Which Camera

[dave_dejoy]

<p>My experience with MF is limited to the Yashicamat. I am looking to move into something with interchangeable lenses and have narrowed things to the Pentax 645 or the Mamiya rb67. Both seen to offer good quality for the dollar. Any recommendations from those with more experi ence? Thanks.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Having used almost all of them, my preference is a Hasselblad 500 series for the best results, and the Pentax 6x7 for the most handholdable. The old Rollei twins are very nice too, but hard to handhold. Used in natural light with a tripod, a Planar f3.5 Rollei would be my choice. But the lenses are not interchangeable. I traded my RZ for a Deardorff which I liked much better.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>As far as I understand, the P645 feels and handles very much like a normal SLR, with autofocus, metering, and so on. It's compact and light for an SRL MF. The rb67 is a lot larger and heavier, and really more at home on a tripod in a studio than out and about. It gives you substantially larger negatives than the p645. Either system's lenses are just fine.</p>

<p>I got a Pentax 67 as upgrade from my Yashica Mat, my first MF camera. As Bruce says, it's actually very compact and light for a 6x7 format MF camera, and even more so if you use the waist-level finder instead of the prism (which chould not be a problem if you're used to a Yashica Mat). That prism is almost a third of the entire camera weight...</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I have a Pentax 645 and I like using it. I carry it frequently. I have the older model, which is manual focus. It has some automatic functions, but I almost never use them. I think it is a durable camera, and I am satisfied with it. </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>One point about the Pentax 6x7 is holding it in vertical mode. Being like a 35 SLR, holding it would be the same. Compounded by the extra weight. That's why the RB was so popular. The RZ can be handheld. It's one of the cameras used on America's Next Top model. And, that's with the prism.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Do you usually crop when you shoot 6x6? Are you happy with the print quality? If yes, then 645 is a very nice format. You may want to add the Bronica ETRSi to your short list, too. Excellent lenses, leaf shutters, and inexpensive.</p>

[kelly_hughes]

<p>I don't want to badmouth any of the other models, but I just don't know anything about them. That being said, I have two of the Pentax 645N's and like them very much. (I don't actually use both, I just bought a second bundle to get a particular lens I wanted, and haven't sold it off yet cuz it's nice to have a backup just in case.) </p>

<p>Unlike the previous P645 owner, I'm more of an automated guy. I like the focus confirmation I get with old manual focus lenses, and the only thing I choose manually is the aperture. Basically, I decide on the DOF I want, and let the camera figure out how to get the exposure right using shutter speed. </p>

[stp]

<p>The Pentax 645 (NII) is probably my favorite system and the best value I've ever had. I liked the Pentax 67, but it got to be too heavy for me. The Mamiya 7II produces outstanding quality, but it's relatively difficult to use and is pretty much limited to wide to normal.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>For me it has to be the RB67.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>depends on what you shoot, actually. You doing Street?...landscapes?...portraits?....travel?....only studio?....only natural light?...leaf shutter lenses for quietness and high flash sync speeds? Do you want lightweight?....a full system eventually?....versatility regardless of weight?</p>

<p>Of the two you mention, you don't seem to care about size or weight. The 645 is more 35mm like and no more negative area, if your 6x6 is always cropped, than your present camera....the rb67 has a much larger negative thus finer detailed prints at same final print size as the 645. Although both can be taken into the field....the 645 is more suited for lugging around with lots of accessories.</p>

<p>Someone above mentioned the Mamiya 7. Great camera. I personally have owned presently or in the past....Mamiya C220 TLR w/3 lenses, Rollieflex TLR 75mm (fixed lens), Fuji 645 (fixed lens), Mamiya 645 SLR w/4 lenses, and Mamiya 7 Rangefinder w/2 lenses. But for sheer shooting pleasure, relatively lightweight, relatively compact system, choice of moderate wide to moderate telephoto lenses, and incredible image quality....today I would sell them all and just keep the Mamiya 7. Only caveat to that is portraits (or close up work...ie macro)....if you want head and shoulder portraits from the mamiya 7 you almost always have to crop quite a bit....close focussing is NOT the 7's strong suit. But, at that negative size....does it actually matter that you have to crop a bit for a head and shoulder shot?....unless that is the primary reason for the camera, I wouldn't hesitate. However, they are NOT cheap....but they are surely worth every dime of it.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I agree with Thomas on the Mamiya 7. Great camera, fnatastic lenses, some limitations, and expensive. Love it, and they'll have to pry it from my hands when I die.</p>

[gary_watson]

<p>I've suckered for all three format sizes over the past couple years, thanks to fortunate deals and a sub-strain of the same virus that filled a cabinet with Nikon gear. 645 format lets you shoot much like 35mm but delivers a markedly bigger neg. I went with Mamiya and like the system as much as others adore Pentax--both deliver. I recently lucked into a NOS Mamiya RB67 Pro S and a 90/3.5mm and 150/3.5KL that I've had great fun with. The negs and slides are stunning. That said, the Mamiya RB kit soaks up most of the seats in my Domke F1X. Add another back, hoods, film, meter and, well, it's plainly a load of gear with a tripod in tow. Happy to have it, though, and look forward to blowing as much film as I can over the summer. Have to admit that I've not used my Bronica SQ-B much. Not sure if it's the 6x6 format or the lack of lenses beyond the 80mm that keeps it on the shelf. Prices on MF are generally still low, so if you can do basic Mamiya RB and Pentax 645 kits, I'd do it and patiently add lenses and accessories whenever possible.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>"The old Rollei twins are very nice too, but hard to handhold"???</p>

<p>FWIW I can't imagine any MF camera that's easier to hand hold than a Rolleiflex TLR or one of it's many copies.</p>

[dave_dejoy]

<p>Thanks, everyone. Lots of different opinions. To narrow things down a little. I am not interested in studio or portrait really. I plan to work mostly from a tripod. However, cost is still a consideration. I do hope to scan using a flatbed scanner and to do some back and while.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I plan to work mostly from a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then go for the big guns, i.e., Mamiya RB67/RZ67.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do hope to scan using a flatbed scanner</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you have a digital workflow, shoot digital.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>Dave, any of the options you consider will probably make you happy. The Pentax 645 (or the Pentax 67, don't forget), Mamiya RB/RZ, Hasselblad, Bronica - they're all basically good gear with very good lenses. The Pentaxes are the most portable and easy to use out and about among the SLR systems. The Mamiya 7 (or the Bronica RF645 - an often overlooked choice) are more compact of course, but they're rangefinders with a limited selection of lenses so that is a consideration.<br>

If you're going to scan - and most people do, and are happy with it, Mr. Bueh's seemingly endless complaints to the opposite notwithstanding - remember that larger negatives are easier to scan and will give you better results with a cheaper scanner. It's a tradeoff: smaller, lighter camera with more shots per roll on one hand, but need for higher-end scanner and less resolution on the other. Where your priorities lie is of course completely up to you.</p>

<p>But, if you're at all able to, try to use, or at least hold, each camera before you buy. The handling is very, very different from camera to camera, and hte subjective feel makes a major difference in how usable a camera is for you. This spring I walked into a camera store fully intending to try out and probably buy a Mamiya 7. By the time I was done I'd realized that the Mamiya - fine as it is - is not a camera for me. Meanwhile I checked out the Pentax 67 they had since I was there anyway; this is what I've ended up with. The shape, the handling and the feel of using it suits me very well. From an objective evaluation of each cameras' strengths the Mamiya should have clearly been the best camera for me. But handling and feel matters hugely, and I would never realized the Pentax was the better fit without playing with both cameras for a while.</p>

 

[yuri_huta]

<p>The Pentax 645, specifically the 645N gets my vote. You mentioned tripod work, the 645N has tripod sockets on the vertical and horizontal bases, so it makes switching from a horizontal to a vertical composition fairly easy. The viewfinder is much brighter than the original Pentax 645 and the metering, especially the dual six segment matrix metering is quite good. For what it is worth to you, the 645N can be easily set to imprint data (lens, shutter speed, aperture etc.) on the film, just outside of the image area.</p>

