Bought a Makina 67!

[dreilly]

So I've been looking over my gear, and my recent photography, and I made a decision I'm going to try to stick to.

I've been shooting digital almost exclusively for a few years now, after shooting 35mm and 120 for a while. The 35mm was Leica/Canon rf, and the 120 was usually Rolleiflex and Minolta TLRs. I gave them up for the convenience of digital and the faster workflow.

I won't go into my digital journey, but I tried full-frame and various APS-C cameras, but kept going back to m43. Right now I have a E-M5 and three great little prime lenses. I love the kit! But I miss film, particularly, the limited depth of field it offers, the organic grain, the whole ritual of film, even the bloody smell of emulsion when you open up the foil package.

A couple of months ago I bought a Leica M3 off of GetDPI. It's my choice for most beautiful camera ever, and I've owned a few over the years. This one is really nice. Single stroke, modified to focus to .7 meters. On a recent shoot of a fish fry restaurant, I shot a few rolls of cheap kodak film, and though none of them made it into my submissions, I was reminded why I like film.

But I haven't really used the M3. The E-M5 is just too convenient. And the look of 35mm film isn't different enough to motivate me to load it up.

So I started thinking about medium format. I read a lot online as is my habit...looked at Hasselblad and the Rollei SL66 and reconsidered TLRs and even the Mamiya 6 or Fuji GF670...but then I remembered the Makina 67. I had one briefly. I can't remember why I was dumb enough to get rid of it. But I was shooting a lot of film at the time and it probably seemed more trouble than benefit.

Times are different now. I'd like a camera in my gear bag that gives me a very different look, something that digital just can't really do short of a digital back and oodles of cash. But something compact, too.

I considered the Makina vs. the GF670, which seems like a great camera. Half a stop difference, slightly longer lens on the Makina, A mode on the GF670...the Makina is more expensive. I almost bought the GF670. Makina prices are pretty high and I notice that most of them on ebay are BIN with very high prices that don't seem to sell...auctions seem to end more reasonably, but still, for less I could get a new GF670.

Then I wandered for some reason to KEH, and was tooling around their MF section, and checked Misc. Medium Format and then folding cameras. BGN Makina 67 for $1200. I bought it. Comes tomorrow. Hope it's another KEH surprise and in great shape. I'll keep you posted. Now I have to buy some film. Want to shoot slide (I have an old MF slide projector that's like a automatic photographic crack dispenser) and probably some black and white and color for scanning, too.

I like provia slide, anyone have any suggestions for black and white, and also for high speed films?

I hope to shoot a few rolls at every restaurant assignment I shoot, and mix those in with the digital work. Particularly portraits.

cheers,
Doug

[Calzone]

Thanks for sharing your journey back. I never went digital and only shoot film.

For B&W I shoot either Tri-X at 650, or Arcos at 100 and use Diafine as my developer. I learned that the recommended film speeds are way too aggressive, and that using orange filters in MF prevents thin negatives by undoing some of the compensating effects of this two part developer that gets reused.

The results are stunning and strongly resemble large format BTW. Arcos has no grain, Tri-X requires an 8x lupe to see any grain, and that is only indicated when compared side by side against Arcos. Someone I respect who shoots large format once comented about my negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

The only cameras I now lust are the Makina 67 and 67W because of their compactness. Currently I own a Plaubel 69W which is a great camera.

BTW if you need service Nippon Photo Clinic is the only place I know of that works on Plaubels in the U.S.

Best of luck.

Cal

[FrankS]

That is one of the classic cameras that everyone should get a chance to at least try.

[dogberryjr]

Congrats! It's a wonderful camera.

[jja]

Thanks for sharing, enjoy the journey! I have also gone back to MF with an inexpensive Rolleiflex. If I decide to stick with it, I might splurge on something really nice.

Can you tell us more about your MF slide projector?

[pagpow]

Originally Posted by jja

Thanks for sharing, enjoy the journey! I have also gone back to MF with an inexpensive Rolleiflex. If I decide to stick with it, I might splurge on something really nice.

Can you tell us more about your MF slide projector?

Doug, I'd like to hear about your MF projector, too. Your description later in this thread makes me wonder whether it is an auditorium beast, like the Beseler Slide King or similar? or does your calling it a dual format projector mean 6x6 and 35mm? likely not if you're contemplating it for 6x7.

Giorgio

[dfatty]

congrats. i've made a similar decision to use film for MF and to stick with digital for smaller format. but i'm often tempted by a CLE or M2/M3. reading that you bought an M3 and didn't use it will hopefully help release some of the GAS because i know i would end up doing the same exact thing.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by dfatty

congrats. i've made a similar decision to use film for MF and to stick with digital for smaller format. but i'm often tempted by a CLE or M2/M3. reading that you bought an M3 and didn't use it will hopefully help release some of the GAS because i know i would end up doing the same exact thing.

Just look at the big negatives. If that doesn't work compare the level of detail and the contrast range between the two formats.

Recently I built out a Pentax 67II kit. What a great camera, but JSrockit calls my new camera a monster, and basically it is. The Makina's are very elegant cameras in comparison.

Cal

[dfatty]

Oh, I love MF and can definitely tell the difference over smaller format. But what I'm trying to convince myself is that I'm not missing anything by shooting smaller format in digital (whether full frame, APS-C, or m43) rather than in film with a CLE or other 35mm film camera like the M3 that dreilly didn't use. I shoot almost exclusively color so I think digital is better for me, and I'm better off reserving my limited developing and scanning time for MF. But that still doesn't keep me from looking for a CLE, lol.

Cal, your gear list is GAS inducing. I have a P67II, it's a monster. To me it makes the Fuji 6x9 feel like a half frame.

Originally Posted by Calzone

Just look at the big negatives. If that doesn't work compare the level of detail and the contrast range between the two formats.

Recently I built out a Pentax 67II kit. What a great camera, but JSrockit calls my new camera a monster, and basically it is. The Makina's are very elegant cameras in comparison.

Cal

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by dfatty

Cal, your gear list is GAS inducing. I have a P67II, it's a monster. To me it makes the Fuji 6x9 feel like a half frame.

I like carrying two cameras because I hate changing lenses, but carrying two P67II's is a bit much. Already have an extra unmetered P67II prism and a waist level finder though... Just need a bare body...

The Rollei 3.5F and the Plaubel 69W is a great pair, and carrying a GM670 and GL690 pair of Fuji's is easy using a Black Rapid harness.

All these cameras kinda look supersized because although I'm 5'10" I only weigh 150 pounds, but my right arm is kinda overdeveloped and almost an inch longer. Also for a skinny guy I have a very thick neck.

Cal

[rbelyell]

First congrats on the camera and the price, both fantastic! I recently got a similar deal on an Xpan. Although a 35mm camera, i believe the lenses are much closer to medium format and the IQ is blowing away my 'ordinary' 35mm RF gear. In fact, the IQ of an old 6x9 zeiss folder blows it away also. Thus i too have been seriously contemplating moving my film work from 35mm to a compact MF system. I too have it narrowed down to the GF670 and the Makina. Im not a big fan of folders, so ive been leaning to the makina, though if i could find a 670W for under two grand i think i would snap it up just because of the dual format, as i do like 6x6 for portraiture, but prefer 6x7 for landscape. Anyway i always find it interesting how ones circuitous journey can be so alike anothers. Please keep us posted!
Tony

[dreilly]

I actually have experience with Diafine (my darkroom experience is pretty thin) so I might try that with Acros. Calzone, what do you usually rate your Acros as, and what orange filter?

I'll have to shoot some pics of my medium format projector. It's old, looks like it was made for a school. Can't remember the make off hand but maybe it came from Chicago? Anyway, dual format depending on what attachment it has on it, and slides go in and out, one by one. Still a medium format slide projected is to die for.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by dreilly

I actually have experience with Diafine (my darkroom experience is pretty thin) so I might try that with Acros. Calzone, what do you usually rate your Acros as, and what orange filter?

I'll have to shoot some pics of my medium format projector. It's old, looks like it was made for a school. Can't remember the make off hand but maybe it came from Chicago? Anyway, dual format depending on what attachment it has on it, and slides go in and out, one by one. Still a medium format slide projected is to die for.

Doug,

I rate Arcos at box speed (100 ISO). I found that a B&W 23 (deep yellow they call it, but it looks like light orange to me) is ideal. 2X yellow isn't really enough. BTW I make my negatives for wet printing so they are likely a bit too dense for scanning. I basically straight print with a condenser enlarger without any filters onto either number 2 or 3 graded paper.

With Tri-X use a B&W 40 (yellow/orange) and shoot at 650 ISO.

If you are going to scan bump the ISO a bit. Perhaps 140 for Arcos and 800 for Tri-X. For me Arcos and Tri-X are the two films that work best with Diafine.

One of the reasons I use Diafine is because I shoot so much film. Last week I developed 57 rolls of film over a two day period. Already I have 14 rolls in the fridge from the weekend that need to be developed.

Cal

[furcafe]

Welcome "back" to the Makina fold. I have the Fuji GF670, too, & it is a very different beast from the Makinas.

As Calzone wrote & you probably remember, even relatively high speed films, like Delta 3200, have much less grain in medium format, so I would recommend shooting the same films you like in 35mm, but go up 1 or 2 stops in speed.

