645 Question

[thuggins]

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.

 

[summicron1]

FWIW, Mamiya 645 lenses are plentiful and cheap and very high quality -- pretty much anything you want at $150 a crack, maximum. The lenses only work on that one system and the cameras, one a favorite of wedding shooters and so forth, are now obsolete/cheap because everyone's either gone to Hassy now that THOSE are cheap, or they've gone digital.

On the negative side, the bodies are starting to age. But then, they're also cheap to replace. But then, when you only get 15 shots to a roll, as compared to 12 with a square format, one has to wonder if the benefit is all that great.

My experience only -- I had a Mamiya 645 1000s with four lenses and ended up selling the whole thing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Before you buy take a look at the 6x6s. Much more flexible, no need to rotate the camera and a much larger negative to crop. If you buy a Hasselblad it will be your last camera. It is a system. Service, parts and lenses are readily available. You will just have to wait a little longer between lenses, but this is a camera system for a lifetime.

 

[narsuitus]

@Sirius Glass
Did Hasselblad ever make a 645 camera?
I know I could search for it but please save me some time by just giving me an answer.

 

[guangong]

Before you buy take a look at the 6x6s. Much more flexible, no need to rotate the camera and a much larger negative to crop. If you buy a Hasselblad it will be your last camera. It is a system. Service, parts and lenses are readily available. You will just have to wait a little longer between lenses, but this is a camera system for a lifetime.

Ditto. Besides, 645 not that big an advantage over 35mm with regard to negative size, but without the ease of use of 35mm camera. I bought a 654 back for Hassy, but very rarely use it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

By my calculation, a 645 is close to three times the negative area of a 35mm (24x36 vs. 57x42), and I much prefer the 3:4 ratio over the longer 3:2. Plus, a 645 camera can be significantly lighter than a 6x6, lenses are lighter, smaller, and shorter, etc. Ideally, you'd have a revolving back so as not to have to turn the camera horizontals and verticals (my RB67 with 645 back has this, but lacks the "light" feature), but a 645 is light enough that if you have an eye level prism, it's not that big a deal. A Hassy with 645 back gives up the lightness and still needs to be rotated -- but the camera isn't designed for that.

 

[R.Gould]

I got hold of a Mamiya M645 1000s recently, nice camera, extremely good lenses and the metering prism seems to be very accurate, lenses are very sharp and not to heavy to hand hold, but I would suggest the grip makes handholding easier, but I also have the Bronica ETRSi system which, to my mind has advantages over the mamiya, lighter, using the speed grip makes it as easy as a 35mm to use, the Bronica uses leaf shutter, which gives you flash at all shutter speeds,compared to 1/60 on the mamiya, also the Bronica uses interchangable film backs,wheras the Mamiya only has a film insert, in a black plastic box, not a lot to choose between the lenses, both have a very good range of lenses, 500 the longest on the mamiya, I have a 500mm which came with the camera, forget handholding that lens, to long and heavy, you need at least a monopod, goes for 500 bronica lens, Can't help with the pentax, never used one,

 

[PFGS]

By my calculation, a 645 is close to three times the negative area of a 35mm (24x36 vs. 57x42), and I much prefer the 3:4 ratio over the longer 3:2. Plus, a 645 camera can be significantly lighter than a 6x6, lenses are lighter, smaller, and shorter, etc. Ideally, you'd have a revolving back so as not to have to turn the camera horizontals and verticals (my RB67 with 645 back has this, but lacks the "light" feature), but a 645 is light enough that if you have an eye level prism, it's not that big a deal. A Hassy with 645 back gives up the lightness and still needs to be rotated -- but the camera isn't designed for that.

Seconding all this. 35mm to 645 is the single largest jump in film area among still-viable formats, the usual medium-format advantages over 35mm apply, and "just shoot 6x6" is not always the answer.

And wherever all these still-cheap Hassy setups are, they are hiding very effectively from me at least, because I can't find them. Days of the "$500 C/M" appear to be over.

OP: I have a friend who's a big Pentax fan/collector/shooter. He loves his 645n setup, but did have to go to a fair bit of trouble to bring it all together - they just aren't out there in the numbers that the Mamiya gear is. For price, availability, and long-term replacement, I'd go with Mamiya.

