The Goldilocks Medium Format Camera

[tales of a flaneur]

<p>I've been through a Yashicamat 124G and a Pentax 645 and 645N over the past couple of years. Both the Yashicamat and the 645N died recently and I'm looking for the "perfect" medium-format camera.<br>

Essentially, I'd like a single camera that is:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lightweight - the Pentax 645N was too damn heavy, particularly after carrying the 35mm lens with the rest of the kit</li>

<li>Auto-focus</li>

<li>Medium format</li>

<li>Adept at portraits (e.g., not a fixed-lens wide-angle)</li>

</ul>

<p>Let's assume money isn't much of an object, has there ever been a camera made that fits the above profile?</p>

[franklin_polk]

<p>Lightweight pretty much rules out any SLR. AFAIK, there aren't any AF medium format rangefinder, so you're looking at a fancy p&s, and will probably not have interchangeable lenses. The only camera that I am aware of that meets these requirements is the Fuji GA645 series. You probably want the GA645Zi as the zoom lens is the only in the series that can offer more than a slightly wide lens. If you're willing to remove the AF requirement, there are a number of MF rangefinders that would be great, off the top of my head, the Mamiya 7(II) and the Bronica RF645 have great lenses and are pretty light.</p>

[KyleE]

<p>It sounds like the need for Autofocus is going to cause some troubles with your requirements. If you are ok with an SLR MF camera I have heard good things about the lightness and portability of the Hasselblad 500 and 501 cameras. </p>

[robert_raymer]

<p>I agree with Franklin. If you can remove the AF requirement the Mamiya 6 and 7 series are excellent cameras, the lightest you are likely to find and 6x7 at that. If you NEED autofocus, I would recommend the Mamiya AFD series. I have no experience with other brands, but there are other options in the AF 6x4.5 format. While I would not categorize my AFDii as "light", it is not noticeably heavier than my D2Xs and though the ergonomics are different, I can comfortable shoot with the AFDii for hours.</p>

[tales of a flaneur]

<p>Interesting. I'm fairly conversant with camera history and this was something of a last attempt to find a "perfect" medium format camera.<br>

I've considered the GA645Zi, though the orientation is vertical rather than horizontal. That's not particularly appealing ...<br>

An SLR appeals as I do a lot of closer portrait work, but would also prefer to retain the flexibility of going wide. I rather liked my Pentax 645N, it was just such a beast (and the prices for lenses are just silly now that Pentax have the 645D out on the market).<br>

It's a shame that something autofocus and light was never made before the plug was pulled on film cameras.<br>

The only other camera that meets my requirements would be the Hasselblad Hx series (I think) - though I suspect they're not really all that much lighter than the older 645's from Pentax/Contax/Mamiya, are they?</p>

[martin_dake]

<p>I thought the Fuji GA645 was autofocus.</p>

<p>I have a GS645, manual focus, and don't mind the portrait orientation as I find it easy and light enough to rotate the camera 90 degrees.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sounds to me like you're personally reliving the historical progression from large format to small format cameras.<br /> Maybe you ought to try one of the "baby" Rolleiflexes or some such? there are still some suppliers of 127 film.<br /> And, as a lightweight alternative, a nice 35mm rangefinder can be very nice. ;)</p>

<p>You can even get 35mm AF RF cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[stp]

<p>"Lightweight" is subjective. My Goldilocks medium-format camera, after trying several systems, is the Hasselblad H4D-40.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>You could just get a couple of 5 pound weights and do regular exercise to build up arm strength so you can use the heavy pentax 645. </p>

[tales of a flaneur]

<p>When I said price was no object ... well ... I'd prefer to spend less than £10,000. So that rules out the H4D-40.<br>

And I do exercise regularly, perhaps the problem is the bag I've been using? If I were to double-down on a 645 SLR (Pentax, Contax or Mamiya) and had two lenses (that Pentax 35mm manual focus is a beast), what would I comfortably carry it all in?<br>

As I said, I've used 35mm SLRs and rangefinders. My favourite, most reliable camera is my Hexar AF. I've also used a Pentax 645N for years (it's broken). And a Yashicamat 124G. So I am familiar with using different kinds of cameras.<br>

Perhaps a Hasselblad H1 or H2? Are they actually lighter than the 645s? </p>

[stp]

