Medium Format System around 500

[rob_garsson]

<p>This will be my first time owning a MF system, spent a lot of time using a Hasselblad but sadly that is out of my price range :/ Want something primarily for fine art nature photography, a camera that's fairly portable with interchangeable lenses, film size not a huge issue.</p>

<p>Right now the cameras I'm looking at are the RB67 and the Pentax 67. Right now I'm leaning towards the Mamiya, I hear the Pentax doesn't have the most stable of shutters and I will be using this camera for night photography, tripod + long exposures. Does that pretty much rule the Pentax out? I like the look and feel of a rangefinder camera (would consider the Mamiya 7 if it was in my price range), although I think the Mamiya with something like this (http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-RB-Prisms-and-Viewfinders/1/sku-RB130090315160?r=FE) would be just fine.</p>

<p>Well I'm just throwing my thoughts out there for some general feedback. Are my deductions correct? I feel at this price range my options are rather limited, but are there any better MF systems I'm overlooking? I considered the Yashica at one point but would want interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>Atm I'm mainly using KEH as my buying guide. I know most of these cameras are pretty old and I wouldn't know what to look for in terms of problems or how to "rate" a camera when buying from an individual. Keh seems like a trustworthy source with pretty good prices. Although craigslist has some good deals so I'll weigh my options there.</p>

<p>Well, thanks for taking the time to read this. Cheers =)</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>Hello Rob,<br>

from what you would like to photograph, the Mamiya 645 Pro class of cameras might be a better choice, as it would fit into your price range with excellent to like now equipment and it would also be much more portable than the 6x7 monsters.<br>

I have a Mamiya RZ67 II and also two 645 Pro TL cameras. For field work, there is no competition, that's for sure! I can walk around with the 645 and three lenses all day with no problems, while the RZ67 with even the smallest lens (the 110 mm) is very bulky and quite heavy.<br>

Also, parts for the 645's are very abundant and overall, less than half the price of the 6x7 cameras in the same quality class (e.g. excellent). <br>

Certainly something to evaluate.<br>

Christoph</p>

 

[rob_garsson]

<p>Thanks for the response Christoph, I'm definitely a lot more interested in the 645 now. I'm looking for a quick primer on the differences in camera bodies but I don't see a lot of online information and KEH has multiple bodies listed at very different prices! Do you know of any good resources on this?</p>

[robert lee]

<p>I use two RB-67 cameras. Even a one camera kit (body, two lenses, 3 backs, tripod) is quite awkward to lug around. I carry everything in a gym bag. It's doable but long treks are ill advised.</p>

<p>The camera, however, is great for long exposure photography. Everything is mechanical so basically the shutter can be left open indefinitely.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>All other things being equal, ultimately a top class lens and a larger negative will give better results than a top class lens and a smaller negative.<br>

I have comprehensive Mamiya RBSD and Bronica ETRSi outfits. If I were younger, fitter and stronger, I might lug the former (and a tripod) over the hills, as some people do. The latter is much lighter etc. It performs extremely well.</p>

<p>As with most things, it is horses for courses. First be sure of your course. Then decide your horse.</p>

 

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Regarding the Pentax 67:<br>

Shutter vibration will not be a problem on long exposures. The vibration will die down rapidly. If you're really concerned, hold something opaque in front of the lens for a second or two after the shutter opens. A strong tripod and solid connection to it will help lots.<br /> The Pentax 67 is a favorite of astronomy photographers, so that should say something about its usability for long exposures.</p>

[bueh]

<p>The "old-style" M645s (plain, J and 1000s) share accessories and do not have interchangeable backs (which is not such a killer feature in my humble opinion). They are rather old, may have aging issues (sticky shutter, light leaks), but are cheap and simple. While available, metered prisms and motors are a bit awkward in operation and not that useful for these cameras. The simple and inexpensive M645J is my favorite among them.</p>

<p>Then you have the "modern" M645s (Super, Pro, Pro TL). They have interchangeable backs and a different body and system design. They are made for automatic operation and with a motor grip and AE prism they shoot just a like an oversized 35mm SLR from the 1980s. They are also more expensive and more electronic. Personally, I like them a lot. A Super or Pro body can be quite bargain and I don't see much difference here (except... the newer, the more reliable the camera is supposed to be -- that's why the Pro TLs are the most expensive). As I said, I have not much use for the removable back. Just be sure to get one with the 120 insert. But I can recommend the motor plus AE prism combination.</p>

<p>All Mamiya M645 have the same lens bayonet. The "N" lenses are newer and often much more pricey than the regular Sekor C gear. I like the fast 80/1.9 and the stellar 110/2.8. For portrait format you <em>need</em> one of the prism finders (which come in several flavors), although I like the WLF with the old M645s lot. All cameras are battery-powered, but IIRC on the old-style SLRs the bulb setting may be mechanical.</p>

