Using 6X7 and 6X4.5

[richard_mackenzie]

Hi everyone

 

After spending many days going through all these very informative

posts I'm almost ready to take the plunge in MF - I think. I thought

I had narrowed my choices down to either Mamiya 645 Pro TL vs Pentax

645n or Mamiya 645 AF(D?) vs Pentax 645nII. But then I read all the

posts about 6X4.5 vs 6X7 debates and now I'm completely undecided

again.

 

Things I have decided already:

1. I don't want a rangefinder

2. I want high quality glass (sharpness is critical for enlargements)

3. Interchangable back isn't critical

4. Autofocus preferred

5. Handheld usability and portability

6. Interchangable lenses a must

 

Things I haven't decided:

1. 6X4.5 or 6X7 or both

 

I'm thinking a P645n (or nII) and some P67 lenses with the

appropriate adapter might be the answer. Then I could add a P67II at

a later date without having to fork out for all new lenses. I read

I'll lose one of the metering options but this isn't a major concern

as I'll still have spot and average I think. If this combo works well

then it'll take care of my Mamiya vs Pentax headache; if not, then

it's asprin time again.

 

My primary reason for wanting MF kit is for the stunning landscapes

back home in New Zealand for which the larger film size the better.

When I don't need to hike far to a location the 6X7 would be

preferable. But I also want kit portable enough for handheld

portraits, macro and especially landscapes where I will be hiking

some distance(6X4.5). I have very good 35mm kit already so I won't be

limited to just MF in any case.

 

So my questions are:

Would the P645n(or nII) with P67 lenses combo sacrifice any image

quality or functionality - other than the loss of one metering option?

Is the difference from 6X4.5 to 6X7 enough to warrant this setup or

should I stick to a 645 and matching lenses?

 

Any opinions on the above, especially from anyone with the P645 and

P67 combo would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Richard.

[jeg]

6x7 cameras are huge and heavy cameras. That's quite an disadvantage, carrying such a camera + equipment is normally not the main problem, but shooting hand-holding a big camera, especially with a long (180mm+, this equals only 90mm in 35mm) lens, is very tiring and fastly gets you to point were you just want to stop shooting or will miss opportunities because you just don't want to unpack the heavy camera again. Furthermore are the lenses for bigger system about 1 stop slower than for the smaller format, and even more if you focus very close (macro).<p>

The large 6x7 negative of course looks stunning and seems to be nearly double the size than 4.5x6, but a 645 camera is much, much easier to use in the field and really makes you want to take pictures.

<p>

Good luck with the mirror/shutter slap on the P67 when sharpness is critical. Why do you need autofocus for landscape and rule out the possibility of a Mamiya 7 range finder camera?

<p>

If you want to start cheap, try out the old manual Mamiya 645 and RB/RZ67 cameras and see which format you like more. Check out the cameras you intend to buy before you pay lots of money for a overpriced AF camera.

[._._z]

Have you decided on a budget?

 

Have you actually placed any of these cameras in your hands? If so, what did/didn't you

like? If not, why not?

[e_m3]

Richard,

 

How far do you intend on hiking? For a few years I shot with a Mamiya RZ. But once I started needing telephoto lenses I sold the system and moved to a Kodak 14N. A full set of 6x7 lenses was too much to hike with. I also have a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. It's a much more manageable system, even if you add a 300mm lens. If you're a strong hiker and will only be hiking on day hikes, then a 6x7 is good. But if you hike and camp overnight (sometimes for more than a few days) than the weight of a 6x7 system will be too much in my opinion.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

The larger the format you go, the less sharp your lenses will be. But that's cancelled out by the larger film size. Pentax lenses are perfectly good MF lenses, so you don't have to worry.<br>

If I were in your position, I would go with 6x7 but I would also consider whether or not my favorite film is readily available in 220 size. After a while, you may find that 120 size isn't enough as you only get 10 exposures per roll.

