MF on a budget...

[stephen_f]

Hello all. First off, I wish I had a nice hasselblad or mamiya 7II,

but I don't think thats possible with my budget. Yet I see the older

model Pentax 67, mamiya 6,7, and some Bronica's and Kiev 88 for great

prices. My questions is, how do these cameras compare to their

second version. Example, how does the mamiya 6 compare with 7, and

with 7II and so on. As for the Kiev 88, is that a decent camera, i

hear so many complaints on light leaks, yet so many saying its worth

the buy. I want a camera that is going to give great images, so

please don't recommend that I try a crappy Seagull. Thanks for all

help.

 

:D

[joe_rizzuto]

stephen,

the cameras compare very favorably. i use a mamiya 6 and i love it. of course it does what i want it to, so much will depend on what you hope to accomplish with your camera. the mamiya 7 is a 6x7 format and the 6 is 6x6 so can you live with a square negative or do you prefer the rectangle? the 6 has a collapsable lens mount which is great for storing and carrying in a bag-the 7 does not and that could be of some concern. my advice would be not to be afraid of used equipment. buy from someone reputable who will put a warranty on the equipment. where i live we enjoy the benefit of having a dealer who has a fairly good selection of used and they have been around for quite a while and i assume will be around for some time yet. research, ask lots of questions and decide what you want to do with your equipment. good luck and enjoy whatever you buy.

joe

[john_sonewald]

I bought a late model Kiev 88 about 2 years ago. Within a few months I added 2 new style backs, and 30mm, 65mm, and 120mm lenses, and a Polaroid back. About 6 months ago the shutter on the camera body began failing, so I sold the lenses, traded a Nikon N90s and 3 lenses and bought a Hasselblad 500CM. In the time I used it I ran about 100 rolls of film through it, plus 7-10 boxes of Polaroid.

 

It is a "twitchy" system. The lenses were uniformly good optically, and sub-par mechanically. The body had to be handled somewhat carefully. I never had any of the shutter problems othes reported (uneveness, etc.)

 

In short, am I sorry I bought the system? No. Would I buy it again? No. You can get a lot of MF stuff for the money, but you have to be willing to coddle it and treat it like a frail aging aunt who is a lot of fun to be with.

[gary_watson]

I just inherited(more like long-term babysitting)an older Pentax 67 MLU outfit and am still in love with it.Best to keep in mind, though, that it just 'looks' like a huge 35mm SLR.The similarities end there.Unless you're using fast film, it's really too much to handhold. Then there's the mirror that's the size of a playing card; it also sounds(and feels!)like an old screen door slamming when the shutter's tripped.It does give superb results on a tripod with its mirror locked-up. What sounds limiting in fact becomes second nature. The MF gestalt really is different than 35mm and makes sense when you see a 16x20 print that's jaw-dropping for its lack of grain. For the money, the Pentax 67, especially older MLU versions, is something of a bargain. The lenses are mostly excellent and usually not hellishly expensive used.Friends have had short, dysfunctional relationships with Kiev products, which seemed always to be breaking and/or causing raging fits of frustration.They're piled up like used bricks in several downtown Toronto camera stores.Never danced with a Mamiya, sorry.

[tim_klein1]

Stephen - Keep in mind that it's not the camera that you should be as concerned about as the GLASS!

 

I've never used the Kiev, but I've used a variety of cameras from Mamiya and Pentax (including all of those you mention) and they'll generally give you very high quality results. I'd suggest you avoid used Bronica equipment unless you do a lot of homework first (Bronica had some rough years where their quality was questionable). Bronica's reputation has suffered quite a bit so if you're willing to do your homework on which systems are held in high regard, you can often get great deals on them.

 

Also, don't forget to look into some of the TLR's. Many perform extremely well and they can be some of the best deals out there. I've got a cheap Yashica Mat that I picked up at a garage sale for around 50 bucks that's given me many excellent images. It's such a simple, easy to use camera that it still travels with me on nearly every trip.