EDIT: I do have a fair bit of experience with the ETRs system and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, though it too is not as cheap or available as it used to be.

 

[wiltw]

By my calculation, a 645 is close to three times the negative area of a 35mm (24x36 vs. 57x42), and I much prefer the 3:4 ratio over the longer 3:2. Plus, a 645 camera can be significantly lighter than a 6x6, lenses are lighter, smaller, and shorter, etc. Ideally, you'd have a revolving back so as not to have to turn the camera horizontals and verticals (my RB67 with 645 back has this, but lacks the "light" feature), but a 645 is light enough that if you have an eye level prism, it's not that big a deal. A Hassy with 645 back gives up the lightness and still needs to be rotated -- but the camera isn't designed for that.

^^^
Looking purely at the short dimension of the frame, you have 24mm (135) vs 43mm (645), a linear factor of 1.8x, so for a 16" x 20" print you have 16.9x magnification of grain vs 9.45x magnification of grain. It is analogous to comparing a 16" x 20" vs. 8.8" x 11" print when both are printed from a 135 format negative in terms of how apparent grain will appear in each print!.
In making a 'same grain limitation' print from both 135 and 645, you would compare a 16"x20" print (which is the max size for majority of 135 photographers due to grain) vs. a 28.8" x 36" print from 645.
And, assuming the human subject filling 20% of the height of the frame for both 135 and 645, there is 3.24 times as many film grains representing the subject's face, providing better gradation of tonal variation of the subject's face. Small grain size in print, better tonal definition.

Back in the day, in choosing a 645 camera for professional purposes (4x5 film was already the next step up, in my kit), I spent lots of time in a professional-oriented local store, on a number of different days to make up my mind between Mamiya M645, Bronica ETRSi, and Pentax 645. I rapidly ruled out the Pentax because its grip was afixed at the very rear of the camera body, putting ALL of the weight of body and long lens in front of the grip with zero counterbalance to the forward torque! I eventually ruled out the Mamiya because you had to buy special leaf shutter lenses to fire electronic flash at any shutter speed and that cause loss of any Auto Exposure automation using a metering prism. (BTW, that same limitation applied also to the Pentax 645.)
I chose the Bronica ETRSi, I used it heavily for wedding coverage (and other applications) and never once found my choice to be lacking in any aspect of usage. I still own two bodies, 6 lenses, and numerous attachments/accessories and was never tempted to sell it, especially given the sinfully low 10:1 ratio of new price:used price after digital became mainstream.

 

[thuggins]

Plus, a 645 camera can be significantly lighter than a 6x6, lenses are lighter, smaller, and shorter, etc.

Thank you for summarizing the advantages of the 645 format. I already have a full Kowa Six kit (plus a Pilot 6, Pilot Super, Great Wall, and numerous TLR's and folders), so I'm not lacking for 6x6. I also have no interest in a Hasselblad and have passed over them on numerous opportunities. The whole point to the 645 is to get the 35mm SLR experience in medium format.

OP: I have a friend who's a big Pentax fan/collector/shooter. He loves his 645n setup, but did have to go to a fair bit of trouble to bring it all together - they just aren't out there in the numbers that the Mamiya gear is. For price, availability, and long-term replacement, I'd go with Mamiya.

EDIT: I do have a fair bit of experience with the ETRs system and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, though it too is not as cheap or available as it used to be.

Thanks, that is the sort of input I was hoping for. The ETRs had been on my list, but had already been winnowed out.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Don't forget the original Pentax 645. Unless AF is that important, and I cannot see why it would be, I much prefer the original. While push button control is not as cute as 645n, I find 645N much harder to focus manually. There was a screen made for N with split image, but Pentax made very few and they are next to impossible to find and when they show up it is above $200. Non AF lenses are also much less expensive but fantastic quality.

 

[PFGS]

Don't forget the original Pentax 645. Unless AF is that important, and I cannot see why it would be, I much prefer the original. While push button control is not as cute as 645n, I find 645N much harder to focus manually. There was a screen made for N with split image, but Pentax made very few and they are next to impossible to find and when they show up it is above $200. Non AF lenses are also much less expensive but fantastic quality.

