Need help finding a lightweight 6x7

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Hello community,<br>

<br />I would like to do landscape with a medium format camera, on flim so I am looking for a lightweight camera - 6x7 format, that preferrably costs no more than 400$.<br>

By lightweight I mean around 1kg max for camera+lens.<br>

6x7 is according to what I've seen the format that fits the best my style. 6x6cm is not bad either as a compromise. If I don't find any 6x6 6x7 that I like in this price range I would probably go 6x4,5cm as compromise because it's 4:3 which is not that wide.<br>

I hate 3:2 from my current digital camera because it's too wide therefore Fuji 690 rangefinders are out of the question.<br>

So, from what I've seen so far there aren't any 6x7 viewfinder cameras to fit the lightweight requirement.<br>

I found however on Ebay many Fuji 645 format rangefinders (gs645, ga645 ... ) for 300$ in very good state - therefore they are cheap, lightweight, very good as a system (!!) but they are not 6x7. The Fuji gw670 is too expensive. Mamiya 7 as well.<br>

The question is, do I have any options with these requirements?</p>

<p><br />Allow me to thank you already for reading and answering this.</p>

 

[jerry thirsty]

<p>You might be able to get a Bronica GS-1 with lens and film back for about $400. But the weight (at least according to this source) isn't going to be as light as you are looking for:</p>

<p>http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-96896.html</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

If you don't care about interchangeable lenses the Fuji 6x7cm and even better, the 6x9cm version, rangefinders are

terrific. One of my absolute favorite film cameras was a Fuji GSW 690 III.

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Since the 6x9 format doesn't suit you keep an eye out for the Fuji 6x7, they can be had at close to your budget. I'm planning on purchasing the 6x9 version. I suspect it's the camera that closest fits your requirements.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If light weight wasn't important I'd say look at the Mamiya RB 67. Revolving back 6x7 format with interchangeable lenses. Standard finder is waist level. If a tripod is used (like many landscape photographers prefer) weight might not matter as much. But, if that's too heavy, Rick is correct about the Fuji 6x7: sometimes you can get one at a favorable price.</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Yes Jerry, Bronica looks good, they caught my eyes on several occasions but they seem a little bulky for what I need. I need to keep the weight low for hiking trips. I plan to hike only with the camera and a landscape lens.</p>

<p>Ellis, Fuji's rangefinders seem to be the best deal I could get but the 6x7cm are really expensive. 6x9 is ok as price (a bit more than I would like to) but 6x9 cm is 2:3 format which it's too wide for my eye. I might end up getting a 6x4,5 from Fuji in the end (as you and many others say they are great cameras) but I keep looking to see if I can find that 6x7 I can afford.<br /><br />Rick, looking on ebay right now Fuji GF670 (the one with bellows) sells for 1600$ and GF670W (without bellows) sells for 2000$. I could only find the GW670 at about 1000$. Looks great to me as a camera but I need to find it somehow at half that price :D Is there any cheaper 6x7 model that I am missing here?</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>Consider a small Graflex like a Century Graphic, with an RH10 lever-wind roll film back for 6x7.<br>

Given the age of the stuff, you may have to assemble your camera, lens and film back from more than one purchase. For less money than you're talking about above, you should be able to get a good kit. Again, given the age, you may have to renew light-seals in the film back.<br>

The RF on these cameras is only ever adjusted for one lens at a time; it's about half an hour's work to readjust it for a different lens. You may, in any case, consider the RF a bit clunky compared to those Fujis. You can also focus with a ground-glass, and there may be a focus scale on the bed, if you get the camera with its original lens (if not you can make your own scale). Of course, there is no meter in the camera.<br>

The camera's not tiny, but more compact than an RB. The Century is plastic-bodied, so not too heavy (I think the other Graphics are wood). It's quite easy to hand-hold it.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Take a look at the Mamiya Press Cameras. They made a 6x7 back. The cameras are bigger than the Fuji or Mamiya 7, but not as big or heavy as the Mamiya SLRS. </p>

<p>I bought one years ago for under $500 with 2 lenses. </p>

<p>http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mamiya_Press</p>

<p> </p>

[roman_p]

<p>You can find GF670 below $900 on E-bay, used in good condition. Keep in mind that the camera comes with lens. Is your budget $400 for a body only? I believe that the weight vise you cannot find anything lighter: GF670 is about 0.9kg (with lens!) and it will fit in a pocket of your 3 season jacket; GF670W is about 1 kg (well with lens also but much more expecive).</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>6x7 and lightweight don't normally go in the same sentence. :)<br /><br />But since you're also looking at 645, it sounds like you're more concerned about aspect ratio than 6x7 as the actual film size.<br /><br />If you want to get 1) lightweight 2) low cost and 3) the aspect ratio you want, go for something like a Yashicamat 124G. It's 6x6. But you can do what 6x6 shooters have always done: shoot square, then crop to whatever aspect ratio you like when you print.<br /><br />Back in film days, wedding and portrait photographers shooting with square format cameras routinely used a pencil, thin graphic arts tape or other means to mark out both vertical and horizontal 8x10 proportions on their waistlevel viewfinders since 8x10 was the most popular print size. On cameras like the Nikon F2 where you could open up the viewfinder and get at the focusing screen, 35mm photographers did the same. In both medium format and 35mm, I think you could even buy focusing screens that had the markings etched in the glass.<br /><br />6x7 film was popular largely because it came closest to 8x10 proportions.<br /><br />If 3:2 is the only problem with your digital camera, just compose for 6x7 and crop when you print. You probably can't easily mark lines in the finder, but you can eyeball it close enough.<br /><br /></p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I just remembered the Rapid Omega, a camera I've used before. Rangefinder, 6x7, superb glass, you may have to look around but they are out there.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Nicely put Craig! Interesting info on those 8x10 marking tricks.<br>

