645 Question

[whojammyflip]

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.

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....

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

Sorry, who says Mamiya 645 is less then P645? Unless this is Mamiya 645 before interchangeable backs and also NOT Pentax 645.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Let me throw more into growing comparison list. I have P645 and P645NII, Mamiya M645 1000, Bronica ETRSi. Do not own Mamiya Pro and later.

1. P645 comes with fixed prism, if you are not up to having only this sole viewing option P645 is out. But with that fixed prism it is beautifully compact. Pentax MF lenses are gems. The N (on top my earlier comments) add some bulk to everything including lenses and AF system is nothing to be proud of. But if N must be it ought to be NII with mirror lock up and also being youngest. But price goes up with every version, original P645 can be had for under $200 with standard lens. All Ps run with battery in.

2. Mamiya 645 1000: I like how it looks, it feels compact and solid, but once you start putting finders on it it's not so cute any more. P645 beats it in every way in my garage.

3. Bronica ETRSi is great, everything seems to fit nicely, yet it isn't even close to P645 in compactness and all-in body. Metering: got to get a finder, and the only one that actually makes sense is the expensive AEIII. For quick handling need a speed grip, which works great but changes overall bulk. The plus of speed grip is its manual operation, unlike P645 running on batteries.

For quietest operation Bronica is in front. Leaf shutter in lenses, manual advance, it all helps keeping it quiet. Can't stop P645 from whirling its way through the film after each frame and in the end. Shutter in Mamiya M645 is not that quiet, no idea how this works out on the Pro TL bodies.

I still prefer P645 possibly because it was my first quality MF system and got most lenses for it early on. And I love that external battery for P645.

But P645 has its electrical quirks as it aged. Mostly fixable, yet there and should be expected. Battery compartment, specifically battery holder, is not as durable as one in P645 N/NII, so all of it needs to be confirmed before purchase.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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....

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[R.Gould]

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,

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

If you choose Bronica stick with ETRSI and same model film backs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I give you just one advice : buy the camera you like most not what others like or want...

+1

Finally someone stood up and said it, thank you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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,

Now I know what Bronicas are good for ===> wheel chocks.

 

[Pioneer]

They are all good cameras and they will all make awesome images if you do your part. All you have to do is to pick the camera that fits the type of work you really want to do. Then buy that camera and learn to use it under every circumstance you will need it to work for you.

I started with the Pentax 645 and the 35mm/3.5 lens (one of the best wide angle medium format lenses available) and I have never really looked back. The reason I chose that camera is because I wanted to create landscape slides, and that camera never failed me. The only complaints I have ever heard regarding it is that you can't change film backs in mid-roll like others. I have never had a problem with that because if I know I am going to need to change film in mid-stream I carry my 4x5 large format camera.

I have tried others but the only other 645 format camera that I am still using regularly is an old Agfa Isolette with a Solinar 85mm lens and a 645 mask. It also takes beautiful 645 slides and it is so portable I can throw it in my daypack and never even realize it is there.

 

[R.Gould]

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

 

[flavio81]

For those who like the RB67, there was a 645 back for it (in 120, at least). I have one.

I do too. It works great. But of course the machine is biigger than a 645 SLR.

 

[flavio81]

Now I know what Bronicas are good for ===> wheel chocks.

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.

 

[flavio81]

But you are welcome to set fire to and dance around your straw man.

Plonk!

 

[wiltw]

They reason for Bronica's disappearance was its purchase by Tamron! Tamron kept it alive for a few years, then closed down the entire business. Many working pros knew that Bronica allowed them to shoot medium format and keep more profit in their pockets than tying of their money in Hasselblad bodies and lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

As a teenager I wanted the Bronica S in the worst way but I could not afford it. So now I use Hasselblads instead.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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. The metaphysics of the particular camera used (for example) and its influence on specific aesthetic choices may however be of interest. If a 645 lets you work the way you want, and a 6x7 or 4x5 doesn't, go with the 645.

 

[oldche]

I really like my Pentax 645n. For me, it handles like the Pentax film SLRs that I am used to. I prefer the eye level prism viewfinder to the waist level finder (like on my Yashica MAT-124G). The automation on the camera (power wind, autofocus, 6-segment metering) all work well if I want to use them, and I do tend to prefer the AF lenses over the MF lenses that I have for the kit. Here are some pictures taken with it and shots of the gear.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmLqCdQ4
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmKqp3MW

 

[jvo]

going through my old negatives, i came across ones fro my pentax 645 days - stunning! (i was a pretty good photographer once!)

 

[flavio81]

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..

Common sense? Sensibility? Rational arguments?

Come on, THIS APUG!!! How many cameras did you buy today?

 

[winger]

Wait until Sirius Glass reads your post...

I'm quite surprised - he doesn't seem to have noticed.

 

[benveniste]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[GRHazelton]

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.

"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."

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

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.

 

[Helge]

Apart from saving you changing film as often, 645 SLRs also has the advantage of having a mirror with roughly the same inertia and stiffness as an 135 SLR, because it's shorter and hinged on the long side.
It's also possible to make faster lenses for the smaller area, so the finder will potentially be brighter
If you know you are going to crop the 66 format anyway. you might as well take the extra care in composing and get the four extra frames, and a lighter smaller camera.