[jimvanson]

I shoot the "n". I selected it because of image quality, value & portability.<P>I also tried Mamiya's & Bronica's 645's before making my purchase. The "n" won me over because it has the best viewfinder, superb metering, data imprinting between frames and 16 on 120 / 33 on 220.<P>I thought the idea of mounting a big honking 67 lens on the "n" would be another plus. It hasn't turned out that way as used autofocus 645 lenses are **SO GOOD & SO CHEAP** that they are all I use.<P>I have shot the P67 but compared to the "n" it's a whole other proposition. The gear is at least twice as bulky/heavy as you pretty well have to haul a tripod around. I'm not claiming you'll be using the 'pod all the time but I am saying you will be needing it. Mind you that BIG chrome from the P67 is nice but If I wanted big chromes then it's Fuji 680 for me!<P>And so what do I suggest? Quite simply eBay. I've recently bought (a second) almost new "n" off eBay for $492, a 120 FA macro for $370 and a 35 FA for $420 -- incredible prices that are so low you can buy, try, and then sell without a loss if you eventually decide that you gotta have that 67 chrome.

[paulh]

Richard,

 

You could go half way and get a 6x6 :-) It's actually quite good for landscapes, even though at first thought you think you'd want a wider format. The 6x6's are not that much heavier than 6x4.5, so you retain hand-hold-ability. Maybe something stronger than Asprin is needed ...

 

I'd seriously consider how important the AF is to you. If you really want the MF for the landscapes, I don't think it is so important. Same for in-camera metering, you will probably find a hand-held meter much more useful.

 

But if you really do want 6x7, then maybe you should also re-evaluate the RF issue - the Mamiya 7II has some super lenses, and is not heavy either. Obviously pretty rubbish for macro shots!. See if you can give it a try before you take the plunge.

 

The other thing I have found with MF so far is that I seem quite happy sticking with just the one lens (but then I am only doing this for the fun of it, not trying to earn a crust). So even if you do go with the 6x7, you may find you don't need to take so much kit with you.

 

Choices, aren't they wonderful? If you're going to go big, you may as well make it worthwhile. Use the 35mm for when you need speed and lightness, and a 6x7 for the stunning landscapes. With the air quality in NZ, those big negs are going to be razor sharp.

 

 

Paul

 

A fellow Kiwi

 

PS. Whar about 6x9.....

[derek_stanton2]

Richard,

 

The 645+P67 combination sounds like a good idea, considering your situation.

 

Have you read Michael Reichman's articles about same?

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645nii.shtml

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml

[david_henderson]

What do you want the larger negative/transparency for? Unless you're processing traditionally you can get virtually whatever print size you need from either camera from minilabs/Pro labs with LightJet or Chromira/Inkjets at home.

 

The Pentax 645n seems to me to be just about the ideal camera for someone coming from 35mm and doesn't want to give up too much of the convenience. The lenses are great- including the zooms btw and the matrix metering(which you'll give up if you pursue the route of using 67 lenses) is extremely proficient. Its hand-holdable so long as you keep the speed to 1/60 or faster and it doesn't depend on mirror lock up for sharp pictures - important for hand-holding. It has all of your priorities and no significant weaknesses if, as you say, you don't need interchangeable backs.

 

Quite what benefit you'd get from buying clunkier, bulkier 67 lenses- forgoing the lightweight (well relatively)prime lenses and zooms and not being able to use the matrix metering is beyond me.

 

You need to see/hold/look through some of these cameras if you haven't already. It is just possible that you'll consider 645 somewhat mean and cramped and love the spaciousness of 67. But in reality this isn't much of a "results" issue; it's a "feel" issue.

[will_legge]

The idea that the larger the format, the lower resolution of the

lenses is a fast developing urban myth. The confusution come from the

fact that resolving power decreases with aperture. However, at the

same aperture lenses have the same resolving power regardless of

format, unless of course they are badly made which is not really the

case with modern medium and large-format lenses. However, film size

does have one advantage, the minium aperture that can be used. Since

larger film requires less enlargement, less resolving power can be

tolerated. This is why large-format lenses can be stopped down to f/

64 and why 35mm lenses are limited to about f/22 (and why digital

cameras can have minumum apertures of f/11 of so). (These minimum

apertures are also limit by focal length as well because the physical

size of the aperture can also be limiting of forgiving.)

 

As far as the quality of the optics, it will not matter if you use

6x4.5 or 6x7.

[david_holland1]

The Pentax 645N with 67 lenses doesn't sound like that good an idea to me: you give up auto focus, some maximum aperture, and gain weight in order to save some money later.

 

I agree auto focus isn't all that important--I rarely use it with my 645N--but if you do any portraits with a moving subject it can be great to have and you did mention that you prefer it.

 

I provided a 645N and an RZ to a couple of people in a hiking/landscape situation (with very short hikes and travel in between by van) and they decided to leave the RZ in the car and take turns with the 645N.

