graham_martin2 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 <p>I have both of these cameras but I really don't need both of them. To tell the truth I bought both of them because I wanted to dabble in the MF world. I am primarily a 35mm user. I don't use either one often enough to justify keeping them both, and I also want to raise some money toward a Nikon D700. So, I am looking for advice and suggestions. Here are the pros and cons of both cameras from my point of view:</p> <ol><li>RB67 is very enjoyable due to its totally manual operation. Really makes me take the time to set up the picture. Great for landscapes which is primarily what I use the camera for. </li><li>Manual focus eliminates shooting some moving objects for me since it takes me too long to re-focus</li><li>Fastest shutter speed on RB67 is only 1/400 second compared to 1/1000 on Pentax</li><li>Pentax645N is very enjoyable because it is very lightweight and therefore very portable.</li><li>Pentax 545N functions similarly to a 35mm SLR which makes it easier to use, but does not test my photographic skills as much.</li><li>Primary use of 645N is for special shots at weddings.</li><li>I have more gear for my RB67 (4 lenses plus waist level and CS metering prism) than for the Pentax (just 2 lenses).</li><li>I have two Metz 45 CL-4 flashes which I can use with either camera.</li><li>My personal opinion is that what I really like about the RB67 is its heft, feel and operation while the Pentax is more practical and likely to get used more.</li></ol><p>So there it is folks, thoughts, suggestions?</p><p>Thanks</p><p>Graham</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_momary Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>In this market will you recoup enough to cover the 'pain' of selling them? Prices are somewhat low, as you know. Ebay is a crap shoot and KEH will squeeze you to the lower limit. If you kept one, I guess I'd favor the Mamiya in that you have the accessories, the glass is stunning, and the bodies are robust. Your 35mm size stuff should give you the portability you seek.<br> Over the last 3 years I bought MF myself, never being able to afford them before. I use Mamiya 645 and RB67 systems. Even picked up a Crown Graphic 4x5 that I rebuilt as a LF gambit into field photography. I do shoot mostly digital anymore, but playing with film is fun too in formats > my Nikon F4s. I'll admit to being a it of a gear hound too, so my view is a tad tarnished :-)<br> So, my confusing tirade.<br> Jim 'I wanna D700 too" M.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Keep the RB, the 645 is too close to 35.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Thanks Jack, I wonder what the responses would be like if I posted the same question in the Pentax forum. Do the mods allow the same question to be posted in two places?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Thanks Jim, I feel your pain! I also have an F5 and an N6606 (which is kind of cute because the lenses require an aperture ring). I agree that it is fun to get out the cameras of yesteryear and run a roll or two of film through them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_tourdot Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>I saw this and it got me thinking, and I thought I'd send out a few thoughts - <br> I have a 645N, 67II (so you may detect a bias). I find the 645 to be a very flexible camera and I really enjoy using it. It's like using a 35mm but with the big film.<br> If the lenses are stopped down like your probably doing for landscapes, I don't think you'll see much difference between the lenses.<br> The D700 may overlap more with the 645 than the RB67.<br> There's something to be said for keeping the camera you'll use more. It's easier to remember where all the controls are. The Pentax is probably easier to remember since it's more like a 35mm.<br> You don't need the camera to slow you down - you could do that yourself. While I'm sure people will say you can take the RB67 up a mountain, the 645 is smaller and lighter - may not need as heavy a tripod - that could be a factor in getting a landscape shot. <br> With the prices for film MF where they're at, I'm planning to keep both - they seem like such a deal based on my previous expectations. I take the 67 when I know there's something I want to take a sharp shot of, whereas the 645 is easier to take along on speculation. It also gets more shots per roll<br> I also have a Zone VI 4x5 I'm trying to learn, and take the digital slr to be sure to get an ok shot, so I'm very confused.<br> If you want to make large prints the 67 format is better, if you get the shot - </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_wilson1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>I like bigger cameras that give you a fantastic negative, so I will vote for the RB67. Personally I ue Hasselblads and D200s so I'm not biased, but I did use the RB quite a bit in a studio where I used to work and always admired the negatives I printed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_j._eberle1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>I find the niche where MF is most viable for me is with near-far DOF shots and have a 645N and 35mm SMC-A just for this. The Pentax 645 system does this more adeptly and more economically at high resolution than just about anything else. Since I also have a 4x5 with extensive moves to bring DOF and subject planes back into the range of optimum taking apertures, 6x7 without moves isn't so appealing.</p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve salmons Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Just a thought: Maybe you might consider selling both and getting a Hasselblad 500CM instead. In terms of weight and format it falls between the two systems and as you don't use 120 too much you would probably be Ok with just an 80mm Planar to start. A 'blad with a 80mm lens, A12 back, WLF and grip is still a very portable and hand-holdabe package.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Having the Mamiya 645 and the RB, I have found that both work very well. Have never considered carrying the RB to be that difficult. Maybe 30 years ago selling my 35 for a Mamiya C330 helped getting used to carrying bigger cameras! LOL. Read in a photo mag once, that 645 sells are dropping because people think it's too close to 35. The only problem I will have with the 6x7 negs is the enlarger that was given to me, will only go up to 6x6. But, another plus for the RB is the built in close-up capability. Might be another factor to consider. Maybe decide which camera does more what is needed than the other one can.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Some really helpful suggestions here. I had been thinking about throwing in the option of selling bith and getting the 500CM as Steve suggested. I have the 150 & 75mm for my Penyax but not the 35mm lens. Bob T had mentioned that the 6x7 is better when really wanting to get a sharp shot. Is that simply because the negs are larger than a 645, or do the lenses tend to be sharper?