ben_hutcherson

I didn't read through the thread, but your "problem solved" post is exactly what I was going to suggest :) IMO, it's a far better choice and far more flexible(both literally and figuratively) than a 6x9 camera.

I can't answer as to when the change happened, but I know that modern Kodak and Ilford cassettes frustrate me to no end. It's always interesting when I dump out my changing bag at the end of the day and see how badly mutilated the cassettes are. Unloading film through the light trap makes me cringe, but I almost always do it these days. On manual rewind cameras, I intentionally leave it out. I have two "modern" SLRs-a Canon T90 and a Nikon F4. My T90 had the leader out mod done to it before I bought it, and I've been trying to find out how to do it on the F4(it can be done). On the T90, it involves bridging two solder pads on the top board in the camera. At least on the F4, I can rewind manually. BTW, before someone mentions leader picks-I've been told that having the film in the light trap somewhat protects the trap from accumulating too much crud. Once the film is all the way in, the trap is a dust and dirt magnet. This makes sense to me, and I seem to rarely get scratches on leader-out film that was unloaded through the trap whereas I've seen terrible scratches on picked film.

I couldn't believe it either when he priced it to me. This is a shop where I "loaf" frequently, albeit I've bought a lot of stuff there. You really never know what you're going to find. In any case, I walked in one day and the shop owner said "I just got something that you're really going to like" but wouldn't tell me what it was. I usually am in once a week or so, and he help dropping hints. He did tell me it was a Bronica, and finally showed me the big metal case. When I asked if I could look through it, he told me that he hadn't looked at it yet and he got to look at it before I did :) . Finally, I sat down and Moe and I(the shop cat) looked through it and I liked what I saw. He strung me along another week or two and finally named a price-I couldn't whip the money out fast enough. All I can guess is that he bought it cheap. I've bought stuff from him as soon as the seller walked out the door, and he usually marks things up about about 20% or so for me. I'm guessing the Bronica may have been an auction purchase given that he really didn't know what all was in it. The whole kit probably weighs 40lbs including the big metal suitcase it was in. The bodies really surprised me at how heavy they were(especially compared to the later SQs) and are also very solid feeling. The weight of the body is somewhat offset by the relatively lightweight lenses. I'll still say that I'd really be inclined to avoid the GS-1. Even if pieces are less expensive than the RB or Pentax, the fact that they are almost impossible to find offsets that. One of the things that you really start to appreciate is that the systems are significantly more modular than 35mm systems. SLR bodies in a lot of ways exemplify the "light tight box" concept of what makes something a camera. Just as an example, I can't imagine not having interchangeable backs. I even find myself wishing for them on 35mm often, although bodies are light enough that you can load them up with different types of films(or rewind partial rolls). The rewind thing is actually significant since you can't do it with medium format. If you buy a complete camera, you'll probably find one film back, but I don't know when I even last saw one for sale for the GS-1(albeit I'm not actively looking for them). You'll have to keep your eyes peeled for anything beyond a normal lens, whereas you can pick up about anything you want at any time for a Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya, or Bronica SQ/ETR. One last thing-at least the SQ and ETR backs are notoriously leaky, and given how similar the GS-1 is I wouldn't be surprised to find the same. All my SQ backs did leak to some degree or another, although fortunately none intruded into the image area. When I ordered seals for a bunch of other stuff recently, I persuaded John Goodman(light seal guru) to cut a couple of SQ kits and he had to dig out the tooling to do it. I think he mostly did it because I was buying enough other kits from him. The SQ seals are somewhat complicated. I can do most any 35mm SLR using bulk material that I cut myself, but the SQ seals are complicated enough(with a couple of "steps" in the foam) that I wanted pre-cut ones.

