ondebanks

<p>Hi Christopher,</p> <p>I have a Mamiya 645 AFD. There is no shutter counter on the body (I don't believe any of the Mamiya 645 AF line have this feature). I use it mainly with an old digital back which does have an exposure counter, and I have run up many 1000's of exposures on that. But I bought the 645 AFD used, so I cannot tell how many shots were taken prior to my usage. </p> <p>One recommendation - even for someone who doesn't want to shoot with a film back, but I appreciate that in this case you do - is to choose a used body which comes bundled with a film back. That makes it more likely that the previous owner didn't shoot that body with a digital back, and therefore that the number of exposures taken with the body was considerably lower. Film users are naturally more conservative with their number of frames per shooting scenario.</p>

<blockquote> <p>No 35mm lenses can be adapted to work on med format cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well...except the Leica Visoflex lenses, which have an unusually long flange distance for a 35mm system.</p>

<blockquote> <p>amazing, but you are right, Mamiya 7 flange is about 59mm, Leica S2 flange is 53mm, so look for a good engineer</p> </blockquote> <p>This could work for half the lenses - the 80mm, 150mm and 210mm. The others (43mm, 50mm, 65mm) have rear cells which protrude a fair distance back into the Mamiya 7 body, so you don't have that 6mm of space to work with on the Leica. Since it was those "optically true wideangle" lenses that really earned the Mamiya 7 its reputation, this is a pity.</p>

<blockquote> <p>your Pentax pic is very pixelated, its scanned at low resolution and blown up in software, its a lousy scan job and not a problem of the camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>I totally agree with Mag's assessment - that 645 shot has much more to give, with better scanning.<br> In contrast, while the plane of focus of the 35mm shot is narrow and only about 10 feet from the camera (well short of the gent standing in the scene), the relative lack of resolution in this plane and the grainier appearance are both obvious.</p>

<p>I didn't manage to get any of my own shots in on time before July ended, but well done everyone! I am particularly impressed with Roger's, Giovanni's 4th, and Roman's 3rd.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Not sure if you guys are joking, but of course you have the same size image circle using 6 x 8 horizontal as you do with 8 x 6 vertical-- about 10cm. The projected image doesn't know what orientation you have the back in. A true 8 x 8 camera would need a lens with a bigger image circle. Sorry to be a pedant.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is true, but what I think what the others meant, in calling it an "8 x 8 camera", is that everything ahead of the revolving back has to be large enough to view and project an image of effectively 8 x 8 dimensions. The reflex mirror, the focusing screen, the rear baffle, and the box that holds it all - all bigger than would be the case in a fixed-orientation camera like the Pentax 67 or Bronica GS1. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The 90mm is somewhere between 35mm & 50mm in 135 equivalent?</p> </blockquote> <p>The diagonal length of a 6x7 frame is 90mm, so a 90mm lens exactly corresponds to the definition of a "standard" or "normal" lens. The diagonal of a 35mm (135) frame is 43mm, so that would be the equivalent lens. In most systems, a 50mm lens is the nearest prime lens to 43mm, though there are a few 45mm lenses. </p>

<blockquote> <p>So, yes, I *think* the longest exposure you can set in the software is 32 seconds. Wish I could confirm, and I'll try to remember to do so when I get back to the UK in a few weeks.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you, Bernard. Looking forward to that .</p>

<p>Bernard: thanks for that most informative post. I've wondered about old the Sinarbacks. The 54M is the type where there's an internal dewpoint-controlled Peltier cooler and the rear plate is a stylishly gridded heat-sink. That should make it suitable for long exposures, but is there a hard limit of 32 seconds? Does the software allow you to run longer exposures on 'B'?</p>

<blockquote> <p>they seem to be in demand by digital shooters, which i don't understand because there doesn't seem to be much point in shooting this lens unless you can use it with a full size MF back.</p> </blockquote> <p>and</p> <blockquote> <p>Agree with what you say about using this lens with digital. Why bother.</p> </blockquote> <p>Are you guys talking about 35mm digital? Because on anything larger - even the smallest MFD sensors (37 x 37 mm / 45 x 30 mm / 44 x 33mm) - it's still a unique lens option. There's nothing else that's as fast as f/2, longer than 80mm focal length. (Well, there's a new Leica 100/2 Summicron ASPH, but that works only on the Leica S bodies and is s-c-a-r-y expensive!)</p>

