645 SLR that works without batteries?

[Donald Qualls]

Basic camera electronics are far easier than some mechanical things you already do.

I mean, how hard is to use a multitester to check for good continuity, and to use a solder to repair cold solder joints. And to use some sandpaper and/or metal polish to restore contact conductivity? Re-aligning a leaf switch that is out of alignment is a mechanical task, yet affects electronics a lot: For example an electronically-timed SLR like the pentax ME or Nikon EL can go completely wrong if the mirror switch or "memory lock" switch doesn't give proper electrical contact or is misaligned. Dumb repairman will say "the CPU is fried", clever repairman cleans the contacts and realigns the switch.

It isn't hard.

Yet those silly problems (bad conductors, misaligned switches), that are easy to repair, are what make electronic cameras fail. Easy to repair stuff!

I've realigned flash sync contacts and similar. I've also built electronic kits (including a tiny, low-power ham radio transceiver and a Morse decoder with preloaded firmware); I learned to solder transistors to a board in 1968 or 1969. However, my experience is that with active components (transistors and ICs) in circuit, you can't always depend on a continuity testing reading "open" on a bad joint, because it might "make" through an alternative path. Further, if your continuity tester runs, for instance, on two AA cells, it might destroy components in a circuit designed to run on a single mercury or silver oxide cell. Multimeters are less prone to that (current is extremely limited), but unless you know what value to expect, it's just "connected or not connected -- I think."

I'm not completely ignorant of electronics -- I do trouble shoot tools with electronic controls (though the last couple years, I wind up doing more air and hydraulic stuff, seemingly because the boss doesn't want anyone getting too competent at anything). But unless I can see a cold solder joint with my eye, I'll never detect it with test tools -- especially not without a circuit diagram keyed to the actual board layout. And that's one of the main reasons I don't like electronics -- I can't see the "moving parts".

I've also got experience with flex boards coming loose from end connections and no way to reconnect them, just because I moved the board (lost a calculator I was fond of that way), components with solder leads so fragile (or electronically so sensitive) that merely touching them destroys the circuit from the voltage carried on a fingertip. I'm also much more reluctant to open unfamiliar devices than I was forty-some years ago, because I have much more experience with stuff that can't be fixed, but can be completely destroyed by trying...

I would like to know, however, why this thread has become "try to convince Donald to buy an electronic camera." Most of those aren't affordable, even if I wanted one.

Maybe I should just get the left handle for my RB67 and see how that works for hand held shooting -- and spend some time with the weights building up my shoulders and biceps.

 

[flavio81]

Further, if your continuity tester runs, for instance, on two AA cells, it might destroy components in a circuit designed to run on a single mercury or silver oxide cell. Multimeters are less prone to that (current is extremely limited), but unless you know what value to expect, it's just "connected or not connected -- I think.".

Yes, i mean multimeters. Digital multimeters pass a very tiny amount of current.

But unless I can see a cold solder joint with my eye, I'll never detect it with test tools -- especially not without a circuit diagram keyed to the actual board layout. And that's one of the main reasons I don't like electronics -- I can't see the "moving parts".

I've also got experience with flex boards coming loose from end connections and no way to reconnect them, just because I moved the board (lost a calculator I was fond of that way), components with solder leads so fragile (or electronically so sensitive) that merely touching them destroys the circuit from the voltage carried on a fingertip. I'm also much more reluctant to open unfamiliar devices than I was forty-some years ago, because I have much more experience with stuff that can't be fixed, but can be completely destroyed by trying...

I would like to know, however, why this thread has become "try to convince Donald to buy an electronic camera." Most of those aren't affordable, even if I wanted one..

The original Bronica ETR can be had for cheap and it's a great machine. Mamiya M645 machines are cheap. And when they have problems, they have M E C H A N I C A L problems, the ones Donald can fix just fine.

Not convinced yet? How about those wonderful Mamiya 645 lenses that are small and can be had for really cheap?

Maybe I should just get the left handle for my RB67 and see how that works for hand held shooting -- and spend some time with the weights building up my shoulders and biceps.