Thanks-I did figure it out after reading the above by(horror of horrors) reading the manual. I HAVE to get an original, though. As you said, it takes a decent amount of force to push it in, and this Serbian reproduction could probably slice your thumb off. The photos I've seen of originals look like the end is a lot like a dark slide on an LF film holder-i.e. with a "rolled" end attached and a wire loop to help pull it out. I have a couple of 4x5 holders that are junk and need to be trashed, like one that I can't load film in without it buckling. Maybe I'll try trimming down one of those dark slides. It shouldn't be TOO much trouble with a jeweler's saw, and one of the benefits of being a watchmaker is that I actually know how to file sharp corners with a good finish on them :)

I had the motivation, a bit of cash, and had the right pieces come along at the right price. Granted it wasn't as cheap as the S2a/C where I walked out of the store with everything(5 lenses, both bodies, extension tubes, and almost every other accessory made for the system all in a massive metal case for $300). Still, I feel like I've put together a fairly comprehensive kit without spending a ton of money. A similar Hasselblad kit(which I know isn't directly comparable) might even hit 5 figures when you factor in the wide and long lenses. It is MASSIVE, though. Here's a Pro-SD with a 6x7 back and 250mm lens And here's a 90mm on an RB67 next to a 75mm on a Bronica S2a. The Bronica lens is shorter as it goes pretty far back into the camera, but it's otherwise similar in size to a Hasseblad. The SQ uses a more conventional focusing mechanism and the lenses are comparable in size to Hasselblad lenses. Still, though, you can see that the difference in size is dramatic. While you've probably figured out from my comments on here that I'm a BIG Bronica fan, the GS-1 would not be my choice for a 6x7 camera. The cameras themselves are quite uncommon, and accessories even more so. By contrast, there's TONS of stuff out there for both the RB and the Pentax 67.

Have it here now-such a hassle for a piece of stamped metal :) . I'm going to have to take some sandpaper to it because the cuts are rough. Still, it beats paying $30+ for an original. BTW, now that I have it installed, I can't figure out the thing is supposed to come off! As a side note, here's a good portion of the line-up of Nikkor lenses for these cameras. Offhand, I'm missing the 40mm and the 200mm. But, right to left is the 150mm, 135mm, 75mm, and 50mm(with what I'm told is the rare original hood). And here are two the rare Nikon mount adapters-which I don't think even fit the S2(at least I'm too stupid to figure it out if they do)

I have one each of a Pro S and Pro SD, and honestly in real-world use I don't use the added features of the Pro-SD. One of the biggest changes was widening the throat to the same size as the RZ67, something which allows you to mount a couple of lenses that won't fit on earlier bodies. It's also worth mentioned that there's an adapter ring which takes up this extra space in the throat. All K/L lenses originally came with it, and it's one of the things I make sure is included if I buy a K/L lens. As you can see, it's really a pretty simple part and I suspect that you could turn one out if you have a lathe(I'm going to give it a shot when I get a chance). I've not gone looking for them, but presumably you can get them separately from the lenses if you want to use a pre-K/L lens on a Pro-SD. The ring also has to be removed to mount on a Pro-S or earlier. In the real world, I've not had any issues with not using the ring on a Pro-SD, but it's something to keep in mind. Since I only have two K/L lenses and two adapter rings, if I'm out with the camera and carting multiple lenses I will often carry the Pro-S so that I don't have to mess with them. I guess I should get some more of them so that I have one for every lens and don't have to worry about swapping them in the field. Granted it's not a huge deal, but it's also a bit of annoyance and can be a three handed job if you don't have something on which to set the lenses down. Of course, I also often pick my lenses and will either only have one mounted on the camera or will just carry one additional one. Even the 90mm and 127mm are huge(without putting them on a scale, I'd say as heavy as something like a Nikon F2 or Canon F-1 with a 50mm 1.4) and they only get heavier past those focal lengths. I could lift weights with the 250mm sitting on my desk now. The bodies weigh plenty also, and the metered prism I have is right at 2lbs on its own. I can travel lighter with my Speed Graphic, a couple of lenses, a half dozen film holders, and Tiltall tripod.

The dark slide is a piece of sheet metal, although it does have some special cut-outs in it to engage various camera mechanisms. I bought a repro for a few bucks from Serbia. It doesn't have the wire handle of the originals, but I'm hoping it will be functional. Unfortunately, it was sent registered mail and I got a pink slip when they came to deliver today. I'm going to try to trek to the PO tomorrow, although it's not the easiest thing for me to do as it's in the opposite direction from where I work and I have about an hour from the time I get off work until they close.

