[SeanGalbraith]

I recently upgraded to the 645Z from the 645N. I have used a lot of medium format film cameras and far and away my favourite was the 645N. LOVE it. And forward compatibility to the digital system is a huge benefit.

[ChrisPlatt]

IMO 645 SLRs have the advantage of the native landscape orientation, like a 35mm camera.
I had trouble getting used to the native portrait orientation of some other types of 645 cameras.
I probably should shoot more verticals but I'd prefer not to be forced to.

TLRs and other 6x6 cameras never require you to hold the camera in a more awkward way.
Composing for the square is different from the rectangle, and is a skill that must be learned.

Chris

[redrockcoulee]

I used a Rolleichord as my medium format camera until I had a job that had a Hasselblad no longer being used due to the shop having gone digital. I slowly built up my Hasselblad system and now it is by far my favourite camera or system. A friend and co-worker had trouble learning to see with a Rolleiflex and occasionally uses that Hasselblad but still shots mostly his Nikon. I was given a 35mm rangefinder which I gave to him as I could not see myself using it ever. I had the opportunity to buy a Bronica 67 system and tried it out but as I love the square format I could not see ever needed that camera. I have also used a Mamiya 645 which I really liked.

Unlike 35mm, medium format comes in many aspect ratios, including 6X8, 6X12 and even 6X17 and in TLR, SLR and rangefinders. I do not have a camera suggestion for you as what I like others do not and what works for some will not for me. If you want something reality fast and handheld I would look at the 645 systems, if you want to try something good but inexpensive try a decent TLR. I plan on using my more again for times I do not want to take a system with me or I will be shooting a different format but might want a square format camera with me. Hasselblads and most of the 66 and 67 cameras often are used on a tripod and if that is the style of shooting you are envisioning that would be a way to go. The Fuji GX680 is good if you want to go camping inside your camera as it huge and heavy. The 69s seem to be mostly rangefinders so again made for shooting on the go as are the 645 rangefinders. For traveling the Mamiya 6 or 7 seem perfect in every aspect but their price.

I am glad I had the opportunity to get the Rolleichord as even though I did not shoot that much with it compared to 35mm at the time I gained an appreciation for the square format and now that my subject choices have changed medium format seems perfect for me. Try a TLR but avoid the real crappy ones like a Lubitel or Seagull as for the same price a "real" camera can be had.

[jtkratzer]

I used a Rolleichord as my medium format camera until I had a job that had a Hasselblad no longer being used due to the shop having gone digital. I slowly built up my Hasselblad system and now it is by far my favourite camera or system. A friend and co-worker had trouble learning to see with a Rolleiflex and occasionally uses that Hasselblad but still shots mostly his Nikon. I was given a 35mm rangefinder which I gave to him as I could not see myself using it ever. I had the opportunity to buy a Bronica 67 system and tried it out but as I love the square format I could not see ever needed that camera. I have also used a Mamiya 645 which I really liked.

Unlike 35mm, medium format comes in many aspect ratios, including 6X8, 6X12 and even 6X17 and in TLR, SLR and rangefinders. I do not have a camera suggestion for you as what I like others do not and what works for some will not for me. If you want something reality fast and handheld I would look at the 645 systems, if you want to try something good but inexpensive try a decent TLR. I plan on using my more again for times I do not want to take a system with me or I will be shooting a different format but might want a square format camera with me. Hasselblads and most of the 66 and 67 cameras often are used on a tripod and if that is the style of shooting you are envisioning that would be a way to go. The Fuji GX680 is good if you want to go camping inside your camera as it huge and heavy. The 69s seem to be mostly rangefinders so again made for shooting on the go as are the 645 rangefinders. For traveling the Mamiya 6 or 7 seem perfect in every aspect but their price.

I am glad I had the opportunity to get the Rolleichord as even though I did not shoot that much with it compared to 35mm at the time I gained an appreciation for the square format and now that my subject choices have changed medium format seems perfect for me. Try a TLR but avoid the real crappy ones like a Lubitel or Seagull as for the same price a "real" camera can be had.

Good read, thanks. What's your subject of choice that really fits the square format?

[redrockcoulee]

Good read, thanks. What's your subject of choice that really fits the square format?

What some have called intimate landscapes, by that I mean capturing only a small part of the landscape. Other subjects are minimalism, many industrial facilities and abstractions in the landscape. One thing a find in the square format is that it does not matter at all if the horizon is dead centre, in fact it is probably the only aspect ratio that this is true. I am no longer shooting much in the way of sports or wildlife and those subjects usually work better in a non square ratio.

[Silent Street]

Composing for the square is different from the rectangle, and is a skill that must be learned

A critically important point to note. It's one good reason people angle madly, deeply for a Hassie, play around with it, then deride it for the "stupid square format", because they (and only themselves, never the camera) could not be bothered taking themselves to task with the skills required to 'fit' and 'place' elements of the landscape in 'the box'.

