My First Medium Format - What Should It Be?
-
A
- Thread starter runswithsizzers
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
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
Do some research. Think. They are all good. They are all prone to break. They all have good points and bad points. Such is life.
And then go buy a camera and buy some film and go shoot and stay out of d*** swinging threads on the internet except for the laughs.
MattKing
Moderator
Just be glad that there are (essentially) no Nikon and Canon medium format cameras. Think of the arguments that might happen then!
To the OP: may you find a camera that gives you as much a feeling of happiness as Sirius (among others) seems to get from his.
That might turn out to be something really rare and unusual, or something that has been referred to many times in this thread.
You may learn, however, that the first camera you try, like the C220 you are currently unhappy with, might not end up being the one you end up with.
Or even stranger, you might find yourself gravitating back to a C220. Using other cameras may end up changing you!
To the OP: may you find a camera that gives you as much a feeling of happiness as Sirius (among others) seems to get from his.
That might turn out to be something really rare and unusual, or something that has been referred to many times in this thread.
You may learn, however, that the first camera you try, like the C220 you are currently unhappy with, might not end up being the one you end up with.
Or even stranger, you might find yourself gravitating back to a C220. Using other cameras may end up changing you!
The best camera for you is the one that fits well in your hands and you are comfortable with.
I cut my MF teeth on Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords, but have owned the following SLR systems and used them to various degrees:
Bronica SQ-A
Bronica ETR/ETRS/ETR-C
Bronica S2a
Pentax 645
Mamiya RB67
Hasselblad V system
I have "slimmed down" to the Pentax, Hasselblad, and Mamiya. All three serve different purposes, and don't see myself getting rid of any of them.
The RB67 gives probably the best technical image quality of the three, but I don't use it that often. I have a range of lenses from pre-C to K/L, and while the K/Ls are a tiny bit more contrasty, overall I don't see a huge difference between them and even the earliest lenses unless the lighting is tricky. Between two bodies, 6 lenses(50mm-250mm), and a whole bunch of accessories I probably still have less invested in the complete system than I do my 4-lens, two body Hasselblad system. That includes some oddball stuff, too, and even a metered prism(which weighs over 2lbs by itself). Someone asked if 645 and 6x6 backs were available for the system-I have a 645 "Pro SD" back(these don't have foam light seals like the earlier pro and pro-S backs, and almost all backs that have not been refoamed will leak). I'm not sure if Mamiya made a 6x6 back, but Graflex-branded backs will fit and work(and those are available in 6x6). It's been a while since I really looked into it, but I think you want to avoid knob-advance Graflex backs as they can have film flatness issues from modern film being too thin. With that said, the whole camera is such a beast that I have a hard time using the smaller sized backs on it-if I'm going to go to the trouble of hauling it out, I'm going to get my 10 shots of 6x7 on a roll. Aside from the weight, it's also worth mentioning that it can be clunky to use since you have to cock the body and wind the film separately, and the film advance lever requires two strokes. Interestingly enough, in LF a lens mounted in a Seiko shutter will often bring less than the same lens mounted in a Copal shutter, but I've found that the Seiko shutters in my RB lenses keep ticking away without missing a beat. I am particular about storing them uncocked(just like my LF shutters), but I don't have a service history on any of my lenses and all within a half stop even at slow speeds(and about as good as you could hope for a mechanical shutter at high speeds).
The Pentax to me is honestly a lot like using an overgrown 80s 35mm SLR. It gives you even some primitive AE, although the focusing screen is dim and the controls can at times be clunky. As is a common theme with MF systems, you really can't complain about the lens quality. One of the things I've been spoiled on and consequently don't like is that the backs are not interchangeable, only the inserts. You can stock up on inserts and keep them handy, but you can't swap film types on the fly. I find this to be a limitation-you may not.
