Bellows in SLRs

[dean_da_silva]

<p>I have to ask, do those bellows wear out quickly, or do they last a long time provided I keep the camera clean and dry?<br>

Are there medium format SLRs that don't have bellows in them, or should I not worry about the bellows?</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>If the focusing mechanism is in the interchangeable lens, no bellows, like Pentax 645, 67, Hasselblad.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>Last a long time but are not indestructible. It's one thing to pay attention to, when buying a used camera.</p>

[tree]

<p>My RB67 was built in the mid-1970s and the bellows are in fabulous shape. If you take care of them they'll last a long time.</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>Alright cool, I was looking at the RB67.<br>

The only thing that I kinda am wondering about when it comes to medium format SLRs is would they be appropriate for moving around with a tripod? I have heard that the Mamiyas are really heavy, but they are the most affordable of the SLRs that I have found- based on KEH prices. The only way I could do better is if there is an adapter to let me use the Hasselblad body and the Mamiya lenses.<br>

Does an adapter like that exist or is it not possible?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Mamiya RB lenses could theoretically be used on a Hasselblad, but it would be pointless:<br>

(i) You would still need about 3cm of spacer between the lens and the body to get it to focus.<br>

(ii) You would need the spacer to incorporate a focusing helicoid or bellows, because the RB lenses don't have any focusing mechanism.</p>

<p>Your best bet, IMHO, is to decide whether you want squares or rectangles. Then buy the appropriate camera body, and get the best lens(es) you can afford.</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>Considering my pay isn't the best in the world, my hands are tied, I will probably end up going with the Mamiya.<br>

I have realized from surfing around the used places (especially KEH) that film costs aside, medium format is going to set me back NEARLY as bad as the DSLR land would have.<br>

I crunched the numbers, it looks like roughly... about 1000 dollars for the camera and the zoom lens from KEH.<br>

I am DEAD positive there are going to be lots of odds and ends I'll end up with.</p>

<p>Is it a normal sign of progressing (I am kinda new to photography still) that I find myself taking not as many pictures over all, but when I do the number that are worth keeping is much higher?<br>

Granted, I still have a long way to go, but what got me hooked on medium format is literally buying a decent camera in medium land basically will last me FOREVER. I won't really have to worry about much except film and regular maintenance if the thing ever needs it- and from what I have been told/gathered it will outshine most digitals hands down in terms of image quality.<br>

Is my reasoning at least correct?</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Film will NOT save you money over digital.</p>

<p>The RB67 with a couple new lenses from KEH will be under 1000 dollars.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>Don't worry about bellows. Using a little common sense when handling your camera; operative caution here is to not grab the camera by the bellows, always handle the camera via the body.</p>

<p>With medium format, any thoughts of buying one brand of camera body, only to then try using lenses from another brand is basically unnecessary/unfruitful. Medium format demands quality lenses, so the manufacturers lenses for each model of camera are already of high quality. You really don't find lesser quality, kit lenses, in medium format, they're all pretty good, with quite a few from the various manufacturers having stellar performance. In RZ mount from Mamiya, the 50mm ULD, 110mm f:2.8, 140mm Macro, 180mm f:4.0, and 210mm APO come to mind.</p>

<p>A good tripod is recommended, and/or a sturdy mono pod is a nice addition, too.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Dean</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I won't really have to worry about much except film and regular maintenance if the thing ever needs it- and from what I have been told/gathered it will outshine most digitals hands down in terms of image quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really in my book. Getting 120 film processed is becoming increasingly difficult (without scratches, blotches and general lab incompetance). In addition to that you have to then get a good scanner if you are wanting to scan and that is no easy task these days (there are no good MF dedicated scanners at affordable prices currenly available new). Scanning itself is one of the major pains around, but can be done if you are dedicated.</p>

<p>I also hope you have tried carrying a RB67 around for some time and are willing to put up with its weight and size?</p>

<p>In my opinion, the only way for someone on a meagre budget to be assured of superior quality with MF over digital is if you have your own darkroom and are printing black and white. Otherwise I would get a sub $1000 DSLR and a couple of prime lenses.</p>

<p>There will be many who now disagree, but this is my opinion and I have been there and done that. I just think I am doing you a favor to correct what I think may be an overly rose-tinted view of MF photography.</p>

 

[dean_da_silva]

<p>In regards to the weight I don't mind. A 6-8 pound camera is small potatoes after having carried a 16 pound weapon in the military.<br>

Do that many labs miserably screw up on the development process? Crap... I live in a barracks, there is no way that I can have a dark room in this place, I think that my Sergeant would kill me for setting one up in here.<br>

I wont have a problem buying film or small stuff when the need arises, but as far as the development, I would have to trust a place that I can find in the area.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>Few comments--</p>

<p>(i) Robin makes a good point: 'there is no free lunch'. You can buy a good MF camera and lenses for ten cents on the dollar these days, but that is precisely because it's hard to find good processing.</p>

<p>(ii) MF makes sense if you have a certain style of working. If you can batch your work, mail order makes sense. I burn 6 - 12 rolls of 120 film several times a year (vacations), and mail them as batches to <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/">North Coast</a>. The rest of the time, I shoot 35mm, because I have excellent 35mm processing locally, but not 120. </p>

<p>OTOH, If you only shoot a roll here and a roll there, you need access to good local processing or your own darkroom. </p>

<p>(iii) North Coast will develop and do an 'enhanced scan' for 17 bucks and change. If you're shooting 10-on-120, this means every time you trip the shutter, it costs you two bucks. This adds up. There is no free lunch.</p>

<p>Their 'enhanced scan' is about 28Mp, saved as a jpg at a low compression setting. The files are 20 - 26MB and make a decent 11 x 14. If you want a bigger print, you might want to pay for a high quality rescan of the negative. Big prints are where medium format shines, and where it still (arguably) has an edge on most digital.</p>

<p>(iv) An RB/RZ is portable, but the weight of the camera + tripod gets old fast. In February I went on a three-day backpacking trip with my RZ, two lenses, two backs, and a tripod, but I felt every ounce and doubted my sanity after a few miles. I usually prefer a lighter camera for backpacking. YMMV.</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>Weight like I said, not an issue. I am used to wearing 100 pounds of gear.<br>

But your right about the costs. Two dollars a shot... I really think that at that rate... I might as well just get rid of my Rolleicord and stick to 35mm. I handed a roll to the photo developing shop on base and the folks that work in there gave me a crazy look and told me they can't help me.<br>

Basically I am starting to think that if I am going to spend a couple grand on a film camera, I might as well see how much Leica or M/F Nikon stuff I can get my hands on that I would enjoy using. <br>

Thank you all so much for the honesty.<br>

Your right about there not really being a free lunch. I just wish that there was a way that I could get the square image with out the hassle.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Dean, I also responded to your posting about your Rolleicord and gain the impression you may be having an attack of G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome). If you live in barracks, cannot process your own film or access a pro lab and have only a 35 mm processing service locally, this speaks strongly in favor of staying with 35 mm. It is great that you want more quality in your pictures, but take my advice, you will save yourself a lot of money if as a benchmarking exercise you take some pictures with a 35 mm camera on a tripod loaded with slow film and with the lens at an optimum aperture (let’s say f11). When you get the results back, ask yourself “Is this really so bad that I can’t live with it?” and if you find the picture quality OK, concentrate on the more creative aspects of photography, in particular deciding what interests you in particular and developing your own visual style, rather than rushing to spend your hard-earned cash on more cameras!</p>

 

[marc_batters]

<p>Dean,<br /> You mentioned earlier, that with film, you were slowing down your picture taking process, taking more time and care composing your shots, giving you more keepers. That's great. It improves your keeper ratio, and holds down your, cost-per-shot.</p>

<p>To save costs on the development side of things, when having medium format film processed, don't get individual prints, get preview contact prints. In 35mm, these prints are the size of postage stamps, but in MF, they're large wallet size prints. Then you can look at the prints, see how many keepers you have, if any, and only print enlargements of your stellar shots on that roll.</p>

<p>Operating this way, you can get your price per shot down to well under a dollar per shot, (excluding those you choose to enlarge). As others have suggested, mailing/ordering several rolls at a time holds down the shipping costs per shot, too.</p>

<p>As many local, Mom-and-Pop photo labs have shut down, several mail-order labs have actually seen their business grow. Check the recommendations of the different labs you can mail to, here on P-Net.<br /> http://www.photo.net/neighbor/subcategory-index?id=5&limit=f</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>David: You are so right about that. I am grateful that here in Korea selling my gear back to the shop really doesn't take TOO much of a dent out of my pocket. Your right, there really isn't anything wrong with 35mm. I think the reason I was attracted to the medium format SLRs was the idea that I could buy one and have that basically become the last camera that I ever buy. Then again, there are really nice 35mm cameras out there that thanks to the digital rush I could get at a good price. Hell, Leica SLRs even. <br>

Marc: How many shots is a healthy number to be taking a month to still have a good amount of practice put in? How much do you go out and shoot? I really don't have the luxury of high end photoshops everywhere I am stationed.<br>

One big thing that compelled me towards film besides the fact that the image quality was better was the challenge. I would so much rather have a basically clockwork camera that was NOT forgiving, and after playing around with the D3100 I have, I really learned fast that while digitals are cool there is one thing I cannot stand about them:<br>

They basically come with training wheels. Oh yeah, and the Debbie Digitals. I would prefer to distance myself from the camera clicking soccer moms, through skill, through quality, through the strive to perfect my craft. I would much rather have to spend my time falling on my face with a messed up roll of shots that I planned out well but screwed up because I did something wrong rather then the non-punishing double tap of the delete button. I like that film would MAKE me think about what I am taking pictures of more because I WONT have an infinity clip of film.<br>

That's just my two cents. You guys are awesome. Thanks so much for the advice.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm attaching a quick comparison of what you can expect from MF film compared to digital. It's in B&W because personally I think that this is the only refuge left for film to hide these days, and also because it reveals pure detail better.</p>

<p>Film used was PanF - about as fine-grained as you can get and with excellent acutance - in a Mamiya 645, while the digital camera was a modest (by today's standards) 12 Mp Canon 5D. Lenses were the standard 80mm on a Mamiya 645 and 50mm f/1.8 prime on the 5D. Film scanning was done at 4800ppi on a good-quality flatbed. Maybe a dedicated MF scanner would have squeezed a bit more detail from the film, but I suspect that grain artefacting would then have interferred with the overall quality. Digital image was processed from RAW in ACR, and about as much sharpening as they'd stand was applied to both images.</p>

<p>I think you'll agree that there's not a lot in it, but the film is starting to fall apart due to grain effects and lack of tonal separation. Smoothness of tone is easily won hands-down by the digital image, while the prize for dynamic range might have to go to the film. Detail rendering is about evens, but a fair bit of cloning had to be done to clean up the film. In colour I think that the overall impression of clarity and "cleanliness" would make digital the easy winner.</p>

<p>Yes, I know that 6x7 would give a bit more detail than 645, but the end result is not going to be astoundingly different. So my recommendation would be to look out for a used 5D or a new DX format DSLR for your money. There's no scanner to buy or scanning time to consider, and certainly no wet processing to worry about.</p>

<p>As for slowing down your photography and taking more time to consider lighting, composition and technique, that's down to self-discipline and working method; it has absolutely nothing to do with the camera or format used. I'd also like to repeat something that was said to me by an experienced and respected photographer when I was starting out. Quote: "You can't call yourself a photographer until after your first 5000 pictures." - whether you agree with that statement or not, there's a lot to be said for the instant feedback that digital gives, and for the fact that those first 5000 shots aren't going to cost a small fortune to get through.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sorry, attachment didn't seem to take. And I should mention that these are 100% sections from the very centre of the frames showing about 1/100th of the picture area.</p><div></div>

[miesnert]

I think a lot of people here are too negative.

 

There are still a lot of (very) good professional labs that process film in a good manner. These same labs usually have

hires scanners (imacon) which you can rent by the hour.

You could buy a epson flatbed for small scans and then rent a scanner once in a while to make big scans for printing

when you've got a couple of shots you really love.

Also some of these labs do still print wet if you'd prefer that.

Film costs money, but that is also a plus, it makes you think before you shoot (something medium format forces on you

anyway).

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I think a lot of people here are too negative. There are still a lot of (very) good professional labs ...</em><br />In general you are right, but don't forget Dean is on an army base in Korea!</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>Granted, I did fail to mention a couple things: Mail to the states is really fast believe it or not (since we have American addresses, it gets here at a pretty good speed), also (please no one make fun of me for this one) Lomography shops.<br>

I have NEVER been able to NOT find a Lomography shop where ever I went, and they sell MF film right next to 35mm, and a lot of them are able to process or through what ever hipster magic they possess cause you to have prints. <br>

Since I am using precision stuff instead of light leaking Holgas and the like, I will get precision shots from them- I know this because another TLR owning friend of mine was able to get VERY nice prints from them. If I cannot for some reason find a Lomo shop, I am sure that I can at least find a professional photography shop in the states somewhere.</p>

 

[karl_b.1]

<p>Dean.<br>

If you have a Rolleicord then get out there and use it !</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I have a 45 year-old Mamiya C3 still with its original bellows. I rack the bellows in and out a few times once in a while to stop the folds sticking together. Bellows usually fail because they get damp and infested with fungus, or they get damaged by sharp objects/rough handling.</p>

[dean_da_silva]

<p>Karl,<br>

I do- it's just that there is a warm and fuzzy place in my heart for SLRs.<br />I have a feeling that if I invest in a good medium format SLR I will basically have an outstanding camera that will last me for life. <br /><br />The Rolleicord is awesome when I am going out NOT expecting to take pictures but do anyways, but for when its planned or anticipated something I can change lenses with to fit the situation would make it even MORE awesome.<br>

Don't get me wrong, I am hooked. I love that dang Rollei.</p>

[frank_major]

<p>Dean - as has been mentioned, 120 developing is not as hard as commonly thought *if* you have access to the US market (you do through APO). It's gonna cost more $, frame for frame, than a Debbie Digi, but since it's your hobby the extra $ will be thoroughly enjoyable and you can still get great scans outta your negs for initial viewing and go BIG if there's something you like.</p>

<p>You can buy some great C-41 color films (Ektar 100, etc) as well as B&W (Ilford XP2 Super at least, but other markets may have Fuji Neopan 400CN as well). If you grow into wanting to develop your own (maybe after current Duty Station) you can always check into local universities which may have photography classes/clubs/darkroom access.</p>

<p>I bought a RB67 Pro-S body w/WLF, couple lenses (180mm Sekor C and 65mm Sekor C), 1x 120 Pro-S back (needed new light seals - no biggie to DIY) and an awesome strap for about $520 total - everything is spectacular condition. I still use my 35mm gear but really, really love my RB67! Nothing like it.</p>