Which camera should I get??

[yockenwaithe]

<p>So I haven't yet gotten into medium format yet, though I have a few cameras [Kodak Brownies that use 116 and 620 film], but I want a more common 620 format camera. I've been looking at a few, and wonder if there is any significant benefit to any of these other than the viewfinder, which doesn't matter as I'm fine using reflex, SLR, TLR, and rangefinder types.<br>

<br /> <strong>Mamiya C33</strong>- The bellows TLR design looked interesting, but I'm not sure if the design encourages longevity.<br>

<strong>Fujica GW 690</strong>-Looked like an overgrown Leica, and since I have experience using one it shouldn't be too difficult to pick up on this camera. I appreciate the film lever on this, but don't know of the build quality<br>

<strong>Kiev 60</strong>-Super cheap body and lenses, but I've heard something awful about the initial build quality of these beasts, so maybe refurbished?<br>

<strong>Pentax 6x7</strong>-I absolutely love the Pentax brand, so this would be a viable option considering it's probably somewhat unbreakable [not that I'm rough with cameras anyhow, but it's nice]. The wooden handle looks to be elusive though.<br>

<strong>Rolleicord III</strong>-A Rollei TLR, so probably a good overall choice<br>

<strong>Mamiya 645 1000s</strong>-Not terribly in love with the Hasselblad-esque look, but looks to be a solid choice, the prism finder is cheap, the handle, like the Pentax, is elusive but I digress<br /> If anyone has used any of these and would like to recommend any certain one I'm open! I'm a college age student on a budget so no Hassies or new Mamiyas anything of that caliber.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!<br /> Spencer</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I have a Mamiya 545 1000s, Rolleiflex 2.8C, Rolleiflex 4x4, Pentax 6x7, and Hasselblad medium format cameras.</p>

<p>I'd suggest you get a Rolleiflex TLR to start. I'd also consider a Yashica 124 G. These are solid cameras with good reputations. If you decide that medium format is for you then branch out with an interchangeable lens camera like the Mamiya 645 1000s or a Bronica ETR class camera.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>I've used the Yashica 124, Bronica ETRS and ETRSi, and a Rolleiflex; always lusted after a Mamiya C330, but it would have been a whim. From my experience, I'd say the first point of selection is the type of body (never used a RF 120 so I won't comment there), and there are significant weight differences between the TLRs and SLRs. With the the SLRs I often needed to use a tripod to achieve razor sharp images due to too much hand/muscle shake, whereas I didn't experience that with the lighter TLRs. OTOH, the viewfinders I had on the slr bodies had diopter adjustments, important to me as I had and still have deteriorating eyesight, whereas the SLRs need a separate ancillary diopter lens. Of the ones I listed, IMHO, the Rolleiflex is the premier choice, but I found their screens to be dim, whereas the Yashica was much brighter. If you plan to do macro work, the slrs are a much better choice. I stepped outside the box in the end, got an inexpensive used Ricoh Diamond tlr, replaced the screen with one from Rick Oleson, reskinned the body, fitted an appropriate diopter for my prescription, cleaned the mirror, and now have a terrific tlr which is as sharp as either the Yashica or the Rolleiflex I had, although a bit slower at f/3.5. I also designed an instant on/off carrying strap to complete the package.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The enduring film format is 120, not 620, which is 120 film on a proprietary metal spool (Kodak).</p>

<p>A twin-lens reflex is compact, quiet, and capable of taking sharp images. The camera is subject to parallax, and can't be used closer than about three feet without a special attachment. With the exception of the Mamiya C330, lenses are not interchangeable. Even then, both the taking and viewing lenses are changed together, with a very limited range of focal lengths.</p>

<p>The 9x6 cm format is usually reserved for wide angle cameras with an optical viewfinder, usually without interchangeable lenses. The more useful format is 7x6 or 645, which are a better fit for traditional print sizes (8x10, 11x14, etc.). A Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses, on a 7x6 format. It is very portable and capable of extremely high quality images, with the usual constraints of a rangefinder camera regarding distance and lens choices.</p>

