Mamiya rz67 Pro II vs Mamiya 645 AF or AFD

[a_allen1]

<p>I am a professional videographer currently looking to buy a medium-format camera, and I would love some insight, as I am just entering the world of medium format photography. I have been doing a lot of research, and I'm finding myself torn between the Mamiya rz67 Pro II and the AF. There are several pros and cons to each of the cameras for me, but they're neck and neck right now. I would mainly be doing on-the-go work so I want something portable. However, I also want to have something that I can use for in-studio portrait photography. I love the interchangeable viewfinder on the rz, but I love the lighter body of the AF.<br /> I could go on about all of the pros/cons I am going back and forth on with each, but I would really love some advice from someone with experience in the field. I want to make an educated decision and feel like I made the right choice. <br /> I am also open to other models and brands - these are the two in my price range that have stuck out the most so far.</p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>As a happy owner of two RB67, plus other MF cameras like two C330 cameras and a Pentax 6x7, i must say the RB is my favorite of them all. The Mamiya 645 cameras -all of them- never got a good reputation for reliability. <br>

The RB and RZ lens system is fabulous; the modern RZ lenses are still state-of-the art and probably as good as they can be made.<br>

The camera (RB67 or RZ67) knows no limits and it can do everything with the excellent modular design and big array of accesories. The RZ can use RB lenses as well, so the array of lenses for it is BIG. You can shoot 6x4.5 as well!! (i do 6x4.5 with my RB whenever I feel like saving film.) <br>

As for lightness, it is a heavy camera compared to others but it's still portable, no doubt about it. Fit a 90/3.8 or 127/3.8 lens (from the RB series), a waist-level finder and it will be light enough to walk around a city for about 3 hours with it. Just get a good strap. The RB/RZ are quick to operate -- focusing is easy and quick; film advance and shutter cocking are quick as well. Also, the RB/RZ have almost no mirror slap, so they can be used handheld at speeds which are only limited by you, not by the camera.<br>

All in all, the RZ is the more capable camera, the one with better optics, and the one that will enable you to shoot without limits.</p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>Forgot to add, the RB and RZ cameras have a reputation for being as reliable as tanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[lwg]

<p>RZ isn't easily and quickly hand holdable for me if I want sharp and in focus pictures at wide apertures or with slow shutter speeds. The 645 Pro TL was much better in this regard. I imagine the 645AF would be similar in handling.<br>

Still I sold the 645 and just bought another RZ. But for one the go work and portability I'd go with a 645. Also you might consider the Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 systems. Both are better for handheld work in my opinion.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Keep in mind that AF on the Mamiya 645 isn't all that quick, so it comes down to format choice and weight. There's nothing inherently fragile about the Mamiya 645 series. I'd look for a clean manual focus ProTL kit.The RZ isn't a great deal heavier but it's awkward handheld without a handle grip that only slightly improves its ergonomics. The key feature of the RB/RZ is the rotating film back which allows portrait-to-landscape change without flipping the entire camera. The RB requires two separate steps: shutter cocking and film advance. The RZ integrates these steps with a single stroke. Neither camera requires a massive tripod since the only the back moves when shifting orientation. They're great studio cameras. The RB system is very affordable now but clean, low-mileage examples are getting harder to find. The RZ is a bit pricier but bear in mind that both were often subject to long hard pro use and some cheaper cameras have plainly been worked to death. The 6x7 negative real estate is an obvious advantage.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Many people considered the RB/RZ cameras too heavy for field use and only used them in the studio, buying a 645 for field use. If portable and on-the-go are your priorities, you want 645.<br /><br />Not sure about the 645AF model but the regular 645s had interchangeable prisms.<br>

