6x4.5 Choosing a Camera!

[rohnan_black]

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6882825">Paul Loveteck</a> Thank you, i have over 150 transactions on eBay. I have been a member for a long (LONG) time. I personally never sell on it, it's horrible for sellers. For buyers, as long as you are smart, there's good deals to be made :)<br>

Thanks to everyone for the answers, we will probably go with a ETRSI.</p>

[luis_rives]

<p>Hope I am not too late but would like to share my experiences with the 645 format. I owned a Mamiya 645e and a Fuji 645s that I have subsequently sold. Yes, the 645 format is larger than 35mm but not appreciably so, certainly not enough to display what 6 cm high film is capable of. The lens on the Fuji was too wide for my taste and was not interchangeable. The 645e was light enough to handhold and easy to focus, but the vibrations from the mirror was too much for me. Every time I fired the shutter, my fillings almost rattled. I substituted these cameras with a Mamiya RB67 to add to a Mamiya Universal 6x9. The 6x7 format really shows just how much resolution you can get out of this format and I find that the 6x9 (which is almost half of a 4x5 sheet), using PanF film is just astounding. Yes, the RB67 is heavy, but I was shocked at how well damped the mirror vibrations are, probably a combination of the mass of the camera and mechanical damping of the mirror assembly. I have handheld shots at 1/30 with no blurring. Since I also use large format, I am at home with the 6x7 as is almost the same proportion as the 4x5 at about 1/4 the area of a sheet and the normal, short tele, and tele lenses have very close to the same field of view as the corresponding lenses in large format. When I use the 6x7, the process feels like using a little view camera without the hassles of a darkcloth. For shots wider than normal I use the Mamiya 6x9. This combination works well for me. I would urge to give serious consideration to the 6x7 format.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>In addition to my 645 cameras I have Bronica SQ and GS-1 cameras. As a studio camera and for close work the RB/RZ cameras are more suitable than the GS-1. For hand held shooting I find the GS-1 much more comfortable. I recently got my third GS-1 body for all of $17. All three have plain prism finders and I am looking to add a second Speed Grip. Lenses for 6X7 cameras are larger, slower, heavier and more expensive. Where the GS-1 lenses are concerned they are also harder to find. When deciding on a format it's important to consider what size prints you are looking to make. Even in an 8X10 or 11X14 you will get finer grain with the 645 format than with 35mm. If that improvement is enough for you then 645 is fine. Square formats seem less popular and require cropping to get the more popular rectangular print sizes. When you use fine grain film in a 6X7 camera you are looking to come closer to the quality of 4X5, up to a certain print size. When I use Ektar 100 in the GS-1 I know I will be able to make a very large print with little grain. I have mixed feelings about the 6X9 format. It doesn't help me if I am aiming for the proportions of an 8X10 or 11X14. I wind up cropping down to the 6X7 format for that. If I suddenly found a Bogen 69 Special enlarger in good condition I would consider getting a 6X9 format camera. My largest enlarger goes only to 6X7. </p>

[rohnan_black]

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7059072">Luis Rives</a> I have been thinking about 6x7 a LOT because if i'm going to take the time to develop my 120 (i have a dark room for my 135) i want something that's worth the time and money. So i looked at 6x7 but the weight + price put me off.<br>

This won't be used indoor/studio but on the go... which is why i figured 645 would be much better.</p>

<p>The RZ67 is simply too expensive here, and the RB67 doesn't have a built in meter. And the weight... ouch.</p>

<p>But yeah if anyone knows of a 6x7 that meet my requirements then by all mean, share :)</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>[T]he 645 format is larger than 35mm but not appreciably so ....</em></p>

<p>IMO, that's nonsense--and I say that having owned and used 110 (long ago!), 35mm, 4x4, 645, 6x6, and 4x5. 645 is 2.7x the area of 35mm, and if you crop to US-standard sizes for larger prints (like 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24, etc., i.e., about a 4:5 aspect ratio), then the <em>effective</em> film-size ratio (based on the part of the frame actually used) is 3.0x. The next step up, 6x6, is only effectively less than 1.2x the area of 645, and 6x7 is effectively 1.8x the area of 645. So clearly 35mm to 645 is a much bigger proportional step than is 645 to 6x6 or 6x7. Also, as the film sizes get bigger and bigger, you're actually into diminishing returns, the the real gains less than those suggested by the increase in film area. Just as examples of why, as the lenses have to cover larger and larger frames, their absolute performance (lp/mm or whatever standard you want to use) on the whole falls, and our eyes get less and less able to pick out the higher and higher resolution at anything approaching normal viewing distances.</p>

