Medium format... AGAIN. Sorry guys.

A little expensive but I've bought a few things from Rob at VCC and they are always absolutely top notch.
 
I'm a bit with Mel on this. I like my Ensign folder but find it a bit of a faff - 30 years of SLRs/DSLRs have made me lazy when it comes to some things.

So, if you want to shoot MF film, and a Hasselblad (500c etc) is in budget, is there any reason to get anything else? They are not that much more expensive than the Mamiya and Bronica stuff. Do the lenses (provided you don't want lots of them) not make it a no-brainer?
 
kenm said:
So, if you want to shoot MF film, and a Hasselblad (500c etc) is in budget, is there any reason to get anything else? They are not that much more expensive than the Mamiya and Bronica stuff. Do the lenses (provided you don't want lots of them) not make it a no-brainer?
Click to expand...

The biggest cost disadvantage isn't the slight increase in cost over the equivalent 6x6 stuff - it's the cost of the accessories and the lenses which is appreciably more. If you want to build the standard 3 lens Hasselblad wedding kit (Distagon 50mm, Sonnar 150mm and Planar 80mm) it's still going to be the best part of £1,200+, even more if you want the FLE version of the 50mm.
 
Thanks freecom2, glad you posted. In my case, lens wise, I'd only be interested in a wide angle lens and an extra back (or two). In terms of cost I think we are all going a bit mad, £1,200 is sweeties when you take into account what we spend on cars, food, heating, hell, a suit costs you £200 form a cheap place and will only last a year or two, is it that mad to spend 1,200 on some camera gear that will last you forever?
 
It was mostly in reference to what the equivalent Bronica SQ 3 lens kit would set you back (significantly less, obviously). I see your point, it's your money and we'll send you in the right direction if you want to spend it :bonk:

And there's no doubt it's quality glass and quality gear!
 
IMO it's usually better to save up longer for what you have your heart set on rather than settling for something that doesn't give you the same buzz.
 
MindofMel said:
I went and had a 45minute play in ApertureUK with their 500CM...

I am just going to save up - rather than bargain hunt. I know myself, I'll get an SQ / C330 and all ill be doing is kicking myself for not using that money towards a blad!
Click to expand...

FruitFlakes said:
IMO it's usually better to save up longer for what you have your heart set on rather than settling for something that doesn't give you the same buzz.
Click to expand...

+1

I was looking for an SQ for a while when I realised I was just going to buy the SQ, produce perfectly adequate shots, and still end up yearning for a 500C/M :bang: which is how I thinly justified buying a 500C/M!

They are fantastic pieces of kit, the sound they make as the mirror moves is just superb.
 
FruitFlakes said:
IMO it's usually better to save up longer for what you have your heart set on rather than settling for something that doesn't give you the same buzz.
Click to expand...


Ah! but you have to be as good as the gear as it's a waste of money;) Top gear wont make you a top photographer...I should know as I didn't make it either :lol:
 
True, I don't think I've ever really been limited by my gear in any practical sense (from the days of point and shoots, DSLRs and now rangefinders/TLRs), and true artistry can't be found within equipment, but I would say that with each change of equipment my shooting style has changed for the better as the inherent form of the cameras I'm using fits the way I'm seeing better. Now whether that means I'd shoot the same with a Bessa vs a Leica, well I probably would, but then being satisfied with one's gear makes the act of taking a photo more rewarding, which usually means better results. I guess what I'm trying to say is that cameras are like clothes, you never really act like yourself until you're wearing something you feel suits you.
 
Last edited:
Thing is with the blads, as loooooooovely as they are, the whole phase thing between film holder and body, and body and lens puts me off in an instant. Sure, they are small and fairly light in the grand scheme of medium formats, but personally, an RB67 trumps a blad hands down.
 
Woodsy said:
Thing is with the blads, as loooooooovely as they are, the whole phase thing between film holder and body, and body and lens puts me off in an instant. Sure, they are small and fairly light in the grand scheme of medium formats, but personally, an RB67 trumps a blad hands down.
Click to expand...