I resisted getting a Hasselblad for a long time, but there's a reason why it's the metric by which other MF SLRs are measured. The system has quirks out its rear, and heaven help you if you do things out of order. All of my lenses are the old chrome style "C" lenses, and I have FLs ranging from 50mm to 250mm. Even though my lenses are not T*, I can't really find anything to complain about optically on any of them-there are no "bad" Hasselblad lenses-just some that not as good as others. Ergonomically, there's a fair bit to dislike about the C lenses-they have scalloped metal focusing rings that turn probably 330º from infinity to the closest distance. Despite the seemingly endless travel, though, they range from "fairly stiff" to "I'm going to end up with blisters after using this lens for a day." I actually had my 150mm out yesterday, a lens I haven't used much, and reminded that the focusing ring is a lot easier than the 50mm and 80mm I use a lot more often. I've been told that a service can only do a limited amount to fix stiff focusing-a set of quick focus handles is a lot less expensive and works a lot better, but is also a problem if you want to use any sort of flash(the handle gets in the way of a sync cord attached to the lens). The Syncho-Compur shutters don't have the best reputation for longevity, although mine are all good aside from dead slow speeds on the 80mm. Hasselblad made more accessories than you can imagine, and it's easy to go wild on them. Some, though, like 120 backs, can cost you a fortune though. My primary body is a 500C, and I replaced the screen myself with one from Rick Oleson(the C/M added easily interchangeable screens, but the Acute-Matte screens can cost half or more the cost of a body, and the non-Hassy ones are either even more expensive or are terrible). I also have a 500EL/M, which actually makes a great secondary body-they are less expensive than manual advance bodies(I didn't pay a lot more than a what a stand-alone WLF would cost for mine) and there are readily available adapters to run them on a 9V battery. They can seem a bit unwieldy with an 80mm lens, but actually balance nicely with a physically larger lens(both my 50mm and 150mm make almost a perfect, if heavy, package). None the less, I wouldn't necessarily dive right into a Hasselblad as a first MF SLR, even though mine is now my default MF camera to use unless I have a good reason to use something else.
The SQ-A was my first MF SLR, and I still have a soft spot for the camera. I'll also kind of group the ETRS in with these comments, since they're quite similar. I primarily used both bodies with a speed grip, which made them handle nicely without a lot of extra bulk. The speed grip gives you a lever to advance the film(two strokes) and also a hot shoe-something that I found really handy for when I wanted to use on-camera flash(I often find myself using my giant Metz 60 CT-4 when I want a flash on my Hasselblad since the speed grip I have for it is left handed, only has a cold shoe, and isn't anywhere near as nicely done as the Bronica grip in my opinion). The electronic Seiko shutters of course need a battery to run at anything other than 1/500, but otherwise never go out of time and can go for 8 seconds. As usual, the lenses are excellent. Leaky backs were a constant thorn in my side. I didn't mention this in my comments on the RB67, but the Bronica and RB67 backs both are also a real pain to reseal in my experience, and I bought kits from Jon Goodman with his excellent instructions and pre-cut foam. If a body dies, forget trying to get it fixed-just buy another. I hate having that attitude, but if you can even find someone to work on them you'd pay a whole lot more than a replacement body.
The S2A looks great on paper, and there's a lot to like about it. The system does include one of the few legendarily bad MF lenses-the 13.5cm Nikkor, which really is a 35mm lens that just happens to cover 6x6. Mine wasn't AS terrible as some would have you think, but at the same time I had a mix of both Nikkors and Zenzanons running from 50mm to 250mm(a common theme of my MF systems, if you haven't noticed) and it did stand out as being worse than the others. The lenses are nice and lightweight since they don't have a shutter or even a focusing helical, but mounting/unmounting is a bit of an interesting process. Also, this range is notorious for degrading foam that causes focus issues-I had bellows but never really got satisfactory results. Mine was okay at more "normal" distances, but of course macro distances are very demanding of focus accuracy. The film advance gears are also a known weak spot, although the S2a is SUPPOSED to have fixed those. Overall, though, even though the camera has some interesting features the way it gets there is a Rube Goldberg nightmare. There's a LOT that has to happen in sequence-specifically the mirror dropping down(not flipping up), the blinds covering it and the focusing screen, and then lens stopping down and the shutter opening before it all goes in reverse-unlike more conventional "Hasselblad-style" MF cameras, it has an instant return mirror. You have cables and so forth all over the place to make all of this happen. The cameras make a ferocious amount of noise both when firing and when advancing. I could feel a lot of vibration from it when holding-partially damped out by the weight(it weighs a lot more than any other 6x6 I've used, including the SQ-A and Hasselblad)-but it's worse than even an RB67 to me. I really think most of the vibration comes from the shutter and not from the mirror. Also, the 1/1000 top speed SOUNDS nice(especially when you get 1/500 on leaf shutter 6x6 cameras, and 1/400 on the RB), but in reality the relatively long curtain travel time(1/30) means that the shutter isn't so great at stopping action or even motion blur. The 1/30 flash sync can also be a real hindrance.
