Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Considering getting a 6x7 SLR
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 3:48 pm    Post subject: Considering getting a 6x7 SLR Reply with quote
I was wondering if anyone with MF film experience could please comment on the following:

Lately I've been hankering to try out MF film photography. I've only shot digital before, and currently use a D300s with primes. My motivation is that there's something unique about the tonality and colour of film which is hard to replicate with digital, and also the DOF characteristics of MF are very different to 35mm/APSC. I also like the idea of the discipline necessary with film (no. of shots, exposure etc), and think this will help me to hone my skills more generally.

If I were to move into MF, I would want it to be 6x7 for two reasons: to get the best image quality possible and also be able to print at standard paper sizes with minimal cropping or without having to add borders. Given the 6x7 format, I narrowed the choices of system down to the Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ67. The Mamiya 7 looks very nice but is extremely expensive and also a rangefinder system doesn't work with the grad filters I use for landscape shots, so that's out. Between the Pentax and Mamiya SLRs I am definitely leaning more towards the Mamiya due to the modularity, rotating back, bellows focusing and the much better flash sync capabilities. I think a starter Mamiya RZ67 system (body, 120 back, AE prism, 1 or 2 lenses) and good film scanner could be had for about £1000.

For people in the UK: what's the situation like in terms of film labs? My understanding is there are now very few reputable places left. Are there any places you could recommend? Is it even feasible cost-wise to send all film away to be processed, or am I kidding myself unless I do self-developing?

Sorry for the long rambling nature of this post, but all this film malarkey is new to me. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi atomstitcher,
I like your thinking process Smile I would recommend looking at the Koni-Omega, also, if you are absolutely set on the 6x7 format. It might be the least expensive, but the quality is outstanding. Hopefully, without sounding discouraging to your goals, I would recommend shooting film in other formats, as well. The costs are so minimal, today, and the results, especially those that you seek, can be somewhat gained, even with 35mm. The "Film/Darkroom" section of the forum can guide you through the self-developing process. I mention this because I believe that you will want the control that DIY affords. It is easier than one may first imagine, and is very pleasurable, too. When you do get your desired camera there will be numerous choices for types of film (though less than there once were). From my understanding, there are very few commercial developers (anywhere) willing or able to process certain types of film. So, having, say, a Patterson Tank, some containers, a timer, and thermometer, a dark bag for loading film, and warm water, you'll never think again about having some stranger, much less paying some stranger, to process your images.
Good fortune to you. We all, here, will look forward to your attempts. And many here can answer any questions you have along the way. Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi aspen, thanks for the suggestions and encouragement Smile

I had a quick look at the Koni-Omega, but again as it's a rangefinder system it won't be suitable for all the types of photography I would wish to use it for (can't easily use grad NDs).

Yeah I had considered perhaps getting a cheap 35mm SLR to dip my toe into the whole film process, before committing to the cost/portability issues of MF, but the different look of MF was a big part of the appeal. Also I would still need a film scanner. Decisions, decisions....


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used an RB67 in a studio setting for a couple of decades. It's a great camera on a tripod, but not that hot if you're planning on hand-holding it. I had a prism and the stock finder hood, but finally settled on the chimney finder as the one I liked the best. As I remember it, the view through the prism was too far away and small for easy, accurate, focusing.

That was about a ten years ago, and I've been getting GAS for a roll film camera, but this time it's going to be a Hasselblad--much, much easier to use as a hand camera. I also considered an old 6x6 Bronica of some type, too, but hey, HASSELBLAD!!! What I did want for sure was a camera I look down into---I already have plenty of eye-level cameras.


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to add that you might like the RB67 pro and you can get away with a cheaper scanner with 2480 dpi (as you are starting from a large neg). You can get the neg developed for as little as £2.50 (even in London) and you might be able to find somewhere in Oxford that would dev for £3, of course if you are not worried about costs then send the film away to the best lab.
I've found a place near me (the shop that does weddings to passport shots etc) and the guy was interested to use his Konica film dev machine to dev my 120 negs (for £3).... erm also he had bought a blad and I think he wanted to test the machine Laughing So it's worth trying out places in Oxford if interested.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some valuable information in here. I'm also looking into getting in 6x7 or 6x6 and have narrowed it down to a RB67 or a Bronica SQ. Now just need to decide which I want...