There are a couple of different 4x5 daylight tanks around. Yankee makes one, although I've heard not so good thinks about it. I started developing with a Yankee Clipper, and while it's a decent enough tank that I actually still use occasionally(like when I was processing E6 this weekend), it has its quirks. One of the big issues with both the Clipper and the 4x5 tank is that they can't be agitated by inversion-on the Clipper you spin the reel, while I think you have to just slosh the 4x5 tank back and forth. If I can draw a parallel to another hobby, reloading ammunition, Yankee products are a lot like Lee reloading equipment. They are inexpensive and will get the job done, but have their quirks and sometimes go about it in unusual ways. One of the other daylight tanks on the market is a Patterson reel designed to take 4x5 sheets. It fits in what would conventionally be called a 4 roll tank(4 rolls of 35mm), so needs a full 32oz of chemistry. The "new kid on the block" so to speed is the SP-455. It's about the same price as a Patterson tank. It is all plastic, but quite durable. There are two hangers in it, each of which will hold two sheets of 4x5. It's incredibly easy to load and is water tight so can be be inverted. It's what I use, and I've been extremely happy. I've become really fond of the RB67 over the past few weeks. I've made a couple of purchases in the system: 1. Pro-SD with two Pro-S 6x7 backs and a 65mm K/L for $350(bought on the LFP forum) 2. Pro-S that I unearthed in a local camera shop(Where'd that come from?). I'd gone in to buy a 127mm pre-C lens, and dug up this camera. I bought the camera with the metering prism attached, the 127mm, and a 645 Pro-SD back for $200. The Pro-SD backs are desirable because they use a labyrinth rather than foam as light seals. 3. A 90mm K/L and 250mm C for $240 from KEH(they ran a 1-day 20% sale on all Mamiya stuff last week) 4. When I get around to buying it, the local shop has a 150mm soft focus for $100. I did buy foam kits from Jon Goodman to redo the mirror dampers, RB seals, and back seals. I bought a bunch of stuff from him, but I think the mirror dampers are $15, the RB is $10, and the film backs $12 All told, that's a pretty comprehensive system that I've assembled in about a month and for less than $1K. The RB67 truly is a special camera and probably the most versatile you can get(aside from the great lens selection available for the Hasselblad). It's even moderately hand-holdable although even with a good strap it gets HEAVY pretty quickly. Focusing close is a bit awkward handheld doe to the bellows.

