Experienced photographer.. want to get into Medium Format

[Ed_Ingold]

Recognition that a rectangle was more pleasing to the eye than a square predates the ancient Greeks, who put a number to it called the "Golden Ratio," approximately 1.62

 

Ratio - Wikipedia

 

An Hasselblad is roughly the size of a Kodak Hawkeye, if you disregard the lens, whereas an RB/RZ is the size of a small shoebox. My Hasselblad has gone practically everywhere with me for nearly two decades, but I've never given the Mamiya a second look.

[philip_dygeus2]

I went for Hasselblad a 203FE in my case because I wanted the meter and aperture priority. I find it light enough, at about 1,5kg with the standard 80mm. I considered the Mamiya 6 and 7 but didn't like that the meter is not through the lens. And I wanted a full SLR system. Since I've always been intrigued by the square format Hasselblad was the logical choice. While I like trying to compose so I can retain the square frame I'm not opposed to cropping a photo to fit the subject matter.

 

A 500CM will be cheaper and take pretty much the same pictures using an external meter so that's one to consider.

 

You could get a 50mm Distagon CF for around 300 Euro or the C version for 2/3 of that. But the 80 Planar is a great lens and, coming from the 135 format, surprisingly 'wide'. I recently added a 2x extender to save on space in my bag and have a really quite competent 160/5.6 solution.

 

From what I've seen the Epson V600 or V700 work really well with MF frames. Excellent quality and value for money. Scanning is a bit of a dark art but it's not terribly difficult to do. And don't hesitate to ask questions. Lots of us have gone through the same learning curve and can help you leapfrog. Digitizing is certainly an option but it will probably involve stitching frames. Not a major hassle as long as one sets up the workflow well.

 

Just a few ideas.

 

br

Philip

[Robin Smith]

As someone who shot 6 x 6 and cropped, if I were to do it again I would probably go 645, since although you can make great square shots, most of the time a non-rectangular shot is required. For landscapes it means usually too much sky or foreground. A 645 camera usually is cheaper and lighter and you get more shots per roll. I also agree with Rodeo Joe's analysis of the minuses of going for MF today; but, if you have a darkroom, then more power to you.

[Ray S]

Those transformative CLAs so often discussed aren't that easy to find any longer.

What are CLAs?

[Ray S]

For a mixed assortment of subjects -- something on the order of a 6x7 MF press RF camera, take a look at the Rapid Omega 100 and its various models.

It's like a very convenient outsized rangefinder, interchangeable lenses (not always easy to find). (first post at Rapid Omega 100 6x7 RF camera ).

• [ATTACH=full]1181141[/ATTACH]

  
  

Interesting but too big for me I think.

[Ray S]

I went for Hasselblad a 203FE in my case because I wanted the meter and aperture priority. I find it light enough, at about 1,5kg with the standard 80mm. I considered the Mamiya 6 and 7 but didn't like that the meter is not through the lens. And I wanted a full SLR system. Since I've always been intrigued by the square format Hasselblad was the logical choice. While I like trying to compose so I can retain the square frame I'm not opposed to cropping a photo to fit the subject matter.

 

A 500CM will be cheaper and take pretty much the same pictures using an external meter so that's one to consider.

 

You could get a 50mm Distagon CF for around 300 Euro or the C version for 2/3 of that. But the 80 Planar is a great lens and, coming from the 135 format, surprisingly 'wide'. I recently added a 2x extender to save on space in my bag and have a really quite competent 160/5.6 solution.

 

From what I've seen the Epson V600 or V700 work really well with MF frames. Excellent quality and value for money. Scanning is a bit of a dark art but it's not terribly difficult to do. And don't hesitate to ask questions. Lots of us have gone through the same learning curve and can help you leapfrog. Digitizing is certainly an option but it will probably involve stitching frames. Not a major hassle as long as one sets up the workflow well.

 

Just a few ideas.

 

br

Philip

Unfortunately, that 203FE is well on the high side of of what I want to spend.

[c_watson1]

What are CLAs?

Clean, Lube. Adjust

[philip_dygeus2]

I didn't mean to suggest that you should go for the 203FE. What is your budget, if I may ask? Knowing that it would be a bit easier to help.

