Deciding on MF.

[de_isaacs]

<p><br /><br /><br>

I agree/disagree (respectfully) to several posters. Yes, 6x7 is awkward for contact sheets, and my<br />setup (body, WLF, metered chimney finder, half a dozen lenses, 2x extender<br />& 3 macro tubes is 95 pounds!<br>

Also, using most 6x7 cameras<br />vertically (on its side) without a tripod is tiring (to say the least. For<br />these reasons (and others), I don't shoot the 6x7 all that often, having said<br />that - it is an excellent system in other ways.<br>

I used to have several Mamiya TLR’s (C220/C33)[sold them for<br />more 645 gear]. 6x6 can be a fairly convenient format, in that many images seem<br />to come out better in a rectangular format after cropping. I got very tired of post shooting cropping and<br />then I just got (thru Photo.net) a Mamiya Pro TL 645. It (Mamiya) is a<br />wonderful camera to shoot. It's quiet, and the eye level prisms view is large<br />and clear.<br>

A Mamiya Pro TL body (manual focus) with<br />a brand new 80 or 110mm lens from KEH listed as "LN", by the way, for<br />$200-300) – and ‘down by the *bay you can find other even better deals [buyer<br />beware as always].<br>

Anyway my best advice is to look at<br />how YOU compose/shoot and decide which film/camera format (645, 6x6, 6x7, or<br />even 6x9. I have had great scans sof 120<br />Fujichrome (20-30MP equivalent).<br>

Oh well, just my $0.02.<br>

Good luck<br>

Derek</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YsZS"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 12, 2011; 07:16 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Q.C., I have no idea where you would get a "full" 500C/M that you would actually want for $300 sans lens. [...]"</em><br /><br />It may be luck helping me, but i do not find it that hard. I don't buy many cameras, backs or and lenses. The last two i bought were a perfect condition Moon landing anniversary EL/M body for (converted using today's exchange rate) $ 270. And a very good 500 C (only needed to have a part of the vinyl covering replaced - got that from Cameraleather as part of a full set, so rather too expensive for just that single, one bit of vinyl. But still...) i bought for (better sit down now) $ 98 Canadian (= US $ 103 today).<br />Both including all relevant bits, but without lens and magazine. Both last year. Both off eBay.<br /><br />As for lenses: i put together a nice chrome C lens set - 50, 80, 120, 150 and 250 mm - for someone. And except for the flash synch of the 80 mm, all working perfectly. Surprisingly good looks too. And excellent condition glass as well. Would not have minded having and using those myself.<br />I have not paid as much as Eu 200 (about $ 280) for any single one of them.<br /><br />Backs: to go with the 500 C, i found a NIB manual 12 magazine for $ 46. Had to change the light seals (since i do that myself, about $1 and 10 minutes), and then it really was like new.<br /><br />In short: yes, it certainly can be done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are not 500C/Ms, Sir :) The ELs go for quite a bit less than the non-electronic versions due to the extra size and weight (and weirdo batteries), and the 500Cs are much cheaper than the C/Ms. They are mechanically indentical (I think the only difference is a user-replacable screen on the C/M), but they are generally much older cameras.</p>

<p>I'm not saying those aren't good deals, mind you. I'm just saying that's not the $300 500 C/M kit you told me you could get :)</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

You are right, Zack. Those were not 500 C/Ms. I just took the last two Hasselblad cameras i bought as an example.<br>However, though the EL(...) models do indeed sell for less, an anniversary model (though nothing more than a regular one with a plaque attached) usually sells for more than 500 C/Ms.<br>I don't agree that 500 Cs "are much cheaper". Or rather, i haven't noticed they do in my 'market watching' activities. I haven't notice any big difference in price between 500 C and 500 C/Ms, apart from the one the 'usual' spread in price will show: you come across people asking twice to three times as much as other people do for comparable 500 C/Ms (or any other model). But that difference between your and my view could be due to variations in where we watch, when we watch and what we watch to get an impression of what the market does.<br><br>Now i feel challenged to get a complete, working 500 C/M set for about $ 300 ... ;-)<br><br>Prices vary a lot, and given time and a tiny bit of luck, i'm sure that i could do that though. Price variation is something you need to be able to judge.<br>A large part of the wide range of asking prices for (seemingly?) similar camera bodies reflects the sentiment of the seller: does he/she think the camera being sold is a priceless bit of machinery, destined to make him/her rich in one single transaction? Or is the thing being sold as an obsolete bit of metal, a thing in the way of the new digital gear that's now in use? But an also not insignificant part of it reflects condition. Quite a few sellers not only know the condition of the the gear they are selling, but (luckily) also are not that unscrupulous to hide the fact, but let the asking price reflect the condition. Something the buyer needs to be able to appreciate and judge correctly.<br><br>One other thing to keep in mind: though the difference in age between a 500 C/M and 500 C can be as much as 37 years, it can also be as small as 1 year. The difference in age between a 500 C and a 500 C/M can well be smaller than that between two 500 C/Ms.

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi<br>

No matter the age, being able to change the focusing screen and to use one with a grid can be of interest to someone that does a lot of cityscapes.</p>

[andre_noble5]

A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5

 

A 6x7 negative is a full format larger than 6x4.5

 

Therefore a 6x7 ngative is really a full format larger than 6x6 when printing 5x7 or 8x10 16x20.

 

Finally Mamiya RB has a 6x8 motor back that puts 9 images from a 120 roll on a single contact sheet.

 

In short camera fanatics prefer Hassy 6x6. Discerning Photographers prefer Mamiya RZ, RB, and Mamiya 7 6x7.

[charles_h2]

<p>Hey Ray:<br>

It's always a loaded question when asking which is the better choice. All the top brands are wonderful. That's why they are top brands. Several posters will be objective and answer your questions and concerns. Many of the people here will make grand statements, about the equipment, as if it's a religious experience, that they can't backup. Negative size, quality of glass, and all that other bull is secondary to you finding a good camera that fits your style and budget.<br>

Great photographers have shot with all the cameras mentioned. If you're proficient with post processing, whether wet or dry darkroom. You can get a masterpiece out of any camera...Like the old saying, "It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Get a camera that works, then work to get the images that please you.<br>

Who the hell cares what paintbrush Picasso used?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Like the old saying, "It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog". Get a camera that works, then work to get the images that please you. Who the hell cares what paintbrush Picasso used?"</i><br><br>Picasso did.<br><br>If it's the fight in the dog that counts, it pays to take care to select the right dog.<br><br>Anyone who thinks the quality and peculiarities of the tool do not matter hasn't mastered the craft enough to notice how they do.<br><br>Must be some sort of religious experience that makes people profess publicly that they believe that the tool does not matter.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Discerning photographers, Andre, do not let their composition be dictated by the confection sizes paper comes in. Not back when photos would indeed end up on paper. Not now, when most aren't.<br>6x6 images do not end up cropped to 6x4.5, unless you want then to be. I'm looking at a beautiful image made by David Smith at the bottom of this page. Can't imagine what practical purpose would dictate it should be cropped to an oblong size. Maybe you can enlighten us, tell us what we're missing here, Andre? ;-)<br><br>P.S.<br>Things change fast: the image is gone, but replaced (for now) by another nice square composition by David.<br>Maybe it will have disappeared too when you or i return to the page. But don't let that make you lose sight of the point, being that only camera fanatics obsess about format, say silly things about "discerning photographers" preferring a particular format. Free your mind of such silly thoughts, Andre, and let the concern about the image take precedence over such gear oriented silliness. ;-)

[charles_h2]

<p>There are painters who have done masterpieces without using the brushes that Picasso used.<br />But maybe they should had you around to tell which ones were right. Your bias is beyond belief. My point is there are many fine cameras one can buy, not just the one you advocate. The right tool(s) are subjective.<br>

I stated that the tools were secondary. I never said they didn't matter.....Imagination and creativity...where do you buy those at?</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I'm largely with Andre on this one. If you actually use it, 6x7 feels like a whole new world over 645 and 6x6.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the OP is right: the RB/RZ are way heavier than 'blads. The 'blad is a truly lovely design, fits the hand perfectly, and if you can compose to the square, makes brilliant prints.</p>

<p>The correct thing to do is to use both. Oh, yes. At least at KEH, used 'blads are holding their value quite nicely. I'm sure you can find "deals" on 'blads on ebay, but there's no guarantee that it'll work and you're on your own if something goes wrong. In the ten or more years that people have been claiming that used camera prices are dropping, no camera you would actually want to use has dropped in price at all.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What bias would that be, Phil? What did i advocate?<br>See the bias ("bull") that is dominating your (!) thinking?<br><br>Anyhow: it's a silly (to put it mildly) suggestion that the tool would not matter. It does.<br>Which tool is right for the job depends on what you want, and what you like. Of course it does. But don't take that to mean that all considerations regarding equipment is "bull".<br>It "is the fight in the dog". So select your dog carefully.

[charles_h2]

<p>Apparently Mr. de Bakker you didn't read my original post carefully. First, it wasn't addressed to you. It was (if I have the right to an opinion) about several post and the fact that all the top brands can produce excellent results, and he (Ray) should find one that fits his taste and budget. There were some grand statements about which ones were better, and I still say that's (bull) It was not directed at you, and the fight in the dog was in reference to hard work and creativity, thus the reference to post processing.<br>

I'm just sorry you weren't around to steer me in the right direction, when I got started.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Ray. One thing you do want to consider is the cost of scanning. Paying others quickly gets expensive - in Canada I

was paying about $30 for good 6x8 scans and not a lot less for 645. I then bought an Epson which probably can be

made to give good scans but I found it very slow and tedious. Eventually I got a Nikon 9000 and glass holder which

solved my problems but cost $2,500. Whatever you decide you should factor scanning into your budget.

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The Hasselblad V system (500 etc.) uses leaf shutters, which have the advantage of flash sync at all the shutter speeds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andy L, thanks for confirming this!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(One of the usual suspect photo gear magazines did a review on Ektar 100 film a year or two ago, and made the mistake of getting a guy who doesn't actually shoot 120 film to review the 120 version - so he pulled his P67, which he hadn't used in probably 10 years, out of the back of his closet and shot a roll in the studio with flash using 1/60 shutter. Then he couldn't figure out where to take the film for processing, even though he lives in NYC, and when he finally succeeded he had frames that were half blacked out by the non-synced shutter. At least the guy who reviewed the 35mm version was good.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, brother! And we're supposed to pay for advice from these clowns!</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>One final thought: Many people say that the Mamiya RZ and RB are studio only cameras. They say this primarily because the cameras are boxy and have zero sex appeal compared to Rollei, Hassy, etc.<br>

Appearances are deceiving: these are precision crafted machines with very sharp optics with beautiful bokeh.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I have a Epson V700 scanner. I might get a used Coolscan 8000 as they are cheaper. My 35mm isn't that sharp with my present V700.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Ysmz"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4540672">Andre Noble</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jun 13, 2011; 12:14 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5<br>

A 6x7 negative is a full format larger than 6x4.5<br>

Therefore a 6x7 ngative is really a full format larger than 6x6 when printing 5x7 or 8x10 16x20.<br>

Finally Mamiya RB has a 6x8 motor back that puts 9 images from a 120 roll on a single contact sheet.<br>

In short camera fanatics prefer Hassy 6x6. Discerning Photographers prefer Mamiya RZ, RB, and Mamiya 7 6x7.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Define 'discerning photographers.' I would bet money that there's an almost 50/50 split between magazine photographers that use Hasseys and RBs, and has been since the RB came out. Does that mean that Leibovitz and Mapplethorpe are not discerning photographers? Or does that mean that RB users are less discerning than 4x5 users? Or that no one actually prefers the square format?</p>

<p>Personally, I bought a Hasselblad because I like 1950s and 60s photography, and couldn't afford to shoot and scan 4x5. But now I prefer the square format.</p>

 

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p> Hi Ray<br>

There is no doubt that flatbeds are not the best film scanners you can find, but the ones you can call the best are too expensive, as the bill a specialized service will charge you if they use drum, Imacon or Hasselblad scanners (don't even atempt to check the price of one of these...).<br>

Nikon is now out the film scanner market.Models like the 8000 or 9000 got a good reputation but prices for used scanners are not the "softer" ones, as far as I can understand.<br>

Ref to your V700, as a flatbed the larger the negative the better and 35mm is not its best format for it. Also, some people try to "squeeze" quality and end up with not so good results as if they use the scanner at lower resolutions.<br>

Probably it is not your case but I leave you links to an interesting V750 review (but most things also apply to V700). Besides being interesting to read it all, the first one goes direct to a page referring 35mm and the second to MF:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_4.htm">http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_4.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm">http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm</a><br>

Your opinion about V700 and 35mm film reminds me of Paul Gallagher, a UK Fine Art photographer that says he uses a V750 to scan his LF (4x5”) and MF (6x7, he uses a Mamya RB67) negatives but hás some doubts about it being “good enough” for 35mm ( but we don’t know if he’s considering large prints and exhibition quality or not).<br>

Regards,</p>

<p> </p>

[david_smith35]

<p>"A very important thing to realize about 6x6 is that for all practical purposes, you will be cropping to 6x4.5"<br />Why? I almost never crop an image - virtually everything I do is composed as a square, and I see nothing wrong with that. 6 X 6 wins hands down every time over 645 in my opinion, especially for projection.</p>

