Camera Recommendations

[simon_hill1]

<p>Hi, I've just joined and hope you can help. I did have a browse through the forum beforehand.<br>

I'd like a film camera for portraits. I don't need flash or AF. I'm happy using the zone system to set exposure. However, I know little about medium format cameras. I prefer the SLR form factor, but am not entirely against a TLR. I've seen shots taken with a Mamiya 645 AFD and 80mm lens at f/2.8 that look great to my eyes, but this camera is too expensive right now. My budget is ~£500 / $750USD. Many thanks.</p>

[ken_kuzenski]

<p>Simon, if you ask 10 photographers about this, you'll get 11 opinions. :-) Personally, I find 645 a bit small and I genuinely like the square 6x6 format. I'd suggest you get an inexpensive "starter MF" camera; use it for a few months and you'll have a MUCH better idea of what will make you happy on a longer-term basis. And your starter camera can probably be sold without losing much money. There are some great bargains to be had on MF film gear these days, and in fact a TLR is a great way to start inexpensively, if you pick the right TLR. I bought a Yashica-C 10 years ago, shot it for a few months, and sold it to buy a big 6x6 SLR system. (and wound up buying another Yashica TLR because it was a FUN camera to use.) :-) Look around for local photo clubs, get to know people--it'll help you to talk to others and you're likely to be loaned a camera or three to get familiar with. :-) Good luck! I've got digital SLRs I use for chores--but I shoot a full manual film 6x6 for pure enjoyment. :-) --ken<br>

Oh, PS, about metering: I have a spotmeter (learned the Zone System as a newbie) and a couple of ambient meters, but I use "sunny 16" all the time and it it works pretty darned well. :-)</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Welcome, Simon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like a film camera for portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Handheld or tripod-mounted? I'd point you towards a 645 model (Mamiya or Pentax) for handheld, and a 6x7 model (Mamiya RB67 or RZ67) for tripod.</p>

<p>Also, do you care about eye-level viewing vs. various forms of "look downwards" viewfinder?</p>

[danielheller]

Hasselblad 500cm paired with a Zeiss lens.

[Jochen_S]

<p>Pentacon Six? - An inexpensive East German 6x6 SLR. I got mine with a 120mm lens. - Going rate seems around 360Euro?<br>

Known flaw: you should NEVER(!) let the film winding lever snap back; spacing issues might occcur. Film might not run perfectly flat, but yes it does take pictures.<br>

I think Mamiya TLRs are nice for BW photography because its no fun to stare through color filters in front of an SLR lens.<br>

A 4x5" press camera with roll holder is another nice choice. - just mnaybe a bit weak inthe WA field , but still its 2 cameras in one; you can do your MF portraits with the rangemeter or shoot LF closeupos & stuff with it on the ground glass.<br>

Disclaimer: I listed the inexpensive stuff I collected myself back when film was more en vogue. I'm pretty sure that any other non-Russian post WW2 medium format system (i.e. interchangeable coated lenses) takes decenet pictures too (and might be even better than what I mentioned). <br>

I hope you have a MF capable B&W darkroom, otherwise I see little sense in your purchase. - Pro labs are expensive and slower 35mm color film prints well enough.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I'll second the RB/RZ solution. I purchased an RB and three lenses, back and waist level finder from KEH this year for much less than your budget. Excellent camera with some superb glass.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Mamiya TLR's are very good, but I think the Hasselblad and Zeiss lens are just fabulous, especially for b/w.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>My personal favourites are the Mamiya TLRs.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>"<em>Simon, if you ask 10 photographers about this, you'll get 11 opinions"</em><br>

<em><br /></em>my 2 are RB67 or C330^^</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@Ken, I like your advice to get a starter kit like the Yashica. Never tried sunny 16, but all my cameras have had some form of metering. I will definitely try it - thanks.<br>

@Ray, I'm looking for a handheld camera. I would prefer eye-level viewing, but not entirely against looking down. I quite like the look of the Pentax 645. It looks reasonably small and not too intimidating. I can always move onto a 67 and tripod, if that's how things progress in time.<br>

@Jochan, I'm not interested in making my own prints. I was going to use a pro-lab since I didn't anticipate shooting that many rolls of film. Maybe you're right and I should buy a 35mm camera again, but I'd been reading that you need to go medium format to better digital these days. When I look at online comparisons, digital often looks very crisp, but somehow a bit flat and lifeless.<br>

@Rick, Do I need a tripod for these though? Good news about the cost. I'm pleasantly surprised by medium format prices.<br>