 

Unfortunately, that 203FE is well on the high side of of what I want to spend.

[Ray S]

Clean, Lube. Adjust

That's what I was thinking. Wanted to be sure I understood it in context. I didn't realize finding someone to perform a quality CLA on a medium format camera was difficult to do these days, but that said it does make some sense.

[Ray S]

I didn't mean to suggest that you should go for the 203FE. What is your budget, if I may ask? Knowing that it would be a bit easier to help.

 

Hi Philip,

 

No problem. I was just clarifying as well. I shoot a dslr primarily (Nikon D500 w/ a plethora of lenses LOL) and have only recently started shooting film again. I was influence to do so after getting my dad's Canon QL17 Rangefinder that he purchased back around 1965/66. It was one of his first camera's and a prized possessions. of his. Due to the lack of onsite developing in California stores I've even begun developing the film myself at home using a Paterson tank system.

 

So what's my budget? Realistically since I'm just now testing these waters, as little as possible but that amount is also tempered by ensuring that whatever I get will allow me to grow at this art. So that said, i'm thinking $500-1k for a good but basic system.

 

I've been discussing my intentions with a good friend who is very familiar with the film and shooting options but is not knowledgeable about the gear (he worked at a commercial film developer in the 1990's/2000's and developed everything including 35mm, & especially medium & large format films). He's enlightened me to some of the basics.

 

I've also been trying to review the various MF size formats and found this article (Understanding Medium Format Crop Factors) that compares the different MF formats and the related bodies and brands along with their associated lens options.

 

Based on all of that and my preference to shoot nature landscapes and maybe an occasional (i.e. for fun) portrait, I'm looking for a model with a nice wide angle lens which should be ideal so I'm now considering 645, 6x6, 6x7 formats. I'm still determining which of these will be the most ideal based on a combination of body & wide lens availability, cost, & reliability.

[philip_dygeus2]

Thanks for writing back Ray. I'm not very knowledgeable about other medium format systems since I've only used Hasselblad. Clearly it's possible to crop a square frame into any other ratio though one doesn't then, of course, make use of the film in a way that say a 6x7 camera would. Still, a cropped 6x6 is quite a bit larger than a frame on 135 film. Here's an article from the excellent Hasselblad Historical which compares the 6x6 format in various respects (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) with other formats. I have found this page helpful when considering lenses to buy.

 

For a budget of max 1k USD it should be possible to find a 500 series Hasselblad with a 50mm lens (but probably without the standard 80mm Planar), if 6x6 is what you would like to try. I'm saying this based on prices I've seen in Sweden where the 50mm CF Distagon (non-floating lens element) can be found for the equivalent of 350 USD and the 500 C/M body for around 550 USD. But I realise prices vary a lot between countries and sellers.

 

Incidentally here's an HH page describing the various models. The gliding mirror system of the 501 CM removes the vignetting seen in the finder when longer than 100mm lenses are used (though I've seen statements that it's from around 120mm it's visible). It won't affect the image of course. That model will possibly be quite a bit newer than the 500 C/M but the latter was made until the mid-1990s though so if you're not going to shoot longer lenses (or if you're not bothered by the vignetting) then you could go for the 500 C/M. Or the 501 C which had a brighter screen. The 503xxx models tend to cost more because of the electronics, but the various ELx models are usually quite cheap. They are heavier because of the motor but could be a good deal, if well kept or serviced. And it is possible to replace the proprietary batteries with adapters to use alkaline batteries.

 

You may have to budget for a service of the camera so best if you can buy one which (together with the lens, bearing in mind that the shutter is in the lens) has comparably recently been serviced, and of course to buy from a place that offers a warranty or at least a reasonable return privilege.

 

Just a few thoughts. It's also a question about how you 'see'. If you tend to see more 'rectangularly' and, in particular, if you would like to use the portrait format, then you might find a 6x6 camera quite restrictive, even frustratingly so. Luckily there are then lots of other options.

