<br /><br />F=1.8C +32= 1.8(-40) +32 =-72 +32 = -40F</p>

<p>Grease wise many fine leaf shutters that work always at room temp can still get sticky or stuck at -10C/14F.<br>

<br /> It is not clear if you are just shooting at -10C or your gear will be at -10C; like like in a car; outside.<br>

These are radically different cases.<br>

Many cameras/shutters will work just fine if kept under a coat during cold weather.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Tom may want 120 negatives because he has an enlarger; thus all the digital answers could be discarded.<br>

It would be like mentioning that a Canon 5D owner buy a film camera and now has to fart around with scanning film. A pure digital camera requires a film shooter to buy a scanner; an inkjet printer and paper and inkcartridges; plus photoshop and a set up a computer for digital.</p>

<p>Here on a trip I like to take several cameras of different sizes; film and digital.</p>

<p>Dave; a 2x3 Crown or Speed Graphic often was/is used with a Graphic 22 or 23 120 roll film holder; ie 2x2" or 2x3" negatives on 120 roll films. These cameras are a bit orphans on photo.net; they are small LF cameras because they can use 2x3 sheet films; and here on the MF board some folks do not consider them MF cameras. Once about 7 or 8 years a asked a question about these 2x3 cameras on the LF board and the question got nuked; then I reposted on the MF board and it got nuked too. 116 and 616 roll films are like this too. Today one has the classic forum for unwanted stuff to talk about. A 2x3 crown or speed really shares alot of things with 3x4 and 4x5 crown/ speeds; thus there is more knowledge about them ont eh LF board.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>A pure digital camera requires a film shooter to buy a scanner; an inkjet printer and paper and inkcartridges; plus photoshop and a set up a computer for digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh... no. A scanner for digital? And why would you must have a printer etc. to enjoy your digital pictures?</p>

<p>By the way, Tom has already an EOS 40D, so he is hardly a newbie when it comes to dSLRs. And I still recommend to take only a dSLR (and maybe one small 35mm rangefinder) instead of carrying three 35mm cameras plus that mystical MF rangefinder he is looking for and tons of film for months. And (good) film development and printing is not cheap either.</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>A Koni-Omega definitely meets the needs for excellent optics, ruggedness and economy. I would contact Greg Weber and ask whether he can service one with lubricants which will not bind at low temperatures. It's not a light camera, but I don't think you're going to find a camera which meets all of the specifications you set forth. Sorry.</p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>"1. price - unfortunately this is very important factor for me, the camera has to be cheap<br /> 2. optics - of course this should be on the first place; sharp lens is a must<br /> 3. weight/size - ideal camera should be small and light as I will be walking for most of the time with all my stuff"</p>

<p>4. no 6x6</p>

<p>Most of the cameras mentioned seem a little pricey so I feel it wouldn't be out of place to mention (again) the new Bessa iii/Fuji 667. It will have a fairly good lens, folds up small and it's lightweight. I'm considering the thing myself. At $2200.00 or so it seems quite reasonable.<br>

It has been mentioned before but I must reiterate that the Moskva V or Super Ikonta C is not a bad idea either. The Moskva V will cost about $150.00 in reasonably good nick, the Ikonta about $450.00. Stopped down to f8 or so the results from these cameras are quite good.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Tom K - I played momentarily with the GS645S in a shop and I thought the shutter in it was louder than the GA645 Pro. I've also read....can't remember if it was here on Photo net or on APUG....but the shutters in the GS645S had a habit of failing, requiring repair. Never heard this about the Pro. And the AF in the GA645 Pro is actually pretty quiet....it's the film advance motor in that thing that was noisy. Altho to act discretely, you can press the shutterbutton and hold it down until you are away from the person/people you don't want to hear it.....the picture will be taken, but the film advance doesn't happen until you release the button.</p>

<p>As for the difference between the 645 neg and the 6x7 negative.....the 6x7 negative blows away the 645 negative....at least between the fuji GA645 Pro, Mamiya 645 SLR and the Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 is just sooooooooooo sharp!</p>

<p>And I actually do own the Mamiya 7 and the Mamiya 645 right now. The 645 may be small, but it's very awkward....at least in my hands. The only thing that makes it even remotely as comfortable as a 35mm slr, is the power grip (motorized film advance and right hand grip)...but, of course, that now makes it relatively big again. And the shutter (well, actually the mirror) in the Mamiya 645 scared the heck out of me the first time I pressed the shutter button. LOUD! Like a shotgun LOUD! I've actually stopped using the 645 (except for portraits...the Mamiya 7 doesn't focus close enough to allow head and shoulder shots) ....but bought a Mamiya 645 lens to Canon EOS body adapter so I can use the lenses on my 5D. They are sharp lenses, and do a great job. The Mamiya 645 80mm f/1.9 on my 5D is awesome!</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Get a Mamiya 7II and sell it after your trip.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Mauro might have the best advice here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly but I wouldn't be able to sell it after the trip!</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Trick question: to me, the OP's environmental constraints and weight requirements scream for 135 instead of 120. A little Pentax LX with an FA2 and a pancake lens would likely survive the duration of a trip like that. If it's for documentary purposes as he says--there are good reasons why so little documentary photography is being done in larger formats in the past 50 years or so. Lenses and films got so terrific that it became mostly unnecessary to use larger formats. How big are you going to need to print? Bigger than 20x30"? My Pentax 645N does pretty well in rough conditions but it's not quite as well environmentally sealed as the LX (nor my D300). P645N is well enough sealed that I take it on snowshoeing excursions with blowing snow. I don't know of any rangefinders that have splash-proof seals. Too, leaf shutters tend to hang or be sluggish when cold.</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>Dave; a 2x3 Crown or Speed Graphic often was/is used with a Graphic 22 or 23 120 roll film holder; ie 2x2" or 2x3" negatives on 120 roll films . . . they can use 2x3 sheet films; and here on the MF board some folks do not consider them MF cameras.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Yep, all correct. By asking questions 'here', I meant photo.net, and the LF forum on photo.net is probably the best source for Graphics. Graflex.org had a good help board up to a couple of years ago, and then they had some sort of schism, so it's pretty dead there now.</p>

<p>Graphics are unfashionable cameras and they won't get you any street cred, but they are among the few solutions that satisfy the constraints in the original post. The Century and Crown are light, if not dimensionally compact, and they are rangefinder-coupled (unless you find one of the uncommon Centuries with no rangefinder). Most of the 'recent' (1960s - 70s) rollfilm holders are 6 x 7, although it's easy to find 6 x 6 and 6 x 8. </p>

<p>The cameras are inexpensive on the second-hand market. They are simple, robust, and there's not too much that can go wrong with them. Interchangeable leaf shutter lenses and backs are a huge advantage, because if a shutter or back fails, you're still in business if you're carrying a spare. I would avoid a '23' Speed Graphic-- that focal-plane shutter is nice to have, but it adds weight.</p>

<p>For several years, I've used either a Century Graphic or a Rollei TLR for backpacking. The problem with the Century is that I fight with it and cuss at it, even though I've used it for over 25 years. I just find a reflex camera more intuitive. But quite a few of my best negatives were made with the Century and a 105 Symmar.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>You can shoot 220 film with a Mamiya 7. That's a huge advantage - who wants to reload often when it's -10 C?</p>

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>Bronica ETRSi plus a 60mm f/2.8 PE lens (35mm SF equivalent). It is a 6x4.5 medium format system. You'll never regret your decision.<br>

Right now this combo will cost you around $700 at Ffordes.com (secondhand section).</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The old Moscva 5 is an actual RF camera that uses 120 film and shoots 8 shots, The danger with a folder again is a worn/bent/tweaked sissors jack in the box mechanism; easy to have with a 50 year old camera.</p>

<p>Here I never really "got into" the 4.5cm x 6cm format; it reminds me too much of the Brownie Bullet 127's same image size. It does add more exposures than a 6x6cm wastefull usages for 8x10 prints. </p>

<p>Thus I prefer just using my many 6x6 cameras; 6x7 or 6x9cm stuff; or just using 35mm; skipping the 4.5x6cm format. <br>

Many folks are recommending 6x6cm stuff; TLR's; SLR's and digital; not what was asked. In prior eras sometimes these off subject answers got nuked! But since the question really boxes in the choices with low temp; low cost and an RF; it is like there is really no answer; thus the helpfull other non spec cameras mentioned are good.</p>

<p>A troubling issue is that a MF RF camera is wanted; but Tom mentions issues with using a 35mm RFs: "Also I have been shooting 35mm rangefinder for the last two months and I still can't get use to the framing."</p>

<p>Dave; the 2x3 Speed with Graphic 22 back and 101mm Ektar here was 65 bucks off of Ebay three months ago ; about 74 with shipping. It shoots a fine image; but is just the 12 shot 6x6cm format. Now I search for a 2x3 roll back that is cheap; they go for twice my combos price.</p>

<p>Tom; what ever camera you get you need to use it before a trip so you know it works and get use to it.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Tom;<br>

***if you get a 6x7/4.5x6 cm/ etc film camera; are you going to scan the film or use an enlarger?</p>

<p>A dumb flatbed doesnt pull out all the info in a scan; a big dumb negative means one gets better big prints because the flatbed is less an issue than with small stuff.</p>

<p>Thus a 6x4.5cm nice sharp negative will make a worse print that is 16x20 than a 6x7cm negative; because the flatbed is the "weak link"</p>