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just fitted a prism finder for my RB67 and initially couldn't find a way of holding the camera properly while operating the controls (small hands), so put a L grip on and now it's even heavier and bulkier (the CDs prism finder is very heavy and was surprised) Rolling Eyes



Last edited by Excalibur on Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:55 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aspen wrote:
Hi atomstitcher,
I like your thinking process Smile I would recommend looking at the Koni-Omega, also, if you are absolutely set on the 6x7 format. It might be the least expensive, but the quality is outstanding. Hopefully, without sounding discouraging to your goals, I would recommend shooting film in other formats, as well. The costs are so minimal, today, and the results, especially those that you seek, can be somewhat gained, even with 35mm. The "Film/Darkroom" section of the forum can guide you through the self-developing process. I mention this because I believe that you will want the control that DIY affords. It is easier than one may first imagine, and is very pleasurable, too. When you do get your desired camera there will be numerous choices for types of film (though less than there once were). From my understanding, there are very few commercial developers (anywhere) willing or able to process certain types of film. So, having, say, a Patterson Tank, some containers, a timer, and thermometer, a dark bag for loading film, and warm water, you'll never think again about having some stranger, much less paying some stranger, to process your images.
Good fortune to you. We all, here, will look forward to your attempts. And many here can answer any questions you have along the way. Very Happy

+1 and think about 6x4,5 less bulky , most people what I know not like 6x7 due bulky , heavy.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
aspen wrote:
Hi atomstitcher,
I like your thinking process Smile I would recommend looking at the Koni-Omega, also, if you are absolutely set on the 6x7 format. It might be the least expensive, but the quality is outstanding. Hopefully, without sounding discouraging to your goals, I would recommend shooting film in other formats, as well. The costs are so minimal, today, and the results, especially those that you seek, can be somewhat gained, even with 35mm. The "Film/Darkroom" section of the forum can guide you through the self-developing process. I mention this because I believe that you will want the control that DIY affords. It is easier than one may first imagine, and is very pleasurable, too. When you do get your desired camera there will be numerous choices for types of film (though less than there once were). From my understanding, there are very few commercial developers (anywhere) willing or able to process certain types of film. So, having, say, a Patterson Tank, some containers, a timer, and thermometer, a dark bag for loading film, and warm water, you'll never think again about having some stranger, much less paying some stranger, to process your images.
Good fortune to you. We all, here, will look forward to your attempts. And many here can answer any questions you have along the way. Very Happy

+1 and think about 6x4,5 less bulky , most people what I know not like 6x7 due bulky , heavy.


But part of the whole medium format experience are the quality right? Going 6x6/6x7 does have nicer IQ.

Also, would anyone know if it's possible to use RB67 lenses on RZ67 body's and the other way around? Do they use the same mount?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was at the Wolverhampton camera fair today and looked at some Mamiya and Pentax stuff. I wasn't too taken by the RB67s on offer (pretty beaten up) but there was a guy there with an RZ67 Pro II which I had a play with. It seems pretty nice, but I passed on it today as I thought I could get hold of one in better condition. He also had a Pentax 67II in very nice condition, which handled very well. Neither were as heavy as I was expecting (after all the gripes I've heard in that regard). I'm leaning more and more towards the RZ67 Pro II....


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RB's/RZ's are nice, good glass but very heavy.
I've owned them both.

I also had a Bronica GS-1 for many years. It was hand holdable and worked great for me. Maybe the lightest 6x7.
I agree 6x7 so much better than 6x4,5.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
were money not an issue, i'd consider the CV 670iii, a new fixed lens folder that can shoot 6x7 or 6x6. totally compact and from what ive seen fabulous results. seems like a $1500 investment though.
tony


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TijmenDal wrote:
....would anyone know if it's possible to use RB67 lenses on RZ67 body's and the other way around? Do they use the same mount?


IIRC you can use RB67 lenses on the RZ67 but not the other way round and if you use RB lenses on the RZ, you have no coupled metering.

