Medium format 645 pro or 35mm?

<p>Hi. Sorry, the subject heading isn't all that clear. I'm taking a road trip and debating about what would be a better choice to bring along? I'm wanting to buy a nikon 35mm 1.4 Ais or a mamiya super 645 with a sekkor 80mm 2.8. I can't afford both. Surprisingly, they go for about the same$$, slightly less for the Mamiya. I'm mostly interested in documentary and environmental portraiture. Which set up will give me more Umff, more punch!? Btw, my main set up will be an Fe2 with 50mm f2 and 100mm f2.8</p>

<p>The Mamiya will give more oomph by virtue of the bigger negative, considering otherwise equal film and processing. But the 80mm lens will give the same angle of view as the 50mm lens does on the FE2; so, in that sense, it doesn't widen your creative options.<br>

I've got the AiS 35mm f/1.4, and it is a very special lens; not the right choice for everyone I think. I adore it for its rather quirky wide open performance - slightly veiled, low contrast with acres of coma, poor corners and vignetting. Very moody and cinematic, and totally not clinical. Stop down to f/2.8 and it starts to behave normal, use it at f/4 or 5.6, and it is stunning sharp. It's not an allrounder, but what it does, it does brilliantly. But look up photos of it, plenty, because for many people an older Ai 35mm f/2 might make a better choice as it's a bit more sedate in its behaviour :-)<br>

Personally, I'd want the 35mm because of its focal length first and foremost, and it keeps a small and simple kit. And get medium format some other time and start experimenting with it.</p>

<p>Oh, I was thinking it was closer to a 35mm equivalent. And personally, I'm with you. I prefer those characteristics in a lens. I don't care for clinical perfection. Also, do you know what differences there are between the Ai and Ais version?</p>

<p>If you want a field of view close to a 35mm but in the 645 format you would get (for the Mamiya) a 55/2.8. If the field of view is important but the speed not as important then you might look for a 35/2 AI or AIS or the first version (6 elements) of the 35/2.8 AI. </p>

<p>My first Nikon was (and still is) an FM with AI 35/2.0. It was my only lens for some years, and then a Vivitar 70-150. I have always liked 35mm lenses with 35mm film. </p>

<p>But 120 film, per exposure, costs more than 35mm. If you take along a DSLR, even one that isn't the newest and highest pixel count, you can use that for some pictures, and so fewer film pictures.</p>

<p>So, I would choose the 645 along with a not so new DSLR. But for only one, the 35mm SLR. Unless you have a really big supply of 120 film.</p>

 

<p>Difference between the AI and AiS version, if I am not mistaken, is that the Ai version has a 7-blade aperture, and the Ais 9 blades, resulting in a slightly less nervous rendering of out of focus highlights.</p>

<p>I guess I'll go ahead and ask what seems to me to be an obvious question: why not buy the Mamiya 645 and a 55mm f/2.8? Chances are the cost of these purchases won't exceed the cost of that 35/1.4 Nikkor, will they? Then you'll have the "look" you want and you'll also have that great big negative to give you the punch you're after.</p>

<p>I can see reasons to pick both a camera system and a format you haven't used before for a trip, but I think I'd be inclined to stick with the system and format you know unless you are feeling very adventurous.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" the 80mm lens will give the same angle of view as the 50mm lens does on the FE2; so, in that sense, it doesn't widen your creative options."<br /> <strong><em>Wouther W.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe the same angle of view, but the DOF (Depth of Field) is <strong>very</strong> different.<br /> In the 35mm world, the 80mm lens is basically a portrait lens. So in a sense you're normal lens on the 645 is really a slight tele, which may provide the "<strong><em>Umff, more punch</em>!</strong>" many comment on and the OP is seeking with his "<em>environmental portraiture</em>"... (Of course add to that the advantages of larger sized film).</p>

<p>I don't think there's any debate at all -- buy the lens.<br /><br />To start, you have the beginnings of a solid 35mm Nikon outfit but you need to round it out with a wide angle lens. With the Mamiya you'd be starting from scratch with medium format. <br />Better to do one thing well than two things halfway IMHO.<br /><br />As for medium format and traveling, it's bigger, it's heavier, it's harder to find film. And when you ask for hand inspection of your film when going through x-ray, security is going to be more familiar with 35mm than 120. (Some people worry about x-ray, some don't. More of an issue with higher speed films and multiple passes on a long trip.)<br /><br />You definitely don't want to be carrying two systems -- too much weight, too much space, too much switching back and forth in your head and you move from one to another, IMHO.<br /><br />Yes, all things being equal a larger negative equals better image quality. But plenty of people have shot documetary and environmental work on 35mm ever since the Leica came out.<br /><br />As for the lens, I have two Nikon 35's -- a 2.0 I bought and I 2.8 I was given later by a friend. 1.4 would be nice but only worth the extra money if you think you're going to shoot it wide open a lot.</p>

<p>Gus, I added "in that sense" for that reason; I am aware that DoF is different, and agree that a part of the more punch might come from this difference in DoF and the typically more graceful transition from in-focus to OoF. My point was really meant to be limited to angle of view.</p>

