what would be your med-format choice if you were to upgrade from your Leica-M?

[sparkie]

Would it be the Mamia 7 II, the bronica RF, x-pan?, or?? I'm looking for the most compact med-format camera

with fast lenses and rugged construction. IF ONLY Leica made a MF camera! Whats the next best thing?

[al_kaplan1]

Koni-Omega. Or the original Omega 120, if you want that classic look to your B&W photos, but unlike the Koni's it doesn't have interchangeable lenses. For wide angle pix I'd get a Brooks Plauble Veriwide 100 with it's 47mm f/8 Super Angulon and Leitz made finder, really a relabled 21mm finder. Takes 7 shots, 2.25x3.5 inches on a roll of 120, 100 degree coverage, in a very compact body.

[lct__]

Sinar M with Sinarback 54:

 

<center> <img border=2

src="http://idisk.mac.com/pynicolas/Public/SinarM.jpg">

</center>

 

Not that cheap i'm afraid ;-)

[stuart d]

I'm trying out a Mamiya 7 w/ 65mm lens right now, and I'm mighty impressed at its capabilities. I also have a Bronica ETRSi, but that's going on the auction block very soon. For me, the 6x4.5cm negative/chrome isn't enough of an increase over 24x36mm to make it worth my while carrying such a bulky piece of equipment. In contrast, a 6x7cm chrome looks much more impressive on my lighttable than any of my 35mm chromes. The added plus of the Mamiya is that it can take a 35mm panorama adaptor, but the viewfinder doesn't do a good job with the panoramic framelines, leaving significant guesswork. I don't know whether Mamiya fixed that in the 7II. Oh, and the other potential watchout is that the meter is not TTL. I haven't found that to be a big deal, so far.

 

I think the Bronica RF is a 6x4.5cm format, so negative/chrome size is smaller than the Mamiya. And its viewfinder is portrait, not landscape, oriented. Fine if you're photographing people, but not so convenient for landscapes.

 

Finally the XPan isn't really a MF camera. Sure, it needs a MF enlarger to enable you to print full-frame, but it can't take 120/220 film. But then you knew that anyway. My friend who loaned me his Mamiya 7 also has an XPan, and he says it's the business for 35mm panoramas. No frameline issues there. It's certainly more compact than the other two cameras you mentioned, but you won't be able to take advantage of the larger format film.

 

The other option I have investigated is the Fuji GW/GSW 670 and 690 range. An economical solution loved by many, but these models do lack a light meter and interchangeable lenses.

 

And finally, back on the panorama theme, Lutz Konermann recently posted his findings with a 35mm Noblex camera. You might want to check it out.

 

As for lenses, none of them have really fast lenses, at least not by 35mm standards. I think you have to go with the 6x6 format Hassies for that. But remember, with a larger negative/chrome, grain is less of an issue. I'm trying Ilford Delta 3200 in 120 right now, as I hear it has wonderful tonality. So faster film may be an option for you.

 

So, it all comes down to what you want to use the MF camera for. Panoramas or full frame 6x7 or 6x9 images? Fixed or interchangeable lenses? Portrait or landscape orientation?

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers, Stuart

[todd frederick]

Probably a good quality 6x7cm back for a 4x5" field camera.

[Troll]

Why would you possibly think that going fromn 35mm to 120 is an upgrade? Seems going backwards to me!

[paul hart]

"I'm looking for the most compact med-format camera with fast lenses and rugged construction."

 

Of the alternatives you list, I only have experience of the Mamiya and it comes close to satisfying your criteria. Mine is the 6MF, which has the advantage over the 7 that the lens mount collapses into the body, making it significantly more compact. I don't know why they abandoned that with the 7 - possibly for reasons of cost.

 

Build quality is not quite Leica standards, but if it was I suspect it would be too heavy on the neck as well as the pocket.

 

If I had to choose between my Leica and my Mamiya, the Leica would go. Transparencies taken with the Mamiya show a degree of definition, colour saturation and gradations that I don't see with the Leica slides, good as they are.

 

In Ken Rockwell's review, he calls the Mamiya 6 'the world's best camera system' and the Mamiya 7 'the world's second best camera system': see http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mf.htm

 

It's a bit adulatory, but I think he has a point!

[rolfe_tessem]

Rolleiflex 2.8F

[bobtodrick]

I agree with Bill. I use Leica rangefinders because much of my work is done in extremely low light, and requires me to be unobtrusive. As well the 'look' I like includes a lot of grain. I can't think of a single medium format camera that would fulfill my needs so they would in fact be a step backwards. Different tools for different jobs.

[djphoto]

I second (or is it third?) the Mamiya 6. I sold mine several years ago and have been kicking myself ever since. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!!

