[timw4mail]

Despite its "second-world" status, I'm liking the Kiev 6-C, which is basically the Soviet 6x6 equivalent to the Pentax 6x7. The lenses are still more expensive than 35mm, but relatively speaking, they are fairly inexpensive.

[texandrews]

This is very good succinct synopsis.

Pro stuff has always been expensive.

Yes. And looking backwards with inflation correction doesn't truly account for how expensive it was then.

Lots of working pros used Hasselblads, but they weren’t as expensive relative to the competition as they later became. (Leica was the same way in 35mm.)

Very true.

and the Rolleiflex (which wasn’t versatile enough).

Although I had the privilege of knowing Constance Stuart Larrabee, and that was her tool of choice.

The fact that old medium format stuff is so cheap is simply supply and demand. There is little demand for film cameras and a vast supply of used stuff from when there was lots of demand. It certainly did not used to be cheap.

True again. And as an example, I bought a used Fuji GSW690II in about 1990/91, and it was still selling for what I paid for it, even adjusted for inflation, until about 2010.

Pentax’s current lenses targeted for the 645z are not that expensive.

Yes! Thank you. And the used and newly used ones are dirt cheap, comparatively speaking.

All digital camera prices collapse.

Yes, but some collapse worse than others, and it's slowing a bit. I don't feel like my Z's resale value has "collapsed"---it's held up slightly better than I'd hoped. Certainly it hasn't lost value like any of my other digital cameras did. I think now that a lot of performance has plateaued at a pretty high level, things may hold their value a bit better.

[rdenney]

Despite its "second-world" status, I'm liking the Kiev 6-C, which is basically the Soviet 6x6 equivalent to the Pentax 6x7. The lenses are still more expensive than 35mm, but relatively speaking, they are fairly inexpensive.

True. I have two Kiev 60’s, including an all-black MLU model from the last year of production. And an Arax-modified Kiev 88CM, an excellent Pentacon Six, and a supposedly even more excellent Exakta 66 Model III. Plus at least a dozen lenses in that mount from a fisheye to a 300mm f/4 Sonnar. They were great fun and they still are. But they never “just worked”. There was always something.

We bought a 645NII as a slightly used return, in about 2001, to use commercially. It came with a 45-85 FA lens, a 120 insert, and the AF500FTZ flash. We paid $4000 for that kit, and saved $500-1000 because it wasn’t officially new. That’s $5600 in today’s dollars—more than a used 645z with the same lens. And it “just works”.

I think I paid $1300 for a 6x7 MLU with meter prism and a 105/2.4 lens, used, in 2007, while in Fairbanks. It was pristine, but I still sent it to Eric for overhaul a few years ago. It always “just worked”. (I had taken the Exakta 66 on that same trip and got overlapped frames from the film slipping over the star wheel—a common problem. That was supposed to be the high-end camera for that mount.) That was $1300 for a 30-year-old camera, which doesn’t seem that cheap to me. They are less expensive now, of course.

Some cameras are inexpensive, and some are cheap.

Rick “67II’s are worth more than 6x7 non-MLU bodies for mostly the same reason 645z’s are worth more than 645D’s, age notwithstanding” Denney

[gofour3]

The Pentax 6x7 body and lens, in 2011 dollars, was about $10k—less than the current 645z. That’s why I did my commercial work in those days with a Mamiya C-3–I couldn’t afford Pentax stuff.

I bought my Pentax 6x7, 67 and 67ii all around that time. All were boxed and in mint condition and the most expensive was the 67ii at slightly over $1100.00 and that included the AE metered prism.
I also bought 16 6x7 lenses and everything in total cost less than 10k???

Phil.

[Scintilla]

I bought my Pentax 6x7, 67 and 67ii all around that time. All were boxed and in mint condition and the most expensive was the 67ii at slightly over $1100.00 and that included the AE metered prism.
I also bought 16 6x7 lenses and everything in total cost less than 10k???

I'm pretty sure what rdenney meant was that, if you bought the 6x7 plus lens when it was new (1969?), and then converted that price to 2011 dollars by adding 40 years' worth of inflation, it would come out to $10,000.

[rdenney]

I'm pretty sure what rdenney meant was that, if you bought the 6x7 plus lens when it was new (1969?), and then converted that price to 2011 dollars by adding 40 years' worth of inflation, it would come out to $10,000.

Yes, and I got that from a Ctein article on The Online Photographer. Ctein was an early adopter of the 6x7, having bought (new) the fifth one imported into the US.

At that time, I was using what was a dream camera for me, a Yashica Lynx 5000e 35mm fixed-lens rangefinder, for which I paid $50. It took me a few more years to move up to medium format, which I did with a Yashica 635. Then, when I started getting pay work, I bought a used Mamiya C-3. I remember seeing a pro making photos, using a 6x7 on about an 8’ tripod, of booths at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston in about 1975. There was never a time after that moment I didn’t want one. It was in those days hopelessly expensive relative to income. (I now make—on a regular salary—ten times what I made in 1981, and even that was after the most severe inflationary period of the last century. The original price of the 6x7 was before that period.)

