I shoot medium format cameras.
Before I read this thread, I had come to the conclusion that if I ever decided to buy a 645 camera, it would be the Pentax 645 because I knew an Alaskan landscape photographer who produced some excellent images under very harsh conditions with a pair of Pentax 645 cameras.
Sorry, who says Mamiya 645 is less then P645? Unless this is Mamiya 645 before interchangeable backs and also NOT Pentax 645.I shoot medium format cameras.
I have used Pentax cameras and Mamiya cameras.
I shoot with 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm medium format cameras but I have never used a 645 camera.
Before I read this thread, I had come to the conclusion that if I ever decided to buy a 645 camera, it would be the Pentax 645 because I knew an Alaskan landscape photographer who produced some excellent images under very harsh conditions with a pair of Pentax 645 cameras.
However, after reading the comments in this thread, I would now buy the Mamiya 645 because of the lower price.
Tim Parkin on his web site seems to only stick to Ebony 45 with Schneider SSXL lenses. Does not look like a competition for any 645 system.I would caveat what I wrote with, "it depends on if you are selling your work". If people are buying your work, and what the sharpest film prints, then price should not be factored in. But then you probably won't be shooting 645. But then, I was looking at some of Tim Parkin's work on Flickr, in the mountains in Scotland, and note he has started using a Sony A7II, probably due to the 40mp sensor combined with Zeiss lenses....
If you choose Bronica stick with ETRSI and same model film backs.I don't recall now why I had dismissed the Bronica, but it sounds like folks really like it. The price and availability on the auction site look pretty good, so I'm starting to get tempted in that direction.
I give you just one advice : buy the camera you like most not what others like or want...
I do know that the Bronica is very tough indeed, back in around 2006 I needed to change the front wheel, flat tyre, and needed everything out of the boot (trunk ) and put the billingham bag with my Bronica outfit in it near the back wheel, jacked up the front with a Ford jack, not the best in the world, got the wheel changed, but before I could lower the car the earth sank, and the car rolled back, straight onto the camera bag, thought thats it , new camera and lenses, rolled the car off the bag, took the camera out, only damage was to the 2 plastic lever's for the mirror up and double exposure, I am still using the bronica and the lenses today, I call it old faithful,
Not a wheel chock, a car support, and they take great photos, as good as any of the Rolleiflex's I own, In the good old days I would say go to a camera store, try the cameras you are interested in, and pick the one that suits you, That's what I did with the first new Bronica I bought, second one was used,but I new I liked it, Mamiya was also used, but from a local shop and I was able try it out before I bought it, o if you get a chance try the cameras before you buy, either borrowing from a friend, or find a good used supplier locally, they will all take great photo's, they all have good lenses, just choose the one you are happy withNow I know what Bronicas are good for ===> wheel chocks.
For those who like the RB67, there was a 645 back for it (in 120, at least). I have one.
Now I know what Bronicas are good for ===> wheel chocks.
But you are welcome to set fire to and dance around your straw man.
Now I know what Bronicas are good for ===> wheel chocks.
Not a wheel chock, a car support, and they take great photos, as good as any of the Rolleiflex's I own, In the good old days I would say go to a camera store, try the cameras you are interested in, and pick the one that suits you, That's what I did with the first new Bronica I bought, second one was used,but I new I liked it, Mamiya was also used, but from a local shop and I was able try it out before I bought it, o if you get a chance try the cameras before you buy, either borrowing from a friend, or find a good used supplier locally, they will all take great photo's, they all have good lenses, just choose the one you are happy with
Hmm I recall the first time I saw a Hasselblad 500C/M in my life. A photo crew went into my home to take pictures of my dad (he's sort of famous locally). There was the 500C/M with the 80/2.8C Zeiss. Ooohh, serious glass!!
It jammed. Fortunately they had two bodies.
True story.
I'd take the Bronica, thanks.
If people are buying your work, and what the sharpest film prints, then price should not be factored in. But then you probably won't be shooting 645.
The reality is that if you're selling your work at a high enough level to be of artistic consequence, no one really cares about the tech specs of what you used. All that really matters is the outcome..
I'm quite surprised - he doesn't seem to have noticed.Wait until Sirius Glass reads your post...
Would love to hear from someone who's A-B'd them in person. As an 80's kid I'm not worried about his opinion on push-buttons.
There is a 127 film format that is actually larger than 645 on 120. It's 6.5x4.5cm and the cameras are about the same size as 35mm cameras. Too bad 127 wasn't better utilized by camera manufacturers.
"There was even a short-lived purpose built 127 SLR -- the Komaflex-S. Hasselblad even had a 127 back (C16S), but it too was for the square format."Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original post. I use an AB-82 on mine, which had apparently been gathering dust in the back room of Hunt Photo for the better part of a decade. I find the screen acceptable, but I rarely use the camera in available light. I broke a rule of mine and just looked at Mr. Rockwell's review, and he notes the camera has "Modern bright laser-cut screens," at least for 2009 levels of modern. Pentax 645 lenses are not as cheap as they were pre 645D, though.
127 was introduced with the Vest Pocket Kodak folding camera. In that camera, it produced 8 shots of a nominal 6.5x4mm size. Exakta used the same format as did quite a few other folders, but the Zeiss Ikon Kolibri was a "half-frame" 127 camera, yielding 16 3x4cm shots. But 127 also had success as a square format. The first camera I used was a Brownie Starmite II, and like all of the Brownie "Star" series, it produced 12 4x4cm (nominal) shots on 127 film. As a more serious effort, various models of the "Baby Rolleiflex" were produced over more than a 30-year period. The Yashica 44 also had some success. There was even a short-lived purpose built 127 SLR -- the Komaflex-S. Hasselblad even had a 127 back (C16S), but it too was for the square format.
The square 127 format was sometimes called "superslide." The slides could fit in most 35mm slide projectors, although often with vignetting. Such slides were frequently sold to tourists as souvenirs.
Ross Yerkes is still servicing Kowas, at least he was earlier this year. He is getting pretty old so you might want to strike while the iron is hot.I own a Komaflex S, bought new in perhaps 1960. Nice box! Auto diaphragm, auto film stop, good 4 element 65mm lens. It needs a CLA; the auto diaphragm doesn't close down. If 127 film were more available and cheaper I'd have it fixed. I have the ever ready case, the instruction book, and even the box. The slides will work in a 35mm projector, and are wonderful to see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?