KenR
Well-known
The lenses on MF cameras don't have to be quite as good as lenses for 35mm because the magnification factor is less. An 11x enlargement for 35mm to produce an 11x14 image on paper is the equivalent of a 5x enlargement with 6x9. As the lenses for MF are only slightly inferior to 35mm lenses, the image quality of MF is superior.
Texsport
Well-known
Think 6x9 + enlargement factor. Big Fujis don't have to be superior optically to give superior photographic results.
Texsport
Last edited:
Brian Puccio
Well-known
It's cool, I can go through life without ever using a 6x9 camera. I'm not holding my breath here.
I don't think I'll be fanatic about time missed. I missed Kodachrome except for three rolls and sleep fine at night.
It's cool, I never claimed to be citing facts, just opinion and I stand by them still, so chide away.
Odd, I don't have any Leica lenses. And I never claimed that 35mm was as good as 6x9, I said 35mm for me for now for what I do is good enough.
But that's OK... We've all made huge mistakes in our life that we have later regretted. I got married once.
If not buying a 6x9 camera because I have money I'd rather and/or must spend elsewhere is the biggest mistake I ever make, then I think I've done pretty good in life. Right now, my biggest mistake is probably dropping out of college/university, but I went back and I graduate a dual major this spring.
k__43
Registered Film User
If it's weight that is your major concern I'd like to give you some numbers,
My Pentcaon Six TL with waistlevel finder and Volna-3 80mm is 1.61kg,
the Mamiya 7 + 65/4 is 1.37kg
the Rolleiflex 3.5E (w/o meter) is 1,12 (I believe a 2.8 is about 100g heavier)
a Rolleicord V is only 900g!!
my Leica M2+Sonnar-C 50mm is 902g (so exactly as heavy as the Rolleicord)
a Contax T2 is 380g .. so a T2 + Rolleicord is still lighter than a Mamiya 7.
I believe you should look for a vintage folder if you want really light.
My Pentcaon Six TL with waistlevel finder and Volna-3 80mm is 1.61kg,
the Mamiya 7 + 65/4 is 1.37kg
the Rolleiflex 3.5E (w/o meter) is 1,12 (I believe a 2.8 is about 100g heavier)
a Rolleicord V is only 900g!!
my Leica M2+Sonnar-C 50mm is 902g (so exactly as heavy as the Rolleicord)
a Contax T2 is 380g .. so a T2 + Rolleicord is still lighter than a Mamiya 7.
I believe you should look for a vintage folder if you want really light.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For compact, lightweight, etc, nothing beats a classic folder. My Voigtländer Perkeo II and Balda Baldix are 6x6 format, make great photos, and are a delight to use.
I bought the Voigtländer Bessa III as I was so enthused with the folder concept. 6x6 or 6x7, stunning lens, very nice viewfinder/rangefinder, meter and auto exposure operation. A lovely camera. But it is much larger than the classic folders, and I find little reason to prefer it over a Hasselblad 500CM or SWC. Others will feel differently as it is a very different camera. (I acquired both of the Hasselblads over the past six months—the Bessa III is sitting in the closet waiting to get sold now.)
I've had a passel of Fuji 645s ... the original folder, the non-collapsing model with the wide lens, the GA model. The non-collapsing model with the wide lens (sorry, I always get the number designations mixed up...) was my favorite. But I prefer 6x6.
I've often looked at the Mamiya 6 and indeed looked at it again on this latest round of 6x6 delight. But it's so long out of production, the film wind is cited by many as being fragile, and parts/service support is gone. I'm happier that I went with the Hasselblads and classic folders.
G
I bought the Voigtländer Bessa III as I was so enthused with the folder concept. 6x6 or 6x7, stunning lens, very nice viewfinder/rangefinder, meter and auto exposure operation. A lovely camera. But it is much larger than the classic folders, and I find little reason to prefer it over a Hasselblad 500CM or SWC. Others will feel differently as it is a very different camera. (I acquired both of the Hasselblads over the past six months—the Bessa III is sitting in the closet waiting to get sold now.)
I've had a passel of Fuji 645s ... the original folder, the non-collapsing model with the wide lens, the GA model. The non-collapsing model with the wide lens (sorry, I always get the number designations mixed up...) was my favorite. But I prefer 6x6.
I've often looked at the Mamiya 6 and indeed looked at it again on this latest round of 6x6 delight. But it's so long out of production, the film wind is cited by many as being fragile, and parts/service support is gone. I'm happier that I went with the Hasselblads and classic folders.
