Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Hi there!
I have my 35mm kit decided after a lot of months, the kit basically is a MP with 28,35 and 50, but I feel I think a MF for more quality shots and bigger prints.
I want to use it mainly for people/portraiture, I'm not a landscape guy.
So, Do You think is a good idea the M7II with 80mm for that? or I'm better with a Hasselblad and a tele lens?
A couple of friends used to say me that 6x7 is the perfect format, why?
Thank You very much!
I have my 35mm kit decided after a lot of months, the kit basically is a MP with 28,35 and 50, but I feel I think a MF for more quality shots and bigger prints.
I want to use it mainly for people/portraiture, I'm not a landscape guy.
So, Do You think is a good idea the M7II with 80mm for that? or I'm better with a Hasselblad and a tele lens?
A couple of friends used to say me that 6x7 is the perfect format, why?
Thank You very much!
k__43
Registered Film User
Coming from a Leica you'll feel right home with a Mamiya 7 (except the plastic feel) .. the 80mm might be a bit too wide for classic head shot portraits but I wouldn't give a f&%k. Go for it!
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Mamiya 7 is not ideal if you want to do head and shoulders shots, as you will struggle to focus close enough with either 80 or 150 lenses. It is brilliant if you er towards environmental protratiture, with context around the subject and would shoot with 35 or 40 in 35mm.
I suspect you'll be happier with an RB or RZ 67 really. They cost a bit less too.
Mike
I suspect you'll be happier with an RB or RZ 67 really. They cost a bit less too.
Mike
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
"A couple of friends used to say me that 6x7 is the perfect format, why?"
I think it's because when enlarging 8x10 ,11x14 ,16x20 etc. 6x7 fits the paper sizes with out much waste ......
I shoot with the Plaubel Makina W67 / 670 .... of course that would be recommendation ; )
Also the Pentax 6x7 which also is an awesome camera with amazing prices considering what you get .
I think it's because when enlarging 8x10 ,11x14 ,16x20 etc. 6x7 fits the paper sizes with out much waste ......
I shoot with the Plaubel Makina W67 / 670 .... of course that would be recommendation ; )
Also the Pentax 6x7 which also is an awesome camera with amazing prices considering what you get .
thegman
Veteran
If you don't mind a fixed lens, the GF670 is a stunning little camera. Otherwise cannot go wrong with a Mamiya 7 really.
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Thank You guys!
I'm not sure if with the leica I would have enough for environment portraiture work and leave to hassy or mamiya that kind of job.
What do You think about Rolleiflex and Rolleinar?
And regarding lenses, which one is more sharper and gives You better color/contrast?
Oh! Another thing, I don't want to carry a tripod with me, if I can avoid...
I'm not sure if with the leica I would have enough for environment portraiture work and leave to hassy or mamiya that kind of job.
What do You think about Rolleiflex and Rolleinar?
And regarding lenses, which one is more sharper and gives You better color/contrast?
Oh! Another thing, I don't want to carry a tripod with me, if I can avoid...
mfogiel
Veteran
I would dare suggest Pentax 645N or NII.
Cheap camera, 16 frames per roll, extremely bright viewfinder ( unlike the first non N version), little or no mirror slap, possibility to use marvellous lenses from Pentax 645 line, as well as Pentax 67, Pentacon Six and Hasselblad V and F lenses ( stop down basis) Availability of spare inserts for cheap, good portability. Focuses WELL with all lenses I have tried.
As to the quality, you can have a look here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=59177039@N00&q=pentax 645
Or better still, buy Salgado's "Genesis" book - most of it has been shot on this camera.
Cheap camera, 16 frames per roll, extremely bright viewfinder ( unlike the first non N version), little or no mirror slap, possibility to use marvellous lenses from Pentax 645 line, as well as Pentax 67, Pentacon Six and Hasselblad V and F lenses ( stop down basis) Availability of spare inserts for cheap, good portability. Focuses WELL with all lenses I have tried.
As to the quality, you can have a look here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=59177039@N00&q=pentax 645
Or better still, buy Salgado's "Genesis" book - most of it has been shot on this camera.
craygc
Well-known
Im both a people and film shooter; I have a Mamiya 7II (actually 2 bodies) and I've moved away from it lately as my preferred MF "people" shooting platform. The truth is that you probably don't need 6x7 negs and a smaller MF neg is both sufficient and faster to work with in the field. My recommendation would be a variant of the Pentax 645 - here are some examples with HP5 @640 Pentax 645N. Absolutely beautiful viewfinder, good selection of lenses, extremely robust, great handling, 16 shots per roll of 120, relatively cheap and not too big. The smaller size comes from not being a system camera but its no big deal in practice.
Just add that amongst those examples there are shots with a 75mm lens hand held at 1/20 sec; its an easy camera to shoot with
Just add that amongst those examples there are shots with a 75mm lens hand held at 1/20 sec; its an easy camera to shoot with
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Friends in the printing and publishing industry, perhaps? The amateur school of thought mostly seems to think 2:3 (as in 24x36mm and 6x9cm) is perfect...
Most print formats (whether photographic paper, books or newspapers and magazines) had/have a side ratio somewhere in the 1:1.25 to 1:1.4 range. Most publishers had tuned their page layouts so that 4x5" and 9x12cm sheet film fit their full page spreads with minimal cropping. As medium format roll film began to be substituted for sheet film in professional applications, there was a growing need for a format that matched the old sheet film side ratios while being less wasteful than the excessively long 6x9 and square 6x6.
The first to propose a format between 6x6 and 6x9 may have been Linhof, with 56x72mm backs, who also coined the term "Idealformat" for it, which may have promoted the idea that it is "the perfect format". Other makers caught up with a few more formats around 6x7 to 6x8 - the bulk of "6x7" cameras are 56x69mm.
Ansel
Well-known
You have everything covered with your Leica... Medium format just gives you more of what you have but at the expense of heavier kit. I have been shooting Hasselblad for a looong time now and I can heartily recommend it but if you don't want to carry a tripod then take your Leica. Rolleiflex is a great solution however, light and fantastic big negs....
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
thanks guys.
Do You know if there is any lost quality using the Rolleinar combo lens for the 2.8F?
Do You know if there is any lost quality using the Rolleinar combo lens for the 2.8F?
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
Finally I've been searching information and for head , shoulder , and close up, the Hasselblad is the best choice.
What about a 503CW , with a12 back, 80CF for 1800€? very good condition, acutte mate screen.
I will sell the 80CF and buy the 150!
What about a 503CW , with a12 back, 80CF for 1800€? very good condition, acutte mate screen.
I will sell the 80CF and buy the 150!
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
None -- the Rolleiflex/Rolleinar combination is superb for portraiture. Use the Rolleinar 1 -- focuses from 1 meter down to 1/2 meter, which is as close as you need.
Ansel
Well-known
Very pricey... I sold a mint boxed 503CW for about 1,000 Euros 4 years go.... I would expect less now. The 80CF you can pick up for 300 Euros...
k__43
Registered Film User
I used Rolleinars before, they are great! BUT if you want to focus on portraits you will have to find patient subjects, since every rolleinar only covers some 20-30 cm of focus area and you'd need to change them all the time.
My girlfriend did some very interesting face portrait stuff with her Rolleicord, a flash and the Rolleinar II or maybe even III .. I was holding the flash unit
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
But I've found some deformation in the nose and eyes... I don't know, something weird in the faces.
edge100
Well-known
The Mamiya 7 is a brilliant (if fragile) camera, and I try to use mine as much as possible, but it would not be my first choice for portraiture. You just can't get close enough, even with the 150, for H&S portraits.
For that, I have a 500c/m.
For that, I have a 500c/m.
2ndApplePie
Newbie
When I was Rollei shopping and researching, I kept coming across comments that the 3.5 Planars and Xenotars actually have higher performance than than their 2.8 counterparts. It depends how important that 2/3 of a stop is to you.
I suspect there are as many opinions on this topic as there's are Rolleiflex shooters, though!
For my money, the Rolleiflex is where it's at. Not to mention, they're damn sexy! For strictly portraits, though, an SLR like a Hasselblad may be better suited.
You should probably consider how your shooting style fits in with an eye level style viewfinder (Mamiya 7, Pentax 67, etc) vs. a waist level finder ('Blad, Rollei, RZ67, etc.) It influences how you work, for sure.
I suspect there are as many opinions on this topic as there's are Rolleiflex shooters, though!
For my money, the Rolleiflex is where it's at. Not to mention, they're damn sexy! For strictly portraits, though, an SLR like a Hasselblad may be better suited.
You should probably consider how your shooting style fits in with an eye level style viewfinder (Mamiya 7, Pentax 67, etc) vs. a waist level finder ('Blad, Rollei, RZ67, etc.) It influences how you work, for sure.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I haven't noticed this myself. How tight do you want the portraits to be? I expect that the closer you get, the more likely the effect will be. I think to completely avoid this, you really do need to get a short telephoto and use a medium format SLR.
mfogiel
Veteran
Hasselblad is not the best choice for portraiture, unless you are dedicated to tripod operation, but if you really want it, I would get the Makro Planar 120. For close up, a better lens is Sonnar 250.
As an alternative, you can get the 201f with Planar 110 and Sonnar 150/2.8
A 645 camera is head and shoulders easier to operate hand held.
As to weird faces with the Rolleinar, the reason is simple - any face will be weird if you are closer than 1 meter from the subject, no matter the lens, actually, even 1 meter is too close.
As an alternative, you can get the 201f with Planar 110 and Sonnar 150/2.8
A 645 camera is head and shoulders easier to operate hand held.
As to weird faces with the Rolleinar, the reason is simple - any face will be weird if you are closer than 1 meter from the subject, no matter the lens, actually, even 1 meter is too close.