New Medium Format User : Landscapes & Travel

[dan_goldsmith]

I am an experienced photographer with 35mm format in black & white

and am interested in exploring the world of Medium Format

Photography. I do not mind the investment needed to get in to this

realm, but I want to make sure I make the right choices. I am

looking to shoot landscapes and do a signifigant amount of travel.

Hasselblad is a familiar name, but I am unfamiliar with the what I

should be looking for in a camera. Please, help me figure out what I

should look for in a camera and the major differences I am facing

with this transition.

 

Thx!

[gene crumpler]

If you have a hasselblad budget, go for that. The body, 80mm and back are relatively light. For travel and knock around I carry a 500cm with 80 and 2x converter and a contax g with 35 and 90 mm. It's relatively light and compact and it all goes in a $12 beatup 20 year old shoulder bag (the muggers won't think there is $3-5k in the bag). I got the hasselblad because I wasn't happy with a rollieflex TLR and my Pentax 67 gear is too big and heavy. The hasselblad takes up just a little more space than the rollie.

[rob loxley]

Well I suppose some fundamental decisions will be:

SLR / rangefinder / TLR ?

6x6 / 6x7 / 6x8 / 6x9 / 6x12 / 6x17 etc. ?

 

How do these fit with what you want to do - size, weight, etc.? 6x6 is good for portraits / weddings, but maybe a wider format is better suited to landscape work. However, lugging a 6x17 around and getting prints or scans made might be fun...

 

If you print B&W yourself, what size negs will your enlarger take? Do you want to have to upgrade this too?

 

Major differences you may face include loss of autofocus, fancy metering, pentaprism viewing, motordrive, zoom lenses etc. on many MF cameras.

 

Go and have a look at and pick up and use (hire?) various cameras before making the investment.

[david_stein]

A good question. I believe in getting the largest possible negative

relative to bulk/weight of camera. But more importantly, which

VIEWING SYSTEM do you prefer: rangefinders, SLRs, TLRs all require a

different use of our vision and way of working. My first advice in

any camera purchase or selection-how do you like the view through the

front window. Within any format, you can then find lenses of

individual character.

[ken_schwarz1]

MF will give you MUCH better image quality than 35mm for landscape, but only if you use an adequate tripod. Is that something you are prepared to travel with? Systems will occupy different "ecological nitches" in the sense that some will be home/studio-bound, car-bound, or luggable. I personally wouldn't choose a system in the first two categories for travel, but you might have different plans. If you go for the "luggable" category, it narrows the range of choices: A HB or other lens-shutter SLR is a good choice for wide-angle to short-tele as is a MF RF with fixed or interchangable lenses, with weight vs. functional tradeoffs. I recommend visiting a good pro shop, loading up a bag with EVERYTHING you would need (bodie(s), lens(es), back(s), film, accessories, tripod, head) and make sure that you want to carry it all.

[wim_van_velzen]

Make sure that, if you wish to project slides (and with landscape I bet you will) that you choose 6x4,5 or 6x6. 6x7 projected is very beautiful and very $$$.

[wim_van_velzen]

Sorry, forgot you mentioned black&white. In that case, the larger the negative the easier the work in the darkroom. Pentax 6x7? The lenses are lighter than most HB or Rollei. And less costly, of course.

[danny burk www.dannyburk.]

Just to add another wrinkle, have you considered large format? LF and landscapes go together like bread & butter, and a nice setup can be had for less than a comparable MF system. You do mention travel, however, and you'd have to consider that LF is much slower and generally less convenient than MF. This is offset by camera movements and the larger image size, however...it's something that you should consider, in any event.

 

I shoot both MF and LF, mostly landscapes. And to be honest, I use MF most of the time if I'm traveling with anyone else, but when I'm alone and not constrained for time, LF is wonderful.

 

Regards,

Danny Burk www.dannyburk.com

[richard baznik]

Size of image and rectangular format will be important issues in landscape work, along with weight and overall size for travel. Let me put in a word for the Bronica GS-1, a 6x7 (horizontal) SLR that can also take 6x6 and 6x4.5 backs. One body, plus 65mm and 150mm lenses and an extension tube, would make a good travel kit. Add the "speed grip" and the system becomes one you can easily use hand-held as well, though for real landscape work you'll want a tripod. Or try the 50mm lens -- it's outstanding for landscape work.

 

The GS-1 is less expensive than late-model Hassies, has excellent optics, and is sturdily but compactly built. On the down side, there is relatively little rental gear out there, and the lenses are on the slow side.///REB

[david_daniel]

If you are thinking Of Hasselblad, I would strongly suggest you try it out for some serious shooting first. I first went with square format when I stepped up from 35 and could NEVER get used to the square. It drove me crazy. Now using 6x7. Good Luck.

