Need help choosing my first medium format camera.

[matthew_thomas4]

Hello everyone,

 

I am making the dive into medium format film photography and I am trying to decide which camera to purchase. My choices are between

the rolleiflex V and the hassleblad c/m. I like the rolleiflex because it is light weight and seems easier to hand hold. I like the hassleblad

because you can change the lenses and completely customize the system. Has anyone had experience shooting with both of them and

lend their opinions? I am also open to other medium format cameras. I will mainly be shooting street photography and occasionally do

some landscapes. Thanks in advance for all of your help!

[mag_miksch]

<p>c330</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

I've shot both MF TLR and SLR. They are both

great, for different reasons. You seem to already

know the primary differences and implications on

how that affects use. You don't need opinions; you

need to do the soul searching to decide which best

supports your photography. My opinion and

experience is mine and may not apply to you.

Good luck... Just don't get in the rut of overthinking

the problem!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Pentax 67 II. Sure it is a big camera but the full range ofv lenses rival anything Zeiss or Schneider ever produced. Just

use mirtor lockup (and a tripod) for expisures between 1/60 and 1 second.

[mag_miksch]

<p>on the c330 you eveb dont need MLU^^</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>Do you plan to go the full way to MF Digital ? If not, start with the Bronicas (ETRSi or SQAi) or Mamiya 645 Pro variant.</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>What Brian said: seems to me only you can judge how much you care about changing lenses. That's overwhelmingly the most important difference here.</p>

<p>(...but if it were me, I wouldn't be choosing between two <em>square-format</em> cameras!)</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>With respect, this question gets asked almost weekly and has since I first stumbled through the PN door late last century. Try the deep PN archives on virtually any brand.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'd second Mag. - I've never been a big fan of MF SLRs they IMHO go of like a gunshot. - Not great for street. - Rolleis are much lighter and maybe even more silent than Mamiya C33(0)s. The Rollei sports finder with included mirror to focus them while shooting at at eye level is pretty great / nice to have.<br>

Personally I consider walking around with a standard lens pretty boring / not <em>my </em>cup of tea. - But getting the alternative WA- & Tele Rolleiflexes would mean mortgaging the home. <br>

My primary camera was a C330 with chimney finder and 135mms. The 55mms I added later saw probably more use than the 75mm on Super Isolette which I carried along. - I also own a Pentacon with just the 120mm f2.8. <br>

If you are short enough to use prism finders, better get yourself a 645, but WLFs might be less obstrusive for street. 6x6 is the film wasting work around building a 645 with rotating back. <br>

I don't see much benefit in a modular / customizable camera. - There is usually just one VF that works best for you. - the others are most of the time surplus enough to not even make it into our bags. Do we really need magazines to switch B&W against color mid roll? </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I missed the bit about street photography. In that case, one of the Fuji rangefinders.

[donbright]

<p>Wish I had my 501CM back with me. Let it go for reasons, miss it, its a great system. Light, portable and the then Carl Zeiss lenses are impeccable. Always impressed with the corner sharpness of those lenses. </p>

[dave_s]

<p>If you have deep pockets, look at the Mamiya 7, a 6 x 7 rangefinder. It's a recent model, and there's still enough demand that second-hand prices remain high.</p>

<p>With slightly shallower pockets, consider the Rollei TLR if you don't need to change lenses. Incidentally, if it's a 'V', it's probably a Rolleicord V, not a Rolleiflex. This has advantages and disadvantages, but in general Rolleicords are a little simpler, and sell for less than Rolleiflexes. Make sure it is in top condition, with well-matched taking and viewing lenses, and a good shutter and film transport.</p>

<p>If you're impecunious and you like changing lenses, Mag's suggestion of a Mamiya TLR is a good one. Mamiya TLRs are very unfashionable and sell cheaply, but if they were good enough for Diane Arbus, they're good enough for you. Look for a C330f or C330. The best normal lens is the 105 D or DS (not easy to find) and the best tele is the 180 Super. Mamiya TLR fans argue about whether the 55 or the 65 is the best wide-angle. The 135, a simple tessar lens, is a great portrait setup. </p>

 

[mag_miksch]

<p>ref c330:<br>

buy with WLF, not a prisma, making the cam heavy and difficult to use.<br>

look for the WLF, there are the older, not full enclosed, in bright light your face makes reflections on the screen. The enclosed WLFs come with all c330s, but not all c330f, and not with c330.<br>

lenses are all good, for me the best are the 65mm and the 180mm, at lenses look for the black shutter, not the silver.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I am also more inclined to recommend a rangefinder for street photography, but only because it will probably be less obtrusive. My preference is the old Zeiss Super Ikonta folders, and of them, my personal favorite is the Super Ikonta B, a square format camera. But there are others -- the "A" is a 645 and the "C" is a 6x9. There are also Russian knock-offs of the C that are pretty good. I have one.</p>

