Upgrading to medium format. Need help.

[terry_stevenson2]

Hey everyone,

I am an avid 35mm slr shooter. I am considering buying a Mamiya 645e

kit from B&H. They are 699.00, and that seems pretty fair to me,

when I compare it to how much I have spent on 35mm gear. I shoot a

lot of weddings and portraits, but I also shoot a lot of sports

where I need a 35mm. I am not sure how to compare focal lengths of

MF to 35mm. The 645e kit comes with an 80mm f/2.8 lens on it, and a

120 film back. The 80mm in MF translates to a 50mm length on 35mm,

so the question is, "When I look into my 35mm lens at 50mm, that's

what I will see when I look into a 80mm MF lens?" Is an 80mm MF lens

suitable for wedding photography, and portraits? Just trying to get

some opinions before I go out and buy it.

Thanks,

Terry

[godfrey]

80mm on 645 or 6x6 format is closer in angle of view to a 35-38mm lens on

35mm format. That said, it's a very flexible focal length for the format due to

the large negative area and ability to crop easily without losing quality. I've

shot a lot of different things with an 80mm lens on both these formats, it's truly

a very flexible lens.

 

Classical, head-shot type portraiture on 645 or 6x6 to me usually means a

120-150mm lens. An 80+150mm lenses for 645/6x6 is the 35mm format

equivalent of a 35mm and 85mm lens set.

 

Godfrey

[bill_dewberry]

The 645 80mm lens is equivalent to the 50 in 35mm, you are

absolutely correct.

[ashley_hosten]

Terry, why 645? If you're after the increased image size of MF, you could instead go for 6x6 (learning curve for composition), or 6x7 (WAY BIGGER than 35mm - same composition).

 

Here's the info you need to compare lenses across formats.

 

http://www.lighttec.com/angle.html

 

http://www.markrabiner.com/pdfs/LensangleofviewtableLong.pdf

 

One more thing; Your proposed step up to 645 is a small-ish one. The excellence of choice (and quality[?]) of 35mm format lens offerings, may make the move to 645 questionable. The Low Dispersion glass (as well as other formulations) of 35mm format lenses is actually ahead of most MF offerings. The size of the negative / slide, is what tips the "quality" balance in favour of MF. You get increased tonation in most cases - and larger blow-ups in many.

 

Not trying to put you off 645. Just letting you know you've got alot more choice. All the best. And 645 is fine BTW. The Contax for example, is supremely desirable.

[Brian]

<P>Have a look at <a href="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/square.html">Robert Monaghan's article</a> on the virtues of 6x6 versus 645. I chose 6x6 for my foray into medium format, and though I don't shoot enough to consider myself an expert, I believe Robert's got it right.</P>

[jim_reed]

Terry:

 

Like you, I am a long-time 35mm user and I added a 6x6 medium format with an 80mm lens to my arsenal a few months ago. A couple of comments:

 

1) The 80m lens is the "normal" lens for 6x6, and I could easily see doing a wedding with it and even some portrait work. As noted above, though, portraits with tighter head shots would require something in the 120 to 150mm range for 6x6. I find the 80mm a great utility lens, however, and it's a wonderful lens to begin to explore medium format with.

 

2) For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the move to medium format has been the 6x6 format. I would give it serious consideration if you're going the medium format route. It's a bigger change from 35mm than I had imagined, and it makes you think about composition in different ways. Simply put, it adds a different creative dimension to your photography.

 

35mm and 6x6 medium format complement each other in many ways. Whatever you choose, I think you'll find the move to medium format a lot of fun -- I certainly have.

[ashley_hosten]

Terry, I only shoot 6x6. I re-read your post and can say that there are restrictions to using MF.

 

MF isn't suited to many sports (American Football, Tennis, Soccer, Baseball, Ice-Hockey). But, its also suited to some (Cycling, Swimming, Boxing, Road-Running, Triathlon).

 

Basically, its the size and length of lenses, as well as top shutter-speeds that determine suitability. Also, how close you can get to the physical action.

 

But, in my opinion, MF beats 35mm DEAD for weddings. Not as fast, but better quality. TLR's are a cheap-ish introduction too.

[terry_stevenson2]

Sorry,

I didn't mean to mislead you.

I was going to keep my 35mm gear. I use a 1n, and all canon l glass, so I know how clean and clear the glass is. I was just wanting the medium format for weddings and portraits. The only reason I am considering 645 is the price. I just purchased a 5000 dollar atv, and I am still paying on it. I'm only 21, and I'm still in college, so money is kinda tight these days :)

Thanks for the help,

and keep the recommendations coming..

[ashley_hosten]

Are checking out pre-owned MF?

[ashley_hosten]

Have a look. Can't hurt.

 

http://www.adoramaphoto.com/catalog.tpl?op=results&sid=10295037864512613&cat1=Used&cat2=Mamiya%20TLR&cat3=Cameras

[frank_bunnik]

Take a look at www.philborges.com

A number of his Tibetan portraits are made with a 80mm on a 6x6 camera.

 

The 645e is not the most ideal camera. The prism is not a real prism but consists of a number of mirrors and has distortion. Also this prism can not be removed/changed. The camera is a bit cheapish built. Why not try to get a secondhand M645 1000s? Basically the same camera as the 645e but with removable viewfinder and an all metal body. The 645 lenses are very good.

 

For 6x6, a mamiya 330 (f or s) might also be intersting although the system is out of production. It is however, cheap, reliable and a easy available secondhand.

 

Good luck, Frank

[johan_erasmus]

You don't need help, you are right on track. I have used the Mamiya M645 and 645 1000S models for over twenty years and never looked back. You will be able to stock up on a complete range of lenses from ultra wide 35mm to a good long portrait 210mm for the price of one or two lenses of the well known 6X6 everyone is blathering about. When you get round to it, get a used 645 1000S as a second body. That will give you mirror lockup and more flexibility if you need to alternate film types.

 

If you must have the square format and the right brand name for a specific job (been there a few times) then borrow or rent.

 

As for comparing focal lengths to 35 mm, best is have a look through the viewfinder and compare. The difference between the aspect ratios may influence the final choice of lens. I would choose the 45mm and 110mm next after the 80mm. If your finances should avail, then the 55-110 and 105-210 zooms are brilliant.

[edsel_adams]

An old trick:simply remove 40% from a med format(645 or 6x6) lenses focal length to get a approximate 35mm equal.(40% of 80=32 80-32=48.)It is easy to figure 6x7 lenses,just halving the focal length does this.

The aspect ratio of the 35mm frame (1.33:1) is equal to the 6x9 format.The 645 & 6x7 are more square,less rectangular.This does indeed take getting used to after shooting 35mm.

As far as moving to MF,the 645 is the best choice IMHO.I have used these for weddings for years.Most 6x7 cameras are far heavier & much more costly to shoot(30% higher than 645)!Frame count on 220 film is 30 with 645,only 20 with 6x7.(15 vs 10 W/120 films)

If the 645E is built half as tough as the older bodies,you cant go wrong.

[bob_chong]

RE: "An old trick...simply remove 40% from a med format(645 or 6x6) lenses focal length to get a approximate 35mm equal.(40% of 80=32 80-32=48.)"

 

Hmmm...wouldn't it be easier to just multiply by 60% in the first place? No wonder we (the U.S.) always rank low in math.

[robert_kennedy]

Terry - You might want to check out used Bronica gear. Just as good, well built, and more versatile than the 645e.

[terry_stevenson2]

You must have read my mind.

Between now and this morning, I've shifted my focus to a Bronica used system.

They have quite a few in the Adorama Used Equipment section.

I have about 1500.00 to spend, so I'm not sure what to get.

[scott walton]

Terry, Bronicas are a great camera line. I have been shooting with them since the mid 80's and have never regretted it. SQA's and SQAI's are a very stable body and the lens are superb. Very easy and fast to load and very light. At work, I shoot with an RB and when I pick up my Bronicas they seem lighter than air... compared to the RB's!!! For weddings I would use a 50mm and an 80mm and do a full wedding without any problem! Portraits are better done (if you are doing head and shoulder stuff) with a 150mm or better yet a 200mm. If you are doing full lengths, an 80mm could very easily be used... I do it all the time. The great part of square is that you have MANY options after the fact. You could crop any way or have it printed square which is what alot of my customers want now that they see a large 20" square print! Another great thing with shooting square is that you never have to fiddle with moving the camera or flash when your shooting like you would with a 645. Your flash stays on top and you just shoot away! No muss no fuss!