@Barry, sounds a bit expensive for me right now, but I'll bear it in mind<br>

@Chris, thanks. They do look nice.<br>

Gents, I'm only intending to produce small prints for family and send as email attachments. Does medium format really make sense for this? Perhaps a DSLR or 35mm film camera would be better. The problem is that 99% of DSLR's leave me cold. They look and feel like junk and I can't afford the ones that don't. I could go back to a nice 35mm manual camera, but I like the results of medium format with it's ability to blow out the background so easily when using an 80mm lens, which is harder to achieve on a 35mm film camera. And a non-full frame DSLR is going to be even worse in this respect.</p>

<p> </p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>@Ray, I'm looking for a handheld camera. I would prefer eye-level viewing, but not entirely against looking down. I quite like the look of the Pentax 645. It looks reasonably small and not too intimidating. I can always move onto a 67 and tripod, if that's how things progress in time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So given your answer, as well as the other things you added above, your checklist is as follows:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better quality than 35mm film</li>

<li>Better shallow dof than DSLR</li>

<li>Suits handheld shooting</li>

<li>Prefer SLR form factor over TLR</li>

<li>Prefer eye-level viewing</li>

<li>Prefer in-camera metering</li>

<li>No need for AF</li>

<li>No need for flash</li>

<li>Budget ~£500 / $750USD</li>

</ul>

<p>You would clearly be best served by either the Pentax 645 (get a 645N if you can stretch to it), or a Mamiya 645 (Pro or ProTL, being the last and best of the manual focus bodies) with an AE prism finder. </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Yup, any of the 645 cameras from Bronica, Pentax or Mamiya would do the trick. Your question gets asked several times a month. Bags of detailed takes and comparisons on all of them in the archives.</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@Ray, thanks. That's really helpful. I will focus on these two. Pricing for a pro lab in London to develop and scan 120 roles of film is quite reasonable, so I think I'll stick to the medium format approach.<br>

@C Watson, thanks. I will check out the archives more thoroughly now that I've got a steer from yourselves on my specific requirements. My fear was I'd misinterpret something or make an incorrect assumption.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Not so much what to buy as what to avoid buying:<br /> As a former owner of several Pentacon 6s and one of its awful Kiev 60 copies - don't touch either of them. They're unreliable in the extreme. The Pentacon less so, but those cameras are all very long in the tooth now and will almost certainly have issues. I'd also steer clear of the Mamiya 645 Super, Pro and Pro TL. I've had bad experiences with those as well. Kowa 6s and Super66s are to be avoided like the plague too. Though I doubt there's more than a handful still out there in anywhere near working condition.</p>

<p>The only MF gear that I'd recommend from personal use as an affordable and reliable option would be a Mamiya 1000S, J or similar metal-bodied version. I have several of them all working perfectly after many years of use. The old Yashicamats are good too. I inherited one that was bought in 1959 and is still going strong! My use of a Yashicamat 124G wasn't so long-lived. Avoid those as well IMO. You pay extra for the near-useless ability to take 220 film and an inaccurate built-in meter. The camera is basically OK though, if you can't find a plain old Yashi'mat in good condition.</p>

<p>"Better shallow dof than DSLR" - Prepare for a disappointment here then. A 50mm f/2 lens on a full-frame DSLR or 35mm film camera gives an almost identical D-o-F to an 80mm f/2.8 lens on 645 or 6x6. Stepping up to a longer lens (say 135mm) and simply moving back from the subject has a much greater effect on reducing D-o-F. </p>

<p>"I'm happy using the zone system to set exposure." - To be pedantic the Zone System isn't simply a way of setting exposure. To properly implement it, you need to be able to individually control development too, and this isn't really possible with rollfilm or colour stock.<br /> "I'm not interested in making my own prints. I was going to use a pro-lab since I didn't anticipate shooting that many rolls of film." - In that case using the Zone system is a complete waste of time.<br /> Incident light metering is actually far more suitable and consistent for MF use. Budget for a good handheld meter if you don't already own one. Avoid Weston Masters from the mk IV onwards - because they're unreliable as well. A Minolta Autometer III would be a good and versatile meter to look for.</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@Rodeo Joe, thanks for all the feedback. I will stay away from the cameras you mention and take another look at some you state are reliable.<br>

That's very interesting ref your DoF comment, especially as a 5D is within budget. So, it will depend if I want the involvement of film and perhaps some better colour/texture (anyone agree/disagree?) or the convenience of digital. I fear the only way to really know what's best is compare DSLR against medium format film. I will keep searching the web for good examples, but you don't always know what processing work has gone into them. I'm not sure what to do now.<br>

Ref the zone system, I have to disagree. I took way better photos with film once I started using it, even though I never developed myself. It really helped to focus on what the main element of the photo was and then work from there. OK, I agree, I didn't have end-to-end control, but even so, the results were way better. That's my 2 pence anyway.<br>

Thanks for the light meter recommendation - very useful.</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If you like the Mamiya 645, just skip the AF model and go with one of the older manual focus models. For your price range, you can definitely pick up a body, finder, lens and back. You may also be able to get a prism finder (much more convenient that a waist level finder when shooting verticals in 645) and maybe a wide and telephoto lens also.<br /><br />Also look at Bronica ETR. Largely the same as Mamiya 645 but has leaf shutter lenses, which make it easier to use fill flash outdoors. Yes, you will need flash as you get further into portraits, even if you don't think so now.</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@Craig, thanks for the tips. I don't think I need AF either. Point taken on the prism finder.<br>

I've been scouting the web for medium format photos, especially when compared to full-frame DSLR. I 'really' like what MF can achieve, so I'm going to go for it. It's more fun too (he says, not having actually tried it yet!)</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>I'd try to get hold of the newest gear in the best shape you can afford. Relics such as TLRs and the old "heavy metal" Mamiya 645s, like much MF film equipment, aren't as easy to get fixed now, so don't sucker for the 'just needs a CLA" pitch on a semi-functional camera whose repair costs can rack up fast. Get a handheld meter, preferably incident, and learn to use it. Again, get the newest you can afford and keep in mind that functioning meters aren't necessarily accurate meters.</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@ C Watson, thanks. So the 645e would be better? They are still great value. I've read similar reports that the 1000S is very old and many are failing. I'm speaking to a guy tomorrow that has various MF items for sale, so hopefully make some progress then.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>If you dig a Chinese-made plasticky lump that doesn't take film backs then it's for you. It's tough to handhold without the manual winder grip.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>I am surprised no one recommended yet a Rollei. The best light meter I have worked with is the Gossen Luna Pro SBC. Of course for portraits you may be better of with a spotmeter.</p>

[baisao]

<p>I love my Rollieflex 2.8C for B&W. It's small form factor means I can take it anywhere easily. The suck of it is that it took three samples before I found one that worked. They are rugged cameras but anything mechanical will breakdown and grow fungus after decades of disuse. They are also expensive for a first time buy, in my opinion.</p>

<p>The OP seems to be describing a Mamiya 645. They are great. My buddy has used his for years without issue. They feel plastic-y, though. The Mamiya TLRs are great but heavy. The Yashica Mat 124g is a beer can of a thing but it has a gem of a lens. For the price they are almost disposable.</p>

<p>The difference you are going to see between digital and medium format is going to be subjective and perhaps arbitrary. I love the medium format film look. Like camera recommendations, people are going to see different things.<br>

<br /><br />That in mind, I will describe my film experience as it may be relevant to you:</p>

<ul>

<li>I enjoy the challenge</li>

<li>I like the deliberate pace/process</li>

<li>I'm not concerned about resolution as much as I am about dynamic range & lens character</li>

<li>I would rather have grain than noise since grain can be an asset and noise, less so.</li>

<li>I like making photos, not taking photos</li>

<li>I enjoy developing my own film to get results that I could not get any other way, even with a custom lab. Films x Developers x Processes = A Whole Universe of Creative Options</li>

<li>Did I mention dynamic range and lens character?</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>This is especially true of my medium format experience.</strong></p>

<p>Since you mentioned color-- color film is expensive and offers less developer creativity than B&W film.</p>

<p>You have a camera budget which is good. Hopefully you also have a scanner budget. People tend to skimp on scanners, which is a shame. Folks regularly buy lenses that cost more than their scanner. <strong>The scanner is the last optical step in the process and a poor scanner can make the result of thousands of dollars worth of gear into garbage<em>.</em></strong> Your pro shop scans will not be as good as what you can achieve with your own top end consumer scanner.</p>

<p> </p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I am surprised no one recommended yet a Rollei.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Admirably, the respondents were paying attention to Simon's list of preferences, which effectively ruled it out.</p>

<p>Makes a refreshing change from those threads where someone asks for advice on a compact 645 camera, and someone inevitably tells them they should get a 4x5 inch large format monorail :)</p>

[simon_hill1]

<p>@Dani, thanks for the meter suggestion. You're right, I'd would prefer to use a spot meter.<br>

@Jim, Thanks for the feedback. I called the lab, reference their scanning. Their package service includes very basic scanning, sufficient for small prints only. They can do high res scans, but it's quite expensive, and that's per negative. I'll have to see what they're like, but will probably end up buying a scanner as you suggest. The Epson 4990 and V750 look within budget.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I'm only intending to produce small prints for family and send as email attachments. Does medium format really make sense for this?"<br /><br />Was looking back and just saw this. The answer is no. MF does not make sense if that's your goal. And DSLR or 35mm film camera would do just fine. Keep in mind that everything in MF is more expensive, including film and scanning. </p>