Medium format ... which one?

[rakeshmravi]

I suppose you want to focus mostly on the landscape work. In that case, I would not use 645. Carrying the slight extra weight is not an issue when you consider the whole package you might end up carrying anyway.

Personally, I prefer the 6x7 format.

I would go with good RB67 and focus on spending the rest on good lenses.

[Eralen]

No comments on the bronica SQ series? (currently looking at SQ-A) I'd also like to shoot 6x6, and upon research I see that 6x6 backs are not made for the RB67. The square format really somehow appeals to me, its very unique and strange to see a square negative. Is the 6x6 format all hype? Is the 6x7 format more useful/versatile?

[OddE]

Is the 6x6 format all hype? Is the 6x7 format more useful/versatile?

-Time for my favourite answer: That depends.

I've shot 6x6 and 6x7 in MF, and personally, I find 6x6 to be the most versatile. (I may have been of another opinion if the alternative was 6x8 or 6x9 - 6x7, to my eyes, anyway - is not rectangular enough to really make a strong case for a composition being shot either vertically or horizontally. Thus, I get distracted when trying to figure out whether I'd get a stronger composition by tilting the camera 90 degrees.

Looking through a square finder (or at a ground glass, or whatever) on the other hand, I'm free to consider whether, in that particular case, I would be best served by cropping to horizontal or vertical afterwards - or go for a square print. The negative will be the same anyway, the camera orientation is the same - there's simply less decisions to make.

So - it can be argued that I find 6x6 to be the most versatile in that it takes one item out of my (easily distractable...) thought process whenever I'm trying to figure out how to shoot something. Your mileage may vary.

[Marvin]

+3 for the Bronica ETRSi.

[Poisson Du Jour]

The 6x7 format is described as the 'ideal format' with no cropping necessary for enlargements to common paper sizes; by comparison, a bit of material waste with the 6x6 format when enlarging. The 6x6 format certainly appeals to me but I only set my Zero Image pinhole camera to that format. Romance of any specific format aside, you use what is appropriate for the style and type of photography that should click naturally with you (not others!). Your smallish budget will I think severely limit the choices available to you: I would consider holding out to release more funds to build it up, maybe to double the amount. I am not a fan of heavily used ex-pro gear and would seriously consider looking at well-looked after, near-new or mint condition equipment.

[DWThomas]

No comments on the bronica SQ series? (currently looking at SQ-A) I'd also like to shoot 6x6, and upon research I see that 6x6 backs are not made for the RB67. The square format really somehow appeals to me, its very unique and strange to see a square negative. Is the 6x6 format all hype? Is the 6x7 format more useful/versatile?

The SQ-A is my "most serious" camera for film based "art photography." I like it. I had a problem early on with bad indexing in a back, although that showed up immediately and I returned it. I also had some mysterious jam of shutter linkage in a body, corrected by replacing the body for -- like -- $90. The back/magazine is known for plastic foam light seals getting goopy with age, but that is fixable as a DYI project. I've had mine for nearly six years now and quite like it.

For less bulk and quieter operation I occasionally turn to a Perkeo II with 80mm f3.5 Color Skopar, a 6x6 folder. The lens is not as sharp as the Bronica, especially at the corners, but is still quite respectable. (And then there's the Ercona II 6x9 folder and the Yashica Mat 124G and ...... Hel-l-lp! )

DaveT

[BrianL]

50-50% I'd vote for a 6x6. That way no issue with flipping the camera and possibly losing what you may want. As a starter, rather than a Yashicamat, I'd suggest the Rolleiflex T series. Between the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord in placement, basically a 'flex without the threading mechanism. 1st class lens, light and robust. It uses a coupled E-V shutter that can be used as such or the shutter and aperature set separately. Mine has a removable finder so you could put on the Porrofinder if you want. A huge lineup of accessories based on Bay I that are very reasonably priced.

I also agree with the Bronica ETRS series, my main system if you need the versatility but, as I am getting older, the T is making more sense and I am finding it does everything the ETRS can do in general shooting except change lenses but, years ago I learned to use my feet rather than have a bag of lenses. The Bronica for me is one of the best system cameras in concept and execution. A real workhorse as so many wedding photographers discovered.

[filmamigo]

+4 Bronica ETR/Si.

I echo everyone else, and add that having flash sync up to full speed (1/500 sec) is great for fill flash portrait work. I also really like having electronic shutters in the lenses. They stay accurate, and they don't bounce like a focal-plane shutter.