G
philcycles
Established
I've got 2 Fujis-G690 and GW690-and they deliver great images. Bit heavy but due to physical limitations I can't walk far so because I have to stick close to the car it doesn't bother me. I tend to take a lot of gear and decide what to use when I get to the spot.
philosli
Established
I have a GA645. Great camera, super sharp lens, compact. I can carry my 135 system (one body + 3 lens) and my GA645 in a messenger bag. Focus is accurate and the TTL meter works well enough. It has a small built-in flash with an external sensor, very convenient for fill flash
Regardless which camera you eventually choose, if you want to digitalize your films for web sharing and/or prints, I think you need to factor in how you want to scan your MF films. You can either have the lab scan for you ($$ in the long run), or do it yourself. Flatbeds are ok but many people say you need a dedicated film scanner. A good MF film scanner really means rob the bank -- either you buy new (Plustek OpticFilm 120) or pay a premium for used Nikons. (I bought a refurbished Epson V750, more expensive than the camera!!)
Regardless which camera you eventually choose, if you want to digitalize your films for web sharing and/or prints, I think you need to factor in how you want to scan your MF films. You can either have the lab scan for you ($$ in the long run), or do it yourself. Flatbeds are ok but many people say you need a dedicated film scanner. A good MF film scanner really means rob the bank -- either you buy new (Plustek OpticFilm 120) or pay a premium for used Nikons. (I bought a refurbished Epson V750, more expensive than the camera!!)
GaryLH
Veteran
I have used the Fuji 6x9s and 645 cameras in the past. I have thought about the Mamiya 6 as well, but once I acquired my first mf folder thoughts of the Mamiya 6 went out the door.
Like Godfrey, I also have the Voitlander Perkeo, Bessa 2 and Fuji gf670 (Bessa 3) as well as Zeiss super ikonta 4 and Franka Solida 2.
If I am going to go out and shoot 120, it will most likely be one of these cameras.
The Perkeo, Solida and the ikonta when folded will easily fit in my back jean pocket. The Bessa 2 will fit into as well but needs a bit bigger back pocket.
The Fuji 690s handle like an oversized Leica but a very noise shutter release (speculation is that it is not the shutter causing the nose but something in the conter mechanism). The 645 I have used are all af designs. All the Fuji lenses on these cameras are sharp and contrasty. The 645 vertical format takes some getting used to.
Gary
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Great minds roil in the same gutter. ;-)
The Perkeo II and Baldix are so nice and compact—I slip them into the front pocket of my computer bag or into my jacket pocket on regular occasion.
However, if I'm going out to shoot seriously, the Hassy 500CM with 80 Planar and WL finder, or the SWC, hangs so well on a shoulder strap I find them more convenient to walk with than the Bessa III. They're boxy lumps, but they just fit me better than the awkwardly large folder, which hangs the wrong way and opens opposite to the Perkeo II.
Different strokes...!
G
GaryLH
Veteran
Yep..
I recently acquired a graflex xlsw w/ the 47f8 SA for same reason u have the swc. Yeah, the Bessa 3 does tend to be a bit more awkward if u carry w/ shoulder strap, but when I have t w/ me, I tend to carry in shoulder bag..
Gary
I recently acquired a graflex xlsw w/ the 47f8 SA for same reason u have the swc. Yeah, the Bessa 3 does tend to be a bit more awkward if u carry w/ shoulder strap, but when I have t w/ me, I tend to carry in shoulder bag..
Gary
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I don't find the GA645 is that much fun to shoot with on a tripod. I'd only buy that camera to shoot it handheld. The AF is accurate and the image quality is unimpeachable. I have some 12x18 Fuji Crystal Archive prints from that camera that just floor me… But it's fundamentally a point and shoot. It gets less enjoyable to use as your approach becomes more deliberate and formal.
That said, after spending several months with a friend's 645 Wi, I'm thinking about buying my own. You get 16 exposures per roll. Focus is accurate. The lens is phenomenal. Exposure is bang-on reliable. The camera is light (plastic has its advantages) and it packs really really well. In fact I put it in my knapsack in a ThinkTank 50 lens bag. Perfect. And the results speak. Remember that this camera encourages you to shoot vertical format.
Dante Stella has a good page on these cameras. http://www.dantestella.com/technical/ga645.html
The TLRs are great from a weight and reliability perspective (If it was good enough for Bourke-White it's good enough for us!). But you have to decide whether you like the square. For some it really works. For others, it's intolerable. These cameras have good resale value and are worth saving for. If you get one and it's not quite for you, just re-sell and the financial penalty is not severe. There are good tutorials on the web for how to assess a used Rollei's mechanical soundness.
Between the Mamiya 6 and 7, you want the 7. According to two friends who do professional camera repair, the extensible "bellows" of the 6 is a known mechanical Achilles' heel. The fact that the finish on the 7 is not durable works to your advantage. A lot of these cameras that look like crap are in fact mechanically perfect. And all the lenses are spectacular.
In terms of bang-for-buck, don't neglect to look at the Pentax 645. You can get amazing bargains on these cameras and the lenses are absolutely first rate. And the camera and lenses have AMAZING build quality given their prices. I defy anyone to actually use one of these cameras and not fall in love. Ken Rockwell does a good job of covering their strengths and (sometimes significant) weaknesses. http://kenrockwell.com/pentax/645/645.htm
An alternative possibility that is well within your budget: Nikon FM with 28/2.8 AIS and either 50/1.8E or (for a more weight and a bit less speed), 55 micro. I prefer the rendering of the 50/1.8 E to any 50/1.4 Nikkor I've ever used, and it is a LOT lighter and it is CHEAP and it's only half a stop slower. One of those "bargain-of-the-century" lenses. Actually, I like the way it renders better than the v4/v5 Summicron, though it's not as viciously sharp.
The micro lenses have pretty much unsurpassed image quality. There are many versions, as discussed here: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Fgng. I'd get a 55/2.8 AIS because it has floating elements that allow it to perform well at close and distant focus, and it will reliably out-resolve even TMX or ACROS.
An FE with slow B&W film and a lightweight tripod, used at optimum apertures, is light, brutally reliable, extremely versatile, and not easy to top in terms of 35mm image quality. Honestly, at f/5.6-f/16, my Leica M gear is (under most field conditions) not meaningfully better — especially when compared to these especially good (and reasonably priced!) Nikkor lenses. And no parallax issues, either!
That said, after spending several months with a friend's 645 Wi, I'm thinking about buying my own. You get 16 exposures per roll. Focus is accurate. The lens is phenomenal. Exposure is bang-on reliable. The camera is light (plastic has its advantages) and it packs really really well. In fact I put it in my knapsack in a ThinkTank 50 lens bag. Perfect. And the results speak. Remember that this camera encourages you to shoot vertical format.
Dante Stella has a good page on these cameras. http://www.dantestella.com/technical/ga645.html
The TLRs are great from a weight and reliability perspective (If it was good enough for Bourke-White it's good enough for us!). But you have to decide whether you like the square. For some it really works. For others, it's intolerable. These cameras have good resale value and are worth saving for. If you get one and it's not quite for you, just re-sell and the financial penalty is not severe. There are good tutorials on the web for how to assess a used Rollei's mechanical soundness.
Between the Mamiya 6 and 7, you want the 7. According to two friends who do professional camera repair, the extensible "bellows" of the 6 is a known mechanical Achilles' heel. The fact that the finish on the 7 is not durable works to your advantage. A lot of these cameras that look like crap are in fact mechanically perfect. And all the lenses are spectacular.
In terms of bang-for-buck, don't neglect to look at the Pentax 645. You can get amazing bargains on these cameras and the lenses are absolutely first rate. And the camera and lenses have AMAZING build quality given their prices. I defy anyone to actually use one of these cameras and not fall in love. Ken Rockwell does a good job of covering their strengths and (sometimes significant) weaknesses. http://kenrockwell.com/pentax/645/645.htm
An alternative possibility that is well within your budget: Nikon FM with 28/2.8 AIS and either 50/1.8E or (for a more weight and a bit less speed), 55 micro. I prefer the rendering of the 50/1.8 E to any 50/1.4 Nikkor I've ever used, and it is a LOT lighter and it is CHEAP and it's only half a stop slower. One of those "bargain-of-the-century" lenses. Actually, I like the way it renders better than the v4/v5 Summicron, though it's not as viciously sharp.
The micro lenses have pretty much unsurpassed image quality. There are many versions, as discussed here: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Fgng. I'd get a 55/2.8 AIS because it has floating elements that allow it to perform well at close and distant focus, and it will reliably out-resolve even TMX or ACROS.
An FE with slow B&W film and a lightweight tripod, used at optimum apertures, is light, brutally reliable, extremely versatile, and not easy to top in terms of 35mm image quality. Honestly, at f/5.6-f/16, my Leica M gear is (under most field conditions) not meaningfully better — especially when compared to these especially good (and reasonably priced!) Nikkor lenses. And no parallax issues, either!
one90guy
Well-known
Thanks to all on the input on the 645's, I am thinking of selling a large portion of my 35mm and tlrs for one. I have been longing for one for some time now. For me this is a large investment and have been quite nervous about giving up a few cameras I really love and being disappointed. Any more suggestions or advice is most welcome.
