[photodesignch]

I think there is something to be said for a camera that lets me try the format vs a "dream" set up. Something about viewing the world through the waist-level is intriguing, but it's not a requirement. I place more emphasis on image quality over portability. Interchangeable film backs is a definite plus for that ideal set up, but isn't a requirement for my first MF camera. I'm also not dead set on AF or AE. I have and use a light meter regularly for 35mm, more than I use Av or any other auto exposure. I know Mamiya makes an aperture priority and AF version of the 645, but they start to get expensive in a hurry as do their RF variants. I could see myself ending up with several, the same way I have with 35mm bodies, although I could certainly thin that herd out, but those I'd be willing to part with likely aren't worth it to spend the time selling them.

I was in your shoe before that's why I suggested fuji GA series. they are the most compact RF MF around. Anything else would be much bigger. As for 645, I also vote for Pentax 645N series because in the world of 645, this is apparently the most affordable + one of the best image quality + automation. It's like using a MZ-3 (actually almost the same UI design), but larger. The most portable on this 645N setup would be the 75mm F2.8. If you want portrait lens but not too far out, you can do P67 105/2.4 convert to 645N without much of cost. And it's head to head to the twice if not triple expensive of Contax 645 setup.

GA series simply are automated point and shoot especially the ZI series. It has everything in it. However, due to the age, the film back with imprint LCD normally break at current stage. Flash might not popup.. other than that you shouldn't be having too much trouble to get one. they are fairly compact. I traveled with it for a while. The downside was the aperture of the lens. if you want larger aperture, you really have to go to the SLR route.

as for TLR, although they are fun, but don't expect much of automation there. Unless you are willing to spend A LOT of money. none of the TLR lens are convert-able, so you can't extend their lives into digital either. Mostly were old coating if that's your thing there.

cheapest would be the mamiya ETRS. Following would probably be Pentax67. But since I do like "METERING".. so I would say Pentax645 overcome most of other MF systems out there (at least in film era). Only downside is the film back.. you just can't switch in the mid roll.

I found that at short lens setup, you will probably think Pentax 75mm F2.8 or Hasselblad Carl Zeiss 80mm F2.8 would be the shortest in the MF SLR world. they are quite short. They are just "WIDE"...

[ChrisPlatt]

What didn't you like about it? Is it more complicated than shooting 35mm to get your desired exposure?

Using my manual focus medium format cameras many of my "misses" were DOF and focus related.
Note that with the larger negative at any given aperture apparent depth of field is reduced.
You must use a smaller aperture than you would with 35mm. Focus becomes more critical.

I suppose my biggest complaints were my MF cameras relative lack of ease of use and speed of handling.
Some medium format cameras handle better than others, but none approaches that of a good 35mm camera.

Chris

[Dukeatoakland]

I bought a Kodak Sr. Six-20 for a few bucks last christmas. It was meant to be a desk decoration. To my surprise, it worked. When I saw and handled, the 6x9 negative.......wow! They look amazing and are easy to handle and scan. I have a 6x7 mlu now. I still shoot the kodak from time to time. As mentioned by others, the fuji looks like a nice option. The GW690 looks very attractive.

As a bonus the old folder came with a roll of undeveloped film. Found in a Senior Six-20 | Flickr

[Winder]

I have shot with a Pentax 67II which I sold for a Contax 645. I sold the 645 3 years ago when my MF film scanner decided it was time to retire. I shot 90% B&W and developed the film myself and scanned the negatives. The new scanner was going to cost more than the camera was worth. The cost of paying someone to make prints for you or the space needed for a darkroom to print just makes it hard to justify.

My favorite is 6x6 and I love shooting with a Hassy 503CW. I love the look of larger formats, but I don't have the time or extra money to invest in that type of system.