 

I haven't done any tests, and they would of course depend on your own personal hand holding skill, but I suspect that a 645N plus a tripod will beat a 67 hand held at the same pack weight, and you still retain the versatility of easier hand holding with the smaller camera.

 

I can't comment on the 645 Mamiya vs 645N, or N vs NII, but I've had a 645N since they first came out and I've shot a good bit of the same kind of images you want to shoot with it.

 

My advice: get the Pentax 645 (N or NII), a suitable tripod, and save your money for a good used Mamiaya RB. If funds are any kind of issue and you're going to shoot color film, keep in mind that you're going to get 16 images for approximately the price of 10 with 645, and those savings can go to the 67 fund, too.

 

When you get to the point that the 645 negative is a limiting factor and you're willing to pack the extra weight, buy the RB or, if you've saved enough money by then, better yet a RZ.

[richard_mackenzie]

Well, it certainly doesn't take long to get plenty of good feedback here. Thanks everyone.

 

To answer a couple of questions, my budget is fairly relaxed. Looking on eBay, 2nd hand

P645n's and M645Pro TL's are within it (incl a lens or two). The reason for autofocus was

more for the 645 that I'd want for portraits than for the landscape work - not essential I

know but handy at times. Also, as I said initially, portraits and macro work rule out

rangefinders, or so I've read. I have played with the M645AF and Pro in the shop and really

love the feel of that size and style of camera. I haven't tried the Pentax equivalent but

reviews here are favourable so I assume I'll like that too - local shop doesn't have Pentax

in stock.

 

I had read those articles you mentioned Derek which is why I thought it was a good idea. I

was just looking for some second opinions on it. Thanks for the link though.

 

Thanks for adding to the headache Paul. I've thought about 6X6 but I think I prefer

rectangular over square. And I'll leave 6x9 alone ... for now.

 

Distance of hiking will vary greatly which again is why the idea of the adaptable system

appealed. For hikes of a few days or longer I don't want to be weighed down by a heavy 67

kit but there's so much stunning landscape in NZ that is very accessable by vehicle where a

67 kit could be used easily.

 

I think that 645 format is ideal for me at the moment but knowing me I'll want to try the

bigger negs of a 6X7 at a later date and with Pentax it means I wouldn't have to buy a

whole new set of lenses. That was my theory but maybe a compromise would be to start

with a P645n and a couple of 645 lenses and if I find I still want a P67 then my next lenses

can be 6X7 ones ready for a P67II body at a later date.

 

Thanks again, Richard.

[roger___3]

I've gone through the same debate myself. For me the limiting factor for 6X7 was depth of field. I went with a P645, which is now my main shooting camera. And a 4X5 when I can take the time. The loaded pack weight for the two formats in my day pack is similar.

 

I've seen much discussion about 645 print size maximums. With a drum scan, I'm still unable to get a 16X20 print as sharp as the 4X5 at a modestly close viewing distance. At least that's my experience. 645 at that size is just starting to approach it's upper limit of nice shaprness.

[david_holland1]

This comes from someone with no experience with the Mamiya 645 or Pentax 67, but quite pleased with the converse combination.

 

If you are willing to get a second set of lenses, here are the advantages of the Pentax 645N plus RB/RZ combination:

 

Great ergonomics and 35mm replacement (P645)

 

Autofocus (P645)

 

Rotating back for 67 landscapes and portraits (M67)

 

Flash synch at all shutter speeds (M67 plus P645 with 2 lenses)

 

Complete back up system

 

Fairly lightweight for travel by MF standards (P645)

 

The studio portrait standard for many years (M67)

 

In summary, my sense is that the narrow niche that the P67 fills (other than using really large lenses with more coverage than you need on a 645 body) is portability of the 67 format in SLR configuration for landscape orientation (since portrait orientation involves the difficulty of rotating the body on a tripod).

 

I use the Pentax whenever I want 16 frames more than a big negative, when I know I will need to hand hold, and when I just won't carry the extra weight. I use the RZ when I want the big negative.

 

In practice, virtually all of my portraits are taken with the RZ. If I don't want a big negative, I go digital.

 

Fashion/glamour (if I want to use film) is RZ in the studio and generally, but not always, Pentax on location.

 

Landscape can be either, depending on all of the factors, but it's a small portion of what I do.

