Handheld MF Photography?

[matt_booth]

Hi, I'm a pretty seasoned 35mm SLR user, but I can't resist the larger sizes and image

quality offered by medium format. I've been through the archives and couldn't find

any topics dedicated specifically to hand-held photography with a medium format

camera, which is what I am most interested in (I'd say maybe 2/3 of my photos would

be hand-held). I was wondering about the advantages and drawbacks about this

proposition, and more specifically what cameras you would reccommend. I'm pretty

fond of the 6x7 format, so I've been giving consideration to the Pentax 67 and the

Mamiya RZ67. I'm not at all knowledgable about rangefinders, but I have a vague

notion that their advantage lies in their portability and convenience, while their

disadvantages are somewhere in quality. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer an slr, as the

bulkiness of a camera is not a primary concern to me. Any comments or

suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[oskar_ojala]

TLRs are good for hand-holding. Hassies are pretty well designed for it, too. 67 SLRs are quite big, making mirror and shutter slap worse and the cameras are heavy to hold. The Mamiya 7 should be very well suited for hand-holding and delivers top quality (haven't tried it myself).

 

For mostly hand-held photography, I recommend going 6x6 or getting a rangefinder, such as Mamiya 7 or a Plaubel-Makina. The 6x7 SLRs aren't my cup of tea for hand-holding (or for much anything :) but you might feel differently about this.

[gary_ferguson1]

Matt, you should take a look at the work of Giorgia Fiorio, she's an Italian photographer with several books to her credit (used copies are widely available from abebooks), who uses handheld Hasselblads in a dynamic, reportage style. Her work covers areas such as New York Firemen, the French Foreign Legion, a Spanish bullfighting school, and Russian naval recruits. It's the type of work that's classic Leica territory, but she's done it all with a beat up Hasselblad 500CM.

 

I'd also question the statement that "the disadvantages of rangefinders are to do with quality". On the contrary, MF rangefinder quality, and in particular wide-angle quality, is about as high as it gets. Where rangefinders struggle is with close up work (not even macro, problems start with anything closer than about 2 or 3 metres), focus accuracy with longer lenses, polarising and graduated filters are slow to use, and MF rangefinder lenses tend to be a little on the slow side.

[david_henderson]

I agree with the poster above about rangefinders. The problem

isn't quality- they do what they can do very well indeed. The

problem is versatility, in that there's a number of things they don't

do well.

 

So long as you're prepared to pay the price in terms of film

speeds, apertures, and restricting your shooting to moderately

bright conditions, then sure, you can use MF handheld. Note that

these compromises will be somewhat less with a rangefinder

because you can hand-hold at slower speeds. The real

question is whether , with all these compromises, you're getting

the best results from MF or indeed whether it's worth going to the

larger format at all.

 

Much of this depends on what sort of photographs you want to

make. If you want to make moody landscapes in low light with

slow transparency film, polarising filters, and big dof then you

need a tripod. If you want street portraits in bright light using

narrow dof to isolate your subject and you're able to use a faster

film, then hand-holding would be fine.

 

This topic comes up maybe once a month; I'm surprised there's

nothing useful in the archives.

[olliesteiner]

I sold my RB-67 because it was very cumbersome to use handheld. I'm most happy with the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar which has replaced it as my medium format camera. When a friend let me use her Hasselblad for a week, I found it to be not nearly as comfortable for handheld use as was the Rolleiflex, but better than the Mamiya SLR (which feels like taking pictures with a bowling ball).

[skygzr]

The Mamiya TLRs are a fabulous hand-held camera. I often used mine like that. People complain they're heavy but it's really not a big deal.

[dave_lewis]

A Mamiya C220 is a good TLR for this mission...and it's also light (unlike its heftier cousins). I used to shoot mine almost exclusively on the street -- at the time I didn't even have a tripod. I think it's a great camera for that...

 

But if you want an even bigger negative...as others have suggested, don't overlook the Mamiya 7 -- a great rangefinder. Another member, Jeff Spirer, uses it quite effectively on the street. Take a look at his portfolio.

[richard_cochran]

Maybe it should be obvious, but the bigger, heavier mirror

of a MF SLR shakes the camera a bit more than the corresponding

mirror in a 35mm SLR. Thus, some people prefer not to use an SLR

for handheld MF use. A TLR or rangefinder is well suited.

[chris_henry1]

Hasselblad SWC.

[kelly_hicks1]

Matt,

I feel your pain. The pentax 67 is a great camera, cheap, and has great glass. It is a big oversized 35mm and alot of people note that they use it handheld above 1/125 with great results. If you don't mine toting around the camera and a couple of lenses it might be your best option. The lenses are fast and the body has a 3200 asa setting which means you can shoot at higher speeds and use smaller aperatures to some degree. If shooting handheld I would recommend using 400 speed film and have the option of pushing your film if need be. Even if you shoot at 3200 the tonality of the negative is still alot better then 35mm. Since I like longer lenses, toting around this camera with a 105 and 200mm lens was just too much. However, it is alot smaller then the rz67 and I would pick this camera over any other 6x7 system if the rangefinder doesn't fullfill your need.

 

The mamiya 7 is great and takes extremely sharp pictures but doesn't allow close focusing and dof preview. The 6x6 is a great format, but if you are use to using 35mm you may be taken back by the square. For the best option in portability I would consider the pentax/mamiya 645.

 

However, if your still set on 6x7 I would get the pentax 67 and use a wide angle lens (90mm or below) which would allow you to use faster lenses for better handheld flexibility.

[jay_.]

Any handholding will degrade image quality to some extent unless you're shooting with electronic flash indoors. For my money handholding a MF camera totally defeats the reason I put up with its weight, bulk and lack of features in the first place. That said, a fast lens on a camera without a flopping mirror or an FP shutter would give the best chance handheld. That's basically a Rolleiflex 2.8.

[stephen_w.]

I second the Hassy SWC as a hand holdable camera. It's part of my travel kit, and I do not ever see myself without one.

[silent1]

Another route to consider for hand holding in MF is a classic folder. These cameras are typically lighter than modern solid body cameras like TLRs and SLRs, and produce far less vibration when the shutter fires than any SLR. When folded, they're hardly larger than a 35 mm SLR body (without lens), and they can be had in 645, 6x6, and 6x9 formats (some include a mask and dual framing windows that allow more than one format in the same camera). I routinely get very sharp images with my Ansco Speedex Jr. (count bricks at half a block), shutter speed fixed at 1/30 and a mass market lens; better cameras will generally have better lenses and don't do worse in hand holding.

 

Part of hand holding, of course, is learning to do it well; if you can routinely shoot 35 mm at 1/15 hand held, you won't have any trouble shooting down to 1/60 or even 1/30 with a folder or TLR, and never mind the "rule" about 1/fl as a minimum shutter for hand holding. Yes, you'll get some frames with motion blur -- though with experience, you'll be able to tell when you moved the camera. Solution: shoot important images several times, for insurance, if they're at slow shutter speed.

 

You can also use a monopod to improve slow speed shots; a folder and compact monopod will still weigh less and take up less space than a TLR or MF SLR.

[raymond bradlau]

do check out the Pentax 67, it feels like a big K1000, nice and solid

[dougmiles]

I'm in tune with what Gary, Kelly, and Donald have said... I prefer MF, using 645 Fuji and Bronica rangefinders and a pair of Pentax 6x7s. I never use a tripod with the RF cameras and seldom with the 6x7; while I recognize the advantages in steadiness, spontaneity suffers and I'm not about to pack the Bogen around on my daily routine. I'm more likely to take the tripod with the Pentax for photo projects but even there I typically use ISO 400 color neg film, allowing at least 1/125th shutter. But I've squeezed off sharp shots at 1/30 too. This is why I chose the Pentax in the first place; eye-level viewing, hand-held, essentially a monster 35mm Pentax MX. The 645 RFs are great for spontaneus photo ops, surprisingly small and easy to carry for the frame size.

[kevin_kolosky]

Matt

 

Having done hundreds of weddings with a hasselblad, and having shot many many photographs at 1/30 of a second handheld using hasselblad, and sometimes even going down to 1/8th handheld with no problems, I can highly recommend the hasselblad system if you want to do handheld work. Get a bracket and use it to facilitate handholding.

[jim_mcbride]

I have had pretty good luck shooting handheld with a Mamiya M645E and its 80mm

f2.8 lens. The lens is small, light, and very sharp. Many folks criticize the M645E

because it contains a lot of plastic. The plastic makes it light, but less rugged than

earlier metal M645 cameras. The M645E probably wouldn't stand up to heavy

professional use, but it's fine for most amateur use. And, you can't beat the price

(under $1000).

[douglas_green1]

I personally find a monopod to be an indispensible accessory for field use of either my Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ67 system. Other than a good TLR or a Rangefinder system, MF gear is really not particularly hand-holdable in a way that preserves the inherent quality of the larger film surface. But a monopod will give you 60-80% of the benefits of a tripod, along with 20% of the inconvenience.

[dougmiles]

Douglas, intersting that you brought up the monopod... I've heard yea's and nays on those before, and once nearly got one myself. I envision attaching a palm-sized knob on the top with a quick-release plate, and a compatible plate on the camera. Then use it with the knob as a walking stick, swapping the camera for the knob when needed as a camera support. Seems to me REI offers something like that...

 

Solves one tripod problem... how to actually carry the thing so that it's easily deployed!

 

This year I've been doing a lot of "environmental portraits" with the Fuji GS645S, GA645W, and the Bronica RF645. With the darkening of the days here in the northern US, I find myself at low shutter speeds even with ISO 800 Fuji NPZ, in some shop and office interiors. A monopod, hmmmm...

[gregory_goh]

I have had some success with using the Leica table top tripod as a chestpod

[scotshot]

I always used my Mamiya C330 with 80mm and 135mm lens on a tripod and have just started using it hand held with very good results. I don't find it too heavy at all. I have been using iso 400 film so shutter speeds are not so low. Jim.

[thomas_sullivan]

i shoot handheld a lot with a Mamiya C220, 65mm lens, ISO 400 film, and the results......regarding camera movement....are fine. Having said that though, I would highly recomend getting a hand grip for this cam...but get the one for the TLR with the locating pins. Makes for a very steady handheld cam this way.

[conrad]

Check out a 645 SLR with a grip. A Bronica ETR series with Speed Grip E and eye-level prism or Mamiya 645E with the Rapid Wind Grip are very quick to handle and easy to keep steady for handheld pictures. The smaller mirror helps too.

[roger krueger]

I'm a rangefinder fan--I shoot a Mamiya Universal Press handheld and love it.

 

I don't think going handheld defeats the purpose of MF at all.

 

I can get at least 35 lp/mm (often more) handheld even at 1/30th. To get equivalent resolution on 35mm (I'm shooting 6x9) I'd need 80 lp/mm, which I need 1/250th to do handheld and a good prime lens within a stop or so of its sweet spot. And even if I do suceed in doing all of that, a 4000 dpi scanner can't resolve past 40 lp/mm anyway. Plus, 400-speed 6x9 has less grain in the final print than 100-speed 35mm.

 

Another poster compared a handheld RB to bowling ball. My experience with a rented RZ was more like balancing a box full of cats, although I hear it's easier with the accesory grip. The RB/RZ is a big camera; the problem is that the hand you're focusing with is almost entirely unable to help support or even steady the camera.

[wayne_crider4]

Do you need to do fast handheld work? Like in street photography. If not then

most any mf camera would work and your decisions will more than likely

follow values and repairs. If you need to shoot quicker action stuff your going

to be slowed way down unless the camera has an incorporated meter, or your

real good at judging exposure and can focus the camera fast. (This is where

the Mamiya rangefinders usually work well.) I shoot alot of street stuff needing

a fast response and won't even bother with mf anymore. When I want to shoot

the mf for landscape stuff without a tripod, I use a monopod instead. It makes

carrying the camera easier as well.

 

You might consider if your output warrants shooting mf at all. I feel that the

remarks praising the increased film area / resolution and better tonal qualities

are just mf sell hype unless you can actually take advantage of it repeatedly if

not always thru larger prints. I find for myself that there no real advantage in

shooting mf if I'm not going above 8x10 in print size. In fact if your just going to

get 5x5 prints forget about mf. If printing 16x20 and above, and repeatly, I

think the formats expense warrants itself to a greater degree. But I do find that

4x5 with a good lens will produce a better large print still. For an interesting

discussion concering resolution between digital, mf and 35mm, read the latest

Photo Techniques about digital compared to film. Not so much for the interest

in digital; But for the info about film. A very informative article.