new to Medium Format

Lukas Werth · Dec 2, 2008

Thank you for the information, Keith, and or posting the pictures. I particularly liked the one of the butterfly on the board. Your website was also worth a visit.
I have just noted how cheap used RBs appear to be, and i think I might indeed watch out for one.

randy_94 · Dec 3, 2008

today the price of used Mamiya RB67 pro SD are cheap, is it ok if i buy it for learning the MF camera

keithwms · Dec 3, 2008

Yes that is precisely what I recommend to a lot of folks new to MF. I had soem students use it and they loved it. The pro SD is very modular, super robust, and if/when you do decide to graduate to an rz pro 2, you can use the rb lenses on that.

I'd recommend the following inexpensive add-ons for the pro sd: 6x8 powered back, AE metering prism, a polaroid packfilm back (3.25", you can shoot the excellent fuji stuff and learn a lot that way) and a 45mm extension tube for your macro pleasure. If you want to learn sheet stuff, let me recommend a type J "double cut film holder" which will allow you to shoot 3.25" sheet film on the rb (I use efke 50M for that, you can get it at freestyle).

The 127 KL is a super starting lens, good for all-purpose stuff; I prefer it to the 90. If however you want something really fast, you can get the inexpensive rz 110/2.8 and in about 3 sec with a pair of pliers and two grunts you can remove two pins from the mount and then it'll go on the rb pro sd. That should make an excellent portrait lens. Not as sharp as the 127 but very, very bright.

Forego the rb 50, that is the only disappointing lens in the rb lineup. Instead you can get the rz 50 uld and depin that if you wish.

randy_94 · Dec 3, 2008

Thank`s for all your info Keith...

panastasia · Dec 3, 2008

I moved up to MF with a 6x9 view camera (cheap; $170 new!) and made much money doing industrial photography and portraiture. Sometime later I decided to find something I can hand-hold, something more versatile, so after researching other cameras on the market I opted for the RB proSD because it has all the right features (for me). I bought a new one 15 years ago and still think it's the best all around MF camera. Now that the lenses are more affordable I have many. Note: the longer focal lengths, 250mm and up, are getting harder to find.

I recently bought a Mamiya 645 because I'm getting old and needed a lighter camera for hiking up mountain trails. I love both cameras and wouldn't trade them for any others. I still use the view camera - for extreme wide angles and movements - which takes the RB backs (a modified Galvin 2x3 - extremely light weight).

keithwms · Dec 3, 2008

P.S. One quick proviso on depinning rz lenses: you lose infinity focus unless you do further surgery. But with the 110/2.8 you can focus to about 10ft just by removing the pins. So for portraiture it's a good solution, but not for landscape, unless you're willing to do a bit of extra surgery on the rb.

Lukas Werth · Dec 4, 2008

keithwms said:
P.S. One quick proviso on depinning rz lenses: you lose infinity focus unless you do further surgery.

This is of interest for me in relation to an rb 50 mm lens: you mentioned before this is a disappointing lens, and that it would be better to go for an 50 mm rz. If I do, do i lose infinity when "depinning" (no idea what that means) this lens?
And, why is the 50mm rb disappointing?

thanks anyway for all this helpful information; I really appreciate it.

keithwms · Dec 4, 2008

So, I had the rb 50, the newest one, and comparing it to the 50 on my mamiya 6, well... no comparison. Edge sharpness was just not there in the rb lens, not any any aperture. Of the wide lenses for the rb, I much prefer the 65. Now, the rz 50 uld has a floating element design that cures the edge sharpness issue. Unfortunately there is no 50 uld for the rb.

If you need the 50 uld, then the easiest thing would be to pick up an rz. You can depin the 50 uld and mount it on the rb, but then some additional surgery on the infinity stops will be required to get infinity focus. So why bother, you may ask? Well, I am a tinkerer and I very much like the 6x8 back on the rb, and I ahve a number of other options such as sheet film backs etc. that I don't have for the rz. If you are new to the rb/rz lines and don't already have some investment in peripherals, and if you really need the 50, then I'd say just get an rz pro 2. If, like me, you have a bunch of rb doodads lying around and strongly prefer an all-mechanical body, then I can give more details on how to adapt the 50 uld.

By the way, I am about to test the 75 short barrel on the t&s gizmo, on the rz and on the rb, so if that interests you, stay tuned. The lens is ~35mm equivalent, in terms of the field of view of a 35mm camera.

Jeff L · Dec 4, 2008

RZ's are so cheap now. At my local camera store there's an RZ Pro with AE finder, 120 back and 110mm lens for $595 CDN. It looks like a nice one too.

Rolleijoe · Dec 8, 2008

randy_94 said:
thanks for all reply,
I like small camera for easy to handhold in outdoor .
which one is better contax 645 or mamiya 645 AFD II !

thaNKS,
randy

The Contax uses the legendary Zeiss lenses, while there is an adapter to fit certain Zeiss onto the Mamiya. However, once you start talking/using AF, it becomes a completely different animal.

My initial question would be: why bother with either if you're just going to slap on AF restrictions to it?

Frank Szabo · Dec 8, 2008

randy_94 said:
I am new to medium format, i need info about the camera.
which is the good camera.

1. Mamiya RZ67 pro II.
2. contax 645
3. Mamiya 645 AFD II kit
4. Mamiya 645 AFD III kit

thanks
randy_94

They're all good - the issue for you is your preference of format and how much you'd care to spend.

papagene · Dec 8, 2008

My suggestion would be to try and get your hands on some of these cameras and see which one will fit your hands and shooting style best.
Good luck in your quest.

gene

rossawilson1 · Dec 9, 2008

The Mamiya though wonderful is significantly bigger than the rest, but is also cheaper with more neg area.

I just got the Contax 645, though I'm not allowed to use it until xmas. I did look at the Mamiya AFD system but it didn't really appeal (build and handling). I'm not sure about the Mamiya but some guys here just told me you can use the Hasselblad V system lenses on the Contax.

keithwms · Dec 9, 2008

The contax is the most "classic" feeling of the 645s, in my opinion. Can't deny that. However, note that there is a lot of body diversity in the mamiya 645 line, everything from manual boxes to the highly automated afd3. Don't be afraid to use the mamiya lenses, they are mostly superb.

I am mostly a fan of the afd, especially because of the m645 lenses I can deploy. However, I have one major complaint. It'd be incredibly useful to be able to rotate the back and shoot 645 tall i.e. in portrait format, without rotating the body or using that nutty rotoframe or whatever they call it. Actually, I wouldn't even mind if there were a provision to go ahead and waste film and let me shoot portrait without rotating the back! (Yes, I know the new af lenses are baffled...) This issue, plus the lack of vertical grip on the afd, makes the camera quite a bit more cumbersome to use handheld than, say, a top of the line 35mm.

Mamiya, listen to me! You have rotating backs on the rb and rz, and they shoot a much squarer format than 645! I want to be able to do portrait format comfortably with 645! Give us a grip or a new back or something!

I am quite sure there will be some more body developments in 645 coming down the pipes. Unfortunately the trend is to more and more automation (like 35mm dslrs) rather than back-to-basics bodies that I prefer.

mamiya_madman · Dec 25, 2008

I first used a Mamiya RB67 Pro S for my A level work last year. It was brilliant, i did night time Modern Industrial Photography as a sort-of theme throughout the book, and got an A grade for it. It was great to use, it had an F64 on the lens, but i only used F32, and i also used Colour reversal in it one night, and apart from a bit of reciprosity failure it was great. I've just found one one on Ebay for about £95 (body only) and im on the hunt for an 80mm and a back for it.

keithwms · Dec 25, 2008

There's no 80mm for the rb, AFAIK. There is a 75 and a 90.

sanking · Dec 25, 2008

Keith,

I don't buy your argument about auto focus. I have used a Fuji GA645Zi auto focus camera for a number of years and the focus has been spot on for over 98% of the shots I have made with it. The Fuji does have a mechanism that allows you to easily lock on the focus on a certain spot and then move the camera to compose the scene. Quite easy to learn.

Sandy King

keithwms said:
Forget AF. Decent AF has only just now come to med format in the form of the new mamiya 645 afd3 ($3k!). Pretty much all prior med format cameras have rather primitive AF (center focus only and quite slow and noisy). So skip AF and come back to it when the prices have come down. If you absolutely must have af in an mf camera, then get a fuji rangefinder. Those are the only med format AF systems that didn't disappoint me. Med format lesnes are not nearly as fast as 35mm, so it's hard to design contrast detection af with the kind of flexibility you find in 35mm. So skip it!