@ atomstitcher: The RZ is a bit lighter than the RB but it needs a battery to function, unlike the RB which is all manual. Only battery needed for the RB is for the meter prism if it has one.

If you go RB, make sure the lenses function correctly on the 'T' setting - the shutter should remain open when fired until you either rotate the shutter speed ring or cock the lens, at which point it should then close.

Both the 50 and 65mm lenses have a manually set floating element - rotate the ring to correspond to the same distance as shown on the focus scale on the RHS front adjacent to the bellows otherwise the lens may appear soft.

Check the light-seals on the rotating adaptor as these rot and go gooey after a while - easy DIY fix if the case.

Another thing, the later Pro-SD backs were redesigned to not use foam light seals which eventually deteriorate and go gooey like the ones on the rotating adapter. These are better than the earlier backs.

Lenses were a 37mm fisheye, 50mm, 65mm, 90mm, 127mm, 140mm macro, 150mm soft-focus, 180mm, 250mm, 360mm and a 500mm. Divide the RB lens FL by 2 to get a rough idea of the FL in 35mm terms.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To try this I bought Pentax 6x7 MLU body, a Pentaprism Finder-Meter, a Folding Focusing Hood, and S-M-C Takumar lenses from 55mm-200mm. Engineering is great. Many were made. Proven over years as reliable performer. A few years ago so I didn't pay much, iirc around $1300US for all that. Very Happy I think I could repeat the buy for less now...

Bigger of course, the camera shape and mechanics is same as 35mm SLR. Estimate 2x as big as Canon 5D; 3x as heavy.

Camera is easy to use handheld, same as 35mm SLR, but over time gets heavy.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bob955i wrote:
TijmenDal wrote:
....would anyone know if it's possible to use RB67 lenses on RZ67 body's and the other way around? Do they use the same mount?


IIRC you can use RB67 lenses on the RZ67 but not the other way round and if you use RB lenses on the RZ, you have no coupled metering.

@ atomstitcher: The RZ is a bit lighter than the RB but it needs a battery to function, unlike the RB which is all manual. Only battery needed for the RB is for the meter prism if it has one.

If you go RB, make sure the lenses function correctly on the 'T' setting - the shutter should remain open when fired until you either rotate the shutter speed ring or cock the lens, at which point it should then close.

Both the 50 and 65mm lenses have a manually set floating element - rotate the ring to correspond to the same distance as shown on the focus scale on the RHS front adjacent to the bellows otherwise the lens may appear soft.

Check the light-seals on the rotating adaptor as these rot and go gooey after a while - easy DIY fix if the case.

Another thing, the later Pro-SD backs were redesigned to not use foam light seals which eventually deteriorate and go gooey like the ones on the rotating adapter. These are better than the earlier backs.

Lenses were a 37mm fisheye, 50mm, 65mm, 90mm, 127mm, 140mm macro, 150mm soft-focus, 180mm, 250mm, 360mm and a 500mm. Divide the RB lens FL by 2 to get a rough idea of the FL in 35mm terms.


That's some great info! Thanks!

How does RB glass compare to RZ glass in terms of optical quality? That's what it all comes down to for this bum. I would much rather invest in the cheaper, heavier, bulkier and more cumbersome system if the optical quality is the same or near the same. I don't have much money to throw around so...


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TijmenDal wrote:

But part of the whole medium format experience are the quality right? Going 6x6/6x7 does have nicer IQ.


This is not true , larger size can give your larger print possibility only. If you scan them and publish on web or make A4 print etc you will not see any quality difference only weight diffrence Laughing I did try numerous 6x4,5 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 stuff and certainly watch pictures too what I say come from experience.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I did muse briefly over the idea of 645, but really I want to get away from the ubiquitous 2:3 ratio. The extra negative size of 6x7 is just a bonus Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
TijmenDal wrote:

But part of the whole medium format experience are the quality right? Going 6x6/6x7 does have nicer IQ.


This is not true , larger size can give your larger print possibility only. If you scan them and publish on web or make A4 print etc you will not see any quality difference only weight diffrence Laughing I did try numerous 6x4,5 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 stuff and certainly watch pictures too what I say come from experience.



