steve_parrott

<p>I think, and emphasize the word THINK, there will be no problem at all using your cord set up. Any modern Canon flash is low on trigger voltage, plus the older Mamiya can likely easily handle larger voltages than current digital SLR bodies. Though I never had an RZ, I have had two Mamiya 645 bodies and I used Canon, (as well as Metz and Vivitar and Sunpak), flashes with no problems. As said, there is no automated function, but as long as there is a center pin to "fire" the flash, that is all you need. I actually suggest you might prefer to purchase a used automatic Metz or Sunpak flash from KEH, (you can get them dirt cheap). I have found auto flashes to work very well and typically nail exposure perfectly. A radio trigger is certainly the way to go if you are using the flash off camera, not necessarily due to any concerns with the camera, but simply for ease of use and drastically more options as to placement of the flash unit. </p>

<p>Well, in the final analysis, only you can decide if something is "worth" having or not. My opinion is not really on this camera. I am NOT saying it is not a good camera, I had one. But you already have MF gear, including 645 format, so I don't think the Mamiya would be a real improvement. Before I had the AFD, I had the Mamiya 645E, which was actually a much easier to use camera. The AFD, along with the auto focus lenses, moves to a much more electronic user interface. You have to push buttons and read a display to make changes with the camera. I think the "in between" Mamiya 645 Pro models strike a very good compromise between the dirt basic 645E and the electronic AFD, assuming you can use manual focus with the non AF bodies. Another thing to consider is the auto focus lenses for the AFD are slow and LOUD. A night and day difference between something like a Canon EF USM lens that snaps to focus in a silent instant. Photo quality is fine with the 645 AFD, but I just never cared for actually trying to work with the camera. Just too fussy and non intuitive. ... to me at least.</p> <p>Here is a portrait taken with the 645 AFD and 150mm lens:<br> http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=10396105&cat=92463<br> <br> Here are a couple of shots taken with the 80mm lens:<br> http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=9390022&cat=92463<br> http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/detail.asp?LID=&photoID=9390011&cat=92463</p>

<p>Steven, this is not truly going to answer your questions, but is more of an opinion. You say your Mom is wanting to do this. I cannot help but feel she just does not realize the scope of the project. Does she have ANY life at all? As has already been stated, and as you are predicting, scanning is practically an art, and at the very least a skill that takes some real time and dedication to learn to do properly. Assuming your mom goes through all the hardware / software learning curve, there is the time factor. She may think it fun at first, but as time goes on, and on, and it becomes an albatross around her neck having to sit and do this for hours on end for months on end, ... well, it may end up an unfinished project, or YOU may end up having to take it over. </p> <p>I had a Nikon Coolscan 9000 running with my old Apple laptop that still supported the Nikon software. I had no where near 4000 slides, but did have a relatively large amount of negatives that I THOUGHT I was going to scan. I just could not put my life on hold to do it, and the negatives remained unscanned. </p> <p>Here is what I suggest you talk to your mom about. Think very seriously about using a service, such as Scan Cafe to do this for you. These places exist for a reason. I have had scans done through them, and the results were excellent. </p> <p>Another thing to consider. Lets say you do spend all the time, effort, and money to do this yourself and assuming all the slides actually get scanned. Unless she is still shooting film, then the scan equipment sits around gathering dust. </p> <p>This gets to my final point. In my opinion, the only reason to have a good scanner and work to achieve the skill do do good scanning is if you are STILL using film. If you "scan as you go" it is not a bad process to have in place. Shoot, either develop yourself or have the film developed, then do your own scanning at that time. But getting into scanning with the intent of archiving a massive collection of negatives / slides and nothing more just seems to not be worth it to me. Use a scan service, save yourself lots of headaches, and don't take away precious time in your and your mom's life doing this. </p> <p>Just my opinion, based on experience. By the way, I sold my Nikon scanner, and really don't miss it at all. </p>

<p>I have used Clark, but like the other person said, it has been a long time ago, so long ago that scans on a CD did not even exist. All I can say is that they have been in business a long time, so that must mean they are doing *something* right. As is usually the case with a thing like this, you really just need to test it out for yourself. Take some "un-important" shots on a 12 exposure roll, send it to Clark, and see what happens and compare with Dwaynes. Have you checked out "The Darkroom"? Their standard service is quite a good service to price ratio in my opinion, and you can get some VERY large scans if you want to pay the extra cost. "North Coast Photographic Services" is also a good lab with some good scans at reasonable cost. </p> <p>http://thedarkroom.com</p> <p>http://www.northcoastphoto.com</p>

