Gotta Rolleiflex MX-EVS F/3.5 now wanting to sell it and upgrade to something a bit better After researching ive come down to these: Hasselblad 500cm Mamiya RZ67 Mamiya 645 Pro TL + 80mm F/1.9 just wondering if anybody could help me out with any of them or give any advice? Not sure which one to go for! Lewis
I have a Hasselblad 500C/M and I love it to pieces. Mainly it's the size - Mamiya RZ/RBs are huge in comparison, and very weighty, whereas the Hasselblad is actually usable handheld and so forth. Obviously, the Hasselblad also has excellent optics if you buy the right lenses, although I've always found having the shutter in the lens a tad unreliable (ie: breaks easily), but that's MF for you. I'd heartily recommend a full service on purchase of a MF camera, just to get it in tip top condition.
I was all set going for the 500cm till i started researching and found out about the mamiya's. if a 500cm came up for the right price i would go for it, but they are very pricey, the only thing drawing me to the 645 is the ridiculous 1.9 lens which ive seen some amazing photos from it.
I picked mine up for less than £400 including the standard 80mm lens and A12 back, so there are bargains around. Not used a 645 though.
Not shooting with MF myself (at least yet), but check out the Mamiya 645 AFD. I did a bit of research about MF gear and this model was recommended for digital backs. Since used MF digital backs are bound to come down in price, I'd go this route myself. The other way is to go with a dedicated film setup for cheap, for example the RZ67 you have in your list. Also check out the Framednetwork at Youtube and especially the series called Film. They will at least give you an idea of the size as they use Mamiyas and Contax cameras. And of course there's a lot of end results shown also. The first couple of episodes were, how would I put this, awkward, but the last couple of them are really good. Guess the chemistry between the three hosts is getting better. And yes, the series has made me think about MF gear seriously
Sounds a bit weird but i want to stay away from digital, theres just something about film i love. thanks for the link!
Doesn't sound that weird, but I'd consider it as a bit of future-proofing. In the case you'd want to sell it on, it could be a good argument that it has the ability to take on digital backs. It's also a bit more modern as a camera as well, AF being one of the features that might come in handy. And of course we don't exactly know what's going to happen with the availability of film stock in the future. Manufacturers can drop films so that there isn't much to choose from or more likely the places where you can develop the film become few and far between since it's not economically viable to develop anymore. And if that happens, the prices would most likely go up for developing. I'm thinking about this two ways. If the system is all film with no reasonable way to go digital, it should be dirt cheap. If on the other hand the system is more versatile, can take digital backs, can autofocus and is still being developed, I could cough up more cash for it.
Mamyia RZ... no contest. 645 is too small, 6x6 means you shot square, or crop to something as crap as 645... 6x7 is where it's at, and the Mamyia is a great system. Superb bellows focusing, great viewfinder, loads of accessories, and a proven studio workhorse. 'blads are a pain to use in comparison, and overpriced. Get the RZ, or a good used RB actually.
But square images are awesome Not sure why you're saying Hasselblads are a pain to use, I've found mine to be a piece of cake.
You can shoot to a square format on a 6x7 if you want, but still have the option to go bigger. 'blads are a pain compared to other cameras, not necessarily difficult in themselves. Compared to using a RB or RZ in a studio, it's a pain. The focusing is to twitchy compared to the beautifully linear bellows focusing of the RB/Z. The viewfinder is not as nice, especially when used with the magnifier. Film advance on the RZ is beautiful compared to the 'blad too. The RZ has a larger format, closer focusing, better film advance, and it's faster to use, and it's cheaper. All subjective of course... but having used both extensively, I know where I'd put my money.
Or you could do like me and go medium format for peanuts with a Kiev 88. It's a really good Soviet Hasselblad copy with some interchangeable parts and a huge selection of often cheap lenses out there for it. I paid about $190 all together for the body, vf, 2 filmbacks and Mir 38B lens. I also picked up an M42 adapter to use all the lenses I already had for my Zenit-ET 35mm. Maybe you notice I have a thing for Soviet cameras? They are build like tanks, reliable, super cheap and have some of the best optics ever made which results in fantastic pictures.