[dreilly]

furcafe, just to clarify, go up 1-2 stops in rating if I'm developing in Diafine, right? Not as a matter of course....

d

[furcafe]

I was talking about going up 1-2 stops in choice of film that are in the same "family," e.g., from T-Max 100 to T-Max 400.

I'm not an expert on Diafine, but yes, I understand that it gives a speed boost w/Tri-X & HP5+.

Originally Posted by dreilly

furcafe, just to clarify, go up 1-2 stops in rating if I'm developing in Diafine, right? Not as a matter of course....

d

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by furcafe

I'm not an expert on Diafine, but yes, I understand that it gives a speed boost w/Tri-X & HP5+.

Diafine provides a speed boost on Tri-X, but I found 1600 and 1250 to be overly aggressive, especially for wet printing.

Diafine is a two part compensating developer that's used to compress contrast. I found that by blasting the contrast with filters I can use some of that excess film speed to put the contrast and appropriate negative density to make perfect negatives for wet prints without any need for contrast filters in the enlarger.

Also know that internal light meters read the light differently even if its TTL. On my Nikon F3P I set my ASA at 500 when shooting Tri-X because a 3X filter only accounts for one stop of light and not the required 1 1/2 stops. The same happens with my Pentax 67II. Base ISO without any filter is 650 with Tri-X. I hope I'm being clear.

Cal

[raid]

Congratulations on this purchase. The MF large sized negatives or transparencies are a joy to inspect. The lens on the Makina should be a very good one.

[dreilly]

Calzone and Furcafe,
Now it's all clear, we were all thinking about different things! Furcafe...yeah, that makes sense, I'm definitely going to play with some delta 3200. Somewhere I have a file with collected wisdom on different emulsions and diafine. I scan, so Calzone's technique...which sounds fascinating, won't apply to me. Cheers!
doug

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by dreilly

Calzone and Furcafe,
Now it's all clear, we were all thinking about different things! Furcafe...yeah, that makes sense, I'm definitely going to play with some delta 3200. Somewhere I have a file with collected wisdom on different emulsions and diafine. I scan, so Calzone's technique...which sounds fascinating, won't apply to me. Cheers!
doug

Doug i'am a Calzone convert when it comes to Diafine. I scan and don't intend on wet printing (I hate that part, always have, always will). Diafine with TriX rated at 800 (or 1250 depending on condition) and especially Fuji Acros 100 rated at 160 is magic. Pan F plus @ ISO 50 is also amazing under harsh noon lighting.

I used to use D76, Rodinal and various other combos but for scanning, Diafine has been outstanding. The negs scan very easily and retain the tonality and low grain that i like. It's also been a considerable boon since the speed increase is very handy and the costs associated with using diafine per roll is very low. I haven't tried many T grain emulsions (only Tmax 100 in 35mm format) and those sucked and were nothing like TriX and Acros.

[goffer]

Excellent find on the 67! I love my Fuji GF670 folder just wish it were a 2,8 like the Makina

[dreilly]

Pagpow,
You are correct, I was thinking of 6x6 and 35mm. I hadn't really considered this but I will likely crop to 6x6. One of the pros in the gf670 category was actually the 6x6 built in mask. I love squares and often shoot my om-d in 1:1 mode. I will have to check my slide mounts to see how big the emulsion space is compared to the image area...I might be able to squeeze most of the extra centimeter in there, though it won't be visible. Gosh, I have been out of film for a long time!

[dreilly]

Should change the title to "returned a Makina 67"! It wasn't in terrible shape, but I didn't like the feel of the advance and the meter didn't work. One its way back to KEH now. One thing that really surprised me that I didn't remember from the last one I owned years ago...the thing is loud as a gun. Not sure how they got a leaf shutter to be so bloody loud.

Decided to try something really different--Norita 66. That will sound like a gun but it's supposed to since it's a medium format SLR. 6x6 with 80mm f2 lens. I'm getting a rare chrome one in the original Rittreck livery (Rittreck produced it first, sold the line to Norita (or whatever the parent company was).

I'll have to post my impressions in the SLR forum...should be here next week!

[dogberryjr]

Well, that's a bummer. I got mine used, so I can't account for its first years of life, but since it's been in my possession, I have always made sure to be gentle when extending the bellows and to focus to infinity before closing, but despite my caution, the meter still failed. I use a CV meter on the hotshoe now.

[Calzone]

Sorry to hear about your disappointment. Nippon Camera Clinic is the only place I know that will repair a Plaubel with a broken meter. The cost is expensive, but I know they do good work because of other cameras they have repaired for me.

For a medium format SLR I went for a Pentax 67II. It has awesome metering with the AE finder. Spot, center weighted, and 6 segment matrix metering, plus aperture priority that I found to be deadly accurate.

Cal