...but don't forget the enemy of film is dust spots etc and when doing your own printing (with enlarger) or scanning, a larger neg doesn't magnify nasty things on the neg so much compared to 35mm...for the same size print/screen Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You asked about developing/printing in the UK. I use "The Darkroom UK" which does excellent work. I pay for lo-res scans suitable for the web, and just do hi-res scans myself at work when I really need them. Another good company is Peak Imaging.

For both, you pay for what you get, i.e., they aren't cheap but they do an excellent job.

Personally, I have a hankering for a Pentax 67 but I cannot really afford it, especially as I keep buying lenses for my 35mm SLRs.

K.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love my Pentax 6X7 MLU. An amazing camera and, for now, still readily repairable if you get one that isn't fully working. It's not cheap. Here in AF an body along will run $500 to $1,200. I managed to find mine very cheap, with lenses, and in great working order, but I was lucky and used up years worth of camera-finding luck on it.

I'm very partial to Pentax anyway, but I will say that the lenses that came with my 6X7 are amazing. Also, I think it's got a great array of potential lenses. As a bonus, there are a LOT of Pentax 6X7 to other camera adapters, so you could probably find a 6X7 lens adapter for your DSLR. I'm not sure if that's the case for the Mamiyas (though I don't see why it wouldn't be.)

Also, the Pentax uses a 28A battery, which is also used in MANY medical devices. So the battery will likely be available for a long time to come.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ David:

Although the RB lenses have built-in shutters, I believe some hardy souls have DIY engineered adapters for them to fit other mounts but AFAIK there's no off the shelf adapter.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ womble: Yeah I'd heard Peak Imaging are very good. And also Metro Imaging. Thanks for the tips.

@ David: Yeah the Pentax looks nicer as a general walk around camera in terms of handling. I did bid on a couple on ebay but was outbid. The problem is many of them are overpriced (especially in the UK) and/or in beat up condition. The Mamiyas and their various accessories are more plentiful on the second hand market, so it seems like it would be easier to assemble a decent kit should one want to. Tbh, adapter capabilities for DSLRs is pretty far from my mind right now. The Pentax would certainly be no problem I imagine, but the Mamiya lenses would be; the adapter ring would either need a helicoid or bellows built into it to focus Laughing Also I imagine the only way you could take a picture would be to use bulb mode on the camera in conjunction with a cable release to fire the leaf shutter. Sounds like a pain.

I keep ping-ponging between the Pentax and the Mamiya, as they both have very tangible pros and cons. To make things worse, I'm also now considering the Fuji GX680 system (6x8 I know, but close enough). It looks like an enormous beast, but what a camera! I'm very into landscape photography, so it would be on a tripod for that anyway, and the lens movements are very intriguing. The prices on the old models are very reasonable too, not to mention the lenses. I guess not too many people want to cart around 5-6 kilos of camera Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No problem and thanks for acknowledging the contributions...

TijmenDal wrote:
bob955i wrote:
TijmenDal wrote:
....would anyone know if it's possible to use RB67 lenses on RZ67 body's and the other way around? Do they use the same mount?


IIRC you can use RB67 lenses on the RZ67 but not the other way round and if you use RB lenses on the RZ, you have no coupled metering.

@ atomstitcher: The RZ is a bit lighter than the RB but it needs a battery to function, unlike the RB which is all manual. Only battery needed for the RB is for the meter prism if it has one.

If you go RB, make sure the lenses function correctly on the 'T' setting - the shutter should remain open when fired until you either rotate the shutter speed ring or cock the lens, at which point it should then close.

Both the 50 and 65mm lenses have a manually set floating element - rotate the ring to correspond to the same distance as shown on the focus scale on the RHS front adjacent to the bellows otherwise the lens may appear soft.

Check the light-seals on the rotating adaptor as these rot and go gooey after a while - easy DIY fix if the case.

Another thing, the later Pro-SD backs were redesigned to not use foam light seals which eventually deteriorate and go gooey like the ones on the rotating adapter. These are better than the earlier backs.

Lenses were a 37mm fisheye, 50mm, 65mm, 90mm, 127mm, 140mm macro, 150mm soft-focus, 180mm, 250mm, 360mm and a 500mm. Divide the RB lens FL by 2 to get a rough idea of the FL in 35mm terms.


