The 645 AFd variants have an AF assist light which helps you shoot in very subdued light, if you depend on autofocus. I would not rely on manual focus for a camera like the AFd variants. Of course, if you even remotely drag the shutter you have to hold the beastie very still!
A few years ago I was shooting more than a few rolls of high-speed B/W emulsions with an AFd (and Contax 645) as an available light street camera. It's not easy but it can be done.
Having overshared that, I would say just get an RZ with a waist level finder, 110mm f/2.8 and a handheld meter. As Corposant sagely says, that thing is an absolute portrait machine and really affordable to boot.
No ones mentioned the Voigtlander Bessa 1 folder cameras, comes in 105mm lens and shoots in 6x9 and usually has a mask for 6x4.5 if you prefer that. These cameras are well made and built to last not like ones today, they are rather simple to use with remarkably good results for the price. Fastest shutter speed is 1/250th and widest aperture is 4.5. Focus is adjusted on the lens with a distance scale of 1.4 M to infinty. Loading and advancing film is pretty straight forward and they can virtually fit in a coat pocket. The biggest complaint is probably the lousy viewfinder which is basically used only for framing your shot everything else is done with the camera settings.
Manuals are online if its not included. These cameras are not meant to be a one camera does everything you need but they do have a use and for 2-3 hundred you can hardly go wrong.
For portraits in Medium Format you would probably need at least 180mm and up lens, otherwise you'll be right in their face with the camera.
here's a recent shot with my Bessa 1 with 105mm lens.
carstenw wrote:
Wow, that is amazing! I wish I could find prices like that. Yes, there is a better supply of the cameras here in Germany, unsurprisingly since they are made here, so this makes it a little easier to find them. I did buy mine from the UK though
What do you think of the 90 and 180 lenses? I am considering both... And the 120.
When looking for words to describe them the first one that comes to my mind is - huge. 90 macro is much larger than regular 80 f2.8 lens, however it is actually deceptively light for its size. The focus is buttery smooth and the picture jumps into focus in a nice way. Because of its recessed front element I do not have to worry about any hood when using it. I actually enjoy using it more than 80, maybe because the focus ring is somewhat stiff on the 80 I have. 180 is huge and heavy and uses large hood which It seems to me is required (so the lens installed on camera is actually even larger). The focus ring again is buttery smooth. Carrying both or even any of those lenses is good for keeping in shape ;-)
Micky Bill wrote:
I have never been a fan of the 645 format...and today with the quality of DSLR I still see no use for it.
6x6 and 6x7 or bigger really make a impact with the major step up in film size. the 645 is a baby step from 35mm and always has been a compromise.
Me too - 645 has to be the most redundant size ever. Just shoot 6x6 or up for Pete's sake.
I have to admit, I don't understand the 6 x 7 format. Despite having TWO 6 x 7 rangefinders, I find this format to be very unusual. I don't think I shoot it that well because of my lack of understanding.
And the image quality? I have heard the 90 described as the best lens ever made, and the 180 as the best portrait lens ever made. Are they even close?
shoevarek wrote:
When looking for words to describe them the first one that comes to my mind is - huge. 90 macro is much larger than regular 80 f2.8 lens, however it is actually deceptively light for its size. The focus is buttery smooth and the picture jumps into focus in a nice way. Because of its recessed front element I do not have to worry about any hood when using it. I actually enjoy using it more than 80, maybe because the focus ring is somewhat stiff on the 80 I have. 180 is huge and heavy and uses large hood which It seems to me is required (so the lens installed on camera is actually even larger). The focus ring again is buttery smooth. Carrying both or even any of those lenses is good for keeping in shape ;-)
Thanks again for the input all. I think I will give the WLF another try and pick up an RZ67 with 110 f/2.8 (hopefully save a little bit of cash as well).
If you don't need interchangeable lenses I'd look into a Rolleiflex TLR, a Yashicamat, or a Minola Autocord. All wonderful easy to shoot cameras.
The RZ67 is great with the 110mm, other lenses are huge (which is fine as long as you can handle them). It's also VERY handholdable. More than any MF rig I've tried, besides MAYBE the Mamiya 6.
For portraits the Pentax 105 is more "special" than the 110mm for the RZ which is wonderful but clinical. And the 165 2.8 is amazing as well.
My current rig is an SL66 which I love for squareness, bellowness, and adaptability. And I love waistlevels. Not everyone does.
I'd second the suggestion of the old folders. They are a lot of fun and very inexpensive. Small size makes them easy to bring with you too.
These are for a Kodak Monitor 6x9 with 101mm Anastigmat Special lens...
The Kodak is scale focus, I bought it for about $50. The Kodak is 620 film size but mine is an earlier one so cut down 120 rolls fit it fine with a 620 take up spool.
If you want a rangefinder the original Mamiya Six is nice. Some have a fully coated Olympus lens on it that is very sharp. These are unit focus lenses, the film plane moves. The version I have is dual format 6x4.5 or 6x6.
I haven't developed any film from it yet but for a true brick of a 6x9 rangefinder camera look at the Kodak Medalist. Very cool split viewfinder/rangefinder. Their lens (heliar type) is supposed to be world class. 620 film size though so you would have to re-roll 120 onto 620 spools.
You might look at the RB 67 & 127mm lens. Mine has some sort of prism finder on it, with microprism. It's big but also has a grip for handheld shooting, probably make things easier
Pentax 67 + 105/2.4 hands down. It's a portrait monster. You will be so spoiled by the results from this camera/lens combo that you won't be able to use anything else ever again.
Okay, so I'm exaggerating a bit, but seriously...the quality of the negatives from the Pentax 67 are no joke. Hands down my favorite camera.
Yes its big, and yes its heavy, but it's worth it. It's shaped like an SLR, so it's fairly easy to hold.
Oh, and I use mine exclusively handheld and its never been a problem (for me). I shoot down to about 1/60s or maybe 1/30s if I'm feeling steady
I'd second the suggestion of the old folders. They are a lot of fun and very inexpensive. Small size makes them easy to bring with you too.
Nice pictures sfogg. The old folders seems like great walk around / landscape cameras and for that I already have a Fuji GA645.
Can't you get a digital back for the RZ and maybe RB 67?
I believe all RZ67 models can take a digital back (older models require an adapter).
Pentax 67 + 105/2.4 hands down
Great photo weezintrumpete.
I have shot a number of Medium Format cameras. All have the beauty of lots of real estate.
The RB67 was a beast.
Bronica GS1 unwieldy slightly smaller beast.
'blad 500CM was definitely handholdable, but I dislike square
Bronica ETR was smaller than the 'blad if memory serves me.
All quality cameras.
I'm tempted by the Texas Leicas, but if I were going the RZ/RB route, I would seriously consider going straight to 4x5 with a Speed Graphic.
