MF - How much?

Amp34

Amp34

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
Now I really shouldn't, I have no money... But I've become fascinated with Medium Format more and more recently, for the "difficulty" and the apparent better quality of the images. Problem is I have next to no knowledge on costs and formats....:lol:

I'd love a 617 camera, however I know they cost a fortune... So maybe a camera for the future... How much however for a reasonable MF camera and a lens or two for landscape work (maybe a bit of wildlife as well)? What other accessories would I need to buy to go with it? Film and processing costs?:help:

Also on top of that what format/ratio should I be looking at? From what I understand almost all MF cameras take the same film, but then shoot at different ratios, how does that work, is the film a long roll 6" high and the camera then takes and exposes certain parts of the film roll?

As you can tell I have no idea really and a long way to learn... :lol:
 
Amp34 said:
Also on top of that what format/ratio should I be looking at? From what I understand almost all MF cameras take the same film, but then shoot at different ratios, how does that work, is the film a long roll 6" high and the camera then takes and exposes certain parts of the film roll?
Click to expand...

This is right except its 6cm so you can have 6x4.5 6x6 6x7 etc, you have more shots per roll on the smaller sizes, 12 from memory.
 
A yeah, 6cm would make more sense... I was thinking 6" was quite large... :lol: Thinking about it I assume standard 35mm film is essentially the same? I always think of it having seperate slots like you see once it's processed (never seen it before it's processed)?

So what are the benefits of 6x4.5 over 6x7 say? Is it a case of choosing a brand or do you choose whether you want larger images (as such) over more exposures on a film?

Ah, I think I know where I got confused. Large format is 5x4 inches is it not? That's probably where I got inches from. :lol:
 
I picked this up on e-flay for £19.99 and its like new. Its an Ensign Selfix 16-20 which shoots 6 x 4.5, I've only run 1 film through it so far and, so long as I remember to wind on and not double expose, I'm getting some great shots.



The Ensign make was considered as good as the best European and Japanese cameras of the time (mine is from about 1953) and this one has the Rosstar lens on which was the best they made.
You can pick them up in great nick for about what I paid (although I think I was lucky to get it at that price) and they are a great totally manual camera.

Andy
 
well - a short summary

There are basically 3 types

1.SLRs - Bronica, Hassy Rollei, Pentax, Contax, Mamiya
2.RF - Mamiya 6,7, six, Fuji various
3.Foldings - usually scale finder, with a few exceptions, notably Zeiss Ikonta, which is RF. Lots of people made them in the 30 - 60s. Fuji recently released one for over 1600 quids

Usually they are manual focus; but there are some AF 6X4.5 as well - notably Pentax 645N
There are russkies available for all the types - usually unreliable, but Moskva is supposed to be a great copy for Ikonta and available at reasonable price

formats :

6X6 : most folder - and many slr and RFs. gives 12 shots to a 120 film. 80mm lens is most common. The cheapest are the folders, except Ikonta.

6X7 : produces larger negatives, many consider the best MF format.Cameras are the biggest. Not many cameras available in this format and they are expensive. gives 8 shots to a roll
6X4.5 : produces the smallest negative; some consider a wonderful compromise, others hate the compromises made. Cameras are small. Some folders come with a mask which enables taking this format as well as 6X6. 15 shots to a roll.

Folders are the cheapest; from 20 quids onwards on the ebay. watch for bellow leaks and stuck shutters.

Bronica ETRS are the best value for money SLR - can be had complete with a lens for 150 quids

Hasselblad 500 c/m is one of, if not the best. can be had for 500 quids.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
There are basically 3 types

1.SLRs - Bronica, Hassy Rollei, Pentax, Contax, Mamiya
2.RF - Mamiya 6,7, six, Fuji various
3.Foldings - usually scale finder, with a few exceptions, notably Zeiss Ikonta, which is RF. Lots of people made them in the 30 - 60s. Fuji recently released one for over 1600 quids
Click to expand...

4! You missed out Twin Lens Reflexes (TLR) such as Rollei's -flex and -cord models, the Yashica 124G (I have one), Mamiya C220/C330 or, if you're in the bargain basement, the Lubitel 166 :)

In broad terms, they're usually more expensive than folding cameras, but cheaper than SLRs and medium format RFs. A top-spec Rolleiflex with an f/2.8 lens will likely put a large dent in your pocket, though.

