Portrait Camera........ETRSi or RZ Pro II

[chad_rolls]

Ok, I am looking for a good portrait camera that can be used indoors

as well as out. I like the idea of the 6x7 neg and I really like the

RZ body. At the present time though, I could only afford the kit

(body, back, lens) and a 180 lens for portraits. I am not sure how I

feel about the weight for carying it in the field. With the ETRSi I

could afford body, 2 backs, prism, speedgrip, 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm.

I would rather have the 67 neg then the 645 but the 645 will be a lot

smaller to carry and a lot cheaper.

 

I plan to do both indoor and outdoor portraits professionally. Is

645 suitable for professional portraiture? I am open to any

advice/oppinions from anyone who has used either of the above systems

or know any pros who do. (not big name pros, but the local guys you

all probably know) Thanks a lot.

[peter_hughes]

Personally, I have no use for 645. I know this is going to annoy many people but, IMO, it's too small for serious portraiture, being primarily used by wedding shooters and people just graduating from 35mm.

 

The Mamaya RZ is a big, heavy camera indeed--and, if you ask me, way overpriced. You might look at a used Pentax 6x7 and the 135mm f/4 SMC Takumar. The Pentax is much cheaper than the Mamaya, somewhat smaller and lighter too. Primary disadvantages: no interchangable backs, flash synch at 1/30 or below. But the 135mm is a great portrait lens, which focuses very close without extension tubes. I should add that I like to work in close and therefore prefer lenses in the 135mm - 150mm range, rather than in the 180mm - 200mm range.

 

For my distinctly "non-professional" portraits, I use a Pentax w/135mm SMC and a gorgeous old Hassy 500C/M w/150mm f/4 C T* Sonnar--that is, when I can't get my subjects in front of my 8x10.

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

[dave_wilson1]

Hi Chad, If you're after the real thing, go with the RZ kit and 180, then "be patient" and other toys will come in time. I use Hasselblads, but I have rented the RZ several times and the results are outstanding, and I think the camera is very comfortable to use, even hand held. Good luck.

[john_p]

While I've said it many times before, (and yes I own one) it sounds like what you need is a used RB-67 Pro-S system. I agree with what a poster said about 645, why not just get sharper 35mm lenses? 6x6 or 6x7 is the way to go for medium format. For portrait you want 67. The Pentax is a good option. But I would still favor the RB. Get a Pro-S (or "SD") model with "C" or KL lenses, the 127, 150 soft focus, and 180 would all be great for portraits. (I have a 127 KL) The RB will give you all the great features of the RZ like bellows focusing, leaf shutter and revolving/interchangable backs, but at a much more affordable price. And you're not really loosing that much by not going with the RZ other than being the newest and best. True, you will have to cock the film back and you won't have the electronic shutter or fine focus knob, but big deal. These are not vital features and with the RB you never have to worry about batteries! Hope this helps.

 

-John

[tony_doucet]

I have to disagree with the notion that a 645 camera is not suitable for portrait work because of its "small" negative. I use a Mamiya 645 regularly in portrait work and have absolutely no complaints at all about sharpness, contrast, or whatever in portraits of any size. Perhaps this is because of tremendous improvements in film and print products or perhaps it is because, as others have suggested, the technical demands of portrait photography are less than other disciplines. Whatever the reason, you can take commercially successful portraits with a 645 system and, as you suggest, get more "stuff" for a given amount of money.

I really enjoy using this camera. I bought it primarily as a "field" camera because of its small size. Like you, I was concerned about lugging a ton of stuff around with me. Since then the camera has become pretty much a mainstay and gets used for damn near everything, in the studio or in the field.

Having said that, I do have to admit that I have some niggling complaints about the M645 system. It is awkward to use this camera for a vertically framed portrait. Not impossible, just awkward compared to using it for horizontally framed shots. The shutter is focal plane, so to be able to use flash at any shutter speed (in certain situations to balance flash and ambient light) I had to buy much more expensive leaf shutter lenses.

[victor_lioce]

Guys!! Slow down and think a little more! First, remember that if you are selling images that there is a standard for sizes to which most people adhere, that being 8x10. So first if you think you are getting a bigger negative from 6x6 than 6x4.5, it only applies if you always print full frame, square images. The 6x6 neg is only 16.67% bigger than the 6x4.5 neg assuming the 8x10 format.

 

Now there is a 16.67% difference in negative size between 6x6 and 6x7. But if you maintain the 8x10 standard there is a 55% difference in size between both the 6x4.5 and the 6x6 when compared with the 6x7.

 

So, here is what I recommend. If you are currently shooting for an 8x10 format, there is no practical value between the negative sizes of 6x4.5 & 6x6. However there is a value of a 33% reduction in magnification if you are printing full frame 6x7.