<p>Still, when doing street photography, what I do to remain unobtrusive is use the hyperfocal scale on my camera's lens and then point the camera in the direction of the subject without bringing it up to my face. So, if doing this, then most any camera can be used successfully -- provided its lens has a hyperfocal scale. The SLRs will make the most noise with their big mirrors flapping up and down though. But any camera will work, short of most large-format rigs at least, some better than others. So as far as camera choices go it's really gonna depend on what the photographer will be trying to get out of the process.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_thomas4]

<p>After reading through the comments I am leaning toward the c330. How different is the lens quality compared to the rolleiflex? </p>

[dave_s]

<p>They're both excellent, and in practice, the Mamiya TLR lenses (at least the normal lenses) and the Rolleiflex double-Gauss lenses are more than most of us ever need. Take your pick: Arbus used a Mamiya; Bailey used a Rolleiflex. No flies on either of them.</p>

<p>That said, the Planars and Xenotars on Rolleiflexes are among the best camera lenses ever made. If you were to make matching 16 x 20s under controlled conditions with the Mamiya and with the Rolleiflex, you would be able to tell the difference on close examination. But if you're shooting hand-held, it wouldn't matter. And you'll get far better results with a well-collimated Mamiya TLR than with an out-of-spec Rolleiflex.</p>

<p>An interesting aside: on the old Monaghan medium format site, which has been down for a decade, there was a discussion of Mamiya lenses. A fellow named Bob Shell (remember him?) said that when Mamiya brought out the old Mamiyaflexes, the lenses were designed 'to a commercial formula', which I guess means they were very contrasty. Apparently high street photographers moaned about this, because they wanted a less biting rendition for weddings and portraiture. So apparently Mamiya obliged them, and made lenses more suited to their work. I don't know if this is true or not.</p>

<p>If you want test results, check out <a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/0005l3">this old thread</a> for the Mamiya TLRs, or <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">this page by Chris Perez</a> which has Mamiya and Rolleiflex. Note that he tests several Rolleiflex cameras, and he gets a range of results, probably depending on whether the focus was well calibrated. That's a big deal with TLRs. </p>

<p> </p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>IMO all Mamiya lenses are on pro- level (as most of the MF things)</p>

[brett_rogers]

Actually, Arbus and Bailey both used Mamiya and Rolleiflexes at various points.

Beware of owners of said cameras recommending their preferred choice. Happens every time.

Try to find an old fashioned camera shop and handle a few of the candidates. Some people just don't get along with some

cameras, no matter how high end they are/were in their day. I can shoot with just about anything I've ever touched and

find something to like about whatever that happens to be—but I'm not you. In MF I have Mamiya and Rollei TLRs, a

500C/M and various folders. Each has something unique compared to the others, in its favour.

[david_smith35]

<p>(...but if it were me, I wouldn't be choosing between two <em>square-format</em> cameras!)<br>

What's wrong with square format?</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>Nothing whatever, and I have several square cameras; but it's not my favourite format, and my hit rate in square pictures is quite low.</p>

<p>In my reply to the OP, my first point was that he asked a question only he can really answer: it boiled down to 'how much do I want interchangeable lenses?'</p>

<p>But I thought, if the OP is asking for our opinions on that, how come he seems already decided on square? If I were choosing my first MF camera, I'd consider different formats. So having declined to give an opinion on the question asked, I thought I'd give one anyway, and hint that he might consider other shapes.<br>

Now I think about it, the first MF camera I bought was a (square) Lubitel 166B!</p>

[matthew_thomas4]

<p>I chose square format because i would like to have a lightweight and non bulky MF camera. It is my understanding that other sized MF cameras are a lot bulkier.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Not necessarily. Many 645s are quite compact, especially rangefinders.</p>

[patrik_ros_n]

<p>If you mainly shoot street photography the Fuji Rangefinder MF cameras is the way to go! I own a Leica MP that I use for Street and a Hasselblad 203FA that I use for Architecture/Nature/weddings. I've had the hasselblad with me to the streets sometimes but its a useless street photography camera really. Its loud and intimidating when shooting, although you can get some nice attention, which might end up with a nice portrait. </p>