Is there a good Medium Format RF for Portraiture?

[Jay Decker]

While my 6x6 SLR takes great portraits, it is huge, heavy, and noisy. I love the near silent shutter of a medium format range finder. So, I am seeking a good medium format RF for portraiture. But, is there an option available?

Thanks,

Jay

P.S. If you know a good thread that has answer this question before, please just direct me to it (I searched the site, but could not find a cogent answer).

[amateriat]

I don't have first-hand experience on this, but I'd imagine a Bronica 645 would serve quite well; even its VF orientation lends itself to portraiture nicely.


- Barrett

[sleepyhead]

I would say no. The Mamiyas don't really focus close enough. Also depth of field is hard to judge.


What about a TLR?

[eli griggs]

I suggest, if you can live with a greatly reduced choice of film, or learn to trim and reload your favorite 120 into 127, a Sawyer's Mark IV tlr/ Primo Jr.

It's a great lens, fast at f2.8 and very close focusing. It's also tiny and can be carried in a large coat pocket. The shutter is a mere 'snip' and the camera is not so rare you can't find it in great condition under $200, so you can have afford a back-up without spending a lot.

Efke 100 and infrared 127 is available, so is Fujichrome Velvia and Fujichrome Provia, and there's Bluefire Murano 160 print film in 127 format.

There are other 127 tlr cameras, including the Baby Rolli, but none are better than the Sawyer's/Primo Jr.

Cheers

[Ruvy]

This is beautiful portrait!!! it has a wonderful feel of the place, moment and person.
How big and clear is the VF compare to a Lica M or any of the Bessas?
The RF645 Bronica ... but only with a 100mm or better lens!


http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/wheelie52/RFF%20Storage/edge261008_0.jpg

[aizan]

the bronica's viewfinder is up there with the best.

on the other hand, it's much easier to get a 150/4.5 for the mamiya 6 than it is to get a 100/4.5 or 135/4.5 for the bronica.

[Debusti Paolo]

another vote for the combo bronica rf645 /100mm lens,and pllease add a rf 20 speed light:cool:

[Roger Hicks]

Having tried quite a few for the purpose, I begin to suspect that RF MFs are not really portrait cameras, any more than they are still-life cameras. You can do it, but it ain't optimum. But then, I don't like 645 very much and have therefore never tried the Bronica.

Cheers,

R.

[Svitantti]

You can get nice portraits with a Mamiya 6 or 7 and 75 (6), 65 or 80 (7). Of course if you have to get strict head-and-shoulders -photos, maybe it is harder with those. Then you can go for a 150mm I guess.

There are also some folder rangefinders with a 80/2.8 or so, focusing to 1m or so.

[wallace]

The Fuji Ga645zi would be my choice.

[sircarl]

The RF645 is a natural for portraits, given its vertical orientation. And I wouldn't get too hung up about not having the 100mm lens. It has almost twice the minimal focusing distance of the 65mm lens (1.8 meters versus 1 meter), so the image size captured by the two lenses at their closest focusing distance isn't all that different. (The 100 does actually focus nearer than 1.8 meters, but it's not recommended unless you are using one of the smaller apertures.) Of course the perspective is somewhat different, and you may prefer the 100 for that reason.

[Matus]

Well, there is the new Rolleiflex FT with 135/4 lens that focuses down to 1.5m - but it is pricey and I am not sure that 1.5m is close enough. Though I guess you may get closer with some sort of close-up attachement.

[oftheherd]

With the Mamiya Press Super 23, the 50mm and 100mm lenses focus down to < 3.5 feet; the 150mm lens down to < 7 feet, and the 250mm lens down to < 8 feet. The viewfinder has paralax correction with moving viewfinder lines for the 100, 150 and 250 lenses.

However, it is heavier than 35mm cameras. It probably isn't that much heavier than a 645 SLR if at all with a 100mm or 150mm lens. With a 250mm lens it is quite heavy. On a tripod none of that would make a difference.

Hand held, the 150mm would be the best choice. It is light and give better perspective. The 100mm will work depending on how much space you are willing to have around your subject. You would have the same problem with the 50mm lens, or some of the lenses mentioned by other posters.

