120 RF vs. SLR

kevin m said:
Is the Hassy, or any 6x6 or bigger MF SLR really hand-holdable, though. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Some cameras are clearly made to be more comfortable used at waist level like Rollei & Hasselblad, while others like the Pentaxes are more comfortable handheld at eye level.

Does the "reciprocal of focal length" rule apply to MF SLR's as it does 35mm SLRs? I.E., can one safely hand hold an 80mm lens at 1/80th? :confused:
Click to expand...
Not a hard and fast rule even with smaller cameras, but a useful guideline even for medium format IMHO. A leaf-shutter RF or TLR can be steadier than an SLR, generally. But SLRs vary in the effects of mirror and shutter movements according to their designs too.
 
I think one of the most handholdable 6x6 SLRs is the Bronica SQ system. Even though it looks bricklike, like a Hassy, if you add the winding grip and prism, it feels more like a 35mm SLR than a Pentax 67, which [/i]looks more like a 35mm SLR. These were popular among wedding shooters, because they're lightweight and quick focusing with great ergonomics, and they're really cheap nowadays.
 
When I used a friend's 6x6 Bronica, it almost fell out of my hand. That noisy/loud of a shutter.

My 500EL is easy to hand-hold down to 1/30 with an 80mm lens; both with prism and WLF.

Something about the combination of lens and focal plane shutters that
makes it work. I'm a big guy though.

Roland.
 
Which Bronica did you try? The earlier cameras like the S, S2, and S2a were famous for their loud shutter. I use an S2a. Fortunately, most of the sound comes after the exposure.

The reason for this is the falling mirror design. When the shutter fires, the mirror, which is hinged in front, slips into a metal sheath, so that light is not reflected from the mirror onto the film, and a curtain covers the focusing screen, so that no light enters through the viewfinder, and then the focal plane shutter opens. The process is reversed and ends with a substantial thunk.

The advantage of this design is that there is more room for wide lenses inside the mirror box, because the mirror isn't flipping up, so a Nikkor-Bronica 50mm or 40mm lens doesn't have to cover as much retrofocus distance as a lens of the same focal length for Hassy or Rollei.

The later cameras like the ETR, SQ, and GS series (645, 6x6, and 6x7) went back to the simpler conventional rising mirror. The EC and EC-TL, between the older design and the new design, used a split mirror system.
 
kevin m said:
Is the Hassy, or any 6x6 or bigger MF SLR really hand-holdable, though? I'm leaning towards a 645 SLR (or an RF) to get hand-holding ability. If I have to lock the thing down on a tripod the majority of the time, what the heck, I might as well go 4x5. :D

Does the "reciprocal of focal length" rule apply to MF SLR's as it does 35mm SLRs? I.E., can one safely hand hold an 80mm lens at 1/80th? :confused:
Click to expand...

I have handheld a Hasselblad with 80mm lens at 1/15, but I am very steady. 1/60 is probably the limit for most. I find my Mamiya 645 Super with the winder grip a lot easier to handhold at slow speeds. I regularly handhold it to 1/30 and get good results.
 
kevin m said:
Is the Hassy, or any 6x6 or bigger MF SLR really hand-holdable, though? I'm leaning towards a 645 SLR (or an RF) to get hand-holding ability. If I have to lock the thing down on a tripod the majority of the time, what the heck, I might as well go 4x5. :D

I have no problem handholding Kiev 88 or Hassy. Here are a few shots from Kiev 88 with 150mm lens all handheld:

255948245_17deb6403b.jpg


255948244_502b6c8511.jpg


and here is one with 80mm lens:

813367486_5a97677912.jpg


For larger pics see my flickr.

Now I tried Mamiya RB/RD series - that was hard to handhold.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have experience on fujica gl690, linhof 220, hasselblad 501cm and mastertechnika. If perspective is important to you go for those systems that use large format lens designs like Mamiya 7, Fujica rangefinders GL, GSW, ... Mamiya 7 has good wide angles 45 and 50 are Biogon formulas and Fujica has a great feel its like a big bro of m3. and i dont think a 645 will make much difference to you. Bigger is Better as they say but much bigger is much better.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for all the tips, guys. There are some really cool cameras out there that I didn't know about, plus others I need to reconsider. :)
 
Double Negative said:
That's what I'm thinking, too. If you're gonna go biggie size... Might as well scrape the ceiling! I'm intrigued most by 6x7 myself due to its ratio; but 6x8 and 6x9 is really tempting. I can only imagine what a 6x9 slide looks like on a light table. <drool>
Click to expand...

Then why are you even bothering with MF? Get yourself a large format setup. And make sure you do large format justice and go straight to 16x20!

Selection of a format makes no sense at all unless you consider print size and the trade-offs involved in lugging about heavier gear. Otherwise it becomes a comparison of whose is bigger. Kinda pointless.
 