Pro stuff has always been expensive. Ctein went further to assert that nothing from Hasselblad or Rollei (and he was looking at the beautiful SL66) could beat the Pentax for quality. Even then, the bigPentax was a good value, but it was still pro stuff.

Rick “who used to have old photo magazines for doing historical price research” Denney

---------- Post added 03-19-18 at 09:39 AM ----------

I bought my Pentax 6x7, 67 and 67ii all around that time. All were boxed and in mint condition and the most expensive was the 67ii at slightly over $1100.00 and that included the AE metered prism.

I also bought 16 6x7 lenses and everything in total cost less than 10k???



Phil.

It’s interesting to me that the going rates for 67II’s now seem much higher than what you paid.

I suspect the retail price for a new one in 2009, before they were officially discontinued, was rather more than what you paid, if you could have found one in stock to buy.

As mentioned above, the $10k number was the effect of inflation brought forward from 1969 to 2011, an analysis done by Ctein. Working backwards, the purchase price would have been about $1600 for the kit he described, in 1969, if he used the same inflation calculator I did. I remember looking at an ad for a Sinar F, the first year they came out (1972) which priced it (without lens) at $1200–the “budget” Sinar. That would be $7k now.

A 645z, at the recent discounted price of $5500, with a $4500 zoom lens, would now be $10k. Were the dollar worth now what it was in 1969, it would be $1500, cheaper than that original 6x7 kit. That doesn’t consider that the 645z comes with a lifetime supply of film

Rick “pro stuff, even Pentax pro stuff, has always been expensive” Denney

[gofour3]

I'm pretty sure what rdenney meant was that, if you bought the 6x7 plus lens when it was new (1969?), and then converted that price to 2011 dollars by adding 40 years' worth of inflation, it would come out to $10,000.

As mentioned above, the $10k number was the effect of inflation brought forward from 1969 to 2011,

Yes got it! I was wondering where you got 10k for a used 6x7.

Agreed all MF gear is expensive when it's new, the trick is to buy gently used and let the original owner take the "loss in value" hit. Getting back to the original post of MF for the masses, there are many more people shooting MF film that there ever will be shooting MF digital. The prices are much cheaper, the resale value of used film gear is good, while the used gear is relatively easy to repair if required. I just don't see that changing anytime soon, as film sales are up and a lot of that is due to the MF film shooters.

A good example is at a local camera store: they have a used Hasselblad H3D-39 & HC 80mm f/2.8 lens in VG condition for $5800CDN. ($4350.00USD) A new Hasselblad H3D-39 would have cost well over 30k USD for the body only when it came out. The masses arn't into losses that that, professionals yes.


Phil.

[desertscape]

As a data point for the Pentax 6x7 prices over time, here is what I paid for various new equipment at the end of 1988.
MLU body-- $610.
TTL Prism-- $265.
105mm------ $290.
75 f/4.5----- $330.
45mm--------$470.
200 Pentax-$370.

[timw4mail]

While SLRs are generally the best medium format cameras...

TLRs seem to be the best value, especially if they aren't Rollei brand.

[Alex645]

TLRs seem to be the best value, especially if they aren't Rollei brand.

So if we consider the fixed focus Kodak Duaflex TLR as an advanced toy with 127 film as not quite MF (4x4 cm) and the Seagull as a great idea with horrible build quality (I bought two and both fell apart before the warranty expired), that essentially means Yashica and Mamiya.

If weʻre talking price, then Holga/Diana were king. If itʻs best used price depreciation, then itʻs Hasselblad. But as MF systems go, Pentax has been the go-to for price, availability, durability/reliability, and legacy. All those photogs I once knew shooting Bronica, Mamiya, Rollei, and even Fujifilm MF rangefinders...are significantly more rare than Pentax.

[Silent Street]

He may have been joking — it is too long ago now to recall for sure, but my mid-1990s picture framer once wrangled a Pentax 6x7 with a 250-exposure roll back and told me he was looking to sell it off for $5,000. He paid close to $20,000 for the kit with 4 lenses in the early 1970s, and it was a well-used, brassed specimen. This first-time-seen camera was way too big for me to hold onto or up (despite being accessoried with a handle). I do not know if he ever got an offer for it, only that he had switched to digital for photographing his stock in his gallery — which was once-upon-a-time the task for the P6x7.

Though I remember the show-and-tell clearly, I have never since seen a roll back fitted to a Pentax 6x7 / 67...

[desertscape]

All those photogs I once knew shooting Bronica, Mamiya, Rollei, and even Fujifilm MF rangefinders...are significantly more rare than Pentax.

Yeah, I still shoot my Pentax 6x7s professionally even tho I'm on Medicare now.

[Silent Street]

^^^ I can see me out there! Just the tonic for a lazy day of SUP'ing...

[desertscape]

^^^ I can see me out there! Just the tonic for a lazy day of SUP'ing...

That beach is not all that far from you Gary. Kingdom of Tonga.

[Silent Street]

That beach is not all that far from you Gary. Kingdom of Tonga.

Oh! Well, that's far enough away to make it a bloody long paddle on my long-board...