<p>My lightest camera, as well as one of the sharpest and most difficult to use, was the Mamiya 7II. I'd consider it the best choice when walking long distances. My all-around favorite when using film was the Pentax 645N(II), one that I still consider the best value (features for cost) in medium format. I got it because is was so light (relative to the 67). Preferences and perceptions are very subjective.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Most any digital MFD will be heavier than the film version ... digital backs are more dense and usually slightly deeper than the film back.</p>

<p>645s with prism finders are heavier than a 645 camera with a waist level finder for obvious reasons. </p>

<p>MF systems that use leaf shutter lenses add weight because the lenses tend to be heavier for obvious reasons. </p>

<p>Modular MF cameras tend to easier to transport in camera bags because you can break down the components and distribute the weight in the bag while traveling. </p>

<p>IMO, the historical "Goldilocks" MF camera you seek is the Contax 645. AF, Zeiss lenses (many fast aperture AF focal lengths like the 45/2.8, 80/2, 140/2.8 ... and the legendary MF 120/4 Macro). Totally modular SLR camera with a waist level finder that retains metering. Well dampened mirror assembly. Although discontinued, still serviced, and digital back makers continue to support the Contax 645 mount, including the latest Phase One and Leaf backs. A camera that punches well beyond its weight.</p>

<p>The Contax 645 was my MF weapon of choice until I moved to the modular Hasselblad H system because of its superior AF system, integrated digital systems approach, and ubiquitous availability of rental camera platform and system components.</p>

<p>RE: weight ... one has to be careful unless one uses a tripod for everything they shoot because a camera with some mass does contribute to a more stable hand-held experience.</p>

<p>I also agree that for a current MFD camera, the H4D/40 is hard to top. Best MF AF available (True Focus), excellent file quality even at ISO 1600, ingenious ability to set a delay on the mirror for hand held work. Expensive new, not nearly as bad if bought used. Wait until after Photokina and either the new Hasselblad mirrorless camera will be priced more reasonably, or the H4D/40 will be going for less used as early adopters rush to get the latest thing and sell their H4Ds with less than 1,000 exposures : -)</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[bwbob]

<p>Don't dismiss the Fuji GA 645zi out of hand. I've had one for years years and it is one camera I will not sell even though I'm doing mostly digital at this time. It is light and has AF. The vertical orientation was fine for portraits and rotating for landscapes was no big deal. I had a sucessful gallery showing of B&W images taken in Vietnam and Cambodia. The lens is super sharp and I used a tripod most of the time when the situation allowed. It also worked very well when hand held as there is no mirror slap. I copensated for relatively slow lens by using ASA 400 film. Goog luck with your search</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Essentially, I'd like a single camera that is:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lightweight - the Pentax 645N was too damn heavy, particularly after carrying the 35mm lens with the rest of the kit</li>

<li>Auto-focus</li>

<li>Medium format</li>

<li>Adept at portraits (e.g., not a fixed-lens wide-angle)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking your 2nd and 3rd criteria first - medium format and AF - narrows things down to one 6x6 SLR line (Rollei 6008AF and its successor, the Hy6), four 645 SLR lines (Mamiya 645AF*/DF, Contax 645, Pentax 645N*/D, Hasselblad H*), two sub-645 DSLRs (Leica S2 and Mamiya ZD), and a few Fuji 645 rangefinders. The "lightweight" criterion rules out all the SLRs/DSLRs, and "not a fixed-lens wide-angle" rules out all but one of the Fuji rangefinders. Voila - you're left with the Fuji GA 645zi! Which you already said you weren't keen on...</p>

<p>So I think you're going to have to compromise re. weight...</p>

<p>Not all the SLR systems are equally heavy. The Leica S2 is compact and must be the lightest body, probably followed by the older and much more affordable Mamiya ZD. The 645 and 6x6 bodies, once setup in similar trim (prisms), do not vary hugely in weight from each other. And you can cut the weight by substituting the prism viewfinder for a lighter WLF on the Contax, Hasselblad and Rollei - the Mamiya and Pentax have fixed prisms.</p>