 

best

philip

 

Hi Philip,

 

No problem. I was just clarifying as well. I shoot a dslr primarily (Nikon D500 w/ a plethora of lenses LOL) and have only recently started shooting film again. I was influence to do so after getting my dad's Canon QL17 Rangefinder that he purchased back around 1965/66. It was one of his first camera's and a prized possessions. of his. Due to the lack of onsite developing in California stores I've even begun developing the film myself at home using a Paterson tank system.

 

So what's my budget? Realistically since I'm just now testing these waters, as little as possible but that amount is also tempered by ensuring that whatever I get will allow me to grow at this art. So that said, i'm thinking $500-1k for a good but basic system.

 

I've been discussing my intentions with a good friend who is very familiar with the film and shooting options but is not knowledgeable about the gear (he worked at a commercial film developer in the 1990's/2000's and developed everything including 35mm, & especially medium & large format films). He's enlightened me to some of the basics.

 

I've also been trying to review the various MF size formats and found this article (Understanding Medium Format Crop Factors) that compares the different MF formats and the related bodies and brands along with their associated lens options.

 

Based on all of that and my preference to shoot nature landscapes and maybe an occasional (i.e. for fun) portrait, I'm looking for a model with a nice wide angle lens which should be ideal so I'm now considering 645, 6x6, 6x7 formats. I'm still determining which of these will be the most ideal based on a combination of body & wide lens availability, cost, & reliability.

[rossb]

I just watched a you-tube video with Ben Horne who is a large format photographer and has an extensive you-tube channel. Anyway he made a video comparing flat bed scans (he made his own holder) with drum scans on his 8x10 transparencies. Drum scan is slightly better is how it comes out to the tune of $220.00 a scan. However he is a professional guy and wants the absolute best. I did not catch which flat bed scanner he is using. I guess it makes me feel like a regular guy could buy a good quality Epson scanner and pick up a free or inexpensive medium format camera someplace and have a bunch of fun with it. I might give it a go myself. It's all fun.

[philip_dygeus2]

The results I've seen of 120 film (and larger) scanned on the Epson V series flatbeds are very nice. This is a Flickr group for V550/V600 photos, just as an example of what I mean.

 

I just watched a you-tube video with Ben Horne who is a large format photographer and has an extensive you-tube channel. Anyway he made a video comparing flat bed scans (he made his own holder) with drum scans on his 8x10 transparencies. Drum scan is slightly better is how it comes out to the tune of $220.00 a scan. However he is a professional guy and wants the absolute best. I did not catch which flat bed scanner he is using. I guess it makes me feel like a regular guy could buy a good quality Epson scanner and pick up a free or inexpensive medium format camera someplace and have a bunch of fun with it. I might give it a go myself. It's all fun.

[rossb]

The results I've seen of 120 film (and larger) scanned on the Epson V series flatbeds are very nice. This is a Flickr group for V550/V600 photos, just as an example of what I mean.

 

 

I went back to the you-tube video of Ben Horne and he was using a V700. If I were going to jump into medium format I would probably buy the V600 based on the price and the decent reviews. . But I do not have a MF camera and there are not any film camera's for sale around my area. KEH wants a lot of money for an old camera and I do not want to do that. I do shoot 35mm and develop/scan at home. Still if I ever come across a medium format somehow I would shoot it for fun. I doubt I could chase my Grandkids around with a clunky old medium format with much success but I would give it a try. I doubt I would use it for landscape as carrying a heavy camera on a day hike does not sound fun to me. I would rather just carry my FM2n.

[rossb]

This thread got me thinking about medium format and so I started looking around at camera's and watched some videos on the Epson V600 for scanning medium format. After looking for a while I finally bought a Mamiya 645e and an 80mm lens from KEH. It's in EX+ condition and I figure it will be very nice when I get it. After I get the camera and check it out to make sure everything appears to be working I will buy the Epson V600. BHPhoto is not open currently anyway but about the time they are selling stuff again I will be ready for it. I thought I would start with 5 rolls of HP5, pick up an orange 16a filter (others later as I feel the need) and another Patterson tank as my 35mm single roll tank will not handle medium format film. In a couple weeks I should have some photos and hopefully they will justify the expense. I did not particularly care which format really but the 645 seems nice as it will crop well for 4x6 and 8x10 which is the 2 sizes that I print out. Also the 645 will give me a few extra frames on a roll which is economical.

[Ray S]

Thanks for writing back Ray.

...

best

philip

Thanks again Philip! I found this article (Understanding Medium Format Crop Factors) on the different crop factors and the relative bodies and lenses available for each. it's not an exhaustive list of lenses by any stretch but it gives me a good idea of what is available for what and what the 35mm field of view equivalent would be for the various focal length versus format.

 

I'm still in the process of determining what would work best based on my budget. Speaking of which, I did like the Hasselblad V system bodies until I saw the cost of a 30mm lens (>$2K)!! OUCH!

 

But that said, I've also begun shooting 35mm rangefinders (both a Yashica Electro 35 GTN & a Canon QL17 GIII) & developing the results at home.

 

I'd also love to find a local tech who can repair my dad's QL17 (circa 1965 and much earlier than the 1970's era GIII) but that camera is probably not something that will be easy to repair so my best option will probably be to buy a working one in good condition on ebay or a local shop.

 

This thread got me thinking about medium format and so I started looking around at camera's and watched some videos on the Epson V600 for scanning medium format. After looking for a while I finally bought a Mamiya 645e and an 80mm lens from KEH. It's in EX+ condition and I figure it will be very nice when I get it. After I get the camera and check it out to make sure everything appears to be working I will buy the Epson V600. BHPhoto is not open currently anyway but about the time they are selling stuff again I will be ready for it. I thought I would start with 5 rolls of HP5, pick up an orange 16a filter (others later as I feel the need) and another Patterson tank as my 35mm single roll tank will not handle medium format film. In a couple weeks I should have some photos and hopefully they will justify the expense. I did not particularly care which format really but the 645 seems nice as it will crop well for 4x6 and 8x10 which is the 2 sizes that I print out. Also the 645 will give me a few extra frames on a roll which is economical.

 

Yeah, I'm currently using a lower end Epson V300 scanner for the 35mm color negative slides. It does an admirable job but does not support scanning MF film. I'll probably take a close friend up on his offer to help me photograph the slides instead. He built an in-home rig to photograph pictures and negatives using his D800 dslr mounted onto a vertical column. It's much quicker than making a high res scan & the results I've seen are pretty darned good rivaled only by a commercial drum scanner.

[ben_hutcherson]

FWIW, I'm not nuts about the MF holders for the V700/750/800/850. The 35mm and 4x5 holders are fine(although I use a Nikon Coolscan for 35mm primarily) but I find the MF holders difficult to load and the film support to be a bit lacking. It can be a wrestling match if your film has any curl to it at all.

 

My old Canoscan 2400f, which is a cheap scanner, had a much better MF holder in my opinion. If had two small clips to hold the film, slightly wider supports(that didn't intrude into the film area) and came with a stiff plastic card to support the frames not being scanned.

 

Don't get me wrong-my V700 does a great job, but if I want to get the most out of a negative that's not perfectly flat, I usually end up wet scanning it. It's easy enough to adapt the V700 for wet scanning, but the process itself has a fairly steep learning curve and I still often have to try mounting a couple of times to get everything completely bubble free.

 

BTW, I have been a 6x6 shooter for as long as I've been into medium format(about 10 years now). I have a lot of photos that just work well as squares, and also a lot of cropped ones. I started with a Rolleicord Va, bought an early Rolleiflex soon after, and spent a LONG time using either or both of those cameras as my main MF cameras. The 'Cords and 3.5 'flexes are fairly small and light, and I find them quite comfortable to use. I had wanted an SLR for a long time, and finally bought a Bronica SQ-a few years ago. While I could have spend maybe $200 more for a basic Hasselbad system, the draw to the Bronica to me is that lenses and accessories like film backs are significantly less expensive for the Bronica than the 500 series cameras. The Bronica lenses are excellent. Not too long ago, I picked up another Bronica system with an S2a and a C body along with 5 lenses(two 75mms, a 50, 135, and 150). This system is totally incompatible with the SQ system. It also is functionally quite different-it has an instant return mirror that goes down(not up) so the lenses can extend quite deeply into the body and uses focal plane shutters. The focusing helical is separate from the lenses(although it can be removed), which has the advantage of making the lenses relatively light. I've been cautioned to treat them carefully as they've been described to me as a "mechanical nightmare" but the Nikkor optics are superb. I'm also probably going to be taking advantage of low prices and picking up an RB67 soon.