That's some great info! Thanks!....


PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Considering getting a 6x7 SLR Reply with quote
atomstitcher wrote:
Lately I've been hankering to try out MF film photography. I've only shot digital before, and currently use a D300s with primes. My motivation is that there's something unique about the tonality and colour of film which is hard to replicate with digital, and also the DOF characteristics of MF are very different to 35mm/APSC. I also like the idea of the discipline necessary with film (no. of shots, exposure etc), and think this will help me to hone my skills more generally.


I had a similar idea a while back and bought an RB67, which was dead cheap. Viz:


That was shot with Fuji Velvia, 90mm f/3.8 wide open, polarising filter, scanned with an Epson V500. The big problem is that the RB67's lenses are relatively slow, which means that the depth-of-field isn't vastly different from 35mm. According to Cambridge in Colour's handy calculator that 90mm f/3.8 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm f/1.8 in 35mm terms, albeit that you can use the RB67's lenses wide open. The effect is subtle:



The Pentax 6x7 system has a wonderful 105mm f/2.4, but it's relatively dear and the camera body itself is less versatile (e.g. there are more and cheaper Polaroid backs for the RB67, all lenses flash sync at all speeds). Here's a shot I took with a cheap Polaroid back for my RB67, using Fuji FP100C:


I send the films off to Peak Imaging, who so far haven't torn or scratched or destroyed them. They do cross-processing, e.g. this shot with a 6x6 Yashica Mat, Fuji Provia 100 (which goes a bit green when you cross-process it, and the edges glow, but otherwise not much happens):


People big up the Mamiya 6x7 rangefinders. I'm unconvinced that they're worth the money. Except as short to medium term investments. In fact I'm in two minds as to whether 6x7 makes any sense or not. If you just happen to have a really good expensive film scanner in a cupboard somewhere, go for it. Otherwise you'll be using a flatbed, and the resolution and overall sharpness you get from a flatbed isn't all that hot. I'd be temped to recommend that you get a 6x6 TLR instead, but TLRs make it hard to use a polarising filter and very hard to use grads. On the other hand you get two more shots than with 6x7, and once the novelty wears off you won't be too much out of pocket. Furthermore girls love TLRs. They won't care about an RB67, it's fat and ugly. Girls love TLRs. And the discipline of only having twelve shots is very bracing. You have to get it right first time. And you can't hide behind extreme wide angle or really shallow depth of field with an 80mm f/3.5 or f/2.8. The focal length forces you to at least think a little bit. And you can be incredibly self-righteous and pompous to other photographers, because you're now a warrior monk.

In my experience there's nothing particularly special about the tonality of film. The beautiful film shots you see on the internet were all heavily processed; the photographers like you to imagine that the images came out of the camera looking just like that - 'cause they're just naturally brilliant photographers - but they didn't, they took a lot of work.


The difference between 6x6 and 6x7 is either insignificant (if you don't plan on cropping) or handy (if you do). One issue with 6x7 is that people know and understand that 6x6 is medium format; if you're exhibiting prints, the average joe is more likely to ooh and aah over a 6x6 image because it's a proper photograph. With 6x7 they'll just think you used a digital camera.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I dunno about the tonality of film, I've had a few film shoots come out with tonality I couldn't easily replicate digitally, I think it's largely dependent on the light, in good light with a good film, you can get some very nice tonality. Of course, development is a large part too and matching the film to the developer is important, I had results with poor tonality with some film/dev combos then discovered much nicer tonality by simply changing the dev I used.

I really like the Efke orthochromatic films, they give tonality that is very pleasing to me and quite difficult to emulate digitally.

I do like TLRs too, but my preference is a good folder with rf such as the 524/16 Ikonta-M or Bessa rf with a Skopar, more portable and I just love RFs.

Ikonta-M, Ilford XP2: (this proves people worry too much about lens design, number of elements etc, the lens is a humble Novar-Anastigmat triplet but it's bitingly sharp)



Bessa RF with Skopar, Ilford FP4:



I have to confess to have digitally processed those a little.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1