Deciding on medium format ...

[Soeren]

This differs somewhat. The mileage depends on the previous user. There are a lot of beat up Mamiya 645 Pros, from extensive studiowork. The older AE finders were excellent and mostly deliver the same readings as a hand held light meter. Detachable backs are good for studio work or weddings. Otherwise, the inserts work just fine. The M645 has bulb mode at least. The motor drive for the Pro is slow and noisy, and you can get one for M645 too. A lighter camera is more prone to camera shake.

So, it always depends on what you need the camera for. I much prefer handling a neat and nimble M645 to a bulky, noisy Pro. As they use the same lenses and similar a shutter system, there is nothing in it for image quality.

Yes offcource there are bad samples of either model

I havn't read intensively up on the older 645 system.
Re. camera shake. No it depends more on ergonomics than weight.
Re. Backs vs. Inserts. I have a lot of trouble changing between color and B&W midroll using insert without fogging the film, dont know why
Re. weight. Hmm The M645 is 1580g with prism and crank. The 645 pro puts 1532g on the scale with AE prism and crank and 1933g with the winder.
Re. bulk. 645 Pro is 124x135x170mm Body, Back, lens and AE finder
645 is. 99,3x122,7x166,5mm Body, lens and plain prismfinder so yes it is a bit smaller by aprox 25X15x3,5mm

Best regards

 

[dorff]

This differs somewhat. The mileage depends on the previous user. There are a lot of beat up Mamiya 645 Pros, from extensive studiowork. The older AE finders were excellent and mostly deliver the same readings as a hand held light meter. Detachable backs are good for studio work or weddings. Otherwise, the inserts work just fine. The M645 has bulb mode at least. The motor drive for the Pro is slow and noisy, and you can get one for M645 too. A lighter camera is more prone to camera shake.

So, it always depends on what you need the camera for. I much prefer handling a neat and nimble M645 to a bulky, noisy Pro. As they use the same lenses and similar a shutter system, there is nothing in it for image quality.

You can always take off the winder and just use the advance lever. It isn't more noisy than an F3 with MD-4 winder, and apart from religious ceremonies or sleeping babies, I cannot think of where the noise would at all be obtrusive. The AE finder for the Pro TL is dead accurate. It handles easily with the grip, and the weight is not an issue, as it is well distributed. My hands are not small, so I do not handle small, box shaped cameras as easily. However, each to his own. I just think your arguments against the Pro and Pro TL are unconvincing. Price is a good argument against, when compared with the M645, but one will find real bargains for Pro and Pro TL bodies, and M645's that are overpriced. So it depends a bit on what one runs into. For the same money, I'd definitely take the Pro TL over the M645, without batting an eyelid. Interchangeable film backs is a HUGE deal, and not for studio work or weddings only. I take my camera into the wilderness with me. There is no place or time to fiddle with inserts there. What's more, I don't have to fiddle with ISO settings when I change films, because I always use the same back for each film type. I can't tell you how many times I've had the ISO set incorrectly on my manual 35mm cameras, only to discover the mistake midway through the roll. So in all honesty, detachable backs are like an extra camera for every back you have. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Sure, I don't hate the Pro [TL].

I just don't think it's that much of an improvement over M645. Only if detachable backs are essential. But with only 15 exposures to a roll, you can whip them off if you need to change roll, or sacrifice a few.

That's why I would suggest skipping the Pro and going for AFD if M645 is too basic for you.

 

[springnar]

if you're into 6x6 format I have a bronica sq-a kit for sale.

 

[PKM-25]

Hasselblad 503 CX
Hasselblad 903 SWC
Hasselblad 50mm lens
Hasselblad 80mm lens
Hasselblad 150mm lens
Hasselblad 250mm lens
2X converter [rarely used]
B60 filters
Extension tubes
PME prism
WLF [never used, it came with the camera]
Several film backs
Adapter for and viewer for the back of the SWC

Well on that note...

Hasselblad 501 CM x 2
Hasselblad 500 ELX
Hasselblad 40mm CF/FLE
Hasselblad 50mm CF/FLE
Hasselblad 60mm CF
Hasselblad 80mm CF
Hasselblad 100mm CF
Hasselblad 120mm S Planar black T*
Hasselblad 180mm CF
1.4XE converter [used with 180 = 250]
B60 filters, B60 to 67mm step up rings
3x Extension tubes
2x NC2 prisms
2x WLF
8x A12 Backs
1x A24 Back
6093T shade
Kenyon KS-6 Gyro Stabilizer

Wish-list, 350mm CF, P45+ Back.

 

[Soeren]

Guys guys Heey
This is not a pissing contest Nice kits BTW
Best regards

 

[Roger Cole]

Sure, I don't hate the Pro [TL].

I just don't think it's that much of an improvement over M645. Only if detachable backs are essential. But with only 15 exposures to a roll, you can whip them off if you need to change roll, or sacrifice a few.

That's why I would suggest skipping the Pro and going for AFD if M645 is too basic for you.

The backs aren't essential but they are a great asset. I have a Pro. Even with 12 exposures in my Yashicamat 124, I often wish for a different kind of film than what I have in it mid roll.

But I've never handled the non-Pro so maybe it's smaller and lighter enough to make a difference, I don't know. I have the winder. It isn't fast but I don't need fast. It does mean I'm always ready for the next shot and, far more importantly, makes the camera handle many times better than it does without it.

All that said, while my M645 Pro is my most versatile camera it's probably my least used. It can do most of what my 35mm can, with a bigger negative, but I have no zooms for it (I know there are one or two available, but of course they are bigger and slower than the non-zooms) and that limits my use of it for some things. It is also MUCH bigger, bulkier and heavier than a 35mm camera and zoom, and carrying it with my three lenses and a few backs makes a back breaking bag compared to even all three of my 35mm bodies with multiple 35mm zooms. The faster lenses in 35mm (at least until I get an 80 1.9) is another factor toward 35mm. And when I want to shoot MF the Yashicamat is so much smaller, lighter and just plain handier than the M645 Pro that I just prefer using it any time the fixed lens and not having interchangable backs won't matter.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

But I've never handled the non-Pro so maybe it's smaller and lighter enough to make a difference, I don't know. I have the winder. It isn't fast but I don't need fast. It does mean I'm always ready for the next shot and, far more importantly, makes the camera handle many times better than it does without it.

The older 645s aren't lighter but more compact and better balanced. A Pro with a grip is a quite a hefty lump by comparison, which is not ideal for free shooting. The AFD also handles more like an SLR.

But anyhow, I don't think this discussion is moving the thread forward.

I was just trying to share my personal thoughts and preferences on affordable MF cameras, as I've recently been through the same process as the OP.

 

[tnabbott]

Hi all - I have thought about this for quite some yrs now. I do mainly landscapes and cityscapes so I am using my Nikon F100 and FM2 on a tripod mostly, don't shoot a lot, so I think 120 suits me, per the roll cheaper, process is the same, less frames per roll and that is fine for the more real estate. I want a WLF style than the eye level style of say Pentax 67 etc. Not that heavy so P67 and RB67 are out. Preferably larger than 645. For my casual stuff that is just digital as people want these days ..

I went to Keh.com and started number crunching. Hasselblads cost more. Bronica's like the SQ are cheaper and they are rated in better condition.

A. Maybe Bronica is worthwhile then I know it needs a battery to operate right? Shouldn't be that much an issue.
B. How are the brands of lenses like?
C. I know that the cheaper lenses with Hasselblads are the C T* is that quite a bit older than the Bronica lenses? So a Bronica lens is cheaper, more modern and in better condition?
D. Do you find that with a 6x6 format you are unable to do sweeping views of city vistas of its square format? Say if this was the Yarra River in Melbourne or rooftop deck of Singapore or Bangkok or Tokyo or Paris. You have their tower lighted up at night and you compose your cityscape shot ... I have been tempted with 6x7 but they might be too large physically and I prefer not to use a rangefinder, they also more expensive.

Using the 40mm lens Hasselblad, not checked the Bronica yet - Cokin P filters are too small right? Do you guys find a 50mm ok for landcapes - at times I like to pop on a graduated filter and a solid ND filter.


Cheers...

The Pentax 67 has a WLF option. If you large tempted by the 6x6 format I'd recommend Rollei over Hasselblad.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

at he rik of sounding boring andrepeatativebut once you go Hasselblad,as I did, there is no looking back.the price is a one-time hurdleand is worth it.go with a used 500cmand a 50mm lens for your type of photography and enjoy the results. good luck.you won't regret it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

at he rik of sounding boring andrepeatativebut once you go Hasselblad,as I did, there is no looking back.the price is a one-time hurdleand is worth it.go with a used 500cmand a 50mm lens for your type of photography and enjoy the results. good luck.you won't regret it.

Ralph said it well. I traded in a Mamiya C330 with the 65mm, 80mm, and 250mm lenses, PorroPrism, Paraminder and every possible device know to man for it to buy a Hasselblad. I never looked back.

 

[jerrybro]

I don't think I have used my Rollei since buying the Blad.

 

[Peter Simpson]

[deleted, repost]