David
David
GaryLH
Veteran
I forgot to mention, the only Fuji 645 I would be hesitant about is the folder. If it is the original bellows, then they are known to have early issues w/ light leaks due to type of material they used back then. So far, I have not heard of similar issue w/ the newer Bessa 3/gf670 series.. Once the bellow has been replaced w/ none Fuji one it should be ok.
If I remember correctly, u need to leave the shutter cocked prior to folding the camera back up.. Otherwise I think the internal shutter release mechanism gets broken..
Gary
If I remember correctly, u need to leave the shutter cocked prior to folding the camera back up.. Otherwise I think the internal shutter release mechanism gets broken..
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
For modern MF vertically-oriented format, I'll mention the Bronica RF645. Mine is in great shape; no problem with the wind-on (a typical failing, one hears). It handles like a 35mm that went to Muscle Beach to bulk up, so needs a bag not a pocket. You can shoot manual, A or P. The 65mm and 45m lenses are easier to find than the longer lenses. The shutter wheeze is quietly amusing, unless you're asthmatic, where it might appear the camera is mocking you. It was my choice after reading this thread (and others like it) a few years ago.
But then I also have a GW690...and a pocket-folder Tessar Ikonta...and luckily I don't have to decide which one stays, only which one is prettiest the day I want to shoot MF.
But then I also have a GW690...and a pocket-folder Tessar Ikonta...and luckily I don't have to decide which one stays, only which one is prettiest the day I want to shoot MF.
Texsport
Well-known
The big Fuji's and Collection of lenses offer a few things that the others cannot match:
(1) the huge 6x9 negative with the 690 cameras, but you can also downsize by switching to the 670 series 6x7s's depending on subject.
(2) the 100AE 3.5 lens offers rapid semi-automatic shooting capability.
(3) the range of lenses available is quite wide- 50, 65, 100, 150, and 180mm.
(4) if you can find one, the Auto Up/ close up attachment allows closer focusing than most any other MF lens. ( I've seen 2 in the last year, so they are out there. I bought mine in Australia).
A broad range of capabilities, from frame filling head shot close ups, to wide landscapes + everything in between.
Texsport
(1) the huge 6x9 negative with the 690 cameras, but you can also downsize by switching to the 670 series 6x7s's depending on subject.
(2) the 100AE 3.5 lens offers rapid semi-automatic shooting capability.
(3) the range of lenses available is quite wide- 50, 65, 100, 150, and 180mm.
(4) if you can find one, the Auto Up/ close up attachment allows closer focusing than most any other MF lens. ( I've seen 2 in the last year, so they are out there. I bought mine in Australia).
A broad range of capabilities, from frame filling head shot close ups, to wide landscapes + everything in between.
Texsport
citizen99
Well-known
+1
May I invite the poll starter to extend his ignoral to pre-1950's folders as well
. I have used Voigtlanders from the 1930s; not only can these can be found with Heliar and Skopar lenses, the Voigtlander (and other brands') triplets can give very respectable results as well. You don't even need to give a 'vintage look' to their outputs if you're not into that sort of thing.No batteries to fail and corrode, no obsoleted electronics to fail ... what's not to like
.Addition:- Here for example are some pictures from a Bessa Rangefinder; there are plenty of Ikonta and others' pictures also to be found in the threads.
Last edited:
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Ott -- a lot of good advice here, but I would encourage you (as a few others have also) to look at a folding camera, even though you seem to have ruled those out. Considering your requirements for a small and lightweight camera, these meet those criteria best of all. Also, there are no batteries to be concerned about in extreme conditions. You should be able to find a very nice one for quite a bit less than your $400 budget. The main downside is that all have normal focal length lenses, no wide angles. But I'm not sure that is so critical, especially in rectangular format.
I would look for a Zeiss Ikonta with a Tessar, like the 6x9 Mess-Ikonta (uncoupled rangefinder). I think you can find one of these for $200 in very nice condition, with a top quality shutter -- I think they could be had with either a Compur or a Prontor. The Bessa II (6x9) is a really nice camera as well, but more expensive -- if you find one with a Heliar lens, buy it. But the Color-Skopar is a fine lens too. And do not overlook the Moskva-4 or Moskva-5. I would think you can find one of those in Estonia for very little money. They are well made cameras, with good Industar Tessar-design lenses and decent shutters. (They have 6x6 masks available also.)