[dave_tan]

Check out <a href=http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html>Bob Monaghan's MF Library page </a>. Especially the bit about the Kiev vs. the Bronica S2A. Actually, the S2A seems to be a bit of a cult camera, what with the helical focusing, the Nikkor lenses, and the relatively wide availability of 3rd party lenses. Quite cheap these days, if you can find them.

<p>

You don't specify a budget, or a format, but you might consider an old Mamiya 645 (not the Pro or the AF, which don't qualify as budget buys) or Bronica ETR (not the ETRS or ETRSi, for the same reason). The earlier versions are a lot cheaper than the newer, but will generally take the modern lenses and accessories. If you decide to go for a modern system later, you can still use all the lenses and use the old body as a backup. In 6x6, an old SQ or a 501, but be aware that lenses for these are still relatively expensive (very expensive for the Blad, and older Blads may have a lot of miles on them already).

[paul_chuah]

"I want a camera that is going to give great images"

 

Stephen, a camera will not give you great images whether you use a Hasselblad, Linhoff, Rollei, Bronica, Mamiya etc etc.

 

A camera that's comfortable and easy for you to operate plus your creativity will make an excellent partnership.

 

Budget is relative. Perhaps you could provide a workable price range.

[david_goldfarb]

I'll confess membership in the Bronica S2A cult. It's an inexpensive and versatile modular system. The Nikkor lenses are good, and lens adaptation possibilities are attractive to me. With 120/220 backs at about $80 a piece, you can own lots and use the Zone system if you want, and 645 and Polaroid backs are options, as well as a macro bellows with full view-camera movements on the front standard. I can afford to have a second body for backup. Go to Monaghan's site, referenced above, for full details.

[trace_dibble4]

Regarding the Kiev, Stephen: remember the Mir? Don't go there.

 

Regarding the Pentax 67, if you can find a clean MLU model, you can buy it with reasonable assurance that you couldn't do much better for the money. Price is--to a large extent--a function of demand. At the moment, the spotlights are shining on the 67II, which is essentially a plastic-bodied 67 dressed like a street hooker. "...The queen of hearts is always your best friend," and she's a lot less expensive, now that she's fallen into her younger sister's shadow.

 

She has her limitations, mind you: Gary Watson mentioned her aversion to being hand-held. He was right. Pentax's promotional hyperbole described the 67 as a medium format camera that "handles like a 35mm SLR." My own experience is that she handles like an overweight and very angry guerrilla unless placed on a pedestal--a three legged pedestal, MLU set and cable release attached. She becomes quite the lady, if you treat her as such.

[ralf]

MF on a budget is difficult and can be frustrating. Getting the camera and lenses are just the beginning. The 120/220 films are more expensive to buy and develop than the popular 35mm version. Then you want bigger prints to show of the higher quality. Then you might want to get a light meter, etc. MF is addictive ;-) That all adds up :-(

 

My suggestion, if you are pressed for money, go with 35mm. It is definitely cheaper and the results can be very good also.

 

Don�t get me wrong, I�m not saying MF is only for deep pockets. What I mean is that it definitely has its price if you truly want to enjoy it. A half baked MF system gives you less pleasure than a good 35mm system.

 

Besides that I second the opinion that the Pentax 67 is a very good start.

[Niels - NHSN]

Avoid the Kiev (and the like) route. I do not understand how it can be expected that companies which makes cameras w. substandard QA on the mechanical parts shouldn't apply the same standards to their lens production. Good quality rarely happens by accident.

I guess that if your are comming from 35mm; shooting medium format through the buttom of a beer bottle will be impressive ;-).

 

I'll suggest a modest approach; one of the Japanese cameras you suggest and a normal lens. Such a combo should be capable of great images -once you get to know it. Keep room in your budget for film/developing, tripod and a lightmeter. Keep in mind that while a slidefilm/development in MF is about the same price (pr. sq. inch) as in 35mm, everything else is expensive (Prints, PhotoCD scans, personal scanners, etc.)

 

Check out the availability of lenses. E.g. the Pentax 6x7 should have lots of them in circulation, I am not sure about the Mamiya 6, as I understand it was only produces for at short period (and the lenses are not compatible w. 7).

[patrick_umlauf2]

Stephen - All of the advices above are excellent. Read Danny Gonzalez' <A HREF="http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html">MF Pages</A> for detailed desciptions. I began with a Yashica 124G (ok), then 2 Kievs 88 (a disaster), a Mamiya C330 (great, love it), a Rolleiflex 3,5F (photography at its best) and have now settled on a Rollei 6000 system (a dream). First decide if you want rectangular or square format. For squares I recommend to start with a Rollei SLX outfit (SLX body, Planar 2.8/80mm, MLU cable release). It is motorized, the Planar is a killer lens, all controls feel and they are very durable and sophisticated. And the whole set will cost you about $ 500 used. Patrick

[peter_smith11]

It sounds as though you're starting out in MF. I was trying to accompish the same thing as you a few months ago and was looking for a Mamiya RB/RZ. Then I happened to see a C330 TLR in excellent condition, two bodies with four lenses for half the price of an old RB with one lens. Although I preferred the 6x7 format I haven't regretted the C330. The black lenses are great, the camera weighs about the same as a decent 35mm with motor drive, and the large prints I get are very pleasing. Just remember that film and processing for an old simple camera cost the same as for a H'blad/Rollei, and you'll want to acquire some things like decent tripod, lightmeter which aren't so available used. A good condition TLR will give you a lot more pleasure than a ratty SLR, and can be sold or traded quickly and without loss.

[nick_albano]

I'll second the Mamiya TLR as a good, useable and versatile camera. The RB is a wonderful choice if you want something a little heavier :) Mamiya has good support and will service both cameras (although not the TLR lens with the silver shutters - the parts aren't available anymore). The TLR lens can be downright affordable. The RB lens are a little easier to get and they more focal lengths but the TLR lens are a little faster. If you want really great images on a budget, you will never beat a used 4 x 5.

[joseph_albert]

there are many solid, reliable medium format systems that can

be obtained at a reasonable price. Kiev's are not one of them.

you'll either go really cheap and have a reliability headache,

or you'll get one of the ones re-designed by Kiev USA or others

that attempt to fix the weak links. these might work ok, but

they cost more and you'll end up paying as much (or more) as you'll pay

for a good and fully repairable mamiya TLR outfit.

<p>

I'd also avoid older bronica S-mount cameras and kowa's as a choice

to purchase today. they are no longer supported with repairs,

and the used equipment is not in nearly as plentiful a supply as

classic mamiya cameras like TLRs, 645, and 645-1000s. otherwise, the older broinca and kowa cameras are capable of fine results. the 645E is

also worth considering for a new camera.

[fpa]

I've tried a couple of options, and would second the Mamiya TLR. Interchangable lenses, good optical quality, rugged and easy to load cameras in the field. Lack of interchangable back is a bit of nusciance (unless you're a lot larger than me, you don't want to carry a spare C220/C330 body around), but not a serious one given the short length of 120 rolls. I've shot Velvia and Tri-X in mine, and the resulting prints are sharp up to 16x20. Just remember that you want at least a monopod, or better a lightweight tripod, when you get the camera. They're hard to handhold for ultimate sharpness, unless you're a fan of Delta3200, but it's not like any other medium format cameras are going to be better on that account.

 

You could of course try the macho option: get a 4x5" Graflex Crown Graphic press camera, a modern short-focus lens, and a Calumet C2N (4 models, 6x4.5 -> 6x12)roll-film back. This isn't much bigger or heavier than a medium format SLR, gives you rangefinder viewing and focusing, hand-holdable (relatively), several format choices, and of course the ground glass back with some movements for perspective control. It's also a nice, reliable, outfit, which will cause you less angst in the field than a 'blad or similar camera. (i.e. you'll get better pictures if you concentrate on the subject at hand and aren't worried about your camera being destroyed by a bump or two).

 

Get something you can use comfortably, and go shooting.