RZ67 or 645AFD for handheld portraits and fashion

<p>Q.G., maybe you should read again.......my point is entirely that there is a significant advantage to 6 x 7 (as long as the system has good lenses, which the RZ certainly has) and that you are truly somehow missing the advantage, and giving Christian misleading information, by sticking to your "negligible" difference stance.</p>

<p>Now, directed toward Christian, I am assuming you are quite interested in technical quality of your images since you use a 1DsII, which I also use. If you are going MF I'm still going to suggest going as big as possible, to the RZ, or you may be let down. The RZ will be stacking the odds in your favor for having a satisfying experience regarding image quality.</p>

<p>Maybe you want to consider what I have often done in these situations: buy both, with a single lens, maybe normal lenses, the best for the RZ being the 110. Shoot and print. Compare. Sell the one you like less. Buying used, if you pay fair market price you'll get approximately the same back. You won't be left wondering "What if I got the other?" </p>

<p>Armando,</p>

<p>If you think it will help, sure, i will read again.<br>

Perhaps you could do the same? Then you will see that wat you brought to this 'argument' is some - and it has to be said - rather nonsensical, because absolutely irrelevant (and untrue to boot), points.<br>

"You failed to say anything new", remember?</p>

<p>If you think i am providing misleading information, fine. Say so, and tell what you think is correct. And why.<br>

But spare us your nonsense.<br>

(And if think you have not talked nonense, i'm perfectly willing to point out the numerous fallacies and untruths in the strange argument you presented to support your view. But that too would add nothing new, so i will not.)</p>

<p>Bah... so many typos.<br>

But you get the drift.<br>

Now don't think i am <em>"being dismissive of others"</em>. We mustn't be, right? I'm just separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say, and concentrate on the relevant bits. And <em>"that is not often the case on this forum."</em>... ;-)</p>

<p>why not a pentax 6x7? it's inexpensive with great optics and it shoots like a 35mm. </p>

<p>Chris,<br>

I have a Mamiya RZ67 Proll and I love it... focusing is not hard at all, you will love it, eventough is a big and heavy camera, I take it averywhere to make any kind of pictures. I even make aerial with this camera and they come out great, some people say this camera has limitations, but I just love it and I would not change it.<br>

Aaron from Cancun</p>

<p>That does it! Im selling my 501CM kit and getting a 645E. That should leave me about $3,000 richer.</p>

<p>I give you $2 and you give me how much? A money changer pulled this trick on me...got to have some humor after all.</p>

<p>"As I see it the 6x4.5 is probably the easier to handle so may well result in a higher proportion of "keepers" . As Q.G points out in practical terms the quality diference is only one papersize up anyway. It's far more important to get the shot and get it sharp and worry about how much you can enlarge it later!"</p>

<p>Bryn undestands Q.G.'s point perfectly. You will get identical results from both 645 and 67 at the same levels of enlargement. So you'll end up printing about one paper size smaller with 645 to get *identical* quality. Why can't other folks see this? It's not about brand, and it's not difficult to understand.</p>

<p>Whatever. Real men shoot large format!</p>

<p>Hi Christian<br /> <br /> The simple truth is in the seeing. I strongly suggest that take up Armando’s generous offer. There is a basic rule in life " you won’t learn if you don't test " and here Armando has done the testing. I was lucky when I moved into Photography as I came from a background of testing so I asked the questions Armando is answering for you. I won't respond to further quips on this thread but I will say that tests support Armando.<br /> <br /> Best Regards <br /> <br /> Rob</p>

<p>6x7 is actually a little bit better than 1 print size larger. if you make a 16x20 print from 6x4.5, that's about a 9.5x enlargement. blow up 6x7 the same amount and the image is 21x26. that's why it's easier to print from 6x7, even when the paper is one size larger.</p>

 

<p>not that 6x7 is a magic bullet. the rz67 is <i>technically</i> handholdable, but if that's important to you, the 645afd won't ruin your prints.</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

Rather than percentages and such, I needed to view the facts in a easy to understand visual format: http://jbcrane.zenfolio.com/p572167072/e11d13485<br>

This graphic shows from 12.4mp up through 645 actual film size, then 67 actual film size. Of course, there are other aspects to consider when picking your format besides size. But for me and what I was trying to accomplish with MF, this visual made it abundantly clear to me. Hope someone else finds it useful.<br>

(the original images was shot digital with my Nikon D300)<br>

Kind regards,<br>

John Crane</p><div></div>

<p>I'm a little surprised at some assertations that 6x7 is only negligibly better than 645. To me and my way of thinking <em>(this is subjective, I understand...)</em> a "negligible" difference might be considered the difference between, say, the 35mm scanned size vs. the D3X's 24.4mp <em>(let's leave quality of pixels & scan aside for now)</em>. In purely megapixel speak that would be ~20mp vs. 24.4mp. Numbers aside, it's visually on the graphic a small jump.<br>

<br /> ...but the jump from 645 to 6x7 visually speaking is substantial enough to note, in my humble opinion. I think a good question for the OP might be whether the jump from the 5D SLR to the 645 is going to dramatically increase image quality<em> (through increased size & image fidelity)</em> while attempting to take the same type of photos. Will the 645 handle well enough to allow this? Unknown to me.<br>

The difference in handling between the RZ and the DSLR is substantial and requires practice. The results are well worth it. Just my .02¢.<br>

<br /> Kind regards,<br /> John Crane</p>

<p>

 

 

<p >"Derek,</p>

<p >I'm very curious now: where did you find those statistics?</p>

<p >And i will repeat what has been said earlier: the difference between 6x7 and 6x4.5 is negligible."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >QG - which 'statistics' are you doubting? </p>