I didn't see this question earlier. I mentioned Nikkor lenses for the earlier 6x6 Bronica series cameras. With one exception(the 13,5cm) these are purpose-designed MF lenses. The 135mm was designed for the Nikon RFs using an add-on mirror box. There is an adapter to use the rangefinder lens on the early series Bronicas, but it is rare and tends to be expensive. Unless I'm missing something, I also can't find a way to mount it on an S2a. To add to that, the lens in the Bronica mount is MUCH less expensive than in the Nikon RF mount. One consideration with any lens is the image circle size. Basically the lens has to be able to "project" an image circle that is larger than at least covers the film and ideally is a bit larger(image circle does increase at longer focus distances and at smaller apertures). This is the no different from using an EF-S/DX lens on a 35mm or full frame digital camera-the lens will vignette severely. The 135mm Nikkor just happens to have a large enough circle to cover 6x6, but it's considered the worst performing lens for that camera. The image circle size is one of the reasons why f/2.8 is generally the fastest you'll find for 645 or 6x6(compare the fact that f/1.4 is common for a 50mm 35mm lens, while some go as large as f/1.2. Even mild telephotos like the Canon 80mm and 135mm can be quite fast also). 4x5 lenses tend to be even slower, with a "normal" 150mm lens for 4x5 often being f/4.5 or so. Admittedly this isn't a big deal since LF is almost always done from a tripod(good luck hand holding anything other than a press camera) and many landscape photographers consider f/22 or so to be an absolute minimum aperture(a lot of lenses will go to f/45 or f/64). The various Nikon and Canon tilt-shift lenses are MF lenses mounted on the T/S mount, but they're a lot more expensive than a 75/80/90mm lens for any MF system. Offhand, I don't know of any 6x7 cameras that use Nikkor lenses(or have them available) but then I've been wrong before and I'm sure will be again. The only common Nikkor lenses I know of are the Bronica mount ones I mentioned above, and they are a bit of an odd duck even though they are excellent(with the exception of the 135). As said, usually you are "married" to one particular brand of lenses when you buy into a system, and given the target market for MF cameras they all tend to be pretty good. We've had a discussion going in another thread about who made the lenses for the later Bronica cameras, as all are branded Zenzanon(the cameras are all marked Zenza, which I think was the parent company). I seem to recall there being one Zeiss lens made for the SQ system, but then I might be dreaming or confusing it with something else. Mamiya cameras use Mamiya-Sekor lenses, which have quite a good reputation. There are also standard pairings that aren't necessarily camera branded, but none the less are associated with the brand. The classic example of this is the Hasselblad V system where virtually all(if not all) lenses are Zeiss. F&H(Rolleiflex, Rolleicord) used both Schneider and Zeiss lenses, albeit on the later 2.8 series 'Flexes the Zeiss lenses are far more common. If you use a press or technical camera, you can pretty much stick any lens on it you want provided that the lens board is large enough and you have enough bellows travel to focus to infinity(can be an issue both on very short and very long lenses). If you use a Crown Graphic(one of the most common/popular press cameras) you can get the board quite close to the film. The Speed Graphic limits you somewhat as the focal plane shutter limits how far back the bellows can travel vs. the Crown. A common shipping lens on these was a 90mm Kodak Ektar, which is a bit on the wide side for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 although not dramatically so. Many that you find will still have that lens. "Modern" view camera lens makers basically come down to Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji. All tend to be excellent.

Indeed. In fact, when I load a roll of film I take up all the slack to make sure that I get an accurate measure of the rewind. The New F-1 actually had a bit of an interesting feature in that it had a clutch in the rewind knob. If you folded the lever out, it would engage and allow you to rewind the film. If you folded the lever down, there was just enough friction for the knob to turn as you advanced the film, but it wouldn't turn if there was any pressure applied to it. That saved it from snagging, especially if you were running a motor at 5fps. One thing I do have to give Nikon credit for is keeping the manual rewind knob on the F4, F5, and F6 despite having built in motorized rewind. Not only can you rewind quietly if need be or rewind with the leader out, but can verify that the film is advancing. Granted, these cameras are also "smart" enough to recognize wrongly loaded film.

My guess would be that it that's the only 6x8 back that Mamiya makes. Of course, there are others out there. Since the RB has a Graflok back, you can also use the Graphic 23 and Graphic RH8. I'm just speculating, but you may also have small metering issues if you use a 6x7 back in combination with a metered finder.

I've never used a Mamiya, but I know they are huge. With that said, I find having one lens to be oddly freeing. Yes, I'd love a wide angle(and have them for my SLRs) and a mild tele can be useful in certain MF situations(again, have that covered for my SLRs) but at the same time just making it work with one lens is fun. As for the "two cameras" comment-the design has quit a bit of merit in a medium format camera. The taking lens is much more like an LF lens in construction since the camera doesn't have to hold both the shutter and the lens open until right before the picture is taken. The closest comparison I can make is a 127mm lens on my RB67 vs. the 127mm Ektar I have on a Graflex board(it was one of the "standard" 4x5 speed lenses). The RB67 is admittedly faster(3.5 vs. 4.5) and also a more complicated design(The Mamiya is 5 or 6 elements vs. 4 for the Ektar) but the Ektar also has to cover about 4x the area. The Mamiya lens is huge. Also, the viewing lens does not have to be as well corrected, and consequently can be both smaller and much brighter. There's also the fact that few 6x6 and larger SLRs have instant return mirrors while there is not any black-out in a TLR.

I know the RB67 isn't exactly a considered a carry-around camera, but none the less I spent some time today walking around with a 127mm lens on my Pro-SD. It came with a nice Optech strap that is padded enough to be comfortable(although it's hot). In any case, I can't seem to find anything else that will fit the strap lugs onto the camera. For those of you not familiar, these don't use the conventional split rings but rather have lugs that the strap attaches to. I'd like to put one on my Pro-S also, but I'm not having a lot of luck finding the fittings that fit the camera. Does anyone know where they might be available?

I had that thought after I'd posted the above. Unfortunately, I can't remove my film back now as I don't have a dark slide-I have one on the way from from Serbia(Ebay special reproduction). My camera only came with one back and no dark slide, although it had just about every imaginable accessory under the sun(50mm, 2x75mm, 13,5cm, and 150mm along with hoods, the speed focusing handle, the really nice t/s macro bellows, a set of extension tubes, and even two of the Nikon to Bronica adapters). I also have a C that came with the above kit. The C is the "budget" model that doesn't have interchangable backs and also only has a 1/500 max shutter speed. It is fully functional without film loaded.

Everyone has to use what they like, but if you get the chance give a TLR(preferably a Rolleiflex) a try. All of my MF photography was done on one for quite a while before I bought an SLR. One of the beauties of them is just how small and light they are, especially the 3.5 versions. The camera all but disappears in your hands. I hold it by "cupping" my hands around it. Even though the camerad are boxy, I still find them comfortable and ergonomic to use. The controls are all in the right place for me(or maybe it's just familiarity). My thumbs control the shutter and aperture wheels, and my left thumb focuses. My right index finger then pushes the shutter button, and I can use my right thumb to flick the advance lever forward and back although I usually use my entire hand. They are dead silent-quieter even than a Leica. I have to admit that the left focus knob sometimes makes using other cameras difficult given my muscle memory from doing that. Of course, LF cameras generally have a left knob for focusing as does the RB67. On the Bronica S cameras, though, the big left knob that's in the "right" position to be a focus knob is actually the shutter speed dial. BTW, although you don't have interchangeable film backs, they are incredibly easy to load vs. most of the other MF cameras I've used. Open the back, move the spool, then just pop the fresh roll in the bottom, feed the leader through the two rollers, then over the film gate and onto the take-up spool. I usually give it a half crank to make sure the leader is taking up correctly, and then just close the back. From there, you just crank until it stops. There's no lining up the arrows and dots like you have to do on other cameras, although I admit that it's generally not a huge deal. Still, compare that to SLRs(or at least all the ones I've used) where you have to pull out the insert and thread the leader around the pressure plate.

If my local lab would do 4x5, I'd give them all my color business. They do get all my C-41 business, although I don't use a lot anymore. I've liked the Ektar 100 I've shot, although I absolutely loved 400UC and shot a lot of that in both 120 and 35mm. I need to get some 120 Ektar. I also try to take in a couple of rolls of E-6 at a time, and encourage them to not run it until they have enough to make it worthwhile to bring the chemistry up. A lot of the reason why I do the 120 E-6 myself is because I just don't do enough 4x5 to justify keeping the chemistry. I shoot a decent amount of 120, so I wait until I have enough of that. Right now I have a 5 rolls of 120 and 6 sheets of 4x5, which is probably about right. At the same time, I also kind of want to at least finish the roll of Provia in one of my backs now and probably run some through my new RB-67

FWIW, I've revived a few DP-1s by removing the front plate(two screws), drizzling in some carbon tet, and working both the coupling prong and shutter speed dial back and forth a bunch. I've had good luck with both "jumpy" needles and meters that are more or less dead or way off. I've also done some F prisms that way. Granted carbon tet's not a great idea as it's highly toxic and probably hard to find these days. I do all of this at work in a fume hood. Some tuner cleaner would probably work. Ultimately the more or less permanent fix is probably to disassemble and clean the ring resistors and wipers. It's not a TERRIBLE on a DP-1, but still is a bit tedious.