Now, assuming that you buy my argument about giving up auto focus:

Q.G. · Dec 25, 2008

keithwms said:
It'd be incredibly useful to be able to rotate the back and shoot 645 tall i.e. in portrait format, without rotating the body or using that nutty rotoframe or whatever they call it. Actually, I wouldn't even mind if there were a provision to go ahead and waste film and let me shoot portrait without rotating the back!

There is. Has been for a very long time.
It's called 6x6 format.

I hear they make pretty decent cameras - only a smidgeon larger than the 6x4.5s, if at all - in that format.

keithwms · Dec 25, 2008

sanking said:
Keith,

I don't buy your argument about auto focus. I have used a Fuji GA645Zi auto focus camera for a number of years and the focus has been spot on for over 98% of the shots I have made with it. The Fuji does have a mechanism that allows you to easily lock on the focus on a certain spot and then move the camera to compose the scene. Quite easy to learn.

Sandy, I'll admit that I was happy with the AF on the fujis MF RFs. However they all sport rather slow and fairly wide lenses, so it's not like the AF system has to be particularly good. And I don't recall feeling any great confidence that the AF had locked precisely where I wanted it to lock... yeah, the motor stops making its racket, but there are no comforting visual cues! So if the focus-point were off center, I'd stop down pre-emptively.

So... I don't see how to compare them to anything modern in 35mm. Anyway, I do not deny that the Fujis are nice. Veeery nice. But the AF system is a far cry from even the rather rudimentary system on the mamiya AF, no?

Q.G. I have a mamiya 6 and I do what you are describing. I hear that hasselblad also made something that shot 6x6 But anyway, when I compose squares they almost always remain squares in print :rolleyes: And with film prices trending as they are, I don't expect to feel any less reluctant about cropping down those squares in the future! Anyway just imagine a system like a mini rb/rz, with a rotating back. That'd be very nifty indeed. I started to lament the orientation of the mamiyas when I used the Fuji RFs (mentioned above). I got a lot more use out of that orientation than expected.

Q.G. · Dec 26, 2008

Well, i don't know.
Just like the RB/RZ cameras are not 6x7, but 7x7 cameras (and does it show!), a 6x4.5 sporting a rotating back would have to be the size of a 6x6 camera.
On the other hand, 6x4.5 cameras aren't appreciably smaller than 6x6 cameras, so why not?

But (again) why not just get a 6x6 camera!
Film isn't that expensive, is it?

Why, "Actually, [you] wouldn't even mind if there were a provision to go ahead and waste film and let [you] shoot portrait without rotating the back!" !!!

But even if. I know why i pick up a camera when i do. And it's to create images. Not to safe on film.

keithwms · Dec 26, 2008

Q.G. said:
But even if. I know why i pick up a camera when i do. And it's to create images. Not to safe on film.

That's not my point at all. My point is that when I look through a square VF, I compose a square image. I like the square for what it can do...

Q.G. · Dec 26, 2008

Drop in a mask, and enjoy that "provision to go ahead and waste film and let [you] shoot portrait without rotating the back!"

Pupfish · Dec 28, 2008

I'm not sold on the use of AF on a 645 SLR because the mirror/shutter lag time makes them too slow for serious action photography anyway. (Horses for courses, and 35mm really shines for wildlife, PJ, tele or macro work.) But what I do really appreciate about AF-era 645 bodies like my Pentax 645N, is that some possess very sophisticated matrix metering (as well as spot and center-weighted), and remain compact with integrated metering prisms and motordrives. This all provides a better walking-around pictorial camera experience than my Nikon F5, pound for pound (somewhat incredibly the bodies with batteries are almost exactly the same weight). I've been shooting with the much underrated and now cheap manual focus SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 lens (about a 21mm equiv in 35mm terms) for less than a year. Few 35mm lenses are equivalently undistorted in this FOV-- I bought camera AND lens for what I could easily have spent on just a 35mm lens in 20-21mm focal length, alone.

I can routinely handhold this to 1/15s and sometimes to 1/8s and get spectacular tack-sharp results on Astia 100F, with no visible barrel or pincushion distortion. If there's time to work off a tripod and no wind, I'll use 4x5 instead. But in fleeting light of dawn or dusk I find myself grabbing the 645 more often.

new to Medium Format

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency