Utility of 645n when you have a Pentax 67II?

[bob_tourdot]

<p>I'm trying to rationalize a Pentax 645N or NII while I already have a 67II, and I'm wondering what others experience are. I will keep the 67 and continue to use it, but do people find the 645 to be a significantly lighter and quicker addition to your kit? I've got a collection of 67 lenses and AF500FTZ flash, so it seems like the 645n would offer another degree of freedom at relatively low cost. A review at Luminous Landscape got me thinking along these lines.</p>

<p>I have a DSLR for quick shooting, I still like to use the medium format for landscapes and some portraits, city and family shots.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

bob</p>

[dougmiles]

<p>I hear you, Bob... And the 67 lenses retain diaphragm automation on the 645, correct metering, and the focus confirmation will still work too, so the 645 is a rational "second body" for a 67 kit as an LL article suggests. Being a gear-head anyway and liking Pentaxes, I added a pair of P645NII a couple years ago to my group of P6x7 and P67II bodies. I am very fond of the 6x7/67/67II over a long time, having bought my first one in 1976, so I wondered how I'd get on with the 645...<br /> With the boxy removable film insert, the 645 feels "long" front to back like a video camera. And its motor film wind and battery requirements and need to have something to hold onto lead to the substantial right-side grip. It's comfy enough to hold, not as tall as a 67, but my impression is of similar overall bulk. Of course there are the added benefits of auto film wind, more exposure automation, quick film changes with preloaded inserts, more exposures per roll, data imprinting, autofocus, and full compatibility with P67 lenses.<br /> I don't regret getting the P645 kit (and a couple of its zoom lenses), do enjoy its features, but still feel more "at home" with the P67 system.</p>

[gaspar_homs1]

<p>Hello, I also have both, the Pentax 67II and Pentax 645n, I use the pentax 645n in situations when the speed to take a photo is crucial, like birthsdays, weddings, some macro shoots to live insects. I use the pentax 67II for landscapes, and to do macro shoots when I can take my time to shoot it.<br>

the main advantage of the 67 is the resolution, and the main advantage to the 645n, is that it seems like a convencional slr (AF, motor drive...)<br>

the lack of the two models are the slow speed sincronitzation, that can be solved by using a lens with integrated leaf shutter.<br>

I have and y use both, but in diferents situations, in fact the pentax 645n is my 35mm slr substitute, and the pentax 67II is my medium format fine work photocamera. I can't live without anyone. (it's a joke of course)</p>

[yuri_huta]

<p>I was in a somewhat similar situation to yours not too long ago. I had a 6x7 as well as some 645N bodies and lenses. I decided to sell the 6x7 gear (6x7 MLU TTL prism - not the reportedly much brighter and more sophisticated 67II options) as I needed some studio lighting gear and one system had to go to finance it all. I do feel that the 645N outfit is much faster as well as lighter. I did find myself always reaching for the 645N as opposed to the 6x7 outfit for some 'quick' unscripted photos. I know that I would have avoided taking the 6x7 gear with me to Ecuador, but I did not hesitate taking a 645N and two lenses for the trip. Perhaps if I had the 67II and brighter TTL finder I would have strongly considered it instead. But in the end the 645N outfit was with me on the trip, I used it most every day and I never regretted taking it. It did share space in the camera backpack with a DSLR outfit. I liked using it so much on this trip that I am considering something like a Canon G10 to replace the DSLR and to make room for another couple of 645 lenses, another 645N body (one loaded with B&W one loaded with color neg).<br>

I suspect my line of thinking is due to the MUCH brighter viewfinder in the 645N (the 645 does have a significantly darker viewfinder) as well as the more sophisticated dual six segment metering (as opposed to the center weighted only for both the 645 and the older 6x7 TTL finder). The AF is a nice touch and the AF confirmation (when manually focusing) is a very welcome option. I believe that the 67II's TTL finder shares a similar dual six segment meter as the 645N as well as being much brighter.<br>

In my ideal world, I would get a 67II with some wide lenses for landscape and architectural work - especially the 75mm shift (hard to part with that one) to go along with the 645N kit.<br>

Long winded and rambling way of saying get the 645NII.</p>

[pavelp]

<p>645n is no-worries-no-hassles camera. I have it for travels where I expect to be travelling with a group and don't want to hold-up the proceeding by using a slower camera but still want shoot MF and film. I usually preload three inserts, so changing film takes just a few seconds. Also, the smaller format saves you film (assuming you do not need 6x7 estate --- depends on the intended print size).</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>I own both Pentax 645 and 67 systems, and I find the 645 considerably more convenient to use. I can carry it around my neck with a couple lenses in my jacket pockets and not really notice that I'm carrying anything. I can't do the same with the 67. When I know I'll be taking my time and don't mind slightly reduced mobility and increased weight, I'll lug my 67 gear around.<br>

There is a pretty small difference quality between the two formats for most print sizes.</p>

[bob_tourdot]

<p>Thanks for passing on your experiences, I'll pursue adding a 645n or n2</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>I have both systems and they each have their own uses and merits. <br>

My Pentax 67 system (6x7, 67II, and various lenses) is for serious landscape photography where I can haul the heavy system around in my vehicle or carry parts of it for short distances. The strong shutter movement, which unlike the mirror can't be locked up before exposures ;-) , requires a heavy ballhead/tripod combo (I use a Really Right Stuff BH-55 plus the appropriate quick release plate and a big tripod) to stabilize the camera and that adds even more weight. The benefit is the size of the 6x7 negative/transparency. I like both bodies but the 67II is a real pleasure to work with on a tripod. I typically only use this system on pure photo expeditions due to its bulk and weight.<br>

My Pentax 645 system (645, 645NII, and various lenses) is far more portable, especially considering that it doesn't have the shutter slap problem and thus can be used with a far lighter tripod/ballhead system. I plan on using this system on trips to Death Valley and the Eastern Sierra this spring and in the High Sierra this summer, as a medium format system that I can lug around with a light tripod for support while taking a multi-purpose trip. I'll be taking along the 33-55 and 150-300 zooms to keep things light, and sometimes just using a monopod. Previously I've used several prime manual focus lenses with the 645 on a light tripod and been very pleased with the results. This is a more user-friendly medium format system that can tag along when you're traveling with others.<br>

Bill</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>I should add that I used the 645NII on a monopod two weeks ago while hiking, as a test run to see how well it works under those conditions. Pretty good, actually, though the combination of slow film and the lesser stability of the monopod created some difficulties and blurred shots in the forest. The 645/N is a lot more cumbersome than a small 35mm setup, e.g. Nikon F3, but still quite reasonable on a hike of a couple of miles. This is the farthest I've ever walked with a medium format SLR. However, next time I know I'll be in a forest I'll use faster film or a tripod instead of a monopod.</p>

<p>Also, in my first time using the 33-55mm FA lens I found way too much distortion at the short end for my tastes. It might not be noticed in some nature shots, but redwood trees were rather curved and I'm sure buildings would do the same. I'll need to do a comparison shoot with the 35m A, 45mm A , and 55mm A lenses which I have. It's too bad as I had hoped this zoom would make the system more portable with a range of focal lengths. Meanwhile, the 150/3.5 A that I just picked up was great to use in the field.</p>

<p>Bill D.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Red face here...</p>

<p>On that last trip, I shied away from using the 33-55mm zoom lens at the wide end due to apparent barrel distortion I saw through the viewfinder. I'm now packing up a few items for my next trip (which will happen after I get over this cold) and I decided to compare the distortion of the 33-55mm with the 35mm f/3.5. </p>

<p>Well, I tried the 35mm first and it had quite a bit of barrel distortion. I looked more carefully and that curved vertical window frame is actually parallel to the curved edge of the viewfinder. Hmmm.... now I remember about how Nikon viewfinders have long had some pincushion distortion built in to cancel out the barrel distortion on the wide-angle lenses. I'm seeing barrel distortion but it's in the *viewfinder*. I have used this lens before without having such distortion in my photographs.</p>

<p>On goes the 33-55 and it's almost the same, but it appears to have a little actual barrel distortion as the window frame and the edge of the viewfinder are not quite parallel in their curves. Still, not bad. I don't have any photos taken at or near 33mm with this lens so I can't check to be sure. Still, I strongly suspect I gave this lens a bum rap in my post above.</p>

<p>I'll have to report back later on what kind of results I get. I'll mostly be doing landscapes but I may get in some buildings and conifers which would allow me to assess this issue.</p>

<p>Bill De Jager</p>

[yuri_huta]

<p>Bill,<br>

Any more comparisons between the 35mm and the 33-55mm?<br>

Thanks, Yuri</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Sorry Yuri, but I ended up not doing any comparative tests on these two lenses. I used the 33-55 a little in April for landscape photography and the only problem I found with the quality of my photos was behind the viewfinder. I just took some more shots but that roll is not completed yet. </p>