New to MF, what's the next step up from the Lubitel 2

[stuart_todd]

Righto, this may have been asked already, but I can't seem to find it.

 

I'm a proud and happy user of the Canon EOS system of 35mm SLR

cameras, they work fine for me. But of recent, especially with

portrait shots, they didn't seem

to come out right. According to my tutor if Canon made EOS MF's I'd

be sorted. But they don't.

So the head of the photography department lend me her Lubitel 2 about

6 months ago. So for the past 6 months I've been lugging around both

my EOS set up and

the Lubitel 2. When the Canon took a snap, so did the Lubitel. So

I've been comparing all the snaps and been thinking perhaps I should

invest in a MF of my own. I

was wondering what would some of you recommend has the next upgrade

step from the Lubitel to...???

 

Kind regards,

 

Stuart.

 

PS. Hasselblads are out of the question, I'm a poor self-supporting

student. If you think the price of Hasselblads is high in the US,

wait until you see how much they

cost down here in New Zealand.

[kevin_ing]

Do you want another TLR? How about interchangeable lenses? What kind of budget do you have in mind?

 

And perhaps most importantly, what was wrong with your Canon shots that you think MF will solve?

[rich815]

A Lubitel I picked up for $35 was my first MF camera back in 1994. It took very nice photos but was so poorly made it fell apart. I then bought a used Chinese Seagull TLR in China (where I was traveling and living at the time) for $20. It was better built and also took good shots but the shutter eventually gave out within months. I bought a second one for $35 used and it too went bad soon. I now have a used and ugly (but working) Rolleicord III I bought off eBay about a year and a half ago for only $55. It is very well built, has a beautiful Xenar lens and it's built like a tank.

 

Do not even consider a Seagull unless you can get one used and cheap (new they are $170-300+...a joke) even then you can see from my experience they are unreliable. You can try to find a used Rolleicord but most good condition ones go for $150-250. Other very excellent alternatives are Minolta Autocord or Yashica 124 and they are found about the same price range as the Rolleicord. Lots can be found about these in this site and by searching Google.

[ashley_hosten]

A popular choice is the Minolta Autocord The immediately relative choice is the Seagull; build quality is not the best. The weight-lifter's choice is the Mamiya C3-C330. The classic choice is the Rolleicord. The not-too-sure choice is the Yashica 124G; again build-quality was the issue.

 

The Mamiya has interchangeable lenses.

[robert_davis2]

To save money look for the stuff unloved by the collectors. I wonder did anybody make cameras in New Zealand? Or try the English stuff. Ensigns seem well made and nobody mentions them.

[jay_.]

Consider a new Mamiya 645e kit with standard lens and film insert, selling for the price of a well-used Hasselblad 500C/M body alone, or a fair-condition Rollei 2.8F. You will have an eyelevel camera with built-in meter (and autoexposure)and the possibility to enlarge the system with additional lenses.

[eddie g.]

I have quite a few MF cameras. My new purchase, a 1952 Rolleicord III, seems to be getting most of my attention. It's so much fun (and lightweight) that I cannot put it down. The cost was $140, but if you search you can find it even cheaper.

 

Don't know about those Chinese-made Mamiya 645e's. You get what you pay for, I guess.

[joseph_verdesca]

"I'm a proud and happy user of the Canon EOS system of 35mm SLR cameras, they work fine for me. But of recent, especially with portrait shots, they didn't seem to come out right. According to my tutor if Canon made EOS MF's I'd be sorted. But they don't."

 

I would "fix" your shooting with the Canon first - that is, learn what it is with the lighting, composition, exposure, etc. that you do not care for and learn how to make it more to your taste. Whether the shot is captured on 35mm or medium format is merely a question of negative size - if your shots are "not coming out right" in 35mm, they won't come out better in medium format (unless you mean that the shots look good as 8x10s, but are "not coming out right" when you blow them up to 30" x 40"...). I would suggest that you spend the money on film and processing rather than more tools, and spend your time fixing what is "not right" in your technique.

[bob_chong]

"Yashica 124G...again build-quality was the issue"

 

Yashica TLRs, as a species, are excellent. To suggest that they have build-quality issues ala the Seagull is laughable and practically libelous.