<p>Workshop trips are expensive, so you want to make the most of them. The only thing I'd question about taking your Yashica TLR on the workshop is whether you'll be limited by the fixed single focal length lens.</p> <p>Now, probably the best single roll of film I ever shot, in terms of the number of printable "keepers", was a landscape/outdoors set shot with a Mamiya 645 1000s and 80/1.9 standard lens, over 20 years ago. It was the only lens I took with me on that trip, so I had to work with that limitation.</p> <p>But having said that, even within the scenes captured on that roll, I can see additional photo framings that would have been as good or better, if I had a longer lens like my 150/3.5 with me as well. A shortish telephoto (1.5x to 2.5x the focal length of the 'standard' lens) is a sweet landscape lens - also a great 'street' lens!</p> <p>And there are many expert practitioners of the wideangle lens in medium format landscapes too, of course.</p> <p>So I'd want to bring at least a 3-lens kit with me on that sort of trip. To do so, while remaining portable and hand-holdable for your normal type of shooting, I think you should be looking at the Mamiya 6 and 7, and the various 645-format SLRs.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>In a few years down the road that Pentax645Z will look like an antique and people will wonder how they ever managed to sell them at $4000.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's the older CCD-based 645D, not the new CMOS-based 645Z, that has been greatly reduced in price. The D now costs half of the Z.</p> <p>Both are excellent cameras. I have seen many <em>outstanding </em>photos from the 645D. If you don't need high ISO, then $4k is great value for a new D, or around $3k for a gently used one.</p> <blockquote> <p>Either sensors will <em>really</em> be medium format size by then, or mirrorless full-frame(ish) cameras will have taken over the market.</p> </blockquote> <p>If/when sensors become "really medium format size", the cost of the cameras/backs deploying them will be a large multiple of the current 645D or 645Z prices. They serve a different market segment. </p> <p>Mirrorless full-frame cameras already exist (Sony A7 series, Leica M series) and are on a roll. It remains to be seen to what extent the likes of the Sony A7RII undercuts the 645Z. For many, the bigger sensor (of same technology) will always win; other factors like lens choice and a preference for an OVF over EVF come into play also. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Ray, the only reason I am opposed to the 645s is because I really want the highest quality possible.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fair enough. I suggested 645 cameras because of your comment that "<em>I just want try try something different from 35mm and DSLRs</em>".</p> <p>645 is 2.7x the size of 35mm film; 6x7 is 4.5x the size of 35mm film and 1.66x the size of 645. So both represent a major jump up from 35mm. </p> <p>The jump is even bigger if you make prints with a standard 5:4 aspect ratio, such as 10x8 inch. 35mm needs a lot of cropping, whereas 645 and 6x7 both need only a little. </p> <p>But there's no denying that given equally good lenses and technique, size wins - 6x7 will always have a discernable quality edge over 645.</p> <p>It's not such an edge that I let it over-ride other factors concerning my camera choice, however. I used a 6x9 system for a few years in parallel with my 645s...and guess what...I no longer use the 6x9, but I still use the 645s!</p>