<p>I own many Nikons with Primes, and a Pentax 645. </p>

<p>"more Umff, more punch"</p>

<p>Umff-Factor:<br>

645: 56mm x 42 mm = 2,352 square millimeters<br>

35mm: 24mm X 36mm = 864 square millimeters<br>

645 / 35mm = 272% (172% bigger)<br /><br>

<br>

I find that difference to be somewhat observable when well-scanned by the same service on a very large monitor. I sense a greater color density and separation. But that is my eyeballs and brain, perhaps affected by my love of big chunks of film.<br>

<br>

Printed on a big enough enlargement, I'm sure the 645 would be better at the point the 35mm would pixelate. But that's the nature of the file / printer / math I don't know about.<br /></p>

<p>(Sorry, that response was for film format, not lens choice....)</p>

<p>If you are planning to blow up your images to larger than 11x14 then go with the a larger negative. The 35mm will provide you with ample landscape and street shooting. I do not use the Nikon 35mm f2.0 lens but rather the Zeiss 35mm f2.0. The the used marked they are both about the same price...the last time I looked (a good number of years ago). [The reason I chose the Zeiss over the Nikon was that there are a number of models of the Nikon and not all were of the highest standards, which is what I read. The Zeiss was always highly rated.]</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great input...really appreciate it. So, I decided on a 35mm f2 ais as a compromise and when I get back dive into medium format. Not having much experience, would a 645 Mamiya be a good choice for location portraiture. I am also considering the Bronica. Thanks again for the good advice:-)</p>

<p>Glad you were able to make a decision.<br /><br />When you decide to dive into medium format, in addition to 645, also keep other medium format sizes in mind. I use 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 6x9cm medium format cameras in addition to my 35mm small format cameras.</p>

 

<p>A 645 for travel can really get cumbersome unless you plan to do mostly landscapes..</p>

<p>At least on my visual device (19" LCD) I don't see much difference between 135 film and 4,5x6 cm. This dramatically changes with 6x6 cm (and bigger).</p>

<p>Two other considerations:</p>

<p>1) 35mm film, both color and black and white - is more readily available than 120 film. This could be important, especially on a road trip away from your usual sources and unable to mail order.</p>

<p>2) Processing. I can still find one or two local places to process my 35mm color film. 120 film is send out and wait or Do-It-Yourself.</p>

<p>The 645 for the road.....<br>

Look at Bronica rf645 ... the medium format rangefinder. For portraiture the standard lens should be fine. Very compact and easy to carry with good glass.</p>

The Bronica ETRSi typically costs more than a Mamiya 645, but the lenses have leaf shutters. So if you're doing portraits with flash, get the Bronica. Otherwise, I'd get the Mamiya - those things are tanks, and can be had cheaply. I shoot a 645J - with the 55mm 2.8 it was $160 off Craigslist.

 

If you're scanning with an Epson or Canon flatbed scanner, I actually recommend the Mamiya Press/Universal; scanned 6x9 shot on slow film won't have any visible grain, if you do it right.

This thread was started 2 years ago.

I think the OP might have decided by now!

 

"Otherwise, I'd get the Mamiya - those things are tanks,"

 

- Not the plastic Supers, TLs and Pro TLs in my experience. I've had 2 Super bodies and a Pro TL all go bad on me. The Supers have been repaired several times for a variety of faults. When the Pro TL refused to fire I gave up on them all. Placky Mamiyas are complete rubbish IMO, and shouldn't be touched with a barge pole.

In terms of image quality, the Mamiya 645 has about twice the film area as 35 mm. If you scan or print 8x10" or larger, you will find grain limits the quality of 35 mm. However the handling of 35 mm is vastly superior to medium format, and the incremental cost per frame is much less. That leaves the intended purpose to consider.

 

Documentary photography probably falls well within the 35 mm domain, whether you mean news or street subjects. Environmental portraits leans toward better image quality and planned composition of medium format. You generally need a wider field of view, so 80 mm in the Mamiya (or 50 mm in the Nikon) would be about as long as you would want to go. You have many choices for wide angle lenses with either, thinking 35-50 mm for the Mamiya or 24-35 for the Nikon. "Normal" is a good place to start, but think about lens #2 in the future.

 

As an afterthought, medium format probably commands more respect, hence more money, for portraiture you are paid for.

I have known people who used Mamiyas, but for reliability it is awfully hard to beat Nikon. I'd also stick with equipment I already have used, rather than something unfamiliar.

 

On the other hand, I would be tempted to take my Omega Rapid (6x7), if I could still get 220 film....

"In terms of image quality, the Mamiya 645 has about twice the film area as 35 mm."

 

Area is irrelevant. All objective measures of image quality (granularity, MTF, lppmm, etc.) are strictly one dimensional. Any gain in quality due to film size will be in the ratio of 14:9 or 7:4, depending on whether the short or long sides of the respective formats are compared. About a 1.6 times gain in "quality" to take an average.

 

That's assuming equal lens resolution and correction of aberrations, which is a big assumption considering how much improved modern 35mm-fitting lenses are compared to the old M645 formulations.

 

Even so, if I thought film still had any relevance, I'd choose 645 over the impoverished 35mm format any day of the week.