Bronica SQ-A
Bronica ETR/ETRS/ETR-C
Bronica S2a
Pentax 645
Mamiya RB67
Hasselblad V system
I have "slimmed down" to the Pentax, Hasselblad, and Mamiya. All three serve different purposes, and don't see myself getting rid of any of them.
The RB67 gives probably the best technical image quality of the three, but I don't use it that often. I have a range of lenses from pre-C to K/L, and while the K/Ls are a tiny bit more contrasty, overall I don't see a huge difference between them and even the earliest lenses unless the lighting is tricky. Between two bodies, 6 lenses(50mm-250mm), and a whole bunch of accessories I probably still have less invested in the complete system than I do my 4-lens, two body Hasselblad system. That includes some oddball stuff, too, and even a metered prism(which weighs over 2lbs by itself). Someone asked if 645 and 6x6 backs were available for the system-I have a 645 "Pro SD" back(these don't have foam light seals like the earlier pro and pro-S backs, and almost all backs that have not been refoamed will leak). I'm not sure if Mamiya made a 6x6 back, but Graflex-branded backs will fit and work(and those are available in 6x6). It's been a while since I really looked into it, but I think you want to avoid knob-advance Graflex backs as they can have film flatness issues from modern film being too thin. With that said, the whole camera is such a beast that I have a hard time using the smaller sized backs on it-if I'm going to go to the trouble of hauling it out, I'm going to get my 10 shots of 6x7 on a roll. Aside from the weight, it's also worth mentioning that it can be clunky to use since you have to cock the body and wind the film separately, and the film advance lever requires two strokes. Interestingly enough, in LF a lens mounted in a Seiko shutter will often bring less than the same lens mounted in a Copal shutter, but I've found that the Seiko shutters in my RB lenses keep ticking away without missing a beat. I am particular about storing them uncocked(just like my LF shutters), but I don't have a service history on any of my lenses and all within a half stop even at slow speeds(and about as good as you could hope for a mechanical shutter at high speeds).
The Pentax to me is honestly a lot like using an overgrown 80s 35mm SLR. It gives you even some primitive AE, although the focusing screen is dim and the controls can at times be clunky. As is a common theme with MF systems, you really can't complain about the lens quality. One of the things I've been spoiled on and consequently don't like is that the backs are not interchangeable, only the inserts. You can stock up on inserts and keep them handy, but you can't swap film types on the fly. I find this to be a limitation-you may not.
I resisted getting a Hasselblad for a long time, but there's a reason why it's the metric by which other MF SLRs are measured. The system has quirks out its rear, and heaven help you if you do things out of order. All of my lenses are the old chrome style "C" lenses, and I have FLs ranging from 50mm to 250mm. Even though my lenses are not T*, I can't really find anything to complain about optically on any of them-there are no "bad" Hasselblad lenses-just some that not as good as others. Ergonomically, there's a fair bit to dislike about the C lenses-they have scalloped metal focusing rings that turn probably 330º from infinity to the closest distance. Despite the seemingly endless travel, though, they range from "fairly stiff" to "I'm going to end up with blisters after using this lens for a day." I actually had my 150mm out yesterday, a lens I haven't used much, and reminded that the focusing ring is a lot easier than the 50mm and 80mm I use a lot more often. I've been told that a service can only do a limited amount to fix stiff focusing-a set of quick focus handles is a lot less expensive and works a lot better, but is also a problem if you want to use any sort of flash(the handle gets in the way of a sync cord attached to the lens). The Syncho-Compur shutters don't have the best reputation for longevity, although mine are all good aside from dead slow speeds on the 80mm. Hasselblad made more accessories than you can imagine, and it's easy to go wild on them. Some, though, like 120 backs, can cost you a fortune though. My primary body is a 500C, and I replaced the screen myself with one from Rick Oleson(the C/M added easily interchangeable screens, but the Acute-Matte screens can cost half or more the cost of a body, and the non-Hassy ones are either even more expensive or are terrible). I also have a 500EL/M, which actually makes a great secondary body-they are less expensive than manual advance bodies(I didn't pay a lot more than a what a stand-alone WLF would cost for mine) and there are readily available adapters to run them on a 9V battery. They can seem a bit unwieldy with an 80mm lens, but actually balance nicely with a physically larger lens(both my 50mm and 150mm make almost a perfect, if heavy, package). None the less, I wouldn't necessarily dive right into a Hasselblad as a first MF SLR, even though mine is now my default MF camera to use unless I have a good reason to use something else.