 

Consider the weight, availability of lenses, mirror vibration versus leaf shutters, flash sinchronization, durability and availability of repair parts. You will be far better off using these as your determining factors with the improvements in film these days. I still use a Mamiya C330 with an eye level prizm for my 120/220 work and print almost all square images. It is especially great for wedding albums as there is no vertical versus horizontal formats to consider when assembling the album and the page orientation. But that's just my view.

[karras_argiris]

i am from greece and ihave both cameras use.ETRSi RZ & 645.

ME AND MY FRIENDS WE MAKE A POLAROID PORTRAIT CONTEST ETRSi vs RZ.

the big difference is that RZ IS MORE SHARP AND THIS BECAUSE OF THE LENSES.

I AM A FASHION FOTOGRAPHER AND I PREFER ETRSi BECAUSE I THINK THAT MEDIUM FORMAT IS 6x4.5 AND NOT BIGGER AND THAT IS WE SHOOT HUMANS WE SHOOT MOTION AND WE FAST SHUTERS TO CATCH THE EMOTIONS.

SOME PHOTOGRAPHERS SAYS THAT ( IF YOU PHOTOGRAPH PEOPLE YOU MUST USE 35mm CAMERAS ONLY). I THINK THAT THE BEST CHOICE FOR YOU IS ETRSi

ECONOMIC AND FAST.ALSA ETRSi HAVE COMPUR LENSES YOU KNOW THAT.?

[peter_hughes]

Something that no one seems to understand when discussing the pros and cons of various cameras is that every camera has its own "personality" and, hence, lends itself to a particular kind of shooting--and, believe it or not, seems to result in a particular kind of photograph.

 

For years I wondered why top NY fashion photographers favored the Hasselblad--especially with the 150mm Sonnar lens. Then I handled one and realized that, yes, it is a perfect photographic phallus: sleek, smooth, just the right length, precision-built, with a wonderful �feel��and, after all, most fashion photographs are of women taken by men. And don�t discount the status factor! �My camera is bigger/more expensive than your camera� is definitely something that men consider�especially when they want to impress women! Put a black 150mm Sonnar on a Hassy, a big eye-level prism on top, and finish it off with a compendium lens shade, and let me tell you, anyone you photograph with it is going to be intimidated by your big sexy, uh, camera.

 

On a more mundane level, Ansel Adams realized that different formats cause photographers to �see� differently. He said that the difference between an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 negative is not simply one of a little bit of grain--basically unnoticeable to the naked eye--because he understood that one actually takes different pictures with an 8x10. And so, you will take different pictures with a Hassy, a Mamaya RB, a Pentax 6x7, or a 645. Each one will feel differently to you; each one will cause you to see differently. And each one will have a different interface with the model. A Hasselblad skeptic said on one of these boards recently that a Hassy is used just to impress the client. Well, let me tell you that even if he was right�which he is not�that would be reason enough to use one!

 

Many years ago, when considering the purchase of my first serious medium format camera, I agonized over the choice between a Hassy and a Pentax 6x7. The Pentax was the more reasonable choice: it was far cheaper and had the added benefit of the larger, more practical negative size. But my choice was made when a friend of mine said, �Well, Peter, you have to be able to *romance* the camera.� And I knew that the Hassy was far more �romanceable� than the Pentax. Now, many years later, I have both and realize that each one, in its own way, is romanceable, and I am capable of taking fine pictures with either one. But I simply *had* to own the Hassy�for my ego, if nothing else, and to prove that I was �good enough� to own such an expensive, impressive tool.

 

When I moved to Monterey, CA, the former home of the great �F/64� school photographers, I had to prove to myself that I was good enough to use an 8x10, just like them. So for over a year I used nothing but, and produced some very fine, albeit derivative, photos with it. Then I grew beyond that and I discovered that I could use other formats as well�and my photos became less derivative in the process. Now, frankly, I can�t afford to buy film for the 8x10 and use it very rarely. But I still have it in my closet and one day soon I will buy a box of film for it. I can�t wait to see what will result now that I don�t *have* to shoot with it anymore, now that I have grown beyond the need to prove myself with it. Yet, it was an important phase for me to work through.

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

[jason_wallace]

You can loose detail with various accessories, but you can't add it... the larger negative also renders prints with smoother tonal gradations. As somebody who does film editing in a lab on a Lucht editor every day, I can also say that ETRSi magazines consistantly have poor spacing, whereas the RZ and RB magazines are pretty even, though worse as they age. The speed grip with the ETRSi is the kiss of death, by the way- a typically mediocre magazine becomes a beast with overlapping and huge gaps...

[charles_jacques2]

Anyone want to comment regarding B&W vs Color print film and camera selection regarding the above?

[eric_duncan]

Looking back through this thread, I am surprised that no one has offered a rebuttal to the statement, "My camera is bigger/more expensive than your camera is definitely something that men consider,especially when they want to impress women! Put a black 150mm Sonnar on a Hassy, a big eye-level prism on top, and finish it off with a compendium lens shade, and let me tell you, anyone you photograph with it is going to be intimidated by your big sexy, uh, camera."--Peter Hughes, September 30, 1999

What? The absolute last thing you want to do to a portrait sitter/model is intimidate her/him. Follow that advice, and you'll end up with portraits of people looking like animals in the headlights of an oncoming car.

The truth is, all medium format sizes from 6 x 4.5 to 6 x 9, and all medium-format cameras from the RZ67 to a Hassy to the ETRSi have their virtues and vices. But to comment on the original question, an RZ67 and an ETRSi, used properly, can both produce lovely, sharp portraits. So choose your medium format on budget and personal preference. When it comes to photography, focus on the subject/photographer rapport first (relax, don't intimidate), lighting and composition second, and medium-format make/model choice a distant third. Your portraits will be the better for it. And that's what should matter to a photographer.

[chris_sheppard]

Chad-

 

Consider it like this: Bronica 645 = $3000 & 5 pounds...Mamiya 67 = $6000 & 10 pounds. Everything for the Mamiya is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Everything for the bronica is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But if you "settle" for the Bronica, will you regret it later? I did.

[albert_martinez]

Hello Chad,

 

I currently own both cameras. It would be a stretch to say the Bronica even comes close to the RZ Pro II level of performance and sophistication.

 

The RZ is heavier, a lot more expensive, and not as maneuverable-but I�ll guarantee you�ll never shoot a whole roll of film through it because you left the dark slide in.

 

If the dark slide on the Bronica moves out by say 4 or 5 mm, the camera doesn�t consider this inserted and will allow you to shoot to your hearts content.

 

How about something as simple as a location on the camera back for the dark slide, were talking pretty basic stuff here folks. How hard would it be to label the fricken switches so you don�t need to guess what�s what when you�re in a rush, how much extra could that cost??

 

Throw in the lousy web site, mediocre glass, very poor support for good measure, and a host of other issues like rental equipment, and you round off the list quite nicely.

 

I believe Bronica does succeed in offering a much more affordable alternative to the Hasselblad platform (mainly wedding photographers). From a business stand point, there is no competition, Bronica wins easily.

 

To Blad or not to Blad was quickly resolved when I heard the horror stories about focusing screen misalignments, mechanical issues, and a host of other nonsense-like having to remove the back for a double exposure, or my favorite �what the hell to do with the 40 dollar dark slide when it�s removed.

 

It�s an archaic system design in need of a major overhaul�Could that be the H1-I think not�

 

The RZ has been the choice of top pros for years because it�s well thought out, and delivers an exceptional value for your money. Therefore, for what it is worth, can the ETRSi idea, and save a bit longer for the RZ ProII, you never regret it.

 

Regards-Albert

[christopher_ward]

The Bronica ETRsi was the first medium format 645 I owned. I really have no time for it at all. The lenses were poor. I took some great pictures on it using the 75mm zenzanon,150mm & 250mm zenzanons and the two times convertor. But in truth I was spoilt in quality terms by the SMC pentax lenses I was shooting 35mm on. They were superior in every way and showed the rather contrasty zenzanons to be somewhat less than good. Better at 645 would be Mamiya, Pentax or Contax. Or go for Hasselblad. I use a range of medium format equipment and would say use what you feel comfortable with. Choose cameras that photographers trust as reliable. Pick them up and see how each one feels to use. Ergonomics are a real decider for me. What are you likely to use it for, does the camera work well in the circumstances under which you are intending to use it. I use an RB67 pro SD and the quality is outstanding. It is versatile and reliable and I can make excellent images with it. The Bronica is a useable machine with a lot of flaws. It is a machine to grow out of rather than into. Most Mamiya 645 lenses don't have leaf shutters unless you choose the leaf shutter lenses. Lens quality on the Mamiya 645 blows the Bronica away. The Pentax 645s have outstanding lenses, but, again, only a few have leaf shutters. The Contax has outstanding lenses too comparable to Hasselblad (Zeiss optics).

The Bronica ETRSi is a false economy in my mind and I wouldn't buy one to save money on film or equipment. The Rz67 would let you shoot 6/8, 6/7, 645, panoramic 35mm, standard 35mm and 70mm. There are Polaroid backs, motorised backs and the lenses are top drawer. The rotating back makes it a pleasure to use since portrait and landscape are achieved at the flick of a wrist. Publishers love the format.

 

Chris Ward