Which 645AF should I consider: Contax, Mamiya or Pentax?

[ninfa]

I am looking into an auto focus 645 system and would like to get

your comments on which system offer the best quality for the

best value.

[joe_w]

Ninfa: 1st, you have to look at the major differences among these cameras to see how important they are to you. The 2 obvious differences, cost & interchangeable film backs (IFBs), and the 2 are related. Some say IFBs are important, and they may be to you, but consider the costs before judging.

 

The Pentax does not have IFBs (which allow you to change film 1/2 way through a roll without wasting any), so it's like a 35mm camera in that regard. However, as with 35mm, there are ways around this. The P645N body (w/ integrated motor drive & AE prism) + two 120 film inserts (@ $170) is $2230 (B&H). A pre-loaded film insert can be exchanged in seconds, as can an IFB.

 

The Mamiya 645AF body (w/ integrated motor drive & AE prism) + two IFBs (@ $570) is $3790. The Contax body (w/ motor)+AE prism+2 IFBs (@ $500) is $4055.

 

The arguement is that IFBs keep you from wasting film: you're 1/2 way through a roll of Velvia and you want to switch to a different film without wasting the rest of the roll of Velvia. This would be more "painful" if shooting 220 film (30 exp.w/ the Mamiya, 33 exp w/ the Pentax; Contax?). The Pentax is $1500 less than the Mamiya and $1800 less than the Contax. You're going to have to waste a LOT of film to equal the end costs!

 

In the above scenario, with the Pentax 645N you'd hit a recessed button on the bottom of the camera to wind the Velvia to the end. If you don't want to waste it, you can put a rubber band around the roll (instead of sealing it) and gently write the # of exposures already made on it. In a darkroom, you can later re-spool the roll, put it back in your camera (set to 1/1000 & f/22 w/ lens cap on) and shoot to frame 10 (if, for example, you had made 8 exp. on it earlier). If you have no darkroom experience handling 120 or 220 film, I suggest you waste 1 roll to experiment with in the light until you're comfortable with the procedure.

 

Not to be overlooked are Polaroid backs. This is an advantage of IFBs. Before you burn the image to film, you can make test exposures on Polaroid film. Personally, the only time I've wanted this capability is when I've had a 3-4 flash arrangement for a studio shot. But I've gotten around it by doing checks with a flashmeter. There is a big assumption made when using Polaroid test shots: that the Polaroid film has the same exposure latitude and characteristics as your final film. That ain't necessarily so!

 

Finally, don't be fooled by Mamiya's misrepresentation regarding lenses. They state you can use the manual focus (MF) lenses on their 645AF. STRICTLY speaking, you can; however you have to manually stop down the lens for the reading and for the shot - 1963ish technology!

 

In contrast, you can use Pentax MF lenses on the 645N, which I do, and they work the same as the AF (except you focus, obviously). The viewfinder even has a focus confirmation light (& beep if you want) that works with the MF lenses. Personally, AF on wide angle lenses is unnecessary and only drives up the cost.

 

I used a Mamiya 645 system for 18 years. I sold it a year ago to buy into the Pentax system. Mamiya's metering is archaic. It has spot, CW (center-weighted), and it's 2-zone approach which hasn't been touched since it was introduced in 1985 on their 645 Super. This 2-zone metering IS NOT matrix metering, not by a long shot!

 

In the end, you have to decide how important IFBs are to you. Be sure to check out the autofocus with each camera: how fast; does it search on difficult subjects (little or no contrast). I was amazed by Pentax's. The Mamiya has an AF assist light - I think because it can't handle low light situations without it!

 

Contax: This looks like a great camera if you can afford it (and Zeiss lenses).

 

Sorry to be so long-winded. Have fun deciding! Joe

[ninfa]

Joe,

 

Thanks for your comments. Extremely helpful. I suppose I can now rule out the Pentax. I will definitely

need a Polaroid back. I've heard that battery consumption on the Contax may be an issue. Also the "auto

off" feature. Also, with the the new technology used to make optics these days, is there really a marked

difference in lens quality between Mamiya and Contax's Zeiss lenses? What about the electronics? Which

one is more reliable? My confused mind is slowly clearing up but cost might really be an issue here for

me. The Contax camera body (w/ 80mm lens) and lenses are about 25% more expensive than that of

Mamiya's in Hong K

[erol_a.]

I chose the Contax over the Mamiya because it fit better in my hand. The Mamiya just felt bad. I had no doubts of it's quality as a picture-making tool; it just didn't work for me. As for the battery drain of the Contax, it's more related to AF use than anything else. There is a AF button separate from the shutter that activates AF even when the camera is set to MF- allowing you to manually focus (and save battery power) and have AF independent of the shutter button, while still being able to activate it should need be. I do this and also use the vertical grip/battery holder and haven't had a problem with battery life. The power-down (also meant to save battery life) can be annoying; if I'm shooting in the field I have to be extra alert so as to have the camera powered up in time. It hasn't cost me yet, but for that sort of rapid shooting, I almost always rely on a fast, inconspicuous 35mm camera.

[william_carter1]

Get the contax (I used to own the mamiya, sold it to buy the contax). SHort version of what I disliked with the mamiya: (1) the lenses do not retain aperature information when you change them -- they automatically revert to maximum aperature when taken off the camera (2) no interchangeable viewfinders (3) "plasticky" feel, particularly of the lenses (4) TTL Flash is a problem -- see Mamiya User's Forum (5) AF is noisy (6) metering is primitive -- the A/S setting is easily fooled. Things I like about the contax: (1) The AF can be operated by a button on the back of the grip, rather than by the shutter release button -- very useful (2) unlike the mamiya, to switch from AF to MF, you just turn the focusing ring -- no need to flip a switch (3) I found that I liek the look of the zeiss lenses better (not that they are necessarily "sharper" -- subjectively, I like the zeiss lenses rendition) (4) the lenses are much better built and operator like "real" lenses (e.g., aperature ring on the lens) (although the body actually feels crappier than the mamiya body (on the other hand, I just got back from a 3 week trip to Ghana and had no probalems with reliability under some pretty rough conditions)) (5) vertical grip w. shutter relase and accessory AF button makes it much easier to use vertically than the mamiya (6) built-in flash meter that works with any flash equipment (7) it just feels like a real camera, not a weird video/digital hybrid like the mamiya.

[raymond_valois]

Hi, Joe ...

 

Regarding changing film midroll on the Pentax 645N ... there's an easier way ... and it works.

 

When you want to change film type, shoot two "blank" shots (they'll be wasted). Remove the insert, load the next insert with different film type, and shoot away. If you wish to change back to the other film type before this one is done, proceed as described above. When you put the first insert back in, the camera will automatically forward the film as if you had inserted a new roll and you lose one or two frames (I don't remember).

 

Yes, you have to remember how many frames you shot on the first insert. If you don't remember, the camera will automatically wind up the film after you run out of frames.

 

Since you're getting 33 frames out of a 220 roll with the 645N, you can affod to "waste" a few frames if you have to change film type.

 

I tried this and it works just fine. As a caveat, I shoot weddings and wish I had MORE than 33 frames on a 220 roll! I use three 220 inserts to minimize film loading. I usually end up shooting 6 rolls of 220 at each wedding.

 

Ray