[abruzzi]

You can enter a MF system for far less than a grand. I got a Bronica ETRS-i with two 120 backs, speed grip, normal lens and a nice portrait 150 3.5, eye level viewfinder and Polaroid back for only like 220$. I later picked up a waist level finder for 50$, and got a steal on the 50mm at like 70$ and just paid a local guy to CLA the lens. In total, I spent less than 400$ for a complete system. Because of the 645Z, you're going to spend way more than that on a P645 system unfortunately due to the lenses being of much higher demand, my friend is trying to sell his NII and two lenses for 1200$. Ouch!

If you want bigger negatives, I fairly routinely see RB67s for 3-400$ with a couple of lenses. The Bronica GS-1 is also an option, but will be much more expensive than the RB67 due to the scarcity of cameras.

If you really want to get into an under-appreciated system and don't mind rangefinders, keep on the lookout for a Koni-Omega press camera with 90mm 3.5, you can find them oftentimes in decent condition for 150$ total, sometimes as low as 90$. I've even seen camera and the 58mm wide lens for like 200$ before. You just have to deal with a very weird system with very long minimum focus distances--but, it's by far the cheapest way to get into 6x7.

Yeah, the $1k price point started with me looking at Pentax MF cameras. A very good condition 67 or an 645Nii. I had some peripheral knowledge of some other systems--the fuji rangefinders and the Mamiya RB/RZ, but I was somewhat ignorant of the breadth of options out there. Nonetheless, $1k is what I have to spend, but I don't need to spend it all. Even outside of this site (where I assume everyone has drunk the koolaid a little) the Pentax 67 is very frequently mentioned with due reverence, and of course a system like the 67 has the advantage of a lot of very good quality lenses for mostly reasonable prices. (other than that $23k 800mm that Adorama has).

Obviously the RB/RZ67s get a lot of press and a lot of people love them, but I have no studio and I never shoot in a studio, and while a Rz67 can be carried, this image scares me:



So I wrote them out. The Pentax 67 is smaller, but almost as heavy, but I also think the layout (like a 35mm SLR) may make the weight easier to manage. A lot of the RB/RZ advantages (rotating back, mid-roll changes, multiple formats on a single camera, polaroid) are not that big a deal to me because I get none of that on my 35mm SLRs. Of all of them the mid-roll changes is the only one that intrigues me.

As for rangefinders, the Fuji are the only ones I have looked at, and the GSW690 is tempting, but I worry about the fixed lens. Maybe it won't be a big deal, but I use my SuperProgram with a 28, 35, and 50, and I would like to add an 85 or 100. The other worry with the Fujis is many of them on eBay seem to have had a hard life. Though if I would afford it, the GF670 would be very cool:



If you can deal with the fixed lens, it seems like the ultimate in portability for a 6x7 camera.

[Silent Street]

thanks. Since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the 67 models let me ask a quick followup--is there a functional benefit of a 67 over a 6x7? I get that the 6x7 is older and therefore has potentially more wear and tear, and the early 6x7s won't have the mirror lockup. I've found some past posts implying a the 67 had a brighter viewfinder, but that doesn't seem well sourced so its hard to know whether to believe. Other than that they seem to be identical, and the meaningful changes all came with the 67ii. If I get one, and I am leaning that way, I will almost certainly try to find a 67, and while I can't spend a lot, I'm definitely the sort that is willing to pay a premium based on condition.

Either/both cameras operate the same. The changes were in engineering/parts, lubricants, correction of known potential faults and something to do with the resistor pad underneath the shutter speed dial. To a new user, looks can be confusing, because the older/early Asahi Pentax prisms or chimney finders also fit the newer generation Pentax 67 bodies. Likewise, older 6x7 bodies are often seen repairs with 67 top plates or other parts! The sheer diversity of changes can make determination of what body is what a challenge. Moreso an older body and not knowing if or how it was repaired (something about the shutter blind tape deteriorating in the original Asahi Pentax 6x7 bodies was fixed too.)

