Thinking Medium Format.. TLR or Hassy or RB67?

rolleinars don't correct parallax very effectively. you should get a parajuster for good results. they also don't increase focal length, so headshots will have big noses.
 
When I'm not playing with 35mm rangefinders, I use a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. It's designed to be used handheld and the Kalart rangefinder is adjustable for different lenses. (Not conveniently but it can adjust.) The Speed Graphic ain't stealthy like a Leica but Wee Gee showed you can get candid snaps with one.

I don't have a dark room. I use a HP Combi daylight tank. My normal film is Tri-X 320 processed in Diafine. Doing this pumps up the exposure value to ISO 1000 which lets me keep the aperture small and the shutter speed up, allowing nice depth of field and sharpness or lets me play games with filters. It's also very convenient since Diafine is reusable and keeps a long time.

The negatives from Diafine come out on the thin side but that's fine since I'm scanning them anyway.

Walking around I carry film holders in a modern day lunch bag, the kind with the reflectorized interior. The bag can hold 3 Graphmatic film holders (18 shots) or about 5 normal film holders (10 shots). Its outer pocket is just the right size for my meter. These and a set of filters and I am set for a walk.

I also have a Rolleiflex 3.5F which is great, but my flatbed scanner wasn't giving me any more resolution than I was getting from my dedicated 35mm film scanner. Moving to 4x5, I bump up in resolution and save the price of a buying something like one of those Nikon 9000's film scanners.

Moreover, I have the option of putting the beast on a tripod. Using film holders, I'm also not locked into developing them all the same way. And should I get a good one, it can be drum scanned.

Granted, I don't snap away with this one like I do a 35mm RF but I find it's just the thing when bigger would be better.
 
oftheherd said:
Why 6x6 rather than 6x7. Maybe it is just me. I loved my first 6x6, a Yashica 124 MAT G. I still have 6x6, but other than in a folder, tend not to carry or use them. My experience is that with 6x6 you end up with 645 usable area, and I don't think 645 is that much better than 35mm. Well, that is just imho. I guess my preference for 6x7 shows.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I'd say that 645 has a strong advantage over 35mm.

go here and see a crop from a 645 frame :
http://www.shutterflower.com/KM review.htm

then go see scans of the 35mm frames here :

http://www.shutterflower.com/scanner comparison.htm

there is at least 3 times greater resolution there. A combination of RF vs slr (no shake) and larger neg make for a much sharper image.

but, I'm biased towards medium format for sure. I don't doubt that 6x7 negs produce better looking prints at 11x14, but you'd have to really apply yourself to make it show. As far as sharpness, I'd bet a 645 RF frame will equal any 6x7 SLR frame if taken in identical conditions. But, I'm really just guessing. Perhaps that is a challenge.
 
I have a mamiya 6 RF and love it. But the rb67 really fills a very different niche.

The RB has many nice advantages. First of all, the different backs, from 645 to motorized 6x8 (my new favourite). Second, there many very affordable and wonderful lenses. For example, the nice fisheye... you won't have that on an RF. I also have a rather long lens on the RB and love that too. Apart from these issues, there are also many other affordable accessories, such as metering viewfinders and such.

If you go with KL glass, I think the RB is right up there with the hassies, though you get bigger negatives at a fraction of the cost. The RB system is a total bargain right now, and unlike many other cameras out there, is very very unlikely to need service. It is almost indestructible and very, very reliable.

The only thing I have which beats the RB in terms of overall versatility is my little Horseman VH field camera. If the RB had tilts and shifts, I wouldl be even happier. But it does take far longer to compose with the VH- it is an entirely different tool, so I don't consider this to be a knock against the RB.

When I see complete RB kits with KL lenses going for $500 or so, honestly, I have to ask, why buy anything else. 🙂 I went the fuji rangefinder route, I have a mamiya 6, I have a very good field camera... been there done that... and still the rb is near and dear.

Keith
 
I chose TLR (rolleiflex with xenotar) because it is extremly quiet and the image in the finder doesn't blink.
Hassel is too expensive and mamiya.... hmmm I haven't had a chance to use it
 
shutterflower said:
...

I don't doubt that 6x7 negs produce better looking prints at 11x14, but you'd have to really apply yourself to make it show. As far as sharpness, I'd bet a 645 RF frame will equal any 6x7 SLR frame if taken in identical conditions. But, I'm really just guessing. Perhaps that is a challenge.
Click to expand...

Given that you are confident that 645 gives so much more than 35mm, how can you doubt 6x7 would not be better than 645, and that differences would require you to "... really apply yourself ..." to see them?

I understand SLR mirror slap being a factor, but only Pentaxs seem to have a bad rep for that. I have never used one, but many think it is more a question of technique. I don't know. I do have my doubts that mirror slap would so totally negate that much larger a negative. Maybe someone who has both would comment or show some results. I am sure it would be interesting.

Now it really doesn't make much difference as long as each of us is satisfied with what we get with the equipment we prefer. And since I don't have 645 other than in a Welta folder, I can't really talk about if from personal experience. And my personal preferences aside, I have known some people with 645s that really loved them and swore by them. Of course they didn't have 6x7's to compare them with. 😛
 
Enlarge a 645 frame by 10x along the short dimension and you're to 16 inches. Enlarge 6x7 by the equivalent 10x factor and you get 22 inches. Same factor for 35mm gets you a bit under 10 inches. So 645 gets you a 60% increase over 35mm. And 6x7 is 38% larger than 645. So 645 gives a larger % enlargement relative to 35mm than 6x7 gives relative to 645.

I'd always prefer a larger neg if it's practical. It's just that there are times when I don't want to carry a heavy kit. For me, 645 is an excellent compromise - lightr and less expensive than 6x7. All the same, I'll be shooting 4x5 this summer!
 
oftheherd said:
Given that you are confident that 645 gives so much more than 35mm, how can you doubt 6x7 would not be better than 645, and that differences would require you to "... really apply yourself ..." to see them?

I understand SLR mirror slap being a factor, but only Pentaxs seem to have a bad rep for that. I have never used one, but many think it is more a question of technique. I don't know. I do have my doubts that mirror slap would so totally negate that much larger a negative. Maybe someone who has both would comment or show some results. I am sure it would be interesting.

Now it really doesn't make much difference as long as each of us is satisfied with what we get with the equipment we prefer. And since I don't have 645 other than in a Welta folder, I can't really talk about if from personal experience. And my personal preferences aside, I have known some people with 645s that really loved them and swore by them. Of course they didn't have 6x7's to compare them with. 😛
Click to expand...


well, the issue with negative size is this : at what point will the extra size make for little or no gain on an 8x10 or 11x14? I know that a 4x5 neg will give tonal quality that beats any 67 camera out there, but you'd have a hard time telling the difference in resolution between 67 and 4x5 at the 8x10 print size unless you're printing them on an enlarger and doing very well at it. THere is simply a point after which the prints themselves fail to do the negs justice.

If you're scanning and printing your negs, 645 frames contain more information than most scanners can capture and more than ANY inkjet can present. That's more of my point. at 8x10 and 11x14. Going bigger, sure, the larger neg will make a visible difference.

If I were going to buy something to compliment a Leica, and I wanted a new set of capabilities, I'd by a Mamiya system. Whether you buy 645 or 6x7 is a personal thing. If you print traditionally, the 67 makes sense from an imaging standpoint, but it has every other factor going against it.
 
I find that my Hasselblad 500C/M is a perfect match for me and my Leica.
I started out with the Hasselblad and searched for quite some time for a good 35mm companion for it - I wanted a fully mechanical camera with good build quality and no internal meter. The Leica M3 proved to be a wonderful match for it.

I love the square format in MF and found that I enjoy composing - and printing - square.

I could care less if Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses are sharper than Mamiya, Bronica as I know that the Zeiss glass is plenty sharp for me and I have way too much else to learn and master and don't have the energy to spend my time on those kind of comparisons.

It is also so extremely subjective that in many cases it comes down to opinions rather than fact. Me for instance I used a Mamiya 6MF and hated it, I have played with a Bronica 645 RF and didn't like it at all, spent a weekend with a Bronica and couldn't wait to return it. Fell in love with the Hasselblad. Doesn't prove a thing apart from showing where my personal preference and taste lies.
 
That is a point in favor of the hasselblad or the Mamiya 67 studio cameras : no need to twist the camera to get the proper orientation.

The Hassy is, obviously, 6x6. The Mamiya studio cameras have revolving backs. If you're into waist level finders and medium format, that kind of seals the deal with either 6x6 or a 6x7 Mamiya.
 
I'd suggest that you choose your format first, then select a camera system. I played around with a Minolta Autocord for a bit and found that I was usually cropping to rectangles. So, for me, 6x6 didn't provide any additional film area. And I really don't mind rotating a camera to take a shot if the camera isn't too unwieldly (I doubt that I'd buy 6x7 SLR without a rotating back).
 
Last edited:
Cropping 6x6 is an issue that comes as paper formats are not square. So, I often wind up printing on only part of the paper to get a square 8x8 or 11x11. I still like it, but I don't know if anyone else does.

645 on the other hand is pretty much a perfect match for an 8 by 10. Does a Pentax 645 manual focus outfit sound like an option? It's bulkier than its rangefinder counter parts, but you do have interchangeable lenses and backs. The downside is it is very battery dependent.
 
Solinar said:
Cropping 6x6 is an issue that comes as paper formats are not square. So, I often wind up printing on only part of the paper to get a square 8x8 or 11x11. I still like it, but I don't know if anyone else does.

645 on the other hand is pretty much a perfect match for an 8 by 10. Does a Pentax 645 manual focus outfit sound like an option? It's bulkier than its rangefinder counter parts, but you do have interchangeable lenses and backs. The downside is it is very battery dependent.
Click to expand...


Pentax 645 does not have interchangeable backs - only inserts.
 
At least I got the bulk and interchangeable lenses right.

Personally - I prefer a medium format rangefinder. So, I can fit both a 35mm and medium format camera in my svelte satchel.
 
Solinar said:
At least I got the bulk and interchangeable lenses right.

Personally - I prefer a medium format rangefinder. So, I can fit both a 35mm and medium format camera in my svelte satchel.
Click to expand...


svelte satchel. I like that. It's fun to say. Svelte Satchel.


I am definitely a MF RF person as well, but for closeup, macro, whatever, an SLR is the only way to go unless you've got something with a ground glass.

if I was going to buy a medium format SLR, it would have to be something that could do things that my other cameras cannot. Revolving back, bellows focusing, waist level finder, 6x7 neg. Interchangeable backs. Really, the Hasselblad answers only some of those questions. The 6x7 Mamiya is actually the best choice. But boy is it heavy. And big. Unpleasant to take out of the studio for sure,.
 
Go ahead and talk bad about the RB67 all you want. Especially the lenses I dont yet have. And backs, I can always use more backs.
 
Toby said:
The best thing to do is to make a list of what you need the camera to do and then make a short list of cameras, then, if you can, hire each camera for a weekend to try it, a MF camera is still a considerable investment and not a decision to be rushed.
Click to expand...

I'd like to second Toby's excellent advice. The problem is that all of the cameras mentioned so far can produce wonderful results. What remains is how well they are adapted to what the photographer wants to do and what feels comfortable and natural to them. That's something that no one on any forum can decide for someone else. If you can't find a place to rent a couple of these cameras, see if you can find a photography club, a class or other forum members in your area that you can go shoot with. The best camera in the world is worthless if you dislike it enough to leave it at home.
 
Ariya said:
The best camera in the world is worthless if you dislike it enough to leave it at home.
Click to expand...

very true. I am a landscape shooter. I love the spring and summer on Velvia and in B&W. I've always shot medium format, and I really wanted the extra punch and detail of the LF neg, so I got into 4x5. I bought two 4x5 cameras and three lenses.

I used each lens once to test its functionality. I then used the Ektar a few times in play, made ONE actual photo with it. I never used the monorail - not once. I used the Crown graphic three times. Once was a lens test.

I just didn't like the size issues, and found that focusing on the ground glass isn't as accurate as you'd think if your camera isn't sturdy enough to maintain focus after having a film holder stuffed in its back. Sounds gross. It was. Monorails are great landscape cameras. . . but just try lugging one around for a week, or even 20 minutes to a good spot.

I used to have a Pentax 645nII and a Mamiya 645E, and I never took them out to shoot street stuff because they draw attention. Lots of it. ANd I didn't like the size.

So, I sold all that off and bought the Bronica, and now I have enough resolution to make gorgeous enlargements, it's small enough to carry around constantly, and it's easy to focus.

my point. . . .

all the image quality on the planet is worth nothing if you can't operate the camera comfortably and efficiently when it matters. I turned down a shot at buying a practically new Mamiya RZ67 Pro II kit with three lenses for dirt because I knew it would sit around and never be used but for the once or twice I do real "portrait" portraits in a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Pana Leica 12mm f1.4 vs Pana 24mm f1.8, thinking
Replies
3
Views
224
Archiver
A
B
Canon P service question
Replies
3
Views
204
brianentz
B
K
Using Rolleicord vb with Rolleikin to shoot 35mm
Replies
0
Views
45
Kai.jpg
K
S
Mamiya 6 vs Konica Pearl 3
Replies
11
Views
2K
Stargazer63
S
Z
Kickstarter Mercury Stereoscopic Medium Format Camera
Replies
10
Views
1K
zhorton
Z
Back
Top Bottom