<p>But the real weight differences are in the lenses. Rollei and Hasselblad lenses are heavier due to their leaf shutters. Contax and Leica lenses are heavier due to their precise internal AF motors and solid construction. Mamiya and Pentax lenses are generally the lightest and most compact - no leaf shutters, no AF motors. They both use body-screwdriver AF actuation, so the lenses must be light to reduce inertia, if the AF is to be responsive. It's telling that wherever Mamiya had two versions of the same focal length manual focus 645 lens, one faster than the other, they always chose the slower, lighter one when producing its AF version (80/1.9 & 80/2.8 -> 80/2.8 AF; 150/2.8 & 150/3.5 -> 150/3.5 AF; 200/2.8 & 210/4 -> 210/4 AF), or designed a new slower AF one from scratch (300/2.8 & 300/5.6 -> 300/4.5 AF). I once saw an article comparing the weights of Mamiya, Contax, and Hasselblad AF lenses - I wish I could find it now, but anyway the Mamiya lenses were often far lighter than the other two.</p>

<p>Now you didn't say whether you wanted a film-only camera, or a film/digital hybrid, or a digital-only camera. Medium format encompasses all these possibilities and they're all represented in my list above. I'll assume that you meant that it must be capable of shooting film...</p>

<p>So we're back to your Pentax 645N/NII...or a Mamiya 645AFD. For your 4th criterion, portraits, the Mamiya has a nice, light, affordable 150/3.5 AF lens. And its 35/3.5 AF lens is pretty light (but not the best lens in the lineup). And it can take digital backs too. If I'm on a photographic walkabout, I routinely carry a Mamiya 645AFD, old Kodak digital back (Marc is right, they are significantly heavier than film backs), one of the heavier AF lenses (55-110/4.5 zoom), and something wider (manual focus 35/3.5 or 24/4 fisheye). Sometimes I'll also add something longer (200/2.8 APO). That's a very capable outfit and I can certainly cope with the weight.</p>

<p> </p>

[tales of a flaneur]

<p>Thank you so much for the incredibly reasoned and well-informed responses. I'm really very grateful. I suppose we've all read this site and others and have a geeky knowledge of what's out there, but the people who really did take me on a bit of a journey through trade-offs and such - thank you.</p>

<p>I only use film (I'm mourning the final loss of Plus-X at the moment), though one day (soon?) digital will be on the menu, too.</p>

 

<p>Since I'm a little reluctant to sink heaps of ££ so soon after losing a Pentax 645N, I think I may actually try my luck with a Fuji GA 645zi. £450-£500 isn't all that much to spend on what seems like a very capable camera. I'll have to get over holding it vertically to produce a horizontal image. And that slow lens.</p>

<p>I'll see how my bank balance goes over the next year. I'm still wondering if I should just get a Hasselblad H-series, but I do tend to wander around fairly sketchy places. Unsure how I'd cope with losing £2500+ of kit.<br>

<br>

The Contax 645 and, to a lesser extent, the Mamiya 645AFD also intrigues and I shall try and find one to examine in person.</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>Insurance is cheap protection to cover your loss worry. If you are not shooting for pay, check with an agent about adding the camera system as a rider on an existing policy. If you work for pay, then that does NOT work ... you need commercial coverage.</p>

<p>I have used both the Mamiya AFD/AFD-II and the Contax 645 ... IMO the Contax is the better solution to explore because it is more modular (prism finder or waist level finder choices) ... and if you can find one, the vacuum film back works wonders because it keeps the 120 film flat against the platen ... especially valuable when shooting the fast aperture Contax/Zeiss lenses like the 80/2 and other f/2.8 optics. </p>

<p> </p>

[leonard_daneman1]

<p>A camera is a box, very lightweight; the lens and film transport are what add the weight. Medium format SLRs require larger lenses and film backs.<br>

Autofocus is a boon to cameras without 'glass' to focus on, i.e., rangefinders. However, anyone who uses medium format for portraiture knows that selective focus is critical, even moreso using portrait-length lenses, e.g., 135mm (6x6) or 150mm (6x7).<br>

Relegate AF to DSLRs, etc, and look to the last generation of 645's, like the Bronica and Fuji. If you realize selective focus is important, the Mamiya C330 has small lenses and minimal film transport issues.<br>

I scavenged around and got a Graflex XL system . . . totally mechanical rangefinder, or optional ground glass for critical focus. The rangefinder may be accurate enough at times.</p>