I sold my Mamiya 645E, now what should I get?

<p><strong>So what originally happened was, I started out in medium format with a Super Ricohflex. I didn't have a good light meter, so my pictures were always kind of off, and it was just kind of a junky camera. So I started looking into other medium format cameras, and my brain just went into camera overload. I couldn't for the life of my figure out what I needed/wanted they all had something to bring to the table.</strong><br>

<strong>My boyfriend just bid on a camera for me (which was the Mamiya 645E and won) without me knowing. It turned out to be a okay camera, and came with a built in light meter which was very useful. Eventually I just thought it wasn't taking the type of pictures I wanted, I don't know if it was the 4x5 format (I really enjoy square format better) or if it was merely the lens or camera. I didn't really like the camera to begin with, first of all, it was a heavy mother! Also I love vintage cameras, I love the look of them, and the photo quality they produce. So I sold it :/ ........... now I have no film camera.</strong></p>

<p><strong>What should I get?</strong><br>

<strong>I've thought about owning a Hasselblad 500cm or 500c, Pentax or Bronica. I've even considered rangefinder as an option like a Mamiya 6 or 7, fujifilm, leica.... I just don't know. Preferably I'd want something with a built in meter, so that eliminates a lot of camera options for me.</strong><br>

<strong>Then I started thinking well..... I have a 50D EOS Canon with a 28-135mm lens. Should I just buy a nicer 35mm Canon and use my lens from the digital onto the film camera to save lots of money????</strong></p>

<p><strong>I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, HELP! </strong></p>

<p>Budget is everything. I think you sound like you would love a Rolleiflex. It will give you better image quality than the 645 Mamiya and a Rolleiflex is a camera you fall absolutely in love with. If you have some money to spend get a nice 2.8 or 3.5F. If you don't have much money to spend get a 2.8 or 3.5 D or E. </p>

<p>I like using Bronica SQ-A cameras for the square format. They are versatile and inexpensive. The lenses I have are all good. If after using an SQ-A you really like the format then you can keep using it or look for a Hasselblad. You will need to make pretty large prints to see a difference in quality with the Hasselblad. </p>

<p>Well, I own a few of the cameras mentioned above so I thought I would chime in.<br />I have a 645E, with the 80mm 2.8, 80mm 1.9 (just bought that), and the 35mm 3.5. I got it to be my MF camera that I throw in the car to have with me whenever I wanted a medium format camera (almost) but didn't mind just having it in my car's boot. I have found that I've grown to like it a lot more than I thought I would.<br />Anyway, that said, I also have a Mamiya 7 and a Rolleiflex 3.5F 6 element Planar (last version with non-coupled meter).<br />I also have a 5DMKii with many great lenses including the great 85mm 1.2<br />Now, I didn't just reply here to rattle off some of my gear - my point is that every camera serves a different purpose, but as a previous poster has mentioned, you will simply fall in love with a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5F!<br />I think out of all the gear I own, I find the Rollei the most fun and the most beautiful thing to walk about with and shoot. It also helps that the lens sharpness is outstanding and they create the most beautiful bokeh. You can pick up some Rolleinar close up adapters and sacrifice zero sharpness and get insanely beautiful bokeh, but again... there is just something magical about shooting a Rollei TLR of this quality.<br />I spent about $1500 on mine, but you can get outstandingly good versions for much less than that.<br />Here's some Rollei examples from my Flickr with the Rolleinar adapters on:<br /><a href=" /><a href=" /><a href=" /><a href=" />As I said.. everything has it's place...the Mamiya 7 lens lineup is almost flawless... whilst not fast by any means, you'll be hard pressed to beat them on sharpness on any MF system, but I'm just not completely taken by their contrast/feel, but again they are outstanding for certain scenes! <br />Anyway... bottom line of this lengthy post is that I am giving a +1 to a good quality Rollei! :)<br />Bren</p>

<p>I currenty use a Mamiya 7 and a Bronica SQB both of which are excellent cameras. Mamiya also had a 330f square format twin lens reflex (TLR) which I used for many years and had great fun with. The quality of their lens are as always excellent. The TLR comes with lens from 50mm to 250mm.</p>

 

<p>Just get it over with and get a Rolleiflex. It's like buying a tripod- you can buy the right one in the beginning and pay $XXX. Or you can try to get a cheap one and end up with 5 tripods and still buy the right one in the end, but you've spent 3x $XXX to get to the same place.</p>

<p>Or get a Hasselblad if interchangeable lenses are important.</p>

<p>There are so many nice medium format cameras and systems. For quality construction, elegance, compact, light weight (relatively), and vintage look, the Rollei or Hassy are where you will end up so just get it over with.</p>

<p>"You will need to make pretty large prints to see a difference in quality with the Hasselblad."<br>

I doubt you will see any meaningful difference at any size of print, as both Bronica and Hasselblad have top quality optics - as do most medium format cameras.</p>

<p>First off, what size of prints are looking to create? Most people feel a 20x30 is intimidating. Yet smaller prints most people want, fail to show the details you can work so hard to reveal. A larger sensor will bring out the details the smaller types cannot reveal. A Pentax 645D would be the cheapest digital out there and the images can be spectacular. But that level of detail screams for large prints to properly reveal them and have a visual impact on the viewer.</p>

<p>The one major change you could make to your Canon is to replace the lens with a professional level one. My normal shooting lens for my Canon is a 24-70 F2.8L -- the older version, not the newer one with the I.S. built in. It will minimize chromatic aberations but any that does appear can be taken out in ACR. And I have the 70-300 in the F4.5 model.</p>

<p>The issue with the Pentax camera and the Canon F2.8 lenses is the weight. Those items are heavy so give consideration to your arm strength for hand held stability and long shooting sessions. Tripods are great if you have time for the setup but a lot of subjects for the photo you want may not stand still for you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've thought about owning a Hasselblad 500cm or 500c, Pentax or Bronica. I've even considered rangefinder as an option like a Mamiya 6 or 7, fujifilm, leica.... I just don't know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should stick with one camera and use it until you become clear what kind of images you like to make, whether and how the camera is limiting you, and only then spend more money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eventually I just thought <em>it wasn't taking the type of pictures I wanted</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Also I love vintage cameras, I love the look of them, and <em>the photo quality they produce</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Remember, <strong><em>you</em></strong> take the picture. Have a look at the posts of Gene M in the classic camera forum, and see what he achieves with "junk" cameras. True, some cameras are better suited for some type of photography. But you said nothing about the kind of photo you like to do: street, kids, landscape, architecture, abstract/minimalist, or...? Sorry if my comments sound a bit rough, only trying to help you sort out your thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mamiya 645 Pro would be my next move !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mamiya 645E... I just thought it wasn't taking the type of pictures I wanted... first of all, it was a heavy mother!</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mamiya 645 Pro would be my next move !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, do you think the Pro model will take better pictures? Or was that a tongue-in-cheek comment?</p>

 

If a Bronica 645 was too much camera, you won't be happy with much in MF besides a rangefinder. These will have issues with parallax at close distances, and may not be suitable for portraiture. What subject matter is it that you like to shoot? Do you have an identified style yet? Are you having trouble finding a format size that allows sufficient detail to express what it is you are trying to say in your images, or is it an ergonomics question of what camera is comfortable enough to use for an extended day of photography?

 

I have used 135 film cameras since the late 1970's, 645 and 4x5 format for 5 years, and digital SLRs for 6 years. Each format has something going for it, and each has tradeoffs. It's going to be hard to pinpoint where each film format trumps a DSLR in image quality if you keep your prints under 16x24" these days. There are other compelling reasons to shoot film.

 

If you like what 645 film offers, Pentax 645N has the best viewfinder I have ever used on an SLR. The manual focus lenses are sublime precision, and some like my SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 are sharp as tacks. If you can handle a largish DSLR one of these is really not any bigger or heavier (The rig I describe is very close in weight to a Nikon F5, and handles as well or maybe even better. It's simpler with no menus, for sure.)

<p><em> A Super Ricohflex ... didn't have a good light meter, so my pictures were always kind of off.... Preferably I'd want something with a built in meter ....</em></p>

<p><em>[The Mamiya 645E] wasn't taking the type of pictures I wanted, I don't know if it was the 4x5 format [sic; it's "645", actually 5.6 x 4.15 cm] (I really enjoy square format better).</em></p>

<p><em>[T]he Mamiya 645E ... was a heavy mother!</em></p>

<p>If a built-in meter (especially a modern one!) is a strong desire, you want square instead of 645, and a Mamiya M645E is too heavy, as you noticed, you've eliminated the vast majority of medium format cameras. Maybe look at the modern Mamiya 6 rangefinder, which is a <em>relatively</em> light 6x6 rangefinder system that I think has a decent built-in meter. But really, why do you want / think you need medium format? For that matter, why do you want / think you need film? (And of course, 35mm film is a step further away from square / 6x6, compared to 645.)</p>

 

<p>Kimberly Seabury is a member since: <em><strong>April 24, 2013</strong></em><br>

and there is no way to tell whether she has read any of the replies. </p>

<p>When I started getting more serious with my photography, it was very clear to me that I had to go to MF. So I went for the Mamiya 645 pro kit, and because I have a number of interests such as landscape, portrait and flowers / bugs, I needed that somewhat wide range of lenses. Admittedly I do prefer fixed-length prime lenses rather than the zooms that are available.<br>

In any case, as I progressed I found the better direction to go was for the Mamiya RB67 which quickly became two kits of RZ67 with again a wide range of lenses. No, it isn't light-weight and clearly it uses more film due to the larger negative, but then with both a number of film-backs and using 220 rollfilm instead of 120 sometimes then that didnt't become a problem. As others here have said once you're working with any reasonable MF camera then you'll be using typically good lens quality, so for the lens performance, relative ease-of-use and most importantly the end result in picture quality I would sincerely recommend the same solution, go for the Mamiya RZ67 kit. It's served me very well indeed for my 5 exhibitions to date, in which I've used prints of a larger format but developed in my own darkroom both for black-and-white and for colour.<br>

Unfortunately the rollfilm selection and availability is becoming harder to obtain these days and if you don't do your own processing then it's also going to be more and more difficult to locate a good processing shop to suit your needs, we've lost a lot of knowledgeable and experienced processing personnel as well which makes quality harder to find (another reason why I still do my own processing) plus the chemicals are also more difficult to procure.<br>

This, together with my experience that models seem to 'expect' instant example views immediately after a studio session (remember polaroid film backs?) made me take up the option of "going digital" but only partially - I bought a Canon EOS 5D mk III together with some Canon lenses and some processing software but if I am totally honest I am in no way as satisfied with the results I obtain with this kit as I am with the film / print results. I have not gone as far as a full 'Photoshop' package but then that would seem to aim for so much altering of the image that you capture in the first place that it simply isn't the same as the result of your original efforts, naturally like most others I 'dodge' and 'burn' and mask, and tone, in the darkroom but the result is still more or less what my eye and the camera lens 'saw' in the original event.<br>

Anyway that summarises my thoughts along the theme of your question - go for a Mamiya RZ67 and the fixed prime lenses to suit your subject matter - *and* importantly Use Your Eyes and Think and Feel, that's the way to a good picture in my humble opinion.<br>

-- F.C. Trevor Gale.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice post, F.C.</p>

<p>I personally have a problem with the plastic Mamiya 645's. The winding mechanisms feel like toys. Love my Mamiya 1000s. Very decent quality and I get great shots from the 55 2.8</p>