 

I do have to say that one camera which has been intriguing recently is the Fuji GS645. This is something of a modern take on the folding rangefinder. I like it because it's a small non-intimidating camera that I suspect would pass as a 10 year old digital P&S at venues that don't allow "professional" cameras. It's also pocketable.

[glen_h]

If you just want to try MF film, there are plenty of affordable choices.

 

There are the Diana and Holga, cheap plastic cameras which go for surprising (to me) prices. I got one for $3.

 

There are folding bellows cameras from the 1920's to 1950's. Many use 116 film, hard to find, but enough use 120 film.

These have good quality glass lenses. Not like the lenses for Bronica and such, but much better than Diana and Holga.

 

There are TLRs like Yashica.

 

If you just want to develop and scan 120 film, those will let you do it. Then you can decide how much more you want.

 

It seems to me that the prices for MF haven't come down near as fast as for 35mm.

Many 35mm SLRs and lenses are available down to $10 or $20.

 

The usual MF SLRs, with a lens or two or three, are still in the $1000 range last I knew.

[Ray S]

I've done quite a bit of exhaustive research of the various formats (645, 6x6, 6x7. 6x8, 6x9), brands for each and lenses for each system and their price range for used lenses. Literally a spreadsheet with 50+ columns and 50+ rows.o_O

 

By far it appears that the Pentax 67 system is going to offer the greatest focal range available at an 'affordable' price (under 1k) for both wide angle & macro use.

 

So I'll be on the hunt for one and will eventually post up once I find something.

 

Thanks again all of your for the great advice.

[Ray S]

Edit: I forgot the Bronica also offers a similar lens range (wide & macro lenses) but I'm curious if anyone has further advice on other systems I should also be considering for Landscape (mostly) and possibly Macro photography that would be inexpensive to get into?

 

Also I read mention of using Nikkor lenses for some of the other 6x7 bodies. Are these Nikkor MF lenses or 35mm lenses used with adapters to allow it to work with an mf body?

 

Thanks again.

[rossb]

I picked up a Mamiya 645e and an Epson V600 scanner last week. I have shot 3 rolls of film and everything works perfectly. It's going to be a fun camera to own and shoot. I print a good portion of my photos out in 4x6 for the family albums and the 645 crops well for that. I am scanning at 2400 dpi which would print out at 13x17 at 300dpi easily and with some extra dots to spare and which is the largest my Canon printer will print out. I think the film holder is fine. No issues with it.

[Ray S]

Nice Ross! I just picked up an Epson V550 (same as V600 w/out the Photoshop Elements from what I understand). How fast are the scans? It's taking +30min to scan six 35mm frames @ 4800 dpi using the Epson V300.

 

I was originally looking at the Pentax 67 but am also seriously considering the Bronica GS-1. Both offer inexpensive wide angle, normal, & macro lenses which match my needs nicely.

[rossb]

I have been scanning the 645 negatives at 2400 dpi and have not timed it but I guess about 1 minute per frame. It gives me a file larger then I can print out on my Canon printer (13x17 max).. I am happy with the scan quality but I have not scanned a 35mm negative so far. I have been shooting the Mamiya since I got it. My V600 did not come with elements however I bought it from Freestyle if that makes a difference. Anyway I like the scanner. It has a few quirks that are not real great but I will get accustomed to it.

[ben_hutcherson]

Also I read mention of using Nikkor lenses for some of the other 6x7 bodies. Are these Nikkor MF lenses or 35mm lenses used with adapters to allow it to work with an mf body?

 

I didn't see this question earlier.

