pentax 67 vs. pentax 645 vs. mayima 645

game · Oct 12, 2005

Hi there.
I am on the verge of buying a medium format camera. I've been orientating a bit lately and the in the thread title mentioned camera's are the ones I've narowed it down to.
My budget is not to big - I am a student -. My question. Are the three comparable to eachother? For example the pentax 67 vs. 654? Which of those two should be more expensive? I kinda like the idea of not having a perfect square negative...

one other thing... in smallformat I tend to use quite a lot tele lenses. Is that still possible with medium, or is that unaffordable?

Every input would be great. Thanks in advance
Greetings SAM

Woolliscroft · Oct 12, 2005

The Pentax 67 produces bigger negs: 6 x 7 cm as opposed to 6 x 4.5 cm, so the quality is better and grain lower as the negs need less enlargement to produce a print of a given size. On the other hand the camera is bigger and heavier and you use more film per picture. You can get both used, but neither are exactly cheap. You can get long focal length lenses. They too are not cheap, but can be got used. Remember, though that with medium format you need longer lenses to get the same magnification. For example a standard lens for 6 x 7 is already 90mm so a 250mm is only the same as a 135mm on 35mm.

David.

Nick Zentena · Oct 12, 2005

I've got the Pentax 645. It and the mamiya 645 have the option of adding Soviet P6 lenses with just an adapter. That can cut your lens cost if you are willing to give up auto aperture.

OTOH if budget is an issue I'd suggest considering the Bronica 645. The ETRSI can be had for less money then a similar Pentax setup. Lenses seem cheaper. It'll be newer then the Pentax. OTOH the Pentax comes with the motordrive and metering system built in. Those can be added to the Bronica but they cost money. OTOH the Bronica comes with swapable backs. Various finders. Leaf shutter lenses. All depends on what you like/want.

6x7 is so close to square I consider it square.

game · Oct 12, 2005

thanks for the answers!
Do I get it right that a pentax 645 should be cheaper than a pentax 67?
by the way size does not really matter to me, I always walk around with a tripod and a bag.
I will look for that bronica, but I do like build in light-measuring....

narsuitus · Oct 12, 2005

In my case, since I was already shooting small format, I went with the 6x7 and 6x9 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between 35mm and 6x4.5mm. However, if I were starting from scratch, a 645 SLR would meet all my needs.

Paul Sorensen · Oct 12, 2005

My primary camera is a Mamiya 645 Super and I love it. The newer Mamiya 645s (the Super nad Pro series) have interchangable backs and the lenses are super cheap. Telephoto is not a really strong suit of medium format, mostly because the lenses get huge and expensive. I had a 210mm for the 645 and it was a very nice lens. It sells at KEH for well less than $150 in excellend condition, so the prices have become very affordable. The Pentax 6X7 is also affordable right now, but it will likely cost somewhat more. It also weighs a lot more and is more difficult to hand hold. I don't know all that much about the Pentax 645, so I will leave that discussion to others.

game · Oct 12, 2005

Hmmmm, the term 6x9 has come across....
Seems even nicer to me. Has an even more anti-square nature than 645.
in fact: smallformat has the same ratio as 6x45: 1,34.
6x7 has a more sqaure ratio: 1,16 and 6x9 has 1,7.
but are there affordable cams inn the 6x9 format?

Thanks GaMe

Charles Webb · Oct 12, 2005

I like and make 8x10 prints, the 6x7 is designed specifically for that purpose.
If you don't like the 8x10 format, go with 6x9 or 6.45. I am perfectly happy with my Pentax 67's!

Charlie.......

Dave Parker · Oct 12, 2005

I would not consider the 645 format square at all, it is one of the most popular for the wedding crowd as it is not square and gives almost 3 times the surface area of the 35mm which helps in the enlargement department. 645 is one of my favorite formats and I have shot all of the medium format sizes.

Dave

game · Oct 13, 2005

I am serieusly thinknig of indeed the pentax 645.
One other cam I keep running into whensearching for 645 cams is the mayima 645. Can anyone comment about that one, and it's differences with the pentax? I've read paul's comment, but like the hear something about the differences.
And about 6x9. what cam is common in that area, cause if I search I only get the real cheap prewar boxes.
Thanks for replying! Greetings SAM

clogz · Oct 13, 2005

Interesting website on MF:Dead Link Removed
A drawback of the Pentax 645 that always crops up in discussions: no changeable filmbacks. If that is not a problem to you..I can certainly recommend the Pentax 645.
Greetings
Hans

knutb · Oct 13, 2005

game said:
Hmmmm, the term 6x9 has come across....
Seems even nicer to me. Has an even more anti-square nature than 645.
in fact: smallformat has the same ratio as 6x45: 1,34.
6x7 has a more sqaure ratio: 1,16 and 6x9 has 1,7.
but are there affordable cams inn the 6x9 format?