<p> </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>A Koni-Omega definitely meets the needs for excellent optics, ruggedness and economy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a Rapid M. It's comparable to the Mamiy 7 in as far as the optics are concerned. The baseline on the Koni is nice and wide too so focusing is very accurate. <em>However</em>, watch out for that film back!</p>

<p>The film advance is operated like a rifle bolt. It makes for very quick operation (the reason why the Rapid is rapid) but this design also subjects the mechanism to heavy wear. On my camera, pull the advance too softly and a third of the frames overlap; pull the advance too hard and get a 3cm gap between frames. The other film back I've tried has the same issue.</p>

<p>It's fine to like the roll film aesthetic and workflow, but as others have mentioned the practicality of hauling around a half century old mechanical anything is not a given. Be mindful of "eccentric" equipment.</p>

<p>Do take along spares. A purpose built, environmentally hardened, pocketable digicam is a good idea. Dont worry, half a century hence it too will be cool: photographers will be lamenting how they just can't get that old time, noisy, small sensored, jpeg look anymore.</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>The Bronica RF 645 and Mamiya 7II's aren't all that old. They are likely to be easily available used (KEH.com). Their rangefinders are excellent. If money is an issue, the RF 645 can be had for about $1400 with the 65 and 45mm (40mm and 28mm 35 equivalents). Both lenses are optically fine and as distortion free as they come. It is small and light, no worse than a full size SLR. I don't like the vertical frame picture, but I live with it.<br>

If you want more negative real estate with a not much bigger camera, then go with the Mamiya 7II and superb lenses and suck up the cost.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Don't rule out a 6x6 camera. Standard practice among many wedding photographers was to run a couple of lines of thin tape across the viewfinder to indicate the cutoff for an 8x10 print. You could do the same -- compose within those lines and crop accordingly as you print. Really no different than staying within the brightline viewfinder lines in a rangefinder camera and it gives you 6x4.5 of usable negative (either horizontal or verticle) while opening up a whole range of cameras that can be used. If you need 6x7, have you thought about the old Pentax 67? It's SLR rather than rangefinder, and heavy, but cheap.</p>

[Andrew in Austin]

<p>Kelly - that's an excellent price for a Speed "23". I just picked up a Crown "23" with a 105mm Xenar, 6x9 back and a Grafmatic for under a $150 shipped.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dave; the 2x3 Speed with Graphic 22 back and 101mm Ektar here was 65 bucks off of Ebay three months ago ; about 74 with shipping. It shoots a fine image; but is just the 12 shot 6x6cm format. Now I search for a 2x3 roll back that is cheap; they go for twice my combos pric</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Ektar is a nice Tessar equivalent - but the Flash Synchro shutters are showing there age, as am I. The 2x3 Graflex cameras are a bit cumbersome for travel purposes, especially a two monther.</p>

<p>Tom - looking at your first post, I have to recommend either a manual focusing Mamiya or Pentax 645 SLR. Both have a tempting assortment of lenses to lighten your wallet - if you choose to go that route. You can go the AF route with an SLR - if that is your cup of tea. </p>

<p>Whatever gear you take - do take time to familiarize yourself with your choice long before you head out for two months.</p>

[stb]

<blockquote>

<p>Get a Mamiya 7II and sell it after your trip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mauro might have the best advice here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Possibly but I wouldn't be able to sell it after the trip!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case, what makes you think a cheap camera will work until the end of the trip?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here is what is scary about 120 roll films. I want to vist the New Orleans area in less than a week; I just called two camera stores there and both do not carry any 120 B&W films; just color. Thus I just ordered some from B&H a few minutes ago; I guess Henry is packing up the order as I type this ! :)</p>

<p>Craigs comment about masking off a 6x6 screen or finder is what I did/do with my Rolleicord IV and Flex E3. The cord is a lighter camera. Labs use to have a printed sheet where one cut out a paper mask that matched their stock masks in their enlargers.</p>

<p>Andrew; cool deal with your smaller 2x3 crown and 105mm Xenar; does yours have X sync? Mine does not with the 101mm Ektar.</p>

<p>OK If I tread into taboo slr land one has the GIANT Pentax 6x7 that gives one a workout.</p>

<p>Robert; thanks for bringing up the Koni Omega stuff about wear.</p>

<p>An off the wall approach is to just buy several Moskva 5's off of ebay for 80 bucks each.:)</p>

<p>Another old folder is the Voigtlander Bessa II. Some of the Rapid Omega stuff on ebay seems almost too good to be true; complete body, back and lens for 225 bucks. (it is not mine)<br>

Gee; that Mamyia 7 sure looks like the best thing</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>Koni Omega great camera &lenses,you might look at the Minolta Autocord very affordable& also great lens.</p>