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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
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).
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.