Thanks GaMe

Just a comment about the ratios. 6x4.5 and 6x7 are not the precise dimensions of the negatives. Trusting my memory (sounds dangerous ):

Mamiya 645: negative size 56 x 41.5, which gives a ratio = 1.35
Mamiya RB67: negative size 56 x 69.5, which gives a ratio = 1.24

Don't know about Pentax 67, but it's probably a bit less square than suggested by the term "6x7".

Knut

Woolliscroft · Oct 13, 2005

knutb said:
Don't know about Pentax 67, but it's probably a bit less square than suggested by the term "6x7".

Knut

You're right. The Pentax 67II negs are actually 55 x 70mm

David.

Lee Shively · Oct 13, 2005

Every one of the cameras mentioned have great reputations. You really can't lose with any of them.

I have a couple of older, first edition Pentax 645's. These cameras do have some limitations, particularly in the area of interchangeable backs and finders and for flash shooters. None of them mean much to me so I don't feel limited. The upside of the P645 is that the older, non-AF bodies are available cheap and the lenses are pretty much all outstanding and, due to their lack of shutter mechanisms, they are relatively cheap as well.

The 6x7 will have better negative quality due to size but 645 cameras are smaller and lighter in weight than the 6x7's. I consider my P645's to be oversized 35mm SLR's in handling. The negative quality is every bit as good as a cropped 6x6 and considerably better than a full-frame 35mm.

Both the Pentax 67 and Pentax 645 (and probably the Mamiya 645 as well--I'm not familiar with the system) have a selection of long lenses available but they're expensive, big and, of course, they don't have the magnification of 35mm telephotos. Medium format, at least in my opinion, works better with shorter focal lengths.

narsuitus · Oct 13, 2005

Between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats is a 6x8cm format. See the Fuji GX 680 medium format SLR camera.

Paul Sorensen · Oct 13, 2005

game said:
I am serieusly thinknig of indeed the pentax 645.
One other cam I keep running into whensearching for 645 cams is the mayima 645. Can anyone comment about that one, and it's differences with the pentax? I've read paul's comment, but like the hear something about the differences.
And about 6x9. what cam is common in that area, cause if I search I only get the real cheap prewar boxes.
Thanks for replying! Greetings SAM

The primary difference when I bought mine was cost, I was able to get started in the Mamiya 645 system for less money. Once there, I stayed there and upgraded components. The Pentax body is all in one piece, so you have your prism, winder, body and back together. Since I am buying used stuff and one concern is breakdown/repair cost, I find that the modular system used by Mamiya is more flexible. I have had a body go out on me and a replacement body alone was about $150, it would probably be less now.

Another difference is that if you like to have film ready to go, the inserts for the Pentax are much more expensive than the Mamiya inserts. With the Mamiya, a couple of spare inserts for additional film might cost you $20 to $30 each and the Pentax inserts will probably be over $100. The same issue comes up if you want to use 220 film. With Mamiya you can get a 220 insert for $20 to $30, with Pentax it will probably run closer to $100.

Also, if you are interested in using a waist level finder, you can get one for Mamiya and not for Pentax. In my quick survey or KEH, Pentax lenses seem to be a tad more expensive as well.

On the other hand, at least at KEH, a Mamiya 645 Super body, back, AE prism, and winder, will probably cost more than the Pentax body, which has all of the other pieces built in.

I firmly believe that both camera systems will give you great images and are of very high quality, but those are some more difference that I know of. Again, I have not used the Pentax, but these are the things that I considered that led me to buy the Mamiya given my situation.

Paul.

pentaxuser · Oct 13, 2005

Paul Sorensen said:
My primary camera is a Mamiya 645 Super and I love it. The newer Mamiya 645s (the Super nad Pro series) have interchangable backs and the lenses are super cheap. Telephoto is not a really strong suit of medium format, mostly because the lenses get huge and expensive. I had a 210mm for the 645 and it was a very nice lens. It sells at KEH for well less than $150 in excellend condition, so the prices have become very affordable. The Pentax 6X7 is also affordable right now, but it will likely cost somewhat more. It also weighs a lot more and is more difficult to hand hold. I don't know all that much about the Pentax 645, so I will leave that discussion to others.

Reading this thread prompted me to open a book I had obtained secondhand several years ago in Hay-on Wye in the UK called "Great Action Photography" published in the early 80s. It is a series of photos and interviews with action photographers.Most were using Nikon with one Nikon to Canon convert. Interestingly two of the German photographers were using Pentax 67s.

I have only seen a Pentax 67 on a photographic shop shelf and never handled it but it did look a monster in comparison with 35mm but clearly it must be manageable for handheld action shots. These were photographers who actually chose to use a 67 as opposed to 35mm. Of course wandering around all day with one slung round your neck may be something else again but it just struck me that a tripod may not be essential.

Incidentally for those based in the UK and interested in photography books both new and secondhand it makes a good day trip. Scenery near by in the Wye valley isn't bad either.

Pentaxuser

Woolliscroft · Oct 14, 2005

I use a 67II for air photography, which is pretty much "action". It works a treat, although like most medium format it takes a bit longer to change film than 35mm (which is why I keep nagging about the growing shortage of 220 options).

David.

nick mulder · Oct 14, 2005

Sorry to be a scratched record as every time these 645 vs. 6x7 questions come up I suggest the same thing ...

get yerself a RZ67 with one or more 6x7 backs and one or more 645 backs then you have both formats easily interchangable whenever you want - if you have two lenses you really end up having four as the smaller neg effectively lengthens your focal length -

Instead of fussing with the 645 finder masking I have lightly glued in some fishing line along the 645 frames on the viewfinder to get a general idea - It doesn't really affect my framing ability with 6x7 - in fact it helps me get my horizon and verts ...

I use this system and find I use the 6x7 a little more - but I think its due to the fact I have two 6x7 backs and the lenses i use.

I think there is a 645 back for the RB also although it is harder to find

Poco · Oct 14, 2005

The P67 is very hand holdable, has sharp glass available and is very versatile. One of my favorite tricks with people photography is to slap the mirror up, wait for the subject (who thinks the sound was the shutter) to relax, and then nail the shot.

All that said, having owned three of them, I'd never buy one again because the film transport mechanism is a total piece of garbage. I bought the first one used and that froze up me. Then, reading that the P67II had solved the problem, I bought that one new and it, too, froze on me after a couple hundred rolls of film -- sadly after warranty expiration. While debating whether to spend $350 having it fixed, I bought another used one for $175 and that lasted maybe a year before suffering the same fate. Now I have the P67II back from the shop and cringe every time I advance the film ...I have absolutely NO faith in the camera.

I'm sure others have had better luck with their's but my luck has been truly miserable and you should be aware of the transport problem.

Dave Parker · Oct 14, 2005

nick mulder said:
Sorry to be a scratched record as every time these 645 vs. 6x7 questions come up I suggest the same thing ...

get yerself a RZ67 with one or more 6x7 backs and one or more 645 backs then you have both formats easily interchangable whenever you want - if you have two lenses you really end up having four as the smaller neg effectively lengthens your focal length -

Instead of fussing with the 645 finder masking I have lightly glued in some fishing line along the 645 frames on the viewfinder to get a general idea - It doesn't really affect my framing ability with 6x7 - in fact it helps me get my horizon and verts ...

I use this system and find I use the 6x7 a little more - but I think its due to the fact I have two 6x7 backs and the lenses i use.

I think there is a 645 back for the RB also although it is harder to find

Nick,

Your really stuck on that RZ aren't you, I am glad to hear someone had luck with the plastic fantastic, I had three of them and all of them went back to Mamiya, I finally gave up on them...

Dave

nick mulder · Oct 15, 2005

Satinsnow said:
Nick,

Your really stuck on that RZ aren't you, I am glad to hear someone had luck with the plastic fantastic, I had three of them and all of them went back to Mamiya, I finally gave up on them...

Dave

yup, I carry it all over - It sorta suits me, kinda big and ugly also

kchowp! is the sound of the shutter maybe

only had issues with the back systems, and that was a 3rd hand 1st gen RZ back - I fixed it with a file and a hammer, a little crunchy now on winding so i don't use it unless I have to -

My system minus the back is now all Pro II - bodies are cheap 2nd hand - Once you have two lenses and two backs like most people end up with anyway, pay another $300 or so and you will have another complete camera ...

amateur speaking here so reliability isn't too much of a factor ...

pentax 67 vs. pentax 645 vs. mayima 645

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency