Moving on from 35mm - to MF or LF?

[Marko Vrabec]

Greetings all, I am a yet another amateur who decided it is time to move up from 35mm format (Olympus OM4Ti). I have played with Pentacon Six (East German 6x6) camera for a while and concluded that a) yes, I like working slowly from a tripod and composing in the WL finder; b) 35x24mm film size is ridiculous, what was I thinking?; c) Pentacon Six and Zeiss Jena lenses are cool but unfortunately way too unreliable to use. Now what to do?



My main photographic obsession are wilderness landscapes and I shoot exclusively slide film. For the future I have a few self-assigments in mind: a) landscape photography while backpacking in remote wilderness areas (like the Arctic tundra of Finland) for a week or two, carrying along all the food and survival equipment; b) making a collection of unique and unusual photographs of the local Alps where I live, by both carrying photo gear with me on mountaneering trips, and by running up the mountain for a couple of hours to a pre-selected location to catch the best light; c) making an "artistic" collection of interesting geological features in my region (I am a geoscientist). To illustrate my photographic vision and shooting style I have put a few examples of my work
here .



In a couple of weeks I will travel to U.S. for a 1 month stay and I thought to exploit the current low dollar rate and depressed MF gear prices. I otherwise live in a small European country where MF and LF equipment is rare, so I have no realistic chance of seeing, testing or purchasing equipment at home. I would therefore ask the collective wisdom of this forum what MF/LF outfit might best suit my working style and goals. Obviously my equipment of choice should be as portable as possible and usable without much fuss (when the environmental factors play against you there really isn't time to fiddle with the camera). My budget for camera outfit with 1-3 lenses is $1500 max; I'd be buying used.



Studying the material in online forums for weeks I have arrived to the following candidates (but I am happy to hear any alternative suggestions):



Bronica ETRSi: this seems to be the least bulky, heavy and expensive choice (also considering modest lens filter sizes and lighter tripod requirements). While I did find some interesting square compositions with the Pentacon, I still cropped most of the pictures to rectangular shape, so with 645 format I seemingly won't be at much loss.



Pentax 67: this one is remarkably similar in handling, size and weight to the Pentacon I was already using. Better film size than 645. Possible cons: price, weight and operating hassle approach or equal LF without its benefits.



LF: a cheap field 4x5 camera, probably a new Tachichara, and Quickload film. Technical cameras like Linhof Tecnica IV unfortunately seem to be out of my price range. Possible cons: general operating hassles and slowness of using LF; bulk, ongoing film costs. Despite what is being said about LF being cheaper than MF, I can't see how I could buy more than one (used) lens with my budget (I am a decidedly wide-anglish person and thought to first look for a 135mm and 90mm).



My first concern in MF/LF dilemma is whether I would be able to achieve enough DOF for near-far compositions with MF gear (Pentax particularly - but is ETRSi much better?). With Pentacon, I was using small apertures and DOF scale on the lens when composing, and yet more often than not the infinity eventually turned out to be out of focus. The issue of film size vs. max enlargements possible is clear to me, and since I am just an amateur on a limited budget probably 645 is already quite enough - but why not go for better, if feasible? Besides, I am also attracted to panoramas, for which larger film size is certainly a bonus.





What do you think?

Marko

[Wayne Crider]

I've been moving back and forth between LF and MF for about a year now. Both have their advantages and I like owning both. For what you want to do tho with a pack and all I'd seriously consider small and portable (no brainer there) but more along the lines of something in the 6x9 range so you could maximize cost savings per shot yet get more film territory. If you want to try 4x5 get a decent Graphic (usually the cost is recoverable if sold) and a rollfilm back. You can then try 4x5 film when you want to. The Graphic can be pretty fast shooting when need be with rangefinding and sports framing.

