MKPhoto wrote:
That was my concern how good is a $119 lens!

These lenses were top top quality in their day and retailed for a lot more. You're talking about stuff which was the workhorse of the top end pro market in its time.

They're good.

MKPhoto wrote:
That was my concern how good is a $119 lens!

LMAO! Those lenses used to cost a LOT more.

That's one of the (very few) good things about the great digital migration.  I'm able to buy and shoot cameras (with great glass) that I could only dream about in my youth. Camera systems that used to total tens of thousands of dollars can now be had for a hundreds.

MKPhoto wrote:
Thank you Santa!!!

Does it matter than which brand i.e. some easier to operate than others?

I would get the Bronica.  In fact I might pick one up myself just to have.  They were fantastic systems, with some really good glass.

Rick Athearn wrote:
How about an old Hasselblad 500CM with an 80mm Zeiss lens? They are pretty cheap these days and have fantastic optics.

Outside of play money budget. not

Neil Snape wrote:
I sold my Hasselblad on Ebay for a pitance. MF stuff is worth little if it is not in the current digital line up.

The Pentax 6x7 is like a huge 35mm. For hand held shooting , the Hasselblad 500cm is the king. For the 500cm either a 100mm or 150 mm is what is best for people pix.

I'm amazed you wouldn't have kept it then.  Why sell it?  Would you never shoot film for personal work?  Or just like to have it for sentimental reasons?  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are guys like you, I just don't understand why if the price is so ridiculously low.

For work, I shoot digitally.  But I still shoot a lot of film for personal work.

Neil Snape wrote:
I'll never shoot film again.

NEVER say never...

BRONICA GS-1 WITH 100 F3.5 PG (72), 120 6X7 BACK, PRISM, SPEEDGRIP G, MEDIUM FORMAT SLR MANUAL FOCUS CAMERA OUTFIT $364 ?

MAMYIA RB67 PRO-S WITH 127 F3.8 (77) MEDIUM FORMAT SLR MANUAL FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS sub $300 ?

I will let MM decide

Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
The biggest bargain in medium format in my opinion are the Bronica's.

For square format (baby Hasselblad's) the SQa and SQai were formidable pieces of gear and likewise the ETRs and ETRsi were fabulous 6x4.5 cameras. The Zenzanon lenses were top notch and in many cases surpassed my Zeiss Hasselblad lenses in terms of color and contrast.

The Fuji GX680 is another fabulous camera. Big, but with a bellows for closer focusing and tilt ability.

I still have a couple of Hasselblad's and three lenses that unfortunately do not see nearly enough action these days. After the first of the year I am rebuilding my darkroom and they'll come out of storage.

I just built out a darkroom for 4x5 (although I do still shoot 120).  I'm having the time of my life again.  For me, that allows me to keep a certain aspect of photography as my own personal art and I find that cathartic.

Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
The biggest bargain in medium format in my opinion are the Bronica's.

For square format (baby Hasselblad's) the SQa and SQai were formidable pieces of gear and likewise the ETRs and ETRsi were fabulous 6x4.5 cameras. The Zenzanon lenses were top notch and in many cases surpassed my Zeiss Hasselblad lenses in terms of color and contrast.

The Fuji GX680 is another fabulous camera. Big, but with a bellows for closer focusing and tilt ability.

I still have a couple of Hasselblad's and three lenses that unfortunately do not see nearly enough action these days. After the first of the year I am rebuilding my darkroom and they'll come out of storage.

Brent is right. I think the Bronica's are the best deal right now. You have the three formats to pick from and their lens are good. The GS-1 doesn't have the rotating back so it can be a bear to work with but for 6x6 the SQ-A series are amazing cameras!

Tim Little Photography wrote:

Brent is right. I think the Bronica's are the best deal right now. You have the three formats to pick from and their lens are good. The GS-1 doesn't have the rotating back so it can be a bear to work with but for 6x6 the SQ-A series are amazing cameras!

It is play money. SQ-A is too rich

Neil Snape wrote:
I'll never shoot film again.

That's kind of a shame, but I hear you.

DVSmith wrote:
Get an RB (and on the plus side, you can cancel the gym membership -- they're a tank -- weighing in at 9lbs, with the 90mm and the 'sports finder.')

The image quality is essentially the same as a Hasseblad, with the better lenses, but without the exotic metals in the camera body that drive up the price.

I learned studio work on an RB67 ProSD and use one whenever I can (which reminds me, I've got film I need to develop).

For fun factor I actually like the waist-level viewfinder idea.

edit: $278 before shipping

Rick Athearn wrote:
How about an old Hasselblad 500CM with an 80mm Zeiss lens? They are pretty cheap these days and have fantastic optics.

I would second this. Since you are talking about fun: The square format will open up an interesting way of composing. The 6x6 format is 33% bigger, but the camera is about the same size. 6x7s feel much bulkier.

Kousoulas Photography wrote:
I would second this. Since you are talking about fun: The square format will open up an interesting way of composing. The 6x6 format is 33% bigger, but the camera is about the same size. 6x7s feel much bulkier.

Yes, but too rich for play money, $1000

DVSmith wrote:
Get an RB (and on the plus side, you can cancel the gym membership -- they're a tank -- weighing in at 9lbs, with the 90mm and the 'sports finder'/ 7lbs with the WLF.)

Can vouch for that.  I heard about these guys, but I was blown away at the size of the beast.

DVSmith wrote:
Get an RB (and on the plus side, you can cancel the gym membership -- they're a tank -- weighing in at 9lbs, with the 90mm and the 'sports finder'/ 7lbs with the WLF.)

PhillipM wrote:
Can vouch for that.  I heard about these guys, but I was blown away at the size of the beast.

So in SF2 style, do they also  attract models

MKPhoto wrote:

It is play money. SQ-A is too rich

Check eBay...

you'll be looking between $350 and 600 for an outfit. The 220 film back outfits are cheaper but film is harder to pick up locally. The 120 backs are more convenient but a little more money.

Two of the benefits of the system are the interchangeable film backs and the lenses. Since there are no current digitals using them they can be had for a song.

MKPhoto wrote:
I am shooting strictly, completely for fun, and don;t even take myself very seriously;  I am  interested in exploring = having fun with more variety.

I am thinking about buying (at www.keh.com likely) an old manual medium format camera. Question is, what kind of image quality can be expected from the cheap 645 or 6x7 "outfit", reference being sub-$1000 DSLR.  The use will be studio only, B&W; on a tripod, most probably side by side with the current Nikon D-90. Standard film, access to decent lab or developing at home. Somehow I see more fun doing this than upgrading current camera . No intention of printing in darkroom, I have access to high end scanners.

In my opinion, if you are going to dabble with film (and especially with medium format), you need to commit to learning how to do you own film development & printing -- indeed, just learning the basics is not enough -- you've got to learn how to do this well.

If you do, your film & paper prints will be tons better than any digital print you can get with your D-90.  The film & paper process will blow you away.

But if you send your film to a lab, or if you get a lab to print your images, you will lose the quality advantages of working with film & paper.  You might experience some differences, but not enough to justify the extra time, learning curve, effort, & expense associated with film & paper.

Also, if all you are going to do is scan your prints and/or negative, you might find a digital camera to be much more efficient.

I'm sure lots of people will reply, claiming that digital prints are just as good as film & paper prints, but those people are wrong.  In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, a film & paper print is much, much better than digital.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
In my opinion, if you are going to dabble with film (and especially with medium format), you need to commit to learning how to do you own film development & printing -- indeed, just learning the basics is not enough -- you've got to learn how to do this well.

If you do, your film & paper prints will be tons better than any digital print you can get with your D-90.  The film & paper process will blow you away.

But if you send your film to a lab, or if you get a lab to print your images, you will lose the quality advantages of working with film & paper.  You might experience some differences, but not enough to justify the extra time, learning curve, effort, & expense associated with film & paper.

Also, if all you are going to do is scan your prints and/or negative, you might find a digital camera to be much more efficient.

I'm sure lots of people will reply, claiming that digital prints are just as good as film & paper prints, but those people are wrong.  In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, a film & paper print is much, much better than digital.

For the lab work, I have to refresh what I did 32 years ago with my auntie, who was a professional photographer. I'll most probably go with developing negatives myself; but honestly have no intention going analog "all the way" especially that I have access to high end scanner.

It is all about fun factor. Once it gets too tedious, not fun anymore; and I understand your point about digital efficiency.
So a compromise, negative at home, scan at friend's and rest in the computer.

AgX wrote:
All the packages that you’ve listed or that others have mentioned have good to great glass and can help you generate great negatives.  There are, however, reasonably large differences in the way that they handle, and in my opinion, that’s a big deal. For example, I bought an RB system, but sold it after a few rolls because it wasn’t a good match for the way that I shoot.  It is a legendary camera system, with great lenses and was and is one of the de facto preferred choices for many many studio professionals.  It is a great camera, it just wasn’t for me, at least not enough to make me want to sell my Bronica ETRSi.

My point is that you won’t go wrong with any of those choices, but if there is a place in the ‘Peg where you can at least pick up/hold/fondle any of the MF cameras that you are considering, it might help you eliminate some options before you buy.  Worst case scenario, though, is you buy one of the packages you’ve listed, and shoot with it for a while.  If you don’t like it, you can sell it on an auction site for what you paid for it, easily, and try something different.

Thanks....see the point about ease of handling; first recommendation for any camera. Unfortunately this is 'peg for better and worse. In photography area for worse; so there is nothing in three photo store in the city....maybe I will go with the 7 lb camera and see how it feels.

MKPhoto wrote:
Thanks....see the point about ease of handling; first recommendation for any camera. Unfortunately this is 'peg for better and worse. In photography area for worse; so there is nothing in three photo store in the city....maybe I will go with the 7 lb camera and see how it feels.

Pawn shop, perhaps?  Just a thought, for handling one.  I would still use KEH to buy.