The Mamiya C-series have the advantage of interchangeable lenses, which is relatively uncommon with TLRs. All the TLRs I can think of are 6x6.
 
Musicman said:
4! You missed out Twin Lens Reflexes (TLR) such as Rollei's -flex and -cord models, the Yashica 124G (I have one), Mamiya C220/C330 or, if you're in the bargain basement, the Lubitel 166 :)
Click to expand...


Indeed, they slipped my mind. The TLRs are a different animal; and either you love it or you dont. From memory, there are TLRs with masks whioch allow you 35mm format, pano format ( and maybe 6X4.5 as well)

I didn't like it the first time around; but then it was my first MF Rollei.

I might get another to see how it goes. I really want a small light one. What is the smallest/lightest TLR apart from the lubitels
 
I'd think a Rolleicord would probably be amongst the lightest, they're often around 750g, about 250g lighter than a Yashica or a Flex.

edit: there are probably some smaller and lighter Kodaks and other lesser known brands and there's the Chinese-made Seagull, which is still in production and on a par with the Lubitel AFAIK. I have a Lubitel 166U that I bought new in 1986 for £15 and it weighs less than 500g, the Yashica is a much more solidly built thing.
 
Not really looking for the Lubitel type camera - so the chinese are out.

Rollei cord is interesting...didn't realise they are that light...

How heavy is Mamiya c 220?
 
Thanks for the descriptions. :)

I'd love to have a go with a 6x7 format, however I'm guessing it will be more expensive all round compared to a 6x4.5? I'm aso very interested in doing a bit of 6x6 work so a camera that allowed me to do both 6x6 and 6x4.5 would be interesting.

Whenever I search for a camera there seems to be about a dozen other bits that appear to needed alongside the camera, what would I actually need? I'm guessing just the basic camera, a back or two (where you store the film?) and a lens?
 
Wikipedia says 1440g. Not sure if that's just the body. The 330 is about 250g heavier still.
 
Amp34 said:
....a lens or two for landscape work (maybe a bit of wildlife as well)?.....
Click to expand...

peeps say this as though they are almost the same lens, at least you don't want one lens to do both....:lol:

long tele lenses are not as common in an average MF kit bag as they are in a 35mm or dslr, the equipment is much bigger and generally less convenient to shoot.
You want a WA for 6x6 ? 50mm is a WA, about 26 on 35mm
You want 300mm for wildlife ? that'll be about 500mm for 6x6 film.
Its not as easy as 35mm or your dslr to get the same like for like equipment.
MF uses 120 roll film, it comes on a spool and runs through the camera on to another spool generally, which you remove and process.
The camera format will decide how many images you get per roll, 6x6 is 12, 645 is 16 maybe, I dunno.
The difference between 645 and 6x7 is...6x7 is simply bigger, its the same difference between 6mp and 11mp.
I don't feel the number of exposures available on a roll of M/F film is an important factor to consider when choosing a camera, would you not choose the 6x17 because you only get 2 shots per roll ???
6x6 6x7 6x9 all seem like nice useful formats to me.:)

Holy Hell, this is supposed to be post #5 ^^, can't a bloke have a cup of tea mid post without 10 posts flying in...:lol:
 
depends on the camera. I think you are asking about SLRs here

You need the body, a back which can take 120 film, a lens on the front and a waist level finder (WLF).Plus the dark slide

An external light meter ( bought separately at about 10 quids).

Then there are accessories - the prism is the most useful.

The TLR, RF and the Folders are self contained
 
Koni-Omega (rangefinder) and Omegaflex (TLR) are both 6x7 with interchangeable lenses. Even with shipping from the States, you can get the Omega quite cheaply.

Pentax 645 lenses can be used on the new Pentax 645D. Not available over here yet, but the results from it are stunning, if you've an eye to the future.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Not really looking for the Lubitel type camera - so the chinese are out.

Rollei cord is interesting...didn't realise they are that light...

How heavy is Mamiya c 220?
Click to expand...

Yashica Mat are probably the lightest "proper" TLR.
I have a C220, I don't think its any lighter than the C330
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Not really looking for the Lubitel type camera - so the chinese are out.

Rollei cord is interesting...didn't realise they are that light...

How heavy is Mamiya c 220?
Click to expand...

I've got a Mamiya C220 and a Yashica 635 (unfortunately without the 35mm adapter kit)

Let me know if you want to have a go with either.
 