[doug_landrum]

You might try a 6X6 TLR to see if you like MF. Rolleis are now overpriced in my opinion. You might try a Mamiya or Yashica (sp?)used TLR picked up cheap - Though I have always coveted a Rollei 6008i with a range of lenses from 40mm to 150mm. The market for new MF must be terrible - the prices are dropping like crazy.

[jay_.]

IMO there is no comparison between medium-format image quality and 35mm regardless of brand. If there were a small, light, compact hand-holdable medium format SLR with interchangeable lenses I'd own it and all my Leica would be gone. My choice of MF is Hasselblad but unless I use a tripod and lock the mirror up the results are below 35mm. The only hand-holdable MF I own is a Rolleiflex, and the fixed lens is restrictive. I find a rangefinder is hard for me to guage DOF with MF because it's shallower than 35mm at given angles of coverage. I had a Horseman VH-R and had the same difficulty with a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder, so the Mamiya 6/7 never appealed to me. I did own a Fuji 645 Zoom P&S which was a nice party snapshot camera but the DOF issue and the slow lens and vertical orientation made it cumbersome for general use. My guess is that in the near future the high-res (read: 24-30MP)digicams will settle this issue once and for all.

[douglas_green1]

I can speak knowledgeably about Mamiya 7 and Koni Omega. Both are extremely high quality systems from the standpoint of the image rendered on film. FYI, Bill, both of these systems will produce FAR sharper images with better tonal range than any 35mm Leicas will. The limitation is simply the film, and the 6x7 format gives over 4X the useable area. Alas, there will be almost none of that grain YOU seek, unless you go out of your way to select film and developing techniques that highlight the grain.

 

As for the relative merits of the 2 systems, I personally just SOLD my Mamiya 7, and kept my Koni Omega gear, mainly because the relative cost of Koni-Omega stuff in the used market is 10 cents on the dollar, compared to Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 is more elegant, lighter, and SLIGHTLY more ergonomic to use, but it is not anywhere close to comparable on a $ for $ basis. If I were a full-time Pro, or a Multi-millionaire, I would get the Mamiya 7 system.

 

But, as a hobbyist, I couldn't justify the fact that were I to get all the Mamiya 7 gear that I wanted, I'd have spent $5000 on it - buying it used on an Auction Site . Meanwhile, I got a comparable complete Koni-Omega system for ~ $800, including 3 backs, 3 lenses (58, 90, 180) and 2 bodies. And the two systems are VERY comparable with one-another in terms of overall capability. The Mamiya has the advantage of auto-exposure, and is a CLEAR winner on elegance, but the Koni Omega takes EQUALLY good pictures, and because it has interchangeable backs, allows easy access to different film types in the field. It's certainly heavier than the Mamiya 7, but the grip is outstanding ergonomically, so it can hand hold quite reasonably.

 

So, bottom line is, the Mamiya 7 is the best MF RF system out there, but the Koni-Omega is darn near as good, and represents far better value in the used market, for all but the very affluent or the completely dedicated pro.

[paul_chefurka1]

MF isn't an "upgrade" from Leica any more than a saw is an "upgrade" from a screwdriver. As others have said, entirely different tools for entirely different applications.

 

That said, if there was anything I wanted to shoot in MF, I'd definitely choose an SLR - that way of viewing just makes more sense to me for the kinds of things I'd likely use it for. I also like square format, so I'd probably just go for a 'blad. For lenses, I'd take a 50 (probably the 4.0) and the 110/2.0 and I'd be all set. Fortunately, there's nothing I want to shoot that requires MF, so I'm saved from another account-emptying experience :-)

[roger_michel]

unfortunately the mamiya 6/7/7II are largely plastic cameras that do not in any way replicate the rugged feel of the leica. none of the SLRs are as stealth or compact as you likely desire. the sad truth is that, in the MF world, to get some of the leica qualities (compactness, stealth, build quality, fastish lenses, no shutter vibe) you have to go to a fixed lens camera. for wide, the choices are numerous, and this is where MF really exceeds leica in almost every dept. try the blad swc/m, the brooks veriwide, the graflex xlsw with the 47/5.6, the paqpro from s.k. grimes (a true materpiece that gets NO attention), or a horseman sw612. for longer focal lengths, the flex is hard to beat. using the waist level is a great way to get street candids. it is very quiet and all the later lenses are sharp. also very good is the bessa II and the various zeiss super ikontas. these are superb folding cameras. the 6x9 format is my favorite medium format size. what a great neg to work with!! other good choices include the various linhof baby techs and 70s with RF, the graflex xl, the rapid omega, and the mamiya press. all are built like tanks with RF and quiet leaf shutters. the ONLY interchangeable lens system that might suit you is the superb mamiya tlr series. from the basic flex to the 330, all are great cameras. the later black MC lens pairs are amazingly sharp and come in lengths from 55 to 250. this is a great system if a little bulky.