[mattb123]

A critically important point to note. It's one good reason people angle madly, deeply for a Hassie, play around with it, then deride it for the "stupid square format", because they (and only themselves, never the camera) could not be bothered taking themselves to task with the skills required to 'fit' and 'place' elements of the landscape in 'the box'.

Maybe it will catch on more now that we have Instagram?

[jtkratzer]

A critically important point to note. It's one good reason people angle madly, deeply for a Hassie, play around with it, then deride it for the "stupid square format", because they (and only themselves, never the camera) could not be bothered taking themselves to task with the skills required to 'fit' and 'place' elements of the landscape in 'the box'.

Hence the desire to try something decent, but not $1,200-$1,500 worth of Hassey stuff to get started. I think the square format is interesting, but I think I'd rather start rectangular.

[ChrisPlatt]

The square is lovely and well worth trying, but indeed it is not for everyone.

A waist level finder works very well with 6x6 cameras; it is a large palette on which to compose.
For candid photos, that person peering down somehow often doesn't register as a photographer.
Bear in mind that the image is reversed, which takes some getting used to.

I remember my friend Bob Hickey was heartbroken when finances forced him to sell his Hasselblad.
Fortunately he kept the Rolleiflex - his "cold, dead hands" camera - with which he did some of his best work.

If the square intrigues you there are plenty of inexpensive TLRs available.
Spend a few dollars more and get one that has been fully tested and serviced if necessary.

Does Eric Hendrickson still service the Pentax 645 series of film bodies?
If so for me that would be a strong factor in favor of choosing a Pentax.

Chris

[photodesignch]

The square is lovely and well worth trying, but indeed it is not for everyone.

A waist level finder works very well with 6x6 cameras; it is a large palette on which to compose.
For candid photos, that person peering down somehow often doesn't register as a photographer.
Bear in mind that the image is reversed, which takes some getting used to.

I remember my friend Bob Hickey was heartbroken when finances forced him to sell his Hasselblad.
Fortunately he kept the Rolleiflex - his "cold, dead hands" camera - with which he did some of his best work.

If the square intrigues you there are plenty of inexpensive TLRs available.
Spend a few dollars more and get one that has been fully tested and serviced if necessary.

Does Eric Hendrickson still service the Pentax 645 series of film bodies?
If so for me that would be a strong factor in favor of choosing a Pentax.

Chris

You have to ask Eric himself. Actually as far as I know of, he only serves 35mm SLRs. On the other hand, I have Pentax645 and I've seen plenty of 67 lying around. Actually you will be surprised how much well built these 645s. They hardly have any problems. I have had problems on my P3n, MZ-3, LX.. but never had issues on 645. They are just that much more well built. I haven't heard of any 645 went into service for mirror lockup or misaligned. I have not heard of metering is off.... (Although purchasing old machine, you should at least run a roll of film to test). I purchased my 645n from Japan, and the viewfinder looks just like new. They aren't as dirty as hassy (I think it's the design?), viewfinder is bright even without hacking the focus glass. viewfinder glass were coated into purple color just LX! I've heard of Leica, Pentax 135 SLR, Hassy went back to service. for P67 and P645 it's nearly unheard of. It's like they never break down or anything like that. But a good CLA would be awesome! If Eric isn't taking 645s, then I am not sure who else in the world would though.

[redrockcoulee]

Hence the desire to try something decent, but not $1,200-$1,500 worth of Hassey stuff to get started. I think the square format is interesting, but I think I'd rather start rectangular.

If that is the case you might want to look at the Bronica GSI which is a nice 67 system that is very cheap or one of their 645 systems that I am not as aware of. Or any of the other 645 systems. I tried out the GS1 for a person who wanted to sell it and the system worked great, the price was great but it was too much like my Hasselblad and yet the images were not square. A camera and a couple of lenses and a prism finder should be less expensive than a Rolleiflex and not much more than a Rolleichord.

[jtkratzer]

Found a semi-local Pentax 645 for sale and thought it was a good deal, but rereading the ad, it's not the N model. Autofocus isn't a priority, but certainly a nice to have since I plan on keeping whatever I get here unless I using it. I don't expect to be using it for snapshots, but with kids, AF can be a help.

[bobbotron]

If you're going to go for it, go all in and get a 6x7 beast like the Pentax 67, Mamiya RB67 or Mamiya RZ67. They are slow, force you to think and will reward with really interesting photos.

[mattb123]

Found a semi-local Pentax 645 for sale and thought it was a good deal, but rereading the ad, it's not the N model. Autofocus isn't a priority, but certainly a nice to have since I plan on keeping whatever I get here unless I using it. I don't expect to be using it for snapshots, but with kids, AF can be a help.

Yeah the N is nicer but it will cost you. The original is still a fine camera IMO just maybe not for sports or BIF.

[ChrisPlatt]

I owned the original model Pentax 645. The control interface was awful.
The 645N and 645NII returned the shutter speed dial to its rightful place.

Chris