Musicman said:
Wikipedia says 1440g. Not sure if that's just the body. The 330 is about 250g heavier still.
Click to expand...

I was just looking at the C220 in fact, what are the benefits of one over another brand? They seem reasonably cheap for the body but what about lenses? When you change lenses do you need to change both? One of the reasons I'm interested in them is it also mentions something about close focusing, is that a massive pain with parralax(sp?)?

joxby said:
peeps say this as though they are almost the same lens, at least you don't want one lens to do both....:lol:

long tele lenses are not as common in an average MF kit bag as they are in a 35mm or dslr, the equipment is much bigger and generally less convenient to shoot.
You want a WA for 6x6 ? 50mm is a WA, about 26 on 35mm
You want 300mm for wildlife ? that'll be about 500mm for 6x6 film.
Its not as easy as 35mm or your dslr to get the same like for like equipment.
MF uses 120 roll film, it comes on a spool and runs through the camera on to another spool generally, which you remove and process.
The camera format will decide how many images you get per roll, 6x6 is 12, 645 is 16 maybe, I dunno.
The difference between 645 and 6x7 is...6x7 is simply bigger, its the same difference between 6mp and 11mp.
I don't feel the number of exposures available on a roll of M/F film is an important factor to consider when choosing a camera, would you not choose the 6x17 because you only get 2 shots per roll ???
6x6 6x7 6x9 all seem like nice useful formats to me.:)

Holy Hell, this is supposed to be post #5 ^^, can't a bloke have a cup of tea mid post without 10 posts flying in...:lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

Well I was thinking more like a lens or two for landscape and then maybe another (almost definately at a later point) for wildlife, more "wildlife in surroundings" than closeup head shot so I'd guess something like a 180mm lens would suffice?

As for landscape something like a 50 and the seemingly pretty standard 80mm would suit all occasions? I'm guessing that the lenses are format dependent and costs vary depending on manufacturer so maybe that's something I need to look into too?

ujjwaldey8165 said:
depends on the camera. I think you are asking about SLRs here

You need the body, a back which can take 120 film, a lens on the front and a waist level finder (WLF).Plus the dark slide

An external light meter ( bought separately at about 10 quids).

Then there are accessories - the prism is the most useful.

The TLR, RF and the Folders are self contained
Click to expand...

Ah ok, so say I bought a C 220 TLR (not made my mind up, just an example) then all I would need to get was the body and lens(es). Would I not need to buy a back to fit the film in or do I load the film straight into the body?
 
Here's a prejudicial if not completely illogical take on medium format. System 6 x 4.5 has little advantage over 35mm for a whole load of handling compromises and increased film costs. It's main benefit was for traditional publishing use when picture editors wouldn't stoop to look at a 35mm trannie in case they got a head ache. Old viewfinder versions with fixed lenses are a different matter, a great mix of quality, cost and handling.

6 x 6cm is nice if uncompromising to those used to an oblong. It was generally cropped for commercial purposes on the page, though not for the gallery, Diane Arbus being a famous exponent of the square portrait. 2 1/4" systems are hefty things, TLRs less so and the Mamiyas even take interchangable lenses. The main compromise is for close ups where the taking lens and the viewing lens are barely on nodding terms. Mamiya even did a funky tripod bracket where you composed closeups on the viewer then cranked the taker into position. I used to have one. This is less an issue than it seems for general photography when parallax barely impinges. Again the Mamiya has a bar that lowers as you crank the bellows out to show where the top of the frame is. Now why did I sell mine?

6 x 7 shouldn't be the gargantuan beast it is and the Fuji/Mamiya isn't, but it is damned expensive, mainly because they're great, usable cameras and everyone with any sense wants one. Too rich for my purse I'm afraid. System box 6 x 7 is great for weight training and quite nice for photography.

6 x 8 is to these eyes probably the perfect format, 3:4 ratio but pretty rare and expensive.

6 x 9 is a marvel, especially Press style cameras. About half the size of a 5 x 4 neg (warm yourself by saying cropped large format) without the darkslide hassles but with multiple shots on 120. Not small but not a Sinar hernia either. Only disadvantage is the 35mm shaped letterbox format.
Like I said at the start, pure opinion, one man's meat is another man's Lubitel, etc.
 
I think the C220 - the most unusual of TLR cameras due to interchangeable lens - usually comes complete with everything. You will only need a lightmeter.