Fora commentary the speaks of a bright viewfinder requires careful judgement. Some may have been fitted with Beattie IntenScreen focusing screens (and worse, not even re-calibrated to achieve correct focus) to provide a brighter image, but really, any competent, skilled photographer can easily work with the native Pentax 67 focusing screens (they look course/dark with slow lenses, and at the opposite end with fast f2.4/f2.8 lenses, bright and easy to focus), even in challenging low light conditions, and additional focusing aids are available to further assist. Don't always poke an accusing finger at a camera's perceived failings!

Mirror lock-up is very, very usefulu for separating the inertial whack of the shutter and mirror in tripod-based work, lessening (read: eliminating, when done properly) any chance of blur. Another, much rarer feature is a multiexposure facility that was often factory fitted or the change made upon request and at cost: press the shutter, flip the ME tab to M, wind on (this is a "blind action", no film actually moves in this process), then do the second and subsequent exposures. When finished, flip the ME tab away from the M and you're done. When my Pentax 67 came along I was puzzled by this little tab until I was told what its function was. Since then, I'm pretty much carried away "layering" shots for unique effects.

Lots of people use the Pentax 67II, but it didn't appeal to me. It' the all electronic, updated wunderkind with the addition of multimodal metering, AEL and other little niceties and won't shirk any any of the Pentax 67 lenses on offer. The 67s are primitive by comparison ("steampunk" is my term!), but they are excellent, reliable workhorses that get the job done, relying more on the photographer's skill rather than the camera's decision making and winding on. Oh, how awful: I cringe when my EOS 1N blasts through 36 exposures in 3 seconds because I am so accustomed to the tweak-whirl-slap winding process of the P67. But every kid needs his thrills...

[Eyewanders]

As for rangefinders, the Fuji are the only ones I have looked at, and the GSW690 is tempting, but I worry about the fixed lens. Maybe it won't be a big deal, but I use my SuperProgram with a 28, 35, and 50, and I would like to add an 85 or 100. The other worry with the Fujis is many of them on eBay seem to have had a hard life. Though if I would afford it, the GF670 would be very cool:



If you can deal with the fixed lens, it seems like the ultimate in portability for a 6x7 camera.

Folders are fantastic for portability, but at an obvious trade-off. In all honesty I use them just as much as system cameras but for personal work. I can chuck on in a bag on a hike and barely know that it's there. Fantastic MF travel options, either new like the Fuji/Voigt you mention, or older vintage folders (of which there are some gems out there).

[pentageek]

and while a Rz67 can be carried, this image scares me:

This is the token of due respect One final comment: should you decide to buy Mamiya, look for Pro S, SD, or RZ II, which are improved versions of RB Pro and RZ I, respectively.

[Eyewanders]

To a new user, looks can be confusing, because the older/early Asahi Pentax prisms or chimney finders also fit the newer generation Pentax 67 bodies. Likewise, older 6x7 bodies are often seen repairs with 67 top plates or other parts!

Yup. I never even use the AE finder on my older 67 (removed the aperture linkage in fact) and have instead the (slightly brighter) non-metered prism from an old 6x7 non-mlu on it all of the time (when not using the WLF basically)... Vintage Asahi looks, less weight, brighter finder, on a newer machine.

---------- Post added 04-03-18 at 03:03 PM ----------

This is the token of due respect

The same given to an elephant or grizzly in wild.

[tuco]

If you can deal with the fixed lens, it seems like the ultimate in portability for a 6x7 camera.

Austin Granger has this camera. And he posts among some the best straight photography genre on film and in volume around. A single lens doesn't hold him back.

[rdenney]

Austin Granger has this camera. And he posts among some the best straight photography genre on film and in volume around. A single lens doesn't hold him back.

Rick "agreed" Denney

[abruzzi]

Lots of people use the Pentax 67II, but it didn't appeal to me. It' the all electronic, updated wunderkind with the addition of multimodal metering, AEL and other little niceties and won't shirk any any of the Pentax 67 lenses on offer. The 67s are primitive by comparison ("steampunk" is my term!), but they are excellent, reliable workhorses that get the job done, relying more on the photographer's skill rather than the camera's decision making and winding on. Oh, how awful: I cringe when my EOS 1N blasts through 36 exposures in 3 seconds because I am so accustomed to the tweak-whirl-slap winding process of the P67. But every kid needs his thrills...