<p>For most purposes, a single lens reflex is the most flexible. As a reflex camera, you see exactly what will appear on the film. You have a wide choice of lenses, but not nearly as wide as for small format cameras. An Hasselblad is not really much larger than a Rolleiflex, turned on its side anyway. So many were sold and used by professionals, they are easier to find than those of most other manufacturers. However the supply is drying up quickly. They are very solid and reliable, given due diligence and maintenance.</p>

<p>Closeups are easy with a reflex camera. I have a set of extension rings to use with my Hasselblad, which are relatively easy to use in the field as well as indoors. The image quality is much higher than with auxiliary (diopter) lenses. Since focal lengths are longer than with 35mm, working distances are proportionately longer too.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>What do you want to accomplish? That can drive which is the best option to consider.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>p.s. when I was a poor college kid asking similar question I ended up with a Rolleicord Vb... which met my needs for the next 20 years. :)</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>I don't have any 'needs' per se but I would like a camera that is fairly good at portraiture or landscapes [i have a strong enough tripod to mount heavyish (~6 lbs.) cameras in case of slower speeds] because I already have a Leica for most of my other needs. I was thinking an SLR to begin with [because of the ease of use] but the Fuji rangefinder looked quite good also and wasn't too expensive.</p>

[AgBr]

<p>Edward, about Hasselblad you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However the supply is drying up quickly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you mean in terms of cameras available on the 2nd hand market, or in terms of spare parts for repairing cameras?<br>

Thanks</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Since this sort of "what to wear" question has been a weekly feature here for years, I'd advise doing your own model-specific research in the expansive PN archives.</p>

<p>Generally, I'd buy the newest gear you can afford. Holy relics and antiques are poor choices since repair services are only getting scarcer, slower and pricier. If you're a broke-ass student, I'd look hard at 645 SLR system cameras: Bronica, Pentax, Mamiya(skip the old heavy metal versions). A body, prism finder, 120 back/insert, and 75-80mm f2.8 lens might be a few more bucks but worth it for the flexibility, image quality and reliability.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>While I've already looked around at the PN archives [not terribly useful for all of them] the problem is that there are slight differences between them. I could just as easily just pick one and run with it and probably get fine pictures, I just want to hear of other's experiences and recommendations so I don't just buy one for the looks or spend all of my time researching [i'm quite busy right now between working full time and building an art portfolio]. I do think I have enough now to make an educated decision though [probably the 645 1000s because of the price and degree of customization]. In the case of repair I'll just send it to Hill Camera in Springfield, though I can do relatively minor repairs myself</p>

[kyle_westwood]

<p>I've got both a 645 1000S and 645J and both have been reliable though they both needed light seals replacing as the foam breaks down and disintegrates. The prisms can also suffer from de-lamination causing a dark line in the viewfinder. My AE prism has this problem but my PD prism does not. There are a nice variety of lenses available for the m645 system, particularly the A and APO line. The, 80/1.9, 120/4 macro and 150/2.8 are especially nice.</p>

<p>The Pro/Pro TL is newer with some improvements. I'd avoid the super as it's got sketchy reliability from all I've read. Surprised you have not considered the RB/RZ67 which is lovely to use IME. Had a pentax 67 long ago but sold it on after a few years to fund the first venture into digital. Personally liked the 6x7 format but prefer the mamiya.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>The RB67 does look quite attractive [and super affordable too!]. I wouldn't like the RZ because the only improvement seems to be some the replacement of some bits making it lighter, but it's not really light or small enough to be handheld anyhow. I'm now debating whether or not to get the RB or the 645, but I'm leaning towards the RB67 right now.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>I really like a waist level finder for portraiture as I feel that pointing a camera at eye level seems more imposing for the subject, but that's just me. Also, I need a diopter to focus an SLR prism finder but not a typical waist level finder. For some medium format SLRs with prisms, diopters are very hard to source (I'm thinking Rollei SL66 in particular).<br>

