645

Roger Hicks · Apr 15, 2007

mikeklensch said:
Greetings,

I'm also a fellow Mamiya 645 user (ProTL), and thinking about adding an RB to my outfit. I was wondering if you think having both systems is worthwhile, or if one or the other would do just fine. In your experience, is the 67 a real jump in quality over the 645?

Thanks,
Mike

Dear Mike,

I had both and found the bigger neg MUCH more useful/attractive. Since then, the only non-67 formats I use much are 66x44 (Alpa/Biogon -- and even that is significantly bigger than 56x43), 6x6 (various) and the occasional 6x9 or 6x12. I prefer 35mm to 645 if I want a small format...

Cheers,

R.

Lopaka · Apr 15, 2007

I agree with Travis. I have both 645 Pro and RZ67. THe 67 is an ideal tripod camera with the revolving back. (I do like the larger negs like Roger). The 645 is better suited to situations when you cannot use a tripod and must shoot handheld. With a motor drive, it looks a bit like a 35mm on steroids.

Bob

Nick Zentena · Apr 15, 2007

I've got a Bronica 645 and not a Mamiya but I'm sure my answer would be the same.

I love my 645. I can stick the metering prism on, a motor drive and my heaviest flash and it's still a handheld camera. My RZ67 is a tripod only camera. Great for that but I can't see myself using it hand held.

A camera I'm willing to use is always better then a heavier camera I won't

Roger Hicks · Apr 15, 2007

Nick Zentena said:
A camera I'm willing to use is always better then a heavier camera I won't.

Absolutely -- which is why I no longer have an RB67, but Alpa and Graflex XL for hand-held and a Linhof special (stripped down T70 with no RF and extra front rise) for tripods.

I do keep wondering about another Tech 70 though...

Cheers,

R.

Keith Tapscott. · Apr 15, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Absolutely -- which is why I no longer have an RB67, but Alpa and Graflex XL for hand-held and a Linhof special (stripped down T70 with no RF and extra front rise) for tripods.

I do keep wondering about another Tech 70 though...

Cheers,

R.

How about a Mamiya 6x9 press camera? I use a Mamiya RZ67 for studio portraiture and I have a Plaubel Makina 670 if I want bigger than 35mm but want to travel light. The downside of the latter is a fixed non-interchangeable lens.

Roger Hicks · Apr 15, 2007

Keith Tapscott. said:
How about a Mamiya 6x9 press camera? I use a Mamiya RZ67 for studio portraiture and I have a Plaubel Makina 670 if I want bigger than 35mm but want to travel light. The downside of the latter is a fixed non-interchangeable lens.

Dear Keith,

Never owned the Mamiya, though I do have a Polaroid 600SE with 75mm and 127mm lenses and the (very rare) Mamiya roll-film adapter. Bulky bugger, though.

I envy you the Plaubel but they are expensive and I have so many other cameras I've never been able to justify buying one -- but I'd really like that 80/2.8 Nikkor, which is what I recall on the front of the Plaubel that belonged to a friend 20 years ago. For that, I'd live with a fixed lens.

But do I recall that the Japanese Plaubels were battery dependent? It's been a long time...

I've had a few German Plaubel Makinas, and was underwhelmed.

Cheers,

R.

nworth · Apr 18, 2007

645 (4:3) is close enough to 8X10 for practical purposes. The crop for a full sized print is very minor, and a full frame print involves only a very minor trim of the 8X10 (it's 7.5X10). It's pretty much the same for 11X14.

I've been using a Pentax 645 for a number of years now, and I'm really surprised at how much better the quality is compared to 35mm. The actual image area is 56X40 mm. That is 2.6 times as large as 35mm. It makes a huge difference in both sharpness and ease of handling.

Roger Hicks · Apr 18, 2007

nworth said:
... I'm really surprised at how much better the quality is compared to 35mm.

No question! Next to 35mm, 645 really tips the balance on pure technical quality. But my own feeling is that although the difference between 645 and larger formats is much more subtle, if you're going to go the the hassle of roll film (cost, weight, loss of fluidity), it's worth it.

Cheers,

R.

Woolliscroft · Apr 19, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
No question! Next to 35mm, 645 really tips the balance on pure technical quality. But my own feeling is that although the difference between 645 and larger formats is much more subtle, if you're going to go the the hassle of roll film (cost, weight, loss of fluidity), it's worth it.

Cheers,

R.

I'll second that. David.

nworth · Apr 19, 2007

I probably do most of my work with 6X9, and some with 4X5. I basicly agree with Roger's remark. There is a definite improvement as you go to the larger formats, but the really big jump is going from 35mm to 645. The advantage of the 645 format is the availability of small, easy to use SLR cameras. They offer all the convenience of 35mm along with the advantages of the larger negative size. Although the Pentax 67 SLR is an excellent camera, its bulk begins to slow you down. Good rangefinder cameras are available in 6X7, 6X9, and even 4X5 that are pretty fast and convenient, although lens interchangeability and viewfinder use suffers some, particulaly close to the subject.

645

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency