RZ67 or 645AFD for handheld portraits and fashion

<p>Hello, and a merry Christmas to everyone. I am considering getting into medium format territory. I am using a Canon 1DS Mark II regularly, so the reason to get into MF is to shoot film. I want to shoot film because I'm so sick of post-processing digital files. So my choice of MF system isn't dependent on getting a MF Digital back at some time. I am going to use it mainly for portraits and fashion, maybe a little bit of landscape as well. How big a difference in IQ is there between the 6x4,5 and 6x7 formats? I probably wouldn't be making humongous prints that often. I like the fact that the AFD has Autofocus and is lighter. I prefer shooting handheld with off-camera lighting, so I would like to hear from anyone using the RZ67 if it is awkward focusing such a large camera handheld? I don't really mind the weight, I won't be using it for street photography :-)</p>

<p>It's interesting you've shot digital, but now want to return to film. If you're wanting to do handheld shooting, I would definately go with the 645. The 645 format is roughly half the size of 6x7, but at that size I don't think you'll notice the difference. The 645 does handle like a large 35mm camera. I think the 645 format is much better for the available components like lenses (auto focus) and digital backs (if you decide to return to digital). The photos I've taken with 645 and digital back are outstanding. If I coud afford a higher resolution than 6mp I would never return to film processing. </p>

<p>I'll vote for the 6x7. I was shocked at the difference when I switched from 645 to 6x7 (Mamiya 645Pro to Mamiya 7). It's a whole different thing. Basically, making a killer 16x20 from 6x7 is like falling off a log, but you have to work to make 12x18s from 645. (Truth in advertising: my Mamiya 7 arrived just shortly before my 5D, and for 12x18, the 5D was fine, so I stopped shooting film.)<br>

Although I've not used an RB/RZ, I love waist level finders, and the rotating back makes the WLF reasonable on the RB/RZ cameras. You'll need a separate meter, of course. If you put a grip and a prism on an RB/RZ, you'll have a camera that's heavier than I'd want to deal with. But that's me and YMMV.<br>

The bad news, of course, is that to get the most from film, you need to scan it yourself with a Nikon 9000 or pay for scans. At which point, you'll be spending more time in front of the computer than you are with digital.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>Must have been the lenses on the 645. It's not the format.<br>

There is not much difference between 6x4.5 and 6x7: a 1.3x extra magnification.<br>

About the difference between a 16x20 and a 12x18... ;-) If lenses and film had been of same quality, the smaller print's quality should have been the same as that of the larger print.<br>

Or, the other way round: all else being equal, the difference in image quality between 6x4.5 and 6x7 is that between a 12x18 print made of a 6x7 negative (representing 6x7), and a 16x20 print of that very same 6x7 negative (representing 6x4.5).<br>

Not a lot. ;-)</p>

<p>The lenses for the Mamiya 645 are great: the 55/2.8 and 110/2.8 in particular are wonderful lenses. As is the 60/4.0 on the Fuji GS645S. But a 6x7 slide really is a lot more information than a 645 frame. Basically, 6x7 makes superb prints at the next size up from the prints 645 struggles at, whatever your personal definitions of "superb print" and "struggles at" happen to be. And I find that to be a big difference.</p>

 

<p>But if the lenses are equally good, the film too, there should be no difference at all between the two sizes print you mentioned. Same magnification. No format advantage.<br>

I'm not saying that - all else being equal - the 6x7 format is not better. But it is that by a little bit only, compared to 6x4.5.<br>

I never seen "a lot more" in 6x7 images (have seen that the Mamiya 6x4.5 lenses however are not as good as those of its larger Mamiya brothers and sisters. But that was a long time ago, and maybe things changed?)</p>

 

<p>A note on scanning-I'm scanning an old batch of E6 from some past travels. The very lat the ing I want to do is sit in front of PS. Well composed and exposed slides (100VS) needs very little, sometimes no post processing.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Same goes for negatives. They are easier to expose well too.<br>

But i agree completely: scanning is not a fun way to while your time away.</p>

<p>I'd opt for the 645 for hand-held shooting.</p>

<p>The 6x7 has 42 centimeters, the 645 has 27. The difference is 1.55. For portraits, fashion and some landscape, The RZ is better. For handheld, the 645.<br>

I have used the RB67 Pro-s handheld,with a bellows hood, and would do it again. The best way is with a grip holder.</p>

<p>Strange numbers. ;-)<br>

The long side of 6x4.5 is 56 mm. That of 6x7 is 72 mm. About 1.3 x longer.<br>

That's about the difference between the 42 mm of 6x4.5's short side and the 56 mm of 6x7's short side too.<br>

Not much.</p>

 

<p>I think i better explain the "strange numbers" bit: when did you last decide to produce a print of, say, 234 square centimeters?</p>

<p><br />Or (in other words): differences in area sound impressive. And they perhaps are.<br />But because not a thing we think in, square inches or centimeters, hard to tell whether it (in this case 55% more area - hurrah! a percentage! ;-) Actually, the difference is closer to 70%) really is impressive, or not.<br />Which is why the case for larger formats often is made in terms of image area...<br />(And the opposite case usually not) ;-)</p>

<p>To use those numbers, 56mm and 42 for 645. And, 56mm and 72mm for 6x7, gives the area for 6x7 at 4032mm and that of 645 at 2352mm. The difference would be 1.71%.<br>

Why taking the area to measure diference is important, is because, with a 4x5 and 8x10 comparison,the 8x10 is twice as long. But, it has 4 times the area. A 4x5 doubled in size is not 8x10. Using the linear measurment, is misleading. Doubling the size of an object is the same , no matter how large or small it is. I can almost put 2 of my 645 negs onto 1 of my 6x7s.</p>

