jrjacobs

Cao -

 

On medium format, you need much smaller apertures to get the same depth of field you are used to in 35mm. So typically, f/4 in medium format is closer to f/1.7 in 35mm format, in terms of DOF, f/2.8 is similar to f/1.4. Also, keep in mind that 65mm and 80mm lenses are considered "wide" lenses in medium format, equivalent to a 30mm and 40mm lens in 35mm terms - not the most flattering for shooting fashion.

 

If you are used to rangefinders, the Mamiya 7 can be a good choice, although you are limited on lenses. Most fashion photographers shooting film, however, use an SLR of some type (Hasselblad, Pentax 6x7, Mamiya RZ67) - there is a reason for this.

 

I don't think the Mamiya 7 is low build quality - it is comparable to most medium format cameras.

"""Yes, there is an improvement. The 80/2.8 Rolleis are generally superior to the 75s."" WHAT ?? This forum has become a joke!"

 

 

I'm with you Jorge -

 

I own both a 2.8e (80mm Planar), and a 3.5e (75mm Planar). Both professionally callibrated (i.e. focus is accurate, lenses aligned, etc.). The only difference I can see between the two is that the 2.8 model can go 1/2 stop more open. Both lenses are equally sharp, and it is near impossible to tell which camera shot what photo - Planars (and Xenotars) are 6 element, well-corrected lenses. I would daresay if anyone thinks one is sharper than the other, they should have their lenses aligned and focus callibrated.

 

As to the OP - the difference in focal length (75mm vs. 80mm) is negligable. That equates to the difference between a 50mm and a 52mm lens in 35mm format - not enough to make much a difference at all.

Basically, the rule of thumb with the Yashica TLR's is this:

 

If the lens says "Yashikor", it is a 3 element.

If the lens says "Yashinon", it is a 4 element (Tessar design).

 

Some models, such as the 635, came with both lens versions, so you can't always go by the model name, you need to see what the lens is.

5mm difference won't equate to much at all. If you are trying to get a tighter portrait, get a +1 Rolleinar - allows you to get in much closer.

I think you will be very happy if you get a Diacord or Ricohmatic. Just don't say it too loud as these cameras are sweet and very underpriced at the moment.

The "Million" was just another version of the Ricohflex.

 

The good cameras from Ricoh were the Dia, the Diacord, and the best one of all, the Ricohmatic 225 (if you can find one).

 

The Ricohmatic 225 is a very nice camera, very similar to the Minolta Autocord, but superior to it in many ways. It has the same flat spool film path, but also has internal baffling similar to a Rolleiflex. It has the same lever focus, but on both sides (ala Diacord) - the lever focus on the Ricohs do not typically get stuck as on the Autocords. The Ricohmatic also can accept 35mm film as well as 120. The Ricohmatic and Diacord models also have a built-in flash hotshoe, a feature lacking on most other TLR cameras, or most any camera from the 1950's. The Ricohmatic and Diacord also have a neat feature - closing the finder automatically locks the shutter button. Lenses on the Diacord/Ricohmatic models are top notch Tessar variants, and I have found them to be sharper than the Yashica-Mat lenses, although this may be a result of the flatter film plane.

Bernie - the lenses are the exact same. I have both a 124G and an EM, and the build quality of the EM is much better. The EM does not have the plastic gears like the 124G - in fact, there is no plastic on the EM - it feels much better. I am lucky enough that the selenium meter works on my EM and is accurate (!), but frankly, I rarely use the built in meter - I much prefer to use a handheld, but it is nice to know the meter is there should the batteries die on my meter or should I forget to bring it.

 

Also, I am sure I will get flamed for this, but I doubt you will see much difference in print quality between a Yashica Mat and a Rolleiflex, unless you wish to buy one of the expensive ones with a Planar or Xenotar lens. The ones with a Tessar have the same lens type as the Yashinon, which was a copy.

I have both a Mamiya RB67 and a Pentax 67. In use, I like the RB67 better because of the rotating back, and the interchangable backs. But for the lenses, the Pentax SMC Taks outshine the RB67 lenses.

 

As for mirror slap, the RB67 is no better than the Pentax. With a standard lens, you wouldn't want to shoot either slower than 1/60th handheld. Same goes for Hasselblad, BTW. Use a GOOD tripod and you will be fine with either camera when at slower speeds.

 

For carrying around, the Pentax is better, but I have done it just fine with the Mamiya also - just use a comfortable wide strap and the WLF.

 

If you have any specific questions regarding differences between the two, I would be happy to answer them. :)

Yes, but keep in mind the large size of polaroid print is approaching the size of a large format negative, so at f/5.6 your DOF is miniscule.

 

Your ansswer to shooting without flash is to use the 600SE with Fuji's FP-3000b ISO 3000 speed instant film. You can shoot handheld at f/8 in a fairly dim room.

The 600SE DOES take interchangable lenses. There were three lenses available for it, a 127mm, a 150mm, and a wide which was a 65mm IIRC.

Sorry if you were offended by my answer - just trying to be helpful.

