andrew l. booth

Laurence, Try to get hold of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0240802519/photonetA/8181-8390198-153376">The Hasselblad Manual</a> by Ernst Wildi. Even though I didn't end up buying a Hassie, I bought this book when I was researching MF camera systems - and found it to be well worth while reading. It's a tad expensive, but full of information (also, don't make the mistake I made and buy 'The medium format advantage' by the same author - it's basically the same book but with the Hassy model descriptions taken out).

Laurence,

 

<p>

 

Are you talking 50mm MF lens, or the MF equivalent of a 50mm 35mm lens? If so you're looking at 80-100mm in MF land.

 

<p>

 

Helical focus cameras like Hasselblad will not give you close up focussing out of the box. For that the 6x7 Mamiyas are ideal - take a look at the RB and RZ. If you get the sheet film back, then you can really get the BIG square - 72x72mm - 1.6 times the film area of 6x6. For a more practical proposition, you can get a 6x6 back for these cameras.

 

<p>

 

MF will impress you with its sharpness compared to 35mm. Hasselblad may give you an edge (at a price), but you're not going to find yourself disappointed with any system. Choose on the features that you need. If close focussing is a key feature, I would go Mamiya or Fuji.

Firstly Stephen - the labels 67 and 645 are rough descriptions of the frame sizes of these formats - not accurate measurements. The 'height' of an image in MF is around 56mm. The formats 67 and 645 are more exactly 56 x 70 and 56 x 42. 56 x 70 is almost exactly 'ideal' ie it scales to 8x10 with no cropping (it is not 'nearly square'). 645 is actually a little too long to be ideal (this has been the subject of some debate on the rec.photo newsgroups). The argument is that the limiting size of 645 is the 42mm width - this makes it necessary to crop the 56mm length to about 52mm in order to make this 'ideal'. Strangely enough this also means that you have more negative area if you crop a 66 to 'ideal' format, since you can crop to a true 56mm x 45mm (which is ideal). This of course has generated much hot air in the newsgroups - practically I don't think it is enough of a difference to provide an additional argument for 66 over 645. (There are already a lot of good arguments for 66).

 

<p>

 

Chi-En - to rerurn to your original question, the larger formats provide an increasing benefit as the size of print you make increases (as you would expect). The point at which 67 becomes a necessity over 645 is a personal one, and one that only you can answer. Will mf be better than 35mm at 11x14? Yes. Will 67 be better than 645? Yes. But 5x4 sheet film will be better still, and we don't all want to carry view cameras around. Perhaps with slow film and good technique even 35mm would be 'good enough' for you at this size.

 

<p>

 

I would recommend that you buy more on camera features and convenience than become obcessed over format. Try the formats first to make sure 645 is 'good enough' though - at 11x14 it should be. If you're planning to completely replace your 35mm stuff, you'll find 645 a lot closer to what you're used to and more flexible. I shoot 67 which gives me great pictures, but I loose some flexibility, so I haven't completely removed my need for 35mm. The new 645s such as the Pentax provide the closest approximation to the auto-everything 35mm super-cameras you may be used to.

Tony, sounds like you're UK based. You might want to consider the cost/availability of second hand lenses and accessories when choosing your next system. I eliminated the Bronica from my shortlist due to the scarcity of second hand items (which is a shame, since I understand it's a fine camera). The Fuji 6x8 may also fall into this category.

 

<p>

 

I ended up with an RZ, as the UK prices for these are very competetive at the moment, and second hand lens availability is good (added to which it's a great camera!).

Sorry to nit-pick Jim, but the key words in Joachim's comment were portrait and waist level. The point he was making was that only the RB/RZ allow you to compose portrait format in the WLF - the Pentax and Bronica both have fixed landscape formats, so for portrait format composition a prism becomes necessary (unless you're a contortionist).

 

<p>

 

On the subject of rotating backs - the original poster may also wish to have a look at the new Fuji 6x8 cameras. Fuji has removed the front shift/tilt from one of them to lighten the system up, and now believes it has a handholdable system.

Dan, I own an RZ, have used it outside and think that its weight and bulk are overstated (I'm not a small person though). I took it recently on a safari in East Africa and took some landsape/wildlife shots (I don't yet have a long lens, so tightly cropped wildlife was out - elephants 8 metres from the car filled the shot even with the standard lens though!).

 

<p>

 

I think the point made about the suitability of an RZ for nature is good. If you're into tightly cropped bird pictures, an RZ with 500mm lens and 1.4x tele converter is probably not the way (it's certainly not the cheapest way). If you only used MF for short/wide pictures then something like a Fuji rangefinder would be lighter and cheaper.

 

<p>

 

The RZ is expensive, although in the UK it is very well priced currently (that probably doesn't help you though!). I have heard a lot of good things about the Bronica - it's certainly lighter, although the non-rotatable back is a setback (incidentally, I like using the waist level finder, but it's not very practical for shooting out of a vehicle window - you would probably need a prism to shoot from a vehicle or hide anyway). The reason I rejected the Bronica was that it seems unpopular in the UK - it was difficult to hire lenses, and there's very few used lenses on the market.

 

<p>

 

You should attempt to hire these cameras before buying. I wrote a reply to a recent question 'Mamiya RZ67' where I described how to use an RZ if you've just hired one - this may be of use to you.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

Dan, If you're feeling like you haven't yet spent enough money, you might be interested in a digital camera. I understand that some of the new ones not only take digital pictures (unsuprisingly) but also allow you to upload slideshows onto them from a computer. They have a TV output connector, so you can just take your camera with you, and present your pictures from that. I've no idea what the quality is like, and you probably need an extra gizmo like a hole in the head - just a thought though.

Nathaniel,

 

<p>

 

You've received some good advice with respect to Hasselblad and Bronica. If you want to find out more about Bronica, look on <a href="http://www.tamron.com">Tamron</a>'s web site. You're best off buying a new current camera, since then you can be sure of a good supply of newish used lenses and accessories.

 

<p>

 

As for Hasselblad/Bronica, you may get some great starter deals with Hasselblad, but in the long run the system costs are going to kill you. If you are using this stuff professionally, Hassleblad is great 'cos everything retains its (high) value over a long period of time. For an amateur or student the down side is that you can't get good cheap used lenses.

 

<p>

 

Bronica make fine cameras. I'd go for an SQAi over an SQB if I were you, as the Ai kit gives you the 'full' versions of the standard lens and back (the SQB has cut down versions of all elements). The real downside of Bronica however is that you may find it difficult to rent lenses.

 

<p>

 

Other things to look at are the rangefinders - the Fuji autofocus 645, or the Mamiya 6 or 7. With a rangefinder you would be giving up flexability but gaining convenience. The Mamiyas are expensive and don't focus close, the newer Fujis have fixed lenses.

 

<p>

 

You may also wish to reconsider your chosen format. Do you want to shoot square all the time, or are you going to end up cropping? If you went for 645, something like the Mamiya would give you a small, portable camera with a large selection of fast and inexpensive lenses.

 

<p>

 

Have fun choosing.

Search in <a href='http://www.dejanews.com'><i>Dejanews</i></a> for Danny Gonzales - who seems to have owned most systems at one time or another and regularly posts FAQs.

Johan - you say you're 'on the verge' of buying, yet by your question you give the impression that you haven't fully researched what you want from the camera.

 

<p>

 

If you're looking for a way to grow poor extremely quickly, I can give you some suggestions other than buying Hasselblad (send your money to the following address...).You may want to consider the following questions prior to purchasing:

 

<p>

 

- Which lenses do I need?

For landscape and portrait it sounds like you might need one or two wide angle lenses, a short and medium tele maybe in addition to your standard lens. Lens cost is the Hasselblad killer, and while it's great that second hand they don't depreciate, total system costs will be large even if buying used.

 

<p>

 

- Am I buying the right format?

For landscape do you want to shoot square or rectangular? Do you want to waste film if you shoot rectangular mostly? Would wider image formats benefit your landscapes (6x9, 6x12, 6x17)?

 

<p>

 

I'm not trying to put you off Hasselblad here. They have deserved their enviable reputation by producing superb cameras, which produce great results in both landscape and portrait. You will not be disappointed if you buy, but make sure you know what you're getting in to! There's a great Hasselblad guide that you can buy also, which you should before you go any further.

Have you thought of buying elsewhere within Europe? I've just bought some Mamiya equipment in the UK, and didn't notice too much of a difference from US prices - I'll give you an example:

 

<p>

 

US Mamiya 645 SV (B&H website) 2500USD

 

<p>

 

Same (Robert White - UK) 885UKP + 17.5% tax = 1040UKP or 1663USD

 

<p>

 

Which I think you'll agree is a pretty good difference - even if you take the strong pound into account. Of course, since you're in the EU, that's the only tax you'll pay - wheras the US purchase would mean that you would have to pay French import duty and VAT.

 

<p>

 

I was talking to a photo retailer here about these price differences. Apparently the UK is currently subject to a lot of grey importing, so all the MF brands are keeping prices down and offering other incentives. This seems to be in direct contrast to 35mm (Nikon seems to be double the cost in the UK compared to the US).

 

<p>

 

I have no connection with Robert White, however they are on <a href="mailto:sales@robertwhite.co.uk">sales@robertwhite.co.uk</a>.

So many questions...

 

<p>

 

Firstly, the Fiji is a big camera, and is expensive. Talk to a dealer -

when you're parting with this much money, it's entirely reasonable to

expect a lot of documentation. Ask if you can take one for a 'test

drive'. In the UK, I've seen them for hire at one of the larger pro

camera shops. If you can hire then do.

