Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,146   Online: 833
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
  1. #11
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by mikebarger View Post
    It sounds like you're looking for a 6x7, not a 645 or 6x6. So keeping with your request, I'd look at a Koni Omega. They are a dirt cheap 6x7 rangefinder with excellent quality glass. I bought one to carry in the pickup for less than $100, and a nicer one for about $125 both came with a lens. One even came with a 220 back in addition to the 120 back.

    Good luck with you search.


    Mike
    I have no idea about the quality of the photos from MF yet and only presumed that higher the film area, better is for the detail(using good lens).
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ajman - U.A.E.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    951
    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    I have no idea about the quality of the photos from MF yet and only presumed that higher the film area, better is for the detail(using good lens).
    I don't know why, but i tend to believe that 100%.
    I have shooting with 6x6 up to 6x9 MF, the shots out of 6x9 and 6x7 are always sharper than shots out of 6x6 camera, even using same film and same developer, even using the sharpest lens for 6x6 still i see it less quality or sharpness than my 6x7/6x9 shots, i just scan and didn't print to judge, but i remember i printed one shot from 6x7 neg, was tack sharp, but i can't say that on this forum because i am worry many will come and say that they can get sharper and better quality with 6x4.5 than 6x7 or 6x9.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,920
    Let's take some extreme examples.... 35mm film and 8x10 film. Let's say you'll be enlarging it to 8x10 print size.

    If you have a 35mm film, your short side of film is 24mm wide which is a little less than an inch. To make an 8x10 print, that side will have to be magnified 8 times and some to make it 8 inches wide. Image with detail will have to be magnified that much as well. A given film can have so much detail. If you try to magnify it far, it will not have sufficient details.

    If you have an 8x10 film, well, it's a 1:1 magnification (no magnification). All the details that are in the film will be transferred to the print with no magnifications. You'll have no problems with magnifications and not having enough details.

    My experience is that 35mm is sufficient for 8x10 print size. I've been amazed how well it works for 11x14 recently. Beyond that, I haven't tried. 645 has been great but in terms of increased details, not so much so over 35mm. It's better, yes, absolutely, but now the WOW kind of difference. It kind of shows how far 35mm technology has come. To me, the benefit of medium format film is ease of handling and ease of viewing contact sheets. That alone is worth the trouble for me.

    For OP, I don't know what you are after.... what's the practical size you'll print for now and in near future? Are you capable of (equipment wise) handling large film size??
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #14
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,399
    More importantly, what do you want to make pictures of? An 8x10 camera can potentially blow away 35mm or 120 print quality-wise, but not if you can't get the shot.

  5. #15
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    Let's take some extreme examples.... 35mm film and 8x10 film. Let's say you'll be enlarging it to 8x10 print size.

    If you have a 35mm film, your short side of film is 24mm wide which is a little less than an inch. To make an 8x10 print, that side will have to be magnified 8 times and some to make it 8 inches wide. Image with detail will have to be magnified that much as well. A given film can have so much detail. If you try to magnify it far, it will not have sufficient details.

    If you have an 8x10 film, well, it's a 1:1 magnification (no magnification). All the details that are in the film will be transferred to the print with no magnifications. You'll have no problems with magnifications and not having enough details.

    My experience is that 35mm is sufficient for 8x10 print size. I've been amazed how well it works for 11x14 recently. Beyond that, I haven't tried. 645 has been great but in terms of increased details, not so much so over 35mm. It's better, yes, absolutely, but now the WOW kind of difference. It kind of shows how far 35mm technology has come. To me, the benefit of medium format film is ease of handling and ease of viewing contact sheets. That alone is worth the trouble for me.

    For OP, I don't know what you are after.... what's the practical size you'll print for now and in near future? Are you capable of (equipment wise) handling large film size??
    My age counts from 1979, so it is not a big problem to carry heavy equipment. ;-)

    I do not know the size of the prints yet, if shots came good then I can decide.

    I tending towards RB67(mechanical ones) for portrait shots(nice lens with soft bokeh).
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  6. #16
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Dead cheap would be a 6x9 Brownie or something of the like. They are often only 5 bucks, if not free. The problem is that if you are looking to see what kind of technical quality you can get from medium format, these are poor examples. They are really fun cameras, and can make very nice images. But they are not necessarily the acme of medium format technical quality. You will actually get sharper prints from 35mm in almost every case. If I wanted to dabble to see what medium format is capable of technically speaking, I might save a bit longer and get a low-end Yashica TLR instead of going for dead cheap right now.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    For a folder look at the Ensign Selfix models, very under-appreciated folding 120 format cameras in 6x6, 6x9 and some models were interchangeable between the two formats. The 820 Autorange Special is the top-end of the range, but you can pick up a usable 420, 16-20 or Ranger for under £20.

  8. #18
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    The RB67 is a great camera. I even hand hold mine. It is quite cheap too, but bulky and loud. When I want something smaller and quieter I take my 6x6 TLR or 6x9 folder which cost me $6.50
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  9. #19
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    547
    While I was working for a newspaper, I took a part time job shooting weddings for a portrait studio. At the newspaper I used high quality Nikon 35mm lenses. At the portrait studio, I was given a medium-priced twin-lens Yashica 6x6cm (called 2 ¼ square at the time) to shoot the weddings. I was amazed by the higher image quality of the larger format.

    I later purchased my own 6x6 camera (Mamiya C3) and have been using medium format (and 35mm) ever since.

  10. #20
    photoncatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    173
    Another vote for the Koni-Omegas. Rock solid camera, great glass, and the film advance sounds like you're charging a semi auto fire arm. They're also the 6x7 format (which I prefer), and relatively light weight when compared to my RB67.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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