I use my RB67 always handheld without handle grips -- you need to experiment until you cradle the thing comfortably. I felt easier to use with the waist level finder, than using my former Pentax 67 using the prism.

I'm assuming your RB67 is using the waist level finder, because the prisms are far too heavy -- better used on a tripod.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe I should just get the left handle for my RB67 and see how that works for hand held shooting

Combine that with a shorter than average neckstrap - it works really well.
You will intimidate horses, scare dogs and cause babies to cry, but the photography will be satisfying!

 

[Donald Qualls]

The original Bronica ETR can be had for cheap and it's a great machine. Mamiya M645 machines are cheap. And when they have problems, they have M E C H A N I C A L problems, the ones Donald can fix just fine.

Not convinced yet? How about those wonderful Mamiya 645 lenses that are small and can be had for really cheap?

Okay, I'll bite. What's a Mamiya 645 with a lens in the 60-80 mm range, film magazine, and prism run these days? I understood they cost a good bit more than an RB67.

I use my RB67 always handheld without handle grips -- you need to experiment until you cradle the thing comfortably. I felt easier to use with the waist level finder, than using my former Pentax 67 using the prism.

I'm assuming your RB67 is using the waist level finder, because the prisms are far too heavy -- better used on a tripod.

Yes, I have only the waist level finder -- a little limiting when it's on tripod and I want to raise it up; I might have to start carrying a stepstool in my car; my tripod (a Porter Cable surveying tripod I bought in 2002) will be rock solid stable with the pan-tilt head above my eye level. The problem I have with hand held shooting is related to my vision. If I have my distance glasses on, I have to use the magnifier to see the ground glass well enough to focus accurately, and holding the camera that high makes my arms shake from the weight. Lower the camera to hang on the strap, and it's steady, but then it's rear-heavy if I have the 90mm lens on (the 250mm balances it right on the strap lugs -- nice design decision). I think I could hold it steadier with a prism and the side handle; then it'd be like holding my Speed Graphic, which I can do well enough for even pretty slow shutter speeds. Does make me wonder, though -- big old waist level finder, why doesn't it have a sports finder window like the waist level finders on almost every TLR ever built?

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting discussion for those interested in 6x4.5 and mechanical cameras.

Been down this path before myself. Finally decided to make the move to 6x6 as it could easily be cropped. I settled on the Pentacon Six TL; it was actually my first serious medium format camera, unless you count a few folders. It may not be the best camera of the lot but it was relatively inexpensive and it works well. Not to mention that the glass does beautiful things to light. I also used the ARAX 60 for awhile before I finally sold it. Overall the ARAX was probably more reliable; it was new after all. But I had already bonded with the Pentacon and just felt more comfortable with it. Besides, at the time I was still shooting quite a bit of 220 and the Pentacon handled the longer film easily. With the exception of an occasional minor frame overlap I have had zero problems with the Pentacon though I did have it overhauled about 10 years ago.

For 645 I finally settled on the Pentax cameras, and though they use batteries I really haven't regretted making that move. They are certainly more convenient than the Pentacon or the ARAX so I have run a lot more film through them over the years.

If I were pushed into a corner and forced to choose between the Pentax cameras and the Pentacon I would probably keep the original Pentax 645. The electrical components are repairable and I do have an adapter for the P6 mount so I can use the Zeiss lenses for the Pentacon. But unless I were pushed I doubt I would get rid of the Pentacon as it does a fine job and, as far as my experience shows, is a very reliable camera.

 

[flavio81]

Okay, I'll bite. What's a Mamiya 645 with a lens in the 60-80 mm range, film magazine, and prism run these days? I understood they cost a good bit more than an RB67.

I mean the M645. They are always cheaper than RB67 machines. At least around my city.

You must be thinking about the more modern mamiyas.

The problem I have with hand held shooting is related to my vision. If I have my distance glasses on, I have to use the magnifier to see the ground glass well enough to focus accurately, and holding the camera that high makes my arms shake from the weight.

I think the correct way of using it is to press your forehead against the WLF so you can stabilize the camera. And cradle the camera with your both hands.

You might be interested in the chimney finder; it has variable (adjustable) diopter.