I considered suggesting this as well - a bare-bones original 645 setup would tell you a lot about how you like the system overall.

 

[GRHazelton]

While I've never used the Mamiya 645 cameras I do own a Pentax 645n. I like it very much! It yields 16 exposures per roll of 120, handles very nicely, and has an excellent TTL exposure system. It also furnishes TTL flash exposure with units that support Pentax.protocols. Exposure info is printed onto the negative rebates, really handy. While it doesn't have mirror lockup, tests by The Luminous Landscape indicate any shake occurs after the exposure. The 645n can furnish autofocus with compatible lenses; for manual focusing the camera has a visual indicator in addition to the view screen. The manual focus 645 lenses have excellent "feel" when focusing.. BTW, after the introduction of Pentax's digital MF lines, which use the same lens mount, all Pentax MF lenses have risen in cost. I own the 35mm wide angle, the 55mm wide angle, the 75mm normal, the 120mm macro, the 200mm tele, and the 80-160mm zoom. All are excellent; the 35mm is truly superlative. With an adapter Pentax 67 lenses can be used. A right angle finder is available, makes low level closeups much more comfortable.
Drawbacks? The 645 film cameras use film inserts, not backs; no midroll swapping between BW and color. The film inserts are "dedicated" to either 120 or 220,although with care and a screwdriver a 220 insert can become a 120 insert, and vice versa. (Pentax doesn't sanction this conversion, BTW) No interchangeable screens, as far as I know. No motor drive; the internal drive gives perhaps 1.5 exposures per second. And as mentioned above, with the introduction of Pentax's digital MF cameras the used lenses have increased in cost.

 

[Bormental]

@thuggins Can't comment on the Pentax. I own the Mamiya 645 Pro TL with three lenses and this is my "easy" medium format camera, i.e. its aperture-priority mode is great, it's not expensive, the lenses are fantastic, the balance of weight to negative size is about perfect. It feels like a DSLR with its 80mm standard lens.

The cost should not be underestimated, as it allows you to relax and just use the camera. Other MF cameras are slower, bulkier and (in the case of Hasselblad) I am constantly worried about damage/abuse because of its cost, so it doesn't do hikes with me but the Mamiya does.

 

[MattKing]

The Mamiya 645 Super, Pro and Pro Tl offer interchangeable backs and finders and the aforementioned wide selection of excellent and affordable lenses.
They are also newer than a 1000s or its predecessors, all of which had fixed backs.
If you normally print to rectangular formats, they give you the same film area as Sirius' Hasselbllad.
The focal plane shutters mean that you have shutter speed consistency from lens to lens and, along with the smaller format, permit lenses to be smaller and lighter than 6x6 SLRs.
The leaf shutter lenses aren't as convenient to use with fill flash as Hasselblad lenses, but I save those situations for my Mamiya C330.
A projected 645 slide is wonderful. This is a scanned version of one of those:

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Sirius Glass
Did Hasselblad ever make a 645 camera?
I know I could search for it but please save me some time by just giving me an answer.

Yes they make a film back but I found that 645 is not worth anyone's time of day.

See below from others:

Ditto. Besides, 645 not that big an advantage over 35mm with regard to negative size, but without the ease of use of 35mm camera. I bought a 654 back for Hassy, but very rarely use it.

^^^
Looking purely at the short dimension of the frame, you have 24mm (135) vs 43mm (645), a linear factor of 1.8x, so for a 16" x 20" print you have 16.9x magnification of grain vs 9.45x magnification of grain. It is analogous to comparing a 16" x 20" vs. 8.8" x 11" print when both are printed from a 135 format negative in terms of how apparent grain will appear in each print!.
In making a 'same grain limitation' print from both 135 and 645, you would compare a 16"x20" print (which is the max size for majority of 135 photographers due to grain) vs. a 28.8" x 36" print from 645.
And, assuming the human subject filling 20% of the height of the frame for both 135 and 645, there is 3.24 times as many film grains representing the subject's face, providing better gradation of tonal variation of the subject's face. Small grain size in print, better tonal definition.