<p>IMOPO, if you want to hand-hold much, a 645 is a very good compromise between film area and hand-holdability. I find a Mamiya M645 1000s with a left-hand grip and a prism plenty convenient enough to hold and use (although more modern designs like the Contax 645 are nicer). On the other hand, if hand-holding (or hiking with the camera) will rarely if ever be an issue, then I'd suggest skipping everything discussed here and going to a Mamiya RB-67 Pro S (or Pro SD) if you don't care about movements, or a 4x5 if you do. From the OP's comments, it sounds to me like a 645 is the way to go.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

To compare 'quality', we shouldn't look at the ratio of areas of different formats. Resolution is given in image elements per length, and that's the better thing to look at: the linear magnification.<br>Over the long side, 6x4.5 is 1.55x 35 mm format, meaning that with lenses on both formats that produce images with the same resolution (and no: 35 mm lenses are not (!) better than larger format lenses) and same angle of view, you get 1.55x more detail in the 6x4.5 image. Well worth it.<br>6x6 obviously is the same over the long side. 6x7 is 2x '35 mm' (and 1.3x 6x4.5). 6x9 is 2.5x '35 mm' (and 1.6x 6x4.5).

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Get a good ETRSi - preferably with PE series lenses. You won't regret it.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>If you prefer Q.G.'s approach to the comparison among film formats, and base a comparison on the <em>effective</em> film size for prints with the common (in the US, for larger prints) 4:5 aspect ratio, then 645 gives you 1.7x the linear dimensions of 35mm, 6x6 gives you 1.1x the linear dimensions of 645, and 6x7 gives you 1.3x the linear dimensions of 645. Either way, 35mm to 645 is a much bigger step up than is either 645 to 6x6 or 645 to 6x7.</p>

[panoramic pei]

<p>Personally I prefer the Bronica ETRSi System, I find for the theme I photograph Landscapes, this system has contributed to achieve some excellent results. I have photographed with the Mamiya Pro TL System previously, the AE Metering was the only disappointing experience in my opinion, other than that it was a great system. I find the Bronica AE III Finder much more accurate for Landscapes. Then again this review or comment is covering only one Photographic Theme.<br>

Link here for the some results with the Bronica ETRSi (& ETRS Camera) System:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/panoramicpei/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/panoramicpei/</a></p>

[paul_edwards8]

<p>Having been a Canon SLR user for many years, I have just purchased a Mamiya 645 (the old model without interchangable back) with waist finder for £250, and am having great fun using it. I don't find it clunky or unergonomical at all, and in fact find it a great relief after the scrunched-up feel of an eye-level slr. All the extras on the bronica would, I think, mess with the functional simplicity of these cameras.<br>

On a side issue, I am thinking about resolving the cartridge problem by making a double zipped dark bag big enough for the camera and a light-proof box to hold the spare (loaded) cartridge. With a pair of double elasticated wrist-cuffs included, it ought to be possible to change film by feel, aka loading film with a changing bag like this one<br>

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Top-Brand-Changing-Bag-Camera/dp/B00023JEB6/ref=pd_bxgy_ph_text_y<br>

but bigger. What do you guys think? Will it work, and if not, why not?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What i think, Paul, is that those "extras" you think would get in the way, you think would "mess up the functional simplicity", would make such a Heath Robinson solution unnecessary. ;-)<br><br>Commercially available changing bags will be big enough. Finding or making a light tight storage box is possible too. But if you change cartridge mid roll, the camera will lose frame count. For that alone i would say that it will not work.

[paul_loveteck]

<p>Paul,<br>

I have no doubt that you would have fun with your contraption's and your antique 645 Mamiya. Do you know that you could also drive a Ford T or a Citroen Trefle and have a lot of fun? I know, because I owned both and drove both. However, this was not to go from one place to another one.<br>

The question is what is this forum about: having fun or photography?<br>

Hasselblad had interchangeable magazines more than 50 years ago and was one of the most successful cameras because they focused on good photography. The fun came from the good design of the system but was not the goal!<br>

Having a good camera is not the opposite of having fun: you can have them both.<br>

If you only want fun with a MF camera, buy a Holga or a Lomo. I guarantee that they will give you more fun than any Mamiya for a better price!</p>

 

[panoramic pei]

250£ or almost $400. US for a completely outdated Mamiya 645 ???

I really wouldn't have the nerve to sell you that camera for that price.....

no matter how badly I needed the money.

I recently purchased a (all current) Mamiya RB SD Body with 120/220- 6x8 Motorized Back & RB 50mm C Lens for $450. or 283£.

Hopefully you will have fun with it for many years to come.

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>250£ or almost $400. US for a completely outdated Mamiya 645 ???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it came with the 80mm f1.9 lens and its condition was excellent, that wouldn't be too far off the mark. With the regular 80mm f2.8 lens though, one would expect to pay a lot less.</p>

[panoramic pei]

Still not the best investment......

hopefully he could keep using that lens for many years to come, considering it's price or value compared to the camera.

Personally, I would pick the option for variety with much older equipment, pay less for the 80mm F2.8 version & invest the difference in price towards another lens for the outfit, a WA or Telephoto lens.

[q.g._de_bakker]

A good price is what someone is happy to pay for something. It's not necessarily as much as someone else would want to pay for it. But then still a good price.<br><br>An investment is something you expect a return on. That could be money. Or that could be the benefits of having the thing that investment bought.<br>The first is nice for traders, people who are only interested in buying something to sell it on again. A good investment then means a profit. More money.<br>The second is hard to put a value expressed in nickles and dimes on. But it could be the best investment, even though to get it, you paid more than most people might have.<br><br>In short: as long as Pul enjoys the camera, what matters how much he spent on it?

[victor_randin]

<p>Try Fujica GA645 (lens 4.0/60mm, Planar type, Super EBC), GA645W (4.0/45mm. Biogon type, Super EBC), AF cameras. They are available on ebay in ex++, LN condition for 350-500. I am happy with them. All my huge staff of 'blads,'flexes, RB, GW. GL, and others have a long rest.</p>

 

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>The second is hard to put a value expressed in nickles and dimes on. But it could be the best investment, even though to get it, you paid more than most people might have.</em>"</p>

<p>Think you need to book an appointment with an accountant.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You're only thinking in terms of nickles and dimes, C.

[paul_edwards8]

<p>Wow! Didn't expect this much arguing over a second-hand Mamiya. Anyway, when I said I was having fun, I meant just that. If your not having fun at <em>anything</em>, your doing it wrong. I didn't buy it just to "have fun with", though. I intend to take my photography to a new level (hopefully). I initially wanted a Bronica, but the only one I found for sale in London was, quite frankly, an overpriced piece of crap, and I'm not happy about buying that sort of stuff on e-bay (I know...there <em>are</em> other sites, but I wanted to actually look at, hold, and get the feel of any camera I would be using). I probably could have got the same thing slightly cheaper, but with how many hidden gremlins? As the old saying goes "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch!"<br /> It came with a six month warranty, and the shop owner who sold it to me (www.cameracity.co.uk) was very helpful. He took the trouble to show me over how it works, and give me a few pointers about film and other gear, and you can't nickle and dime that sort of stuff imho. He also threw in a roll of Ilford to get me started.<br /> It <em>is</em> in very good nick for it's age, and apart from a lot of dust in the back, which I will get blown out before I shoot my next roll of film, works perfectly. For it's lack of hassle and hidden horrors, I consider it a bargain!<br /> I have already been appraised of the film counter problem by the guys who process my film, so I will just be shooting a roll at a time, and forgoing the convenience of the interchangable back, at least untill I can get a decent Bronnie or can afford a 'blad (when I will probably sell the Mamiya and get some of my money back).</p>