I would look for a Zeiss Ikonta with a Tessar, like the 6x9 Mess-Ikonta (uncoupled rangefinder). I think you can find one of these for $200 in very nice condition, with a top quality shutter -- I think they could be had with either a Compur or a Prontor. The Bessa II (6x9) is a really nice camera as well, but more expensive -- if you find one with a Heliar lens, buy it. But the Color-Skopar is a fine lens too. And do not overlook the Moskva-4 or Moskva-5. I would think you can find one of those in Estonia for very little money. They are well made cameras, with good Industar Tessar-design lenses and decent shutters. (They have 6x6 masks available also.)
oftheherd
Veteran
An old thread, but some recent activity. I missed it before I guess, or for some reason didn't comment.
I know the OP said
So vintage folders are not his cup of tea, OK. But others might want to give that some thought. There are some that fit all his other criteria. The Mamiya with Olympus lenses, Zeiss lenses, and Skopar lenses, any Welta camera. Granted I don't know of any of them that have wide lenses, other than the Bee Bee 6x9, and truely I have never seen a wide lens for the Bee Bee cameras, even though I know they were made.
Most of the old folders are fairly light. That was more important to me from about 5 years ago until about 1 year ago because I had a bad back problem as well.
Skopar lenses I know of, and have always heard good of Heliar as well. The Skopar can be had in large folders.
Again, the Bee Bee cameras had interchanable lenses, so had a telephoto and wide lens in both their 6x9 and their 9x12.
The 9x12 with a Zeiss or Skopar lens should beat the OP's requirements. The Kodak lenses in 9x12 are no slouch either. They aren't all that heavy either, especially if you get one that has a wooden body vs metal body. I haven't seen a wooden body with a wide lens, but there were series 6 aux lenses that will fit many. Aux lenses could be had in telephoto and wide, as well as closeup and portrait.
The 9x12 negative is the equivalent of 4x5. If you believe MF beats 35mm (and it does under normal circumstances), try 9x12 or 4x5. Just that 4x5 doesn't come in such small light cameras as 9x12.
Consider an older folder first, whether 645, 6x6, 6x9, or 9x12. I have a Zeiss Ikon, non-RF, very thin and light. Gives really nice photos.
FWIW, I am not personally a big fan of 645. It isn't that much bigger than 35mm (for me at least), and with a TLR, unless you like square, you are likely going to crop to 645 anyway. Why not get a TLR and ease up on composition.
As you can see, another vote for the Heliars and Skopars. But don't discount the Zeiss and Schnieder-Krauznaut either.
I know the OP said
So vintage folders are not his cup of tea, OK. But others might want to give that some thought. There are some that fit all his other criteria. The Mamiya with Olympus lenses, Zeiss lenses, and Skopar lenses, any Welta camera. Granted I don't know of any of them that have wide lenses, other than the Bee Bee 6x9, and truely I have never seen a wide lens for the Bee Bee cameras, even though I know they were made.
Most of the old folders are fairly light. That was more important to me from about 5 years ago until about 1 year ago because I had a bad back problem as well.
Skopar lenses I know of, and have always heard good of Heliar as well. The Skopar can be had in large folders.
Again, the Bee Bee cameras had interchanable lenses, so had a telephoto and wide lens in both their 6x9 and their 9x12.
The 9x12 with a Zeiss or Skopar lens should beat the OP's requirements. The Kodak lenses in 9x12 are no slouch either. They aren't all that heavy either, especially if you get one that has a wooden body vs metal body. I haven't seen a wooden body with a wide lens, but there were series 6 aux lenses that will fit many. Aux lenses could be had in telephoto and wide, as well as closeup and portrait.
The 9x12 negative is the equivalent of 4x5. If you believe MF beats 35mm (and it does under normal circumstances), try 9x12 or 4x5. Just that 4x5 doesn't come in such small light cameras as 9x12.
Consider an older folder first, whether 645, 6x6, 6x9, or 9x12. I have a Zeiss Ikon, non-RF, very thin and light. Gives really nice photos.
FWIW, I am not personally a big fan of 645. It isn't that much bigger than 35mm (for me at least), and with a TLR, unless you like square, you are likely going to crop to 645 anyway. Why not get a TLR and ease up on composition.
+1
..
I have used Voigtlanders from the 1930s; not only can these can be found with Heliar and Skopar lenses, ...
As you can see, another vote for the Heliars and Skopars. But don't discount the Zeiss and Schnieder-Krauznaut either.
thejameskendall
Established
my Mamiya 7 is the best camera I have every used (I also have a Leica M6 and have had an Nikon F3 and other great cameras). you'll never get one for $400 but if you can save a little longer and shoot with what you have for a while I think it's worth considering that. i saved for a long time for mine and ended up selling lots of cameras I bought instead of what I knew I really wanted. As soon as I got it I knew it was what I wanted.
Not sure if that helps at all.
Not sure if that helps at all.