Why do people speak of range finders and SLR cameras in the same breath? They are different cameras, with different applications and advantages/disadvantages.
Are medium format range finders any different to 35mm range finders? I think that unless you've come from using a range finder, and love it, then why would a medium format version of the same camera be any different.
A range finder won't allow you to change film mid roll, use polarising or ND grads easily (if at all), framing and parrallax are bigger issues, questionable focusing accuracy.
If I where using film (and I shot RZ's professionally for many years, mainly E6 but also B+W for personal stuff) I would want interchangeable film backs, I would want to be able to shoot 'roids if I needed them to test lighting, and I would definitely want to be able to use filters such as grads and polarising filters, because you can't just fix it in Photoshop if your intention is to print them in B+W.
Range finders will always be range finders, great for some things, crap for others.
I ended up getting the RZ67. It's in absolute mint condition. The only marks on it are a few scratches from a tripod mount. It's a tank in comparison to the F5, and I think I'm going to like shooting it.
JohnJ wrote:
Why do people speak of range finders and SLR cameras in the same breath? They are different cameras, with different applications and advantages/disadvantages.
Are medium format range finders any different to 35mm range finders? I think that unless you've come from using a range finder, and love it, then why would a medium format version of the same camera be any different.
A range finder won't allow you to change film mid roll, use polarising or ND grads easily (if at all), framing and parrallax are bigger issues, questionable focusing accuracy.
Incorrect. You can change film mid roll with Mamiya 7 rangefinders. Perhaps Mamiya 6's too. I'm not sure of that though.
philip_pj wrote:
I never considered an SLR in medium format for the field - too bulky, heavy (2.5 kgs), hard to transport and carry, knobs sticking out everywhere. And it would just live on the tripod, oh, make that a very heavy tripod. And add a handheld meter.
Rangefinders are fabulous in all MF formats, akin to big Leicas, but most likely not heavy enough for the OP, as they are lighter than the Nikon F5!
A common misconception is that 645 ~= 35mm.
Could not be further from the truth, either in actual film real estate (see below) or in output quality/ print size/ detail rendition/ colour integrity/ tonality. Not even close.
As film is the same in both formats, given similar lens quality the results will be startlingly better.
FWIW, 67 is 56x68=3808 sq mm, so 3808/2296=1.66 the size of 645, for a 66% improvement over 645. Which improvement would you rather have?
So - It's ALL medium format from 645 on..and 645 rangefinder lenses are wicked sharp. I can see a difference in Mamiya 7 transparencies from Fuji 645 ones (60/4) but it's still close, and other factors influence, such as DOF/diffraction, and many MF lenses fall away from f8.
You might need to compare the film cameras to the APS-C digital D 3100 camera as that is what he is coming from. That would be much greater difference than 2.66x the area.
As someone who has at one time owned most medium format systems, the format I recommend is 6x7 and the best camera in my opinion is the RZ67. It's one of the best engineered cameras and the optics are great. Actually due to it's large mass is dampens hand vibrations quite well and I was able to consistently hand-hold it and get excellent results at slower shutter speeds than either my Hasselblad or my Rollieflex. The waist level finder is awsome, especially with the revolving back - avoid the weight and size of the prism finder, I found it pretty useless. Get a good Gossen handheld incident light meter and you are all set.
Jewced wrote:
I ended up getting the RZ67. It's in absolute mint condition. The only marks on it are a few scratches from a tripod mount. It's a tank in comparison to the F5, and I think I'm going to like shooting it.
Congrats! - Now we just need to see some of you shots with it in the film thread!
My first decent camera was an Argus C-3, and my first photo based job was using a 4x5 for 9 years. I love the RZ system. My D700's do a great job, but there is nothing like a 6x7 [or a 4x5 for that matter], either.
sirimiri wrote:
Besides shooting 120, you might also look at a cheap used polaroid back. The Fuji instant films are reasonably priced.
could you explain this more detailed, please? Are these like normal polaroids, only larger, if so, how large? Thank you!!
They are normal Polaroids, just stuffed into a special back which mounts to a medium format camera. The thing is that the camera can only capture an image the size of a negative, so if you use a 645 camera, you will get a little 56x42mm postage stamp of an image on a large Polaroid surface. I don't find Polaroids very compelling on medium format, although 6x7mm or larger might be okay. In the old days they were used to check lighting.
carstenw wrote:
They are normal Polaroids, just stuffed into a special back which mounts to a medium format camera. The thing is that the camera can only capture an image the size of a negative, so if you use a 645 camera, you will get a little 56x42mm postage stamp of an image on a large Polaroid surface. I don't find Polaroids very compelling on medium format, although 6x7mm or larger might be okay. In the old days they were used to check lighting.
thanks very much! they sound kinda cool though! i agree medium format down sized seems odd, although the options are really cool!
a.RodriguezPix wrote:
copy and pasted---> hello all, any budget 6x6 capable scanner recommendations? thank you all!
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'd avoid the duplicate posts across multiple threads. Particularly since we're straying away from the original question.