 

<p>

 

MF in general is attractive and easy to work with - I'm not sure

that lens sharpness will be your prime limiting factor in 35mm. In

MF you'll appreciate the greater tonality that the increased film

area gives you.

 

<p>

 

How much do you make use of shifts and tilts? Either LF or a large

bellows MF like the Fuji is going to be a serious pain to carry

around (4x5 probably lighter, although slower to use). If you require

only minimal shifts have you considered using a wider lens in

conjunction with cropping? You could then consider something like

a Mamiya 7, which would be lots more portable - you should still

end up with much larger film area and better results than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

If you really need a lot of shift and tilt, I think you've probably

picked one of the largest, most bulky solutions. Other things you

might want to consider are the Hasselblad flexible body, or a 4x5

field camera, both of which will be much lighter. LF will take

a lot longer to set up. You might want to look at MF backs for LF,

or rollfilm 'LF' cameras (there are a few smaller models available).

There are a number of other MF cameras which include shift lenses

in their systems, although usually only at one focal length. I

believe Hasselblad has a 1.4 teleconverter with built in shift

which works with a range of lenses - this may be possible. If you

like bellows, Mamiya has a shift lens for the RZ67. I can't remember

the model name (help me here folks!) but Rollei made a bellows

6x6 camera with some shift, which should be more portable than the Fuji.

 

<p>

 

Ok - a couple more quick answers:

MF to PhotoCD is doable but much more expensive than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

The waist level strap is completely nuts (probably more useful to

guard against dropping the thing as you put it on a tripod)

 

<p>

 

Buy a decent hand held meter. If you're really this serious consider

getting a good spot meter and try the zone system.

 

<p>

 

Whatever you do, try before you buy - there's a lot of great MF

gear out there, but unlike 35mm, there are few cameras which are

'all things to all people'. You will have to accept some compromises

and you can't make this decision from a spec sheet.

 

<p>

 

Have fun.

I'm looking to expand my RZ lens collecton (which currently consists

of the 110), and have been looking into the prices of secondhand

lenses in the UK. I think I should go for a 50mm, and a 250, with

the 1.4 teleconverter to make the 110 a 165 and the 250 a 350 (this

is a long term plan - I can't afford all this yet).

 

<p>

 

My question is - the non APO lenses are a lot cheaper than APO

(a recent advert is something like 800ukp vs 1300ukp used). Is

the difference worth the extra money, size and weight? I won't

generally be enlarging much above 11x14. Is the difference increased

when a teleconverter is used?

 

<p>

 

ps: Lee - time for an RB/RZ section?

I beleive that both cameras are similar in spec - neither is a leaf

shutter design, and both have good metering options (I believe that

Pentax has the edge there though). Pentax of course does not accept

removable backs, which is a setback. I am not sure whether you can

remove the Pentax prism - if not that would be IMO a bigger drawback

as a waist level finder is a great aid to composition. I believe

that the Pentax also has TTL flash, which Mamiya are just about to

add to the 645.

 

<p>

 

For better details than I can give you, both www.mamiya.com and

www.pentax.com give a lot of good information about both camera

ranges. The MF newsgroup also posesses a contributor Danny Gonzalez

who regularly posts comparative reviews on MF equipment. Go to

www.dejanews.com and search for Gonzalez and 645 and I'm sure

you'll find something useful.

I've just bought my first MF camera, an RZ, and it's great.

I think the first accessory I've got to get is going to be

a second RFH. I'll be shooting mainly Velvia, but it would

be nice to have a spare back on hand for poor light/handheld

situations (maybe a fastish print film or b/w).

 

<p>

 

So here's my question. Should I go for 120 or 220? 220 would

be more convenient - 20 exposures between reloading, instead

of 10 and I have no concerns about the difficulty of loading

220 onto processing reels - I don't plan to hand process.

 

<p>

 

What is the availability of 220 like though? I'm based in

the UK, and all the magazine adverts I see for bulk film

sell in 120 only (or at least they advertise 120 only).

Are as many film types available in 220? Are they stocked

as widely?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your assistance,

 

<p>

 

Andy Booth.

There are none that handle like a 35mm, however re-reading your

question, you state 'function mechanically close'. In terms of

function you'll find a lot of the 6x7 cameras on the market easy

to use if you can use a manual 35mm Nikon.

 

<p>

 

I've just moved up from an F series Nikon (albeit the lowly F301)

to a Mamiya RZ67. This camera's big, and if you're a masochist

you can load it up with a motor drive, an AF prism and a grip (at

which point it weighs about 5kg, and you're not going to handhold

it for very long). Mechanically this setup will do things that

an F3 might do (it has spot/matrix metering etc.).

 

<p>

 

You really should try to hire some different MF models to try out.

If you're set on 6x7, you might want to consider using a waist

level finder. Although there will be some learning curve here from

35mm, you may find that it provides a better way to visualise a

scene than a traditional prism finder (and in the case of the RZ, using this with no motor brings you down to a more managable

2.5kg).