645 Question

thuggins said:

I am torn between the Mamiya (any of the various versions) and the Pentax 645n. What are the thoughts and observations from folks who have used them? I am also curious about lens availability, quality and prices.

Click to expand...

I much prefer the Mamiya 645 FWIW, the ergonomics of the Pentax 645 are awkward for me. I have a 645 Pro, and it can be configured as a smaller camera (WLF and wind knob) or large SLR-like camera with AE viewfinder and side grip. extremely flexible, and for me the lens choices are better with the mamiya, and oftentimes cheaper

I usually shoot with an RB67 ProSD kit, but when I need something smaller and more flexibility (ie, hiking in to a remote area) I will often carry my Mamiya 645 ProTL with me along with a few backs and lenses. I really enjoy the 645 Super/Pro series - good ergonomics, good range of glass, and the ability to swap parts out depending on your needs. I think IMHO sometimes it suffers in low light in regards to seeing thru the viewfinder compared to the RB67 but there has to be trade-offs so I'm OK with that.

There are those on here and also on the Facebook 645 group that have an axe to grind regarding them, claiming that they are too plastic and fragile. In general, most of that is anecdotal and should be taken with a bit of skepticism.

I'll add my own anecdote to counter that - last weekend I hiked into an area to shoot a waterfall, and when done with the shot, picked up the 645 and tripod and put it up on shoulder to walk out of the stream bed area and put everything back in the pack. Unfortunately my tripod picked this moment for the head to snap off (there was a crack in the center screw that held it on, that had been there for awhile and growing, but because it was hidden I didn't notice it - my bad for not checking that after years of abuse and bad weather on my part) and let the camera fall from about 6 feet onto the rocks. Other than a slightly bent filter thread area on the 35mm lens that I've already repaired, nothing else was damaged. Not even a crack in the plastic skin, just a mark where it bounced off a rock.

Jeremy

Jeremy Mudd said:

I usually shoot with an RB67 ProSD kit, but when I need something smaller and more flexibility (ie, hiking in to a remote area) I will often carry my Mamiya 645 ProTL with me along with a few backs and lenses. I really enjoy the 645 Super/Pro series - good ergonomics, good range of glass, and the ability to swap parts out depending on your needs. I think IMHO sometimes it suffers in low light in regards to seeing thru the viewfinder compared to the RB67 but there has to be trade-offs so I'm OK with that.

There are those on here and also on the Facebook 645 group that have an axe to grind regarding them, claiming that they are too plastic and fragile. In general, most of that is anecdotal and should be taken with a bit of skepticism.

I'll add my own anecdote to counter that - last weekend I hiked into an area to shoot a waterfall, and when done with the shot, picked up the 645 and tripod and put it up on shoulder to walk out of the stream bed area and put everything back in the pack. Unfortunately my tripod picked this moment for the head to snap off (there was a crack in the center screw that held it on, that had been there for awhile and growing, but because it was hidden I didn't notice it - my bad for not checking that after years of abuse and bad weather on my part) and let the camera fall from about 6 feet onto the rocks. Other than a slightly bent filter thread area on the 35mm lens that I've already repaired, nothing else was damaged. Not even a crack in the plastic skin, just a mark where it bounced off a rock.

Jeremy

Click to expand...

When I did weddings, and "moved up" from the 645 1000s, I went to the Super. I put literally thousands of frames through it, with nothing other than routine maintenance, and never had a misfire. I sold off all my wedding gear around 12 years back, but recently replaced the 645 Super, with a 645 Pro TL. It's just as reliable, although I've only run around 500 frames through it, and it's a used body.

I've owned a Mamiya RZ67 and loved it but I have never owned a Mamiya 645. I have owned all 3 Pentax 645 cameras, 645, 645N, and 645Nll and liked all of them. The only thing I didn't care for was the shutter speed buttons on the original camera. I prefer a shutter speed dial. I also preferred the matrix metering on the N and Nll. Autofocus is nice too. I always shot these camera's hand held and used the RZ for tripod shots with studio lights.

My favorite of the Pentax cameras was the 645Nll due to the paint. The N is prettier but the paint of the Nll helps hide scratches on it's surface. The mirror lock-up on the Nll is unnecessary due to the excellent dampening on all three models. If you are looking for autofocus lenses then check the current prices on the FA lenses. They really shot up in price due to the introduction of the 645D cameras. It's probably going to be cheaper to go with the Mamiya 645.

My first medium format camera was the Bronica ETRsi. They are a bargain if you can do without automation and auto focus.