[adamjohnson]

<p>645 vs 6x7 is a bit misleading. It's actually 4.5x6 vs 6x7 - and side-by-side the 645 looks puny when compared to the 6x7. The 6x7 slide/negative is 50% larger, noticeably sharper, and more detailed than that of 645. I used a Mamiya M645 Pro for a year and it was an excellent learning tool. But the quality of a 6x7 is well beyond that of the 645, and well worth the extra cost and weight.</p>

<p>I found the 645 format annoying when I went to print because you lose so much on the long end. 6x7 on the other hand is considered the <em>"ideal format"</em> because no cropping is required with standand-sized prints - The entire image fits.</p>

<p>If you're debating 645 vs 6x7, I would move right up to the 6x7 and be done with it. I personally chose the Pentax 67 over the RB/RZ67 because I use Velvia 50 95% of the time. I didn't need interchangeable backs, wanted a camera that was build like a tank, easy to pack, and could be replaced in a moment if dropped or stolen.</p>

<p>If you do buy from KEH (which I would recommend), and money is a concern, choose EX+ for the body and Bargain for the lenses. You can expect a body that is mechanicaly perfect and looks new, plus lenses that function perfectly even if they may have a few dings on the body.</p>

<p>If you do decide on Pentax 67, beware that a sturdy tripod and head are required to tame that massive shutter.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I notice you're considering all the rectangular formats but my vote is for the Bronica SQ-A. It's 6x6 just like the Hasselblad you've been using but with more features and less than half the price. The advantage of the square format is that you never have to mess around moving the camera from landscape to portrait orientation. It's also a much bigger negative than the 6x4.5 and is a good compromise between 6x4.5 and 6x7. The SQ-A doesn't consume battery power during long exposures so is perfect for night photography. The RB/RZ67 are absolute monster cameras and, while great for the studio, they are a real pain to cart around. My SQ-A with 80mm, prism finder, 120 back and speed grip is perfectly manageable and handholdable for long periods.</p>

<p>I just bought the following off FeeBay for the average selling price of £300GBP (approx 480 USD):</p>

<p>Bronica SQ-A Body<br>

Waist level finder<br>

Auto Exposure prism finder<br>

80mm f2.8 PS lens<br>

2 focusing screens<br>

120 back<br>

Speed grip<br>

Cable release<br>

Pro 4 filter system<br>

10 rolls of film<br>

All boxed and in perfect working order.</p>

[norman_valentine]

<p>Fuji GW690 or GSW690 would fit the bill and is not too bad to carry around. It is also totally mechanical and very simple which is a plus.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

645 isn't that bad, compared to 6x7, at all.<br>The 6x4.5 format is a bit longer than the 6x7, in ratio, but only by not even 4%.<br>There's an obvious size difference, but that too isn't as big as it might seem: you need to enlarge a 6x4.5 about 1.3x (more) to get to the same size as 6x7. The loss in quality is the same as that between a 10.3x12.9" print made from an 6x7 negative and a 8x10" print made from that same 6x7 negative.<br>A difference in size you can't help but notice. But not a dramatic one, not even a big one, some might even say an almost insignificant one, in terms of image quality.

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>The loss in quality is the same as that between a 10.3x12.9" print made from an 6x7 negative and a 8x10" print made from that same 6x7 negative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's noticeable though, especially if the digitization was done with a flatbed. If the scene had fine details, the same sized print from 645 shows less of it: less sharp, and a bit more grain. It's evident at 8x10 print sizes and up.</p>

<p>The one big, often overlooked advantage of 645 is the availability of fast optics - often as bright as the typical prime found on 135 format cameras. In contrast, the typical 6x7 objective starts at around f4. A 645 system is worth thinking about especially for shallow DOF (portraiture) photography.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>All great and accurate info is listed above.<br>

Well, to make this a bit visual (and a bit more clear in my fuzzy noggin)... I measured the actual negatives from my Mamiya 645M 1000S and RB67. I took the std. 6x6 to be really 56x56mm (from searching p'net). And then the 35mm. (not to scale in the diagram that follows).</p>

<p>I wanted to "visualize" how much of each format was wasted if I cropped to an 8x10 (16x20, etc) form factor. (In other words, how much of utilized negative is lost when an 8x10 ratio cookie cutter is laid over the film.)<br>

So, with all this presumptive flailing around, the below is how it looks to my amateurish mind. (The MF sizes are drawn properly in Visio to scale, and are directly comparable.)</p>

<p>If film real estate is important for enlargement quality and one is printing to an 8x10 standard, then the most "efficient" formats are 645 or 67. Hardly breaking news, just a different representation.<br>

Obviously, brand X vs brand Y lens performance, film flatness, etc. are not part of this look-see. Maybe this helps some other fool like myself someday.<br>

People who print square, please do not hate me :o)<br>

Jim</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>IMO there is more difference between how people use medium format cameras than there is between their inherent quality and enlargeability of 645 and 67. Tripod? Well focused? Decent control over depth of field? I'd take the one I could carry with a tripod and the lenses I'd need, and the one i feel I could get optimum results from, rather than blindly believing that bigger is always better. </p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I <strong>TOTALLY agree</strong> with Adam Johnson: Move <strong>all the way up to 6x7</strong> and be done with it. After 25+ years of photography, I have learned this the hard way.</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>I've used the Mamiya RB67 and the Pentax 67 (which I have kept). The Mamiya RB67 is heavy, yes, but honestly I think that photo-folks love hyperbole -- "if you don't shoot with xx/yy expensive equipment then don't bother, if you don't shoot large format then..." It's heavy but it's not the end of the world, and the system is great and because it is fully mechanical you can leave that shutter open for long exposures.</p>

<p>Yes, the Pentax 67 is used, or has been anyway, by astrophotographers, but it should be noted that these are modified Pentax 67 bodies. Normally the P67 draws power from the battery when the mirror is locked up. The modification makes the mirror lock up mechanical so that the solenoids normally used to keep the mirror up are no longer powered.</p>

<p>I kept the P67 over the MRB67 because it fits my shooting style much better. In your case, I would say that you should go for the MRB67 as it will likely fit your style much better.</p>

<p>As far as the Mamiya 7 I guess I have this to say: save up and buy what you really want. I've spent money on compromise systems and it's been an interesting ride and I've learned a lot about what I like in a system and what I don't like. For instance, I like my Mamiya C330 and I'm selling my Hasselblad. The Mamiya just works better for me and I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't tried it. </p>

<p>That being said, you'll probably invest just as much in trying new systems as you would if you just bought what you wanted in the first place.</p>

<p>If you can, then try and see some of these systems in person and get a feel for how they operate and how intuitive they are to you. None of these systems are incapable of doing what you want them to do, but every one has good points and trade offs.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Before I bought my first Bronica ETRSi - a long time before I bought my Mamiya RBSD - I gave careful thought to which 645 make I should go for. I can't even remember now why I opted to the Bronica, but I know I weighed many factors over some weeks before deciding. I read everything I could find - as I did before buying the RBSD - and there's alot of information out there. I spent a bit of money buying copies of independent test reports on equipment.</p>

<p>Unless you are in a panic to buy, take time and mull things over. One morning, it will probably dawn on you what is right for you and your needs.</p>

<p>I bought the Bronica with a standard PE series lens from a dealer. The image quality was superb, and I subsequently bought three other PE series lenses and a couple more bodies. Even though they obviously have smaller negatives than the RBSD, they still produce excellent results, and I certainly would not sell the outfit.</p>

<p>The short point is that any of the outfits that have been mentioned will provide quality results - provided you make sure you get good examples in the first place. From what you have said, I'm not sure that any of the formats will have a major advantage over another, except price, how much equipment of a brand there is on the market, and how relevant is portabilty.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Couple of points on recent posts.</p>

<p>First, unless you have a pretty fixed view about print sizes or ratios, pointing out that format x wastes less or more than format y isn't much help. What happens if the OP is content to print at the ratio of the format, or wants to print 3:2? Or Square? Or is content to vary the print ratio to suit the composition of the photograph? Put another set of assumptions in here and you get a different conclusion.</p>

<p>Second---</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you'll probably invest just as much in trying new systems as you would if you just bought what you wanted in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This gets trotted out a lot, most often with tripods or heads, and its a flawed argument. Its flawed because you simply can't assume that people's decisions to buy at anything but the top of the spectrum are going to turn out wrong. Many people who vacillate and buy the more accessible option end up happy with what they bought and don't spend the rest of their lives inching all the way up the price/quality spectrum. If they get persuaded to buy, say a Gitzo tripod and Arca Swiss head when a Benro and Manfrotto would have been sufficient for them, they're out several hundred dollars. The argument works both ways. And here its especially adrift because used MF camera prices seem to have stopped falling. If the OP makes a decision here that turns out to be wrong its not the end of the world unless he's bought badly or he buys a raft of esoteric accessories that nobody wants. He could change his mind several times before he finds just what he wants and not lose out too much in today's MF market.</p>

<p>Third, "try before you buy" and other variants thereof is really good advice. Not only because you get a chance to see how easy it might be to pick up how the camera works, but also to see whether there's a fault- like a function that doesn't work. A lot of MF camera being sold today are being sold with a fault- and maybe sometimes <em>because</em> they have a fault. The opportunity to check over the camera with the aid of a handbook and put a couple of films through it and assess the results is close to priceless IMO. </p>

<p> </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>What happens if the OP is content to print at the ratio of the format, or wants to print 3:2? Or Square?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough. Most of my prints from 135 gets printed at 6x9 onto 8.5x11 paper, and stay that way in the portfolio.</p>

<p>However, the situation tends to be different if the intent is to frame and hang. DIY matting is fairly accessible, but is still a bother; custom framing is just expensive. The advantage of 6x7 in this circumstance is the availability of inexpensive and high quality prefabs. 8x10 and 11x14 are essentially standard sizes. The same goes for 16x20 but with the additional attribute that the larger film area inherent with 6x7 makes the format even more compelling.</p>

[mediumformat]

<p>The big ergonomic advantage besides the film size of the RB/RZ is the rotating back, which means no turning the camera for portrait vs landscape. That's also true for 6x6, but OP is asking about 6x7.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I'd stay away from the only 67cm focal plane, the Pentax. These do not make good used cameras. After a shutter rebuilding, these have maybe 5,000-10,000 shutter cycles. A used camera with 7,000 is a $400 rebuild waiting to happen. As an un-written rule, leaf shutters seem to last much longer. Which points us towards the Bronica GS and the Mamiya 67's. However smaller focal planes aren't as much trouble. The Pentax and Mamiya 645 SLR's are both great used cameras.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"If you're really concerned, hold something opaque in front of the lens for a second or two after the shutter opens."<br>

This is good advice, so you don't need to worry about shutter vibration. I do it all the time. The only time it doesn't work is in the slow-normal range, from 1/4 second up. I'd also consider the problems of focus at night, so pay close attention to focus screens and type.<br>

Scott</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Scott, one can also zone focus if shooting faraway subjects and/or using a small aperture. When shooting landscapes, I rarely use the viewfinder for actual focus - just for judging distances.</p>

<p>The RB/RZ system is great, but there's more to maximum print size and resolution than the size of the negative. There is also the quality of the lens(es) to consider, and the flatness of the negative plane. Also, be honest: how large do you really expect to print? And do you expect people to get close to these prints? From a 6x6, I can print about a 16x16 at 300 dpi, without even getting a drum scan. 24x24 still makes an awesome print, provided you don't put your face right up to it.</p>

<p>Anywhoo, I think the first thing you ought to do is take a long hard look at what lenses you want to own, and how large you expect to print. I bought a Hassy because I rarely print over 12x12, and because I only planned on owning and using two lenses - an 80 and a 150. That was well over a year ago, and I'm still fine with just the two. If I intended to own more than two lenses, I probably would have bought something else.</p>

<p>If you want a bunch of lenses, the 645 is the best choice. I'd skip the RB/RZ for size issues. It's really only designed to be used indoors. If you're positive you only need one lens (or maybe a second one way down the road), I'd save up for the 67 or 67II. It's compact, and the film is held very flat; it will sometimes appear sharper edge-to-edge than the RB for that reason. It does cost more than you want to spend, but that's not a big deal if you're only making the one purchase. It's certainly no more expensive than a 645 and multiple lenses.</p>

<p>If you need to print huge, and you're okay with the expense of film developing and scanning, you really should get a 4x5. There are some excellent, reasonably priced Graflexes out there. Most of those don't hold the film as flat as the 67 does though, so you'll probably find that the 67 makes better prints than most 'reasonable' 4x5s under 12x16 or so, especially in the corners.</p>

[rob_garsson]

<p>Wow thanks for the responses, I've got a lot to think over!</p>

<p>I'll answer a couple questions that have been brought up. In terms of printing my sizes will probably vary quite a bit from small (4x5) to large (16x20, bigger if I can swing it). Given that the larger film size might be beneficial.</p>

<p>Weight: obviously I'd prefer to lug around a lighter rig, but I don't need to base my whole decision on that. I never had any difficulty with the Blad, and some quick research says the RB67 is about 1-2lbs more, depending on the lens. When actually holding the RB it may feel a lot heavier but it should be manageable.</p>

<p>Lens: While it would be nice I don't need the 2.8. I generally prefer to shoot at higher f stops, and when shooting landscapes / still objects in low light no problem tripoding it up and going long exposure!</p>

<p>Other than that I really appreciate the responses, this has been a very interesting read for me. I'm leaning towards the RB67 atm although for now I'm going to take it slow and keep an eye on ebay and craigslist and see what deals come up. I also have access to a Mamiya 6 at school, so perhaps I'll use that for the next couple months and see how I like it. Thanks again guys!</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Zack:</p>

<p>It is true that some people use RBs indoors, but there are others who use them everywhere. I've already said that weight is a problem for me, but others certainly manage them well enough, just as people with large format do.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by the quality of the lenses to consider. It is said that there were quality control issues with some of the earlier ones. I have one "c" and 4 in the kl series. The performance of all is superb.</p>