 

As Mike K said - it will most likely be cheaper to get a decent handheld meter than to try and fix the built-in one, and a handheld will be more accurate. I am not rich either, and I got a nice Gossen LunaPro meter for $30 on the auction site - it works great and can meter in moonlight.

 

I have a Ricohmatic (similar to the Diacord) with a working meter, but I still use the handheld - those meters aren't the best.

 

Please try to be more cordial next time when someone offers good-intentioned advice.

Usually 6x7 is the format for a two page spread photo.

Why not just purchase a handheld meter? Much easier to carry around than a 35mm camera, and much more reliable than a selenium meter anyways. Seleniums never were very great, and poop out in low light conditions.

The Autocord is clearly the best built of the three you mention here, and is EVERY BIT THE EQUAL of a Tessar equiped Rolleiflex (sorry, Rollei fondlers out there). Rolleicords are nice, but they are not nearly built to the level of Rolleiflexes or Autocords (I know, I have two Rolleicords, and a Rolleiflex 2.8e and 3.5f). Rolleicords are flimsy and were a cheap consumer model.

 

That being said, the Rolleicord is a very dependable model to own, as there is much less to go wrong with one since they are a very stripped down model.

 

Yashica Mat 124's are also nice cameras with excellent lenses. Sometimes people confuse the Yashica Mat build quality with the last model, the 124g which has a large amount of plastic. The earlier models are good, dependable cameras and the Yashinon will not dissapoint. Although not as solid as the Minolta or Rolleiflex, they aren't as far behind as some would have you believe, and they are dependable cameras - just keep in mind that you can no longer get batteries for the meter.

 

Really, for a >$250 budget, you should be able to get a pretty nice TLR. You might want to consider a Ricohmatic 225 if you can find one. That is just about the nicest non-Rollei TLR that was ever made - great Tessar type lens, super build quality, lever focus like the Autocord, but it has baffling like a Rollei so contrast and flare control is excellent. An Autocord is also a good choice. You should be able to also find a Tessar equipped Rolleiflex in that price range.

They seem like nice cameras, but are very heavy when compared to a Hassy 500 series camera. Also, the aperture on the lenses is only 5 bladed, so you get weird pentagon-type bokeh, which I find distracting in the images I have seen from these cameras.

They aren't very good, and don't provide much more of a wide angle than stepping back a few feet to accomplish the same goal. I'm sorry to say that they seriously degrade the image quality - hope you didn't spend much on it.

 

On the other hand, the close up lenses for TLR's work wonderfully in general.

As others have said, it is a great camera system and you will be at no loss for 1/30th sync speed when shooting in the studio. If you are doing outdoor fill-flash work, you will need one of the leaf-shutter lenses, which can sync up to 1/500th a second.

 

Get yourself the 90/2.8 and the 165/2.8 (great portrait lens) and you will be in business. You can also get both of those lenses in leaf shutter models in you are interested in higher sync speeds.

 

Another interesting lens to consider is the 35mm fisheye, which is one of the best fisheyes ever made for any camera system, and can be purchased relatively inexpensively on the used market.

For indoor portraits you need a flash meter. I'd add my name to the list to recommend the Sekonic 308s. Lightweight and very accurate. Great for portrait work.

I'd second the suggestion of a Tiltall - they are very stable for MF gear, yet still portable enough for field use.

The Canon 350d actually has a "night scene" mode that will do what you want automatically - the camera will calculate the correct exposure for the background, and for the flash of the subject - it does a very good job - try it sometime (also, try reading the manual on your camera, which explains this very well).

Get it if the meter is the only thing wrong with it. Diacords were some of the best TLR's made - their lenses are on par with the Minolta Autocords and Tessar Rolleis, and are superior to Yashica Mats. They also have built in baffling like the Rolleis, which the Minolta Autocords are lacking, and they also have a unique side lever focus which doesn't break like the Autocords do. Good cameras. Don't worry much about the light meter - the built in meters on TLR's are not TTL like an SLR, so they only give a very general exposure indication anyway. You will really want to be using a handheld meter. The meters on my TLR's all work, but I don't really use them much - handheld meter is the way to go.

Beautiful lighting. I have two 60 CT-4's and can't seem to part with them. They are fantastic and have saved my butt on many an occasion. I often bounce them into umbrellas.

Hi Terry -

 

I've never used Hensels, so I'm not one to ask. I switched to Broncolor Impact S80 monolights (got them used), and a set of JTL Mobilights for location work (they are battery powered). I've been happy with both the JTL and the Broncolor, but the tubes for the Broncolors cost a fortune!

Just rent two basic monolights with two white umbrellas and stands and do a basic portrait lighting setup. The umbrellas will also light up your white background nicely.

"With a light tent you have 2 choices: either NO catchlights, or faked catchlights.

 

Of you know a third, better, way - proven in practice - I'd be interested to hear it!"

 

If you don't know how to create specular highlights with a lighting tent then I would suggest you purchase a basic lighting book and start reading. I'd give you a hint on how to do it, but others have explained it very well. I will say that producing real specular highlights will make your gem photo look much more professional than the cartoonish "pasted-on stars" look you posted. If I ever submitted a photo like that to one of my clients I would have been fired off the gig.

 

Have fun!