<p>Regardless of the area, I'd still recommend 645 for hand-held shooting because it's so much easier to handle. In addition, the OP stated that he won't be making huge prints very often.</p>

<p>Robert, I agree with you a 100%. That's why, even though I have a RB67, I ordered a M645 Pro, to be used for more handheld shots. What i called a "big daddy to a 35", SLR.</p>

<p>The RZ is Not a good handheld camera and anyone who says so is being silly. The RZ is large and cumbersome.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Math is not my strongest suit; but which is the more important measure when comparing different sizes of film, or sensor? Is it surface area, or is it linear dimension? Maybe the issue is resolution (linear) vs. information (area).</p>

<p>As has been said here, the 6x7 negative has about 1.6x the image area of the 645; but its linear dimension is only 33% larger in the smaller dimension, and 17% in the longer. Increasing the negative size doesn't change its "resolution" but does increase the surface area upon which "information" is stored.</p>

<p>Conversely, doubling a chip's pixel capacity from, say, the 12MP of the full-frame Nikon D3 to the 25MP of the full-frame D3x, results in only about a 40% increase in resolution (in other words, the square root of 2, the increase factor for total pixels.) And since on the digital chip there has been no increase in chip size, but simply a larger number of smaller pixels crowded onto the same size piece of silicon, has "information" really increased?</p>

<p>Point of all this? Not sure. My intuition is that film area is more important, since it relates to total "information" area contained. The "pixels" (~film grain clumps) are the same size in the 645 and the 67 negative, so you've effected a 60% increase in the number of pixels of "information" in the larger negative.</p>

<p>I'm confident someone more mathetically inclined will point out the flaws in this way of looking at it.<br /> <br /> No doubt, though, that the 645 is preferred for handheld portraits. The RZ67 I've been trying out just dwarfs my Contax 645. Those big negatives look great, but not so much greater that my aching arm is willing to put up with the pain; nor so much greater that the larger number of motion-blurred images with the RZ is compensated for. It's a tripod-loving beast.</p>

<p>I have both the RZ67D and the 645AFD-II and most lenses for both bodies. I could not recommend the RZ for handheld work as you will lose most of the benefit (tack sharp, LARGE scans/prints) of the large film area. The RZ is designed for a much *sloooooooower* work flow than most people are used to when working handheld. The only way to do handheld with the RZ is with the metering prism, which itself weighs almost as much as (maybe more than??) the body itself. Add the L-bracket and you've got a difficult mass to keep stable by hand. I much prefer to use the RZ on a carbon tripod with a Manfrotto 322RC2 head and a hand meter. This is the best use for this camera as you can use slow film (say ISO 100 or slower) and get super sharp, high rez, drum or LED scans that far exceed anything that can be had with the best digital back. You will, however, have to expand you skill set to achieve this level.</p>

<p>The 645AFD is much better for handheld as you've got autofocus, film wind, and metering in a relative small package (for film). I like shooting the 645 handheld flim as much or more then my Nikon F5.</p>

<p>Considering the prices of some Nikon's and Canon's latest TOTL units, one could purchase an RZIID kit and an 645AFD-II (now there is a -III) kit and have the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>If you have a Canon FF camera then I recommend the RZ67. The prints will be more like what you are used to. I use a RZ67 for landscape and portraiture for many years and have had no problem with the size.</p>

<p>That big 6x7cm frame is a real joy.</p>

<p>I agree with Barry Sanford. I have also used both cameras and there is no doubt that the 645 is easier to use as a hand held camera. The RZ is a great camera but was clearly designed to be tripod based. With a 100 or 125 ASA film you should get beautiful results.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>I agree with Barry Sanford. I have also used both cameras and there is no doubt that the 645 is easier to use as a hand held camera. The RZ is a great camera but was clearly designed to be tripod based. With a 100 or 125 ASA film you should get beautiful results.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>I have the RZ, and it is BIG. You can hang it around your neck and shoot handheld but the 6x6, and 645 can be so much smaller.</p>

<p>Using the linear measurement, Jack, is not misleading, but quick, easy, and crystal clear.<br>

The linear dimension bit is preferable, because it leads quickest to something we know, and can compare.</p>

<p>A 8x10 print increased in size by 71% is how big exactly...?<br>

On the other hand there is a quick and easy calculation: 8 x 1.3 = 10.4, 10 x 1.3 = 13.<br>

So do not try to make things more difficult for yourself than they need be.</p>

<p>An 8x10 print made from a negative, and a 10.4x13 print made from the same negative show the difference in image quality between 6x7 and 6x4.5 (the larger print/higher magnification representing the smaller format).<br>

The impressive percentage may suggest many things, but forget about linear and percentual differences in size for a while, and simply compare such prints.<br>

You will see that even a 71% increase in size - though certainly not nothing - is not that much, really, in terms of image quality.</p>

<p>Then consider whether this is enough for you to consider carrying the extra bulk of a 7x7 camera and it's larger lenses.<br>

Your choice, of course.</p>

<p>Q. G, you make some great points. I read about this in the photo mags of the mid 70's. Where the author of the article was comparing a 35 neg to an 8x10. A 35 neg is almost 1.5 inches long. So, using the linear measurement, an 8x10 is 6.66 times larger than a 35. But, we all know that an 8x10 is many times that. The author used a number like 56 times (for area) larger. Which does make sense. I agree with you that 645, 6x6 makes great images. Which is why even though I have the Mamiya TLR, Mamiya press and a RB,I ordered a M645 Pro.</p>

<p>huh? Jack, between you and Q.G. you lost me somewhere. Not a problem, I get the idea. Thanks.</p>