Woodsy... what's the "whole phase thing"? Not quite sure what you mean :thinking:
 
The only use I can think for a blad is in a studio with a zeiss lens for young models for large blowups (I said blowup folks :) ), outside you can't beat something like a ETRS with speed grip and prism for speed\versatility if you want that extra quality over 35mm.
 
freecom2 said:
Woodsy... what's the "whole phase thing"? Not quite sure what you mean :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's to do with the interlocks between the lens and body and the body and the film holder, if they arent all aligned properly it can lock up the camera, necessitating an expensive trip to a certified repairman.

Hasselblad lenses and camera bodies can only fitted together, and separated again, when BOTH are in a "cocked" ("wound-on") condition. This is because of the sophisticated interlock which is needed with lenses that have between lens type shutters.
Click to expand...
 
robhooley167 said:
if they arent all aligned properly it can lock up the camera, necessitating an expensive trip to a certified repairman.
Click to expand...

I know :bang::bang::bang:
 
robhooley167 said:
It's to do with the interlocks between the lens and body and the body and the film holder, if they arent all aligned properly it can lock up the camera, necessitating an expensive trip to a certified repairman.
Click to expand...

Exactly that, thanks Rob.

Sorry, I should have elaborated! :)
 
Oh I've heard about that in the past, I didn't know it was such a big problem. I only change backs when they've been wound on anyway (not sure why, must be a habit from a previous camera).
 
freecom2 said:
Oh I've heard about that in the past, I didn't know it was such a big problem. I only change backs when they've been wound on anyway (not sure why, must be a habit from a previous camera).
Click to expand...

Well this is the thing... aside from this aspect, they are fantastic cameras. I just know though, that when I'm out taking landscapes, especially for a long weekend or a holiday or something, that is when I would make the fatal mistake and thus not be able to use that camera for the rest of the trip. The RB67, while heavier and bulkier (partly due to the bigger format), just doesn't have this problem. Also, the lenses are arguably as sharp, especially the newest (K/L) lenses. The viewfinder is something to behold also :D
 
I think the 'blad thing is just one of those things that once you know about it you're not going to make the mistake. I made it because of my impatience.

It also seems to be by far and away the lightest 6x6 SLR out there, so if you want that MF pop without the weight of an RB or RZ it's worth the extra. it does sit very nicely in the hand and I would happily take it out without a tripod.
 
Mamiya C330f - 1430g.....
 
freecom2 said:
Rolleiflex 3.5F - 1220g :thumbs:
Click to expand...

RB67 with 50mm lens - 3000g :D
 
freecom2 said:
Technically the SQ-Ai is lighter although the difference is minute:
1515g (SQ-Ai) vs. 1555g (500C/M)
Click to expand...

Ahem, I've just weighed mine and with an 80mm lens + hood and a roll of film in it comes in at 1481g :clap:
 
I think the RB is the biggest and most unwieldy camera I've ever used although trying to use the Pentax 67 without a grip is a bit of a challenge.
 
Essentially what's prompted this 6x6 medium format 'hype' - I've been given the opportunity to exhibit some work somewhere and it's a fairly large space.

There are two artists using wall space either side of me with MASSIVE canvas paintings. Full colour.

I have a set of 5 B&W images (4 portraits, 1 of which a head and shoulder tight shot) planned that would fit well for the space but they would need to b e printed at around 30"x30"/40" or similar. I don't trust 35mm to go that big and I WANT to shoot the images on film... so yeaaa... if I thought I could get the sharpness and pop that i wanted out of the ETRS - I would just get one of those, but from flickr-ing - it's only the blad pictures that seem to have that 'POW - medium format-ness' / sharpness. I thought maybe it was just my ETRS but as said earlier - haven't seen anybody with an ETRS on flickr with a POW portrait.

It's my first ever time hanging work for public and peers to see. It'll be there for a VERY long time and I really want it to be amazing!
 
Last edited:
Many moons ago I was commissioned to take a photograph for my local council for a photo that was to be "blown up large" (I envisaged 30x40 or similar), and wondered if I should borrow a 5x4 camera - in the end I opted for my trusty Bronica ETRS with a standard (80mm) lens, using Reala.
After the usual waiting and faffing the council officer decided he wanted one print - "10x7" - I queried the fact that he'd mentioned a large enlargement and he added "feet"........ To cut a very long story short, it was eventually printed to 10x7 (feet) and mounted on 9 boards so it was "moveable" - it was very sharp, corner to corner, the colour and contrast was excellent, and it showed me just how much "overkill" it was to use medium format for most uses - if you assume that a 35mm neg is around 40% of the area of a 645 neg, then you can have something like a 6ftx4ft print from 35mm with no bother at all, and you'll seldom be asked for much more than 30x45..........(so a print at around that from an ETRS or Hasselblad is going to be a cracker!)
 
Organnyx said:
After the usual waiting and faffing the council officer decided he wanted one print - "10x7" - I queried the fact that he'd mentioned a large enlargement and he added "feet"........ To cut a very long story short, it was eventually printed to 10x7 (feet) and mounted on 9 boards so it was "moveable"
Click to expand...

That sounds EPIC. Just measured that out with a tape measure.

The space I have is here:



They have no real requirements other than I fill the space and submit by february. I hadn't even thought of one large print split over a number of boards...
 
Last edited:
There are several problems with a print that size (not least the cost!) - when I had it done (around 18- 20 years ago) there were only 2 companies who were able to print that large, and the print itself was around a grand - the mounting and the boards made it even more pricey!:cool:
 
Organnyx said:
Many moons ago I was commissioned to take a photograph for my local council for a photo that was to be "blown up large" (I envisaged 30x40 or similar), and wondered if I should borrow a 5x4 camera - in the end I opted for my trusty Bronica ETRS with a standard (80mm) lens, using Reala.
After the usual waiting and faffing the council officer decided he wanted one print - "10x7" - I queried the fact that he'd mentioned a large enlargement and he added "feet"........ To cut a very long story short, it was eventually printed to 10x7 (feet) and mounted on 9 boards so it was "moveable" - it was very sharp, corner to corner, the colour and contrast was excellent, and it showed me just how much "overkill" it was to use medium format for most uses - if you assume that a 35mm neg is around 40% of the area of a 645 neg, then you can have something like a 6ftx4ft print from 35mm with no bother at all, and you'll seldom be asked for much more than 30x45..........(so a print at around that from an ETRS or Hasselblad is going to be a cracker!)
Click to expand...

WoW......just to add:- that crop a 6X6cm neg and you have an ETRS neg, although I would say a Zeiss lens is the best it seems in practice you might not see the difference esp if a picture that size is not alongside a zeiss one to compare. ;)
 
Last edited:
FruitFlakes said:
Strange how the 2.8F weighs the same...
Click to expand...

Some of the 3.5s supposedly weigh in at 1,120g, although none of these figures seem to have too much detail attached to them with regards to whether they are models with metering. The metering components definitely add at least 100g!

http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml

I find the weight of a lot of TLRs far better balanced though, with the medium format SLRs they are always front heavy, even with the standard 80mm.
 
MindofMel said:
That sounds EPIC. Just measured that out with a tape measure.

The space I have is here:

They have no real requirements other than I fill the space and submit by february. I hadn't even thought of one large print split over a number of boards...
Click to expand...

That is SGH medical school corridor is it not?
 
MindofMel said:
Yuuup it is ;-)

Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.
Click to expand...

I had to check with the wife as I have not been there for some time. She, however, works down in the bowels of the medical school- clinical genetics are down by pathology.

Camera wise I would go Hassie, those lenses are just too good! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top