Part of my interest in going back to film was going back to a process that requires me to be deliberate. While I know I can function in full manual on the K-3ii, the fact that there is no financial or time penalty (waiting a few weeks to see if the shot came out) to getting it wrong seems to significantly change my process. The first rolls I ran through my SuperProgram were almost all well exposed with very little duplicates (I did have some exposure issues on some with the sun in frame--I forgot how the simple meter in the SP would behave) and while they're not all great photos, they were all carefully considered before hitting the button. So the auto stuff is fine, but I really am doing this to slow down the process. I have a Nikon F4, and the continuous shooting mode can waste $20 really fast.

The metering I did with the SuperProgram was done with the built in TTL meter, which is I assume a variant on a spot meter, just not a 1% variety instead it meter across the whole frame with center weighting. I do have an old Sekonic incident meter that I used when shooting 16mm film. I forget the model but I l think it is a L-28C. I did a little checking a few weeks ago and it is recommending the same values as my SuperProgram's TTL meter, so I'm guessing its not too far off. I may look for a spot meter, but they're expensive enough that I can start with what I have and build up.

[Eyewanders]

Part of my interest in going back to film was going back to a process that requires me to be deliberate. While I know I can function in full manual on the K-3ii, the fact that there is no financial or time penalty (waiting a few weeks to see if the shot came out) to getting it wrong seems to significantly change my process.

In the past month or two I began shooting my K-3 for birding far, far more than I have in around five years since moving back to film about 95%; as a result my storage drive folder now, currently only in April, is already as larger than the total for 2017. I much prefer proof scans and binders, to spending hours upon hours culling through digital throw-aways. Even so, I've noticed that simply spending the last few years shooting primarily film has certainly made me more deliberate - the throw-away junk and multiple chimping shots are but a fraction of what they once were... but certainly digital still allows, and in some ways, begs me to ignore that lesson.

[abruzzi]

In the past month or two I began shooting my K-3 for birding far, far more than I have in around five years since moving back to film about 95%; as a result my storage drive folder now, currently only in April, is already as larger than the total for 2017. I much prefer proof scans and binders, to spending hours upon hours culling through digital throw-aways. Even so, I've noticed that simply spending the last few years shooting primarily film has certainly made me more deliberate - the throw-away junk and multiple chimping shots are but a fraction of what they once were... but certainly digital still allows, and in some ways, begs me to ignore that lesson.

There are some areas of photography where digital is better even to us analog/chemical luddites. I’d probably say sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. Any area where getting the right shut is luck of timing, and you can hold your finger down and pick the photo later.

Despite the fact that I rarely do wildlife, and never do sports or journalism, I have no intention of giving up digital. I just want a more contemplative process. I can even sympathize with the large format approach of setting up you shot, focusing and adjusting the movements, then sitting and waiting a half hour for the light to get right before hitting the shutter. A $5 or more per frame, “close enough” shouldn’t be in your vocabulary.

[Eyewanders]

There are some areas of photography where digital is better even to us analog/chemical luddites. I’d probably say sports, wildlife, and photojournalism. Any area where getting the right shut is luck of timing, and you can hold your finger down and pick the photo later.

Despite the fact that I rarely do wildlife, and never do sports or journalism, I have no intention of giving up digital. I just want a more contemplative process. I can even sympathize with the large format approach of setting up you shot, focusing and adjusting the movements, then sitting and waiting a half hour for the light to get right before hitting the shutter. A $5 or more per frame, “close enough” shouldn’t be in your vocabulary.

^ Very much agree. ^

(Though a *huge* part of me wishes that journalism could/would do away with digital, if for no other reason than slowing down the ridiculous modern news cycle, and give photographers the opportunity to provide something meaningful over quickness and volume. Not to mention just employing more photographers, but those days are long gone, and... I digress.)