[Allen Herbert]

Down-Grade you mean. Never felt the need to wander around with a Wheel Barrow.

[jhodges]

I've been looking at two different cameras lately. A Fuji GA645Zi and a Rolleiflex TLR. The Fuji is an autofocus rangefinder with a zoom lens. Decent looking cameras and they can be had for good prices on eBay or KEH. And you don't have to worry about buying more lenses. Then there is my anti-technology side (Leica M2, '74 914) that says the Rolleiflex would be the best bet. So I'm stuck for now, content to use my M2.

 

John

[steve_brantley2]

Well I'm surprised that this forum doesn't have a consensus on the "Texas Leica", being the Fuji 6x9.

 

I myself prefer my 1954 Rolleiflex TLR.

[frank_horn]

The Fuji 690 is a fine value in MF, but you best be doing your own film processing and printing. Better to have the 670, otherwise. The older Rollei TLRs are good, but very costly. My 3.5E with Xenotar was flare-prone.

 

The MF I would be interested in, isn't made. It would be a 6x4.5 film in horizontal mode, perforations on each side, like 35mm. Cameras would be between the Leica M5 and Fuji 670/690 in size. The film would be in canisters, like 35mm, 15 & 30 exp rolls.

 

If I had to have a MF today, it'd be the Fuji 670III. It would do 95% of what I need a camera to do. It wouldn't destroy my budget.

[andy_sprauer]

I have the Fuji 670III Pro & it is the best rangefinder medium format I've ever used. My second medium format is Mamiya RB67 Pro S. I like the Mamiya 7II, but the camera is battery dependent.

[majid]

As others have said, I wouldn't consider larger formats an "upgrade". If I were to get a MF camera, it would be either the Fuji GSW 690 III or a Rolleiflex 6008. But why stop at medium format? A Toyo-View 45CF 4x5 foldable field camera is relatively light with its carbon fiber chassis, takes 4x5" negatives for even better quality, and is actually quite cheap at $550, add $600 for a 150mm Schneider Apo-Symmar.

[godfrey]

When I went to medium format, it was because my digicam had taken over most of what I used to use 35mm for and, if I wanted/needed to make larger than average prints, I needed something that I could get more pixels from with greater tonal qualities. I borrowed a Hasselblad superwide and fell in love with it, traded my Leica M kit for a late-model 903SWC, and have not looked back.

 

I also use a Hassy 500CM with 80mm lens and occasionally one of a couple of medium format eye level cameras (Fuji GA645, Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta A and B).

 

The Sony F707 digicam continues to be my most used camera now, however. For modest sized prints, its imaging qualities and capabilities are very robust. For a pocket film camera, I generally choose the Rollei 35S which is for all intents and purposes identical to a Leica CL with Summicron-C 40mm lens in image qualities but half the size.

 

Godfrey

[fotografz]

Sparkie, is this just a speculative question? Or are you thinking of

aquiring a M/F kit? If you are seriously getting one I'd be glad to offer

user observations on just about any of them (e-mail me off forum).

 

Based on the critera you outlined, the only MF system that offers fast

lenses and a similar lens signature to Leica is the Contax 645. The

standard lens is f/2, and there is a 45/2.8 & 140/2.8...all AF/MF lenses

that you can also use on a Contax 35mm body while retaining all camera

functions, including AF (i.e.; one set of lenses for 645 and 35mm).

[larry_horricks__prague__cz1664876400]

Sparkie...

 

What is your reason for wanting to change from 35mm to Medium format, this might give us and yourself some insight into what might be a good choice, or if its really something you want or need to do. If you like your Leica so much that you wished they made a MF version, I'm very curious as to your reasons...has the type of work your doing changed to really require a larger neg...do you want to work in square, if so that narrows things down considerably. One thing for sure its not an upgrade, its a different world. I have seen so many people do this for all the wrong reasons, spend a fortune and dump it all months later. Not to imply that you dont know what your doing, it just seems odd that work that suits well the use of a Leica rangefinder would be suited better by MF. There is nothing in my line of work that would be improved by going to MF. I use my Rollei-wide TLR for doing Dynamic portaits of Actors or Artists I work with on the movie set and for some of my personal work. Its a different medium for a different way of communicating. They cant be compared.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Larry

[al_kaplan1]

I should have mentioned this in my earlier post about the Koni-Omega. The framelines are not only corrected for parralax but automaticly correct for the lesser coverage at closer distances.