[AquaDome]

The original Pentax 645 is one of the least expensive 645 cameras with interchangeable lenses, has auto-exposure and program mode if you want them, and the lenses are great.
Some older cameras require 620 film instead of 120, so rolling 120 film onto 620 spools is necessary. You don't have to get a "professional" camera to try out the larger negative (or positive - Velvia in 6x9 is truly awesome). The Agfa Clack will do 6x9 on 120 film for around $35.

[jtkratzer]

Having an AE option is nice. I recently picked up a Sekonic meter and have been using it for most of the frames on my last few rolls of 35mm. I'm interested to see how things turn out.

[Silent Street]

I'm constantly seeing articles and posts about medium format being "better" than 35mm, specifically film, for image quality, ability to go bigger with prints, and just having that extra "something" over 35mm

So there. You've just given yourself a few very good reasons!!

Yes, 6x7 is 400% bigger than 35mm, contrast is spread out over the larger area which means metering (e.g. handheld) is easier and more precise. But before I tell you to dump 35mm in favour of 6x7, don't. That's because I also use 35mm on odd occasions (and I started in 1977 with an Olympus OM10), just as a cheerful change from the pragmatic, methodic (and bloody heavy) handling the Pentax 67 and a multispot meter, which is to my everyday appearance what a stethoscope is to a doctor.

There is the widely held view that a photographer is first, well accomplished in 35mm, before jumping up to MF and (sometimes) abandoning the smaller format altogether. I partially subscribe to this (I spent decades in 35mm), but I never abandoned 35mm in preference of another format, no matter what friends and colleagues espoused: I did it my way. Spend time thoroughly mastering what you have and exploring all options, including the very best lenses (in 35mm) you can afford, the bigger enlargement you are comfortable with (35mm negatives enlarged to poster size still turn heads) and consider things like spontaneity, technology (often missing in the MF heavy-hitters) and ease of use. Not all MF cameras are easy to use, or for that matter, reliable. Do your research astutely, and that applies to the older Pentax 6x7 as well as the newer Pentax 67 cameras.

In hindsight, I think I would be broken-hearted to dispose of my 35mm kit, which I built up in 1994 with the EOS 1N (this camera is still in use, never serviced and always ready for an outing) and a swag of L-series lenses). I don't care how much WOW! factor the 6x7 view has, I still go back to my roots and enjoy it!

Camera body decided, move on to the next thing: your money should actually go toward quality lenses. The P67 and 645 formats each have their gold stallions; yes, you do pay a pretty penny for them (to the point where you live on a boiled egg and baked beans for a month), but the results will speak for themselves.

Re scanning. I do not believe, and never have believed, that desktop scanners deliver the very best out of MF images; there is a (slight) advantage in the art-form of wet scanning, but for the filthy, tedious effort involved, skip it. For the very best, get your pics drum-scanned and print big, bigger and bigger still.

[ChrisPlatt]

if you find a cheap dedicated film scanner for MF go for it or else don't bother.

This was truly a deal killer for me.
While there are many options in all price ranges for 35mm users there are no affordable dedicated medium format film scanners.
A flatbed scanner with film adapter is the only solution that won't cost a king's ransom, but it's surely something of a compromise.

Chris

[jtkratzer]

So there. You've just given yourself a few very good reasons!!

Yes, 6x7 is 400% bigger than 35mm, contrast is spread out over the larger area which means metering (e.g. handheld) is easier and more precise. But before I tell you to dump 35mm in favour of 6x7, don't. That's because I also use 35mm on odd occasions (and I started in 1977 with an Olympus OM10), just as a cheerful change from the pragmatic, methodic (and bloody heavy) handling the Pentax 67 and a multispot meter, which is to my everyday appearance what a stethoscope is to a doctor.

There is the widely held view that a photographer is first, well accomplished in 35mm, before jumping up to MF and (sometimes) abandoning the smaller format altogether. I partially subscribe to this (I spent decades in 35mm), but I never abandoned 35mm in preference of another format, no matter what friends and colleagues espoused: I did it my way. Spend time thoroughly mastering what you have and exploring all options, including the very best lenses (in 35mm) you can afford, the bigger enlargement you are comfortable with (35mm negatives enlarged to poster size still turn heads) and consider things like spontaneity, technology (often missing in the MF heavy-hitters) and ease of use. Not all MF cameras are easy to use, or for that matter, reliable. Do your research astutely, and that applies to the older Pentax 6x7 as well as the newer Pentax 67 cameras.