[Mike Lopez]

I was able to buy a new Shen-Hao 4x5 and a used Nikon 150mm lens for around $900. With your $1500 budget, I would think that you could probably buy a new Shen-Hao or Tachihara and 2 used lenses and probably have a little money to spare for the Quickload you mentioned. Where in the U.S. are you visiting? Will you be in a place where you will have a good selection of equipment to choose from, or will you be looking at mail order delivery to a temporary residence? Will you have internet access when you are here? It would be ideal for you to be able to shop that way, and not be restricted to whatever equipment is available where you are staying.

[Henry Ambrose]

Marko, I would buy a Mamiya 7. The camera is very light and compact, the lenses are spectacular and the negative is big so you can crop out panoramas if you wish. The 6X7 neg gives a huge increase in quality over anything smaller. If you have more money to spend I'd get the 50 and 80 mm lenses, otherwise to stay in your budget I'd get the 65mm. I've taken mine backpacking up in the mountains of the western U.S. and its really nice to have such an easy to carry camera that gives such fine results. The camera with two lenses, 10 rolls of 220 film (thats 200 6X7 exposures), and filters weighs just over six pounds in a padded case. The only downside I can see is that it is a rangefinder camera and some people have trouble getting exact framing. A little practice and you can get very close to what you see in the finder on your film. Its also very nice that the camera can be handheld and still give excellent results. I'd suggest 4X5 as an alternative if you were ONLY photographing on your trips. Reading your description I think you are doing more than going for photographic purposes.

[Ed Eubanks]

Hi Marko,
Congratulations on your decision to expand your photographic horizons. While many excellent photographers have devoted themselves exclusively to the 35mm format (David Vestal comes to mind...), there certainly is a wide world out there, ripe for exploration, in MF and LF. I give you joy of your decision and wish the best for you.
After reading your post, I am inclined to recommend to you the Mamiya 645. Not the Pro edition, and not the AF edition, but the plain old 645 (also known as the M645, the M645 Super, or the M645 1000s). Here's why:
<UL>
<LI>Size: this is a fairly compact camera, without a lot of bulk or heavy weight. It fits easily into a backpack and does not require the space or weight allotments of even the Bronica you mentioned (let alone the Pentax or most LF gear).
<LI>Ubiquity: Mamiya has made this camera for years and years, and most of them have held up very well; thus, there are tons of them around, and they are easy to find. The local store I visit usually has at least two or three on hand at any given visit.
<LI>Affordability: for the price range you specified, you should be able to outfit yourself with a good "well-rounded" kit in the M645 system, with a typical body averaging $150-$300, a 55mm lens (standard wide angle) going for around $250-$300, a 45mm extra-wide angle lens selling for about $300-$400, longer lenses goinf for similar prices (150mm=$250-$400; 210mm=$200-$350; 80mm ("normal")=$100-$200). Accessories are similarly inexpensive.
<LI>Quality: for the money, I have not found comparable quality in medium format. In fact, I am usually appalled at the high cost of MF gear, but have found the Mamiya gear to be worth much more than the sticker price, which is exceptional in my opinion. I use this gear for almost all of my portraiture and a good bit of my wedding work, and I have had no complaints. I have also used it with great satisfaction for landscape photography. The lenses are sharp and comfortable, the bodies are built like tanks, and the accessories are simple but effective.
<LI>Meets your needs: 6x4.5 is certainly far smaller than even the 4x5 LF images many of these guys shoot-- heck, it's a good bit smaller than 2x3!-- and certainly miniscule compared the 5x7, 8x10, and larger. But it still dwarfs the 35mm, and it may be everything that you desire in terms of a larger image. If it does not suit you, your used M645 gear will hold its value nicely and you can sell it for everything you have in it and upgrade. As for the specific quirks of the Mamiya M645, my major complaint (no interchangeable backs) may not be a big deal for you, since you are likely to shoot the same chrome film all the time and won't need to change film quickly, like you might if you were doing fashion photography or weddings.
</ul>
That's just my view on why the Mamiya M645 system seems like it would be a good match for you. My main concerns with advising you toward other systems-- and I have used several (Bronica ETRSi, Bronica SQ-Ai, Pentax 67, Mamiya RB 67, several LF systems) and would recommend them if I thought they were well-suited-- are two important factors: cost and weight. I can't say confidently that you would be able to outfit yourself as you desire in LF or most MF systems with the budget you suggest; if you did, I would be concerned that you may be dissatisfied (or worse) with the quality of the gear, either in reliability or in optical quality. Further, if you are looking at backpacking trips of a week or longer, in the conditions you describe, I wonder about the significant size and weight of a complete LF system or the heavy Pentax 67. Perhaps I am too timid about such things, but I don't believe I would venture out into tundra with 10+ pounds of camera gear in my pack.
Just my thoughts...

