Long Story...Short

[jbylake]

Looking into getting into Med Format. Know next to nothing about it.
Could anyone comment about this camera, is it worth the asking price, assuming it all works and is in good condition. Does this camera have a good rep? Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Also, if not priced right, what would be a fair price for this kit? Thanks ahead...

J.:mrgreen:

http://cgi.ebay.com/BRONICA-645-ETRSI-CAME...=item1e56f57b8b

 

[JimmyO]

A waist level finder on a camera with a grip doesnt seem to practicle to me. As for Medium format, i dabbled in it for a while. For me it didnt make sense becuase i cant setup my own B&W lab and processing was too difficult and expensive. I suggest starting with a TLR which can be had for under 100 bucks to see if you really do like medium format, then move on to something like a bronica.

 

[compur]

Looking into getting into Med Format. Know next to nothing about it.
Could anyone comment about this camera, is it worth the asking price, assuming it all works and is in good condition. Does this camera have a good rep? Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Also, if not priced right, what would be a fair price for this kit? Thanks ahead...

J.:mrgreen:

http://cgi.ebay.com/BRONICA-645-ETRSI-CAME...=item1e56f57b8b

Yes, the ETRSi is a very good camera.

I think you could do better on the price though -- say, closer to $400 or
even less if you shop around.

 

[maris]

A rectangular format camera like the Bronica 645 that only has a waist-level finder is heartbreakingly akward for anything but landscape oriented pictures. Portrait orientation through a WLF is crazy difficult. The perfect answer is a camera with a revolving back and the best, cheapest, highest optical quality, most versatile, most durable one of those is a Mamiya RB67.

My personal bias is that 645 is too small to justify the inconvenience and expense of roll-film. After all it is only 2.7x bigger than 35mm. An RB67 delivers 4.5x bigger (than 35mm) negatives and transparencies that reward the effort of using a larger heavier but cheaper (try KEH.com) camera.

 

[jbylake]

A rectangular format camera like the Bronica 645 that only has a waist-level finder is heartbreakingly akward for anything but landscape oriented pictures. Portrait orientation through a WLF is crazy difficult. The perfect answer is a camera with a revolving back and the best, cheapest, highest optical quality, most versatile, most durable one of those is a Mamiya RB67.

My personal bias is that 645 is too small to justify the inconvenience and expense of roll-film. After all it is only 2.7x bigger than 35mm. An RB67 delivers 4.5x bigger (than 35mm) negatives and transparencies that reward the effort of using a larger heavier but cheaper (try KEH.com) camera.

I guess I should have noted in my origional post that I was going to use this primarily for landscape. But I'm going to listen to you folks anyway, for, as I said, I actually don't know much, if anything about MF. I've been shooting 35mm, ever since I got into photography which was circa early 1977.


Thanks for all of your responses though, and hope to hear any other suggestions.

J. :mrgreen:

 

[djacobox372]

For 645 a mamiya pro is a cheaper route. But you should consider 6x7.

 

[compur]

Whenever a newby expresses interest in something it is mandatory that at
least 12 posts follow advising said newby that their new found interest is a
bad idea and they should do something else. So, you still have a few more
dire warnings to go.

In the mean time I'd just like to say that I think 645 is a cool format,
especially if you like 'scapes. I also think waist level finders are cool
too even though many people rant that they are terrible (yet they
often command higher prices than many prism finders!). WLFs do take
a little getting used to but I find they offer similar advantages to the LCD
screens found on the dreaded digital cameras -- that is, they allow one
to "step back" and get a better idea of the final image composition, IMO.

645 cameras are also more compact and comparatively light and
their lenses often cost a bit less than larger format lenses. You also
get a few more frames per roll with 645 which adds a little more to the
economy factor.

Also, since many photographers print or otherwise crop images to
rectangular formats, a 6x6 shooter often ends up only using about the
same amount of the negative as a 645 shooter anyway so the square
format is not necessarily going to get you any image quality improvement
unless you like square pictures.

Yes, 6x7 is bigger than 645 and 4"x5" is bigger than 6x7 and so on and so
on ... but 645 still makes a heck of a lot better image than 35mm using
a camera that isn't all that much bigger or heavier than, say, a Nikon F.
There are even 645 cameras that you can carry in a pocket like my
little Zenobia:

So, I think 645 is a good medium format entry format and many bargains are
available.

 

[jbylake]

Yep...but I still listen. Actually the full kit I was looking into buying at $450 is quite a bit cheaper than some of the other suggestions. I can get in cheap, and not lose an awful lot, if I find out that packing in that Tripod and camera, setting it up at waist level, and the whole routine, is not really my idea of having fun. Time will tell. As for dire warnings? Hey, I deal with custom and stock Harley/Choppers/whatever/people, everyday. If I took every dire warning about making this modification or that one, I'd never get anything done, and probably would be riding a mountain bike instead

Still, dire warnings or not, I always appreciate the time and effort people take to answer my question(s).

j:mrgreen::thumbup:

 

[Mike_E]

Git ta gittin'.

If you can get good enough to be better than that kit then you have really done something.