Which Medium Format Camera Meets My Needs?

[Paul Howell]

A rolleiflex may be just outside your budget, a rolleicord may work, not sure how bright the viewfinder is compared to a flex or to a C220. Then there is the Yashica 124 or late model D with 4 element taking lens. I have both, the screens are bright enough for me, both have a 2.8 viewing lens a bit brighter than the 3.5 found on most flex and cords. Compared to a Kowa SL66 the 124 light and easy to use. Other option is Minolta TLR. Many favor the Minolta as having a lens a good as a Zeiss.

 

[MattKing]

TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.

 

[runswithsizzers]

A rolleiflex may be just outside your budget, a rolleicord may work, not sure how bright the viewfinder is compared to a flex or to a C220. Then there is the Yashica 124 or late model D with 4 element taking lens. I have both, the screens are bright enough for me, both have a 2.8 viewing lens a bit brighter than the 3.5 found on most flex and cords. Compared to a Kowa SL66 the 124 light and easy to use. Other option is Minolta TLR. Many favor the Minolta as having a lens a good as a Zeiss.

Yes, price alone will probably eliminate Rolleiflex models from my list, but I was also under the impression that the Rolleicords are lighter?

*IF* I was going to buy a TLR (not likely), then which one would very much be determined by size and weight, and also something that is elegant to use. By elegant, I mean not fussy - no, "you must do this, before you do that, or Something Bad will happen."

I have not researched the various TLRs. Can anyone say which of the commonly available options would be the lightest/smallest?

 

[Luckless]

I found that one way to make my C330f setup feel far lighter to lug around is to lug around an RB67 with prism viewfinder and a few lenses for a bit. Or a pair of them to avoid swapping lenses for an event if I'm feeling foolish.

The C330 feels far lighter when I then switch back to it...



But the Rollicords are by comparison a delightful little feather to bring along. My Rollicord IV is lovely and fun to use, but I do miss some of the features on the larger C330.
- Bellows Focus: I keep trying to use it for closer still life shots like I would the Mamiya, and the short focus throw does feel cramped. But as long as you're not attempting to play around with near macro or closeup work then you're probably not going to notice that.
- The lock function: I really like the general security and confidence in lugging the C330 with the lens changing lock engaged. I know that I can pull it out and set the camera back up and I haven't wasted a shot on the inside of my bag by snagging the shutter button, and that I'm not making some double exposure.

The newer models do have a nicer and brighter focus screen than mine, but I still find it workable in most conditions.

And compared to lugging my insulated stainless steel water bottle, the 'cord feels like it weighs basically nothing. It is still over half a kg, but it is nicely balanced, and cradles well in a hand.

I have a few folders that compact down slightly smaller, but I think they are all as heavy of heavier than the Rollicord. And I don't really notice a difference in the lugging of a 35mm SLR with a hunk of glass on the front of it. But I do notice a big difference in the look and feel from the giant negative. And that's hard to beat.

 

[runswithsizzers]

TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.

While photographing a still life at three ft. I had some unpleasant suprises. I could be pretty sure where the top of my frame would be, but something at the bottom of the frame, which I did not see in the viewfinder, ended up on the negative. Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane. With the camera angled down for my still life, I could get the framing right (approximately), but it was harder to compensate for the change in focus. Mamiya makes something called a Paramender which would probably solve the problem, but I've never used one.

Compared to a SLR, working close with a TLR introduces too much guess work for me.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Yes, do not underestimate 135 format. So many cameras + good to very good lenses + accessories etc.,

Nikon & Canon
Olympus & Pentax
...

Agreed. For me, there are two elements to 120 film that works. The tonality thing. And the slowness. Sounds perverse in ways, but it's how shooting works well for me.

Again looking at the OP's images, this is in the realm of the flâneur of Baudrillard and Benjamin. A nimble camera works well for this style of shooting. If 35mm film and cameras gives him what he wants, no reason to not go with it! Maybe another day, maybe another type of shooting, will have him try medium format again.

 

[GregY]

Agreed. For me, there are two elements to 120 film that works. The tonality thing. And the slowness. Sounds perverse in ways, but it's how shooting works well for me.

Again looking at the OP's images, this is in the realm of the flâneur of Baudrillard and Benjamin. A nimble camera works well for this style of shooting. If 35mm film and cameras gives him what he wants, no reason to not go with it! Maybe another day, maybe another type of shooting, will have him try medium format again.

DD, Apart from things that don't move, I've also used a Rolleiflex in Paris. Heck Doisneau did! It's a beautiful and different way to work. You just stand there, seemingly looking down at your feet until things of interest line up on the ground glass...& then press the button. & for closer work Rolleinars have been magic for me.