[Mike Lopez]

But first check out the user forum at www.mamiya.com to read about the problems people have with this camera. I own one myself and am disappointed about the number of problems people have with such an expensive system.

[Mike Lopez]

(I'm referring to the Mamiya 7 in the above post).

[Ed Eubanks]

I always liked the Mamiya 6 (6x6cm), which was the predecessor to the 7...
Wayne's suggestion about a Graphic is a good one. If you felt bound to head for LF, then a Graphic might be the best bang for your buck.
Also, don't be concerned about the depth-of-field issue with MF. I don't understand the math of it (although many on this forum do!), but f/16 and f/22 for 6x4.5 or 6x6 goes a lot further than it does with LF. Add to that a decent understanding of hyperfocal distance, and your depth of field question is not a significant problem.
One more plug for the Mamiya M645-- there IS a 50mm shift lens available for it, allowing for a very little bit of the camera movement advantages of LF in a MF camera.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Marko,

Considering your preferrence for wide angle lenses, DOF, and chromes, I would tend to think you'd be happiest with a good 4x5, WA friendly field camera. You could add a rollfilm back and expand your options. If you decided that MF is more practical or preferrable, I would suggest you look into the 6x9 fuji rangefinders. The Fujis feature high quality glass, rugged construction and the 6x9 image is comparable in aspect ratio to the 35mm frame you're used to, but MUCH larger. In fact, the differences in 6x9 and 4x5 where chromes are concerned probably have more to do with the movements available with the 4x5 field camera than they do with the size of the format, unless you intend to make really big enlargements. To my mind, the question comes down to a few issues; versatility, portability and affordability. The field camera wins hands down in the versatility category and the rangefinder in the portability. As far as affordability is concerned I'd be surprised if the difference was enormous, and it might come down to used LF vs new rangefinder. I like your images, some of them remind me of the landscape here in Idaho, while others look more like the north slope of Alaska. Good luck.

[neil poulsen]

From your description, the 6x9 format might be a good choice. It's the same ratio as 35mm, the lenses are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than those usually used for 4x5, and you have the advantage of using roll films. If you like to bracket your transparencies, then 6x9 is more practical. Using a view camera, you can apply forward tilt to get the near-to-far focus that you need.

Given your price constraints, I'm wondering if the Shen-Hao would be a good choice for 6x9? It's a light-weight camera, it can accomodate down to a 45mm lens, and one has the option of purchasing a bag bellows for these cameras. This would be necessary for the wide-angle 6x9 lenses. I like shooting 6x9 on a 4x5 camera, because one has better contrast control. There's less internal off the bellows flare. You can even get a bellows lens hood for these cameras. They are also reasonable in price.

I put forward the option without having tried 6x9 on this camera. Normally, one would look towards an Arca-Swiss or a Linhof Technikarden for this format. But, these are expensive cameras. The Shen-Hao is one of the few smaller wood-fields with a bag bellows option.

As for purchasing from home, consider using EBay. (Some dealers won't ship overseas.) You can find just about any lens that you would want, lensboards, etc. To guard against people with bad purpose, I tend not to purchase from anyone with under about 75-100 feedbacks, all feedback must be positive, and they must have many feedbacks as a seller. I've purchased many items through EBay, and the one problem I had was from someone with 24 feedbacks, and only a couple as a seller.