Noob seeks advice: Pentax 645 vs. Mamiya 645 vs Bronica

[Sirius Glass]

Let's make an example:

I shot this little guy by accident, I was aiming at something different, then he shoot up in front of me and looked at the camera, I had a Pentax LX with M 85mm f2 and winder (that is useful because the shutter is always cocked), I had one second or two to realise it could have been a good opportunity, not looking ouside the finder I barely had the time to select f2.0 and focus, then I shot.

I assume that you would have been quick enough in two seconds with an Hassemblad to turn the knob twice, select the aperture, light the lightmeter, check the right shutter speed, insert it in the dial, focus and shoot.

Yes. Been there done that for decades. But I would do it with a Hasselblad not a Hassemblad.

 

[mweintraub]

That I agree, I was talking about 35mm, for medium format I think motor winders are too heavy, that's the reason why I prefer the manual winder of the Bronica (and the Mamiya 645E), a MF SLR is big enough by itself but a grip is useful if you use a pentaprism.

Oh, I've a 220 back for the Bronica, how many films are available? It appears there is still Portra and Fuji Provia, but anything else? I would like to use it because 120mm only gives you 15 shots and loading takes some time.

New? Not sure. I think that's it. But a lot of people still have 220 films in their fridges. I know someone on FB that is selling a ton of 400VC (or was it NC).

 

[lxdude]

From what you've said, Cuthbert, I think the camera for you in medium format is a Pentax 645N. Or the 645NII, if you can afford it.

 

[cuthbert]

From what you've said, Cuthbert, I think the camera for you in medium format is a Pentax 645N. Or the 645NII, if you can afford it.

Actually I found a nice Mamiya 645E for a good price, it is indeed a much more modern camera than the Bronica (and it can be used in manual mode) with instant return mirror, people are correct, the finder has a lot of distortion (I assume it's not the lens), but I hope it's not relevant.

The building quality is horrid though, the camera is completely covered with shells made of cheap hard plastic you would expect on a korean city car or something like that, it's clearly branded "assembled in China".

The Bronica is a much better put together camera, however I got the fist shots from the first rolls and I have to say I'm not impressed by the quality of the 75mm lens, especially the bokeh. Also, IMO with Portra 160 it tends to overexpose a bit, with that film I think I'll shoot at 200 or use the special button in the base of the prism.

No very inspired pics but they were just made for testing.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's practically impossible to overexpose C41 films, especially Portra, enough to really degrade quality, at least accidentally. I'm not saying you couldn't do it by giving 8 stops too much or something, but it takes a LOT. I routinely intentionally overexpose it a half stop or so, which with C41 unlike B&W results in finer grain.

If your results are too light look to your scanning or printing of those negatives.

 

[cuthbert]

It's practically impossible to overexpose C41 films,

If it were true I would be shooting C41 with meterless cameras like I do with B&W.

In reality I've done some experiments and found out that Gold and Superia handle pretty badly overexposure, I agree Portra is better but still I wouldn't trust shooting it without lightmeter.

However, I need to experiment a little with the Bronica, it doesn't seem a serious problem, now I have a hood and perhaps it will improve, what would improve are the ghosts (it appears the coating is way far from the Pentax SMC) and the bokeh that doesn't look too special, see the background of this pic (that besides that I find nice):

 

[mweintraub]

Actually I found a nice Mamiya 645E for a good price, it is indeed a much more modern camera than the Bronica (and it can be used in manual mode) with instant return mirror, people are correct, the finder has a lot of distortion (I assume it's not the lens), but I hope it's not relevant.

The building quality is horrid though, the camera is completely covered with shells made of cheap hard plastic you would expect on a korean city car or something like that, it's clearly branded "assembled in China".

The Bronica is a much better put together camera, however I got the fist shots from the first rolls and I have to say I'm not impressed by the quality of the 75mm lens, especially the bokeh. Also, IMO with Portra 160 it tends to overexpose a bit, with that film I think I'll shoot at 200 or use the special button in the base of the prism.

No very inspired pics but they were just made for testing.

I had the 645E and I liked it because of the longer viewfinder didn't make my big shnozz smash into the back of the camera. I didn't like it because the body cracked on me. That's when I went to the 1000s (before I went 645 Pro).

 

[mklw1954]

I prefer manual focus as well and have been using a Pentax 645 for the last 7 years. Great camera and lenses. I develop my own b&w and color film and darkroom prints and the Pentax 645 image quality is excellent, a significant improvement over 35mm.

No, you can't change film holders in mid-roll; exposure compensation is in 1-stop increments (but you can use ISO for 1/3 stop increments); and I find the common criticism of awkward controls to be nitpicking (after using a camera several times, you know how to use the controls). It has all the auto and manual modes and the metering is excellent. It's loud because it has to move 120 film.

I did research before buying and the review consensus indicated a workhorse reliable body, including excellent mirror damping, and excellent lenses, and I haven't been disappointed. Given the prices, it's also an excellent value.

 

[lxdude]

the bokeh that doesn't look too special, see the background of this pic (that besides that I find nice):

Bokeh is subjective, but I would call that pretty much neutral bokeh.

 

[macfred]

It's practically impossible to overexpose C41 films, especially Portra, enough to really degrade quality, at least accidentally. I'm not saying you couldn't do it by giving 8 stops too much or something, but it takes a LOT. I routinely intentionally overexpose it a half stop or so, which with C41 unlike B&W results in finer grain.

If your results are too light look to your scanning or printing of those negatives.

I agree with Roger - worthwhile reading on the subject :

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html

http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/