Medium Format Newb

[bigfatbadger]

I'd like to start using medium format, so far the closest I've got is a holga, which, while being great, I don't think is going to prepare me for using other medium format cameras!

Has anyone got any reccomendations? The budget is fairly tight, but if I buy something I'd like what I learn on it to be generalisable to other MF cameras.

Any suggestions appreciated!

Cheers
Jon

[Torus34]

I'll assume that you mean a really tight budget, much closer to $US200 than $US2K.

There are a lot of old twin lens reflex cameras available. The Yashicamats and Minolta Autocords are capable of giving good service. The cost is not great. Either one will give you a chance to learn something about ground-glass composition. You'll also need a good exposure meter. A Luna Pro, fitted with a battery adapter, will serve you well -- about $US80.

[Don Simon]

TLRs aren't the only way to go (and some are also massively overvalued on Ebay); MF SLRs are dropping in price too.

[mysteryscribe]

I began shooting with a rolliecord many many years ago. There is little difference in the actual use of med format than in 35mm the apertures work the same the shutter speeds are the same except.......

With some med format you get real shutters not focal plane. Leaf (real) shutters sync with strobe at any speed making them ideal for fill flash. They tend to be a bit slower but heck life is a trade off.

Setting the exposure is just like in 35mm...

composing is just knowing your format ie.. in 35mm if you are shooting for 8x10 you leave a little on each end and you turn the camera for verticle. In 6x6 you compose it either side to side or top to bottom depending on which you want. You don't have to swing the camera but alas in the 6c4.5 you do.

I would not buy a bellows type camera as a first med format. Twin lens as good as you can afford.... slr 645 if you have the bucks. slr 6x6 if you have a trust fund... take a look at the rollie as well as the yashicas I have seen some go for around a hundred bucks on ebay but those cameras are rising in price all the time. Funny the med format slr (so called) pro ones are falling at the same time) good luck. I liked the minolta tlr (twin lens reflex) 220 and 330 there was a 33 and even a 3 model that were great. The 220 and 330 actually came with interchangable lenses im not sure about the others. I had the 220 and if it didn't give you a hernia it was a great camera.

YOU WILL LOVE MED FORMAT even if you only shoot it a while. It is an exerience no photographer should miss.

[tasman]

I just started with medium format and picked up a Bronica 645 camera for under $350US on ebay. There are other ones that might go for less, you have to be at the right palce at the right time to get a deal on ebay.

[bigfatbadger]

Do many of these cameras have light meters? I mean, i'm guessing the MF SLR's do, but I'd be lucky to get a TLR with one right?

[Torus34]

Depends. The earlier TLR's didn't have them. Many of the later ones did. I suggest to you that you will still prefer to have a separate meter.

Scenario: the camera is set up on a tripod, focussed. The scene has been composed. You wish to make a last check of the brightest and the darkest parts of the field. Separate meter -- piece of cake. Camera-based meter -- not so easy.

[j_mcquillen]

A Bronica ETRSi (645 SLR type camera) is a good start - a simple manual camera, but built to last, with top quality lenses (leaf shutter, so you can flash-sync at any speed) and a range of accessories (waist level finders, prisms etc) available. Plus you can get them dirt cheap - around £300 to £400 for a good quality used camera, with 75mm lens, 120 back and WLF or Prism :wink:

[Philip Weir]

Would have to agree with the previous posts, either a Mamiya or Bronica 645 is a good way to go. The problem with twin lens reflexes is they have fixed lens, and as you are viewing through a seperate lens are not accurate when shooting close-ups. The larger medium formats are great [RB's,Hasselblad, etc] but are more costly to run and are a lot larger. The 645's are just like using a 35mm, but a bit larger and with the advantage of interchangeable lenses and accessories. Due to the digital revolution, the prices are more than reasonable second hand.

[ThomThomsk]

I'm just a few months ahead of you with MF Jon. I bought a Bronica ETRSi and was so impressed that I got a second one in mint condition, as a kind of insurance.

I like the 645 format, but then I mostly do landscape. Turning a 645 SLR on its side and trying to use the waist level finder will just give you a crick in the neck, so you would want a prism finder if you like shooting in portrait format, and in the case of the Bronicas the prisms have a meter in them. I mostly use a spotmeter anyway, so the lack of a meter in the camera doesn't matter to me.

The main reason I went for the SLR is the removable backs. Want to switch films mid roll? No problem, just buy a spare back or two.

[markc]

I've mentioned it a couple of times in other threads, but I think a Fuji GW690III or something similar would be worth looking at, though probably more expensive that some of the other choices. I don't know what they are going for these days. 6x4.5 is larger than 35mm, but I feel like if I'm going to being using MF, I want to try and make full use of it. 6x9 is a really nice sized neg.