<blockquote> <p>I responded to a challenge by Dave Smith regarding the quality of an 80 mm lens, and another comment by Dave Wilson that Hasselblad wasn't any better than others.</p> </blockquote> <p>You swapped around their surnames accidentally there.<br> In fairness, Edward, David Smith was merely responding to your provocative claim that -</p> <blockquote> <p>Fuzzy, for an Hasselblad, is equivalent to "tack sharp" in most other cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>The thread wouldn't have veered off but for that comment, which couldn't be let hanging there. I'd have reacted to it in the same way, if David hadn't done so first.</p> <p>Anyway, seeing as we did veer off, I have a couple of follow-ups...</p> <blockquote> <p>I used a 60 mm lens because it is fairly close to the field of view of an 80 mm on a cropping sensor. Both are Planar design and have similar characteristics.</p> </blockquote> <p>The CF60 lens is a Distagon design, not a Planar. The the 74.9 mm flange distance of a Hasselblad does not allow a 60mm focal length lens which is not a retrofocus design.</p> <blockquote> <p>You can see the outlines of the leaves, and the branches (especially the bare ones) are sharp to the nearest pixel.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you recall what f-stop you used for the CFV 60mm lakeside shot? I agree with Alan that it does seem a little less than tack sharp, so maybe there was some diffraction effect. I use the same sensor in a Kodak digital back on my Mamiya 645AFD and I definitely have some sharper results than that. Here's an example from a similar setup to your shot: tripod, 55/2.8 manual focus lens at f/8 or f/11 IIRC, landscape scene. No sharpening, de-noising, clarity, HDR or any other trickery:<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img661/1300/VPkeuM.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Centre at 100%<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img537/5985/VPSiQs.jpg" alt="" /><br> Left edge at 100%<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img910/4802/5lQ0en.jpg" alt="" /><br> Right edge at 100%<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/5130/YzlCn7.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>You can see colour moire in the grasses and stems, which is a sign of true sharpness at the single pixel level in the RAW file. Ordinarily I would suppress this in my processing, but I left it in for this illustration.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Are there more "reliable", modern tech, medium format film cameras that have similar characteristics to the Pentax 67ii? I am looking to spend less that $800. I will primarily be doing portrait and street photography-type work but I'm not afraid to hold a heavy camera and manual focus to get the shot I want.</p> </blockquote> <p>The last generation of 645-format film SLRs from the late 1990s meet your requirements. Modern tech like autofocus & manual focus confirmation, exposure and metering modes, built-in motor drives, data imprinting on the film margins, auto bracketing, TTL/OTF flash metering...</p> <p>So look at the Mamiya 645AF or 645AFD, and the Pentax 645N and 645N II. The Contax 645 is similar in spec, but outside your budget. Bronica ETR(Si) are excellent modular 645 SLRs too, but they don't have that sort of modern tech.</p> <p>You can use them with either the newer autofocus lenses or older, cheaper manual focus lenses.</p> <p>The fairly boxy form factor of these later Mamiyas and Pentaxes is not as similar to a classic 35mm film SLR as the Pentax 67 II, but the integrated grip-drive makes them handle more like a 35mm SLR than earlier 645 SLRs. I have a Mamiya 645AFD and it handles like a chunky DSLR. I have no problems carrying it around for a few hours (and that's normally with a digital back attached, which is much heavier than a film back).</p>

<p>E., I like your suburban cameos...the little things that people see everyday but never really "see", if you know what I mean.<br> Have you managed to see my photo yet? It's hosted on imageshack rather than directly on photo.net, but that hasn't previouly been a problem AFAIK.</p> <p>Jim, you have a marvellous eye for light and composition - your 2nd and 3rd photos prove this.</p> <p>Giovanni, you're making great use of the 6x17 aspect ratio! It's interesting that you have (at least partially) returned to the medium of film. My impression is that when someone moves to digital medium format, normally that's the end of it for their film usage.</p> <p>Viktor, I like the "building seen through a building". Where was this?</p>

<p>Venus and Jupiter are converging in the evening twilight as June progresses. This was on the 8th June.<br> Mamiya 645AFD, Kodak DCS645M digital back at ISO400, AstroTrac mount, 80/1.9 at f2.8, 30 seconds, Cokin-knockoff diffraction filter.<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/7135/lprgWp.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Glad you solved the problem yourself, Florian.</p> <p>Just FWIW, you are supposed to set the body's shutter speed dial to the "double circle" only when using the PD or AE prism. That's how the body hands over shutter control and battery power to the prism.<br> If the prism is not on the camera, the body speed is on the double circle, and the shutter is tripped, it depletes the battery quickly! Should that happen, press the battery check button to close the shutter.</p>