The SQ-A was my first MF SLR, and I still have a soft spot for the camera. I'll also kind of group the ETRS in with these comments, since they're quite similar. I primarily used both bodies with a speed grip, which made them handle nicely without a lot of extra bulk. The speed grip gives you a lever to advance the film(two strokes) and also a hot shoe-something that I found really handy for when I wanted to use on-camera flash(I often find myself using my giant Metz 60 CT-4 when I want a flash on my Hasselblad since the speed grip I have for it is left handed, only has a cold shoe, and isn't anywhere near as nicely done as the Bronica grip in my opinion). The electronic Seiko shutters of course need a battery to run at anything other than 1/500, but otherwise never go out of time and can go for 8 seconds. As usual, the lenses are excellent. Leaky backs were a constant thorn in my side. I didn't mention this in my comments on the RB67, but the Bronica and RB67 backs both are also a real pain to reseal in my experience, and I bought kits from Jon Goodman with his excellent instructions and pre-cut foam. If a body dies, forget trying to get it fixed-just buy another. I hate having that attitude, but if you can even find someone to work on them you'd pay a whole lot more than a replacement body.
The S2A looks great on paper, and there's a lot to like about it. The system does include one of the few legendarily bad MF lenses-the 13.5cm Nikkor, which really is a 35mm lens that just happens to cover 6x6. Mine wasn't AS terrible as some would have you think, but at the same time I had a mix of both Nikkors and Zenzanons running from 50mm to 250mm(a common theme of my MF systems, if you haven't noticed) and it did stand out as being worse than the others. The lenses are nice and lightweight since they don't have a shutter or even a focusing helical, but mounting/unmounting is a bit of an interesting process. Also, this range is notorious for degrading foam that causes focus issues-I had bellows but never really got satisfactory results. Mine was okay at more "normal" distances, but of course macro distances are very demanding of focus accuracy. The film advance gears are also a known weak spot, although the S2a is SUPPOSED to have fixed those. Overall, though, even though the camera has some interesting features the way it gets there is a Rube Goldberg nightmare. There's a LOT that has to happen in sequence-specifically the mirror dropping down(not flipping up), the blinds covering it and the focusing screen, and then lens stopping down and the shutter opening before it all goes in reverse-unlike more conventional "Hasselblad-style" MF cameras, it has an instant return mirror. You have cables and so forth all over the place to make all of this happen. The cameras make a ferocious amount of noise both when firing and when advancing. I could feel a lot of vibration from it when holding-partially damped out by the weight(it weighs a lot more than any other 6x6 I've used, including the SQ-A and Hasselblad)-but it's worse than even an RB67 to me. I really think most of the vibration comes from the shutter and not from the mirror. Also, the 1/1000 top speed SOUNDS nice(especially when you get 1/500 on leaf shutter 6x6 cameras, and 1/400 on the RB), but in reality the relatively long curtain travel time(1/30) means that the shutter isn't so great at stopping action or even motion blur. The 1/30 flash sync can also be a real hindrance.
MattKing
Moderator
I do use a 6x4.5 back on my RB67 from time to time.
That rotating back feature is great for so many things - particularly when working on a tripod, and I have a slide projector that handles 6x4.5 and 6x6 but I don't have a slide projector that handles 6x7 - so if I want to project 6x4.5 slides, the RB67 is a good choice.
The RB67 also offers leaf shutter lenses, so if I am trying to use fill flash, the RB67 is better than the Mamiya 645 - at least since I sold my Mamiya 645 leaf shutter lens.
And if I want to use a waist level finder with 6x4.5, and I want portrait format, the RB67 is way better.