 

Another factor to consider is that although you may be able to use the 67 lenses on a 645, you will not get the same coverage on film from camera to camera. For example, the 55mm P67 will have approximately the coverage (in 35mm terms) of a 35mm in 645 and a 28mm in 67. The 165mm P67 would correspond to something like 100-105 and 82 and the 200 to 120 and 100. To me, at least, the 165 would be a bit short for portraits on the 67 and the 200 a bit long on the 645, but that's of course entirely a matter of taste. You should, however, if portraits are on your agenda, consider close focus distance (not a problem with the P645N and the 150/2.8 or the Mamiya 67 line).

 

All this adds up to an endorsement of your idea of getting the P645N and a lens or two as a starting point.

[db1]

Although I have never used a 645 camera, I do own a Hasselblad 503cw with 50/80/150, a Mamiya 7II with 50 and 65, and a Pentax 67 with 55/75/105/135/165.

 

If I had to choose only one to do landscapes, I would take the Mamiya without a second thought. But either the Pentax or Hasselblad would be just fine.

 

So why would I take the Mamiya? Well, the glass is some of the best available. Sharp and contrasty. Also, the set-up is very small and lightweight and will easily fit into a Tamrac Expedition 5 (5275) backpack. Plus it has a wonderful built in meter that is fantastic once you learn how to use it. I can also shoot 220 without bringing an additional back. And the big plus is being able to hand hold it. And if I need a tripod, my lightweight carbon fiber Bogen with the Kirk BH-1 head holds it perfectly.

 

As for the Hasselblad, it is a bigger set-up which means more weight. I have to carry an additional back if I want to shoot 220 and I have to carry a meter to use it. But no one can touch the quality of the Zeiss glass. It is the best.

 

Now the Pentax 67 is a beast. I would like to slap the guy who started the "mirror-slap scare" because it is not something to be worried about. Just use the mirror lock up. Simple. The glass is bigger and heavier but it is still very good glass. And cheap. Plus, you can shoot 120 or 220 at the twist of a plate.

 

Now for me and lots of others, cost comes into play. For example, on ebay the 50mm lens for the mamiya would cost about $1100 with the box and viewfinder. The Hasselblad would cost about $900 for the CF modeland about $1400 for the latest CFI model. As for the Pentax 55mm lens, it would cost about $400. So your budget definitely comes into play. If you are looking at new stuff, shop around.

 

If you are doing landscape work, how much are you planning on handholding it? When I do landscape work here in Santa Fe, it is always on a tripod. But for street work, the M7II lets me hold it.

 

Enough from me. Good luck.

[richard_mackenzie]

David seems to be a popular name on this thread ...

 

David Holland, thanks for the very good points. I have now decided to go for the 645 and

a couple of accompanying lenses for a start and flag the idea of a whole lot of dual

purpose lenses. As I still enjoy using my Minolta 35mm kit, and I've got some very nice

primes in there ranging from 20mm(f2.8)-300mm(f2.8), I should be fine with just a couple

of 645 lenses to start - maybe one wide angle and one for portraits. And I'll just keep an

eye out for 6X7 gear as it comes up. I'll decide later what 67 gear to get but it sounds like

Mamiya might be the way to go.

 

David B, when shooting landscapes I like to use a tripod more often than not, if for

nothing else but to force me to slow down. For street work I'll use either the 645 when I

get it or my existing 35mm kit. The idea of something larger than 645 was specifically for

landscapes that don't require hours of hiking, which NZ has in abundance ... from a

slightly biased view. Is it obvious I'm slightly homesick after being away for 4.5 years? And

to make matters worse I've only taken up photography as a hobby since being overseas so

I'm just itching to get home and get stuck into some landscape work. 1 more year to go...

 

Thanks again everyone for your help as it's a fairly daunting task trying to choose

between all the options, and even lots of options I didn't even know about ... thanks to my

fellow Kiwi, Paul. Maybe 6X9 at a later date.

 

Richard.

[richard_deimel1]

You want too many things; you are at this point too inexperienced in MF to really know what's important for you. I would say that you have to start from the size you want to enlarge to. If you want to go 16x20 or larger, don't let anyone kid you, if you have high standards 6x7 is it, not 645. Other than that, everything is open. What you need at this point is experience with different types of outfits, cameras, lenses, etc, and you're only going to get that in the field. So my advice to you is, whatever you decide on initially, don't spend much, don't load up on lenses and equipment. Plan on getting experience with different outfits. Eventually you'll clarify your ideas and you'll have an outfit that's ideal for you -- which may be what you think you want now, or may be quite different.