[Don Simon]

I liked the minolta tlr (twin lens reflex) 220 and 330 there was a 33 and even a 3 model that were great.
Sorry to be pedantic but aren't those Mamiyas? Minolta made the Minoltaflex, Minoltacord and Autocord TLRs. AFAIK they were all Rollei copies, but very good ones from what I hear. I found a mid-50s Autocord at a decent price and am waiting for it to arrive.

I'll let you know what the Minolta's like in a few days, in the meantime I can recommend any Yashica Mat with a Yashinon lens (or even a Yashikor if it's going cheap). The 124/124G are the most sought after, but considering the silly price they usually go for on Ebay (some nearly £200) you'd probably be better going for an earlier model, which is likely to be just as good. The Mamiyas already mentioned have a very good reputation, though I haven't used one myself. AFAIK they're the only TLRs with interchangeable lenses, and also differ from most by using bellows. By the way the problem with the viewing lens not accurately representing the final image in close-ups can be fixed with a paramender (though they may not be particularly cheap)

Advantages of TLRs over a 6x4.5 SLR include obviously the larger, square negative size, plus the lack of mirror slap (which can affect those med format SLRs without mirror lock-up). The disadvantages of a TLR include not being able to switch films mid-roll, with the exception of the Mamiyas you can't change lenses, and the reversed image on the waist-level finders takes a lot of getting used to (at least it does for me; apparently some people have no problem adapting). Then again a TLR is cheaper. Of course if you want the square negative but the features of an SLR you can get a 6x6 SLR, which like their 6x4.5 equivalents are going incredibly cheap second-hand.

[Torus34]

First question:

Why medium format? In other words, why not 35mm or 4x5?

[DocFrankenstein]

Just a couple random thoughts while the raw converter is doing it's job.

If you're investing in MF, you need good glass,
mirror lockup and leaf shutter.

Why? Spending money on a large neg only makes sense if you're making the most of it.

Sharpness = good glass, which rules out lots of yashicas and some rolleis.

Sharpness also means a tripod and mirror lockup. Without mirror lockup you get vibrations because the mirror is huge.

Leaf shutter also doesn't make any vibraions because the moving parts are symmetrical.

Also - if you decide to choose a medium format rangefinder, it will probably have symmetrical lens designs. It means the bokeh will be absollutely beautiful - leica like.

Of course hassys are good, but I'd avoid them unless I want to do portraits with a sonnar... But a lot of portrait photographers complained that the lenses are too sharp for portraits, so they had to use a 200? dollar filter called softar.

[usayit]

I'm really enjoying my medium format camera. I haven't really had a chance to use various types of medium format cameras but from my limited experience, I'd recommend getting something SLR like. Assuming you already have experience with a 35mm/digital SLR, it will be a nice introduction to MF via something familiar. I bring along my Pentax K1000 (or ME) with my Pentax 645 quite often and switching between the two doesn't require a mental context switch.

Definitely use a tripod. Its going to be nice working with a larger negative.

[bigfatbadger]

First question:

Why medium format? In other words, why not 35mm or 4x5?

Well primarily because I'm looking to get enough experience to be in a good position as being an assisstant or second photographer for wedding etc. A lot of the adverts I've seen specify MF experience as a must and while I'm in a better paid job than I will be as an assisstant, I thought I might as well try to buy one, given that it might come in useful later on.

Secondly because I like experimenting with different formats. It's the same reason that I'm currently trying to assemble a pin hole camera!

[Torus34]

That changes the whole discussion.

Find out what cameras are being used by the pros and get one.

[Don Simon]

Find out what cameras are being used by the pros and get one.
That might be a bit difficult if he's on a tight budget... especially if the pros are using digital MF instead of film. If the ads only specify experience with MF in general as opposed to any specific camera, you probably don't need a current pro-level camera. It does however probably mean SLR instead of TLR or rangefinder.

[bigfatbadger]

Yeah, I was slightly hesitant to save up for a hassy, but thought that a 645 might be alright for getting experience with and a load of fun as well. Thanks for all your advice, I've seen a couple of second hand 645's for under £200 so am probably going to go with that!

Thanks again!

[Torus34]

Hope we helped. Let us know how you make out. We're rooting for you, you know.

[JamesD]

You might try looking at the Seagull TLRs. There's no meter, but that's a good thing. They're fairly cheap, and I've heard some people diss them, but I've also heard quite a few good things about them. I almost bought one myself, but then decided to get the Argoflex from Ebay. The Seagulls will certainly give you a chance to try MF without spending too much.

TLRs are great!

[JIP]

Well primarily because I'm looking to get enough experience to be in a good position as being an assisstant or second photographer for wedding etc. A lot of the adverts I've seen specify MF experience as a must and while I'm in a better paid job than I will be as an assisstant, I thought I might as well try to buy one, given that it might come in useful later on.



Bronica ETRSi, I have used my 2 for about 6 years and they probably had twice that time on them when I bought them and they still are great. Good wok horse wedding camera, realtively small and light as medium format goes wich is needed when you couple it with a flash and flash bracket I use a Metz 60CT4 wich maces for quite a package when on the bracket it stands over 2 feet high. Right now you can find them fairly cheap used wich begs the question, if you want to get into wedding photography why not use digital? When I started MF was the way to go and I made a substantial investment only to be stuck now purchasing all digital because the people I work for are 90% digital now wich is the way most wedding photography is going. Don't get me wrong I love my medium format cameras and would not trade their image quality for the world and I would love to continue using them for weddings but you have to go the way the market goes.

[ksmattfish]

I think that "medium format experience" means they want you to know how to safely handle rolls of 120 and 220, and know how to load their cameras and camera backs. The first part can be achieved by using almost any medium format camera (maybe not the 220 part). As far as loading cameras and film backs they are all a little different, so I can't see them expecting someone to have used everything out there. They want you to be able to figure it out quickly when they show you, and to be able to trust you to load it right. Then again, you may be hard pressed to find a pro that hasn't sold off all their medium format film gear already.

If you get a deal on a 645 camera that's fine, but overall I think 645 is already a dead format. It was great for wedding shooters, but as JIP said, it's all gone digital now. That fancy, full frame, 16mp Canon DSLR is pretty much already matching 645 (check out comparisons of 645 Velvia to various digital cameras at Luminous Landscapes). You may want to consider something bigger. Bigger does not mean harder. It does mean less shots per roll, but lots more neg!!! It's worth it. Most cameras with interchangable backs can handle various format sizes. I offer medium format film photography to my clients (commercial and wedding), and they aren't interested. I use it for my personal work where film economy isn't such an issue. I'd rather have the big neg.

Don't worry about an in-camera meter. If you're going pro you should learn to use a hand held meter anyway.

If you're investing in MF, you need good glass,
mirror lockup and leaf shutter.

Doc, your points are valid, but I'm going to play devil's advocate... :)

Even dirt cheap, no-name, medium format glass does a fantastic job. I get great results from my $15 anastigmat lens, medium format camera. If you have the budget for Zeiss, Mamiya, Schneider, Pentax, or Fuji then go for it. If your budget is more like Yashica, don't worry about it. There are plenty of brand names people aren't familiar with that are as good as it gets. I have a Norita 66, which hardly anyone has ever heard of, and it's lenses are just as good (and faster f/2) as my big name brand lenses.

Mirror lock up is only important for an SLR. Other kinds of medium format cameras don't have moving mirrors, or mirrors at all.

Leaf shutters are nice, until you need a shutter speed faster than 1/500th. The Pentax 6x7, 67, and 67II are extremely popular focal plane shutter cameras. I love my 67II, and it does just as good of a job as my Hasselblad with a leaf shutter. Almost every photographer I've seen on TV using a medium format camera is using a Pentax 67: David LaChapelle, Spencer Tunick, Richard Avedon, Glenn Ketchum, and on and on. The people who have problems with focal plane shutter movement need to work on their technique, because their are plenty of photogs having no problems. Also most focal plane shutter cameras have leaf shutter lenses available, so it's the best of both worlds.

[terri]

If you get a deal on a 645 camera that's fine, but overall I think 645 is already a dead format. Expand on that, if you will. You mean as far wedding photography only?

[ksmattfish]

Expand on that, if you will. You mean as far wedding photography only?

I think that 645 was designed specifically for the wedding/event photographer. Who else really ever used it?

I think that sometimes people tend to think that format size is some sort of ladder going up that must be traversed one rung at a time. Whatever the format size, medium format film works pretty much like 35mm, it's just bigger. I'm not trying to dog on 645, I just think people think there is some sort of logical progression they have to follow, and I don't think that's so. I went from 35mm to 4x5, and then later picked up medium format.

It is a smidge more expensive to shoot 6x7 (10 shots per roll instead of 16), but the neg is about twice the size, so you get even a larger quality jump going from 645 to 67, than you get going from 35mm to 645. On the other hand the difference in camera size is usually greater between 35mm and 645, than it is between 645 and 67 cameras. Yes, there are exceptions, the Mamiya 67 SLRs are monsters, but the Mamiya and Fuji 67 rangefinders aren't any bigger than a 645 SLR.

To me the main reasons people have for going with 645 are:

1) I'm going to shoot so many shots that those extra 6 shots a roll will really add up, and economy is more important than the bigger neg. If this is the case it might be cheaper in the long run to go with a full frame DSLR that gives very similar quality to 645. Also you can get 645 backs for some 67 cameras.