A 6x6 camera is more versatile. You can shoot 6x6 or crop to 645. Another advantage is that you don't have to turn the camera on it's side for portrait orientation. Hasselblads are great but more expensive. I've owned a 500/cm. I now own a Mamiya TLR because of costs. Most of my money is in my 8x10 outfit. Don't believe the 645 isn't better than 35mm statements. Also if you always crop 6x6 to a rectangle then you may prefer a 645 camera.

Like someone said earlier, get what you like. They are all good so do your research to find what's best for you.

thuggins said:

I am torn between the Mamiya (any of the various versions) and the Pentax 645n. What are the thoughts and observations from folks who have used them? I am also curious about lens availability, quality and prices.

Click to expand...

Hi Tim,

No experience with Mamiya 645.

I have been shooting with my Pentax 645N for a little over 12 years now. I bought mine as a salvage - it had been dropped along with the lens - and sent it off to Pentax USA in Colorado (when they still repaired cameras in house). Anyhow, they replaced some items and brought it back up to spec and it just keeps working. I have used it in the Ecuadorean Amazon and up in the Andes at 12,000 feet, and in the bitter cold up in the Catkills and Ontario -- and it just works. I have purchased spare bodies in the past thinking that my original body will just stop one day, but after a year or two, I sell these off until I start to get nervous again and buy another back up or two. A wonderful development here in the USA is that there is a fellow that has started to repair these bodies and even 3D print some parts, so service is not a problem. I have had two 645N bodies in to him (my back ups that I never end up needing) for service and am very happy with the work.

645 Lenses - I have the FA 75mm f/2.8 which is the kit lens and it is small, light and sharp enough. I have also used the FA 45-85mm f/4.5 which is a sleeper lens in this line up and some say sharper than the prime 45mm. The FA 80-160mm f/4.5 is also very nice although I don't own that one anymore. The FA 200mm f/4 is also another sleeper lens which can be found for under $200 in clean condition - sharp and very light. The FA 150mm f/2.8 is a wonderful portrait lens and I can't seem to decide between it and the FA 200mm f/4. The A 120mm f/4 macro is great and really inexpensive lately (under $200). For longer glass the A* 300mm f/4 ED is a very solid starting point, sharp and inexpensive (although as the A designates, manual focus only). For wider than the 45mm there is the A 35mm f/3.5 is small and very nice to use - I used to also own the FA 35mm f/3.5 and could not justify the additional cost despite it likely being a bit sharper (it was a beautiful lens, but I just did not shoot much at this foal length, so the A version stayed). There is also a unique (for medium format film series) wide angle zoom, the FA 33-55mm f/4.5 AL that I have owned a few times already. A very nice range, but a range I don't find myself using with the 645N. I have also owned the FA 400mm f/5.6 which was nice, but did not see much use by me (see Pentax-M* 67 400mm below). There are also two leaf shutter lenses that are worth looking into if you do any flash work. They are the A 75mm f/2.8 LS and the A 135mm f/4 LS - both very useful focal length on their own with the added benefit of flash sync speeds of up to 1/500th of a second due to the built in leaf shutter. Many other Pentax 645 mount lenses available and many of the A series (manual focus only) are rather inexpensive and easy to find.

67 Lenses - for portraits the 67 105mm f/2.4 is fantastic (there are three versions, the earlier have thorium and that may add a yellow/amber tinge to the glass if not treated with UV light - easily reversible). You can use the Pentax 67 (6x7) lenses on 645 bodies via a few different choices of adapters, one of them being the Pentax brand. There are a few other straight adapters from places like K&F etc. One adapter that you might want to look into if you need shift ability is the Zoerk Pro Shift (http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm). Another, albeit expensive and heavy option, is the stunning mouthfull - SMC Pentax-M* 67 400mm F4 ED [IF] - large and heavy, but oh so sharp and gorgeous bokeh if you need fast and long.

other lenses - you can adapt some Hasselblad lenses although I've never tried. There is an interesting lens if you like Petzval-type effect that a fellow in Olympia WA has made in a Pentacon Six mount (easily adapted to Pentax 645 cameras) http://ivanichek.com/Medium format Petzvar Petzval lens.htm. I've used mine sparingly and that is just due to not having enough time. Other Pentacon Six mount lenses are easy to find and easy to adapt to a Pentax 645 series camera. The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 in Pentacon Six mount is somewhat big, but a nice addition to your line up if you do a lot of portrait work. My copy of this lens has a 1/4"-20 thread on the rotating tripod mount.

Pentax 645N design - the viewfinder is bright and beautiful. There are some focusing screen options available notably the AB-82 which is a split image type that is very useful for me when manually focusing lenses. The AB-82 is kind of hard to find and I've managed to squirrel a couple away for myself, so they are out there, but infrequently offered and becoming more scarce as wedding photographers return to film and discover the Pentax 645N world. The dials are a nice feature that is familiar to me. It is louder than my Nikon SLRs/DSLRs and Minolta SLRs, but nowhere near as loud as my Fuji GX680 or even the Pentax 67. There is the option to imprint data onto the non-image portion of negatives/slides to help figure out what settings and lens you used for that particular shot. The dual, six segment matrix meter works very well for me with C-41 films except for sunny days with lots of snow, but that is easy to fix with the exposure compensation dial. With manual focusing, there is a handy focus confirmation feature on the 645N which can be a simple green hexagon lighting up in the viewfinder or you can also add an audible option (soft beep) when something is in focus. While the autofocus is not up to the same speed and tracking ability of modern DSLRs, it is very usable for my needs - portraits, casual imaging of friends, landscapes and when I owned the FA 400mm f/5.6 for wildlife (larger birds and mammals where the autofocus was helpful and effective).

I'm a big fan of the Pentax 645N and it would be the last camera that I would sell (apart from a sentimental Minolta SRT-102).

Yuri

thuggins said:

The whole point to the 645 is to get the 35mm SLR experience in medium format.

Click to expand...

The Pentax 645N for me has been the closest I have come to the 35mm experience.

while not an exhaustive list, I have owned: Pentax 645 (original); Pentax 645N (never selling mine); Pentax 67; Fuji GX680 (an amazing experience from a body building perspective); Fuji GW690; Bronica SQ; Minolta Autocord; Graflex 3x4 with 120 back; Widelux 1500.

Witold said:

Please stop the nonsense of 645 not being that big of an advantage over 35mm. It's huge jump and it shows in print without magnifying glass.

Click to expand...

I agree . The 645 used 120 film and it is acknowledged that the base of the 120 film was thinner and produced a much sharper image than 35mm film. As a result you can see an improved sharpness in a print made with a 645 and/ or 120 produced film over a 35mm film.

yurihuta said:

A wonderful development here in the USA is that there is a fellow that has started to repair these bodies and even 3D print some parts, so service is not a problem. I have had two 645N bodies in to him (my back ups that I never end up needing) for service and am very happy with the work.

Click to expand...

Great to hear. Can you please provide contact information?

Thanks!

wyofilm said:

Great to hear. Can you please provide contact information?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

He is in Arizona and I have been interacting with him via Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/thenimsloguy/?hl=en

He also posts repair videos (not limited to Pentax 645N) here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQgl-czeF7kyR_r9-reT0Ng

Some cool projects he is working on including replacement PCBs for Nimslo cameras in addition to the 3D printing for 645N/645NII parts (shutter speed dials and battery inserts).

yurihuta said:

I'm a big fan of the Pentax 645N and it would be the last camera that I would sell (apart from a sentimental Minolta SRT-102).

Yuri

Click to expand...

Just a passerby here.

The P645n seems an interesting option, there is one in a local auction and I will bid for it. Although I msy not want to spend ad much as to win it.
Interesting modern features in comparison to the Fuji 6x9, which is my current MF camera.
And I guess one neefs more than one MF camera!

yurihuta said:

He is in Arizona and I have been interacting with him via Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/thenimsloguy/?hl=en

He also posts repair videos (not limited to Pentax 645N) here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQgl-czeF7kyR_r9-reT0Ng

Some cool projects he is working on including replacement PCBs for Nimslo cameras in addition to the 3D printing for 645N/645NII parts (shutter speed dials and battery inserts).

Click to expand...

Thanks!

David Reynolds said:

I agree . The 645 used 120mm film and it is acknowledged that the base of the 120 film was thinner and produced a much sharper image than 35mm film. As a result you can see an improved sharpness in a print made with a 645 and/ or 120 mm produced film over a 35mm film.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a link regarding the claim about medium format sharpness and its link to thin film base? I would love to read about the subject.

What is claimed does not make sense, inherently....

• Medium format roll film has historically had a greater issue of film flatness at film plane than 135 or sheet film
• The emulsion side is presented toward the lens, so the thickness or thinness of the film base does itself NOT alter the precision of location of the emulsion at the film plane

I suspect the real reason for apparent sharpness advantage of medium format rollfilm over 135 is simply that there is LOWER MAGNIFICATION of the image recorded by the emulsion to make the same final print size,

wiltw said:

I suspect the real reason for apparent sharpness advantage of medium format rollfilm over 135 is simply that there is LOWER MAGNIFICATION of the image recorded by the emulsion to make the same final print size,

Click to expand...

This has always been my understanding, and reason for why I mostly use medium format versus 35mm.

Jeremy

wiltw said:

Can you provide a link regarding the claim about medium format sharpness and its link to thin film base? I would love to read about the subject.