 

The only legitimate gripe about the 124G is the undeserved premium they command for (oooh! aaah!) gold contacts! Any Yashica with the Yashinon lens should yield quality pics.

 

To the orginal question: "What's the next step up from the Lubitel 2?" That's sort of like asking, "Transportation: what's the next step up from baby carriage?" Anything but Holga is up. The MF world is your oyster.

 

 

"Don't know about those Chinese-made Mamiya 645e's. You get what you pay for, I guess."

 

Including that advice. Whenever buying a camera, listen to the guy who admits he knows nothing about said camera...

[scott_k.]

If you want a high quality system for realatively little $$$, try Kowa. Kowa is a well known optics company that produced a line of MF cameras in the 70's. They are really well built and the lenses are SHARP!!

 

Kowa made 3 models the Six, Six MM, and super 66. The 6 is basic, the mm has multiple exposure and mirror lockup, and the super 66 has interchangeable backs and multiple exposure. I have owned all of them, but have kept the Super 66 even though it is heavier than the other two. I have found nothing to complain about with the Kowas. All take the same lens mount(kowa) the lenses use leaf shutters. You can get an six outfit(camera, WLF, 85mm lens) on ebay for less than $280 or so, a super 66 is a tad more expensive.

 

-Scott

[scott_k.]

Oh, here is where you can find more Kowa info:

 

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/kowa66.html and

 

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/kowa6.html

[jerry_lehrer]

Stuart

 

Watch out for Kowas! They are heavy and unreliable. If you want a

TLR, look for a good condition Rollei.

 

Jerry

[douglas_green1]

I think that you really need to decide between a good older TLR, such as the Yashica Mat, or Mat 124, or the Minolta Autocords, or, a Press Rangefinder such as a Koni-Omega Rapid M, Rapid-100, or Rapid-200.

 

Excellent used examples of each of these cameras sell for between $100 and $200 on eBay. I am a big fan of the Koni-Omegas myself, I use them where I wouldn't want to risk damage to my Pentax 67, and there is no dropoff in image quality at all. In some applications, the leaf shutter lenses, quick rangefinder focusing, and lack of a loud, vibrating mirror make them even better performers than my Pentax 67. I am frankly at a loss to know why these cameras are not still being made and used.

[todd frederick]

I am going to second a previous suggestion: If you can scrape up $700 plus shipping you can get a Mamiya 645e basic Kit with Camera Body, 80mm Lens, 120 Film insert, lens hood, caps, and battery...everything you will need.

 

I bought one a couple of months ago and it is wonderful.

 

I'm sure you can get it shipped from B&H with reasonable shipping. Duty charges might be a problem.

 

This is one of the best buys for a quality camera nowdays. That's my suggestion.

[conrad_drake]

As someone else has mentioned - almost anywhere is up. A better TLR is the easy option, if you're happy using them. Most of the common choices have been mentioned - note that there were a host of 'other' German manufacturers (such as Rollop) who made honest TLRs in the '50s.

 

Just at the moment, the TLRs represent better value than the folding cameras - a non-famous-brand f3.5 lens in a Prontor SVS class shutter will cost less than $50US in a TLR, but as a folder it'll be nearer $75. (In either case a 'name' brand or model will push prices up)

[nolan woodbury]

I think if Stuart could afford a $700 to $1000 camera, he wouldn't be asking for advice here.

 

Stuart, I get the impression that you are planning on (at least someday) buying a succession of camera's when you can do so. You want something better and affordable, right? My friend Murray Twelves told me about the Cameta Camera email list, so I signed up. Once a week, they send you an updated list of used equipment, and I've purchased a few of them in the past months with very happy results. Here is the link to the updated stock:

 

http://www.cameta.com/just-in.html

 

They currently have three Yashica A's listed, two at $49.00 and one at $59.00. Toss another $10.00 in and picked up a Yashica LM and gain Bay I mounts and more shutter/iris options. Any of these camera's will help you get better, and the build quality is excellent; especially the -A- which skips the typical Yashica wind/advance problems. Shipping will cost you a bit, but you're still money ahead. These are great camera's, durable, and optically inspiring. There are better ones, but name anything close for under sixty bucks! With a warranty!!

 

For what it is worth, shooting MF-TLR's made me a better 35mm photographer, and I burn less film too.

[mel_brown1]

Stuart, clearly Bob Chong answered your question best with, "Anything but Holga is up." Of the responses you've received so far, I think the advice offered by Joseph Verdesca and the questions raised by Kevin Ing deserve most of your attention.

 

Back to basics for a bit. It would be very helpful to me and to the more knowledgeable among us if you would provide all details regarding your style of shooting. Why do most folks seem reluctant to provide such sorely needed details in their first post? Grasshopper, have not mouth of perch, but rather that of bass!

 

Are your portraits outdoors or indoors, natural light only or with flash fill, or is it studio lighting? If you use flash, is it your main light, or fill only? What is its Guide Number? Where is the flash? In a hotshoe atop of the camera, on a light stand, handheld, or what? Identical lighting with both cameras? If outdoors, are you using a lens shade on the Lubitel? At which aperture do you usually shoot? Are you doing B&W or color? Which film? Same film in both cameras? Same exposure? Who processes and prints your stuff? Is it you, a custom lab, or a 1-hr. lab, or some crackhead distant acquaintance using a Russian enlarger using a lens fogged by time and smoke? What are the specific problems you find with your MF work so far? For best feedback, imagine that you must accurately describe your entire setup and results to a bunch of blind folks. (For some of us, that may be closer to the truth than we�d care to admit!)

 

In absolute terms, the lens quality of the Lubitel won�t quite measure up to that on your much newer Canon, but properly used (f/8 or f/11 for the Lubitel), either camera should produce virtually identical prints up to 8x10 or so, beyond which the Canon (or any 35mm) should begin to lose the race as film grain becomes more of a factor.

 

If, after all that, you are still convinced that you need (want, really) an MF camera, of those mentioned so far, I would rate them like this, from top down: Mamiya 645E, Mamiya C330, Rolleicord, Minolta Autocord, Yashica 124. I put the 645E at the top only because it's new, though it's probably way out of your price range. Also, I would question its resale value two years from now. As with a new car, because it�s new, its value will take a bigger hit than will the used ones that have already mostly depreciated. That should hold us for ten years or so, which is when I predict affordable MF digital cameras (less than $1000 in today�s money) will finally displace MF film cameras.

 

I rate the C330 very high because of its interchangeable lenses (unique among TLRs), its close focusing ability, and its reasonable price. The C220 is lighter and less expensive, but lacks the crank wind and other features. The C33, C22, C3 and C2 are attractively priced, but old enough that you may have problems with reliability and economical repair. Keep in mind that one characteristic all those cameras share is that, when printing standard sizes such as 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc., the usable negative size is only about 6x4.5. If you find square prints to your liking, one of those TLRs is for you. Otherwise, choose either a 6x4.5 for its ease of handling, or a 6x7 for its larger negative. For studio use, 6x7 is the only logical choice.

 

My opinion regarding print quality is that, for standard rectangular print sizes, the 6x4.5 and the equivalent 6x6 format will hold their own up to 16x20 or so, after which the 6x7 starts to pull away. Even if you never make a print that large, there�s another reason to consider 6x7. If you fail to do your cropping before you trip the shutter, you can crop 1/3 of your 6x7 negative in the darkroom and still have a 6x4.5 negative to print, full frame! Whichever camera I have in hand, I make a large effort to crop in the viewfinder rather than in the darkroom, but I won�t use that as an excuse to pass up a fleeting shot that�s just a bit too far away. Cropping a 6x7 is always a better choice than cropping a 6x4.5.

 

Square shooters like to point out that they can shoot first, then later decide whether to print a vertical or a horizontal from a given negative. In my experience, not one of those folks has yet voluntarily pointed out that, at best, those crops are equivalent to a mere 6x4.5 negative. Nor do they point out that most buyers don�t want square prints! Ever try to buy an 11x11 or 14x14 frame off the shelf?

 

Ok, I admit I am a (good-natured) flame-meister, and I mostly enjoy goading the anachronous Ha$$y fringe types who think their cameras, lenses and photographs don�t stink, and who use some ersatz mystique to justify the 2060s prices they pay for their 1960s camera designs. That would be an acceptable tradeoff if their solid-block bodies and their superb Zeiss lenses produced images visibly superior to those produced by modern competitive systems, and if reliability were noticeably superior to those same counterparts. Reality, as it happens, does not support such urban myths. Hasselblads break just as often as do the better value brands, those that routinely produce equally stunning images. In short, don�t become brand-centric.

 

The skeptical among you can convince me only if you visit serious photo exhibitions and can consistently discern which images were shot with Zeiss lenses, which by Fuji, which by Schneider, which by Mamiya, which by Pentax, which by Olympus, etc., ad nauseam. I know you can�t do that, and so do you.

 

More germane to the hardware issue is that only Hasselblad requires a third-party un-jamming tool in case you don�t do the camera cocking, lens cocking thing in just the right sequence. I believe that Hasselblad won�t make that tool because they don�t want to admit its need! As a starkly contrasting example, it is by intelligent 1970s design that there is no physical way to jam any Mamiya RB lens on any RB camera!

 

Now let�s address the Hasselblad focusing method. I don�t think anyone who has ever used rack-and-pinion focusing (a la Mamiya, for example) for one wedding or for two portrait shoots would ever again opt for the tedious helical focusing still used by Hasselblad. Yes, helical focusing works very well on all our 35mm cameras, but it fails miserably with the longer focal lengths incumbent with MF gear! Some years back, I ran this focusing thing by a Hasselblad-using wedding shooter friend, and the best he could come up with was, �You get used to it. And the clamp-on focusing thingie helps.� I regularly read here and elsewhere that some buy and use Hasselblad for the prestige factor the brand affords. That is sick, it�s a crutch, and not for me, folks.

 

Off my soapbox now, let me give you a comfortable, beautiful, very affordable avenue to travel. I think you will get the most bang for your bucks from a Koni-Omega 200, M, or 100. These are 6x7 rangefinder models from the 1960s-1970s. They typically come with a standard 90mm lens and 120 film back, and are a huge steal at 200-250USD. Extra film backs go for 75-100USD. Also available are 60mm and 180mm lenses for about 200USD each. And there's a somewhat rare 135mm that sells for about 500USD. The KO 100 model accepts film inserts only, while the 200 and M models accept fully enclosed film backs that can be changed mid-roll. Avoid any but those three models.

 

When you first see a photo of one of these beasts, you may think you've never seen an uglier camera, and I would not argue with that. Fortunately, they are built like tanks, they are incredibly ergonomic with every control falling readily to hand, and they produce absolutely gorgeous 6x7 images. Check them out at: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/korapid.html.

 

Rangefinder cameras are different from SLRs, of course. Each type has its advantages, and I would not say either is better. I have shot weddings with TLRs, SLRs and with Koni-Omega RFs. Of those, based entirely on my personal bias, I would first toss the TLRs into the trash. Judging what's left over, I find the Koni RFs to be every bit as comfortable and easy to use as the SLRs. When I first shot in a dimly lit wedding reception hall, I was surprised to find the Koni easier to focus than any of the several SLR types I have used in such low light.

 

Their biggest shortcoming, shared with all RF cameras I know of, is that they cannot focus closely enough for a tight head shot. (That shortcoming is also inherent in all TLR models except the Mamiyas.) If you can live with that, the Koni is very likely the best value for you. If you prefer square photos and can learn to love the quaint viewing system of TLRs, the Mamiya C330 can't be beat, assuming it falls within your budget. Failing that, go for a Rolleicord, Minolta Autocord or a Yashica 124 (not the 124G because it's overpriced and its meter is all but useless anyhow).

 

In the beginning, I quoted Bob Chong, and I�d like to finish that way. �The MF world is your oyster.�

 

Talk to us.

 

[ashley_hosten]

Sorry Bob for my comment that bothered. I'll set the record straight: I have never used a Yashica TLR. Fine optics, but I've heard from an extremely trusted source, that the Yashicas can be unreliable. Not of course equalling the weak build quality of Lubitels and Seagulls. But this is 'honest' info, from a close friend of mine that owns a photo store (only sells 'used' equipment). He's been in business 25 years and knows just about everything about older cameras. I've bought 3 Mamiya C-series from him, with no problems in over adecade. I've tried the Rolleicord, but felt restricted by the lack of interchangeable lens. My opinion on Seagulls and Lubitels, is also garnered from the weight of views of others. I wouldn't want to be in danger of 'libelling' a company's product that is no longer made & for which no new spares are being produced for.

[chris_waller]

I'd suggest a Mamiya C330. I have the C3, the slightly older model, and although it looks like it came through the siege of Stalingrad it works just perfectly and will deliver results you can't get on 35mm. I actually enjoy the slower pace of working with MF, it makes me think more about the picture before I push the button.

[stuart_todd]

Wow, thanks for the response... I didn't expect this many :)

 

Right, perhaps I missed a whole lot of back ground to my photographic history and style. So here's a quick run down.

 

Keen "happy-snapper" since I was 8.

Started studying meteorology and physics back in 1996 at Auckland University. The Hamilex 35mm wasn't doing the job on the field trips, so my grandfather (keen amateur in his time) gave me his Canon AE-1 with a 50 mm and 24 mm lenses, plus a 2x teleconverter. Ended getting badgered into doing photographic work the university newspaper.

Over the summer break (Dec 96 to February 97) got keen on photography. Spent half of my summer pay on a brand new Canon EOS 500 and 35-80mm zoom lenses. Started doing more and more work for the newspaper. A star student became a B grade student. 1998 Became 2nd photographer for university newspaper (only because number 1 had a cheap and nasty digital). Grades keep dropping. Left university the middle of 1998 to full time work. From then until November last

year I work for a local computer/IT company and went from junior tech to Consultant. Picked my SLR up again for the first since 1998. Started basic night school course on photography at the local polytechnic. Over the summer holidays I rediscovered my lost love. Quit my job after becoming dissatisfied with local IT market

and spend the most of my un-claimed holiday pay on a 50 mm 1.8, 75-300mm 4-5.6 zoom and a 100mm 2.8 macro lenses. Went back into higher education studying photography full time.

 

Most of my photography is more conceptual then practical. I really like still life and artistic work. I really like the work that Boyd Webb was done, I seem to emulate his style (if you know who Boyd Webb is...).

Example, on a resent class field trip to marina to do some twilight photography, while everyone else was taking pretty postcard pictures of the boats, the harbor, city-scapes with the boats in the fore-ground etc. I was more interested in the patterns in the wood on the pier or the under side the harbor bridge.

 

Also I don't think I told the whole story in the original post correctly. I've been doing a large amount of fashion and portfolio work for the special FX and movie make up department upstairs from the photography department. Again, both the Canon and the Lubitel where present. Using identical film stock for both (either

Agfa APX B&W or Fuji Velvia), both upstairs and my HoD loved the medium format work. They didn't know which camera I'd used. And when I submitted my work prints for my various portraiture assignments, the photo's taken on the Lubitel, are the ones that my tutor and HoD reckon are the winners. So it seems I have the 'gift' to take people shots on the medium format instead of the 35mm.

Also I don't feel very comfortable taking 'sitted' portraiture shots on the 35mm either. The frame feels too tight to squeeze the person, or persons into. In the larger format I can feel at ease, I seem to have more room to work with. Now if you can find something wrong with my technique, great tell me! But for now the Lubitel is winning the race in the portraiture assignments.

 

With regards to lighting and where I take the photos.

When given the choice, I like to take my portraits outside or in a building with significant interiors (i.e. the museum, winter gardens, the old train station, etc.), using the natural or available light.

When I do studio portraits, I use studio lighting, combining both fill and flash lighting. I don't think I've ever used the hot shoe on any of my cameras. Apart from plugging in the hot shoe to PC cord adapter (the EOS 500 doesn't come with a PC port). The flash gets moved around a lot. Depends on who's sitting in the chair in

front of the camera. With regards to aperture, I tend to use f4.5 or f5.6 in the studio, or f8 outdoors. When doing environmental portraiture work, I take an educated guess at the f stop. Depends if I want the interiors in or out of focus, and if the passer-by's should they be a burr, sharp or not there.

 

When it comes to processing film, B&W stuff I do myself. I use Agfa and Ilford films and naturally use the process they recommend for their own films (Rodinal for Agfa and LC-29 for Ilford). No problems there. Prints are made in the school dark room.

Color negative and slide is processed and printed at one of top developing labs in Auckland. I don't use 1 hour labs for film processing (but are good for quick, cheap n' nasty machine print enlargements) and the only crackhead distant acquaintance who keen on photography as I, is my cousin, and she uses the same lab as I

do, and can't believe I still prefer to develop my own B&W then use the modern C41 process B&W film.

 

So there you have it. I think the reason why I want a MF is because I've got another 2-3 years of compulsory portraiture assignments and I can see in the near future that my portrait and studio fashion work paying the bills and letting me continue my interest in artistic work.

 

When it comes to a budget, I'm looking at sinking at least $500-$750US into this medium format camera set up.

 

The next two planned purchases are an EOS-5/A-2 and a decent handheld meter (my current one only works actuarially at unusual f stops and doesn't have a PC cord sync) . Then it's onto the considering a MF purchase.

If you think my logic is flawed, tell me now and save me $1000-2000 NZ.

 

Kind regards and thanks for the responses so far,

 

Stu :)

 

[douglas_green1]

Thanks for the info on your shooting style. Unless you do an awful lot of tight headshots, I would get a Koni-Omega Rapid M, 100, or 200, along with the normal 90mm lens, and a 180mm lens, and a 2nd back. That whole setup could be gotten in fully functional condition off of ebay for under $600 US. (Figure $200 for the body with 90mm lens, $200 for the 180mm lens, and $100 for the 2nd back).

 

With careful and aggressive shopping, I've personally gotten a cleanly working Rapid-M body with 90mm lens for $135, and a second back for $75 on ebay. The longer lenses are MUCH harder to find than the bodies with the 90mm lens.

 

For anything other than closeup work, or extreme widangle or tele work, this setup actually closely rivals my Pentax 67 system in image quality, at 1/3 the cost. In fact, for fill-in flash, it is superior to the Pentax system unless one of the 2 Leaf shutter lenses is used with the Pentax.

 

I agree with the earlier commentary on these: They are built like tanks and ergonomically superb. (They are not too hard to find at auction, because they actually were chosen as the US Military's standard issue aerial camera, but the army has phased them out due to age and the fact that they are long out of production - so many of them are found where Military Surplus gear is found). They ARE ugly beasts, however, but Ugly is only skin deep.

[camiel_vanderhoeven]

I just did a little search on e-Bay. Funny, I couldn't find a Koni Omega Rapid camera, but I could find a 180 mm lens (item # 1390063485, US$ 10.00), the sportsfinder (139040446, $13.50), and several backs, between $8.40 and $35.00, some with buy-it-now options for around 35-40 bucks. It would appear that the prices on these have come down even further. I'd say, grab some of these, and wait until the camera's come along.

 

Camiel.

[douglas_green1]

BTW, I guarantee that the 180mm lens will close for a minumum of $150 unless it's damaged. Also, the KEY point with any of this stuff on ebay is to buy it from someone who knows what it is they are selling, and is able to tell you if it's in working condition or not. Backs that are broken or missing key pieces like the dark slide or film advance are a dime a dozen.

[conrad_drake]

You've travelled an interesting road. I haven't used the Koni so I'll not comment on them. I will reiterate my suggestion of trying another TLR - but given your budget and success with your current TLR you should at least try and have a serious look at the Mamiya C330/C220 range before committing to a non-ground glass solution. They are common enough that you should be able to find one to 'heft' in one of your major cities.

[al_kaplan1]

My recomendation is the Minolta Autocord, from many years of faithful service. Several posts back mention was made of a special tool "that Hasselblad won't make" for unjamming a stuck Hasselblad. It's just a simple flst blade screwdriver. You probably own several. Of course if Hasselblad were to make one with their logo on the handle, a blade machined of stainless steel to exactly fit the screw's slot, there are plenty of idiots who'd rush out and spend their $50.00 just to have one.