dave_kemp

I've recently moved back to Texas, where I grew up, after 33 years in

Southern California. It's good to be back "home," in the land of real

people. I may be too late with this question, but could some of you

Texas photographers give me some recommendations for the best places

and dates for photographing Texas bluebonnets. I've been away so long

that I'm completely out of touch with this kind of thing. I live in

Plano (north end of Dallas) but don't mind driving. Thanks.

The last Rolleicords (and the most desirable) were the Va and Vb (they are so identified on the camera). I bought a new Vb in 1964 and to this day it remains a superb camera, beautifully made and capable of truly excellent images. The cost of these is always considerably less than a Rolleiflex in comparable condition. I would strongly recommend a good used one for your consideration.

Roberto, The ideal MF camera for you shooting landscapes would be the Mamiya 7 (6x7), but unfortunately it's big $$$. The Pentax 67 is probably the best dollar value in an interchangeable-lens MF camera, but its disadvantage is that it is very heavy (twice the weight of a Mamiya 7), and unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger you will get very tired of lugging it around in the field. I agree with the previous post that you will find less difference between 645 and 6x7 than between 35 and 645. Given this fact, and the fact that you aren't looking for very large prints, maybe you ought to stick with what you've got (and save a lot of $$$) and concentrate on improved print quality by seeking out a really optimal color lab.

Ron, I've done a little wedding photography, and I've watched a good deal more being done. If I were setting up as a wedding photographer, I'd use a Mamiya RZ (6x7), tripod-mounted, for the formals, and a 35 SLR (obviously handheld) for the candids. This gives you the best of both worlds, and while some will complain of having two different formats involved, it does provide an automatic backup if anything goes wrong with one rig.

Russ, Re your wish for the 42mm lens, given that you already have good

50mm and 35mm lenses, methinks you are awfully particular. I too have

and use the 35 and 50, although I greatly prefer the 35 as a normal

lens and find it wonderfully flexible and adaptable (when I have the

50 mounted, it usually seems to be either too long or too short; if

I remember correctly, St. Ansel was also no admirer of the 50 as a

normal lens). With the 35, a few steps forward or a few steps back

usually seems to solve the problem. I have a little Rollei 35

mini-camera with a 40mm lens, and a Contax T2 with a 38mm lens, and it

seems to me that there's not enough difference between these focal

lengths and the 35 to be concerned about. But if your heart is set on

a 42, here's a suggestion: there's a Carl Zeiss T* Tessar 40/2.8 for

Contax cameras, wonderfully small and light, an elegantly simple and

very sharp little lens. It won't give you the speed you're asking for

(for me 2.8 is fast enough), but it will give you the focal length.

Then all you have to do is buy a Contax Aria (not a lot of $) or a

used Contax and you're all set. As a matter of fact, the Contax Aria,

an amazingly light and compact 35 SLR, combined with this very short

and light lens, would make a great lightweight, compact rig for travel

or backpacking or street photography.

Jacob, I see two problems with your question: first, as another poster has correctly noted, there is no "best medium-format carmera"; second, you don't tell us anything about the kind of photography you particularly wish to do. Wildlife? Landscapes? Travel? Portraits? General family photos? Commercial studio work? A meaningful answer to your question depends on knowing what you want the camera to do. A great MF studio camera (Mamiya RZ or RB, Hasselblad) isn't necessarily a great field camera. A great field camera (Mamiya 7, Pentax 67) is going to have major limitations as a studio camera. For some photographers interchangeable lenses are a must. For others, they aren't. If you can get along without interchangeable lenses, and are on a tight budget, I know of no better way of testing the MF waters than a good used Rolleicord Va or Vb TLR (first choice), or a good used Yashicamat TLR (second choice). I'm not going to tell you that either of these cameras is optically the equal of a Mamiya RZ or RB, a Hasselblad, or a Mamiya 7, but these are all expensive, interchangeable-lens MF systems. If you like working in your darkroom, you can be virtually guaranteed that the first time you start working with those great big 6x6 or (even better) 6x7 (five times the size of a 35mm image) images, you're going to be mighty impressed and will probably become a convert. Good luck.

Thanks to Bob for the neat stuffed animal idea (why didn't I think of that?), and thanks to Piaw for the neat photo.

"The [Pentax] 67 is the hot ticket for the big names today."

 

No, I don't think so. I don't wish to take anything away from this fine camera system (in fact I own and use one, and I agree that for dollar value in an interchangeable-lens MF outfit the Pentax 67 and its lenses are the benchmark), but this statement needs to be questioned, especially in the context in which it is made (i.e., studio cameras). I believe that far more top professionals use Hasselblads and Mamiyas as studio cameras than use Pentax 67's. And it's easy to see why.

Pete, I can't speak to the Nikon part of your question, but I use

Contax cameras and their Zeiss lenses, and have and use the Zeiss T*

18, 25, 28, and 35mm lenses. Floating elements or not, these are

superb lenses, razor sharp and wonderfully contrasty, with beautiful

color rendition. I particularly like the 25 (and I use the 35 as my

normal lens in preference to the 50).

Brandon, You might like to go to photo.net Neighbor-to-Neighbor, go to

Products and Manufacturers, and read the review on "Tamrac Boomerang:

World's Best Camera Strap?"

Jacek, The Hasselblad gear no doubt is great but in my opinion is overpriced. Given your finances and your stated needs, I'd recommend shopping for a good used Mamiya RB67 or RZ67. These are reliable, well-built professional cameras, have all the flexibility you need for studio use, including interchangeable backs and Polaroid backs, and their optics are of superb quality while costing considerably less than the Zeiss optics for the Hasselblad. (They won't be a lot of fun to carry in the field, but as you know you don't get to have everything in one camera.)

Patrick, Your best bet is to subscribe to (or lay hands on) Shutterbug magazine (monthly), which always has a pretty complete listing of camera shows around the country in the show listings in the back pages of the magazine.

Anthony, Whoever told you that MF 6x7 is not good for landscapes had his head where the sun don't shine; nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know the particular lens you refer to, but as to the focal length, I shoot landscapes very frequently with the 65mm lens on my Mamiya 7 (a 6x7 camera), and I find it a wonderful and most useful general-purpose landscape and outdoor focal length; in fact, I use it as my "normal" lens in preference to the 80mm. Knowing something of the quality of Mamiya MF lenses, I'll bet your 65/4.5 is an excellent lens. Forget the negative comments you've heard and give that lens a good workout on a variety of landscapes (preferably using Fuji Velvia). I'll bet you'll be very pleased with the results.

I agree with Ellis and Bob. The question is gibberish, it is silly, and it deserves to be axed.

I forgot to add that one of its virtues for street photography is that the Rollei TLR is very quiet (so is the Mamiya 7). The Rollei TLR's modest size, quietness, and waist-level operation make it an inconspicuous camera for street photography. In my opinion both the Mamiya RZ67 and the Pentax 67 are too big and clunky and heavy for street photography, and neither is quiet (the Pentax 67, in fact, is quite noisy; although it's a great camera in some applications, I'd say it had all the disadvantages for street photography: usually used at eye level, big and heavy and clunky, and noisy).

Richard, You say you want to use the camera for about 80% street shots. Have you considered a good used Rolleiflex TLR? I have and use both a Mamiya 7 and a Mamiya RZ67, but for street photography in MF I'd choose the Rollei TLR any day. The post above about people being much more relaxed around a camera that isn't being used at eye level is quite true, and the Rollei is reasonably light and compact, and optically superb. Have you tried one?

Richard, I am a Mamiya 7 owner and user, and much as I love this camera and its lenses, it would not be my choice for portrait photography. There are better alternatives (like the Pentax 67 or the Mamiya RZ, to mention a couple I like).

Donald, Mamiya RZ lenses are the equal of any line of MF SLR lenses in the world, including Zeiss. And while they certainly aren't cheap, they are a much better dollar value than Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. If you like the RZ camera (and it is a very fine and very versatile one, used by many top and uncompromising pros), don't be put off by any reservations about the quality of Mamiyz RZ glass.

Wow, I'm looking forward to trying some of this stuff. Thanks for the information.

Chris, Patrick answers a different question than the one you asked, but Trace's answer is correct. The principle is the same as with firearms: you don't want to leave a gun cocked for an extended period of time, because the tension the spring is under will eventually result in metal fatigue in the spring. It's best to leave your P67 uncocked until you're ready to take your next picture. The worst-case scenario is that you could put the camera away (i.e., store it) with the shutter cocked, definitely a no no.

After playing around with a number of tripods and heads over many years, I have finally found my ideal setup--Gitzo 1227, Arca Swiss B1, and RRS QR plates--which has proved repeatedly in the field to be an absolute joy to work with; this is the setup I want to die and go to heaven with. In the field I often carry (carefully, of course) this setup over my shoulder with camera and lens mounted, and have never had a problem. I agree with Bob that I never use the center column except occasionally for macro.

Roger, I think the claim of improvement in tonality in MF is nonsense. I shoot both MF and 35. Using the same film in each, and given lenses of precisely equal quality and characteristics (yes, I know, impossible), the only difference in the images should be size, and of course the greater resolution of detail possible in the much larger image. When people go on about better tonality and the like, I think they are really responding to a lens, its characteristics, perhaps its coatings--not anything inherent in MF.

"Scott's rule: if a film isn't available in either 120 or professional versions it's not worth shooting regardless of the hype in grocery store ads."

 

Hey, Scott, I like your rule. (As a matter of fact I've been doing this for a long time, but unconsciously; that is, I never thought it out as clearly as you put it.) Thanks.

Richard, I would recommend that before you get into specific camera choices, you resolve whether you want to go 645 or 67. In my opinion the reason for going MF is larger image size, and I therefore find 645 a compromise, a halfway house, when you can go to 6x6 or 6x7 and get so much larger an image. I suggest that before you spend a lot of time comparing cameras, you spend some time comparing 645 transparencies or negatives with 6x6 or 6x7 transparencies or negatives, and while you're doing it, think about why you want to move up to MF in the first place. (Then buy a Mamiya 7. I have one with all four lenses, love it, and wouldn't part with it.)

Richard, If I read your question correctly, you are comparing apples to oranges (one film in the 35 and another film in the Rollei) so your comparison is meaningless. Shoot the same film in both cameras under the same conditions, using a tripod of course with both. Even then I would be skeptical about attributing whatever differences you note to multicoating vs. single coating.