Back in the day, in choosing a 645 camera for professional purposes (4x5 film was already the next step up, in my kit), I spent lots of time in a professional-oriented local store, on a number of different days to make up my mind between Mamiya M645, Bronica ETRSi, and Pentax 645. I rapidly ruled out the Pentax because its grip was afixed at the very rear of the camera body, putting ALL of the weight of body and long lens in front of the grip with zero counterbalance to the forward torque! I eventually ruled out the Mamiya because you had to buy special leaf shutter lenses to fire electronic flash at any shutter speed and that cause loss of any Auto Exposure automation using a metering prism. (BTW, that same limitation applied also to the Pentax 645.)
I chose the Bronica ETRSi, I used it heavily for wedding coverage (and other applications) and never once found my choice to be lacking in any aspect of usage. I still own two bodies, 6 lenses, and numerous attachments/accessories and was never tempted to sell it, especially given the sinfully low 10:1 ratio of new price:used price after digital became mainstream.

 

[wiltw]

Yes they make a film back but I found that 645 is not worth anyone's time of day.

See below from others:

OTOH, in printing an 8x10 or 16x20, 6x6 has virtually NO advantage over a 645, both would be using a 56mm x 44mm image area of the film!

 

[Sirius Glass]

OTOH, in printing an 8x10 or 16x20, 6x6 has virtually NO advantage over a 645, both would be using a 56mm x 44mm image area of the film!

And throwing away a large part of the negative, thus giving up the advantage of going to Medium Format.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

 

[benveniste]

@Sirius Glass
Did Hasselblad ever make a 645 camera?
I know I could search for it but please save me some time by just giving me an answer.

The 'blad H series was introduced with a 645 film camera (H1). "Traditional" Hasselblads accepted an optional 16 back.

I have a Pentax 645n, and I agree that the AB-82 (or AA-82) screen make the camera a lot more pleasant to use. The AF system of that camera is wasn't state of the art in 1998, and hasn't gotten any better. I can't speak to the Mamiya system, but I did seriously think of getting a Bronica instead of the Pentax.

Pentax lenses have held their value slightly better than Mamiya lenses, if only because of the 645D and 645Z.

 

[jvo]

i've enjoyed the pentax 645 and mamiya 645 - both excellent cameras. i've stayed with mamiya tlr because i prefer the waist level finder and square negative.

both the 645's are excellent with a prism finder and winder grip, (additional on the mamiya). the deciding factor would be the convenience of your shooting style - landscape or portrait. i never had a problem, and liked each.

 

[Neil Grant]

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.

...the lens range for the Mamiya 645 is really extensive. In addition to all the 'normal stuff' you'll find fast primes, macros, super-teles, perspective control, a handful of leaf shuttered designs etc. You need to ask yourself what sort of photography you intend to do - then compare the lens ranges. None, with maybe the exception of the 80mm f/1.9, are expensive 'pre-owned'.

 

[pentaxuser]

thuggins, I too also own a P645N and it is a fine camera on which GRHazelton has covered most of the points on it. Unfortunately I do not own a Mamiya to which to compare it and ideally you really need someone or better still several someones here who owns both or has owned and used both. There may be such a person and that person may respond but there may be no-one.

Ken Rockwell based on my experience of the P645N has done a good write-up on the P645N and it is worth a look. He also has a very small but unfortunately not really very helpful section on Mamiya 645s

I'd do some research to see if I could find a decent review of the Mamiya as well and list the pluses and minuses and then make a decision

pentaxuser

 

[Pioneer]

Ditto. Besides, 645 not that big an advantage over 35mm with regard to negative size, but without the ease of use of 35mm camera. I bought a 654 back for Hassy, but very rarely use it.

This is a huge myth. The 645 negative is three times larger than the 35mm negative so I am completely confused why people feel the need to say it is no better than 35mm.

But, never mind, I do get easily confused.

 

[Pioneer]

I owned a Mamiya 645 at the same time that I owned a Pentax 645. The Mamiya lenses are very nice but the system is not easy to work with. I still own and use two Pentax 645 cameras but I sold the Mamiya system. And by the way, the Pentax lenses are also awesome.

But, they both work. I think the Mamiya lenses are currently less expensive since the Pentax system went digital so those lenses are still being used today. As a result the Pentax lenses are still holding their value pretty well.