Just like on 35mm, even a normal lens, and certainly anything less than a normal lens is a potential problem. Unless that gives a look you want.

[kuzano]

Although it's autofocus it uses a leaf shutter and rangefinder like viewing. The zoom range is 55 to 90, with the 90 being pretty close to a portrait length for the format. It's quite sharp. However, it's 6.9 aperture at the long end, so DOF is likely to be a bit long. It is a portrait mode configuration, and very quiet.

Focus down to 1 meter, and has P (aperture priority), aperture, shutter and full manual modes.

Currently, low count examples are selling from $500 to $700.

In terms of reliability, I have one with 32,000 shutter actuations, that just came back from service with a clean bill of health. Had a new LCD installed on the back. The service and the new LCD cost me a total of $175.

[cbphoto]

I've gone through a couple of MF RFs, and none are quite perfect. If you like to take portraits with a long lens, then your choices are limited already. If you like a normal lens, I like the Fuji's the best. Specifically, the GW670II or III. The optics are still harsh and Japanese (like all modern MF RFs, unfortunately - let's get on this problem, Germany!), but they have a slightly more inviting character to my eye than the Mamiyas. Haven't used the Bronica. I'd love to try out some old Zeiss folders, but it's not a priority at the moment. They may be more interesting optically, but those that I have played with had crappy finders.

[FrankS]

I've used the Fuji GS670II for portraits. Although it has a leaf shutter, it makes a loud "clack" when the shuter is released. I took a picture of a grandmother with her 2 grand daughters and was able to make highly cropped 8x10 enlargements of each of the grand daughters' head and shoulders from that negative, the quality was so high.

[besk]

Properly set up: Horseman 980, 985, or VHR. Also, Linhof MF rangefinder or Medium format Crown/Century.

Or, thinking out of the box - a Mamiya 220 or 330 with the 135 or longer lens.

BTW, I am planning to do a few 6X9 portraits with a 6x9 back on a 4X5 press camera using a Fuji 240/9 lens and trap focus.

[Uwe_Nds]

What about a Moskva 5 with the 6x6 mask?

Cheers,
Uwe

[P. Lynn Miller]

Interesting question by the original poster as I am looking for the same thing, a quiet, unobtrusive medium-format camera for portraits. While my Norita 66 with its Noritar 80mm f2.0 is a splendid portrait making machine, it sounds like gun going off when you trip the shutter.

Sanders McNew (http://www.mcnew.net/), who is a contributing member here at RFF, will hopefully weigh into this discussion as he does a lot of portrait work with various medium-format cameras. In most professional situations, a Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax SLR of some sort would be the standard camera of choice, since there is little concern about noise since the strobes fire with every frame taken.

[Jay Decker]

Interesting question by the original poster as I am looking for the same thing, a quiet, unobtrusive medium-format camera for portraits. While my Norita 66 with its Noritar 80mm f2.0 is a splendid portrait making machine, it sounds like gun going off when you trip the shutter.

Wonderful friends and artists come to our home on the hill and cabin in the rain forest. A couple bottles of wine, a supportive and accepting atmosphere, and they start talking about what really matters to them and what they are passionate about... the portrait opportunities are marvelous. I'll quietly take out a camera that was placed close, yet out of the way. Then I'll scoot into position to take a candid portrait. When the moment is right, I'll press the shutter release... the mirror slaps up, the shutter quietly snips, and then the mirror drops back into place with a clunk. Everyone looks at me with that what the hell was that look and flow everything is interrupted. And, I think there has to be a better tool!

I had hoped to avoid to avoid this, but maybe I need to look at something, gulp, digital...

[Roger Hicks]

There's a lot of difference between candid and studio portraits; some of my best studio portraits have been 8x10 inch.

The best I've found so far for candid environmental portraits, unless you want a LOT of context (Alpa) is a Polaroid 600SE with 127mm lens and 6x7cm back.

But if the portrait opportunities are that good, what's wrong with 35mm? In other words, won't the mood, the composition, override the technical disadvantages of the smaller format?