What is claimed does not make sense, inherently....

• Medium format roll film has historically had a greater issue of film flatness at film plane than 135 or sheet film
• The emulsion side is presented toward the lens, so the thickness or thinness of the film base does itself NOT alter the precision of location of the emulsion at the film plane

I suspect the real reason for apparent sharpness advantage of medium format rollfilm over 135 is simply that there is LOWER MAGNIFICATION of the image recorded by the emulsion to make the same final print size,

Click to expand...

Actually it has less to do with enlargement ratio, although it does make things easier, but simple detail is resolved differently and with higher precision when you think of same emulsion, same size detail etc. This holds true for any increase in negative size. It is no different in principle than getting a better quality scan on same flatbed from smaller vs. larger negative, with all other factors remaining same.

Prest_400 said:

Just a passerby here.

The P645n seems an interesting option, there is one in a local auction and I will bid for it. Although I msy not want to spend ad much as to win it.
Interesting modern features in comparison to the Fuji 6x9, which is my current MF camera.
And I guess one neefs more than one MF camera!

Click to expand...

My Pentax 645N is a great roommate to my Fuji GW690, they eat the same stuff although at different rates.

Witold said:

Actually it has less to do with enlargement ratio, although it does make things easier, but simple detail is resolved differently and with higher precision when you think of same emulsion, same size detail etc. This holds true for any increase in negative size. It is no different in principle than getting a better quality scan on same flatbed from smaller vs. larger negative, with all other factors remaining same.

Click to expand...

That's the same as enlargement ratio. Everything on the bigger film is bigger for the same field of view.

yurihuta said:

He is in Arizona and I have been interacting with him via Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/thenimsloguy/?hl=en

He also posts repair videos (not limited to Pentax 645N) here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQgl-czeF7kyR_r9-reT0Ng

Some cool projects he is working on including replacement PCBs for Nimslo cameras in addition to the 3D printing for 645N/645NII parts (shutter speed dials and battery inserts).

Click to expand...

This is pretty cool.

I'm a huge Pentax user (loads of K mount and a P6x7 system), back in the day I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro mainly for the removable backs (film was the only game in town). Now I'd prefer a 645n(ii) as digital picks up most of my high quantity and mid-roll changes are much less frequent.

I went Mamiya because I wanted an instant return mirror, 1/1000th shutter and the whole outfit with prism & winder felt more connected and complete than the Bronica ERTSi as a similar kit (although I later bought a Bronica SQ for 6x6).

Format wise in today's 'digital' world where only a few of my shots get the medium format film treatment, I now shoot mostly with the P6x7.

Donald Qualls said:

That's the same as enlargement ratio. Everything on the bigger film is bigger for the same field of view.

Click to expand...

No it is not, detail compression is a clear phenomenon, likely related to overall gear that does not render detail in same way. Is it just the lens? No idea. Try to stick same detail on 35mm and 120 then go from there. it is not the same, at least that is where I stand. Not going to make any microscopic proof on the issue, people can knock themselves out on this argument.

I believe the thickness of the emulsion coupled with the thickness of the film base allows for a sharper image when the print is made. I have read that in the past (I believe fuji film made that claim many years ago) but have not been able to find any current literature from Fuji to back this up. My belief comes from making prints from 645 film compared to making prints from 35mm as well as 4X5 film not from analyzing the film itself. It may be just my read from my experience.
What I have found is a web site that talks about MTF curves and how sharpness is affected by emulsions etc and various film brands. I am not an engineer and scientific statistics are not my game. See link below. I speak from the results rather than scientific analysis.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html

The Fates provided this setup on the auction site, and it was mine for 460 bucks. All things considered, I think that was a pretty good deal.

Thanks to all for the helpful insights and comments. As for the tangents... kinda par for the course here.

This is the fault of Congress.

If they'd coughed up that second Economic Impact Payment before the election, like they originally "promised", I'd have had that one or another like it by now...

thuggins said:

The Fates provided this setup on the auction site, and it was mine for 460 bucks. All things considered, I think that was a pretty good deal.

Thanks to all for the helpful insights and comments. As for the tangents... kinda par for the course here.

View attachment 258641

Click to expand...

E*N*J*O*Y!!!!​

Congratulations !

From the image you posted, it looks like you have the 80mm f/2.8 normal lens, the 55mm f/2.8 wide-angle and an f/4 telephoto. What is the focal length of the telephoto?

It's a 210f4. That's actually what cinched it for me. I've got lots of MF with standard lenses, and even a few wides. But you really need an SLR for a telephoto. Since I don't do portraits, the typical ~150mm is pretty useless for me. But the 210mm is good for architectural close-ups, or even a trip to the zoo.