[abruzzi]

Sorry to bump this for a dumb question. I was a bit surprised to notice that the Bronica ETR cameras don't reset the mirror after exposure, and the viewfinder goes black until you crank the film advance. I'm not entirely sure if I care about that, but I was wondering if the Mamiya 645 cameras (M645, 645 Super, 645 Pro, etc.) reset after shutter release? (I know the Pentax 67 resets after..)

[pentageek]

Mamiya 645 1000s and 645 Pro have got instant return mirror, unfortunately I can't tell whether it was standard feature of whole family.

[johnha]

The GF670 looks a great camera, although rare and very expensive in the UK (over the $1k budget at current exchange rates).

Assuming this discussion is between 645 & 6x7: the 645 options are Pentax, Mamiya, Bronica & Contax (Contax is too rare/expensive, 6x6s are a different experience IMHO). With a 645, in order to get the 35mm style handling you need an AE prism & winder/grip. The P645 has these built in, the Mamiya & Bronica need add-ons with varying levels of 'confidence inspiring' and possibly 'clunky' mechanical connections. With a 645 you need a prism for vertical shots, these and the winder/grip lead to a package larger than a P645, potentially with mechanical play in the components. The Mamiya sits better for me than the Bronica because it has an instant return mirror and focal plane shutter, interchangeable film backs add bulk and can be a pain. The P645 has a second tripod socket on the side for verticals - useful because otherwise you need a hefty tripod head to hold a MF camera vertical.

Size wise, a 645 with prism & winder/grip is not much smaller than a P6x7, maybe lighter but not significantly smaller (narrower but much deeper - especially with an interchangeable back)

---------- Post added 04-06-18 at 11:29 AM ----------

Sorry to bump this for a dumb question. I was a bit surprised to notice that the Bronica ETR cameras don't reset the mirror after exposure, and the viewfinder goes black until you crank the film advance. I'm not entirely sure if I care about that, but I was wondering if the Mamiya 645 cameras (M645, 645 Super, 645 Pro, etc.) reset after shutter release? (I know the Pentax 67 resets after..)

The Bronica ETR (and SQ 6x6s) don't have instant return mirrors, the Mamiya Super & Pro do (I presume the whole Mamiya range does as all variants seem to be based around the same internals). I have the Bronica SQ-B - I find the lack of an instant return mirror annoying. As you can't see when the exposure has finished (especially on long exposures), there's an LED which flashes to indicate the end of exposure (blink and you'll miss it) - I'm sure bad things are likely to happen if you try and advance before then). I find it also interferes with my flow of shooting. The SQ's (and I presume ETR) use electronic leaf shutters - less aggro and more consistent than a 'bald and less likely to jam.

Unless you need a whole set of leaf shutter lenses (which only go to 1/500th), the Pentax or Mamiya are better options than the Bronica. The Bronica feels clunky by comparison, the speed grip isn't anything like a winder, you don't need to worry about whether the lens shutter is cocked before swapping lenses and you get 1/1000th of faster shutter speeds. The Pentax (all in one) or Mamiya Super/Pro with AE prism & winder is a much more '35mm like' package than the Bronica IMHO.

[abruzzi]

Well, I pulled the trigger on a 67 with a 55mm/3.5 lens. So in a few weeks, I’ll be able to shoot some 6x7. The 55mm will probably be a good starting lens, I’ll probably want a standard lens (90mm or 105mm) and a short telephoto in the 135-150mm range.

Part of me was really tempted by a minimalist SLR like the Bronica ETRS and Mamiya 645 Pro, but that route tempts me if it’s stripped down to lens, body, back, and waist level finder. The prism finder and grip that these are usually set up with is less interesting to me. I will say that I had a moment of weakness and looked at the Hasselblad 500 C/M. At the upper end of my limit I could get a basic body, 80/2.8, and film back. I’m less interested in 6x6, but I could crop, or get an A16 back for 6x4.5, but the big limitation was that lenses were a small fortune. I know they’re Zeiss, but I don’t know if the lenses are genuinely that nice, or if the prices are somewhat inflated due to the name.

I also have to say that some of the older Bronicas are just very pretty cameras—especially the S2A and EC. Thanks everyone for the help. I’m now working on the list of things I want for my 67...