That rotating back feature is great for so many things - particularly when working on a tripod, and I have a slide projector that handles 6x4.5 and 6x6 but I don't have a slide projector that handles 6x7 - so if I want to project 6x4.5 slides, the RB67 is a good choice.
The RB67 also offers leaf shutter lenses, so if I am trying to use fill flash, the RB67 is better than the Mamiya 645 - at least since I sold my Mamiya 645 leaf shutter lens.
And if I want to use a waist level finder with 6x4.5, and I want portrait format, the RB67 is way better.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
Some people are really pissed at you now
.
Kudos to you for saying what you said.
Thanks. I don't mean to get people pissed. I'm not against Hassy's but I dont' think there is anything magic about them. They are just a box with a lens. Some people feel comfortable with them and make great photos, I'm happy for them because they found the thing that is an extension of them. I just get tired of the p*ssing contests of people with their superior gear and lenses, as if the gear saw the photos and took them on their own. It gets rather old after a while.
YMMV
It will be all easy if negs are printed in the darkroom. Gear could be a secondary thought...
OP
OP
A couple of people (@hsandler and @Ben Hutcherson) have mentioned the Bronica ETR series as being likely to have leaky light seals. I notice the ETRC models do not have interchangeable backs; would those models, therefore, be free from light seal leaks?
Thanks for sharing your experience. I am keeping your write up as a reference.
I'm not sure that it's likely. I have acquired 4 backs for my ETRS bodies, and only one had a leak. Definitely something to check out when you get one, but I think the odds are in your favor.
Perhaps different folks have different experiences, but I think I only bought one ETRS back and one SQ-A back(out of probably a dozen across both systems) that DID NOT leak. Perhaps I just had perpetually bad luck with these, though.
I owned an ETRC but it's long gone. I don't remember mine leaking, but at the same time it has foam in a lot of the same places as an ETR-series back. Although the back itself isn't interchangeable, the inserts are and the back part of the camera ARE interchangeable. From what I saw in using the cameras, the joint between the body and the back isn't really a major source of light leaks, and eliminating it doesn't necessarily get rid of them.
As for Hasselblads-I would never say that they're the only MF camera capable of good results. I have taken good photos and I've taken junk with every MF camera I've ever used, and my Hasselblads are no exception. As I said, bad MF lenses in any system are not common, and if you have one it's more than likely a bad example than entire range being bad. Lenses like the 13.5cm Nikkor for the Bronicas, where I was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't as bad as I expected are not typical. With that said, I genuinely enjoy using my Hasselblad(just like I really enjoy using a Nikon F2 and F6), and the fact that they were so popular means that it doesn't take a lot of hunting to find most any accessory made that you might want. Even though repairs are also expensive, I do appreciate the fact that it's a lot easier to find someone to fix a Hasselblad than-for example-a Bronica.
I owned an ETRC but it's long gone. I don't remember mine leaking, but at the same time it has foam in a lot of the same places as an ETR-series back. Although the back itself isn't interchangeable, the inserts are and the back part of the camera ARE interchangeable. From what I saw in using the cameras, the joint between the body and the back isn't really a major source of light leaks, and eliminating it doesn't necessarily get rid of them.
As for Hasselblads-I would never say that they're the only MF camera capable of good results. I have taken good photos and I've taken junk with every MF camera I've ever used, and my Hasselblads are no exception. As I said, bad MF lenses in any system are not common, and if you have one it's more than likely a bad example than entire range being bad. Lenses like the 13.5cm Nikkor for the Bronicas, where I was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't as bad as I expected are not typical. With that said, I genuinely enjoy using my Hasselblad(just like I really enjoy using a Nikon F2 and F6), and the fact that they were so popular means that it doesn't take a lot of hunting to find most any accessory made that you might want. Even though repairs are also expensive, I do appreciate the fact that it's a lot easier to find someone to fix a Hasselblad than-for example-a Bronica.
OP
OP
As previously mentioned in my original post, weight of the camera is moderately important to me. Comparing the weight specs of a Bronica ETRSi vs. a similar Mamiya 645 set up the way I would want, with a non-metered prism finder and normal lens:
Bronica ETRSi with back, prism finder E, + Zenzanon-PE 75mm f/2.8 = 1520g = 3.35 lbs
Mamiya M645 1000S body (965g) + P non-metered finder (380g) + 80mm f/2.8 220-250g) = 1.59kg = 3.5lbs
(with PDS metered finder, adds 120g, for total of 1.71 kg or 3.77 lbs)
I was unable to find a weight specification for the non-metered prism finders which fit the second generation of Mamiya 645 bodies such as the M645 Super.
According to my kitchen scales, the Mamiya C220 TLR which I am using now weighs 1.55 kg (3.42 lbs), ready to shoot, and I would be reluctant to increase that by much. So weights are approximately equivalent, slightly favoring the Bronica. I still have not selected which model of Mamiya for a more exact comparison. Maybe the first generation M645 1000S? Or maybe the second generation M645 Super?
Bronica ETRSi with back, prism finder E, + Zenzanon-PE 75mm f/2.8 = 1520g = 3.35 lbs
Mamiya M645 1000S body (965g) + P non-metered finder (380g) + 80mm f/2.8 220-250g) = 1.59kg = 3.5lbs
(with PDS metered finder, adds 120g, for total of 1.71 kg or 3.77 lbs)
I was unable to find a weight specification for the non-metered prism finders which fit the second generation of Mamiya 645 bodies such as the M645 Super.
According to my kitchen scales, the Mamiya C220 TLR which I am using now weighs 1.55 kg (3.42 lbs), ready to shoot, and I would be reluctant to increase that by much. So weights are approximately equivalent, slightly favoring the Bronica. I still have not selected which model of Mamiya for a more exact comparison. Maybe the first generation M645 1000S? Or maybe the second generation M645 Super?
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
The biggest difference between the 645 Super and the 645 Pro is that the 645 Super had problems with film advance gearing durability, particularly when used with the power winder. The other practical differences include the fact that the Super has a no-battery shutter speed of 1/60 second, whereas you need a functioning battery to use the 645 Pro.
By the way, the batteries are the same as the ones used in dog collars, so the alkaline versions are easy to find and cheap on the internet.
Although the 645 Pro can't be used without a functioning battery, it did add a self timer function that the 645 Super lacks. I use the self timer all the time!
Both cameras require either an electronic cable release, or an adapter to permit use of a manual one.
Almost all the accessories for the 645 Super work for the 645 Pro. The biggest exception (in my view) is that if you have one of the absolutely excellent left handed, hot shoe incorporated, trigger grip, you need to use it with the matched connector. The one for the Super doesn't fit the Pro and vice versa - and its really hard to buy the right one separately on the internet, because neither one of them have the part number imprinted on them, and they are little things that look very similar. Those connectors include a socket for a manual cable release, so serve a dual purpose.
I use an AE finder N (designed for the 645 Super) penta-prism on my 645 Pro without disadvantage. It is essentially identical (if somewhat boxier) to the version sold for the 645 Pro. The non-metered version of that type of prism probably is of the same size and weight, or at least close. I expect the metered and un-metered penta-mirror finders are lighter and slightly smaller. The latter have the advantage of having an adjustable diopter built in, but have the disadvantage of a less bright image with a slightly poorer view of the corners.
By the way, the metering finders draw power from the camera's battery.
The finders for the older, fixed back cameras are somewhat problematic, in that many of them are very old and suffer from deterioration of the silvering in the prism. You need to check for a visible line in the middle of the view.
One of the very last Mamiya 645 lines is/was the 645e. It has a fixed, metering penta-mirror eye level finder and does not offer changeable backs. There is also a right handed, thumb operated rapid winder (two strokes per frame) as well as a winding crank. It is a quite nice option if you don't need changeable backs. It uses the same film inserts and lenses. From time to time I've considered buying one as a backup body.
KEH has one right now for $238.00 USD: https://www.keh.com/shop/mamiya-645-e-body-medium-format-camera-body-267177.html
By the way, the batteries are the same as the ones used in dog collars, so the alkaline versions are easy to find and cheap on the internet.
Although the 645 Pro can't be used without a functioning battery, it did add a self timer function that the 645 Super lacks. I use the self timer all the time!
Both cameras require either an electronic cable release, or an adapter to permit use of a manual one.
Almost all the accessories for the 645 Super work for the 645 Pro. The biggest exception (in my view) is that if you have one of the absolutely excellent left handed, hot shoe incorporated, trigger grip, you need to use it with the matched connector. The one for the Super doesn't fit the Pro and vice versa - and its really hard to buy the right one separately on the internet, because neither one of them have the part number imprinted on them, and they are little things that look very similar. Those connectors include a socket for a manual cable release, so serve a dual purpose.
