Mamiya RZ vs 645AF

I have a Mamiya RZ67 i dont use very much, modtly because of how inconvinient it is to use the metering and the cumbersome features

of the camera. I am considering trading it for a Mamiya 645 AF. Is there any drop off in quality between the two, and what would e main

differences be between the two in termsof quality, lenses, and amything else you may think of?

 

Thanks,

Max H

<p>Ah, good question.</p>

<p>Meaning, you have to use the heavy AE viewfinder? Yes, the 645AF is much easier to use with its built-in VF.</p>

<p>Advantages? Autofocus, obviously. And auto-flash control. But, no 1/400 sync...only 1/125. Shooting 1/500 leaf shutter lenses is only possible on 645 non-AF bodies.</p>

<p>I literally scanned 645AF last night, and am scanning RZ67 right now. Obviously, 6x7 gives you over 50% more resolution.</p>

<p>At the prices these days, you can almost shoot both. ;-)</p>

<p>Instaed of buying new camera, get a grip for your RZ and enjoy the larger 6x7 negative: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33938-REG/Mamiya_212_550_L_Grip_Holder_RZ_for.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33938-REG/Mamiya_212_550_L_Grip_Holder_RZ_for.html</a></p>

<p>With the 645AF series (I'd recommend the 645AFD) you get some things over the RZ67:<br>

* Autofocus lenses<br>

* The ability to use 3rd party lenses, on adapters - like Hasselblad V, Pentax 67, Pentacon Six/Kiev 60, Bronica SQ, telescopes, ...<br>

* Focus confirmation (down to f5.6) with manual focus lenses (all the M645 ones, plus the aforementioned 3rd party ones on adapters)<br>

* Faster lenses<br>

* Longer telephoto reach<br>

* 5-segment "matrix" metering; 3 AE modes (Aperture Priority with all lenses, and Shutter Priority + Program with the AF lenses)<br>

* Broader range of timed shutter speeds (1/4000 - 30 sec)<br>

* Auto-bracketing (variable steps: 1/3 to 1 stop)<br>

* Self-timer (variable duration: 3 to 60 sec)<br>

* Data imprinting on the film rebate<br>

* Fast film winding built into the backs (the RZ body requires an optional winder module, adding more weight and bulk)<br>

* Complete integration with digital backs (645AFD and later) - full EXIF metadata is passed between body and back, for example.<br>

* Illuminated LCD status panels on body and film backs, and full exposure/focus/digital back status info in viewfinder LCD strip.<br>

* OTF TTL flash metering; independent flash compensation; automatic power zoom on Metz flashes etc.<br>

* Flick-of-a-switch mirror lock-up.<br>

* Stray-light blind and dioptre correction built into the prism<br>

* Smaller and lighter; even with the integral ergonomic handgrip</p>

<p>OTOH with the RZ67 you get:<br>

* Larger film format -> higher quality [there is no similar advantage with digital backs though, as they are all smaller than 645 film]<br>

* Big bright vertical viewing, thanks to interchangeable viewfinders<br>

* Close-focusing with all lenses, thanks to bellows<br>

* Camera does not need to be turned on its side for portrait shots<br>

* Flash synch to 1/400 instead of 1/125 sec<br>

* Public awesomeness!</p>

<p>In short, the 645AFD gives speed, convenience, and versatility - properties that you say you want more of.</p>

<p>The optical quality of the lenses of the two systems is equal - later RZ lenses have a particularly good reputation - so the RZ does have a definite quality advantage on film (but not on digital).</p>

<p>But OTOH, the best quality images will always come from the camera you are motivated to actually take out and use! If that's not going to be the RZ67, maybe the trade is a good idea.</p>

 

<p>Fine, Ray. Make the rest of us look massively inferior. Sheesh. ;-)<br>

<br />(Well done...)</p>

<p>On a side note, did you notice the Metz 645AF module is discontinued?</p>

<p>My 19" CRT monitor did not become awesome until I slapped a $70 3M EF200XLB glass uv radiation filter over it.</p>

<p>My iPod touch 4 became awesome device when I wrapped it in a $20 Griffin passport metal/leather wallet.</p>

<p>My carbon frame road bike took a seat height and angle tweak to become awesome (free of cost).</p>

<p>My point: if you have the 645 tweak it to your satisfaction. If have RZ, same.</p>

<p>In your case, i would get said grip, and learn how to use a handheld incident and/or spot meter. The pros who know what they are doing do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The RZ is fun! Big focusing screen, nice big negative, all that mechanical action - beautiful lenses with leaf shutters, what's the downside again? <br>

The 645AF and the newer DF is no fun to use (at least for me) plus I got more blurry images with it even with the AF. <br>

I still have an RZ which I shoot just for fun. :-) (my main camera is a Hy6)</p>

<p>Stick with the AF......As Ray pointed out, AFD too many bells and whistles. Coming from RZ, you want the convenience of AF, I will stick with the AF model myself.</p>

<p>What I do not understand, OP asked between Mamiya RZ vs 645 AF....then someone else makes this decision even more complex by introducing another model all together.</p>

<p><strong>Gregory</strong>: thanks - and I didn't mean to make your response look inferior ;)) I made that comparison list of features some time ago for my own purposes, so it was just a matter of tweaking it and pasting it here.</p>

<p>No, I didn't notice that Metz had discontinued their 645AF module. Do you mean the SCA 3951 (645AF) or 3952 (645AFD and later)...or both?</p>

<p><strong>Andre and Eric</strong>: I agree that, for pure film work, the RZ will be more satisfying. It is a sore point with me that the 645AF series dropped the interchangeable viewfinders of the previous M645 line. The 645AFD was very well received in 2002, but I am aware that some high-end users (the type who constantly upgrade to the latest body and latest digital back) have grown impatient as the AFDII, AFDIII and DF came out, each scarcely different from the last...the body gets a kicking from such people these days - and so it should, at $4000 new. My AFD was $400 used, so I can be a lot more sanguine. It may not be as much fun as an RZ or Hy6, but it performs for me (and I do need some of those features I highlighted above, like the faster and 3rd party lenses), and it is a LOT more fun than my Canon 5DII, which like all modern DSLRs, has about as much character as my TV remote control. Then again, for my astrophotography, the 5DII outperforms everything else in its price range.</p>

<p><strong>Archimedes</strong>: I'm sorry but I don't understand your response. You say stick with the AF...then you say that the AFD has too many bells and whistles? The AF and AFD are almost identical - they are so similar that it was possible to send Mamiya an AF and have it upgraded to an AFD. The AFD corrects some behavioural quirks of the AF, slightly improves the metering, and adds the digital back communications protocol; that's all. Just about everything I had in my list of AFD pluses equally applies to the AF.<br>

So is my discussion of the AFD what you meant by "introducing another model all together"? Or did you mean Eric's Hy6?</p>

 

<p>Specifically, the 3952 has been discontinued, but AFAIK, the 3951 was discontinued long ago, when the 3952 was released.</p>

<p>The description implied that the 3952 was just a reprogrammable version of the 3951.</p>

<p>The odd thing is...they are not interchangeable. The 3951 is larger, and will not mount on a 54 flash. It'll mount on a 40, though. I can't recall if it'll mount on a 70/76.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239622-REG/Mamiya_211_750_Metz_Dedicated_Adapter_SCA.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239622-REG/Mamiya_211_750_Metz_Dedicated_Adapter_SCA.html</a></p>

<p>In that case, I'm glad I picked up a used 3952 and 54MZ-3 combo recently! They might start getting more expensive. I am surprised that Metz have discontinued the 3952 while the camera that needs it is still being produced (645DF). I wonder if Metz know something that we don't (- is the successor to the 645DF imminent and will it be completely different?)</p>

<p>Thanks for the link - that is interesting: "<em>The difference between this adapter and the discontinued 3951 adapter is that the 3952 has a re-burnable chip which may be modified for use with future Metz flashes</em>". I had always assumed that the 3951 for the 645AF became the 3952 for the 645AFD because the latter camera introduced separate TTL flash compensation. It now seems that my assumption had nothing to do with it. So maybe a 3951 (with the right flash) will work perfectly well with a 645AFD and later bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

I have had and used both professionally. in terms of optics the RZ has superior quality over the 645 in it's complete range of lenses. Both

digitally and analogue. The AFD autofocus lenses are in comparison, inferior, without exception slow and inaccurate? I used to focus manually the AFD lenses

thus being faster and more accurate. As I only shoot on tripod or studiostand the weight of both systems to me is of no concern. I will

never abandon my RZ67 DII nor it's lenses, the 645AFD with lenses However I have never missed a second after selling the whole AFD lot.

<p>Charley, it sounds like you only used AF lenses on your AFD? Which ones? The original AF range up to 150mm were all older optical designs - three from the '70s (35/80/150) and 2 from the mid-'80s (45/55). Very good but not that special. There were new ULD/APO AF lenses though as well - 210/4 and 300/4.5. These are rather better. Then came some AF "D" lenses and people swear that (with the exception of the 28mm ultrawide) these are excellent, especially the 75-150 zoom the the 150/2.8.</p>

<p>Myself, I use manual focus lenses almost exclusively on my 645AFD - both because there are some unique ones not available in AF (e.g. I have the 24/4 ULD fisheye, 80/1.9, 110/2.8, 200/2.8 APO), and because they can be used on any smaller format camera with adapters. I'm very impressed with these optics on both film and digital...mainly digital these days.</p>

<p>Max these are two very different animals. On a tripod for landscapes and portraits I would keep the RZ. For candids and everyday shots the AFD is FAR superior. I have owned them both. The AFD is late 80's technology in terms of auto-focus speed, but is still more than capable. In regards to image quality it all depends on the size of print you want to use and how you are scanning your negs. I decided to sell the AFD as I knew I could never afford/justify a digital back. I kept the RZ and went full frame digital instead of the AFD. If however you are not using the RZ, then potential IQ is meaningless. If the RZ does not suit your needs and you still want to use film the AFD is a GREAT camera. Some of my best prints came from that camera. It's faster and easier to use, and produces amazing 20x30's if that is big enough for you. </p>