<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>

<p>I should add for completeness that there was once a high-res instant film, Polaroid Type 665 PN, that <em>would</em> have been worthwhile shooting in its own right on a 6x6 camera, because it gave a sharp, permanent negative that could be enlarged. But it's been discontinued for many years...now and again there are online rumours/campaigns to "bring it back".</p>

<p>There are very few 67II models for sale because it was such a late development (1998, the same year that competitive 36 x 24 mm digital backs appeared for medium format cameras), and relatively few were made before the market for new professional medium format film cameras collapsed altogether in 2001-2.</p>

<p>Instant film has low resolution so you really need to maximise the image area captured. None of the medium format SLRs completely fills a Polaroid/Fuij instant print. You'll get an image surrounded by an unexposed black perimeter or side bars, and then the default white border.</p> <p>A much better choice of camera for instant film would be a Mamiya Universal or its spin-off, the Polaroid 600SE. These big coupled rangefinders completely fill the print (95 x 73 mm image area, not counting the white border). Now picture the Bronica's 56 x 56 mm image area, looking slightly forlorn as it fills only 45% of that 95 x 73mm space...</p>

<p>Another vote for the Mamiya 645 Pro/ProTL. The Pentax 645 is also excellent, but you wanted "something that breaks down and can pack in a somewhat compact way", so for "flat packing", the completely modular Mamiya takes the honours over the one-piece Pentax.</p> <p>Another option, still within budget, would be a Mamiya 645AF or 645AFD. The prism is non-removable, but the film backs are removable (unlike the Pentax 645), and the ergonomics are excellent. It runs off 6 AA batteries but I find that Energizer Ultimate Lithiums last a very long time in that camera and are much lighter than alkalines.</p> <p>As you profess a need for a close focusing range and say that you shoot primarily portraits, the Mamiya 120mm A macro kills those two birds with one stone. It would be ideal on any of the Mamiya bodies. Here's a sample close portrait with the 120mm wide open:<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img538/7894/ETxy5s.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>It's not an f2.8 lens, but as you can see, most of the face is still out of focus, due to the shallow dof at f4 in medium format.<br> I focused on the left eye, as you can see in this detail from the image:<br> <img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/7607/OPt6jA.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Let's say I'm shooting a 180mm lens on a 6x7 camera like an RB67.</p> </blockquote> <p>OK, a 180mm lens on 6x7 format (let's assume it's in landscape orientation) gives a horizontal field of view of 22 degrees...11 degrees from centre to edge.</p> <blockquote> <p>I focus on the subject's eye at 15 feet at let's say f/11. I then re-aim the camera so the person face is at the right edge of the viewfinder.</p> </blockquote> <p>That would mean a shift of about 10 degrees. The focal plane, old (centred) distance/direction to face and new (off-centred) distance/direction to face form a right-angled triangle, with:<br> cosine (10 degrees) = 15 feet / X, where X is the new distance to the person's face. <br> X = 15 feet / cosine (10) = 15 / 0.9848 = 15.23 feet</p> <blockquote> <p>So how many inches did the focal point and DOF shift?</p> </blockquote> <p>The face is now (15.23 - 15) = 0.23 feet (~ 3 inches) closer to the camera than the focal plane.</p> <p>I'll leave the DOF shift calculation to others!</p>

<p>Even when a camera is tripod mounted and centred at its lens' nodal point, when you focus on one object and then rotate the camera to a different direction, the off-centred object drifts inside focus. It's just geometry, illustrated for example <a href="http://www.mhohner.de/blogpics/recompose.gif">here</a>.</p> <p>To my knowledge, only one camera has ever genuinely solved "the focus/recompose issue", and that's the Hasselblad H series of 645 cameras, from the H4 model onwards. They have "Truefocus" technology, which uses knowledge of the lens focal length, distance to the object originally focused on, and amount by which the camera has been turned for recomposition, to generate and apply the geometrical focus offset.</p> <p>For any other camera with a central focusing area, one solution is to guesstimate an amount to "lean back" by after recomposition, to approximately correct the effect. The other is to just compose and focus with the object already off-centred; use a small movable loupe directly on a fine ground glass screen.</p>