All other cameras ( except SLRs) will come complete. Even SLRs will come complete usually.

Not that you are completely confused:D ( and BTW, I am a beginner too, so I am easily confused as well); I suggest you try out a sub 50 quids folder. If you like the format, sell it at a modest loss and buy a Hassy SLR.

square formats take being used to - its not natural for someone who has used 35mm format. In the end, if its about scratching the itch, buy a cheap one. I think unless you are making big blow ups, 35mm provides (almost) the same quality.
 
I forgot, one big advantage of box MF for street and candid is the the photographer looks down into the ground glass. Much less confrontational than pointing a camera into people's face.
 
I was just going to post something along the lines of "I'm now totally confused..." :p

There are even more options than I thought... I actually have quite a thing for square formats, oddly, and quite commonly crop my photos to that size, it's one of the reasons I was wondering about giving MF a go, however I'm not too sure I'd love it if it was the only thing I could shoot (well Digital as well obviously). The thing that gets me at the moment is soft cornered/edged landscape shots, with distortion from wide angle lenses on crop sensors. From what I understand MF doesn't have quite this issue? It's not the only reason, just one of the many i'm tempted by it. :lol:
 
Considering you state you want to do landscapes, a TLR nor folder would be particularly useful IMO due to being a b****r to use filters on. I would stick with SLR's for landscapes.

Square is a hard format to use though, and a b****r to print as well in my experience.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I've got a Mamiya C220 and a Yashica 635 (unfortunately without the 35mm adapter kit)

Let me know if you want to have a go with either.
Click to expand...

which one is the lightest buddy.When can we meet? And the beer is better now in the pub....
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I think unless you are making big blow ups, 35mm provides (almost) the same quality.
Click to expand...

FWIW IME 6x6 is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to scan at home than 35mm, if that's your thing.

Amp34 said:
I was just looking at the C220 in fact, what are the benefits of one over another brand?
Click to expand...

For a TLR, that you can change the lenses. Pretty well nobody else does it. I tend to agree with an earlier comment that a TLR isn't a natural fit for landscape work. For various reasons, TLRs were the staple of wedding photographers before the digital revolution.

Well I was thinking more like a lens or two for landscape and then maybe another (almost definately at a later point) for wildlife, more "wildlife in surroundings" than closeup head shot so I'd guess something like a 180mm lens would suffice?

As for landscape something like a 50 and the seemingly pretty standard 80mm would suit all occasions? I'm guessing that the lenses are format dependent and costs vary depending on manufacturer so maybe that's something I need to look into too?
Click to expand...

What's your budget?

I just spotted this ETRS kit at Dale Photographic. A fiver under £400 covers all the above. :)

Half tempted myself. I've been toying with the idea of a MF SLR for a while. Doubtless someone will tell me there are better deals to be had elsewhere... :suspect:

Though the ETRS doesn't have mirror lock-up, which the ETRSi does and may be significant for landscape work. Bronica's SQ series allows you to use 6x6 or 645 backs.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
which one is the lightest buddy.When can we meet? And the beer is better now in the pub....
Click to expand...

You're turning into a weight weenie :lol:

I'll weigh them and let you know :D
 
Musicman said:
Do they make any MF camera bodies out of Drillium? :D

[/cycling/photography crossover]
Click to expand...

It's a good crossover though, isn't it?

ujjwaldey8165 said:
for someone who has met me, that shouldn't come as a surprise

Which one then, eh?

And more importantly, when?
Click to expand...

I'll weigh them tomorrow. Might have time to meet up next week, but you know there's no rush cos you'll look at it for a month before you actually put film in it and use it :lol::lol:
 
Shut up Nick. don't give away the secrets. Arthur is just waiting somewhere around, ready to pounce.

With friends like you guys....:D

Next week is good....lets go to Club 35 together to collect my 5 rolls......
 
I secretly want that Kiev 60 advertised in the for sales...
With a Pentacon 6 mount there must be some right beaudacious lens oddities kicking about for next to nowt.....though I haven't seen that many :thinking:
 
Sam_G said:
Considering you state you want to do landscapes, a TLR nor folder would be particularly useful IMO due to being a b****r to use filters on. I would stick with SLR's for landscapes.

Square is a hard format to use though, and a b****r to print as well in my experience.
Click to expand...