2) I want to get 30+ shots on a roll of 220. But I think vultures are circling for 220.

3) I'm not using a tripod, and I really can't handle the extra ounces of a slightly bigger camera. If weight is an issue, 35mm film really does do a great job for the size, and if you are maxing out your wrist strength camera shake may be an issue.

4) I got a fantastic deal (why? because no one wants them anymore). But most medium format film gear is going cheap these days.

I'm just saying that you don't have to go 35mm to 645, and if you are going to invest money in a camera system (even if it's a deal) I think it's worth considering other options, and if they would serve your needs better.

[ksmattfish]

I suppose another reason would be that there are 645 cameras available that have similar features as modern electronc 35mm SLRs such as matrix metering, motor wind, auto-exposure modes, and auto focus (medium format AF is not like 35mm AF though), while 67 cameras tend to be more manual.

[markc]

Matt pretty much covered how I've always felt about 6x4.5 too. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's like using a 1x.75 neg on 35mm film.

[terri]

I suppose another reason would be that there are 645 cameras available that have similar features as modern electronc 35mm SLRs such as matrix metering, motor wind, auto-exposure modes, and auto focus (medium format AF is not like 35mm AF though), while 67 cameras tend to be more manual.Just curious as to why you dogged it. :razz: Since there are tons of them out there, and they were once the shiz, it's clearly still quite a viable option for those wanting to use 120 film, get larger negatives, and not have to spend a ton of money. You're probably right that it was largely used by wedding photogs of yesteryear - the Mamiya kit I picked up was clearly for that purpose, and I've been able to expand on it. In fact I'm laughing at the quality of lenses I now have that I considered out of reach just a couple years back. :) I can't feel badly about getting great Mamiya lenses at great prices.

So, it may in fact be a "dead format" for some purposes, but I'd be hard pressed telling someone, especially a beginner on a budget, not to waste money on a format that's more affordable than ever, built like tanks, and still offers quality glass that will afford them years of casual shooting pleasure.

Just another opinion. ;)

['Daniel']

I have not used medium format but when I do (which I will) I want to get a 6x6 camera. I really like the square film especially in portraits.

[mysteryscribe]

as usual i stand corrected.

Never owned a minolta till i just bought the 35mm film system I bought. I must have had it on my mind sorry.

And if you are going to shoot film you might as well really shoot film go 4x5 right phillip

[ksmattfish]

...and not have to spend a ton of money.

I'd be hard pressed telling someone, especially a beginner on a budget, not to waste money on a format that's more affordable than ever, built like tanks, and still offers quality glass that will afford them years of casual shooting pleasure.

But I don't really think they are saving much money going with 645. The gear really isn't much cheaper. You get 6 more shots for your film cost + developing cost, but then again you will pay for 6 more prints per roll too. Unless they are shooting a dozen or more rolls a week I don't think they'll see much savings at all.

Almost all medium format film gear is more affordable than ever, and the size of the format has nothing to do with body or lens quality. On the other hand, a neg that's twice as big...well, everyone knows that bigger is better. ;)

I'm just suggesting that a beginner investing in medium format really think about what they need/want, instead of assuming that the next size up from 35mm is the logical starting place. There are so many options with medium format cameras, especially compared to the homogenized world of 35mm SLRs.

[mysteryscribe]

MORE SHOTS = LESS THOUGHT

Let the firestorm begin....

['Daniel']

This is not at all wholly true but I think is to some extent. Medium format is more of a contemplatative or at least slower process than 35mm. You could walk around the streets with a MF SLR taking pictures but it wouldn't be as practical or easy as with a 35mm. Usually they need a tripod and so auotmatically reduces what they can be used for with ease. So they are great for portraits editorial work eg fashion magazines and also landscapes all of which are hasty photograpy usually.

So I think maybe you need less shots as if you have a proper process you're less likely to get dud shots.

[mysteryscribe]

The flip side of less shots = more thought is,

More shots = more spontenaity ie photo journalist style.

Pick your poison..

['Daniel']

The flip side of less shots = more thought is,

More shots = more spontenaity ie photo journalist style.

Pick your poison..

Yep I agree with that but I would use 35mm for that not 645 instead of 6x7.

[mysteryscribe]

or even (spit) digital

[ksmattfish]

How many shots are taken is decided mostly by the photographer not the gear, and spontaneity is a human trait, not a camera feature. Sure a photog could possibly take hundreds of shots in an hour with a 35mm SLR or DSLR, but they could also just take one. Just because some photogs might be inclined to shoot less shots with 4x5 or 6x7cm, doesn't mean that I have to think and operate that way.

Control the camera, don't let the camera control you.

[mysteryscribe]

Nice motto but im sorry i dont think changing the film twenty times in a mamiya 645 is something i enjoyed at a wedding. It definitely dictated what I shot.