<p>Danny O' makes a very good point. You can get a LOT of film processed and quality scans made for the high price you will have to pay to get digital equipment to equal 6x7 film. Not to mention, with the high end digital gear, you need a computer that can handle the load and software needs. Then there is the archive issue. Those film negatives are SO nice neatly arranged in pages in albums, but with digital, you MUST have proper storage OTHER than a computer. You need external hard drives or CDs or flash drives or "cloud" storage, or ALL of the above. The cost of digital is never "free". Buying the equipment is actually just the tip of the iceberg. </p>

<p>Ummm.... "lomography"? Well, I suppose you could take a nice BMW and fill the interior and trunk with trash and use it as a garbage hauler, .... but why? You need a cheap "toy" camera to achieve a true "lomo" type of photo. Trying to dumb down an excelling camera such as the Mamiya is, to me, rather absurd, ... sorry.</p> <p>While I have not had the Mamiya 645 Pro, I have had the 645E and 645 AFD bodies. I honestly found the 645E to be more to my liking, but my poor vision makes it nearly impossible to do manual focus. I think you will find the 645 Pro to be a terrific compromise between the E model and much more expensive and complex AFD bodies. You might even want to look into the 645E unless you just HAVE to have the removable back on the Pro model. For portraits, I suggest the 150 lens, for general shooting the 80mm, and something in the 50mm range for landscape. I always had excellent results with any of the Mamiya lenses, even the "cheap" ones.</p> <p>As for lomography, I agree with the other answer. Get a Holga or Dianna 120 camera for the real thing rather than trying to fake it with a fine camera like the Mamiya. Truth be told, getting good, consistent results with a Holga is NOT EASY. It is actually very challenging and rewarding to learn to use such a camera effectively. It is totally different than a "normal" camera. You cannot adjust the camera for conditions, instead, with a Holga, you have to try to make conditions fit the tight limitations of the Holga.</p> <p>Here are some shots I have done with my Holga 120 at the 6 x 6 frame size:<br> http://www.lightanon.com/-/lightanon/gallery.asp?cat=92459</p>

<p>Whew... this question could sure open a can of worms, and is basically getting back to the film vs digital debate which has raged for over a decade. I will just put out my two cents. You will probably get answers all over the map.</p> <p>One thing you did not mention was what degree of scan quality you were / are doing with your 67 negatives? If just mediocre low cost scans, then even a low cost entry level DSLR would equal it, or even better it. If you are doing costly extremely high quality drum scans of your negatives, then you will probably be looking at the need for a "full frame" DSLR in the 25 plus megapixel range. The bodies are in the three to six thousand dollar range, ... then you will need quality lenses to match.</p> <p>The next step is medium format digital, based more closely on the 645 format. These cameras are, in my opinion, far beyond even medium format film no matter how it is scanned. As of now, the Pentax 645 MF digital SLR cameras are the "lowest" cost, but you are still looking at over ten thousand dollars with lenses. If you have REALLY deep pockets, you can get up into the over $30,000 range with the Hasselblad and Phase One cameras, (the Phase One cameras being based on the Mamiya 645 AFD bodies). </p> <p>You pays your money and you takes your choice. If it matters, I also used MF film and find I get results just as good if not better with just a relatively basic 18mp Canon DSLR with crop sensor, but I am not printing huge. </p> <p>You can search online and find articles and "proof" to agree AND disagree with everything i have said. Lab tests and theory and numbers are fine and good, real world results are another matter, and I am only saying that in the real world of today's highly sophisticated DSLR, I do believe they have surpassed MF film. My opinion, everybody has their own.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, a 50mm lens on medium format is not like a 50mm on a 35mm camera. A 50mm lens on MF is approaching wide angle, and thus it is very possible that the frame of the filter is being "seen" by the lens. Either do as said in the other answer and be sure you are not stacking the polarizer filter on top of another filter and you may even have to use a "slim" polarizer filter that has an extremely shallow mount to try to prevent problems on a semi wide angle lens.</p> <p>One other thing. You may find you get some "banding" in the sky when using a polarizer filter with a 50mm lens on a MF camera. The lens will often be capturing more area than can be polarized by the filter and create ugly banding of different shades of blue in a large expanse of sky.</p> <p>Your best bet would probably be not to use a polarizer filter on any lens with a focal length of less than 80mm on a MF camera. </p>

<p>Ok, .... just wanted to be sure the first base, (the owner's manual), had been covered! It is astonishing how many people ask questions about a camera that are fully explained in the manual, but they never bother to look! </p> <p>I can actually sympathize with you though. The Mamiya manuals are not always the greatest in clarity. I have had two Mamiya 645 cameras, the newest of mine was the AFD, so I can't really speak to the model III. I do remember the owner's manuals left something to be desired. I no longer have my AFD so I can't play around with it to see if the shutter / focus can be separated. I do know that I never used mine that way, so it is a function I never pursued. </p> <p>You may just have to search for some specific Mamiya forums online to find someone who can give you a real world answer. Good luck to you, ... those are pretty sweet cameras regardless.</p>

<p>Just speaking in general I have to ask if you are sure the camera can even do that? The 100% accurate answer to that is that it will state that in the camera owner's manual. If you do not have the manual, it should be pretty easy to download it online. If you do have the manual, I can only suggest that you read and study it. If such a function can be done, it will be explained there. </p>

<p>Humm... well, I am not going to go into WHY in heavens name you would want to use 110 film, .... it is a horrid format, but as to advancing the film, ... any 110 camera I ever did use simply required you to keep pushing the film advance lever / slide until it would push no further. This resets the shutter to function. The numbers showing through the window can pretty much be ignored. Just take the photo, and advance the film until it clicks / locks into place and will advance no more. You are then ready to take the next photo.</p>

<p>That is "110" film, common as fleas in earlier times. If you are ok with sending the film off to be developed, there are two places you can send it, Dwaynes and The Darkroom.</p> <p>http://www.dwaynesphoto.com</p> <p>http://thedarkroom.com</p>

<p>Though I owned an AFD, I make no claims of being an expert on it. I will just state my experience with it. The link in the other answer gives much better details on the differences between the various series of the AF cameras, and I did not read through it all. To my knowledge, the main difference between the cameras is how well it works with a digital back. If your intent is to use a film back, the AF or the AFD is likely as good as any of the other bodies. </p> <p>I had both the 80mm 2.8 and the 150mm lens. Both lenses seemed excellent to me. Auto focus is NOT the greatest on Earth. Slow and noisy. Not even in the same league as a Canon 5D MkII with Ultra Sonic lenses. If you think the auto focus on the Canon is "pretty average", you are going to HATE the Mamiya 645 AFD. It is certainly usable and mine never failed to focus, but it does not happen quickly or silently. </p> <p>My camera never gave me any problems but I was never real crazy about the user interface. I had a cheap Mamiya 645E (manual focus) that was actually much easier to use, but my bad eyesight has forced me away from manual focus cameras. </p> <p>Here is a photo taken with the 150 lens:<br> http://postmyimage.com/img2/981_1007041505021126222958.jpg</p> <p>Here is a photo taken with the 80mm lens:<br> http://postmyimage.com/img2/895_0911131215441117759210.jpg</p>

<p>Here is an idea you may want to think about. Buy an older, but known working, Mac with a Firewire port and NON INTELL based. You could hook the scanner up and use the standard Nikon software. You would use the computer as dedicated to the scanner only. This is how I used my Nikon scanner, the 9000 model. My computer was an Apple G4 laptop, pre Intel version. I eventually got a new iMac, but keep the older Mac for running the scanner only. (I have since sold the scanner). </p> <p>You may find this is the best way to go in this situation rather than struggling to make a Thunderbolt port function as a Firewire, plus having to use 3rd party software. While I never used Vuescan or Silverfast, I always liked the Nikon Scan software, though I actually only used it for the initial scan and ICE application as a 16 bit Tiff file, then imported that into Photoshop for any further adjustments. </p>

<p>Here is an idea you may want to think about. Buy an older, but known working, Mac with a Firewire port and NON INTELL based. You could hook the scanner up and use the standard Nikon software. You would use the computer as dedicated to the scanner only. This is how I used my Nikon scanner, the 9000 model. My computer was an Apple G4 laptop, pre Intel version. I eventually got a new iMac, but keep the older Mac for running the scanner only. (I have since sold the scanner). </p> <p>You may find this is the best way to go in this situation rather than struggling to make a Thunderbolt port function as a Firewire, plus having to use 3rd party software. While I never used Vuescan or Silverfast, I always liked the Nikon Scan software, though I actually only used it for the initial scan and ICE application as a 16 bit Tiff file, then imported that into Photoshop for any further adjustments. </p>

<p>Just to give you another yes answer. Though I no longer have my 645 AFD, I used it plenty of times in studio with hot shoe mounted triggers and lights. No problem at all. I even used a Canon STE2 infrared trigger on the Mamiya to fire remote Canon flashes. As long as your radio trigger will fire your studio strobes, then the camera will activate the radio trigger. Really, as long as there is a signal at the main contact point on the hot shoe, a radio trigger will work with any camera.</p>

<p>Umm... that sucks for sure. Walmart has had that same "method" for quite a while now. I feel for you man, but hey, it IS CVS. That is why there are plenty of PRO labs still around, and why I NEVER use such a place as CVS or Wally World. Work directly with "Dwaynes" or "The Darkroom" or "North Coast Photography Supply" and you will end these kind of problems.</p>