<p >This was a discussion, not a report. My post was made with regard to the people i considered the "major" fashion photographers of the 80s and 90s: Michael Thompson, Herb Ritts, Bruce Weber, Steven Meisel, Patrick Demarchelier, Mario Sorrenti, Peter Lindbergh, Thierry LeGoues, Mark Seliger, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino, Philip Dixon, Mark Borthwick, Regan Cameron, Nathaniel Goldberg, Seb Janiak, Christophe Kutner, Greg Gorman, Lance Staedler, Davis Factor, Andrew MacPherson, Ruven Afanador, Mark Baptiste, Koto Bolofo, Robert Erdman, Stewart Shining, Sante D'Orazio, Tony Duran, Miles Aldridge, Patric Shaw, Greg Kadel, Satoshi Saikusa, Norman Jean Roy, Tim Walker, Alistair Taylor Young, Marc Legrange, Rankin....</p>

<p >From what i've seen/read/heard, all of the above used the Mamiya RZ67 or Pentax 67 for the bulk of their MF work. And, there are many, many more that i suspect used those two cameras - but i can't recall specifically where i may have found that information. The list above is from American Photo, French Photo, PDN, various video programs, including Style with Elsa Klensh (CNN), and Fashion TV, and conversation with assistants and rental studios.</p>

<p >Among those credited with using 6x4.5 cameras, the list is relatively small, until the digital back became a factor. </p>

<p >Why is this a matter of debate for you? We're not suggesting the Hasselblad isn't a worthy camera. After going through the RZ, Pentax, and a couple of 645s, i've happily 'settled' with a 203FE. But, i stopped shooting fashion. When i go back to it, it will be with an RZ67.</p>

<p >And, YES, there is a significant difference between 6x7 and 6x4.5. And, NO, that difference needn't present itself in microscopic examination of film grain. There's a similar difference in dimensionality as when going from 35mm to Medium Format, and medium format to large format. The differences in film grain, though, in my experience, are also significant enough for me to prefer, by far, a 6x7 neg to a 6x4.5. I will admit, though, that if you're shooting with strobe, and/or with lots of DOF, the differences are smaller. But, with natural light and more shallow DOF, where grain becomes more apparent, 6x7 is something else altogether. </p>

 

 

</p>

<p>Steven Klein, Markus Klinko, David Sims, Fabien Baron, Craig McDean, Solve Sundsbo, Mikael Jansson, Tom Munro, Thomas Schenk, Bruno Bisang, Andreas Bitesnich, Rocco LaSpata, Walter Chin, Nathaniel Goldberg, Vincent Peters.... Gilles Bensimon used the big Fuji GX, among lots of other cameras, but he said in an interview that he didn't use anything smaller than 6x7. <br>

It was pretty simple back then. If you shot fashion, you bought/rented an RZ67 or Pentax 67. Now, it's the Hassy H. <br>

The number of people i can think of that shot 6x4.5 is very small. There was a very famous French guy who's name i can't recall. Ellen von Unwerth said in an interview that, occasionally, certain of her clients made her use 645 (Contax, i believe) when they needed "big blowups" of things. But, her normal work was all done with 35mm Nikons with grainy film, so her 'moving up' to 645 is of no significance in this discussion. Same story with Terry Richardson. I think Pamela Hanson used 645s. </p>

<p>@Robert Budding:<br>

It's not about enlargement size necessarily, until you get to posters/exhibition-sized stuff. It's about tonality and dimension, and having more information in a scan to manipulate it. If the objective was only to get an 11x14" print with the smallest grain size, you get a Canon 5D or Nikon D700 and add a little 'grain' with Exposure. You shoot a 6x7 to get a bigger feeling image. I don't have the words to adequately describe what that means. But, if you've looked at enough fashion shot with those cameras and then compare the images to those shot with 35mm or "35mm digital," you should see it. Look at the RZ images here:<br>

<p>Look at a Herb Ritts book (or, better yet, print). Tri-X with an RZ is unmistakable. Tri-X with a 645 looks more like 35mm ISO 100 film. </p>

<p>or this:<br>

http://www.fredericlagrange.com/</p>

<p>What's important to remember is that we're talking about fashion, handheld. Under optimal circumstances: tripod, stationary subject matter, strobe-lit, fine-grained film, yeah, the differences shrink until you get to very large prints. But, fashion and stills are different animals. The bottom line for me was this: 100 fashion pros used the RZ/P67. 5 used a 645. Was i trying to 'outsmart' the 100 guys getting the Calvin Klein and Prada campaigns? </p>

<p>COULD WE PLEASE PUT A BULLET THROUGH THIS THREAD'S HEAD?</p>

<p>This horse is pate´ it's been beaten so thoroughly.</p>

<p>Hate to add anything on such an already inflamed thread, but I just want to report on my recent purchase of RZ67 -- not for fashion, but for landscape photography. I carried it around the Wichita Mountains with surprising comfort. Granted, this was with one lens and one back and a waist-level finder. But nonetheless it carries quite comfortably. Because the mirror shock is less a problem than, say, with the Pentax 67, I'd claim the RZ's weight makes it actually quite handholdable for non-telephoto lengths. This might be because, after all I'd read I was led to believe that the RZ was more like trying to handhold a car, and so my expectations were pretty low. Sorry I cannot speak for the ergonomics/tradeoffs in the context of fashion. But I highly recommend the RZ in general; don't fret about the weight. You'll get used to it quickly.</p>