TLRs are limited for head shots. For portraiture I prefer my SLR with WLF.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p><em>While I've already looked around at the PN archives [not terribly useful for all of them] the problem is that there are slight differences between them. I could just as easily just pick one and run with it and probably get fine pictures, I just want to hear of other's experiences and recommendations so I don't just buy one for the looks or spend all of my time researching [i'm quite busy right now between working full time and building an art portfolio].</em><br>

<br /> Love the attitude. Doubt the opportunity cost on your time is that precious.<br>

<br /> <em>The RB67 does look quite attractive [and super affordable too!]. I wouldn't like the RZ because the only improvement seems to be some the replacement of some bits making it lighter, but it's not really light or small enough to be handheld anyhow. I'm now debating whether or not to get the RB or the 645, but I'm leaning towards the RB67 right now.</em><br>

<br /> Think you need to check the differences between the RB and RZ Mamiyas.<br /> BTW, the RB67, ready to shoot with a 90mm+120 back+WLF, weighs in just shy of 6 lbs.</p>

[kyle_westwood]

<p>I find my RZ67 perfectly hand holdable. I preferred the RZ as it is lighter, the film advance and shutter cocking is one action, it can use both RB & RZ lenses, it supports AE prisms and the pro II backs have no seals to go bad. It is without doubt my favourite camera, the revolving back is something that I really adore.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>This statement may be a problem: "I don't have any 'needs' per se but I would like a camera that is fairly good at portraiture or landscapes" Not having clearly identified needs is not a problem but some choices make one kind of photography easier/better than the other. A TLR (or any camera with a fixed focal length lens) can work good for normal focal length landscape and general photography, but not so great for a lot of portraiture.<br>

As I mentioned, I found a TLR to be both fun and effective. Most of my photography was landscape and general (whatever that means). But when I took an increased interest in portraiture I found all fixed focal length cameras too limiting.<br>

Something for you to consider.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Is Hasselblad gear drying up?</p>

<p>The amount of used Hasselblad equipment is decreasing rapidly in meeting the demand amateurs and enthusiasts who find it affordable. Repair parts for older lenses, the "C" models, are in short supply. However parts for "CF" and newer lenses are largely in stock, as are parts for most bodies.</p>

<p>Most used Hasselblad cameras, backs and lenses need little more than cleaning, lubrication and adjustment. They are very rugged cameras, but have a lot of moving parts. Light seals in the backs (for the darkslide) need periodic replacement, which is easy and inexpensive to do yourself if the back is otherwise in good shape (e.g., good spacing between frames).</p>

<p>Mamiya RZ and RB SLR cameras are also a good bet, but about 50% larger and heavier than an Hasselblad 20x or 50x body.</p>

<p>I managed to buy a digital back for mine, a CFV 16 MP, which has extraordinary image quality and easy to use. It wouldn't take long to justify these days, with film and processing (only) running about $22/roll. You can buy a new 50 MP Pentax 645D, with a lens, for less than I paid for the CFV in 2007.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I still have a pair of Mamiya C 33(0) with lens line. - I settled for the system in 1990 when I couldn't afford anything else. I also added a (yes fishy) Pentacon Six and would avoid Kiev after everything I read.<br>