</p> <p>Still considering my option, and all of the above are giving me good feedback to ponder.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>6x6 is a great neg size. It allows square photos to be made without loss of negative area. It also allows several ways to crop the neg to make a standard 8x10 photo. But, what some people don't know, is that to make the 8x10 photo, the area that is cropped from the 6x6 is the same area as a 645.<br> The difference is that the 6x7 neg is larger, The 6x7 lenses are not as a whole, sharper. It depends on the individual lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>"Keep the RB, the 645 is too close to 35."</p> <p>Absurd. The 645 neg is about 2,7X the area of a 35mm neg. That's a much larger improvement than the move from 645 to 67.</p> <p>Most 645 systems are fairly compact and portable. Couple that with a huge increase in film area over 35mm and you've got an excellent format. As for which camera to keep, the OP need to decide what's most important - portability or the larger 67 neg.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_j._eberle1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Graham,<br> Each format has it's strengths and weaknesses. Portability is about the least of my concerns.<br> Somewhere between 645 and 67 falls the gray area wherein ultimate lens sharpness versus ultimate film resolving power begin to cross, and where the DOF considerations for not having available camera moves means stopping down to where diffraction limits start to render the format differences moot. None of this is cast in stone. A lot depends on the film and lens combinations, and in under what lighting circumstances you find yourself. If you've only got a 2800 dpi scanner available, or you commonly need to shoot 800 speed film bigger is better. If it's Velvia 50, and you don't mind paying for the occasional drumscan, 645 can go huge. If you aren't shooting with a waist level finder and you make rectangular prints, there's really no format advantage to 2-1/4 square over 645; the lenses are however proportionally larger due to the larger image circle required.<br> In trying to cover the spectrum from small formats to large, my suggestion is to look for what lenses and angles you can't do better another way in another format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_tourdot Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Re 645 vs 67 - I have no data to suggest that Pentax 67 lenses are better or worse than the 645 lenses - frankly I'm just basing my opinion and behavior on looking at transparencies or negatives on a light table - I don't print large enough to see much difference in prints.<br> I'm probably not operating at the ultimate levels, getting a very good 645 shot is probably par for me.<br> Just one note on cropping options - one thing that attracted me to the Pentax 645 was that when I was looking into L brackets for the 67II, I liked the simple solution on the 645 of a second tripod socket in the portrait orientation</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_clark1 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Sell them both. Truth is, once you buy the D700, neither of these cameras will see the light of day.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
25asa Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>I will be later this year or so be looking for a Pentax 645N body to buy, so if you decide to sell- give me a shout if you can wait till then. My lenses of choice will be the 75mm AF and 35mm AF.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Thanks Scott. If I do decide to sell the 645N I will let you know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Scott</p> <p>Even if get the D700 I still think I will use the MF from time to time. If I were considering a D3X with 24 megapixels then I would tend to agree. The D700 has the same number of megapixels as my D300 and so from that point of view the two cameras are similar. However, I would be moving to the D700 for the FX format and its low light capabilities at high ISO.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Robert, as the photo magazine mentioned. 645 sells were down because people looked at 645 as not much different than 35.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Jack W says "the area that is cropped from the 6x6 is the same area as a 645."</p> <p>Not really. 645 is pretty much a 5x7 rectangle and needs to be cropped on the long side to make a true 8x10. Cropping a 6x6 to a 4/3, 8x10 ratio will give the 6x6 an advantage in footprint.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtk Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>I have the Rb67 and three basic lenses, 90,127,180 + Nikon F100 and Nikon D80. Love all of them.....I really think that you need to consider what your end need is. If you want convenience and speed, Digi is the only way to go. That being said, my F100 with Ektachrome and Ektar as well as focus speed and framing speed kicks the @#$% out of the D80. I love shooting sports (2 boys, baseball, soccer etc.) I also shoot snowmobile racing. But at the end of the day, I love shooting landscapes. IMHO for ME, there isn't a better landscape camera than the RB. Big, tough, heavy, awesome glass, and now relatively inexpensive.<br> If you are going for maximum resolution and big blow me away wall prints....RB hands down over the 645. As far as a $2000.00 + D700...Why other than low light performance? Put your money in a cheaper body and load up on great glass.....<br> Good Luck! Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_welsh Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>The 645 is 1 5/8 x 2 1/4. Which is the area that is cropped from a 6x6 for an 8 x 10.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Thanks Mark, I also have an F100 and F5 as well as a D300 and D2X. When I need max fps any of those cameras will do the trick. Since I have 4 35mm SLRs I am starting to conclude that what I am really looking for is a camera that is truly different and for that the RB67 fills the bill. I do like the feature that the RB67 has and that is the interchangeable backs. With the Pentax I do have to run the whole roll before being able to switch film types. I hadn't listed that as a benefit originally, but it truly is. While the Pentax does have the advantage of a tripod socket on two sides, I can overcome that with the rotating back.</p> <p>Scott, I will see what sort of price seems fair for a 645N and my two lenses and will send you a PM. We can discuss further off line.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_martin2 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Let me broaden the question a bit. If I make a print from the RB67 of, say, 6" x 8" or a 4x6" from the Pentax would the quality of the print be inherently better detail (all things being equal) than a print of the same size from a 35mm film camera? I am ssuming that it must be since the negative is so much bigger that it would have to provide more detail. I just want to be sure that I have this aspect of MF photography nailed down.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now