One lens/body set up for portrait/allround photography

[patricks]

Toying around with the idea (again) of adding a MF to my set-up.

Thruthfully, I'm getting a lot milage out of my Canon 10D system,

but the idea of keeing a film body - and why not a MF? - is very

tempting.

 

Is there a good 'beginner' MF set-up with a fast (50mm equiv.) lens

that handles much like a SLR/rangefinder (don't want the waist level

finder) and doesn't cost a bundle?

 

I will mostly use it for spontaneous portrait/people photography.

 

Cheers,

[kymtman]

You will truly enjoy MF quality. I have a Canon D60 and love it, but when I shoot B&W I want film. I process my own. Scanned film I do not like so well, so when one wants B&W I shoot and print film. I have a Bronica that I bought on e-bay. I have a Kiev and it broke after five rolls of film. (junk) don't waste your money on junk save up and buy a good camera and especially a real good lens. Russian lens are good for portraits because of softness they produce. The Bronica lens are excellent in sharpness......go for the Gold!

[robert_eastman]

The answer is probably no. I guess it depends on how you define bundle. I think most of the MF rangefinders are pretty pricey even second hand and SLR's are always pretty expensive. Maybe an older mamiya 6 RF, I dont know much about them but they seem like they could be something that could suit you. Don't rule out a TLR though, WLF's just take a little getting used to. Don't forget a lightmeter ambient/flash is the way to go. Remember "fast" in MF is f 2.8 or so. I would usually recomend a TLR as a way to get into MF they are light, can be cheap, and generally hold resale very well. Think about it.

[hendrik_m_van_rooyen]

Hi Patric,

It's the right time to be in the MF buyers market. Check out ebay for Bronica, Mamiya and Pentax a lot of these cameras handle the same as a 35mm. Some might have a waist level finder, but if you do your homework right you can invest in a modular system that has interchangable finders, backs and lenses. Lens "speed" in a MF is slightly slower than in 35mm but you can get a "normal" 80mm lens for 645MF at f2, a 45mm wide at f2,8 and 140mm tele at f2.8.

MF tends to slow you down in a good way. You plan shots better, compose better and shoot less frames with better results (all things being equal).

You might lastly want to consider whether the system you invest in does have interchangable film back that you can later replace with a digital back when the need arise (and the prices drop!)

 

Happy Hunting

 

Regards

 

Hendrik van Rooyen

[andrew_ito]

I would consider a Fuji GA645zi. It's a 645 rangefinder with a built in 55-90mm

zoom (approx. 34-56mm in 35mm terms). Although the zoom is somewhat slow you

have a VERY lightweight and compact medium format camera with the versatility of a

zoom lens, program, aperture priority and full manual modes, autofocus, a built in fill

flash and a neat feature that records all your shooting data on the outside of your

film frame. The camera is considerably lighter than my 10D with lens and has a

titanium frame. When it first came out they were selling for around $1800. but can

now be found on the used market for less than $800! It's a great all around camera.

[barry_kenstler]

Patrick,

 

A well-used Pentax 67 sounds like the best fit to me. It is essentially a 35 mm SLR on steroids. These cameras have been popular with the fashion photography crowd for free-flowing, spontaneous shooting. The lenses are relatively fast and inexpensive, in part because they house no leaf shutter. A Pentax 67 system is a relative bargain, but still are not cheap. The 105 or 90 mm lenses are considered normal for the 6X7 format, with the 90 mm being a bit on the wide side.

 

Older twin lens reflexes and press cameras are the best bargains in medium format, but they don't handle like an SLR and aren't the first thing you think of when the word spontaneous comes up. Modern autofocus medium format cameras are probably the best fit, but they DO cost a bundle.

[keith_merrill]

Patrick,

 

You could look at the Bronica rf645. You can get this with current rebates for 1100.00 with a 60mm lens. It is not a terribly fast lens at f4, but it makes a small, lightweight, street package. I have been thinking of this camera for a while for street shooting, but just haven't gotten around to making up my mind. It also flash syncs at all speeds, has a neat little fill flash, the other lenses - well two actually, are not too pricey. Its not an slr system though with macro capability, a slew of lenses ect...

