645 SLR that works without batteries?

[flavio81]

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.

The mamiya 6 and 7, while not 6x4.5 have interchangeable lenses of amazing quality and are pretty light for a MF interchangeable lens camera. And they are electronic (a big plus, did you know?). The problem is that they're very expensive.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The problem is that they're very expensive.

That's least negotiable disqualifier -- if I can't afford it, it doesn't matter if it's got a talking bird with a chisel inside.

 

[xya]

I haven't read the thread for 2 days, so some annotations:

...I can shoot 6x4.5 with my RB67 (I get 16 on a roll); I've got a back for that format -- but it's still a ten pound camera even with only the 90mm lens and waist level finder. I don't have a grip for it yet...

my rb67 is just 6 pounds with 50mm lens, back, grip and metered chimney finder.

The Welta Perfekta was a 6x9 folding, revolving-back (at least in some versions) TLR. I've got two folders that shoot 6x4.5 (one also shoots 6x9 if I take out the masks)....

no, the welta perfekta was initially a 6x6 TLR folder. I have had several of these. the 6x9 model was later, it had, as you say, a revolving back. even wikipedia got this wrong http://www.120folder.com/welta_perfekta.htm.

the best mechanical 6x4.5 in my opinion is the pearl III. it's the smallest 120 film rangefinder, it fits into a large pocket and if the rangefinder is calibrated, you won't miss the reflex view. it has even automatic film advance. but that's a personal choice...

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Pearl III seems expensive for what it is; I can get a M645 body, maybe including a lens, finder, and film insert, in the range of Pearl III prices -- and I have a much better chance of the film advance working correctly (though I suspect a CLA would fix the issues with a Pearl III that has wonky spacing), not to mention the ability to switch lenses and finders. Even if the advance works perfectly, it's a less versatile camera than the M645, and I can probably get a Super Ikonta A (530 or 531) for less -- though the 645 Zeiss has a separate RF and viewfinder instead of a single window.

I need to research the M645 more, see how obtrusive the electronics are. Also determine how to tell I'm buying compatible glass (seems likely the latest Mamiya in that family won't use the glass from the oldest, or even more likely the original won't use the late glass). If we get another Covid check, I might jump that way.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

the best mechanical 6x4.5 in my opinion is the pearl III. it's the smallest 120 film rangefinder, it fits into a large pocket and if the rangefinder is calibrated, you won't miss the reflex view. it has even automatic film advance. but that's a personal choice...

Thanks for that, had never heard of that one before. Looked up a review on it. Interesting.

https://photojottings.com/konica-pearl-iii-review/

Jeremy

 

[MattKing]

I need to research the M645 more, see how obtrusive the electronics are. Also determine how to tell I'm buying compatible glass (seems likely the latest Mamiya in that family won't use the glass from the oldest, or even more likely the original won't use the late glass).

The only Mamiya 645 lenses that won't work are the very last iteration, auto-focus lenses.
Every manual focus lens is fully usable on every manual focus body - they fit, they operate normally, the open aperture metering functions. Same for the film inserts.
You can even use the manual focus lenses on the auto-focus bodies, if you don't mind stop-down metering.
Some of the other accessories are more particular and, in some cases, more confusing.

 

[StepheKoontz]

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.

I tend to just go out shooting with one lens. If you are someone who likes to change focal lengths, then yeah not a great option. The 60 on 645 covers much of what I would use a camera like this for and seems more "normal" than the 75mm many folders come with. YMMV.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The only Mamiya 645 lenses that won't work are the very last iteration, auto-focus lenses.
Every manual focus lens is fully usable on every manual focus body - they fit, they operate normally, the open aperture metering functions. Same for the film inserts.
You can even use the manual focus lenses on the auto-focus bodies, if you don't mind stop-down metering.
Some of the other accessories are more particular and, in some cases, more confusing.

Okay, that covers the biggest questions. I did some digging around today, and it seems like an M645 1000s is what I want, with an M645 as an acceptable alternative (at lower cost) or backup; the M645J is like a first version, but lacks the second release button (which seems likely to make shooting verticals ergonomically annoying). I don't see that the 1000 shutter speed matters that much, though a self-timer and more so a DOF preview are nice features to have. I was also gratified to find that the default focusing screen is essentially the same as the one I'm most comfortable with from 35mm SLRs -- Fresnel matte and central split prism with fine focus collar. A metered prism is nice, but not necessary; I use an external meter for all my photography at present (haven't checked if the meters still work in any of my battery-required cameras). And I've gotten a scale reference -- with a wide lens, it looks like the M645 is about the same size as a Brownie Hawkeye with the prism added on top. Doubtless much heavier, though.

I tend to just go out shooting with one lens. If you are someone who likes to change focal lengths, then yeah not a great option. The 60 on 645 covers much of what I would use a camera like this for and seems more "normal" than the 75mm many folders come with. YMMV.

From my calculation, a 60mm is "normal" for 645; a 75 is "slightly wide" for 6x6 and indicates someone was being lazy in designing when found on a 645. I know the 90mm on my RB67 makes a nice portrait length for 6x4.5. The default for the M645, however, seems to be the 80mm f/2.8, based on what's on eBay (likely because a lot of these, as with RB67, Hasselblad, and Bronica, have seen service in model photography, where a little longer lens is preferred). I'll have to shop a bit to get the wider lenses; they aren't quite as common as RB67 lenses.

 

[MattKing]

The depth of field preview is built into all of the lenses - the M-A switch.
If the format was actually 6 cm x 4.5 cm, the diagonal would be exactly 75mm.
There is a nice, early 70mm leaf shutter lens that you can use with the focal plane shutter in the same way as if it didn't have the leaf shutter.
But the 55mm lenses are really quite nice.

 

[reddesert]

The 80mm on a M645 is roughly like a 50mm on 135 (I know, the aspect ratios are different), and the 55mm is like a 35mm on 135. Comparing to 6x7 is easy because they are the same aspect ratio and the linear ratio of film sizes is 0.8 (or 1.25). An 80mm on 645 is like a 100mm on 6x7.

With the M645, the lenses are all compatible except the AF lenses. But the prisms, backs, and motor drives are not compatible from the early M645 to the later Pro/Super with interchangeable backs. They do all use the same film inserts that go inside the back.

The thing to watch out for (IMO) is that some M645 prisms have developed partial desilvering due to some foam that contacts a prism surface. The AE prism seems to be more likely to do this? It looks like a dark band across the image. You can still use it, it's just annoying. IMO a waist level finder is useful, but waist level finders for all MF SLRs seem to have become expensive on the aftermarket, I don't know why unless it's simply low supply. As with any used SLR system, watch out for lenses with sticky or slow apertures.

 

[eli griggs]

The one thing no one has talked about is viewfinder brightness.

I own both the Bronica S2A and also a Hasselblad 500C. My 500C is one of the later ones, but not late enough to actually be an early C/M with the (easily) replaceable focus screen. The Hasselblad viewfinder is dark, not as bright as a Mamiya 645. And the Bronica is darker than the Hasselblad. My RB67 viewfinder brightness puts them all to shame.

Jeremy

The Hasselblad 500 CM can be used with a native 6 x 6cm with a framing mask, for vertical and horizontal imaging, or 6x4.5 cm back or, with a mask installed, on the less expensive A24 back, though, personally, I've no ever had an issue with tilting them for side views or even overhead.

More weight but much lower cost, a Hasselblad 500EL or ELM, in very good BG condition for about $200 - $300.

Learning to clean fungus, grime,d or fogging glass, can result, IMO, in some low stress bargains.

If you do go with a 500CM, what I'm seeing/learning is many repairs and adjustments are eminently 'doable' with a low cost basic ad hoc set of tools, saving hundreds on professional services.

IMO.

 

[StepheKoontz]

From my calculation, a 60mm is "normal" for 645; a 75 is "slightly wide" for 6x6 and indicates someone was being lazy in designing when found on a 645. I know the 90mm on my RB67 makes a nice portrait length for 6x4.5. The default for the M645, however, seems to be the 80mm f/2.8, based on what's on eBay (likely because a lot of these, as with RB67, Hasselblad, and Bronica, have seen service in model photography, where a little longer lens is preferred). I'll have to shop a bit to get the wider lenses; they aren't quite as common as RB67 lenses.

While I agree a normal lens for 645 to me feels like a 60, the "default" lens for these is an 80.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamiya_645

"The M645 1000S was manufactured from 1976 to 1990. This camera added a 1/1000 second shutter speed to the M645, as well as a self-timer and a depth-of-field preview lever. The standard lens was the 80mm f/2.8 C or the 80mm f/1.9 C."

I have a 1000s. It's a nice camera but I use the fuji rangefinder much more often.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have a 1000s. It's a nice camera but I use the fuji rangefinder much more often.

I guess what you use more depends on how you normally shoot. Even with my Kiev 4, I carry the 35mm Jupiter-12 with me most of the time, and use it occasionally, despite the Jupiter-8 (50 mm f/2) being the "default" and the one I keep on the camera (that's affected by lack of a back cap that fits the Jupiter-8). Last time I had my RB out, I shot about 10 frames, switching between 6x7 and 6x4.5, and used my 90mm, 250mm, and the 250mm w/ 2x teleconverter (don't forget losing two stops off the set aperture).

I'm more likely to be happy with a fixed lens for a camera I'd use for street photography (where lightness matters most, and where I'm not likely to make many changes) or in the studio (where "set it and forget it" is valuable, allowing concentration on other factors), than with one for general purpose. Further, since I'm unlikely to get both the Fuji RF and the M645, the more versatile will win, if it's in range on price.

 

[flavio81]

From my calculation, a 60mm is "normal" for 645; a 75 is "slightly wide" for 6x6 and indicates someone was being lazy in designing when found on a 645.

60mm is already wideangle in 6x4.5.

6x4.5 is more or less 56mm x 41.5mm (can vary with camera). Diagonal of this is 69.70mm.

The equivalent for diagonal field of view to the 35mm-format 50mm lens is the 80mm lens.

My bronica ETRSi has a 75mm lens and it already feels slightly wider than a typical normal. It feels like a 45mm on 35mm format. Which is similar to a 90mm lens on 6x7 format. And a very ideal focal length IMO.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

IMHO the "normal" for the 645 is the 80mm.

I own both the 80mm f/2.8 and the f/1.9. Honestly if you are shooting for "bang for buck", stick with the 2.8. The 1.9 is crazy shallow wide-open and almost un-usable if you want to get more than someone's nose sharp. If you are stopping down any the 2.8 is great, and has a nice look to the OOF area. And it costs significantly less.

I also have two M645 1000S bodies, and a dead 1000S body for parts. The dead one was my first one that eventually developed a nasty frame overlapping problem that I couldn't fix.

If you get one, know that you'll want to replace the light seals. Like the RB67 and RB67 ProS models, replacing the seals is the first thing one does when purchasing. It's easy enough to do and I know you are handy so it shouldn't be a problem for you.

I tend to grab the Pro/TL's more often than the 1000S models when I want to shoot 645. I don't know why exactly, as the 1000S is perfectly capable. I wish I had a WLF for them but they are crazy money right now for some reason. Even thought the back isn't replaceable like the Pro/TL models, the film carriers are interchangeable among all of the models.

Jeremy

 

[wiltw]

B.oth Bronica and Pentax adopted 75mm as 'normal' for their 645 cameras. Mamiya adopted 80mm

Due to format aspect ratio differences, it is somewhat problematic to compare 135 format to any of the traditional 'portraiture' formats made to better fit an 8" x 10" print.
A way to neutralize the issue of 1:1.5 aspect ratio format vs. the 4x5 formats (which include 645 (nominal 43mm x 56mm, depending upon brand!) one can compare FL to the short dimension of the frame...

• On the 4x5 format the commonly accepted 150mm FL is 1.6x the short dimension of the frame (93mm)
• On 6x7, the 90mm FL is 1.6x the 56mm short dimension of the frame
• On 645, the 75mm FL is 1.74x the 43mm short dimension of the frame' Mamiya 80mm FL is 1.86x the short dimenstion of the frame.
• On 6x6, the 80mm FL is 1.43x the 56mm dimension of the frame.
• On 135, the 50mm FL is 2.08x the 24mm short dimension of the frame (BTW, normal lenses s have been provided over the years from 45mm to 58mm!, sometimes by the same brand).
  ..the 45mm diagonal measure of 24x36mm is 1.87x the short dimension of the frame

So there is little agreement about how long the FL for a 'normal' is!

 

[Donald Qualls]

On the other hand, the way I've always calculated "normal" is by the diagonal of the frame. On 24x36mm, the diagonal is about 43+ mm, on 41x56 it's 69+; for 6x5 (56x56 mm) 79 and small change, for 6x7 (assuming 56x71, there's some variation) I get 90+, and for 6x9 (56x82) 99+. The 2:3 cameras get their "normals" stretched a little (43 to 50, and 99 to 105), the others are almost exactly on the diagonal, and by that measure, 6x4.5 ought to have a 70 mm "normal". The 75 on Pentax is about less stretch than 50 on 35mm, while the 80 on Mamiya is a little more (but less than a 55, which some SLRs use as a normal).

So 75-80 is a reasonable normal (while the 90 on my RB67 make a nice "wide portrait" length when I have the 645 back mounted).

 

[thuggins]

The KW Pilot was made in both dedicated 645 and 645/66 using a mask.

 

[narsuitus]

On the other hand, the way I've always calculated "normal" is by the diagonal of the frame.

I also use the diagonal of the frame to calculate the "normal."