Have you Ever used a Medium Format Camera?
Sep 13, 2017 13:13:19 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
ChrisT wrote:
A DSLR, or was it a film camera?
I have a Hasselblad 500CW, three lenses, extension tube for the 120mm macro, bellows lense shade, motor drive, parabolic flash, and 45° viewfinder with metering. Two sets of A12 and A24 backs. To complete this setup will require obtaining a digital back, 180mm lense, fisheye lense. Don't know if I will ever be able to afford to do so in the future, but I will make the plans.
Sep 13, 2017 13:18:54 #
wdross wrote:
I have a Hasselblad 500CW, three lenses, extension tube for the 120mm macro, bellows lense shade, motor drive, parabolic flash, and 45° viewfinder with metering. Two sets of A12 and A24 backs. To complete this setup will require obtaining a digital back, 180mm lense, fisheye lense. Don't know if I will ever be able to afford to do so in the future, but I will make the plans.
Digital Back for a 500CW, huh?
Boy!!! ... are YOU in for a surprise!!!
Do you have a specific need for a Fisheye? Or do you just want one to have it?
Sep 13, 2017 14:10:47 #
Robert Bailey
Loc: Canada
Speters,
I'm just repeating what the groom told me.
He was told to get someone to take some photos on film,
because digital images would not be accepted as proof.
The implication is that the marriage license would also
not be accepted as proof.
Of course, people could get dressed up in wedding finery
without truly being married, so I don't know how having
a film negative is proof that someone got married.
I'm just repeating what the groom told me.
He was told to get someone to take some photos on film,
because digital images would not be accepted as proof.
The implication is that the marriage license would also
not be accepted as proof.
Of course, people could get dressed up in wedding finery
without truly being married, so I don't know how having
a film negative is proof that someone got married.
Sep 13, 2017 14:16:31 #
Besperus
Loc: Oregon
I used only roll film cameras as a studio photographer in a small Midwest town. Mamiya RB67 and 645 (wedding stuff). 35 mm for newspaper work, sometimes (Canon F1), high school football games.
Sep 13, 2017 15:16:28 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I've played with one, but never used one. Similar to the Graflex XL in design. We had one XL set up with a 70mm back. I think it shot 50 exposures a roll.
Those reels were fun to load!
Those reels were fun to load!
Actually 53, used a 70mm back on my Linhof SuperTechnika; roll was 15' long.
Sep 13, 2017 15:23:05 #
rfmaude41 wrote:
Actually 53, used a 70mm back on my Linhof SuperTechnika; roll was 15' long.
Your Linhof must have had narrower spacing, and I'm sure a lot more precise.
The Graflex 70 mil back was the RH-50, as in 50 exposures.
The one with the 70 mil back was on loan to the morgue.
All we did was process and print.
Luckily it was mostly B&W.
I bought a few Graflex RH-10 (120) & RH-20 (220) backs for my Mamiya RB 67.
They weren't as tight a fit as the Mamiya backs but were a lot less expensive and did the job without any issues, other than no double exposure prevention.
Sep 13, 2017 16:36:44 #
Sep 13, 2017 16:54:55 #
ChrisT wrote:
Do you still have it?
No. I traded it in for a Nikon N8008 in 1988.
Sep 13, 2017 17:46:59 #
ChrisT wrote:
A DSLR, or was it a film camera?
Yes!
Sep 13, 2017 17:49:57 #
Sep 13, 2017 18:18:29 #
When I was in Vietnam, I shot a "cruise book" for VMFA-542 with a Mamiya C330, a twin lens reflex. It was a great camera for that kind of work; a bit bulky and heavy, but it's 2-1/4x2-1/4 negs gave you lots to work with.
Sep 13, 2017 18:31:18 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Typically, one used to shoot slower with medium format- (though I did shoot some high school football with my RB).
I suspect now days some will probably be tethered, looking at an LCD screen anyway.
I don't have any issues looking at a good eye-level electronic viewfinder.
Olympus, Sony and Fuji's electronic viewfinders are really nice.
With my Fuji X100s, half the time I had to check whether I was in optical or electronic view.
I suspect now days some will probably be tethered, looking at an LCD screen anyway.
I don't have any issues looking at a good eye-level electronic viewfinder.
Olympus, Sony and Fuji's electronic viewfinders are really nice.
With my Fuji X100s, half the time I had to check whether I was in optical or electronic view.
No confirmation lights on the X100s, huh?
Sep 13, 2017 18:34:31 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
When I was in Vietnam, I shot a "cruise book" for VMFA-542 with a Mamiya C330, a twin lens reflex. It was a great camera for that kind of work; a bit bulky and heavy, but it's 2-1/4x2-1/4 negs gave you lots to work with.
Couldn't have been heavier than the Mamiya BR67 ... which also happened to give you so much more image ...
Sep 13, 2017 18:52:31 #
ChrisT wrote:
Since I've never seen a BR67, I can't say which is heavier. Besides, I didn't see this as a competition.Couldn't have been heavier than the Mamiya BR67 ... which also happened to give you so much more image ...
Sep 13, 2017 19:02:28 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
Since I've never seen a BR67, I can't say which is heavier. Besides, I didn't see this as a competition.
Sorry, there, RD ... gremlins ... I meant the RB67 ... and, no, it ISN'T a competition ...
But, it occurred to me - the RB had to have been a little bit heavier than the 330 ....
After all, it was an SLR, and the 330 was a TLR ...
Regardless ... I agree with you ... Mamiya has made some pretty hefty cameras, huh?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.