Cheers,

R.

[P. Lynn Miller]

If you are not confined to medium-format, there are lots of options for a quiet, stealthy camera in 35mm. I have a Minolta H-Matic E which is so quiet, the you can barely hear or feel the shutter release. And most fixed lens rangefinder, Canon, Yashica, Minolta, etc, can be had for not a lot of money with relatively fast lenses, 45mm f1.7 on the Minolta, and with their leaf shutters are very, very quiet. If you need interchangeable lenses, then you next choice is Leica, which is very quiet and very expensive.

But medium-format is slightly different situation...

[fbf]

There's a lot of difference between candid and studio portraits; some of my best studio portraits have been 8x10 inch.

The best I've found so far for candid environmental portraits, unless you want a LOT of context (Alpa) is a Polaroid 600SE with 127mm lens and 6x7cm back.

But if the portrait opportunities are that good, what's wrong with 35mm? In other words, won't the mood, the composition, override the technical disadvantages of the smaller format?

Cheers,

R.


Agree. For non-studio work or random street portrait work, 35mm will probably work better than medium format. It's hard to create shallow DOF for medium format (if this is want you want), 35mm is much more versatile.

[Frank Petronio]

A Rolleiflex TLR will be very quiet compared to just about any other medium format camera -- and some of the world's best portraits have been done with the standard 80mm lens. People like Sanders, who uses the Tele with a 135mm lens, need to use a Rollei close-up attachment to get tighter portraits.

The rangefinders are probably better suited for further back "environmental" portraits -- I'd hate to try to do head and shoulder shots with one. When I did, I liked my Fuji 690 with a 90mm lens a lot.

[LADP]

It's hard to create shallow DOF for medium format (if this is want you want), 35mm is much more versatile.

Would you please elaborate on the reason or reasons for this? It runs counter intuitive to my understanding. I'm not much of a medium format user, having only had a Mamiya TLR for medium format once a long time ago, but I do shoot motion picture film for a living, and in my experience, the larger the format, the shallower the DOF (all other parameters being equal, of course).

Inother words, Super 8mm has crazy deep DOF, 16mm a little less, 35mm less yet, 65mm/70mm even less, and finally, IMAX 70mm is very, very shallow.

So, how is it in stills that 35mm would be easier to achieve shallow DOF than it would be in medium format? I'm honestly curious. I'm wondering if perhaps there is something I am not taking into account. Thanks!

[FrankS]

A Rolleicord/Flex is a very quiet camera and its design makes it able to be very stealthy. Again, there is lots of quality and real estate to crop if desired.

[P. Lynn Miller]

It is because all things are not equal. The fastest 6X6 normal lens is the Noritar 80mm f2.0(which I have), but most 6X6 normal lenses are 2.8 or more, with f3.5 and f4.0 being common. 35mm normal lenses and short telephotos are available in much faster maximum apertures and far more common than high speed medium-format lenses. So shallow DOF is easier to achieve in 35mm because of lens availability.

[aizan]

It's hard to create shallow DOF for medium format (if this is want you want), 35mm is much more versatile.

the 150/4.5 for the mamiya 6 gives the same dof as a 100/2.8 or 85/2 in 35mm. i'd say the main advantage of 35mm is closer focusing, the main disadvantages being more grain and less detail.

most of the better mf systems (hasselblad, rollei, pentax) have a fast portrait lens. the pentax 165/2.8 is very reasonably priced, about half as much as a canon fdn 85/1.2L or nikkor 85/1.4 ais, and a quarter as much as an olympus zuiko 100/2.

we're only talking about slrs, though. you're never going to find a 100/2 or 85/1.4 for a rangefinder.

[fbf]

Would you please elaborate on the reason or reasons for this? It runs counter intuitive to my understanding. I'm not much of a medium format user, having only had a Mamiya TLR for medium format once a long time ago, but I do shoot motion picture film for a living, and in my experience, the larger the format, the shallower the DOF (all other parameters being equal, of course).

Inother words, Super 8mm has crazy deep DOF, 16mm a little less, 35mm less yet, 65mm/70mm even less, and finally, IMAX 70mm is very, very shallow.

So, how is it in stills that 35mm would be easier to achieve shallow DOF than it would be in medium format? I'm honestly curious. I'm wondering if perhaps there is something I am not taking into account. Thanks!

Like P. Lynn Miller (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=10698) mentioned, lens aperture is one of the limitation medium format has. It limits the DOF for medium format. Certainly one can use other method to create better shallow DOF (further background for example). It is much easier to achieve on fast 35mm prime lens, (canon 85/1.2 200/1.8, 300/2.8 for example)
I don't know much about optics or professional film making. This is all from practical use experience.

[fbf]

the 150/4.5 for the mamiya 6 gives the same dof as a 100/2.8 or 85/2 in 35mm. i'd say the main advantage of 35mm is closer focusing, the main disadvantages being more grain and less detail.


For studio portrait you may be right and it is certainly practical.
The 2 1/2 stop aperture difference will limit your film choice and handhold ability however.

[LADP]

It is because all things are not equal. The fastest 6X6 normal lens is the Noritar 80mm f2.0(which I have), but most 6X6 normal lenses are 2.8 or more, with f3.5 and f4.0 being common. 35mm normal lenses and short telephotos are available in much faster maximum apertures and far more common than high speed medium-format lenses. So shallow DOF is easier to achieve in 35mm because of lens availability.

Got it! Thanks. Not being a medium format guy, I wasn't thinking about slower lenses being more commonly found (or rather faster lenses are more available for 35mm still).

Our motion picture lenses are pretty fast, with T1.3 or T2.1 being common max apertures for many prime lens sets for the 35mm format.

Thanks for the explanation!

[Jay Decker]

There's a lot of difference between candid and studio portraits; some of my best studio portraits have been 8x10 inch.

The best I've found so far for candid environmental portraits, unless you want a LOT of context (Alpa) is a Polaroid 600SE with 127mm lens and 6x7cm back.

But if the portrait opportunities are that good, what's wrong with 35mm? In other words, won't the mood, the composition, override the technical disadvantages of the smaller format?

Rodger - You are right. However, in my experience, the step to 35mm is a big step down in terms of resulting print quality. Similar to the experience you describe, my highest quality portraits taken with a 4x5 on a stand. However, my 6x6 SLR portraits taken on a stand or tripod are close in quality to my LF portraits in 11x14 and smaller prints (seems that LF can't be beat for smooth tonality). Hence, my interest in shooting MF candid portraits.

If there really isn't a MF alternative, then my choice is between something in 35mm, or possibly a digital alternative, i.e., the perceived quality difference between 35mm and digital seems to have become quite small.

[P. Lynn Miller]

monkeytumble,

I believe that there is a medium-format camera the will fit the criteria you laid out in your original post. Although it may not handle as well or intuitively as a 35mm rangefinder.

One big advantage with medium-format is that you can increase your film speed by 2 stops and still have a far better negative than you would expect. I have pushed Portra 400NC to 2400 and the resulting 30X30 enlargement was breathtaking. Tri-X can easily be pushed to 3200 and still be far better than 35mm Delta 3200. The extra real estate of the negative just seems to allow more tonality and better resolution when pushing film to the bitter end. I would rate the quality of my Tri-X 320 negatives many times better then my 35mm Plus-X, which is a 1 1/2 stop film speed gain which will let me shoot a medium format lens at f3.5 as the same shutter speed as 35mm lens at f2.0. But you probably already know all this...

I am thinking of a TLR will be my answer to a less obtrusive medium-format camera...

[fbf]

Our motion picture lenses are pretty fast, with T1.3 or T2.1 being common max apertures for many prime lens sets for the 35mm format.

Thanks for the explanation!

If I recall correctly, the zeiss lens for motion picture cameras cost about a new honda civic or more. :D

[charjohncarter]

How about a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, no joke, small, light, but restrictive on exposure. I have seen many great portraits done with this camera. Our Sanders McNew has some beauties, but they are all flipped lens images.