Does make me wonder, though -- big old waist level finder, why doesn't it have a sports finder window like the waist level finders on almost every TLR ever built?

Because the RB67 system has a special sports finder which, apparently, is a great design (i'm in the hunt for one): It allows you to frame precisely for the focal length in use, and has a viewfinder to check focusing. Like a rolleiflex sports finder but improved.

 

[wiltw]

A Bronica ETRS can be had with body+metering prism+film back + normal lens + speed grip for about $300...it was $3000 for that same combo when new.
Additional lenses can be had for a few hundred, when they cost about $1500 when new. About 10% of new price.

 

[MattKing]

The RB67 sportsfinder:

The latest version of the Chimney finder actually includes SBC metering - great for closeup work.
It is light, but it makes the camera even larger.

 

[polka]

My experience : when shooting negatives, I find it simpler to crop 6x6.
My only use of 645 is color slides, but when projecting them, I guess it's unpleasant (for the audience) to see mixed landscape and portrait frames ; so, I shoot all landscape.
To do so, I use : a RolleiflexT with a removable 645 cache and an ARAX 88 with 6x6 and 645 backs (both cameras WLF better for landscape framing). I use also for 645 only, a Fujica rangefinder with a fixed 60mm lens (almost as compact and light as a 24x36 camera, but with by default portrait framing) ; and an old (1932) Rodenstock folder with a 2.9/75mmTrinar Anastigmat lens (for fun and compactness - and the lens is rather fair for its age...).
POLKa

 

[Donald Qualls]

Everyone wants me to shoot 6x6. I've got all the 6x6 cameras I need for now.

I mean the M645. They are always cheaper than RB67 machines. At least around my city.

You must be thinking about the more modern mamiyas.

I might be. It's a little confusing having so many variations with almost the same model name. At least with the RB67, they changed to RZ67 when they made some small mechanical changes and added mandatory electronics. Yes, the M645 seems to be comparable or a bit less than an RB67. And metal, which is usually good.

I'll look into those. Needs a prism to shoot verticals, right? Bottom to top film transport, and non-rotating back (drop-in inserts, though).

 

[grat]

Everyone wants me to shoot 6x6. I've got all the 6x6 cameras I need for now.

Not sure that's accurate-- but 6x6 is way more common, as you're aware. 6x4.5, AND SLR AND non-electronic, is a pretty small subset of "no longer made cameras".

Bronica ETR would be an option, as most of the electronics aren't in the main body (like the SQ-A), but rather in the add-ons (lenses, AE prism). Back doesn't rotate, but it does have a tripod-mount on the side. There's even an on-line repair manual for the ETRSi, which is good, since I can't find anyone who claims to work on Bronicas.

 

[flavio81]

I would like to know, however, why this thread has become "try to convince Donald to buy an electronic camera."

So, which electronic camera did you choose?

 

[Donald Qualls]

It'll be several months before I make the final choice, so for now, "none". I can get a 50mm and 65mm for use with the 6x4.5 back on my RB67 for substantially less than either an M645 with a couple lenses or a (much more electronic) Pentax 645, so I have to consider whether adding a side grip (and not needing to turn the camera on its side, because "RB") would make that system do the job I want (being easy to carry, it'll fail, but otherwise it's a strong contender). The 645 search is for something that clearly beats the RB67.

 

[StepheKoontz]

but I'd really like an affordable, non-battery-dependent 6x4.5 SLR --

It simply doesn't exist. Either you will have to use a rangefinder in these situations (fuji 645g series are excellent), or understand that an "electronic" shutter on something like the M645 is just a basic timer circuit controlling a solenoid and there is very little that can go wrong. These have no reputation of shutter problems, but I can understand being skeptical about some of the very complex electronics in other models. I personally feel these basic "electronic" shutters are more reliable than their mechanical brothers. This isn't trying to talk you out of what you want, it's just what you are specifically wanting was never manufactured.

 

[Donald Qualls]

what you are specifically wanting was never manufactured.