<p>I have owned the Bronica SAQi system as well as a modest Pentax 67 system, but decided to stay with the Pentax 645N, because of ease of use. I don't hesitate to use it handheld and I don;t hesitate to take it with me, whereas the Pentax 67 always required me to think about the weight of it all. This was a similar consideration with my thinking when deciding about a Mamiya RB / RZ system - I felt with my experience with the Pentax 67, its size would be an important variable in deciding whether or not to take it with me. The Pentax 645N is so close in size/weight to my 35mm gear, that size does not factor into deciding whether or not to take it.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Since as you say you mainly plan to shoot on a tripod, outdoors, you have plenty of choice. Both cameras you have already narrowed it down to offer fantastic value for money. Here are some of my thoughts on their relative merits...</p>

<p>The RB67 offers several advantages over the P645:<br>

- larger negatives/slides<br>

- can change films mid-roll<br>

- choice of backs for different formats: 645-6x6-6x7-6x8 cm, and Polaroid/Fuji instant<br>

- WLF viewing possible<br>

- no issues with vertical compositions [the back rotates]<br>

- close-focusing [thanks to the bellows focusing] with no extra attachments needed<br>

- no batteries required [out in the field, this can be critical!]</p>

<p>The P645 has advantages too, but mostly in the area of automation, which is not all that important when you are taking your time shooting from a tripod. Setting these to one side, I think that the significant advantages it would have for you are:<br>

- lower kit weight<br>

- faster lenses<br>

- faster top shutter speed</p>

<p>I shoot with a Mamiya 645 outfit, and a Mamiya Universal outfit (multiformat rangefinder up to 6x9 and full-frame Polaroid). I favour the M645 for big trips abroad - I am willing to sacrifice image size because I gain a wider and faster range of lenses, and the TTL metering and interlocks mean I am unlikely to screw up. On the other I tend to favour the Universal for walkabouts and landscapes closer to home, family Polaroids, interiors, flash-lit subjects (the leaf-shutter lenses are an advantage) and so on. An RB67 would be somewhat heavier than the Universal and also harder to hand-hold.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Oh and by the way, Bueh B.'s mantra "If you have a digital workflow, shoot digital" does have validity, but only if the emphasis is on the "work" in "workflow" (i.e. if you need to make a living from it). If you are a hobbyist, there's no reason not to shoot and scan film, as the volumes will be small. I actually enjoy it, and have learned things about photographic craft as a consequence of it. My mantra could be: "Digital for workflow, film for funflow"...except I don't believe in setting up artificial dichotomies between the technologies either, and use them both.</p>

<p> </p>

[xato]

<p>I vote for P645N. I use the 33-55 and 80-160 lens. This covers all my landscape needs. I like the tripod mount on the side for verticals so I don't have to do weird things with the ball head.</p>

 

[philippartridge]

<p>Mr DeJoy, what exactly will you shoot with the MF you buy, and what focal length lenses do you think you will need? Is mobility and carry weight important?</p>

<p>Let me help you rule out the finest optical quality MF camera system - the Mamiya 7. If you need longer than a normal lens, if you need exact framing, if you need close focus, if you are a heavy user of pola and/or grad nd filters, buy something else!</p>

<p>On the contrary, if you want wide angle (near) perfection, lighter than DSLR weight/bulk/portability, 35mm equivalent lenses of 21mm to 40mm, in-lens leaf shutters (almost silent and vibration-free), a very smooth shutter release (thus enabling inconspicuous shooting), ultra low distortion and 35mm level MTF performance on a 6x7 frame with no need for backs - the Mamiya 7 series is the one, no question. Engineering and reliability at a very high level, with wonderful ergonomics. They feel like a camera should, rather than a small loaf of Estonian dark rye bread with knobs attached. 645 equivalents are available in the RF645 and Fuji's excellent GA series, but these lack the overall panache of the Mamiya 7. Batteries last forever and weigh next to nothing. A great field camera.</p>

<p>Most of the MF SLRs are worse to handle than a good lightweight 4x5; it beats me why anyone would prefer one outside a studio, unless they have a pack animal handy, of course. And a *very* hefty tripod to help dampen the massive mirrors and support the mass! But, vive la difference, I guess. regards, philip.</p>