I use an AE finder N (designed for the 645 Super) penta-prism on my 645 Pro without disadvantage. It is essentially identical (if somewhat boxier) to the version sold for the 645 Pro. The non-metered version of that type of prism probably is of the same size and weight, or at least close. I expect the metered and un-metered penta-mirror finders are lighter and slightly smaller. The latter have the advantage of having an adjustable diopter built in, but have the disadvantage of a less bright image with a slightly poorer view of the corners.
By the way, the metering finders draw power from the camera's battery.
The finders for the older, fixed back cameras are somewhat problematic, in that many of them are very old and suffer from deterioration of the silvering in the prism. You need to check for a visible line in the middle of the view.
One of the very last Mamiya 645 lines is/was the 645e. It has a fixed, metering penta-mirror eye level finder and does not offer changeable backs. There is also a right handed, thumb operated rapid winder (two strokes per frame) as well as a winding crank. It is a quite nice option if you don't need changeable backs. It uses the same film inserts and lenses. From time to time I've considered buying one as a backup body.
KEH has one right now for $238.00 USD: https://www.keh.com/shop/mamiya-645-e-body-medium-format-camera-body-267177.html
You may want to check your weights, at least for the ETRSi. My ETRSi, as currently set up with 50mm lens and WLF, weighs just over 3 lbs. This site list the weight of the ETRSi with back, prism and 75mm lens at 1520g.
It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison with the C220. But if you were comparing, I'd knock a few ounces off the Bronica and the Mamiya 645 as a WLF for those weight less than the prism.
Your weight measurement made me curious about my P645N and with the 75mm lens it weighs 3.75lbs which compares to the Mamiya with a metered finder
pentaxuser
One point to keep in mind when comparing the weights of cameras is their apparent weight and usage style.
I for one find that using waist level finders off a properly adjusted camera strap to feel far lighter in use over the course of a day than using an eye level finder camera of similar weight. This goes for how much strain it puts on my back/neck/arms by the end of the day, and how steady I can hold the camera.
There is also mirror motion to consider - If you've used the TLR for slow hand held speeds, then you may be disappointed with the results you get after switching to an SLR, but should be a non-issue if you mainly used faster shutter speeds anyway.
The issue of weight has me considering refabricating one of my folding cameras with even lighter materials. The ones I have are already in the 400-600g range, but I imagine I could shave even more weight off them... After all they're little more than a box to hold a bellows, lens, and film.
I for one find that using waist level finders off a properly adjusted camera strap to feel far lighter in use over the course of a day than using an eye level finder camera of similar weight. This goes for how much strain it puts on my back/neck/arms by the end of the day, and how steady I can hold the camera.
There is also mirror motion to consider - If you've used the TLR for slow hand held speeds, then you may be disappointed with the results you get after switching to an SLR, but should be a non-issue if you mainly used faster shutter speeds anyway.
The issue of weight has me considering refabricating one of my folding cameras with even lighter materials. The ones I have are already in the 400-600g range, but I imagine I could shave even more weight off them... After all they're little more than a box to hold a bellows, lens, and film.
OP
OP
Thanks for that! Actually, I did get my weight spec from the same site you provided the link for, but I failed to notice that his number INCLUDES the lens, so I added the lens weight again. My bad. I edited my previous post for accuracy.
Your suggestion to "knock a few ounces off the Bronica and the Mamiya 645 as a WLF for those weight less than the prism" is probably meant to make the comparison to the Mamiya C220 more fair. What you say is true, but whichever model I choose, it will be used with some kind of prism finder - so the weights with WLF are not useful to me. I am not really comparing the 645s to the Mamiya C220 in any practical sense, because the C220 is not something I am considering owning. I will give it back to the university at the end of the semister, and I don't plan on ever owning any kind of TLR in the future. My only intention was to use the weight of the C220 as point of reference - a known quantity which I have actually experienced hanging around my neck, as opposed to a specification number.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Thanks for that! I was going to track down numbers for the Pentax 645, but you saved me the trouble!