That's the conclusion I've come to. Apparently no one "serious" shot 645 until after all cameras were dependent on electronics. I know it was out there -- Zeiss even made a Super Ikonta in that format -- but apparently interchanging lenses and SLR viewing weren't critical to this format until "too late." And I can't just get a tiny version of a Speed Graphic; the smallest they were ever made was 6x9 -- and though there's nothing that would prevent using one of those with a reduced roll back, it's in the same class as using my RB67 with the 6x4.5 back.

 

[flavio81]

It'll be several months before I make the final choice, so for now, "none". I can get a 50mm and 65mm for use with the 6x4.5 back on my RB67 for substantially less than either an M645 with a couple lenses or a (much more electronic) Pentax 645

Well i own the 50/4.5C and the 65/4.5C and love those lenses, so I can understand. I'd prefer having the RB lenses too.

The 65mm should work wonderfully with 6x4.5, and it's a very general-purpose lens. Shorter than the 50 by the way.

 

[MattKing]

The 65C was my standard lens with the RB. I used the 50C a lot too.
The 55 is my standard lens with the 645 Pro.
The 45N is a wonderful lens as well (for the 645 Pro).

 

[grat]

Aha! Apparently, KW in Germany in the 1930's made some 6x6 SLR's that came with 4.5x6 masks, specifically the Pilot 6 and Super Pilot.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Aha! Apparently, KW in Germany in the 1930's made some 6x6 SLR's that came with 4.5x6 masks, specifically the Pilot 6 and Super Pilot.

Besides being 80-90 years old, those have the same issue as a Bronica or Hasselblad: not really made to turn on their side. Not even sure they had changeable lenses. They looked a bit like a Great Wall.

 

[flavio81]

Besides being 80-90 years old, those have the same issue as a Bronica or Hasselblad: not really made to turn on their side. Not even sure they had changeable lenses. They looked a bit like a Great Wall.

And they are not electronic, thus less reliable.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Sure are a lot of unreliable cameras from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, before any of them had electronics, that still work. Just like a mechanical watch -- if it's been treated right, there's no reason it can't work for many decades.

 

[flavio81]

Sure are a lot of unreliable cameras from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, before any of them had electronics, that still work. Just like a mechanical watch -- if it's been treated right, there's no reason it can't work for many decades.

I was just attempting a joke....

 

[Donald Qualls]

I was just attempting a joke....

Ah. The Pilot and Great Wall aren't even in my consideration anyway -- I enjoy my 90+ year old cameras (couple Zeiss/Ica plate cameras and a Voigtlander 6x9 folder), but red windows and finicky old metal plate holders don't lend to concentrating on the subject. My Super Ikonta 532/16 is the oldest camera I've got that can reasonably function the way I'd want/need for "serious" shooting, models or events or similar -- and even it or my Reflex II still have some limitations (lost a good composition from the Reflex II on the last roll out of it, because I couldn't see through the viewfinder that the railing I was steadying against was in the shot, blocking the scene, for the taking lens). And after shooting large and medium format enough to really get it, 35mm will almost always be too small. I love my M42 SLRs and my Kiev 4s, but there's just not enough film behind the lens.

A 645 can be light enough to carry around, but still has a bit more than twice a 35mm frame, yet gets 16 on a roll. Not so many I feel the need to load shorter rolls, not so few I have to reload before I've exhausted a subject. It's the Goldilocks format, for me, for now.

 

[StepheKoontz]

A 645 can be light enough to carry around, but still has a bit more than twice a 35mm frame, yet gets 16 on a roll. Not so many I feel the need to load shorter rolls, not so few I have to reload before I've exhausted a subject. It's the Goldilocks format, for me, for now.

I know you said you want an SLR, but those mechanical fuji rangefinders are sweet. I have the 60mm lens and 45mm lens versions and they produce fantastic images.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I know you said you want an SLR, but those mechanical fuji rangefinders are sweet. I have the 60mm lens and 45mm lens versions and they produce fantastic images.

I did ask about RF cameras up the thread a bit -- but those are fixed lens, aren't they? Got a 60 and need a 45, you have to find/buy a camera that has the 45? Kinda defeats much of the lightness factor if you aren't strictly a "normal" or "wide" shooter.