Pentax 67 vs 645

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by ray_culver, Sep 1, 1997.

  1. Trying to decide between 67 and the 645. The 645 is more modern as far as metering, TTL, etc. but I love the larger 6x7 negative (that's where the largest gains are found going up to medium format anyway). I like the 645's 75mm and 135mm leaf shutter lenses as compared to the 67's 165ls (and the discontinued and hard to find 90mm ls) considering half of what I will be shooting is people. The 67 is built like a tank. How is the construction of the 645? Is it 'plasticy'? How do the lenses compare? And, is there any truth to the rumor of a new 67?
     
  2. I just purchased a new Pentax 67 with 3 lenses, 55,90,& 200.
    Love them all so far. I considered the Mamiya 645 for all its techno
    "bells and whistles", but still decided on the 6x7 format.

    <p>

    I do alot of astrophotography, and telescope adapters are available
    for the Pentax and not the Mamiya. Since I do mainly landscape and
    not people, I was not concerned about the leaf shutters.

    <p>

    A salesperson at the Pro Camera store in S.F. CA, told me that medium
    format camera sales are only 6% of the market, and that if Pentax
    were to update anything it would be the P645 first.

    <p>

    I did write (email) the Pentax service/tech dept. for multi-expose
    and long exposure-no batt. options, which they added quite professionally. AND, when I asked about the "new P67 rumor",
    this is what Steve in that dept. wrote back:

    <p>

    "There are rumors of a new 67. However, all I have heard come from the internet, not PENTAX. I can neither confirm nor deny these rumors to be true.

    <p>

    Thanks,

    <p>

    Steve"

    <p>

    I must have read just about every comment about the Pentax67
    in this MFDigest, and decided on the P67 for it's ruggedness,
    field performance, and optical quality. Good luck in your decision making.

    <p>

    Phil Lau

    <p>

    "http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2217"
     
  3. Ray,
    I think that they are really two significantly different cameras (take that with a grain of salt, of course, since I only own the P67). The 67 is the antithesis of automation, and the 645 is fully automated, to the point that it doesn't even take an interchangeable finder.

    <p>

    I don't photograph many people, and never need a studio flash setup for my work, so the P67 gives me a big neg or trans, and lots of flexibility in the field. And I think all four lenses I own (45, 90, 135, and 200) are outstanding. At least they are plenty good enough for me!

    <p>

    Most of the people I know who use the 645 have no complaints about durability.

    <p>

    Bob
     
  4. Ray, as a recent purchaser of a 645 system, I am extremely pleased with image quality, handling and durability. Although the controls using buttons are not my fave, I have adjusted.

    <p>

    Before I purchased, I looked seriously at the 67. I found several people who were >>former<< owners, mostly because the size was just too cumbersome for them. All switched back to 35 mm. If you're doing studio work, you should look at Mamiya.
     
  5. I have owned both the P645 and the P67. They are remarkably different beasts. I would not consider the P67 (which I currently own and use) to be a suitable camera for wedding photography; OTOH, the P645 is perfect for that use (especially with the AF400t flash -- which I also own and would recommend to anyone considering the P645). Lenses for both cameras are of superb optical quality.

    <p>

    If you want to shoot methodically, usually using a tripod, the P67 is appropriate (and you might want to consider 4x5). If you like shoot "on the fly" candids and you can make good use of a motor drive, then the P645 is ideal.

    <p>

    What I didn't like about the P645 was its automation--too many things were set electronically (e.g. exposure duration. I never felt that the P645 wasn't built in a durable fashion. I dropped it frequently, but never broke it (unlike my Nikon 8008 which cracks when I talk ugly about it!) What I don't like about the P67 is its 1/30 sec shutter synch speed, and, of course, its weight. If I didn't already own a motor drive 35 mm camera, I would have kept the P645 and lived with the smaller negative.
     
  6. I have owned P67 cameras since 1972 and I also owned a P645 for several years. I love them both and as previous posters have said they are quite different beasts. I liked the ability to use 67 lenses on the 645 via the (quite expensive) adaptor. The claim that the 67 handles like a big 35 mm is not exactly true because of its size and weight, particularly noticeable when you come to changing lenses in the field. The mirror slap noise is a disadvantage too. OTOH the 645 really is comparable to a 35 mm and in fact in my opinion is much more manageable and no bulkier and heavier that the pro 35s such as the Nikon F5. With 2 or more backs on hand changing film is quick and easy too. I sold my 645 only because I had too many cameras and formats (35 mm to 5x7) The new version of the P645 seems superb but I have not tried it. However with modern films the quality gap between 35 mm and 645 is less obvious so I decided to retain the 67 simply because of the larger negative size.
     

Share This Page