kelly_hughes

I agree with the previous poster that said to go for the 645N or 645NII for newer features. You can still use the manual focus lenses, but with the body being AF capable, you'll get the beep/LED to let you know when focus is right, even though the lens isn't AF. That helps when you aren't sure, and beats twiddling back and forth in tiny adjustments trying to get just the right focus.

 

Also, the rotary knobs are much nicer than the up/down buttons of the original 645. You should be able to twirl those and keep your eye in the eyepiece easier then the 645.

 

As for the little blue pills... the side effects are higher, and they don't last nearly as long as the oblong beige pills! (or so I'm told) LOL!

 

Enjoy the trip.

<p>I have that elusive Minolta 100/f2 and I use it on my Sony A700. Oddly, my Minolta 35-105 (old style) beats it on sharpness every time I compare them directly on the same scene. That's one heck of a sharp zoom! And quite the bargain for around $100 to $200 typically. I don't think my f2 is a bad copy; it does seem really nice... it's just that the 35-105 is stellar. I couldn't speak to the bokeh between the two, 3D effect, etc. But now that I've read your article, I'm certainly going to look for it!</p>

<p>I'm still quite the amateur compared to you guys. I'm a very low-volume shooter whose sessions are family get-togethers, graduations, random stuff I see on car trips that I can pull over and shoot from the side of the road, etc. I can go weeks without taking any shots, but I always look forward my next session sneaking up on me. I do have one regular "customer" though... one of our best friends who has me over for a photo shoot in their back yard each year for Christmas pictures of their kids. No money exchanged, purely for the mutual benefit of it. (Cards for her, shooting for me.) She poses them, and I snap away. It's neat to later see one of my pictures arrive in the mail on a Christmas card, having been cleverly cropped and processed. She has a better "eye" than I do, but isn't very equipment savvy. So between her final touches and me working the equipment, together we make a pretty good photographer, lol. The picture always makes me go "Wow, I can't believe I took that!"</p>

<p>Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for the great article. You pretty much nailed most of my own views about hardware vs content, although I get by on micro-budget contraints. It's good to see there are still people out there who take the time pass on their knowledge. It's wonderful when it's done in a logical, sensible way that invites open conversation about various systems without all the flaming and bickery that has ruined many discussion boards in the last few years.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think I had that at one time on my 645N. I recall it working fine, but not really my taste as much as I thought it would be, and I returned it. I presume you are talking about the 2X zoom on the eyepiece view. The downside is that it cut off the view around the edges.</p>

<p>I think the biggest downside to Contax 645 cameras (besides the $10K price last time I looked) is the horrible battery life. Contax 645 cams are reported to get 2 to 3 rolls per battery pack, maybe 5 to 10 if you use Lithium. Pentax 645 series cameras are said to get 130 rolls on alkaline and 250 rolls on a set of Lithium batteries. That's a HUGE difference in battery costs, a factor of 40X to 60X on alkaline and 25X to 50X more rolls per battery set on Lithium!! Not to mention it must be heavy carrying around 3 or more extra sets of batteries in the bag for Contax.</p>

<p>Source: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00EqZK (search for "lithium" on that page) There are other pages on the boards that say the same thing as this particular thread.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>Plus the newer versions (645n, 645nII) add autofocus capabilities, though their use is not required. You can still use the manual focus lenses from the first 645, and as a nice bonus, the 645n/nII can give you focus confirmation beeps and LED indicator when focus in right, even though it's manual focus lenses. Takes a lot of the guesswork out when manual focusing.</p>

<p>I find it strange that anyone would consider paying 1/3 of a house for a camera of any type. </p>

<p>Several people described exactly what I was going to add. The companies that made the digital backs had to spend a couple million dollars designing and developing the product. They knew in advance that only about two dozen people would buy them, so they priced them at $2M divided by 24 to break even! LOL</p>

<p>I second the motion for a Pentax 645 series. It's what I have, and therefore it's the best. LOL, just kiddin'. Predrag is right, most of these responses are just votes for their own systems without knowing a darned thing about what YOU want.</p>

<p>Seriously though, if your desire is to not have to fiddle with external metering and manual offsets for filters and upside down viewing, etc, then I would actually recommend the Pentax 645n. It's usually not much more than the 645 first gen, but because of the AF capability and built-in metering, it's a lot like a modern 35mm, only with a larger negative. I prefer the rotary dial of the 645n over the 645's up/down buttons. Also, you have the option of using AF lenses with the 645n, but it will work with the MF lenses of the older 645 too. The jump in price to the 645nII doesn't make sense IMO. It adds a [largely not-needed] MLU function and a couple of other configuration options without factory assistance, but the defaults of the 645n seem the correct choices to me anyway. </p>

<p>The downside to the Pentax system is that the backs aren't interchangeable, so you're stuck with the same roll until it's done. Other systems allow mid-roll switching, but I think those systems are substantially more expensive, without adding much else. Leaf shutters might be the exception though. Only certain lenses in Pentax are leaf shutters.</p>

<p>A 645n with a 75mm AF lens is probably within your budget, at least on eBay. I agree that it's safer to go with KEH, but it will certainly be more. I would (and have) trusted eBay sellers with hundreds of + feedback and positive ratings of 98% or more. I have bought half a dozen cameras and a dozen or so lenses across 3 different camera families, and I can't recall a time I ever bought a dud that way. I did run into a leaf shutter lens that had a problem the seller didn't know about, but the guy worked out a partial refund deal I was happy with. That's the power of people wanting to keep their very good feedback ratings. Many even have return periods.</p>

<p>Good luck, and let us know what you wind up with. </p>

<p>Remember that with 645, the negative is so much larger than 35mm, and the film material is essentially the same, so the grain is much less noticeable because it's so much smaller in terms of the percentage of picture size. So you'll generally get grain levels at 200 or 400 with 645 that are equal to 100 or 64 film on the 35mm, when comparing the same film formula in 35mm vs 120/220. Assuming you get exposures correct and use good techniques, you should see an increase in IQ just from the sheer size increase of the negative.</p>

<p>Also, there's the new Ektar format that is VERY low grain. If you like the colors it gives, that will probably be easier to get good results from scanning. I was very impressed with its utter lack of grain, but the blues and reds were very prominent. I almost think I like Velvia better, but it's got more grain.</p>

<p>Can't help much with B&W, as I'm a color shooter.</p>

<p>I know there's more to IQ than grain issues, but it does play a part.</p>

<p>Every time I get film developed through the send-out service at Walmart, they don't seem to count the development part. It's like they don't have a code to use for MF film, so they just don't bother to ring that part up. It's been under $3 total for the last three envelopes I just checked on my shelf, and those were 220, not 120 -- twice as many prints! I've requested 5x7 prints on the custom field the last few times, and have actually gotten lucky a couple of times and gotten those for the same cost. Usually not, though, so don't count on that.</p>

<p>Of course, it's been a couple of years since then, but I don't have any reason to think anything's changed -- Fuji is still around, and so is Dwayne's.</p>

<p>I was REALLY unhappy with the colors of Fuji NC film processed through Walmart, so I switched to Ektar, and it was really really nice in comparison. No visible grain either. I can't swear I did that roll through Walmart though, that might have been the local place that charges $11 per roll of 120, and $27 for a single 5x7 reprint from negative.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>I think they are saying it's going to be about $18,000. I sure hope your number is closer, though.</p>

<p>Plus, imagine how expensive all our 645 lenses will become on eBay after the 645D debuts!</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>I don't want to badmouth any of the other models, but I just don't know anything about them. That being said, I have two of the Pentax 645N's and like them very much. (I don't actually use both, I just bought a second bundle to get a particular lens I wanted, and haven't sold it off yet cuz it's nice to have a backup just in case.) </p>

<p>Unlike the previous P645 owner, I'm more of an automated guy. I like the focus confirmation I get with old manual focus lenses, and the only thing I choose manually is the aperture. Basically, I decide on the DOF I want, and let the camera figure out how to get the exposure right using shutter speed. </p>

<p>That was probably me that posted about cheap prices at Walmart. My local one doesn't seem to charge a processing charge, just per-print charges of about 9c or 12c or somewhere in that range. I just pulled two envelopes off the shelf, price stickers still on them, and a roll of 120 was $1.80, and 220 was $2.76. I asked for 5x7" on both, and got 5x7 on the 120 roll, but the 220 was those tiny 5x3 or whatever the usual size is. Those rolls were from 10/2007 and 11/2007. I didn't care for the results much, as the colors weren't very vibrant. However, I was shooting Fuji in a neutral color formula, so I think I'm learning that I'm more of a Portra man.</p>

<p>No Walmart processes 120 or 220 film in house, or so I've read. They send it out to some lab that they have a bulk contract with. So the trick is to use the self-serve drop box and simply to learn what to write on the envelope so the employees know not to bother opening it, but rather to ship it out. My envelope from my 120 roll, which I consider more successful since I got 5x7 there, says "120 med format, see below" in box 3. In box 4 I put "gloss or matte doesn't matter. 120 Medium format - print 5x7 & scan to CD." I didn't get a CD from either roll, though I requested it on both envelopes. I didn't check any box anywhere on the whole form on the 120, but I did check the "check here if writing special instructions" box on the 220 roll (not that it did any good).</p>

<p>To be honest, I haven't turned in a roll since then, as I've been doing mostly digital, and my volume is pretty low anyway. So I don't know if they've changed their pricing. I'd guess it's a very high probability that the whole system works the same way it did back then, even if my great prices were based on store employees not knowing how to ring the thing up.</p>

<p>I should know more within a couple of weeks. I've been itching to get out and shoot some Portra lately, and I have an outdoor train shoot set up with a friend from work for some time next week, weather permitting.</p>

 

<p>Asking this question inside the Mamiya 7 and 6 forum, of course you're going to get mostly answers saying the Mamiya is the best choice. Ask in the Fuji forum, you'll get the reverse. I think you need to drop back one level to the medium format forum (non camera specific) and ask specifically for people who have shot both. Or if you're in one of the model-specific forums, ask about people who own both.</p>

<p>In medium format, I have both the Fuji 645zi and Pentax 645N. I don't find either to be very different from shooting DSLR -- at least in terms of automation levels. Admittedly, I don't shoot very high volume, and I tend to use P mode. Since I don't have Mamiya experience to weigh against, so I won't offer any opinion on which is better for you, except to say that both seem like a pleasure to use.</p>

<p>Oh, sorry, I misread that. He was talking about using a new lens on old film bodies.</p>

<p>It would be foolish to have the 645D not be compatible with the existing 645 lenses. Then again, anyone spending $10k USD on a camera isn't going to sweat another couple thousand on lenses, I guess. Still, it seemed only natural that the 645D would be backward compatible, and I even thought I had read that it would be (way back before it got cancelled the first time).</p>

<p>Afterthought: Not to disparage your purchase, of course. I'm sure it's a great camera. My takeaway point was just that it wasn't right for me, and you should buy lots of batteries to carry along. </p>

<p>In fact, I wonder how modern day NiMH compare to Lithium AA's? Perhaps rechargeables make more sense now. Capacities there are upwards of 2700maH now.</p>

<p>I don't own a Contax myself, but I compared it to the Pentax 645 series when I was shopping. The complaint I've frequently seen is that it chews through the batteries VERY fast. In the 5th post <a href="00EqZK">here</a> the guy claims 5 to 10 rolls on LITHIUM batteries. If you forego the $14 for a set of Lithiums, I think you could count on 1 or 2 rolls with Duracells, since Lithium AAs are said to have 3X the capacity of standard alkalines. Pentax claims the 645N gets 130 rolls of 120, or 100 rolls of 220 using only NORMAL batteries (and that was at the time of printing of the manual, not current improved alkalines). Further down the same page, a Pentax user claims to routinely get over 250 rolls of 120 using Lithium batteries with his 645NII.</p>