 

 

I mentioned Nikkor lenses for the earlier 6x6 Bronica series cameras. With one exception(the 13,5cm) these are purpose-designed MF lenses. The 135mm was designed for the Nikon RFs using an add-on mirror box. There is an adapter to use the rangefinder lens on the early series Bronicas, but it is rare and tends to be expensive. Unless I'm missing something, I also can't find a way to mount it on an S2a. To add to that, the lens in the Bronica mount is MUCH less expensive than in the Nikon RF mount.

 

 

One consideration with any lens is the image circle size. Basically the lens has to be able to "project" an image circle that is larger than at least covers the film and ideally is a bit larger(image circle does increase at longer focus distances and at smaller apertures). This is the no different from using an EF-S/DX lens on a 35mm or full frame digital camera-the lens will vignette severely. The 135mm Nikkor just happens to have a large enough circle to cover 6x6, but it's considered the worst performing lens for that camera. The image circle size is one of the reasons why f/2.8 is generally the fastest you'll find for 645 or 6x6(compare the fact that f/1.4 is common for a 50mm 35mm lens, while some go as large as f/1.2. Even mild telephotos like the Canon 80mm and 135mm can be quite fast also). 4x5 lenses tend to be even slower, with a "normal" 150mm lens for 4x5 often being f/4.5 or so. Admittedly this isn't a big deal since LF is almost always done from a tripod(good luck hand holding anything other than a press camera) and many landscape photographers consider f/22 or so to be an absolute minimum aperture(a lot of lenses will go to f/45 or f/64). The various Nikon and Canon tilt-shift lenses are MF lenses mounted on the T/S mount, but they're a lot more expensive than a 75/80/90mm lens for any MF system.

 

 

Offhand, I don't know of any 6x7 cameras that use Nikkor lenses(or have them available) but then I've been wrong before and I'm sure will be again. The only common Nikkor lenses I know of are the Bronica mount ones I mentioned above, and they are a bit of an odd duck even though they are excellent(with the exception of the 135).

 

 

As said, usually you are "married" to one particular brand of lenses when you buy into a system, and given the target market for MF cameras they all tend to be pretty good. We've had a discussion going in another thread about who made the lenses for the later Bronica cameras, as all are branded Zenzanon(the cameras are all marked Zenza, which I think was the parent company). I seem to recall there being one Zeiss lens made for the SQ system, but then I might be dreaming or confusing it with something else. Mamiya cameras use Mamiya-Sekor lenses, which have quite a good reputation. There are also standard pairings that aren't necessarily camera branded, but none the less are associated with the brand. The classic example of this is the Hasselblad V system where virtually all(if not all) lenses are Zeiss. F&H(Rolleiflex, Rolleicord) used both Schneider and Zeiss lenses, albeit on the later 2.8 series 'Flexes the Zeiss lenses are far more common.

 

 

If you use a press or technical camera, you can pretty much stick any lens on it you want provided that the lens board is large enough and you have enough bellows travel to focus to infinity(can be an issue both on very short and very long lenses). If you use a Crown Graphic(one of the most common/popular press cameras) you can get the board quite close to the film. The Speed Graphic limits you somewhat as the focal plane shutter limits how far back the bellows can travel vs. the Crown. A common shipping lens on these was a 90mm Kodak Ektar, which is a bit on the wide side for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 although not dramatically so. Many that you find will still have that lens. "Modern" view camera lens makers basically come down to Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji. All tend to be excellent.

[rick_jack1]

My two cents...many will disagree (but that is OK)...

Your about 20 years too late, unless your considering Medium Format digital. Sure, there are plenty of used MF SLR's out there and many have finally become affordable.

The problem is there is no more 220 film and processing the few films that are left can get expensive, a first rate scanner that will give you a scan that comes close to a 36mp DSLR will cost you more than the camera. If your serious about venturing into Medium Format, don't buy into a dead system. Stick with Hasselblad or Mamiya 645 that will accept a digital back. I love and collect Bronica cameras and would recommend any of them in a heartbeat but I have a full working darkroom and a good scanner. But I shoot them for nostalgia and fun. It gets expensive compared to picking up my DSLR and firing away. I'm a semi-retired pro who has used MF for 40 years.

If you process your own film, go for one and have fun with it.