Medium Format for Handheld

[jeffrey_haddock1]

I know somewhat similar questions have been posted in the past, but

I was unable to find a good number of responses to my questions. I

have been shooting 35mm for some time and have some very limited

experience with MF and LF systems.

 

I shoot Delta 100 BW print film, just because I love the film, and I

think all should know a starting point. I shoot maybe 50/50 handheld

and with a tripod, and am looking at medium format cameras that will

give me more negative to work with. I have pretty much decided that

6x4.5 is not large enough, and I am not a great fan of the 6x6

square format either. Obviosuly, this leaves me with a 6x7 system.

 

I have used a Hasselblad handheld in the past, but being used to a

35mm SLR I found it very difficult to focus with the WLF. I have

seen some postings that state that the WLF just takes time getting

used to, but I want to be sure before I shell out the money for a MF

system. Focusing with the WLF was very difficult for me mostly

because I was used to the split image focuser on my Canon AE-2

finder. Is it really possible to use a WLF handheld and be able to

focus as easily as with a my 35mm SLR, or was my first attempt

representative of what I should expect? One reason I have begun to

consider a WLF is the fact that it is less intrusive than an eye

level finder, as I often shoot in urban areas where I would like to

be as inconspicuous as possible. I am not shooting people or

anything, but in certain circumstances I really don't want to draw

too much attention to myself, if you know what I mean.

 

I have been seriously looking at two different cameras, the Fuji

GW690 and the Pentax 67. Obviously much different cameras, but I

think I am starting to shy away from the Fuji because I like to

shoot with a normal lens or slightly longer focal length, and the

90 is a bit wide for my liking. Also, the all plastic construction

of the Fuji is a little of a turn off. Looking at the P67, I have

seen many arguments on both sides about handholding the beast, and I

am somewhat convinced that it is possible because the mirror shake

isn't an issue at 1/60s and under.

 

The Mamiya RB67 (or is it the RZ67?) looks like a possible

alternative as it is both 6x7 and the one I was looking at only had

the WLF. How are the lenses for this system? On par with the P67 or

will I be wanting? Thanks for any and all responses.

 

Jef

 

http://inDigital.ca

[joey]

Jeffrey,<br>

A TLR would be a good choice, but that's square. I can appreciate your want for a bigger negative.<br><br>

 

The P67 and RB67 (mechanical version of the RZ) are big, clunky SLRs, and for the most part, they belong on a tripod. I do sometimes use my RB handheld, but it's not a lot of fun. These cameras both have excellent lenses and a large variety of used equipment available. The Pentax is styled more like a 35mm slr; the RB has bellows focusing, interchangeable backs, and a rotating back mechanism.<br><Br>

 

I notice you didn't mention the Mamiya 7. It's a rangefinder, with a very excellent reputation regarding its optics. The only problems are the lack of interchangeable backs, rangefinder focusing, and the price.<br><br>

 

For more info, read <a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html">this site</a>.

[Spearhead]

<i>I have used a Hasselblad handheld in the past, but being used to a 35mm SLR I found it very difficult to focus with the WLF. </i><p>

 

If this is the case, you may find shooting with a rangefinder may turn out to be just as difficult. Many people buy rangefinders and find using them to be difficult. That doesn't mean you can't learn to shoot with one, but you have to be prepared for the possibility that you will feel the same way about a Fuji 6x7 (or Mamiya 7.) <p>

 

Have you thought about an eye level finder for the Hasselblad?<p>

 

One last note - the Fuji is very well-built, regardless of the materials in it. I did find the absence of a bulb setting for the shutter to be a problem for my shooting.

[olliesteiner]

I had an RB67 for a while and finally gave it up because, like you, I like to do some handheld, as well as tripod work. I found the RB67 totally unusable for handheld work; it's like making a picture with a bowling ball. You might as well be trying to use an 8X10 view camera for a handheld shot as use the RB67, as far as I'm concerned. A Hasselblad which I had on loan for a week was somewhat better, but I wouldn't buy one, because I found it too to be not really comfortable for handheld work. Of those I've tried, the only camera which seemed, to me, suitable for handheld work was a Rolleiflex TLR. The lesson I learned was that, when I was actually moving the camera around to line up a shot, weight became much more of an issue than I had previously thought it to be.

