Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,872   Posts: 1,583,465   Online: 1119
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,554
    Dave, what you say about the Bronica is true, i.e., good camera.

    But I fear that calling it vintage is a stretch. My memory is failing, but IIRC it was still in production ten years ago.

    Also, and here I'm committing the sin of thinking for the OP, to my eye 6x4.5 isn't that much larger than 35 mm. I know that many people are delighted with 6x4.5, but I've never seen it. I still remember seeing one of my friends who loved his Pentax 645 deflate visibly on seeing some some of my 6x9 trannies shot with a 2x3 Graphic. But then, 645 is half frame 6x9. No need to tell me that 6x9 trannies look pretty punk next to 4x5s, I already know that.

    A. A. Blaker, whom I respect highly, wrote in his book Field Photography that the gain in the quality of the final print from moving up in format wasn't worth the trouble unless the larger format was at least twice as large as the smaller on both dimensions. Whence the next format up from 24x36 ought to be 48x72, i.e., nominal 6x7. Not everyone agrees.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  2. #12
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,718
    Images
    20
    Agreed Dan, I noted it was not "vintage". I got the camera for street photography and for its vertical orientation for street and informal portraits. I was quite surprised at the quality from these lenses, I also use the RB 67 and agree there is an appreciable difference in the neg size....I do see a great difference in comparison of 645 to 35 mm. I am not sure how many years the RF 645 was in production? Or how many were produced? The lenses are f/4. Interestingly enough I checked the bay today as I havent seen these cameras in quite awhile. I can no longer afford even a used one. For some reason the prices on the used marked are unreasonably high? I have been in the market for a second body for quite some time., sorry off topic and rambling. cheers.
    Last edited by Dave Wooten; 07-10-2008 at 06:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    [FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT]

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    . . .Also, and here I'm committing the sin of thinking for the OP, to my eye 6x4.5 isn't that much larger than 35 mm. I know that many people are delighted with 6x4.5, but I've never seen it. I still remember seeing one of my friends who loved his Pentax 645 deflate visibly on seeing some some of my 6x9 trannies shot with a 2x3 Graphic. But then, 645 is half frame 6x9. No need to tell me that 6x9 trannies look pretty punk next to 4x5s, I already know that.

    A. A. Blaker, whom I respect highly, wrote in his book Field Photography that the gain in the quality of the final print from moving up in format wasn't worth the trouble unless the larger format was at least twice as large as the smaller on both dimensions. Whence the next format up from 24x36 ought to be 48x72, i.e., nominal 6x7. Not everyone agrees.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    I see a huge difference between 35mm and 645 prints. The difference in area is about 2.7x, which is a bigger gain than going from 645 to 6x9. Still, nothing can beat large format.

  4. #14
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    The Medalist is over 3# (has a cast metal body).

    The 120-620 re-roll is the simplest way.

    I believe there are 2 or 3 places/people that offer a 'half-conversion', which allows a 120 roll to fit on the feed side, and one still uses a 620 spool for winding onto. You have to remember to get it back if you have a lab do processing.

    Bald Mountain/Ken Ruth is the only source (I know of) of a 'both sides' (feed and take-up) conversion service but it is very labor intensive and thus costly. It is much more invasive than the 120-only conversion.

    If you ride the tide of varying eBay prices, a 6x9 sheet film back is occasionally available. I found one, very mildewed, and left it on the roof of my car one afternoon to get some sun (in the hopes it would kill the mildew), forgot & it landed in the street.

    I was lucky & found a 2nd in excellent shape, minus the mildew. Someone must have felt sorry for me because the cost for both was still better than typical eBay prices.

    The filmholders are metal, single sided, and hard to find (especially if you don't know what they look like).

    I am shooting my first 2x3 sheet film with one this weekend (we'll see, it was my first time loading sheet film holders too).
    Murray

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,384
    Well, its not a rangefinder, but the Horseman Convertible is a compact 6x9 camera with a wide angle lens. There was just one on e-bay that did not sell.


  6. #16
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,381
    Images
    4
    Fuji 645 series.

    IMO, if you want a walk-around then a folder is the best choice. A Zeiss Nettar or Agfa/Ansco folder will both fit in your pocket and leave something in your pocketbook.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin