645 vs. RZ67

I am just wondering if someone intimate with these two cameras could

fill me in on how different they are. Obviously it seems that the 645

is much cheaper and lighter but how much quality loss is there to make

those benefits possible? Thanks.

Hi Zac: I own the 645, and haven't used the RZ, so I can only give you a semi-definitive answer based on images that I've been able to compare.

 

A friend with his RZ, and I with my 645, took the same images a while ago, and then looked each of our transparencies on the light box, with a very good loupe.

 

We couldn't tell the difference in sharpness in our little side by side comparison, at least with what we had. I know there are variables here (lenses, format, ergonomics, shutter speed accuracy, etc.).

 

I'm going to assume that, based on what I read from others on these forums, the REAL difference is going to be the ability to enlarge to big prints without losing detail. I think also that, to a lesser extent, the lens quality can make a difference in perceived resolution to the eye.

 

I've heard also on this forum, that the majority seems to feel that anything up to about a 16x20 would be a pretty moot point in one format over the other. Beyond that, I understand that perceivable differences show up.

Zac, I have both a RZ67 and a couple of older M645 models (M645J, M645, 1000s). The M645 is really great camera with excellent optics that has one major flaw:<p>

Using the cameras hand-held in portrait format is difficult because of the poor weight distribution when using a prism, and impossible when using the waist-level finder. Even with a tripod it is very hard to use the WLF in portrait.

<p>Personally, I love shooting with a WLF as it makes focusing so much easier. If there was a 645 SLR with a revolving back that would be the perfect camera for me and I would sell the RZ67 without a second thought.

<p>And yes, the RZ67 is produces better pictures thanks to the larger format and superior optics. But real life quality loss is more often due to camera shake / mirror slap, inaccurate focusing and other handling errors than due to format/lens issues.

<p>That said, the M645s are fine cameras that are very very good for hand-held work in landscape format. All of the 645 lenses are excellent, especially the "N" versions. I have the 35, 55, 80 1.9, 110, 150 and 210 lenses and each is great for specific applications. They might or might not be as sharp as products of <i>that</i> German lens manufacturer, but this has never given me sleepless nights. And they are quite inexpensive (even the exotic lenses), especially when compared to Nikon manual focus gear.<p>

The RZ67 has a lot of advantages, but the lower weight and better hand-hold-ability of the M645 makes picture-taking often much more fun and rewarding. If you plan to use a slow photography approach with a tripod and enough time on your hands, go for the RZ67, else I guess you really have to try both camera system and find out which suits you best. You will probably end up with both.

The 645 and RZ are used for different applications. Yes, the 6x7 format has 1.5x the image area, which is noticeable on prints larger than 16x20 inches. If image quality were the only consideration, perhaps 8x10 film and a mule would be SOP.

 

If mobility is important to you, then a 645 is about the same size and weight as a professional 35mm SLR, whereas an RZ is the size of a shoebox. If you do landscapes, how willing are you to schlepp a bigger camera for the superior quality?

I have a Mamiya 645 Pro TL and I really like it. The gear is inexpensive used and the optics are excellent. And I've found that 645 negative is large enough for me to comfortably print 16x20 with no problem.

 

I haven't had any problem handholding the camera in portrait mode with a 150mm lens.

 

Robert

The answer depends upon the importance to you of the final image quality and how much you wish to enlarge. At a magnification greater than 4x a difference in format can be detected. For instance as an experiment I compared 8x10 and 11x14 prints made from two different formats (67 and 4x5) of the same scene taken at the same time. At 8x10 I could see no difference but at 11x14 I could. From what I've read elsewhere this 4x limitation has also been observed by others as well. 645 offers greater speed, less weight and bulk and usually less cost than 67 but at the tradeoff of less image quality, and you're the only one who knows what's more important.

Another thing to consider is that the RZ and RB's use leaf-shutter lenses compared to the 645 which has a focal plane shutter built into the body. They're good for high flash sync and being able to continue shooting with another lens if a shutter fails, but it also means that the RZ system has a shutter for every lens which over time means you have multiple shutters that may need to be serviced/CLA'd. Obviously this also makes the lenses substantially more expensive to purchase.

Zac,

 

There's just not going to be a perfect camera. I sold an RB Pro SD with KL lenses to buy a Hasselblad. The main reason was that I wanted a smaller camera. I guess my 6x6 format will be 6x4.5 most of the time. While I owned the RB, I still enjoyed it and thought the quality of the Mamiya lenses were very good, I just wanted something different and a bit smaller. I just prefer manual cameras, but it really wouldn't cost that much to have both, in today's digital market. There is a lot of very good medium format equipment for sale on e-bay. I bought my entire Hasselblad system on e-bay. Had a great time making people low offers. Most of them accepted.

 

Have fun deciding,

 

Terry

You don't need to print large to see the difference between 645 and 67. The superior image

quality of 67 can easily be seen in an 8x10 inch print.

Zac, I have been using an RZ for the last couple of years, and love it. Last month I added a PRO TL. I use the RZ for portraits and landscapes, the PRO TL I use for handheld or just lightweight traveling. I find it easy to see a difference between the two negatives. The RZ gives absolutely brilliant 11X14 even using ASA 400 film. However it's a big camera, and when hand held I get better results with the PRO simply because of the lack of weight. Having both pretty well fills all my needs. But if I could only have one I would stick with the RZ and go back to using my 35mm for handheld stuff.

I have a RZ67 Pro II and it produces fantastic images with the 110mmm F2.8 and the 50mm ULD. I do only landscapes. So I am always on a tripod and using the MLU. To me, final image quality is everything. I don't mind the extra cost and weight. I like the little extra snap that the 6x7cm brings over the 645. (Also keep in mind you can buy a 645 back for the RZ67.)

 

If you do decide to go with 645 only, do yourself a favor and pick up the Fuji AF rangefinder. They are a blast.

 

Ultimately, in my opinion, if you are shooting anything smaller than 6x7cm you should probably consider shooting digital.

 

--- JDR

I can't speak for 645 owners, but if hand hold ability is a must (judging from your earlier post i take that it is) then you should consider something less substantial than rb/rz. Even if it means a rangefinder (mamiya6, mamiya 7, bronica rf645).

 

My Bronica GS1 w/grip is fairly handholdable up to a point, and i think its lighter than the Mamiya RB/RZ by a fair amount.

 

That said, Santa did me right with a Manfrotto with a tilt head.

 

I love 6x7 but it comes with a proportional price in terms of added weight. Aside from the rangefinders, one way or another you WILL slow down with 6X7 format.

Thanks for all the great feedback. I am still undecided though I originally had my heart set on the RZ. As I really want to be able to do both handheld and portrait/landscape photography, versatility is important but not as important as image quality. Also, as one poster mentioned, I still have my 35mm to do the documentary work. In the end it will definately come down to trying both and seeing which one I find most comfortable. I am used to hauling 20lb 16mm motion picture cameras around for hours at a time so the weight is not as much a concern as is the distribution of the weight with the RZ. Again thanks for the helpful input as it will all be carefully considered as I make my fateful choice.

Well, y'know, if you had your heart set on and RZ, I say go for it. Just speaking for myself,

if I had my heart set on getting one thing but ended with something else that wasn't quite

comparable, I don't know if I'd feel totally satisfied, know what I mean?

 

But, to be more practical about it, go for the RZ because of the big 6x7 neg. If you do find

you'd like a smaller camera for street shooting, then get a 645, too. Prices on film cameras

are going to continue to fall so it won't be outrageously expensive (compared to a new RZ

system) to do so.

 

Also note that there are other choices out there. You don't have to go 645 or even 6x6 if

you want something a little more practical for candids and such. I just picked up a Mamiya

Super 23 -- 6x9 format; rangefinder with interchanagable lens that's made for street

shooting. There's also the 6x7 Pentax that handles like a 35mm SLR.

 

In short, as someone else mentioned, there's really no one camera for all jobs.

Diversification is a good thing. And it's more fun! But I wish you the best at whatever you

decide.

There's also a Pentax 645 with a build in prism and grip that handles like a dream. Used

manual focus lenses are ridiculously cheap. Really, a pittance.

 

My fear with the RZ67 and the Pentax 67 is that they would be too big to be practical.

Unless you plan to be on a tripod all the time, get a 645.

For your purposes, I think the right choice is probably neither the RZ (which I have, use a lot, and love) nor the 645 (which I don't have and have never used), but rather the Mamiya 7.

 

You want:

 

handholdability

 

large negatives

 

excellent lenses

 

The Mamiya 7 gives you all of this. It also gives you leaf shutters, so you can flash synch at any speed. It's simpler to operate than the RZ (and, I suspect, the 645) also.

 

On the other hand... you should really do yourself a favor and rent each of these cameras and try them out. Your own personal reaction to the camera's ergonomics will be a big part of your choice, and it's really hard to judge this without doing some shooting.

I own a 645 and RB. I shoot mostly verticals, so the 645 is always on it's side on the tripod which is annoying, sometimes. The 67 seems a little to much camera for the return, what with filters and extra lens bulk and exposure compensation unless you have the metering finder, another large object. My 67 bag is definetly bigger and I wouldn't take it on holiday. I'd prefer to shoot my 4x5 if doing landscapes only. The 645 can take a smaller tripod and ballhead then the 67, but I much prefer a shuttered lens over a focal plane shutter. The best compromise for me has been my Rollei 6x6 SLR. Quality wise between the 645 and 67, it depends either on what you need to sell or how many 16x20's you want on your wall.