I do my own E-6 in 120 and 4x5. I got into it because there's not even a semi-local lab that will process sheet film, and shipping involves some logistic concerns(I finally had "well duh" moment when someone told me to use an empty film box, but I still worry about the wrong person opening it). I use a local lab for 35mm-I like to have it mounted, and also figure it's good to keep feeding the only full service lab around some E-6.

Like I said, you can black out the entire optical path of my 1960s Pellix with a linear polarizer, and it's far from the only camera to use a beam splitter in place of a retracting mirror. If you're a Canon user, you've probably needed to buy circular polarizes since the 1960s.

I've heard mixed answers on that. There were a lot of cameras where the same pressure plate was used for both 120 and 220. On some, you have to move the plate to a different position but on others the plate stayed in the same place and you just change a setting on the frame counter. The Bronica S/S2/C etc work like this. I think several Mamiya models move the pressure plate. I would think that the extra thickness of 120 wouldn't necessarily affect flatness. At the same time, flatness can be "touchy" in MF anyway since you have a fairly large negative being supported by relatively narrow rails. The focus itself shouldn't be affected because the film still rests against the film gate in both 120 and 220. Of course, you still have the lingering frame counter issue-you'd have to watch your counter to realize when you're at the end of the roll and then dry fire a couple of times to get the backing paper all the way on to the takeup spool.

Thank you Henry. I'd scoured B&H several times, but it's nice(albeit sad) to know that we're out of options. I don't think that the Fuji I mentioned has even been available in the US for a while. Of course, a dream film for me would be(as I mentioned above) would be to see TXP-320 in 220 come back(I'd even take it in 120) and maybe even something like Portra 160. Maybe Foma will throw us a bone one of these days and make some. They're not afraid to take on stuff like 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film. As I said, one of the attractions to me these days is that 220 backs are virtually give-away items. Plus, now that I have caught the 6x7 bug, the higher capacity is nice.

They showed up on early post-WWII Automat IIs. AFAIK, that's the only model where they were used, and it's only a 7,5 cm 3.5 Tessar. They're actually fairly uncommon-I probably should have kept mine for its collectable value, but then the lens spoiled the camera. I think that in the immediate post war years, F&H was having trouble getting east German lenses in quantity for their cameras. There were actually quite a variety of lenses used on Automat IIs-all 75mm 3.5 Tessar designs. I suspect that the fiasco with those particular CZ Jenna lenses probably soured the company on using them again. Again, I think that the issue was particular to the Automat II For whatever reason, I tend to gravitate to the Automat II models-probably because that was my first 'Flex and I resurrected it from the dead-but I've had quite a few of them. The CZ Jenna is the only one I've gotten rid of, and I think the price it brought(right at $100 if I remember) reflected the general reputation.

When I travel with my family, they usually appreciate me taking the time to take good snaps on the trip and with that in mind don't care if I spend some time doing more serious photography. My family tends to be pretty laid back when we travel, so I'll often go for a walk or a short trip when other folks are taking an afternoon nap or whatever. Also, if we're going somewhere specifically for the scenery, it's pretty much expected that we'll be stopping frequently anyway so it's not much of a problem. With that said, I travel a lot lighter on family trips than I do if I'm going for a photography trip. I will bring my DSLR(I often times don't even carry it when I'm doing a photo trip) and typically toss in a 35mm body and a Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex gets most of my "serious" work, and sometimes I'll eliminate the 35mm cameras entirely. I do recall my dad and I making a trip out to the country to take a photo of the house that my 90 year old aunt had been born and grew up in. I needed him to go with me so that I could find it, but he got rather irritated at me when I started packing up my LF gear. In the end, I did pair it down and take my Speed Graphic and a couple of film holders(along with a tripod) but also took my DSLR. When we got there, the house was in such bad shape that I ended up only shooting digital, giving it the "FP4+ treatment" in SilverEffex along with a red filter(what I would have done in LF) then bumping the contrast and burning the porch a bit to hide the toilet on it :) .

If this is still available, I will take it if chazfenn passes on it.