 

 

A pentax 645n or nII with a 75mm f2.8 is also a good choice being that it handles much like a 35mm camera, has autofocus, and the meter is quite good. It uses film inserts instead of backs, has a ton of inexpensive glass, can go to macro, has ttl flash, and feels quite good in the hands. Heavier than the Bronica - well actually it is just a completely different kind of animal.

 

 

To answer your question, it really depends on what you are looking to grow into. If you just want availability of 1 lens and don't care about changing film midrolls, or shooting poloroids, but just want a camera for fast handling one of the rangefinders or even a TLR will fit the bill. If you are looking to shoot fashion, need to change filmsbacks all the time, and want a modular type system, then there are plenty of those around.

[patricks]

Perhaps I should mention that I do have a special liking for b&w portraits and that I've had used Leica M's during the last couple of years (but I'm finding them somewhat limiting and stupidly expensive - as a hobby/weekend shooter, at best, the thought of owning $2K lenses is somewhat idiotic).

 

Cheers,

[olliesteiner]

I also wanted a medium format camera with normal lens and chose a used Rolleiflex. Although I don't mind waist level viewing per se, I nonetheless didn't want a waste level finder because of the lateral reversal. So I got the Rollei prism which gives me unreversed eye level viewing. I personally prefer this setup to the RB67 I once used because the Rolleiflex lets me see the subject at the instant of exposure (very helpful if one is trying to capture a facial expression in portraiture), because there is no mirror vibration, and because the Rolleiflex is practical for handheld work (the RB67 was not).

If you would like to compare some Rolleiflex photos with Leica M6TTL photos, they are posted at my web site:

 

http://photos.oliversteiner.com

 

Each photo is labeled indicating camera, film and developer.

[olliesteiner]

I mistakenly omitted an important word (TLR) from the first sentence of my post. It should read: I also wanted a medium format camera with normal lens and chose a used Rolleiflex TLR.

[m_.]

Pat: If yo have toyed Leica before, then Fuji MF rangefinder is right at home for you. I will personally go for manual focus and the largerest format on 120 roll film possible. That mean if you can find a used Fuji GW690 II or III, you are in for a treat.

[barry_weiss]

Patrick - You could try one of the medium format folders. I have a couple of Zeiss folders in 6x6 and 6x9 and like that I can throw them in a large coat pocket. Good lenses, manual everything. I carry a tiny Voigtlander meter with them. The Holga cameras are another way to experiment very cheaply with MF, though a distinct and limited type of MF format.

[dougmiles]

Hi-- I have two Pentax 6x7's, one since 1976. Also a Fuji GS645S (60mm f/4, manual) & GA645Wi (45mm f/4, AE, AF, motor), and a Bronica RF645 with 45 f/4, 65 f/4, and 100mm f/4.5. With a background in manual 35mm Pentaxes, Leica M2, Bessas, among others.

 

I find the big Pentax a lovely camera for landscapes and other such slower work. But it's rather large and loud for quick reaction in markets and the street. It was my choice today for a run into the hills for Fall color shots.

 

The 645 rangefinders come into their own for impromtu portraits just as the Leica & 35 Summicron do. The 60-65mm "normal" lens is rather like a 40mm field of view for a 35, and the 45mm lenses are comparable to a 28mm field. This is "where it's at" for me in informal portraiture.

 

I'd suggest the Fuji GS645 as an easy manual camera with a good parallax- and field-corrected viewfinder, built-in meter, and a very sharp lens. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Bronica. Bronica has auto exposure and the interchangeable lenses. 100mm is nice for tighter framing, but I mostly use the other two. Another thought is the Mamiya 6 or 7 which I have no personal knowledge of, but which get a lot of favorable mention here.

[richard baznik]

Patrick: I'm 60 and have been using Leicas since my father introduced me to them more than 50 years ago (currently an M3 and an M6 with a full range of lenses). About a decade ago I started using MF as well (currently a Bronica GS-1 system), and two years ago also began dabbling with LF (currently a Plaubel 4x5). I'm not a pro, but shoot mostly B&W portraits, cityscapes, and landscapes.

