Fuji GF670W: For landscapes(6x7 and 6x6).
RB/RZ 67: For Portraits(May be you don't need too many lenses for this).
Otherwise, just one TLR for everything.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Agfa Isolette III: Amazingly simple, yet it produces outstanding negatives.
Yes, the cameras and lenses are both smaller and lighter. My Hasselblad feels like a feather compared to the RZ67 that I used to own. It's also much smaller.
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
I used to own an RZ67 with three lenses (50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm). Put them all together in a back pack and you can compare the bulk and weight to my Wehman 8x10 kit.
You really need to handle some of these cameras before you buy if that's possible.
A hasselblad 3 lens kit is very similar in weight to a p67 3 lens kit. Wide normal tele, and wlf.
The p67 is just slightly heavier.
I just weighed my blad body with waist level finder and film back. My postage scale says 2lbs 3oz.
Originally Posted by cjbecker
I quickly looked on the web and it was said that the Pentax body weighed 4lbs for the earlier model but the latest model Pentax ll weighed in at 2.7 lbs. My scale is good but I don't know how accurate the Pentax information is.
I'm biased towards the Mamiya RZ67 with the 50mm f/4.5 ULD for landscapes. The 50mm is the best lens I've had a chance to use.
Other than that I would consider the Pentax 67, Mamiya 7, even a Hasselblad 5XX would be nice.
You could try out the Graflex-Norita/Norita 66, Exakta 67, Pentacon Six, etc.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If you dont mind respooling 120 onto a 620 spool, a Kodak Tourist is probably the hot ticket. They are light weight, fold down to fit in a jacket pocket, shoot a 6x9 negative, and the lenses are pretty danged good. They can also be modified to accept 120 on the feed side, no need to open up the take-up side. Example:http://www.apug.org/forums/members/r...olymax-rc.html
BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"
Got a M7II for sale....
...besides that shameless plug, I think there's a lot of good suggestions here. I'm a recovering landscape photographer and went through a lot of MF cameras before settling happily on the M7ii, but now want to continue my LF work. Anyways, the Fuji GF670 would be my personal next choice because it's practically pocket-able. Next would be a LF or mini-LF rig with a changing back. The 6x9 is so lovely to work with...
Maybe so, but both 150mm and 50mm will be 2lbs each.
Originally Posted by Alan Gales
Folders are some serious fun, but as MF cameras go they aren't that good at technical image quality. Especially in the larger formats, they tend to have concerns about film flatness, rigidity, and rangefinder alignment (those that have rangefinders at all), and very few of them have *really* superb lenses in the same class as the best MF system cameras or TLRs. (I've got a Bergheil with a Heliar that's truly scary-sharp---my Rolleiflex gets jealous of it---but I couldn't afford that camera if I hadn't inherited it. Normally a Tessar-type lens is about as good as folders get.)
Don't get me wrong, I love folders and I think every photographer ought to have a few---but comparing them to Mamiyae and Pentaxen isn't really apples-to-apples.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Man, there are so many options it's making my head spin just trying to make sense of it all. Maybe I am looking at this from the wrong angle, and the weight or bulk doesn't matter all the much if it's a relative thing. I'm kind of a nut in that I will put up with a bit of "discomfort" or "misery" packing the kit around if it will give me exactly what I want.
With respect to landscapes, almost everything in the frame is in focus, and I routinely shot between f5.6 and f11 on my Minolta lenses. Would this translate to about f11 to f16 or so on a MF lens? This would probably give decent depth of field for those kind of shots, but . . .
. . . what if I'm taking a nature shot of a flower or a particular feature in the landscape and I want some blurred areas in the background. How do these different brands of lenses fare when we start considering that? Or is it a particular look to certain lenses and not necessarily an entire manufacturer's lineup?
I liked the Minolta lenses I had, especially the manual focus Rokkors with my XD-11 years ago, for the nice bokeh and smoothness to the out of focus areas of the shot. I actually do not care as much for some of the more recent Zeiss and Nikon lenses in 35mm format because although they are razor sharp, and use a lot of micro contrast to do it, the out of focus areas do not have that creamy / perfect blur look going on that I like so much. They make for some "harsh" areas in the photo.
So out of all these suggestions, does that line of thinking make any of the recommendations stronger or weaker? Maybe I'm just way out of my league here...and don't know what I'm talking about or if it even applies to MF like it did to 35mm work?
Thanks so much for sharing all your info!