[tda]

Although I concentrate mainly on colour, I made the move to MF from 35mm a couple of years ago, my main reason being the benefit of a waist level finder, as well as the larger negative size. Not wanting to go the whole hog and being on a tight budget I opted for a second hand Bronica ETRsi with Zenanon 75mm and a Sekonic meter, total outlay just over £550.

 

I travel alot, in fact I've spent the last 5 years away from home backpacking and working in various countries. Weight was a heavy consideration when I made my purchase, do the benefits of a 6x45 negative outway the hassles ?

 

I'm still 70/30 in favour, really it comes down to what do you want to do with the resulting images. To date I've only printed a handfull of images larger than 8x10's as gifts, and 2 friends weddings, sure the quality is marginally higher at this size (with my technique anyway!) but is it worth the trade off of portability, speed of use, and handholdability when not printing regularly to this or larger sizes?

 

One of the things I do love though, is the larger size of the images on the contact sheets, Easily referenced and storable, I simply have a contact made of each film, and if any warrant then larger prints can be made at a later date, saves on cost and storage space.

 

Two things I think in reflection ... 1) if youre going to make the move, go all the way 6x6 or 6x7, the weight difference is around 500gms in the Bronica line, I feel its better to have the option of shooting the size you desire, 6x4.5 when on the budget ... 6x7 when youve learnt the process and can afford the outlay, not an option when you start small.

 

2) Seriously consider a rangefinder if travel is predominantly your goal, more convenient, and the need of a tripod is reduced, as is the total weight in most instances.

 

I would recommend the Bronica line, if you buy wisely it should hold its value, if you are happy with the move to MF you can always trade 'up'? to a Hassy should you feel convinced its neccesary, for the same outlay as a basic 5## hassy you could have a good SQi or GS1 system.

 

good luck.

[steve_seel]

Dan,

There is some sound advice here. Just one thing to add. If you have not actually gone out and had a look at the physical size of these cameras, make that your next move. There is a considerable difference in bulk betwen different formats and you may not be comfortable with the sheer mass of a 6x7. They are anything but discreet. I opted for bronica 645: relatively compact, interchangeable back [major advantage over 35mm], If camera size is not an issue I would go for 6x7 format, but they are big!!! Take a look at them.Whatever you choose, make the move, you will not regret it. As soon as you look at the sheer glory of a medium format slide you will know what you have been missing. regards steve seel

[jeff_drew4]

I would recommend that you seriously consider Hasselblad X-pan! With care, you'll get outstanding 35mm panoramas and still have the handling for wide angle and short tele travel subjects.

6x4.5cm cameras are great compromise systems and don't discount the new Bronica RF. All this assumes you have chosen not to go square- 6x6cm.

[ted_roberts]

I have been shooting for years with a Hasselblad 501 and love it. The lenses are Zeiss and are the finest in the world. It is a simple camera to use, sturdy and retains it's value. Recently I added a Contax 645 simply because I sometimes need a shutter speed higher than 500, autofocus, and I can use my Hasselbald lens with an adapter on manual focus. The Contax is heavier than the Hasse, flash sync is 125 while the Hasse flash syncs at any speed up to 500. The Contax is a suberb camera using Zeiss AF lenses, and spot and center-weighted metering. I prefer the 6x6 format to the 6x4.5. format. Hasse also has a magazine with the 6x4.5 format.

[bradley hanson]

One good idea is to try renting a few of the medium format options and see which one you take to. I use the Hasselblad 501CM and XPAN quite extensively, and am a huge fan of the square format, which I find inspirational. It's really a matter of personal preference. I found the waist level finder frustrating, and was happy to receive the 45-degree prism finder (PM45) as a free rebate item.

 

Another good option is the new Bronica 645, which offers the larger neg, but isn't as expensive as some of the other options, and it's fairly lightweight for medium format. Compared to more modular systems like Hasselblad, Rollei and Contax, the biggest thing you are giving up is the flexibility of larger lens systems, the ability to rent, and the joy of interchangable backs so you can switch between color and b&w mid roll. If you are used to 35mm, this might not be a big deal to you.

 

Best of luck,

Bradley

[alan_eisenberg]

I agree with Danny Burk and would consider large format if the primary use of the camera will be landscapes, and large (> 8x10) prints are your goal. MF is great for portraits, travel and general photography (I have a Mamiya 645 system), but LF is the king for landscapes, as a 4x5 inch negative/transparency yields stunning large prints. A LF setup is no more expensive than MF, and is generally lighter since the lenses are smaller (the bellows being used to create lens "length"). Don't be intimidated by the idea of LF photography, as it is somewhat easier than it used to be, but still much slower than MF. Quickload/Readyload single use sheet film has greatly helped in this regard. A great deal of useful information can be found at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/ .

[djphoto]

Welcome to a bewildering world of choices, choices, choices, Dan!