medium format autofocus lenses vs manual focus

[norman_perr1]

<p>I haven't posted for several years. I was a minolta film guy from the 60s through early 2000s. As I got older a greatly appreciated the autofocus attributes of the camera and lens since my vision is not so great. I have thought about moving into medium format after enjoying my digital camera less I am looking to go back to film. Do any of the medium format cameras have larger viewing screens so manual focus might be possible or should I just look for a auto focus camera and autofocus lenses and be done with it. I am thinking of an SLR system, maybe the pentax 645N and see that there is a big difference in price between the A and the FA lenses. My interest is just general photography and if anyone has suggestions re: different size/models I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks Norm</p>

[paul_hagan]

<p>Norman,<br>

Like you I have given the digital medium a fair outing. I enjoy using my high end Nikon DSLR's but the experience lacks a certain satisfaction which I got from film. My solution was the Pentax 67 system with a focussing magnifier. My eyesight is no longer perfect but this worked for me. It will all come down to what works for you.<br>

I will continue using DSLR's but film is my medium of choice. <br>

Regards<br>

Paul </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Frankly, I find the magnifiers built into the WLFs on my Mamiya RB67 Pro S and Bronica SQ-B make a huge difference in nailing focus. Smaller cameras like the Mamiya 645 Super/Pro/ ProTL have bright prism finders and split image screens that do almost as well. MF AF system cameras are just inherently pricier. There's also the durability/repair issue to consider. Besides, none of this stuff ever had blindingly quick AF or was especially good at catching action.</p>

[dougmiles]

<p>One of the things I like about medium format SLRs is the larger viewfinders... I have the P6x7, P67II, P645Nii and Leica S2, and all have generous viewfinders that are easy and comfortable to use. All of these are eye-level hand-holdable cameras, my preference but maybe not yours...<br>

If you go with the Pentax 645 system, that opens the door to the 645D at some point if you so choose, and the system offers AF along with very usable manual focus as well. Pentax has been particularly good about making sure their autofocus lenses have good damping for manual focus. Most FA lenses are later designs, and also more desirable for use with the 645D, thus the pricing.<br>

For digital I went with the Leica S system partly because I came to prefer the ergonomics of the P67II and S which have similar shape and layout.</p>

[fran_ois_pottier]

<p>I second C Watson's comment on the Bronica SQ waist-level finder.<br>

It is unbelievably pleasant and easy to use. There is a built-in magnifier,<br>

but if you are "lucky" enough to be short-sighted (I am) then you don't<br>

even need the magnifier -- just take your glasses off.<br>

Of course, this works only for static subjects. Moving subjects would<br>

be another matter entirely.</p>

 

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Unfortunately I don't think it's a matter of just moving up in format, unless you are going to be doing your own developing and printing. If that's the case, then a move to MF is certainly a great idea. But of you just want easier focusing, a 35mm film camera w/ a big bright viewfinder, proper eye relief fro glasses, and an adjustable diopter will do wonders.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>perhaps you could look into getting a diopter for whatever eye piece to match your vision. I had to do that for my Pentax 67 and Rolleiflex prism. My need was +1 and after installing them suddenly focusing was easy again.<br>

Dennis</p>

[norman_perr1]

<p>I appreciate the suggestions so far. Because I have progressive lenses for near and farsightedness and astigmatism, trying to see something sometimes makes me look like a bobble headed doll trying to get the best focus. I did use corrective eyepieces on a camera once but it didn't float my boat. I had mentioned the P645 system but am not necessarily wedded to it. And unlike some (or many) of you I won't be doing my own developing or printing. I had used a 6x6 decades ago, I don't remember which one, and really liked the larger images/slides and prints. If the cost of a good system is mostly lenses maybe I should look at a system from that perspective since I get the sense that many of the viewfinders are pretty good. Thanks Norm </p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>Actually I'm surprised no one said more about the camera you suggested, the Pentax 645N. It has a very large viewfinder that is significantly brighter than the original Pentax 645. And since it is an auto-focus camera, it has a very handy focus indicator. When using manual focus lenses a green led lights up in the viewfinder when the subject is properly focused. Of course it isn't perfect but can be very helpful. The A series lenses are fantastic and you will not be disappointed. In particular I like the 35mm, 75mm and the 150mm. And the best part about this camera for you is that if, at some point, you realize that manual focus simply won't work for you, the manual focus lenses are very easy to sell as they are in high demand, and you can replace them with AF lenses for a little bit more money. So given your situation, I would strongly recommend the Pentax 645N!<br>

I have several of the cameras mentioned above, (ETRs, SQ-A, GS-1, P67, M645 Pro TL etc.) and agree that a waist-level finder with a magnifier is also really helpful for accurate manual focusing. But of course that will require getting used to the backwards world of waist-level finders, which is a piece of cake for some and a bit more daunting for others. </p>

[andrzej_j]

<p>same is for Mamiya AF series. It can take manual lenses as well and it has a focus indicator (works the same way as in DSLRs) which helps focusing a lot. I can recommend this system. Focusing with a WLF was a pain for my eyes even with magnifying glass.</p>

[norman_perr1]

<p>I was just looking on line to get an idea of the cost of a 645N and it seems that the majority of the available cameras on ebay are from Japan. Are there any other buying sites that might have the camera? I am not much of a shopper but from ebay it seems prices are all over the place. Norm</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>Norman, does your shooting eye have much astigmatism? If it does, then a corrective lens is a bit more difficult than for simple spherical correction. </p>

<p>I'm shortsighted and find the waist level finder with the flip-out magnifier perfect (Rolleiflex SL66 single lens reflex). I can't comfortably use my prism finder without glasses because the diopter correction would have to be built into the strong +10 diopter eyepiece that's part of the optical system of the viewfinder, and I haven't been able to source such a piece of glass yet.</p>

<p>If you have a lot of astigmatism you could have a prescription corrective made up. In that case, turning a camera 90 degrees for changing between landscape and portrait would make the astigmatism correction worse than no correction, so a square format camera might be considered.<br>

For Leica (not medium format obviously) there is this elegant and expensive solution for those with considerable astigmatism:<br>

http://walterrxeyepiece.com/</p>

<p> </p>

[norman_perr1]

<p>John, thanks for your advice. My "shooting" eye is the one that is more screwed up. Taking glasses on and off is an inconvenience. I know it's not a major deal but at my age (I am in my early 60's) I am looking for convenience. So I may still look for an autofocus camera. I remember that in the 60's and 70s I used manual focus cameras and "sneered" at the older geezers that were looking for a newer technology to help them "see". Well, the wheel does go round and when minolta came out with autofocus cameras, man I was thrilled. Norm</p>

[harry_hollander]

<p>I have the 645N and really enjoy using it, its autofocus when needed is really good.<br>

But I need my glasses these days as well, and have both problems with nearby and far away, so complicated lenses.<br>

Then I tried the Rolleiflex TLR and loved it. Can keep my glasses on, whether with the focusing screen or magnifying glass. TLR is not autofocus, and depending on the model, may not have metering. But the negatives are great, satisfying, and the taking experience is wonderful too. I use my 645N for anything other than standard lens (wide angle or portrait), 35mm, 55mm, 135 or 150mm. The Pentax lenses are superb for this format.<br>

The TLR gives of course an mirror image, which does not suit everyone. But you can always try and sell the camera if it does not suit you. </p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

+1 on the Pentax 645N's viewfinder. It's got the best SLR view I've ever experienced, hands down, and that includes some really fabulous ones like the Pentax LX and F5 in 35mm. The 645 format has a lot going for it and the viewfinder prism size may be what's contributing to the view being so big and bright. I've got the AG80 screen with the grid installed and with it find the P645N a snap to manually focus. It's also got a GREAT built in click-stop diopter objective, with a large adjustment range. For this camera have only the SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 lens (manual focus), but it's so smooth and tack-sharp I've never felt compelled to look any further or into the AF version. The right angle finder for the P645 is also a well-made accessory that works great.