I've used a Bronica ETRSi for quite a few years - entirely hand held, with a hand grip and prism (without either it's a pain to hand hold), and I've been very pleased with the results.
 
ferider said:
I second the 500C or newer Hasselblad. Quite small (with a WLF not much bigger than the typical TLR), and easy to handhold down to 1/30 at least with a Planar. Also, you might be surprised how affordable these are nowadays.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I'll 3rd (or more) this one. Recently picked up a 500c/m with the excellent 80/2.8. It'll seeon be the only SLR I own, as the Nikon collection just doesn't compare (with the possible exception of close-up work).
 
I have a Hassy as well as a Mamiya 7II, Mamiya 645E, several TLRs. The TLRs and the Mamiya 7 are much quieter than the SLR's and can be handheld at much lower shutter speeds, if that makes a difference. The Hassy and Mamiya 645E have a pronounced (to me) mirror slap which adds vibration and noise, it's a trade off between closer focusing and hand holding ability. Again...different tools for different jobs.

Todd
 
RObert Budding said:
Then why are you even bothering with MF? Get yourself a large format setup. And make sure you do large format justice and go straight to 16x20!

Selection of a format makes no sense at all unless you consider print size and the trade-offs involved in lugging about heavier gear. Otherwise it becomes a comparison of whose is bigger. Kinda pointless.
Click to expand...

16x20? I've just got to 4x5 and it's already taxing my patience and shoulder :)

One point about print size. Now I believe that you don't always have to look at a 24x20 inches print to appreciate what big negatives can offer.

I just realized it when I saw a collection of photos from the 20's, 30's, and 40's compiled in a tiny book "Decades of the 20th century" compiled by Nick Yapp. I was puzzled at some -- not all, but some --- of the pictures in the books that look very appealing to my eyes, but I can't put a finger on why. Later I realized that those are taken with big negatives.

There's that depth perception that just can't be replicated easily using smaller formats that I find just amazing to see.

And that's part of why *I* shoot with larger formats, YMMV of course :)
 
I use formats that range from 35mm to 4x5. Which to use always involves trade-off. I love the results from large format, but I certainly don't use it to shoot sports. Well, not yet, anyway.
 
Later I realized that those are taken with big negatives.
Click to expand...

I never understood the idea that you have to make big prints to appreciate the difference between 35mm and MF; I think the difference is evident even in 4x6 proofs. And any functioning MF camera trumps even the best 35mm gear for B&W tonality.
 
The only 6x6 cameras I have are TLRs. I used to have a Fuji GA645 (still regret selling that) which was wonderful. I still have a Pentax 645 SLR (the first one, not the autofocus 645n or 645nii) with the 75/2.8 manual focus lens and love it. Yes, it's big and loud, but it's very handholdable. I have a number of shots from both cameras on my Flickr stream, some of which I'm pretty sure were between 1/30 and 1/60 sec. I feel that the jump in quality with 645 over 35mm is significant enough to warrant moving to the format.

Two from the Pentax 645:

1508970580_e13b6bf5bd.jpg


1508110565_5999eaafc1.jpg


And two from the Fuji GA645:

711690648_fef5f57f59.jpg


710814009_412820fe8f.jpg
 
Last edited:
Weight is important and i had research a while ago.

BODY MAX. FORMAT
Fujica GL690 (the heavy big bro of GSW series) = 1245 gr 6X9cm
Hassellad 501CM (with magazine unloaded) = 1025 gr 6x6cm
Pentax 67II = 1660 gr 6x7cm
Mamiya 7II = 1210 gr 6x7cm

Widest Lens Attached

Fujica GL690 + 65 5.6 = 1860 gr
65mm 5.6 is an old version Rodenstock Grandagon design, distortion free
(50 is the widest but its so rare and the f8 is not very attractive)

Hassellad + 40 4 CFE IF = 2375 gr
89deg diag. Sharpest wide lens in the universe

Pentax 67II + 45 4 = 2145 gr
88deg daig.

Mamiya 7II + 43 4.5 = 1600 gr
92deg diag. Distortion Free Mythical 10 element design derived from Biogon 45/53/75

Best Normal Attached

Fujica GL690 + 100 3.4 AE = 2000 gr
It is actually an Auto electro lens that operates on 6volt batteries, its an android design of Tessar and Technikar, very sharp and the only MC lens in Fujica 690 system

Hassellad + 100 3.4 CF = 1670 gr
Unique sharp lens with no distortion, no equivelant in any other system, semi-symmetric design 5 elements an epic

Pentax 67II + 105 2.4 = 2260 gr
6 elements, good flare control

Mamiya 7II + 80 4= 1500gr
Extremely sharp (never seen anything like it) but i wish the colour rendering was better.

Remember the Old rule: "If a system has 2 GREAT lenses that suite u Go Get it"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom