Mamiya 645 Pro versus RZ67: How Much Better Is Bigger?
-
A
- Thread starter Snapshot
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
If you want the ultimate in sharpness with medium format then look at a Mamiya 7. They are expensive though!
M7. Mmmmmmmm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In most cases image quality is not dependant on the camera and lens but limited by what's behind them. Is that the issue here?
I find medium format cameras made by Mamiya to be way above the quality treshold both optical and mechanical and the fact that incarnations of both the 645 and the RZ 67 are still made for D...... aplications indicates they do not suck so ............
Best regards
He's a Mamiya troll.
See his enlightening response (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread of a similar subject.
At the OP: I have both Mamiya systems you are referring to, plus a Pentax 6x7. So I can understand where you are coming from.
My take on it is this: If you do darkroom prints from B/W negatives, then up to 12x16 there is very little to choose, and I like the versatility and handling of the 645 format better for those purposes.
Enlarger options up to 6x6 are almost infinite, while from 6x7 they become more limited, and the machine itself becomes a lot larger. So if you have, or can find and accommodate, a 6x9 or 4x5 enlarger, by all means go for it. But for me that is a headache to say the least.
If you just want to scan slide or c/neg film for maximum quality, then shoot the largest format you can. 6x7 is then certainly better than 645, which is again streets ahead of 35 mm.
The RZ is very heavy and yet can be used very elegantly for waist level shooting. It works well with short lenses (up to 110 mm) this way, but for longer lenses it becomes much more problematic to hand-hold or neck-strap it. The rotating back is VERY useful in the field (and studio). Compared to the 645 Pro which is easy to tilt 90 deg when handholding, but a pain when using a tripod. I don't like such a heavy camera on a vertically tilted plate, which puts it off-centre and throws the tripod off-balance. Then consider an L-bracket or rotating mount for it, rather. Still, all handling issues considered, I would stick with the 645 and rather expand my lens options if I were you. That would add more value and possibilities for you, I think. Especially if you consider lenses such as the 120 A macro or 80/1.9, assuming you don't own them already. Also, long lenses are seriously heavy and long on the RZ. The 180/4.5 RZ is a huge beast compared to a 150/3.5 which gives similar coverage on 645. The further you go up, the more ridiculous the comparison becomes. I use 300 mm and 500 mm lenses on my 645 with success, while on the RZ the same coverage would not be practical.
With the right lenses and technique (which isn't a far stretch, BTW), the 645 can produce really superb results. With the right films and developing technique, things like grain or definition should not come anywhere near being serious considerations at up to 16x20 enlargements. I would sell my RZ happily, if I could get a market related offer for it. The 645 OTOH you would have to pry from my dead fingers. Of course, this is my opinion, and others will have theirs that differ.
My take on it is this: If you do darkroom prints from B/W negatives, then up to 12x16 there is very little to choose, and I like the versatility and handling of the 645 format better for those purposes.
Enlarger options up to 6x6 are almost infinite, while from 6x7 they become more limited, and the machine itself becomes a lot larger. So if you have, or can find and accommodate, a 6x9 or 4x5 enlarger, by all means go for it. But for me that is a headache to say the least.
If you just want to scan slide or c/neg film for maximum quality, then shoot the largest format you can. 6x7 is then certainly better than 645, which is again streets ahead of 35 mm.
The RZ is very heavy and yet can be used very elegantly for waist level shooting. It works well with short lenses (up to 110 mm) this way, but for longer lenses it becomes much more problematic to hand-hold or neck-strap it. The rotating back is VERY useful in the field (and studio). Compared to the 645 Pro which is easy to tilt 90 deg when handholding, but a pain when using a tripod. I don't like such a heavy camera on a vertically tilted plate, which puts it off-centre and throws the tripod off-balance. Then consider an L-bracket or rotating mount for it, rather. Still, all handling issues considered, I would stick with the 645 and rather expand my lens options if I were you. That would add more value and possibilities for you, I think. Especially if you consider lenses such as the 120 A macro or 80/1.9, assuming you don't own them already. Also, long lenses are seriously heavy and long on the RZ. The 180/4.5 RZ is a huge beast compared to a 150/3.5 which gives similar coverage on 645. The further you go up, the more ridiculous the comparison becomes. I use 300 mm and 500 mm lenses on my 645 with success, while on the RZ the same coverage would not be practical.
With the right lenses and technique (which isn't a far stretch, BTW), the 645 can produce really superb results. With the right films and developing technique, things like grain or definition should not come anywhere near being serious considerations at up to 16x20 enlargements. I would sell my RZ happily, if I could get a market related offer for it. The 645 OTOH you would have to pry from my dead fingers. Of course, this is my opinion, and others will have theirs that differ.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 617
- Format
- Large Format
I hear this often, yet still don't understand why . . . Folks saying that the RZ67 is "heavy". That it's a "Beast". Now that I've had the opportunity to use mine most exclusively for the past couple weeks, and taking it everywhere I go, I can say "without reservation" that this is one of the lightest, most portable, and highest quality camera that I've used in quite some time. It fits very nicely into small camera bag. Having a smaller camera such as this, combined with a built-in bellows for on-the-spot close-up photography, thru-the-lens framing, and a larger frame size makes this camera a true gem. The RZ67 has taken first place in my choice of cameras "for-the-road".
I have an RZ67, 645 Pro and a Mamiya 7. As much as I love the RZ I would not call it light and portable
I used to schlepp it about for inner-city photography and it did very well, however, the first time I held a Hasselblad I nearly fell about laughing. It is in comparison teeny-weeny, dinky and almost suited to a child's hands. I couldn't even think of using my RZ for anything other than dedicated missions now. If I need a walkabout camera in that style I take the Hasselblad.
I have to say my all-time fave is the 7 but I do love my RZ very much.
Everything is realative. The RZ is tiny and very portable compared to 4x5 monorails.
I went on vacation for a few days and took my FM2n. After coming back, I grabbed my D700 and that seemed like a brick. Same thing happened years ago when I was into video production and owned a Sony VX2000. I was using one of the larger over the shoulder DSR-300 and after using that, picked up the VX2000. The VX2000 almost went through the ceiling because when I lifted it, I almost threw it not realizing it was so light. Same goes for the 645 Pro which used to be big and heavy, but not after using the RZ.
Anecdotes: I traded someone this VX2000 for a full single lens RZ67 kit I have now. I do not regret it for a minute.
I went on vacation for a few days and took my FM2n. After coming back, I grabbed my D700 and that seemed like a brick. Same thing happened years ago when I was into video production and owned a Sony VX2000. I was using one of the larger over the shoulder DSR-300 and after using that, picked up the VX2000. The VX2000 almost went through the ceiling because when I lifted it, I almost threw it not realizing it was so light. Same goes for the 645 Pro which used to be big and heavy, but not after using the RZ.
Anecdotes: I traded someone this VX2000 for a full single lens RZ67 kit I have now. I do not regret it for a minute.
OP
OP
Thank you dorff, mweintraub and Ghostman for your personal observations on the handling of a RZ67. Personally, I'm not one to be overly worried about weight when I'm dedicated photographic treks. To carry on the relative weight theme, I consider the Mamiya 645 Pro a lightweight walkabout camera while my fiancé considers it the 'biggest camera' she's every seen anyone use, barring video and TV broadcast cameras.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 617
- Format
- Large Format
Everything is realative. The RZ is tiny and very portable compared to 4x5 monorails.
. . . . . . . .
Very true. It depends on one's point of reference. The RZ67 is by-far the smallest format film camera that I now own. I was somewhat skeptical when ordering it though, having used quite a few 120 film cameras in the past. So many 120 cameras that I've had just didn't seem to cut it. And I can blame myself for buying cameras that simply "fit into my budget". I actually purchased this one as a "final attempt with 120 film". I figured that if this camera didn't fulfill my requirements (desires), I could easily find it a new home. And then that would be it for 120 film. Close-up photography is really my first joy, followed by landscape in second place. And so far, this camera appears to operate well in both departments. I guess I'll be in the game a little while longer. Had it not been for the fact that I had already used the Pentax 645N, and other 6x9 and 6x6 cameras in the years past, I could have just as easily found myself investing in the Mamiya 645 system today. And I would probably be equally satisfied with the camera. Again, one's point of reference.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love an RB 67 to use in a studio I borrowed one and the 180mm lens from a friend last year to shoot some portraits with it's a gentle giant on a sturdy tripod and the revolving back is great, but I would hate to lug it about outside for a days shooting.
I had a Mamiya 645Pro and I have an RB-SD.
While in absolute weight wise, RB is much heavier but combined with a waist level finder and an L grip, it's far easier to handle than 645Pro with a grip winder.
Film size wise, I prefer 6x7 and 6x8 that RB produces. For the print size I make, 11x14 usually and only occasionally 16x20, quality difference isn't that great between the two. But 6x7 is less susceptible to dust showing up on prints and is easier to handle.
I think both of these criteria are highly dependent on subjective feel of the photographer. Most of us don't print to the gigantic size where one is pretty much required.
While in absolute weight wise, RB is much heavier but combined with a waist level finder and an L grip, it's far easier to handle than 645Pro with a grip winder.
Film size wise, I prefer 6x7 and 6x8 that RB produces. For the print size I make, 11x14 usually and only occasionally 16x20, quality difference isn't that great between the two. But 6x7 is less susceptible to dust showing up on prints and is easier to handle.
I think both of these criteria are highly dependent on subjective feel of the photographer. Most of us don't print to the gigantic size where one is pretty much required.
As much as I like the results from my P6X7 I find my M645pro better for on the move photography. Offcource the difference in age has a lot to say but ergonomics and weight certainly does too. And the IQ provided is also great. Btw the film show comes to mind. In some of the episodes Tanya Lippert tackles her RZ67. Something to feed your GAS
As much as I like the results from my P6X7 I find my M645pro better for on the move photography. Offcource the difference in age has a lot to say but ergonomics and weight certainly does too. And the IQ provided is also great. Btw the film show comes to mind. In some of the episodes Tanya Lippert tackles her RZ67. Something to feed your GAS
That's where I settled too. The 645 Pro packs lighter with more lenses for the same space and weight. One has the option to take the winder off, which saves some space too.
Since the OP framed his question in a specific way, I would say that he wouldn't see the benefit from either the RZ or the 6x7 format over spending the same effort and money on fleshing out his 645 system.
OP
OP
My system is pretty fleshed out. I have 3 Mamiya cameras (2 645 Pro and a 1 645E) and about 8 lenses. It seems most contributors suggest that the incremental increase of the RZ67 wouldn't be significantly justifiable from a IQ standpoint.
MattKing
Moderator
It depends.
I would hazard a guess that anyone who gets full use of all the components of a 3 body + 8 lens kit is better suited to 6x4.5 then 6x7.
If someone is a "one body, one or two lens" type, 6x7 with a rotating back may be better.
Or if someone uses a lot of fill flash, the RZ67 may be better.
I have and use both (although mine is an RB67).
Given current prices, it is fairly easy to buy, try and then decide.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |