In search of...film flatness and a quiet shutter.

[will_frost]

<p>Hi.<br>

I have some experience with MF. I've used a 6x6 folder, and currently use a Yashica D. Of course I'm wondering if there is something better out there :)</p>

<p>I'm looking for cameras that are known for film flatness, a quiet (leaf) shutter, relatively few moving parts, and don't cost the earth. Any format from 645 to 6x9 is fine.</p>

<p>My understanding is that almost all film magazine cameras - those with interchangeable backs leave some curl or bend in the film by the time it reaches film plane. (Under some circumstances.) I understand that some TLRs are better than others, depending on whether the take up spool is after or before the bend. I would be willing to consider a 2x3 press camera, if there was a rollfilm adapter that kept the film path perfectly straight.</p>

<p>I do understand that film flatness is kind of controversial, as in <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/001awY">this thread</a> in this very forum. I acknowledge that I might be chasing after something that makes no difference. But humor me, please.<br>

Will</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Mamiya MF cameras were always touted, at least in their own press, to have excellent film flatnesss. From the early Mamiyaflex to the C330 to the Super 23/Universal to the RB/RZ67are all suppose to to be very good in this regard. Having owned the 330 in the past and currently using the Super 23 and RZ67 models, I can attest to the excellent flatness from their film backs. Of course the RZ is an SLR and the others may be of more interest to you since they have quiet leaf shutters.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Will,</p>

<p>Lack of film flatness has been shown to occur in some cameras or under certain conditions. I have made no meaasurements but from what I've read to date the following seem to be important: a) select if possible a camera in which the film is fed from one side to the other without going through a small diameter roller which may bend it a little too much; b) if it goes around a roller, choose one where the roller contacts the film only after the frame has been exposed; c) load the film only when you are ready to use the camera; d) use 220 film if possible as it has no paper backing that can apparently play a bit of a role in film non flatness.</p>

<p>Cameras that have very quiet shutters and feed the film straight from one side to the other without a direction changing small roller include the Mamiya 6 and 7 cameras, and probably the new Fuji/VC Bessa 670. A Mamiya 6 and standard lens can be found in mint condition for around $1000, with the body and 50mm wide angle lens a possible buy in such condition for about $1200-$1300. An old Minolta Autocord TLR applies the roller only after the frame has been exposed.</p>

<p> </p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Both Hasselblad and the RB systems have excellent film flatness and both have very quite shutters if used with the mirror in the up position. Of course, pre-releasing the mirror is fairly noisy in each.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>Your Yashica D, having a knob-wind film advance, as opposed to a crank-wind, like a 124 Mat, (which are noisy), is probably about as quiet as you're going to find in medium format. Film flatness may be only slightly improved in a Mamiya C series or Press/Universal cameras.<br /> The crank wound C-3, C-33, and C-330 models from Mamiya are much quieter then the crank wound Yashica Mats. The Mamiya C-22, and C-220 models are knob wound, so basically just as quiet as your Yashica D.<br /> As far as quiet, the mirror slap in a RB or RZ is magnified in those big bodies like a base drum. The leaf shutters are quiet, but the mirror is loud.<br /> If your film flatness concerns are more along the post processing area; ie, film curl from leaving film in the camera for too long a period, then the RB/RZ could induce more curl then many other cameras, as the film in these backs run over two small reversing rollers, one at each end.<br /> Of course, this point of film curl, (or taking a set), is negated if you start and finish a roll quickly, as we should all do anyway, with any film camera.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Then there are the Fuji collapsible 645s. The GS series was available in standard and wideangle versions and a later zoom-lensed GA. Prices are much more reasonable than the 6x7 versions or Mamiya's rangefiner offerings. </p>

[will_frost]

<p>Thank you very much everybody! The summary of flatness factors, and the comparison of different Yashica and Mamiya models is very helpful. I'm not too concerned about post processing flatness - patience and a heavy weight seems to help that. I'm a little more interested in situations where depth of focus is shallow and curled film plus film plane alignment errors add up.<br>

I had begun to look at RB/RZ's since KEH seems to be running a sale on new-in-box models, but I was wary of noise, film curl, and weight. My Yashica seems better and better :)<br>

Will</p>

[ken_wayne1]

<p>Go to the link I'm providing and this guy has all you want to know and more.....I was amazed when I ran upon his article a year or so ago. I've not read it in a while but remember the depth and length at which he pursues film flatness.</p>

<p>Check it out:<br>

<a href="http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5">http://www.horolezec.cz/blog-engl/index.php?action=item&itemid=5</a></p>

<p>Let me know what you think.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>IIRC The Contax 645 has a vacum back for improved flatness but it's an SLR.</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Will, years ago I did a good bit of wedding work using the Yashica's as my main cameras; I never had a problem with film flatness or noise. I should mention that I considered them disposable since they were pretty inexpensive...more so than now, from what I see in the used market. I felt that I had to have absolute dependability...if one even gave me a hint of trouble I ceremonusly held it at arms length and dropped it in the circular file and got another one to shoot with. :-) I have to admit, also, that I didn't throw many away!</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Mamiya TLRs have a ridiculously straight film path, which is accommodated by their big physical dimensions. The leaf shutters make a quiet 'ping'. They're unfashionable, which is good because it means they're cheap, and they may be a good solution for your purposes.</p>

<p>The RB film holder is basically a Graflex holder, and the RZ holder is a slight modification. All holders of this type put a wicked kink in the film, as they bend it through 180 degrees. This means if you leave film in the camera on frame '4', and don't shoot for a few days, you can shoot '4', but you may want to skip '5' and wind on to '6' when you pick it up again. Having said that, my late-model RZ lenses are *way* better than my Mamiya TLR lenses. Depends what you need.</p>

<p>An RB/RZ is anything but quiet. Windows rattle, plaster falls from ceiling, dog hides, etc. </p>

[jmck]

<p> Mamiya Press holders are 6 1/4 Inches roller to roller with a 4 in long plate to hold film flat and no other bends<br>

In the film except for the 2 spools and the lever operated backs use 120 or 220 film.<br>

My hearing is not that good But the shutter on my Press lens are quieter Than my canon T-90. </p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The quietest shutters I have used are on the Mamiya 6 system (and the loudest on the RB/RZ, as Dave mentions).</p>

[vince-p]

<p>My Mamiya 7 is one of hte quietest cameras I own, including the Leica rangefinders etc. You yourself hardly know you've released the shutter. (It's also got the most sensitive button and I've lost a lot of frames just touching it...)</p>

[fwstutterheim]

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding is that almost all film magazine cameras - those with interchangeable backs leave some curl or bend in the film by the time it reaches film plane </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The film paths in the backs of the Rolleiflex 6000 series of cameras are completely flat. No curl at all. The cameras have become affordable. I would not say that of the lenses.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

"No curl at all", except, of course, that in which film is put in the factory, and in which it remains for a rather lengthy period. From when it was made until the moment you spool a bit of it off the feed spool and into that completely flat path.<br>The "advice" was not to leave the film for more then a couple of minutes wrapped around a roller. There's nothing we could about it, but when we put film into our straight path, or a bit less straight path, film backs, it has been wrapped around roller (a spool) for quite a bit longer than just a few minutes.<br>In other words: much ado about nothing.

[jim_meisenbach2]

<p>from the murky depths of my memory, I seem to recall that the old Koni-Omegas had a pressure plate in the back that actually clamped down on the film at some time prior to expsure. That is about all I can recall about them. To me that would insure film flatness, along with the leaf shutter and a "rapid wind" pull/push film advance, should meet most criteria.<br>

Jim</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"A Mamiya 6 and standard lens can be found in mint condition for around $1000"<br>

Not anymore. That outfit at KEH is now around $1800.<br>

And I agree that this is just something that shouldn't be obsessed about. The lens, film, technique and scan are probably more important for sharpness.</p>

[rick_shimonkevitz]

<p>If you need interchangeable lenses, get a Mamiya 6 or 7 (relatively expensive). If not, get a Fuji GX690III (no built-in meter but very affordable) and use 220 film. As to a 2x3 press, forget the Graphics as the holders do not hold the film reliably flat, Linhofs are the best (but again expensive), a Mamiya press is the least expensive decent alternative. These are all rangefinder cameras which I have used extensively (the Mamiya the least so). I have no experience with MF slr's except the Hasselblad which I found very good but again is expensive, and I prefer rangefinders. Good luck,<br>

Rick in CO.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>I have no problems with film flatness with my Pentax 67 bodies. I always shoot 120, full rolls, and demand eyelash sharpness. </p>

<p>Noise is a different issue. The leaf shutters are quiet but the camera is loud - then again I'm not a secret shooter so I do not care.</p>

[rishij]

<p>I've heard that the Mamiya 645 AFD film backs can be modified to shoot 15 exposures per 120 roll.</p>

<p>Does anyone know if one can just buy film backs for the 645 AFD series that defaults to 15 exposure per roll to avoid film flatness issues? I can't find any for sale that specify this on the interwebs...</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance,<br>

Rishi</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Rishi,<br><br>Changing the number of frames you get on a roll does not change how the film is fed through the magazine, so does not change how film is held flat.<br>I don't know why anyone would want to get 1 frame less per roll anyway.

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"A Mamiya 6 and standard lens can be found in mint condition for around $1000"</em><br>

<br /><em>"Not anymore. That outfit at KEH is now around $1800." </em> <strong>(Scott)</strong></p>

<p>You are right about KEH, Scott, but Sakai Camera Trade in Japan (Astrosmith22 on the auction site) recently sold two Mamiya 6 75mm f3.5 kits, as follows (from completed listing sold items):</p>

<p>March 26, 2011 $1099.00 Mint condition<br /> March 30, 2011 $1069.11 Excellent condition</p>

<p>The March 26th item was much like the one I bought from him about two years ago. He is very worthy of trust. I also purchased a mint 50 mm Mamiya 6 lens from that source for only $600. He has a lot of professional and amateur equipment and often sells Mamiya 6's. It pays to shop around and the Mamiya kit is an excellent buy to my mind. Transport is about $50 to North America.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Arthur,<br>

You may be able to get a Mamiya cheaper, but does Sakai Camera offer a couple of weeks with no question returns and a 60-day warranty?<br>

Scott</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Here is their site. I am sure he would be happy to answer your questions. </p>

<p>http://www.japankamera.com/index.html</p>

<p>I asked several questions before buying and the answers were quickly provided and corresponded to reality after receipt of the cameras or lenses. The equipment he has sent me on two occasions was really excellent (mint in both cases, although some equipment advertised is in less than mint condition, like other sellers). The prices are often much farer than others seen on eBay or from known sellers that North Americans are familiar with. I pay using PayPal, which provides at least basic insurance against loss or non-correspondence with advertisement. Perhaps two successful purchasses don't create the rule, but I would have confidence in dealing with them again. That is not something I have experienced from some sellers that appear often on the big auction site.</p>

<p> </p>