[barry schmetter]

In case you weren't aware, there is a split image screen available for Hasselblads. It's not much different than focusing a 35mm SLR, especially with a chimney or prism finder. However, I would not get something heavier than a 6x6 SLR if you intend doing much handheld work.

 

Ideally, I think you'd be much better off with a rangefinder. How about a Bronica RF 645 with the 100mm lens? I think it's a nice little camera and pretty inconspicuous as MF cameras go. The Fuji rangefinders *are* well built and you can't beat a 6x9 neg. Even if you find the 90mm slightly wide, you can crop a fair amount and still have a big neg. I use my GSW690 around the wilds of DC. It discreetly slips into a Domke camera satchel and is pretty low key.

 

The bottom line is that you've got to accept some compromises with a MF camera. And no, you're not going to be inconspicuous carting around an RZ67.

[olliesteiner]

Sorry, I meant to have said: Of those I've tried, the only MEDIUM FORMAT camera which seemed, to me, suitable for handheld work was a Rolleiflex TLR. Also, my medium format experience is limited to the RB67, Hasselblad and Rolleiflex TLR.

[ky2]

I shoot quite a lot with the Fuji 6x7 rangefinder (90mm lens), and after I sorted out some of the normal quirks associated with a rangefinder, I must admit that it's the best handheld MF camera I've ever used. Yes, you need to know how to focus with it, but the camera is just perfectly built, takes gorgeous photos, and is very easy to use and carry around.

[godfrey]

<i> I have used a Hasselblad handheld in the past, but being used to a 35mm SLR I found it very difficult to focus with the WLF</i>

<br><br>

I don't think it's the WLF itself. I had difficulty focusing with the 500CM/WLF I bought last year. Problem one: the focusing magnifier was a 0 diopter (standard issue). I needed a -1 diopter, even with my glasses on, to focus on the screen consistently. Problem 2: neither the Acute Matte split-image on matte fresnel nor microprism on matte fresnel ever really gave me the kind of focusing "tooth" that I needed. I fitted a Maxwell Bright Matte Grid screen, no focusing aid, and now the camera is a pleasure to focus ... The image just snaps into focus cleanly, clearly with the 80mm lens and did the same with my friend Jim's 40mm lens mounted as well.

<br><br>

I find it easier to use the WL finder now than to use a prism, because a Hassy prism finder weighs a bit and makes the camera more difficult to hand-hold. I prefer the WL perspective, and the using a focus magnifier and screen which is a good match to my eyesight makes all the difference.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[kelvin_chao]

Have both a WLF and a 90deg prism. The prism is easier/faster to focus. I do find the low level perspective of the WLF more interesting. If I am interested in using the WLF for street photography I pretty much use the zone system to focus. If there is much ambient light bouncing around the focus screen may be hard to see.

 

Have you considered a GS-1 with a speed grip. I would say that it would be the most hand-holdable 6x7 SLR.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

I'll second the Maxwell screen. Someone sold me an old Rolleiflex with one installed, and it's a pleasure to use.

 

But back to the original question. Are you sure you really can't use 645? 645 is 2.5 times the area of 35mm, and bumps you up one whole size in your prints with the same quality: your A3s now look as good as your 35mm A4s. Do you really need the full 4 times the area that 6x7 provides?

 

The reason I ask is that it would seem to me that the Bronica RF645 with the 100mm lens is exactly what you are asking for. It's slightly longer than normal, the camera is perfect handheld, and the rangefinder is the easiest-to-focus rangefinder I've ever tried. I'd think that the 150mm lens on the Mamiya 7II would be much harder to use. With my Mamiya 645, I find that my 110/2.8 is about the limit for handheld work: the image in the viewfinder shakes all over the place with the 150 handheld. IMHO, handholding a 150mm lens is somewhere between pushing it and downright unreasonable. And any camera with a flapping mirror can't be used without at least a monopod under it.