Good point, I hadn't thought about filters... I only use a Polariser and an ND filter. Grads and such all get sorted in post.

What do you mean by print? Get printed or print yourself? This is the next thing I was going to move on to...

Printing. Film seems to be pretty cheap (or at least cheap enough not to worry) but the developing costs quite a bit from what I can see. How much would developing and scanning cost? Alternatively it appears developing B&W is cheap. How "cheap" and easy is it? I'm guessing the scanning will be difficult though as you couldn't just use a normal scanner?

Musicman said:
For a TLR, that you can change the lenses. Pretty well nobody else does it. I tend to agree with an earlier comment that a TLR isn't a natural fit for landscape work. For various reasons, TLRs were the staple of wedding photographers before the digital revolution.
Click to expand...

I actually meant types (SLR etc):bonk: but you answered that question anyway. So an SLR would be the better bet then. A shame as just looking at Ffordes the Cxx seem much cheaper straight off than the SLRs, although lenses look the same sort of price.



Musicman said:
What's your budget?

I just spotted this ETRS kit at Dale Photographic. A fiver under £400 covers all the above. :)

Half tempted myself. I've been toying with the idea of a MF SLR for a while. Doubtless someone will tell me there are better deals to be had elsewhere... :suspect:

Though the ETRS doesn't have mirror lock-up, which the ETRSi does and may be significant for landscape work. Bronica's SQ series allows you to use 6x6 or 645 backs.
Click to expand...

As little as possible really to get something reasonable. I guess the best bet would be to get a camera and standard lens then head for a wide/long lens a few months later. So £200-£300 max to start with I guess, cheaper if possible (I doubt that!). That's why I started this thread, to see what I would be looking at paying. Unfortunately it seems to have veered into me choosing a camera. Dangerous ground as it'll make me want to get one now...:nono::lol:

I'm going away for a month in a week or two and then have a few weeks before I can actually buy one (at uni so I can hide the fact I bought one...*whistles*).

I've been working my way through this thread too and the suggestions of the RB67 and ETRS seem to be pretty good. Looking at Ffordes again there seem to be a lot more Bronica cameras and lenses, working out at being slightly cheaper than the RB. However SQ cameras seem to be a lot rarer than the ETRS's...:thinking:
 
Also, WRT focal lengths. Will the equivilent 35mm focal length be different for each format (i.e. 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7)? I take it yes and why the RB67 has 180mm lenses and the ETRS has 150mm lenses?
 
Amp34 said:
I take it yes and why the RB67 has 180mm lenses and the ETRS has 150mm lenses?
Click to expand...

Bigger negative.

RB67 = 6 x 7 neg
ETRS = 6 x 4.5 neg

i.e. 'crop factor', same reason you're likely to see a 90mm as a standard lens on 6x7 and 75mm on 645
 
So some MF formats do have a bigger "crop" factor than others.:)

50mm on a 35mm would be 75mm on a 6x4.5 and 90mm on a 6x7? What about 6x6?

Just looking at Ebay as well and I noticed this

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Mamiya-RB67-P...tem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item35aa751824

I assume I'd literally just need a lens to go with it and I would be able to shoot? What sort of price should I be looking at for something like this?

It's dangerous looking on the pay... :p
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
which one is the lightest buddy.When can we meet? And the beer is better now in the pub....
Click to expand...

Ujjwal, the Mamiya is 1478g and the Yashica is 1079.

Let me know which one you fancy :thumbs:
 
joxby said:
I secretly want that Kiev 60 advertised in the for sales...
With a Pentacon 6 mount there must be some right beaudacious lens oddities kicking about for next to nowt.....though I haven't seen that many :thinking:
Click to expand...


:lol::lol: you made my day !

about the lens. I was just looking at them yesterday - there are some Carl zeiss jena available, there was a sonnar 180 f2.8 for about 200 . that is one hell of a lens ! this + something wider and you're good. mind you the 180 is heavy.

the combo (not mine (I wish) ) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/icono/4459626431/
I don't know if i'm allowed to post links of other people pics. :|
 
Amp34 said:
50mm on a 35mm would be 75mm on a 6x4.5 and 90mm on a 6x7? What about 6x6?
Click to expand...

80mm.

The rule of thumb for calculating standard lens length is that it's the length of the diagonal of the frame.

Using Pythagoras' theorem with a 57 mm (2 1/4") square => 81 mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top