From hindsight I'd avoid 6x6cm since its a waste of film (6x7 is worth it though!). Given a choice I'd grab something digitizable Make sure you can get a 120 / 135mm lens to start with, if you are into portraiture.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>The RZ seems to be built to be easier to use and more portable [which I could care less about because I'm only really looking for portrait or landscape photography, the latter of which I could easily do on a 35mm]. The main thing that matters to me with medium format SLRs in general is the lenses and film backs [in this case I only care about a standard 120 back and a polaroid back], but it does seem that there are some major differences that aren't apparent at first glance. Since the RZ does seem to have better [albeit slightly more expensive] lenses, it does seem wise to save up for a bit so I can use it as opposed to the cheaper RB lenses. The RZ apparently also has an electronic shutter, which is always an added bonus as any electronic shutter I've used always has less 'oomph' when fired. The LED info lights also looks very nice, with a nice set of warnings, and [as Kyle said] there are no seals to go bad [seals are a pain in the butt if you're not good at paying attention to them]. The revolving back is on both models of course but from what I've read the viewfinder lines also change in the RZ. It seems that the RZ does have some significant benefits [especially because of how easy that batteries are to find]. So it seems I should start saving unless someone knows of a better camera, and although I am doubtful I am not very knowledgeable in this field anyways.<br /> <br /> The only drawback is cracking the plastic, but that shouldn't be a problem because I generally don't drop/abuse my cameras.<br /> Regarding the not wanting to sped a long time researching, it's much simpler to ask for help from people who know what they're doing than assume that I know what I'm doing because the only medium format cameras I've used are Polaroid Land cameras, which are not terribly indicative of the format in general. It does seems 'typical lazy college student' but believe me I've already spent 20ish hours researching this [including looking on PN] and was no closer to an answer until asking on here, hence the waste of time [i'm terribly indecisive on things like this]. The personal responses about cameras on here help to back up articles written online, making the decision a lot less painful, otherwise I'm sure there would be almost no questions about 'which is better' on this site.</p>

<p><br /> Thank you all for all the input! The decision [even though I've not yet bought a camera yet] makes this a lot easier for me to not just willfully buy cameras and regret it later!</p>

[iangillett]

<p>The shutter on the RZ is not electronic (like the 'silent' shutters on micro 4/3rds equipment) but electronically-timed. You will certainly notice the 'oomph' from the operation of the mirror when you fire the shutter. I have a variety of medium format cameras with an extensive RZ collection (which I don't use as much as I should) and a recently-purchased Pentax 67ii with four lenses - and a wooden handle! The ergonomics of both cameras are quite different and it really depends on what you want to use them for. If the portraits you are intending to take are in 'portrait' format then you will be better off with the RZ because the revolving back means the camera will be more stable either on a tripod or handheld - avoiding the need to turn the camera on its side. you may find yourself limited by the extension of the bellows if you are using a telephoto lens as longer focal lengths need greater bellows extension. In the past I have used the 'half' extension tube with a 150mm lens when shooting head portraits so avoid hitting the limit of the bellows or having too much extension with the No 1 tube.</p>

[yockenwaithe]

<p>Ahh so it still has the kick- I'll keep that in mind. It still looks like an all around good camera.<br>

And nice on the Pentax 67! I've been looking around for the wooden handle in case I might get that camera sometime in the future and it's hard to find!<br>

Thanks for the bit of advice on the RZ, I'll check out the extension tubes for it.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...With the exception of the Mamiya C330, lenses are not interchangeable. Even then, both the taking and viewing lenses are changed together, with a very limited range of focal lengths...." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>C330 lenses I have owned (in mm): 55, 65, 80, 105, 135, 180, 250.<br>

For my understanding this is not "very" limited^^</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If you get a Mamiya TLR, you want a C330, not a C33. The 33 is ancient (and even the 330 dates from the 1970s)<br /><br />I've shot portraits, landscapes, even sports with a Mamiya C330 and still have one. Got mine from a wedding photographer who used it for wedding and portraits for years. Big drawback of TLRs is closeup work because the viewing lens doesn't see exactly what the taking lens sees.<br /><br />BTW, all the camera you list are 120 not 620. As others have noted, the film is the same but the spool is different. Only one or two emulsions available in 620 and it's only available a few places. Not something you want to deal with unless you already happen to have a camera that needs it, and those are mostly very, very old folders or box cameras.</p>

 

[yockenwaithe]

<p>That's one of the things I was worried about with a TLR [besides the fact that there are almost no new good quality ones that I've heard of (not counting Rolleis, those are quite out of my price range)] is that the parallax would take some getting used to, because I'm used to it being horizontal not vertical.</p>

<p>I do have a 620 camera [a Kodak Bulls-Eye] and getting/respooling film for it is a bit of a pain [especially in the long run], hence why I wanted to get a 120 format camera. Also the camera isn't all that nice, being a Brownie and all</p>

[g_r_stokes]

<p>Spencer, I don't believe Irv Hill is still in business, so for repairs it's Schilllers in St. Louis.</p>