Personally, I don't see AF as an important feature in medium format. To me, medium format is more about doing things slowly and methodically and having complete control over everything.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree with Craig... a RZ with viewfinder is simply too heavy to handle without a tripod (well, for other than body builders I mean :), there is a reason to design that rotating backs. Think that lenses are also larger than on 645. Bellows focusing are certainly non-ergonomic shooting hand held to my taste. I don`t see the RB/RZ to be the best choices for fast, on the go shooting.</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>The 6x7 lenses are bound to be big, since each one has a shutter in it. On the other hand, lenses for the 645 AF cameras will have the AF parts in, which will make them more expensive, and I would expect bigger too, than manual-focus equivalents. I would consider a manual-focus 645 camera just for that. In addition, as Craig says, you can't change the finder on the AF cameras; I wouldn't be without my waist-level finder.</p>

<p> </p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>go with RB67, its lack of elektric makes it very reliable and you can go up to 6x8</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>I personally would have two different camera systems. For portability I'd use the Pentax 645 and for studio the RB/RZ system. That way you have both the ultimate in MF portability and the best studio camera.</p>

[lubos_soltes]

<p>Both. I have an RZ and I want an AFD :-) Sometimes that smaller and more automatic body is the better choice.</p>

[alexo]

<p>I would go with the Mamiya 645 AF. The RB/RZ cameras aren't hand holdable cameras. They're too big, too heavy, too bulky and too awkward to use hand held. They're great studio cameras and field cameras when you have the luxury of a tripod. The 645 can be easily hand held. Even though the prism does not detach on the AF, I don't see it as an issue because the waist level finder is useless to me without rotating backs (which neither 645 cameras have). If you don't like the AF, you can always use the manual focus lenses (albeit with stopped down metering and manual diaphragm control). These lenses are cheap, light and small compared to RB/RZ lenses. Furthermore, you can attach a digital back to the AF without losing any of your wide angle options (especially if it's a full frame back), whereas attaching a digital back to the RB or RZ would severely limit your wide angle options due to the crop factor.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>Forgot to add, the RB and RZ cameras have a reputation for being as reliable as tanks</em>."</p>

<p>They are as heavy as tanks also, something to keep in mind.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, lenses for the 645 AF cameras will have the AF parts in, which will make them more expensive, and I would expect bigger too, than manual-focus equivalents.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 645 AF system has the AF motor in the body (a "screwdriver" type of system), so there is not much additional components and weight in the lenses to enable AF. The replacement of the manually set aperture mechanisms in the lens with an electronic aperture actuator results in, I suspect, a negligible change in weight for that lens subsystem. The body has an AF/MF selector switch, but the bigger AF lenses also have an additional push-pull clutch under the focus ring, for disengaging AF. This makes the AF barrels a bit fatter; compare the appearance of e.g. the optically identical manual focus and AF versions of the 55-110mm zoom lens. They differ in weight by only 10% - 28.2 oz and 31 oz [sorry for the imperial units but that's what came up first in google!].</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These lenses are cheap, light and small compared to RB/RZ lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are definitely lighter and smaller. The weight difference between equivalent RZ67 lenses and 645/645AF lenses is a lot greater than the difference between 645 and 645AF lenses, because of the RZ67's lens-shutters and the requirement of a larger image circle. An RZ67 110/2.8 weighs 610g; a 645 110/2.8 N (same glass specs) weighs 390g; a 645AF 80/2.8 (same field of view) weights 300g and the manual focus 80/2.8 N weighs only 235g.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Keep in mind that AF on the Mamiya 645 isn't all that quick, so it comes down to format choice and weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It may seem counterintuitive, but for me, AF is not an important reason for selecting the 645 AF line. I've had a 645AFD for 5 years, and I still use only one AF lens with it; I use a dozen manual focus lenses with it. The bigger reasons for me are:<br>

1) Use with both digital and film backs<br>

2) Electronic focus confirmation with manual focus lenses<br>

3) Wider range of set shutter speeds than the manual focus Mamiyas: 1/4000 sec vs. 1/1000 sec minimum; 30 sec vs. 4 or 8 sec maximum; 1/125 sec vs. 1/60 sec flash sync.<br>

4) Programme and shutter priority modes, not just aperture priority<br>

5) Frame metadata recording (imprinted on film, EXIF on digital files)</p>

<p>I still keep my old M645 1000s for that old-school build and handling, and WLF experience. But I shoot almost exclusively with the 645AFD.</p>