 

[Ian Grant]

What about the Mamiya 645, maybe the 1000s. I was using Mamiya C33 & C3 cameras from the mid 1970s until they were stolen, I replaced them with a plain Mamiya 645 & 1000s, I really enjoyed using them. I lent the plain 645 body to a friend as a spare body, I got it back not working, and didn't see her for over 25 years. However, she's giving me a newer model, later this month

I mostly shoot LF and carried a Leice M3 when out shooting, but I found prints from35mm negatives didn't sit well alongside those from 5x4 and 10x8 negative in exhibitions. So after some thought I bought a Yashica 124 (on this Forum 2006/7) to use alongside 5x4 while living abroad, That proved to be an excellent decision as the print quality fits perfectly alongside LF, and I also really like using the square format for some images. (I shoot to format). I had also been given a Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 back in the late 1980s, the shutter was sticking, the owner said he'd put less than a dozen films through the camera, the lubricants had dried up. I had it serviced at the same time as the Yashicamat 124, and left it to use here on visits back to the UK.

These days I still use the Mamiya 645 1000s when shooting portraits or working with models, but I much prefer the Rolleiflex when out shooting landscapes. I acquired a second Rolleiflex an Automat with an Opton Tessar lens, cheap, but it had been serviced, at a Flea market. That'snow my main TLR, the Yashica has been sold.

I loved using my C33 & C3, I had a standard and wide angle lens, but they were heavy. The Mamiya 645s with a prism finder were/are just like using a scaled up 35mm SLR, and I liked the 15 shots per 35mm roll, but again not light. But my Rolleiflex cameras are relatively light, compact and fun to shoot with, and the results excellent.

TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.

I shot a jewellery catalogue in 1976 with a Mamiya C33, the camera did have parallax correction on the screen, but at the distance I was working at useless. I did exactly what you mention, marking the tripod column to give the correct displacement. It was easy and worked.

Ian

 

[Dan Daniel]

DD, Apart from things that don't move, I've also used a Rolleiflex in Paris. Heck Doisneau did! It's a beautiful and different way to work. You just stand there, seemingly looking down at your feet until things of interest line up on the ground glass...& then press the button. & for closer work Rolleinars have been magic for me.

Oh, I know. I used a Rolleiflex for street work for a decade or more, and it it is still my main camera.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

TLR Parallax error at 3-4 feet with a 75-80mm lens on a 6x6 camera is relatively minimal - the displacement is just ~2 inches - and can easily be dealt with (if necessary) by raising the camera that amount just before exposure.
In 50+ years, I've never lost a shot because of it.

Thats is my experience as well. If doing closeup, I either elevate the camera a bit, incline the camera a bit before the shot or use a paramender. Never had cutted heads on my time using it.

While photographing a still life at three ft. I had some unpleasant suprises. I could be pretty sure where the top of my frame would be, but something at the bottom of the frame, which I did not see in the viewfinder, ended up on the negative. Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane. With the camera angled down for my still life, I could get the framing right (approximately), but it was harder to compensate for the change in focus. Mamiya makes something called a Paramender which would probably solve the problem, but I've never used one.

Compared to a SLR, working close with a TLR introduces too much guess work for me.

Yeah I had the same experience at first but paramender fixed that. Really enjoy doing still life and closeup with the Mamiya, since it has nice bellows.

I found that one way to make my C330f setup feel far lighter to lug around is to lug around an RB67 with prism viewfinder and a few lenses for a bit. Or a pair of them to avoid swapping lenses for an event if I'm feeling foolish.

The C330 feels far lighter when I then switch back to it...

Yes, my experience is the same. RB67 is heavy and cumbersome but a great camera.

 

[GregY]

Oh, I know. I used a Rolleiflex for street work for a decade or more, and it it is still my main camera.

Dan I've really liked the 'flex photos of yours that I've seen.

 

[Prest_400]

My main camera is the Fuji GW690 and last year I got a Super Ikonta IV (same as the III, with an annoying EVS interlock and now dead meter). It was my one and only, and still main, medium format camera. There are of course drawbacks and a comically large camera but it is very doable and I just came back from a month trip to Asia with it and shot a generous amount of film doing so.

When shooting b&w, I tend to walk about and look for photographs in small towns, some urban areas, public parks and gardens, and some nature trails. I don't really know what "street" means, but I don't think that is what I do. Very few people, no portraits. Here is a link to much of the b&w I've shot in the past few years: https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography (there is a little color/digital on that page which you can ignore).

Back in 2019 I imagined the medium format camera would replace my 35mm for this kind of walkabout. But now, my plan is to return to my lovely little 35mm SLRs, but maybe have a medium format camera handy for a few selected shots. Therefore, it must be small and light because it will be part of a two camera kit.

The more I think about it, I am beginning to think there may not be even one.

I actually have a similar style, and with people it's at most environmental portraits so the drawbacks of a Rangefinder are less pronounced. My rationale for medium format was the same: If I plan so much on shooting, 35mm is a small format with too long rolls for that and MF just fit that idea of more careful shooting. It is also good for the keeper rate.

Yes, do not underestimate 135 format. So many cameras + good to very good lenses + accessories etc.,

Nikon & Canon
Olympus & Pentax
...

This comment was the first that I saw when opening the thread, to which I chuckled "ha, no!" but actually, it can be so. As you might find, 35mm has very well developed and mature equipment whereas medium format did not have the boon of options later on. I base this in eg. medium format rangefinders. The "modern" models are few. As you see with the folders, the development stopped at Tessar type lenses and not much automation.
So a T-grain slow film with a good camera+lens can match a Medium format of this type, roughly. Another thing is the beauty and tonality of the medium format negatives, 120 film as a format, and the camera factor that is more varied.

A vote for the Super Ikonta with Tessar, I have one, is that compared to the Modern Fujinon of course it is not as technically good. But folders are very fun to shoot and you might as well start with some simple and cheap option such a Nettar well stopped down in good light before investing for an expensive medium format.

 

[albireo]

The school semester is coming to an end, and today I am returning the Mamiya C220 TLR back to the university Photo department. Two (of many) things I learned this past semester are:
a. I like those big 6x6cm negatives, and,
b. I don't like TLR cameras.

Sorry, haven't read the rest of the thread but did you decide you don't like TLRs only based on your experience with the Mamiya? I am a TLR addict. I don't own a Mamiya but have handled one. It's a pig. It has close to NONE of the things I like in a TLR. I would have never gotten as deep as I have in my TLR mania had I started with one of those Mamiya monsters.

Try a Rolleicord Va or Vb or even a Rolleiflex 3.5F (not the 2.8). Install an Oleson screen. The Rolleicord Va in particular is one of my most prized film photography purchases ever. It's small, nimble, well built, quiet, light (did I mention it's light?) and its Xenar taking lens is excellent. It hangs from my neck as a I cycle, for hours. I even forget it's there. Until I've developed and scanned the negatives that is - and then I remember again that it was there.

 

[baachitraka]

My main camera is the Fuji GW690 and last year I got a Super Ikonta IV (same as the III, with an annoying EVS interlock and now dead meter). It was my one and only, and still main, medium format camera. There are of course drawbacks and a comically large camera but it is very doable and I just came back from a month trip to Asia with it and shot a generous amount of film doing so.


I actually have a similar style, and with people it's at most environmental portraits so the drawbacks of a Rangefinder are less pronounced. My rationale for medium format was the same: If I plan so much on shooting, 35mm is a small format with too long rolls for that and MF just fit that idea of more careful shooting. It is also good for the keeper rate.



This comment was the first that I saw when opening the thread, to which I chuckled "ha, no!" but actually, it can be so. As you might find, 35mm has very well developed and mature equipment whereas medium format did not have the boon of options later on. I base this in eg. medium format rangefinders. The "modern" models are few. As you see with the folders, the development stopped at Tessar type lenses and not much automation.
So a T-grain slow film with a good camera+lens can match a Medium format of this type, roughly. Another thing is the beauty and tonality of the medium format negatives, 120 film as a format, and the camera factor that is more varied.

A vote for the Super Ikonta with Tessar, I have one, is that compared to the Modern Fujinon of course it is not as technically good. But folders are very fun to shoot and you might as well start with some simple and cheap option such a Nettar well stopped down in good light before investing for an expensive medium format.

Yes. Tessar for landscape and Triotar for portraits (contrast could lag but in terms of beauty the old uncorrected lens are my choice)

For OP: That said options are plenty but plan your budget for camera + lens (in case of interchangeable) + accessories (simple enlarger + material (film, paper, chemicals etc.,)

 

[Paul Howell]

In terms of your preferences, close up work, porturates, light, negative size, then I would with Ian Grant, a 645 system might work the best for you. SLR, no parallax error, with extension tubes you can do macro with standard lens. A 6X6 system is great if you print or scan square. The shutter is in the body, lens are lighter and less expensive than most 6X6 SLRs. have a number of 6X6, Kowa, Mamiya 6 folder, and TLRs, but I crop to print 8X10 or 11X14 so it is essentially 645. I considered buy a Pentax 645 but decided to just go the 6X6s I have.

 

[Phil Young]

I also use a Fuji GW690II as my main medium format camera. I have a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S camera and lenses, but it is not as portable as the Fuji. The camera is light, rugged and easy to use. The price may be slightly higher than your budget, but my motto is "Buy once, cry once".

 

[MattKing]

Raising the camera by 2" really only works if the subject and tripod are on the same plane.

Actually no. It works fine if you raise it along the line that goes through the centre of the camera - essentially you put the taking lens where the viewing lens was.
And you can eyeball the change, as long as you aren't working a lot closer than 3-4 feet.
You actually might have been seeing something more/different than parallax error. There may have been a slight amount of more film coverage than viewfinder coverage. When TLRs were current, many people used them for mounted slides, and the viewing system took that into account.
The same applies to cameras that have eye level finders - it was assumed that images would be at least slightly cropped, either by slide mounts, or negative carriers.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I have not researched the various TLRs. Can anyone say which of the commonly available options would be the lightest/smallest?

Rolleicord. Minolta Autocord. Very close in size and weight to each other (the Autocord being slightly heavier). The Autocord has a lever wind that cocks the shutter at the same time. The Rolleicord has the wind and shutter cocking as two separate operations.

There are somewhat lighter TLRs out there, I am certain, but I'd consider these two to have lenses that can stand next to most any other lens out there, especially stopped down a bit.

 

[beemermark]

late model Rolleicord Va or Vb, not lighter than a Rolleiflex but a lot cheaper. Also cheaper to repair if it comes to that. Late model Yashicamats are great also. You shoot be able to find one of these in good condition for less than $400. Lenses are just as good as the Mamiyaflex (and weigh a whole lot less) when stopped down a little.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

Great and wonderfully-detailed replies. Shows we're in the right place at PhoTrio. If you decide to shoot for art directors, high-end clients, and folks who will pay you for your university-gained education and experience, I strongly recommend Hasselblad. Clients have no doubt that you are serious when you show up on set with your Hasselblad kit. Your portfolio will be filled with meticulously crafted, crisp, perfectly exposed images. Yes, the investment cost is high; but the benefit over time will have you smiling as new clients beat a path to your door. Hyperbole? Yes, but this is one factor to consider about your coming career. As Omer (owner of CatLabs) says, "Shoot more film." It is, IMHO, more fun to shoot with an ultra-reliable Hasselblad.

 

[henryvk]

In spite of my dislike for the Mamiya C220, I do wonder if I might be able to live with a late model Rolleicord? True, it would still suffer from #2, 3 and 4, but if it was significantly smaller and lighter than the C220, and if the ground glass were significantly brighter, then maybe I could accept the rest? I've never seen, much less held a Rolleicord, but I've seen some comparison photos that make the Rolleicord look much smaller than the C220. I do like the idea of a Rolleicord, but how often does reality match our fantasies?

Or maybe I need to accept the fact that I am just not a medium format kind of guy?

Everything is a compromise, no need to write off medium format entirely

But you can't have a light camera *and* a prism.

MF SLRs are always going to be 2 kg or more with the lens on. Rolleiflex/cord and clones are around 1 kg; if you want the maximum brightness you'll need to add another 100€ or so for a focusing screen. Autocords are said to be among the best performers, Yashicas are plentiful, cheap-ish but solid with good triplets (Yashikor) and somewhat rarer tessars (Yashinon).

My advice would be: decide on a limit, buy a camera and see how it suits you. The models were talking about here all have good resale value so you can pass them on to the next person if you end up deciding against them.

 

[albireo]

late model Rolleicord Va or Vb, not lighter than a Rolleiflex but a lot cheaper.

Very much lighter than a Rolleiflex. I have both.

 

[baachitraka]

Very much lighter than a Rolleiflex. I have both.

Yes. Rolleicord Va is way lighter than any flex.

I would rather look for Va (much brighter screen than V) or better VB for interchangeable screen.

 

[albireo]

Yes. Rolleicord Va is way lighter than any flex.

Yep. And, based on the ones I've owned or handled (Minolta Autocord, 3.5F, Rolleicord Va, Rolleicord Vb, Ricohflex, Olympusflex, Mamiya C220, C330) the Rolleicord Va or Vb is the lightest.

 

[GG12]

A slightly simplistic approach: if one is just getting into MF, consider a couple of mainstays that have served the field well, before veering into more unique answers. The Hassy is a great studio camera, but a bit heavy for the field. The Rollei TLRs have worked well for many people for many years. Maybe add to this the Fujis, esp. the 645 as a modest-sized alternative.

Maybe wait on the older folders and the heavy TLRs until more familiar with MF, and the joy of that big negative.