In hindsight, I think I would be broken-hearted to dispose of my 35mm kit, which I built up in 1994 with the EOS 1N (this camera is still in use, never serviced and always ready for an outing) and a swag of L-series lenses). I don't care how much WOW! factor the 6x7 view has, I still go back to my roots and enjoy it!

Camera body decided, move on to the next thing: your money should actually go toward quality lenses. The P67 and 645 formats each have their gold stallions; yes, you do pay a pretty penny for them (to the point where you live on a boiled egg and baked beans for a month), but the results will speak for themselves.

Re scanning. I do not believe, and never have believed, that desktop scanners deliver the very best out of MF images; there is a (slight) advantage in the art-form of wet scanning, but for the filthy, tedious effort involved, skip it. For the very best, get your pics drum-scanned and print big, bigger and bigger still.

I don't see myself ever giving up 35mm. The handling, speed, and portability are hard to beat. I have a few of the limited lenses, some of the highly desired K lenses, and between the LX and the ME Super I have, given to me by my in-laws, which they bought to take baby pictures of my wife, I have plenty of reasons to keep them and continue using them. My daughter is up and coming with photography and I look forward to many years together behind cameras. She's just getting started and I imagine I have a few years before worrying about MF for her.

[desertscape]

You mention that you use a hand held meter. That fact makes the use of the Pentax 67 more of a possibility. When you consider the weight of the TTL metering prism with its high density glass, subtracting that heavy piece from the camera, reduces its weight substantially. Using one of the non-prism finders (folding focusing hood or rigid magnifying hood) makes this camera more of a consideration from what you described above. Both non-prism finders are for waist level work.

[jtkratzer]

You mention that you use a hand held meter. That fact makes the use of the Pentax 67 more of a possibility. When you consider the weight of the TTL metering prism with its high density glass, subtracting that heavy piece from the camera, reduces its weight substantially. Using one of the non-prism finders (folding focusing hood or rigid magnifying hood) makes this camera more of a consideration from what you described above. Both non-prism finders are for waist level work.

I just bought the Sekonic 308 before trip to Morocco and it coincided with putting film in a camera for the first time in close to three years. I have several rolls to send out and see how they look using an incident meter, mostly for the shadows, compared to what I used to get. I would only really feel like I had to have some level of automation if I went with a system capable of autofocus. Otherwise, I don't mind using the handheld meter. We're supposed to get hammered tomorrow night through Tuesday with snow. Planning on shooting a couple rolls of B&W and then shipping these rolls to the lab.

[Kerrowdown]

or out of giving it a whirl

So go for it... is not want you want to hear.

[jtkratzer]

So go for it... is not want you want to hear.

I'm good with that. I've enjoyed the pros/cons and general feedback/considerations so far.

[gabriel_bc]

I've long had a soft spot for the original Mamiya M645. With the waist-level finder and an 80mm lens it fits in a TLZ bag like a large 35mm film SLR. There is also an 80mm f1.9 lens available for this camera which is the fastest MF lens made - I've had it in the past, and enjoyed using it. I also have a Mamiya C330 TLR but I've always preferred the 645 format to 66. If you'd like to start on the cheap, look for a Yashica TLR - the Yashica 12 (not the 124) sometimes goes for a song because folks look for the 124 or the 124G. The Yashica 635 is another option (so named because it came with a 35mm insert) as is the Yashica D (the later one with the Yashinon 2.8/80 lens). These lesser-known cameras are often cheaper.

[jtkratzer]

I have catalogs from 1987, 1989, and 1991 from a large camera shop in Southern California. Interesting to see these recommended camera models advertised new, and the price tags that came with them.