 

There's no question that I use the Leica system less now than before I started dallying with other formats, but most of the MF and LF work I do is stuff I simply never would have tried with the Leica. And while I looked at a MF RF system (Mamiya), its similarity to the Leicas was not a positive for the kind of work I wanted it for.

 

While I really like the Bronica system, it sounds to me like you'd be well served by a used Pentax 6x7. Their optics are wonderful, and they're out there on the used market in large numbers. You don't get the interchangeable backs, however, so think about that.

[patricks]

What about something like a Mamiya 645 kit with a standard 80/2.8 lens - any users?

[jay_.]

Patrick, I have to echo the recommendation for a Rolleiflex and here is why:

 

As film declines in popularity the only film cameras that are not going to drop to nothing in value are those that either can be converted to digital (eg MF's with digital backs, or maybe the Leica R digital back although it's got to attach to the lousiest piece of crap on the planet); or those that have cult collector followings such as Leica rangefinders...and Rolleiflexes.

 

Second, the only MF with a lens faster than f/2.8 would be an F or 200-series Blad with the 110/2 F or FE, and that's still awfully expensive and frankly the mirror slap in a Blad makes it a dubious handholder even at 1/1000 if you really want to get your money's worth out of MF. A Rollei 2.8 isn't as fast, but like a Leica rangefinder you can handhold it 2-3 speeds slower.

 

Last, although I do have a prism for my 2.8F, it and my early-50's MX (Automat IV)have sportsfinders with a little mirror that reflects the central part of the screen through a viewfinder just below the sportsfinder eye-hole, for focusing. I had a 2.8C that had this feature also. Great for fast handheld eyelevel shooting. So just make sure the Rollei you get has that feature and you're all set.

[peter_free]

Patrick,

 

I've looked at your folders and am familiar with many of your comments from the the Leica forum. I agree with much of what the other contributors to this thread have said, but I'd like to reinforce some of their points.

 

(1) I went from 35mm to almost exclusive use of medium and large format three decades ago. I've used all the major MF systems except for the Fuji 680. I find I'm returning to 35mm because MF involves compromises that often prevent me from getting a good picture and sometimes from obtaining any picture at all

 

These MF compromises may interest you in coming up with an answer to your question. I'm going to frame them in terms of the technical requirements of some of the different cameras suggested in the above responses.

 

(2) (i) Medium format lenses aren't fast by Leica terms. (ii) The best handling MF camera bodies aren't quite as responsive as those you're accustomed to. (iii) Viewfinders are almost always dimmer. (iv) Obtaining 35mm equivalent depth of field with equivalent fields of view at equivalent f-stops is impossible in MF. This often startles MF newcomers when they blow up their work. (v) Consequently, MF usually requires a significant reorientation in one's way of doing things. Some or this reorientation is more pleasant with some cameras than with others.

 

(3) First (the requirement that drove much of my decision making), it's important to decide how much flash you are going to use. On camera? Off? Flash fill important? If the latter is a requirement, check the flash synchs on the MF bodies you are considering. Though I like Pentax 67s and 645s, their flash synchs are too slow for what I do. They are adequate in studio settings, but inadequate for serious use outside. This is an advantage of the leaf-shuttered cameras like the Rollei TLRs and 6000 series SLRs, Blads, and Bronicas.

 

(4) How much noise from the body can you tolerate? MF motors make a racket, no matter the brand. Some mirrors and shutters are louder than others. Pentax 67, Mamiya SLR 6x7s, Rollei 6000 series, and Bronica 6x6 mirrors are very loud. Pentax 67 is predictably affected by mirror slap and a little surprisingly by shutter closing at certain speeds.

 

(5) Is the ultimate in handheld sharpness important? I loved my P67, but getting sharp handheld work was sometimes difficult. The modular 6x6s are also difficult to handhold for many people, unless adorned with supplementary grips and prisms. Even then, they won't match a rangefinder or a TLR for handheld sharpness.

 

(6) How gargantuan can the body be, before (i) you feel yourself--rather than your subjects--becoming the center of attention or (ii) the system takes up so much room it doesn't go anywhere with you? Again, P67 and Mamiya SLR 6x7s are not subtle.

 

(7) My compromise after decades of experimentation was to prioritize fill flash ability and handholdability at the price of noise. I use a modular 6x6. Having said that, for convenient handheld use I much prefer MF rangefinders and the Rollei TLRs (the Mamiya TLRs are too big and everything else too unreliable). Both are easy to carry (for MFs) and use.

 

(8) Of the MF rangefinders, the Bronica 645 is worth a look if you don't mind its vertical orientation. I prefer Mamiyas, in part because I shoot mostly horizontals. The current Mamiya RFs are smooth, silent and generally well supported by the manufacturer (provided you don't run into non-USA warranty problems on a new camera). For all the crap Mamiya takes in regard to its warranty requirements, the company has arguably been the most widely experienced and technically proficient of all MF manufacturers.

 

For the purposes you are considering, I would choose a Mamiya 6 (no longer manufactured) or 7 or a Rollei TLR. They are quick to focus, silent, and deliver the sharpest results I've seen in MF. The 6 has an advantage for me because I like getting all my negatives on one page.

 

Other posters support the Fuji rangefinders. Be aware the Fuji bodies are crude in comparison to Mamiya. Used Fuji 6x7s and 6x9s still bring ridiculously high prices on eBay; apparently Americans haven't learned how cheap they were new at Robert White's in England. Older Fuji 645s are a good buy. The AF models are still a bit expensive. Before buying one of the Fuji AFs, be sure you can live with the shutter lag and the noise.

 

(9) The Rollei TLRs are slower to focus than the rangefinders, especially in dim light, but it's possible to scale focus successfully. "Investment wise," I agree with Jay--Rollei TLRs are in a class by themselves. I suspect they will be worth something even after all the "plasticky" Mamiyas have faded from memory.

 

For candid environmental portraiture Rollei TLRs are unsurpassed. It's possible to catch people completely unaware they are being photographed, thanks to the waist level finder and the silence of the F and earlier model shutters. The Rollei GX shutter tends to be louder, particularly the non-Compur version.

 

(10) In conclusion, based on your PhotoNet folders, I would recommend the Mamiya rangefinders, a look at the Bronica rangefinder, or a Rollei TLR. I don't like the sometimes questionable AF and the shutter lag in the AF Fujis, but many excellent photographers swear by them.

 

Rangefinders will be generally faster to use than the TLRs. The compromise you will make with both is slightly slower shooting and often more "isolated" image subject matter due to depth of field constraints.

 

In regard to handheld image quality, I would recommend against any MF SLR unless you have needs for modularity or SLR viewfinders. In this class, however, I have a fondness for the Pentax 645 series due to the truly excellent optical qualities of their lenses and Pentax's intelligence in putting two tripod mounts on the bodies. The P645 is a delight to handhold. The AF on the n and nii models actually works fairly well and the on-the-film edge data recording is very useful. The 1/60 synch speed is what killed it for me.

 

I haven't used the Contax (1/125 synch), recent Mamiya 645s or the Bronica ETRSi (leaf shutters), though I currently own the Bronica SQAi and think very highly of the Bronica system. Current Bronica lenses are excellent.

 

If you intend to go SLR in a 6x6, Hasselblad would be the best financial choice. I don't recommend them for primarily handheld use, but Hasselblad is a superb system I used happily for 10 years. If a significant portion of what you do will be in a studio-like environment, then Hasselblad and the Mamiya RZs are difficult to beat.

 

Best wishes. Feel free to email me if I can help in any way.

 

 

[patricks]

Peter,

 

big kudos for taking the time/energy to share your experiences. Wonderful.

[tda]

I'd add a very strong vote for the Fuji GA645, it literally is a upper end point and shoot, auto focus, aperture priority shooting, great (if not fantastic) lens, compact rangefinder design, accurate metering, motor wind everything you need for the occasional medium format shot. I was incredibly happy with the results I had when travelling with it (I switched from a Bronica ETRsi for size constraints) that is until some buggar stole it! I purchased mine through this site for (from memory) $425us