Next suggestion is the Polaroid Color pack II, not truly MF but light. Here is a Flickr tagged site:

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=portrait&w=420397%40N24&m=pool (http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=portrait&w=420397%40N24&m=pool)

Or better yet stick to your RolleiFlex.

[Todd.Hanz]

Honestly, a Rollieflex 6x6 is quiet and somewhat stealthy with the waist level finder, most will never hear the leaf shutter going off...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/267503358_f46877a94b_o.jpg

and it's awesome for posed shots...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2096944043_f175a515eb.jpg

as far as RF, the Mamiya 7II with 80/4 is pricey but do-able. You can't focus as close as an SLR but do you need to? (and the shutter is silent)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/250932463_5cbeb800fd_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/250149441_79a4a98fb7_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2714126608_2ec1745f6a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2692600408_962885f5f2_o.jpg

good luck choosing,
Todd

[aizan]

For studio portrait you may be right and it is certainly practical.
The 2 1/2 stop aperture difference will limit your film choice and handhold ability however.

lynn already said it, but you can make up the difference in lens speed and still get better results.

[charjohncarter]

I find the best portrait lens I have is one on my Polaroid ColorPack II, I have bought another to mount on my Pentax 6x7, which I know is too big for you, but it has a softness that woman like. Here is one that I did with a Portrait Lens attachment:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/2989850337_f0723b27f8.jpg?v=0



Here are some more Polaroid Portraits:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/polaroid_bw/pool/tags/portrait/

[35mmdelux]

you want portrait...one word: Hasselblad, with 120mm.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I used to be interested in what you're looking for. I first tried a Mamiya 6 and later a GA645zi. The Mamiya is a nice camera, but the bokeh is pretty bad, when you can get bokeh. The minimum focus distance is not close enough for what i wanted to do, and the lens is then too slow to really be optimal for the portraits i wanted to take.

The Fuji was problematic in that it's an AF camera, but also a 'rangefinder,' so you can't tell if the AF is functioning accurately. Even if the distance indicator shows you what you expect to see, the AF module may not be giving you sharp images. I took the thing to Brazil and didn't find out until i processed the film that the AF needed to be calibrated. I had shot some quick, rough test film before traveling, but not at the same distances and apertures as i needed to work in Brazil. Or, maybe it became 'unaligned?' during the trip? Whatever. Fuji's service later 'fixed' the AF, but that was an experience i'll not repeat. Either way, i just didn't like using that camera for portraiture. The viewfinder may be bright enough, but it seems sort of distorted.

My feeling now is that if you really are critical about the results, you may just need to compromise on the rangefinder criteria and just use the proper camera for the job. Get a Hasselblad and the appropriate lens, and deal with the size/weight. As for "stealth," i don't believe ANY medium format camera is going to be 'stealthy,' no matter how quiet. They're all either too big or too 'odd-looking' to not garner attention. You can't hide with any of these cameras, and if you could, you're not really taking 'portraits.'

I will be interested to see how close the Fuji/Voigtlander 6x7 folder can get. That might be a solution, but again, not stealthy per se.

[P. Lynn Miller]

Wonderful friends and artists come to our home on the hill and cabin in the rain forest. A couple bottles of wine, a supportive and accepting atmosphere, and they start talking about what really matters to them and what they are passionate about... the portrait opportunities are marvelous. I'll quietly take out a camera that was placed close, yet out of the way. Then I'll scoot into position to take a candid portrait. When the moment is right, I'll press the shutter release... the mirror slaps up, the shutter quietly snips, and then the mirror drops back into place with a clunk. Everyone looks at me with that what the hell was that look and flow everything is interrupted. And, I think there has to be a better tool!

I had hoped to avoid to avoid this, but maybe I need to look at something, gulp, digital...

monkeytumble:

I have one way that sort of works to get away with the big, noisy medium-format camera in this type of situation...

All our friends know that I always have a camera at hand, always. So what I often will do as the conversations starts to turn toward the perfect candid stuff, is get up, leave the table and bring the Norita with me. Now I have two of them. One is loaded with film, the other not. I precede to pretend to work on one of the Norita's, back open, lens on and off, dry firing, put it back together point at someone and trip the shutter, all the while participating in the conversation as if the camera does not exist. I am basically conditioning everyone to the presence of the camera and the noises it makes and that I do need to point at someone once in a while to check whether it is working or not. At some point, the Norita loaded with film makes its appearance and everyone still thinks I am busy playing with my camera. You would be amazed at how well this ploy works. Most often I can work my way though several 120 rolls of Tri-X pushed to 6400 without anyone really being the wiser...

[Way]

Not a MF rangefinder but a great portrait camera is a Rolleiflex. Very quiet shutter. If you're worried about focusing closer than many MF cameras nominal 3' or 1 meter, buy a set of Rolleinar close up lenses. I recently bought two Rolleinar close up lenses for my Rolleiflex 2.8f. Rollei made three close up lenses for this range of cameras: Rolleinar 1, 2 and 3. I have the 2 and 3.

Rolleinar 1 focuses from 39.5 - 17.75"
Rolleinar 2 Focuses from 19.75 - 12 1/8"
Rolleinar 3 focuses from 12.5 - 9.5"

So with these lenses you can cover from infinity down to less than 10"! On top of that, they are parallax corrected. I would like to find a Rolleinar 1 and I hear that they are great for closer portraits. Along with the Xenotar's 2.8 aperture you can get some beautiful bokeh. Here's a couple of shots I posted in the gallery. Not portraits but you can get an idea of the quality and bokeh of these lenses.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/1141/U1141I1226713668.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/1141/U1141I1226713669.SEQ.0.jpg

[LADP]

If I recall correctly, the zeiss lens for motion picture cameras cost about a new honda civic or more. :D

A full set of Cooke S4 primes will be in the 100K neighborhood. Yes, it's an upscale neighborhood.

Most motion picture camera packages are rented, not owned. A typical weekly rental for a modest 2 camera package for episodic TV production will be around $14K a week give or take a couple of grand. That's after a discount.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I find the best portrait lens I have is one on my Polaroid ColorPack II, I have bought another to mount on my Pentax 6x7, which I know is too big for you, but it has a softness that woman like.


One of the Polaroid Pathfinders 110-120 converted to packfilm would have been a good but heavy choice. Would have been as the B&W negative variety of the film packs isn't made anymore AFAIK. About 1 meter focus distance which is close with a 127mm lens. A very fine grained film with low contrast. Sharp Tessar type lenses.

A TLR however allows a less confronting approach of the subject. The photographer bows to the victim looking in the waist level finder and the victim is more at comfort when photographed. Not my observation but often cited by people that have used TLRs.

Ernst Dinkla

[FPjohn]

Jane Brown's work is one of the best arguments for the TLR and Portraiture. IMHO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/mar/04/photography

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/0,,1723000,00.html
yours
FPJ

[sleepyhead]

Like I said above, TLR!

[Gumby]

you want portrait...one word: Hasselblad, with 120mm.

150mm. ;)

and a Softar.

[charjohncarter]

FPjohn, you are right about Jane Brown. Never heard of her but that doesn't mean much. Maybe I'll use my Rollei more instead of the folders.

[Jay Decker]

Since posting my initial query, I've purchased a 100mm lens for my Bronica RF645. And, also a Mamiya 7 II with 80mm and 150mm lenses. To make a longer story shorter, I'll be headed down a new path... and, I'm looking forward to what I'll learn!

Thank you to those who posted their suggestions. I carefully considered everyone's input and found the TLR and Polaroid suggestions thought provoking.

Thanks,

Jay

[Michael P.]

Congratulations. For those of us who are tracking the going rate for the 100mm, could you tell us how much you paid for it?

[Jay Decker]

Congratulations. For those of us who are tracking the going rate for the 100mm, could you tell us how much you paid for it?

About $850... how's that compare to the going rate trend?

[Michael P.]

Thanks. That seems to be about average recently, US $800-$1000. About a year ago some sold for around $1500, but I think mostly in Europe, where the euro was strong against the dollar.