[paul_loveteck]

<p>Norm,<br>

As your original question was quite general, I would like to offer a slightly different point of view. If quality of the result matters to you, I believe you should include quality of lenses in your decision. Although the 645N (or 645N II) are great cameras, their lenses do not come close to what you can get with a Zeiss lens (Hasselblad) or even a Mamiya lens.<br>

I would recommend an Hasselblad V camera equipped with one of the multiple prisms with variable diopter integrated like the metered PME45 or non-metered PM45. In combination with a good focusing screen (with split-image), you will get a system much lighter than the 645N, more reliable and providing higher quality images.<br>

You should have no problem to manually focus as this combination provides large and very bright images on your prism.<br>

This might be a biased opinion, as I personally value the quality of images much higher than the ease of focusing.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with a Pentax 645N, for all the reasons given above. It also has a "proper" user interface, with dedicated dials and switches for everything...you won't be digging down through menus. I've always admired its controls layout.</p>

<p>I myself use a Mamiya 645AFD. The two main things it has over the Pentax are 1) a greater range of lenses (especially manual focus), and 2) interchangeable backs, so I use it mainly with an old digital back but also sometimes with film backs. One could solve the latter "problem" by starting with a 645N and then adding a 645D, but the lens issue remains. Some of my favourite Mamiya lenses (24/4 fisheye, fast 80/1.9 normal, 200/2.8 APO) have no counterparts in the Pentax lineup. But they're not autofocus lenses, so I guess that doesn't help you! The only autofocus lens I use is a 55-110mm zoom. It performs very well, both in terms of focus accuracy and image quality.</p>

 

[norman_perr1]

<p>Thanks so far for all the opinions. Since I am new to the MF world (actually I am more on the edge rather than in it!) but I was a little surprised about the comments on the pentax glass compared with mamiya's lenses. For me image quality is key but I thought there were great lenses in both groups. As for the Hasselblad/CZ lenses, I think economics will likely make it too costly. Norm</p>

[harry_hollander]

<p>Actually, the 645 35mm Pentax was tested as better than both the Zeiss and Mamiya counterparts; the Pentax 645 120mm is one of the sharpest lenses around, and their new 90mm is better than both these two. Nor is the 150mm a slouch.<br>

The Mamiya 1.9/80mm has a very good reputation. While the Pentax 75mm is often praised, it is probably good but not superb (I have had all three versions). <br>

As with anything, generalisations are misleading.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I was a little surprised about the comments on the pentax glass compared with mamiya's lenses. For me image quality is key but I thought there were great lenses in both groups.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just in case you took my comments the wrong way - I was not making an image quality comparison between Pentax and Mamiya - just a lens range comparison: how many lenses are available, how fast are they, how many use APO or low dispersion glass, how many specialty lenses are in the range (fisheye, shift, macro, soft focus, catadioptric, zoom...). <br>

Where lenses of similar spec are available to both systems, image quality should generally be on par with each other.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

I'm dubious that any wide angle lens in 645 or 2-1/4 can top the Pentax SMC-A 35mm f/3/5 lens resolution. The existence of this one lens is the reason I got into P645N system, and it is still the only optic I have for it more than 5 years later. It was hard to find for awhile when there weren't many tilt/shift lens options available for 135 format sized DSLRs, they were useful via adapters without compromising resolution. Too, they were being used on a variety of third party pano adapters as well.

 

Clearly there are a number of Pentax lenses that are about as good as optics get, of any brand or pedigree. The Pentax 645 series glass never were cheap consumer optics, they just fell out of professional favor (through neglect in the decade Pentax dragged their feet on the 645D). In the years when Pentax had no pathway to digital captures, the came to appeal mostly to amateurs and pro fine art folks still using film. With rental houses dumping them and flooding the market due they were bargain priced as when I picked up mine.

 

The 645D got Pentax back in the game. I do note that the recent 25mm lens is rather stratospherically priced at $5K USD.

 

In range and number of lenses, Pentax once could claim to offer more in 645 than any other brand because all the P67 lenses also work at full aperture metering on 645 bodies with the 67>645 Pentax adapter. The 645 lenses will adapt to 35mm and DSLR camera with adapters, albeit with stop down metering, I think? The range of the legacy glass is slanted toward the angles of view that for full frame 645, not reduced sized sensors like the 645D.

[harry_hollander]

<p>The 645 lenses do indeed work quite well on dslr, no compensation needed (unlike the old Takumars). The 35mm easily outperforms the 135mm equivalents, and the 120mm Macro is also useful albeit a tad heavy on the APSC body. <br /> I now have the 67 4/55mm for my 645N and the quality is outstanding. My dream combo would be this lens and the new 645 2.8/90mm on the 645D</p>