6x6 or 4x5?

[dandreisbach]

<p>People laugh at me for using a Kiev 88 so be forewarned (I like to think of it as my generic Hasselblad 500CM). That said it gives me absolutely beautiful shots. I'm still a wet darkroom kind of guy and get great 16x20 prints from the 6x6 negatives. No visible grain. Do some Google research before going the Kiev 88 route. They are temper-mental and prone to light leaks. I love mine. </p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Inexpensive medium format is Bronica SQ and Mamiya RB, both decent and to be had for low prices these days. Both have already been mentioned and both will work.<br>

A good 4x5 Calumet can be had for well under $200. A 150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar for a $300-300. Very sharp and one of the finest normal lenses around for 4x5. A half dozen film holders won't cost much.<br>

Yes, there are many other options as far as camera bodies. My preference is the Deardorff or the Linhof Technika. Both good and both work well. I have owned Calumets and they do the job, just not as nice for field work for what I photograph.<br>

Basic swing and tilt is all you will need for most images where you use any at all. The Calumet will do well there. I have looked around and you can outfit yourself with a 4x5 outfit, including light meter, two or three lenses and 50 sheets of film for well under $1000. It is not difficult to use in the field and coming back with a few very good images beats coming back with 200 average images every day for some of us.<br>

Regardless of where you end up, enjoy the journey. Some of us like the older cameras for the tactile experience on the way to the final image we will show the world. If it works for you, so much the better.</p>

[eddymendoza]

Hello all! I'm wondering why no one has suggested the Mamiya RZ instead of the RB system. I too have gone from 35

film to digital, from medium format film to digital and now from 4x5 using Polaroid instant film to a 120 roll adapter for

my calumet field camera. I haven't been able to take the time to load sheet film so I cheat myself out of a huge

negative by using roll film. I use both film and digital when the job allows the time but I'm finding that concerning the

medium format film I'm having to do a ton of post processing, mainly cleaning dirt and scratches on the negs or slides.

I'm wondering if it's the lab not changing their "water" routinely. They're coming with hair lines and just full of nicks and

lots of dirt spots. So I am using my digital back more and more now on the Mamiya and just use the film for a few rolls

only. Other than loosing some negative real estate area due to the crop factor I really think the digital back offers

better resolution than MF film.

This is of course for prints up to 16x24. Anything larger I havent tested yet.

 

Cheers