Landscape stuff? What's you're favorit? (Pentax 67, Mamiya 645....)

[igor_lorget1]

Hi Everyone,

great forum here!!! I learned a lot from you guys here so thanks!! But I'm still

weighting pros and cons about a format question. Actually between two cameras

more than between two formats, but as I couldn't make up my mind into which

category camera I'd put it, I chose format.

 

My choice for landscape would be: Mamiya 645 (pro tl) or a Pentax 67 (67 or 67II

not the 6x7 cause too old...)

 

- I know the 6x7 format is almost twice as big as the 6x4,5. So what's you're

favorite? Is the 67 much better, or are Pentax optics much better than Mamiyas?

 

- Why would you chose one against the other? Do you think one of these two

camera is a whole none sens? Or would you suggest something else and why?

 

- How rugged/tough are the two "little" guys? Any bad experience (mirror -

shutted induced blurr, uneven exposure)

 

- Any experience in very cold weather, how do they behave / eat batteries / die?

 

Some details: weight is a small issue, handholding / tripod not an issue (I'd do

both (I tried on both cameras), flash isn't used at all.

 

 

Duh!! Looks like I am amlost asking for a complete review!! Sorry. Don't be

discouraged, it's more a pros and cons...

 

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate a lot.

 

Igor

[brucecahn]

With all respect to you medium format guys, the best format for landscapes is large format. The larger the better. 12x20 or 8x20 is a good choice, if that is too heavy maybe 7x17 or 4x10. Contact print them. If I had to get a 120 camera for landscapes it would be a 6x7 Pentax. I have owned the earlier versions of the Mamiya 645 and Pentax 6x7, but have not used the latest models. The Pentax was better.

[ronald_moravec1]

4x5 . I like my Zone 6. Nice long bellows, bag bellows, Wide to tele lenses. And then there are all the nice movements.

 

Then I drop to 35mm Leicas and a D200 Nikon for when I get really lazy.

 

All in all I have seen some nice stuff from Hassy, Sl66 Rollie, 6x7 pentax. Mamaya cameras are but OK. Had an RB67 once. For the weight, carry a 4x5

[frankfitz]

My personal preference is Mamiya 7 which is a 6x7 format. Superb lens line up and light and very easy to use. Tried the Mamiya 645 but did not like the results.

[brian304]

Mamiya 7! The leaf shutter makes hand holding at very slow speeds possible. I just got back from a trip where I used the pano adapter in the Mamiya 7. The Velvia came out unreal. I have the 65mm, I think the 50 is probably better as the height of the negative is pretty narrow with a 65mm.

I could see a 50 150 kit being real useful for landscapes. I know you can shoot the whole 6x7 negative but I like KR64 in red rock country which is only available in 35mm.

HTH

Brian

[mike_earussi1]

To more directly answer your question, you can definitely see the difference in image quality between 645 and 6x7 because, as you said, 67 has literally twice as much area as 645 does. The Pentax 67 camera is a very popular camera because it is the most portable MF SLR made. The lenses are of very good quality, though not as good as the Mamiya 7 (which many consider to be the highest quality MF lenses ever made), but they're not as expensive either. And composing with an SRL is easier than with a rangefinder, plus you can use graduated ND filters with an SLR, something that you cannot do with any precision with a rangefinder, as well as having a much broader range of interchangable lenses.

 

That said, the Pentax 67 does have its drawbacks:

 

1. It's very heavy and bulky, a real pain to carry around unless you have a strong back.

 

2. Its focal plane shutter kicks hard, causing a lot of camera shake when used on a tripod. The only way I was able to neutralize mine was to drape the strap of my camera bag, loaded with 10 lbs. of Pentax lenses, directly across the top of the pentaprism. This worked but does put some strain on the tripod head, so make sure you use a heavy duty one.

 

3. For long, timed night exposures the mirror draws battery power as long as it's up. A series of 30 second exposures can eat up a battery pretty fast, so bring spares.

 

As for me, if I were going to get back into landscapes I would use a 6x9 Crown Graphic. They're light weight, inexpensive, have interchangable backs, you can put excellent lenses on them, have some movements, which can be very useful for landscape, and can be used on a much lighter weight tripod than the Pentax 67. They're just upside down, which can take some getting use to.

[Scott Ridgeway www.Scott]

I used the Pentax 6x7 for years. It is an excellent landscape camera. As others have said, though, it is heavy and requires a correspondingly heavy tripod. I use a Mamiya 7II now and am quite happy with it. Rangefinder focusing takes some faith and some getting used to. As much as I like the Mamiya 7II, I'd recommend that you rent or borrow one before making the commitment.

[norman_valentine]

Fuji GW690. Huge negative, easy to use, convenient to carry, bright viewfinder, it's great.

[jim_momary]

Re: formats - I've used both Mamiya 645 and Mamiya RB67, one is light, the other a boat anchor. The 6x7 beats the smaller negative hands down. If I wanted to do better I'd only go up to 4x5 for reasons of cost and portability. My poor man's 4x5 is a Graflex, even with a marginal lens it's seemingly better than the 67 under most circumstances. I also get lazy and use the D200 too. It's a balance of quality, convenience and spirit of the flesh. Old Jim M.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Bronica GS-1.

[jenny_jaques]

Well, staying within Medium Format (which is what the question is about), if I were to expand beyond the Hasselblad system, I would go to Linhof without hesitation, and get one of these, but of course they still hold their value, more than most other film camera types. But it just depends on priorities and how serious you are.<div></div>

[chris_waller]

Mamiya TLR (C220, C330).

[ilkka]

"3. For long, timed night exposures the mirror draws battery power as long as it's up. A series of 30 second exposures can eat up a battery pretty fast, so bring spares. "

 

The new P67II has a separate time exposure setting that does not use battery power.

[mohir_ali]

Hassy SWC

[mark liddell]

The problem I always had with MF cameras and landscapes was dof. I used an RB67 and Mamiya 7 and near/far compositions are often hard even stopped down to f/22 (diffraction territory). Now I use an Ebony RSW45 with a 6x7 back: lens tilt removes the dof difficulties is most situations and front rise mans trees stay straight. I do miss the wlf and ease of use of MF cameras though.

 

The RB is an excellent landscape camera if you can deal with the weight. I'd begrudgingly use the mamiya 7 when I needed light weight due to inability to use grad filters (I only use it with neg film for this reason) and difficulties framing.

[Ed_Ingold]

A 6x7 image is not twice the size of a 6x4.5, rather not quite 30% larger in area, and only 17% greater resolution on either axis. This is still a significant, if less than spectacular, difference.

 

A 4x5 inch camera (but why stop there?) is capable of producing much larger prints with good detail, but only if you have the accompanying infrastructure - a good darkroom or an expensive ($20K) scanner. A flatbed scanner will do about as well on 4x5 as a dedicated film scanner (e.g., Nikon LS-8000) does for medium format.

 

Another, often governing factor, is how much you are willing to carry into the field. Larger cameras mean larger lenses and require larger bags and heavier tripods. If you are unwilling to carry a substantial tripod, there's no sense in using medium format at all for landscapes.

 

I find a full Hasselblad kit takes the same space and weighs about the same as my DSLR travel kit - Phototrekker and 36+ pounds. I can't carry both on a plane or at the same time in the field. A Mamiya RB/RZ or Pentax 67 is much larger, but weighs about the same. The Mamiya 7II is a lightweight, compact 6x7cm camera with outstanding lenses. It might be an ideal companion for a small-format kit if you can accept the imprecise framing, impracticability with polarizers and limited lens choices.

[mike_earussi1]

Edward, actually the increase in area from M645 to P67 is 63%.

 

M645 = 41.8mm x 56.4mm = 2357sq. mm

 

P67 = 55.2mm x 69.5mm = 3857sq. mm

 

3857/2357 = 1.629

[xato]

I use a Pentax 645N with the Hartblei 45mm SuperRotator as one of my main lens. I love it.

[Ed_Ingold]

Mike,

 

You're correct, of course, but in this world if it's not double, it's chump change.

[mike_earussi1]

Edward,

the point is that there is a noticable difference between them in the final print. If you're going to shoot 645 you might as well be shooting digital as there is so little difference between a good 12mp DSLR and 645. But 6x7 still has an edge over digital, at least for today.

[tk_thompson]

I use the Mamiya 7 as my favorite landscape camera. Lens resolution is fantastic. Lightweight for backpacking, Good lens selection, especially the 43 mm ultrawide. Filters such as polarizers and graduated neutral density can be handled by eyeballing and then attaching to the lens with the same orientation - a white dot on the each filter ring makes this easier. The downside is no acuurate close focusing capability. I use an RB outfir for the wildflowers. THe 6x7 negs scan great on an Epson 4990 and can make 20x30 prints w/o any problems.

 

TK

[jenny_jaques]

Because B&W for me and many others remains in the domain of the darkroom, and not least Igor's question, discussions about large format are really off topic. For anyone even just developing B&W, the change from small and MF to large-format sheet film is a significant step and may require considerable investment: new equipment, especially an enlarger and more space for larger trays. Not to mention a whole new way of handling the material.

 

With colour, where most is passed on to a lab for processing, I can see some merit of considering large format and scanning. Because if one can afford a good quality printer and sundries, when one has climbed to the top of the technical learning curve required to produce image quality worthy of the investment, yes you will have total control.

 

But that said, there is still the loss of practical handling when comparing that of LF film holders against the convenience of Roll-film magazines. Yes Bruce Cann sells large format gear. We all know that. Just check his homepage link. It's an eBay store full of large format equipment and I question his agenda of stepping in to so many MF discussions to simply promote what he sells. Even whilst I am (for the moment) a non-paying member, I really do feel that all "Merchant members" of Photo.net should be the first to pay for their membership.

 

The regular intrusions into MF discussions by the regular LF evangelists is as tiresome as the same from the digital camp.

 

No doubt I'll cop some flack for this, but I don't care. If the cap fits, wear it.

 

Cheers, Jenny

[Scott Ridgeway www.Scott]

Jenny- I thought the same thing when I started seeing the suggestions for large format. The original poster surely knows that large format exists, but was asking about medium format (and mostly about two particular cameras.) It's an open forum, though, so whatever...

 

I used to shoot large format myself. My photography definitely improved when I moved to medium format. Why? I could afford to take risks with my work. When shooting large format, there is a big financial investment and big time investment with each shot. Risk taking gets expensive fast. So you follow "the rules" and get technically perfect but boring shots--or at least I did. That's not to say that there aren't some excellent large format photographers out there. There certainly are. But for most of us, smaller formats allow us to affordably experiment with compositions, lighting, etc. Sure, I throw away lots and lots of failures, but the keepers are exceptional.

 

Yes, large format is "best" if that means sharpest or if you really need those swings, shifts and tilts. For me, "best" is the camera that allows me to make the images that make me happy. For me, that used to be the P67. Now it's a Mamiya 7II.

[jenny_jaques]

Scott, yes I have used large-format, as a guest in a workshop with a friend. And yes I love it too. Because I have worked in and used a fabulous darkroom with 5x7 enlarger and assisted with making large prints as well as contact prints, it's not entirely without qualifaction that I make the comments above. It is a different world from all smaller formats. The people I have worked with use a range of Linhof gear which is where I discovered the Technikardan (both the 6x9 and 4x5) and would buy it at the drop of a hat, had I the funds. (The Kardan GT 5x7 was also a dream to use.)

 

But then going off to do my own thing, with relatively more limited resources, and whizz through the roll film business in improvised facilities, fully appreciating the likelihood that Igor's question: "What's you're favorit? (Pentax 67, Mamiya 645....)" is more related to my conditions than the major setups I have been employed in. And THAT said, yes, digitization can bring some aspects of the two worlds a bit closer together. But in more important ways, so does Mark Liddel's 'Ebony RSW45 with a 6x7 back' as does my suggestion of the 6x9 Linhof. These outfits, provide view camera controls with the convenience of roll film handling, for which there still remains a strong supply of state-of-the-art film emulsions.

 

If I had to choose one camera with one lens for landscape, and carry it everywhere with the minimum of fuss and gadgets on a long trip without a vehicle or pack-horse, it would be back to Hasselblad with the SWC as Mohir Ali suggests - probably the most compact handful of quality gear ever produced.

[jenny_jaques]

"If I had to choose one camera with one lens for landscape, and carry it everywhere with the minimum of fuss and gadgets on a long trip without a vehicle or pack-horse,..." and yes Scott, the Mamiya 7II is also a qualifying candidate, but the reason I would go for the SWC is that I would cheat and take another magazine (.. or two).