[frank_major]

<p>Hi Ray,<br>

Not sure you're still checking in on this thread, but as has been alluded to, prices are on the rise. Last year, almost to the day, i bought a EX Cond RB67 Pro-S w/WLF from KEH for $149. Today, 17June2011, the same item is $349 - $200 increase in 1 year!!! I'm super happy with my RB67, but for your stated purpose maybe the Hassie is the way to go - format notwithstanding.</p>

<p>I have a total of $520 (including all shipping charges) invested in my RB67 Pro-S system. This comprises the Pro-S body w/WLF, Sekor C 180mm lens, Sekor C 65mm lens, and 120 Pro-S back - all in EX condition except my 65mm is like new and the most expensive item at $200. </p>

<p>Unlike many, i use my RB67 Pro-S on the street albeit with the superb Tamrac N45 padded leather camera strap. However, *most* folks aren't willing to carry 'inconvenient' stuff around like i am. Maybe one of the Bronica camera's would satisfy your Medium Format cravings? </p>

<p>As has been mentioned, you will eventually gravitate to what you initially wanted in the 1st place. If thats a Hassy, just go there right away, suffer the pain and ENJOY IT!!! I went through this same dilemma, was willing to 'spend' (the weight of the Mamiya RB67 Pro-S +backs and lenses) to accomodate my choice and am sooooo pleased with my choice.</p>

<p>As to the quality of Hassy/Zeiss lenses vs Mamiya, well thats simply a choice of taste as there are superb photographers/artists in both lines. The issue of format size does matter, but again, if excellent results are available with both, the amount of up-sizing won't matter too much.</p>

<p>For me, the P67II was a no-go consideration from the beginning based on user's accounts of tripod-rocking mirror slap (and my preference for a WLF and integrated bellows rack).</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Thanks, yeah .. I think maybe the Hassie might be the way for me. While SLR might be more practical. I do like a box system than a SLR for the experience factor. It is more smaller than many 6x7. It is also square format which is the same horizontal or vertical, more simplicity but smaller neg size. </p>

<p>Could be my own Xmas gift this year with just one back and one lens.<br>

Really want to transfer most of my 135 work to 120 :D</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Just found this thread again ... Ray, the Hassy was my Christmas gift to myself two years ago. If you like some of that 'old camera' look, feel free to save some money and buy a C lens instead of the newer CF lenses. Do buy a hood though - you should always have one.</p>

<p>Also, you can save some $60-$100 by buying a Kiev waist-level finder instead of the Hassy version. It fits without any problems, although it's a bit more fiddly to get it open; sometimes it doesn't pop up just right, and I need to readjust the sides before I can use the magnifier. Still, it's a good-sized discount, so it's probably worth considering. If nothing else, the savings will pay for the lens hood.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You can save even more by not buying a camera without a finder.<br>Cameras with finder (and focussing screen and wind knob or crank - alll these parts should be included. Why even rear and front protective covers are often included for no extra charge) do not sell for more than those you have still to find the missing parts for.<br>People who sell all the parts that go together do so to maximize their profit, and you do know when buying an 'undressed' camera that you are being 'fleeced'. So boycot such sales. You'll thank yourself for doing so.

[zack_zoll]

<p>I dunno Q.G. That may be true for personal sales, but when I bought my Hassy 2 years ago I saved about $50 by getting a 'body only' from KEH, and buying a back and Kiev WLF on ebay. Fifty dollars doesn't seem live a lot, but when the final price is $300, $50 is a pretty good amount of savings. I probably could have shaved off even more, if I had gone with a 'bargain' body instead of the 'very good' body. I saved about $100 between back and finder, and then spent an extra $50 on a nicer body.</p>

[frank_major]

<p>It seems KEH is in the business of exploding *everything* and selling, for as much profit as possible, all the bits and bobs for each separately. They do offer "outfits" and that can be a great way to go if they have what you're looking for.</p>

<p>I was really frustrated that my EX Mamiya Pro-S body didn't come with body caps - they were an additional buy for around $20. The camera is really more in VG condition cosmetically and mechanically EX (it came with new light seals), but to me a camera body is 'complete' only if it has caps - just as it came from the factory (same for lenses). Maybe there were other bodies available w/caps for a higher price - meaning mine was cheaper b/c it didn't have caps....</p>

<p>I've otherwise got great buys on the big auction site - but it requires the buyer to be very, very well informed about the item you're interested in (it's known quirks/faults - what to look for/avoid) and specifically the item for sale (as well as the Seller - unscrupulous or good).</p>