Rather than get caught up with weight I would start thinking about features, do you anticipate the need for a 1/1000 shutter, a power winder? The last version was made well into the 2000, like 2009, who services them, are there any parts available? Can you get a digital back for any? Once you map out your system then look at the weight and then decide is you live can with a 100 or more grams for the later model vs the feature you want.
In terms of a WLF vs prism finder, I use both, being on the short side I tend use a prism finder as it keeps me having to use a box standing or on my tip toes when shooting on a tripod or monopod.
In terms of a WLF vs prism finder, I use both, being on the short side I tend use a prism finder as it keeps me having to use a box standing or on my tip toes when shooting on a tripod or monopod.
OP
OP
Wow! Don't know how I missed that one, but, pending purther investigataion, the 645e just went to the top of my list. I think I was put off by the weight spec for the body, only at 1340g compared to 900-980g for all the other models. But I neglected to consider the weight of the 645e includes the prism finder, built in. looking ath the total package
M645e, at 1340g + 80mm f/2.8 N lens at 220g = 1.56 k = 3.44 lbs - which is quite comparable to the others on my list. (BTW, I am getting all my Mamiya weight specs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamiya_645)
Is there anything else I should know about the M645e in the way of warning / precautions? If not, I think this just might be The One.
MattKing
Moderator
For me, the 645e's inability to permit changing finders and viewing screens and backs is important. Maybe not for you though.
I also really like the left hand grip with included ellectronic trigger and hot shoe that my 645 Pro offers, although the thumb operated right handed rapid winder available for the 645e is attractive.
The relative young age of the 645e is attractive. I don't know how many of them were made - I expect considerably fewer than the Pro or Pro--Tl.
The penta-prism finders usable on the Super/Pro/Pro-Tl do give a slightly brighter view, with better corners, than the penta--mirror finders like the one built into the 645e, but the differences may not matter to you.
I have an impression that the 645e may be slightly less rugged than a 645 Pro, but I have no concrete information on that.
In any event, once you have one, you may want more, so at the very least the 645e will start you well, and serve as a good backup later. It will certainly not restrict you in any meaningful way, other than the fact it doesn't offer the ability to change films mid--roll.
Deleted member 88956
Well, you don't come through as one who enjoys using his Hasselblad, but rather more like a mad man gone blind. No camera makes makes one a photographer. One can take great photographs with a Brownie or can stink at it with a Hasselblad in his hand. If you don't know what other cameras can do, at least tell everyone Hasselblad is all you ever touched.
Deleted member 88956
Focus confirmation requires half press to activate, how is that compared to just spinning the focus ring without touching any other part of the camera to work? And FC does not stay on for long (not sure if there is a user function to change that). SO if addition to going through this routine, every time you want to change focus point you need to do it all over gain. Then in some specific low key scenes or low light, split image still working fine and AF reliant FC no longer does. Then the plain screen of the N is joke in comparison to one in original P645.
I never said you cannot manually focus on N body, but is NOT even close to original, different league all together (hence my "blatantly incorrect" jab as the two are incomparable). So if one does not care for AF (and some bells of the N) there is no need to get into it. Many have stated same thing about manual focusing on N. It is clear Pentax messed up in that department. I went for N as really wanted the edge data imprinting, the sole reason for me. But I had not researched the MF aspect as I did not expect it to be what it is.
To put it yet another way, manual focusing on 645N is like manual focusing on DSLR, neither built for manual focusing.
It isn't about MY truth, it is more about objective facts. So, yes you can focus manually on N body, but don't say it is same as on original because it is simply not.
If none of my arguments make you see it, then consider WHY Pentax made split / raster screens for it. There was only one reason, but as the AF in MF took off, they must have dropped the idea of continuing these screens in quantities that would have kept their prices under control. Since (clearly) a lot of people wanted one, they became beyond collector value today and are nearly impossible to find on offer, let alone at a sane price.
Have you considered a Mamiya 6? A rangefinder style MF camera worth looking at.
And focusing issues aside, there is another reason for a Pentax 645 not yet mentioned and it is labeled "SMC Pentax 67 105mm F2.4" (or one of its predecessors).
And focusing issues aside, there is another reason for a Pentax 645 not yet mentioned and it is labeled "SMC Pentax 67 105mm F2.4" (or one of its predecessors).
| 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:  |