<br />Indeed, I was more concerned by the aspect ratio - composing when shooting. <br /><br /><br>

After thinking about all these suggestions for which I thank you I have decided to save some $$ and search for a good Fuji GSW 680 deal.<br />The main reasons are:<br>

- lightweight<br>

- good optics, EBC coating<br>

- 500$ used one, now on ebay, maybe less in near future<br>

- 4:3 format in which I can directly compose the shots. Also easy to compose in square which I like alot (slight crop to obtain square compared to 3:2)</p>

<p>Thank you everybody for involving!</p>

[Aoresteen]

Consider a Pentax 6x7. Great lenses.

[danielheller]

<p>Anthony, the OP asked for a camera weighing about 1Kg. (lens included). I am not sure such a thing even exists, but the Pentax 6x7 with AE prism, lens, 220 back, is a lot heavier. Pentax 67II may be a bit lighter.</p>

[david_tellet]

<p>The Rapid Omegas are probably one of the best bang-for-the-buck cameras, but not lightweight. Opting for 645 really opens up the options - my Fuji GS645S is light and has a great meter and lens. My Pentax 645 is probably not light enough, but has great ergonomics and all the modern conveniences. </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Pentax 6x7, body only is 1.75Kg-- The 45mm lens is 485 grams. Not using the prism finders saves much weight but still over the weight requirement of the OP. There is a limit to how light these cameras can be, given the use of high density glass in lenses and prisms. No designer is going to compromise on sharpness by using lighter weight/ low index glass to save weight. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>Proceed with caution regarding the Pentax 67. Known shutter vibration issues zap image quality at specific shutter speeds even with a heavy tripod. Good glass is not really good if vibration ruins critical sharpness.</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Thanks everybody again,<br>

<br />I said above that I'm quite certain I'll be getting a Fuji 6x8 format rangefinder. <br>

As for the Pentax 6x7 - I use a Pentax K-50 as my main (only) camera right now. They have good glass (some of the legacy, current limiteds, some medium format glass etc.). The problem with Pentax 6x7 is as others have said the weight and the shutter vibration and it's really out of the question for me.<br>

<br />So for now I check patiently on eBay for a killer Fuji 680 deal (or Mamiya 6 or 7 :D but less likely to find one)</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Just to set the record straight, the Pentax 6x7 has no problems with shutter induced image softening with the 35mm to 200mm lenses. It is only when trying to use the longer lenses in the 1/2 second to 1/30 second range that there exists a problem. Most owners of this system do not even use the 300mm and beyond. Most complainers of this camera either don't own one or have only shot it a few times. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>Well Steve obviously you are an owner and proponent of the system. Do not take my word for it but search these forums or the internet. The Pentax 67's shutter vibration problems are real and well documented at NORMAL focal lengths. To say its only at extreme telephoto FL's is more than a bit disingenuous but you obviously own the system and it works for you which is great. <br>

The reality is you will find hundreds of complaints that simply do not exist for other 6x7 SLR's that rely on leaf shutters (i.e Mamiya/Bronica).<br>

Pentax 67's are great cameras for long exposure Night work though. </p>

 

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Well John, readers of this post can either take your word for it, based on your internet supposition or take mine based on 26 years of shooting this camera system on a professional basis. </p>

<p>Your calling me "more than a bit disingenuous" is considered a personal attack here on Photo.net and as a former Moderator here, I suggest you read the terms and conditions of use we have here. </p>

[john_photos]

<p>Well Steve, most readers of this forum are intelligent. Nothing I have said about the P67 system contradicts information that is already out there. Glad you have 26 years of experience and have used the system "professionally" whatever that means this day and age. <br>

Regarding the readers of these forums who come here searching for relevant information; Should they take your word for it? Despite the fact that the number of complaints regarding a loss of critical sharpness at specific shutter speeds using Normal FL's in other 6x7 SLR systems are practically nonexistent in comparison? Its not my word that anyone is taking. The objective observations have been out there for decades primarily by former owners of the system who became frustrated with this design limitation. <br>

Internet "suppositions" indeed! (NOT)</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p><strong>Terms and Conditions of Use</strong>-- in part<br>

"We encourage the sharing of ideas and opinions on the topic of photography, but photo.net is not an "anything goes" website. Photo.net users come from all locations and backgrounds, and have diverse thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. Keep this in mind when you participate in the community, and treat others with respect. Postings that attack another person's motivation, intelligence, or character degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others. There are many places on the internet where you are welcome to have moral or political arguments, however, in almost every case, photo.net is not one of them. Neither is this community a place for you to harass, abuse, threaten, or otherwise bother other members, and it's not a place for you to do anything illegal. We don't want to kick you out of the community, but if you do any of these things, we will. So don't do them."</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Fujifilm GF670</p>