[ilkka]

To some extent, all MF cameras belong on a tripod because they have slow lenses that need to be stopped down even more to get decent depth of field. This includes rangefinders. But Pentax 67 is among the most ergonomic MF SLR cameras for hand holding. It it actually not that much bigger and heavier than a Nikon F5 or Canon EOS 1. And it is small and light when compared with mamiya RB or RZ with their prism finders attached. Lenses for both systems are excellent. But again, Pentax lenses are typically somewhat smaller, and faster, as they lack the central shutter. Put a fast 2.4 or 2.8 lens on that P67 and hand holding it is no problem at all with good technique. And for stationary subjects, it is even possible to lock that mirror up before firing the shutter.

[jonathan_richardson]

The Fuji GW690 looks great but the lens is wider than standard "angle: 58 ° (equivalent to a focal length of 39 mm for 35mm)" the Fuji GW670 has a longer focal length "angle: 52° (equivalent to a focal length of 44 mm for 35mm),". The Pentax 67 has a huge mirror, thus you need a faster shutter speed.

 

The Mamiya 7II for a 6*7 negative or Mamiya 6 MF for a 6*6 negative, with either you can change lens and you keep the advantages of a range finder.

 

I think it a deepens on three issues.

 

1. What you take pictures of.

2. If you need a range of lenses or can manage with one lens.

3. What size prints you need.

[john_bright]

Regarding the Fuji GW build, I asked the guy at their service centre for his opinion. He said that they were good and strong with an alum alloy die-cast body and ABS Plastic finish, but try not to wack the lens to hard from the front. That sounds like good advice for any camera. Most cameras have a bit of plastic on them now don't they.

 

The GW670 111 with 90mm lens (35mm equiv = 44mm) and Delta 100 is awesome and fits most paper sizes ideally (no cropping).

[jay_.]

I use Hasselblad. I've got prisms but when I use the WL it's actually more of an eye-level for me, as I use the magnifier and put my eye right down on top of it. I have no problem focusing the standard Acute-Matte screen that way. With the older prisms which were 3x, I didn't have a problem, but the PM45 is 2.5x and the split/microprism screen is now a must for me.

 

That said, I've also owned Pentax 67, Horseman VH-R, Fuji GW670III, GA645Zi, and several TLR's. IMO no MF SLR is handholdable except with flash if you really want to get your money's worth from the format vs 35mm. If you want flexibility in terms of lenses with a non-SLR 6x7, the Mamiya 7/7II is pretty much the only game in town.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

I use my 501CM/CFE80 a lot handheld (in fact mostly, exept landscapes at long time), and don't have problems with that. For landscapes I often prerelease it, but not if the speed is 1/125 or shorter. I have handheld with a mix of flashlight(Metz 45CT at 1/2 power) and stagelight at 1/30s with good result without prereleasing.

 

To focus safe I have to use the loupe of the WLF (in dim light), I have the Acute Matte with split image and microprisme, and would like to try the Maxwell Bright Matte screen without focusing aids. I have a 3x loupefinder (52096) that i like because i can se all the image (it is nice for close up work), but unfortunatly I have to take off my glasses, so I mostly use the WLF.

[greg_smith4]

I think the Mamiya 7 rangefinder will be your best choice. THe Pentax 67 is a nice camera, but really heavy and big.

[jimvanson]

The Fuji 6x7 or 6x9's or the Bronica GS1 with prism & grip...even though I'm kind of a Pentax guy the GS1 is superb for hand holding. The price is reasonable and the lenses are very good.

[roger c]

Rangefinders are best for handheld shooting because there's hardly any vibration. MF SLRs have big mirrors with quite a kick. Try a Mamiya 7.

[kevin_baker___heidelberg_]

Another vote for the Mamiya 7 line.

 

Forget gradient filters, but that is the only limitation.

[roger_michel]

the maxwell screen is an improvement, but the boss screen is, well, da boss. try one if ever you have a chance. the contrast performance, which is the essential key to accurate focusing, is just amazing with the boss.

[godfrey]

<i>Rangefinders are best for handheld shooting because there's hardly any vibration.</i>

<br><br>

This is certainly true, and is the reason that the camera I choose to do photo walkabouts with is the Hassy 903SWC. I sold my Fuji GA645 a week or so ago, the guy who bought it from me is enjoying it a lot for similar reasons:

<blockquote><i><b>... I've shot 5 rolls of BW and 1 of color. I really

like that Fuji. It allows me to use a medium format where I hadn't been able

to in the past. It's quick and easy and the lens is really good. ... </b></i></blockquote>

Godfrey

[jeffrey_haddock1]

Thanks to all who replied. I think I have a pretty good idea of what is available out there, and the fact that this MF thing is really all about compromise. I am leaning towards the RB Pro S system. I dropped by a local used camera dealer and checked out some other Pro S cameras that were available. I played with it a bit, and as far as focusing with the WLF I found it surprisingly easy to use, however I was in the store and there wasn't exactly a heap of ambient light hitting the ground glass, so I don't know if that is really representative of the finder. It was pretty heavy, but I can handle it, especially with the use of a neck strap.

 

In response to some questions posed to me, I shoot Delta 100 print film and enlarge to a fairly large size. Let's put it this way, when shooting 35mm I try to not enlarge too far past a 5"x7.25", and that is too small for me. Square is out, so a 6x6 would have to be cropped to almost 645 size, and those are a little tiny. 645 gives about 2.7 times what a 35mm does full frame (which I often print). Or acceptable 8.5x11 (or so) final prints. The 67 would allow me to print 11x14 with very good quality, and break into the 16x20 paper size, not using the whole sheet, but comfortably print at maybe 13x16.5 and that range with outstanding results. The 6x6 format, to me anyway, seems like a waste because I rarely print square, or anything close to it, so a 6x6 is just a bigger and more wasteful 645. I actually like the 6x9 aspect ratio and all the extra neg but I can live without it. For those who do not print black and white my standards may seem a little high, but when I look at some of my 5x7.25 work from delta 100 on 35mm I am very happy with it, and to retain that quality up to 11x14+ would be great.

 

There is a lot of talk about the slow lenses on MF cameras and therefore point and shoot doesn't work. Here is the thing though. When I say point and shoot, I mean using 100 ASA film, the lens stopped up to about f/11 and shutter at 1/125s. How is this arrangement going to have to change if I switch to MF? Obviously the lens is longer and it may be better to use 1/250 to get the results that I want, and maybe go to f/8, but other than that? It's not like I shoot with the lens wide open right now.

 

Jef

http://inDigital.ca

[ilkka]

It all depends on what you are shooting, and when. If you use a 50 mm normal lens on 35mm camera and need to use F/11 to get the depth of field you want, then switching to a 100 mm MF normal lens you need to stop down to F/22 to get the same DOF at the same distance. If you instead stop it down to F/8, to gain some shutter speed, it only gives equivalent DOF to a 50 mm normal at F/4. Hardly the same thing as F/11. And at F/22 you would be looking at shutter speed of 1/30s. But, as you said, hand holding is certainly doable in good enough light.

[kelvin_chao]

Jef:

 

Re: "what differences"

 

Compared to 35mm the equivalent MF lens is longer but I don't think that this by itself will necessitate a faster shutter speed. The greater mass of a MF camera should dampen everything just that much more. If it hasn't been mentioned before you will notice less DOF in MF compared to 35mm. This may be desirable ... perhaps not. For myself I find myself shooting 400 speed film in MF but 100speed in 35mm. Overall, I still find that my MF images have less grain.

[david_chananie]

I don't know whether you require different size lenses for the shooting you wish to do with the larger format. If a normal lens will do, I'm surprised no one has mentioned a 6x7 or larger folding camera such as a zeiss ikon ikonta c. You have the advantages of being able to use all of the negative area, high quality optics, and lite weight. If this is of interest, search the archives here for treads about the cameras which are available. Hope this helps.