<p>That alone would turn me off from the Contax 645. But that's tiny compared to the 15X cost factor of everything Contax. Hmm... $300 to $500 for a complete Pentax setup including a lens or two, or $10,000 for a Contax with mostly the same features and no lenses? No-brainer for me, but YMMV.</p>

<p>BTW, I have a friend at work who is a 35mm Contax fan. His last lens hood (just the lens hood, not the lens itself) cost him $125, and from a quick glance at eBay, that was relatively cheap. Most are $180+. In contrast, I have 3 of Pentax's 645 lenses in my bag, one is autofocus, and not a one of them cost me over $125. Contax prices are so ridiculous that we've adopted a running joke where we use "hood" as a denomination of money (= $125). At only $63, my last autofocus lens for my Minolta mount DSLR was only 0.5 hood.</p>

<p>I guess if money is no option, then Contax might make sense. To me it just plain doesn't.</p>

<p>Christoph -- compensate exposure in which direction (for backlight situations)? Bump it up a notch to bring out the darker subject, or down to avoid blowing out backlights? I haven't really used mine much yet, so your tip will encourage me to try expermenting some in those situations to see which is best for my particular camera's meter.</p>

<p>The Pentax 645 cameras are very nice, IMO. The 645N and 645NII have autofocus capabilities, which can make the experience of using the camera very similar to what you're used to in digital (built in metering, spot/matrix, etc), yet you can still go manual and get that old school feeling and enjoy manual focus on those HUGE viewfinders whenever you want. Also, the AF of the N/NII will give you LED and/or beep confirmation for focus, even on the old manual-focus-only lenses.</p>

<p>I prefer the 645N because it gives me the wheel, rather than up/down buttons of the 645, as well as the AF mentioned above. It lets me go full auto if I don't feel like putting on my serious amateur photographer hat (or if I hand the camera over to a friend to take a shot or two.) The 645NII is substantially more rare and expensive, and the Luminous Landscape test showed that mirror lockup wasn't really necessary (see <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">this link</a> ), so I wound up with the 645N. There are alternate focusing screens that can give you microprisms and such, in case the standard matte one doesn't thrill you.</p>

<p>Be aware that the 645 backs are not interchangeable mid-roll. I don't find this to be a problem because most of my 645 stuff tends to be outside in decent light, so whether I'm shooting ISO 100 or 400, I just use the roll that's in there.</p>

<p>Speaking of ISO, there are some differences between medium format and digital/35mm that you need to be aware of:</p>

<p>1) with much larger sized negatives, film grain is smaller in terms of percentage of size compared to the image, so it's less noticable than in 35mm. Thus, you can use ISO 400 and expect about the same grain of ISO 100 in 35mm. </p>

<p>2) Just as the jump from crop digital sensors to 35mm makes the lenses cover more area and changes the effective zoom level, so is the jump to medium format. Where 85mm is the usual portrait lens on digital, and 100mm on 35mm film, the usual portrait lens is around 150mm on medium format.</p>

<p>3) Depth of field will be different, but I'n not technical enough to explain this in great depth. Just know that you'll get shallower DOF on medium format than you're used to in digital, so you may have to stop down and shoot longer shutter speeds across the board than you'd expect.</p>

<p>4) All the Pentax 645 lenses are well regarded optically.</p>

<p>There's probably lots more I'm forgetting, but that will give you something to chew on until others chime in.</p>

 

<p>Post links with your answers so we can see their galleries!</p>

<p>Is it just for the fun of designing it, or did you hope to sell a few? If you wanted to sell them, I'd say to pick a family that doesn't already have digital backs available for it, because the demand would be higher and competition non-existent. Pentax 645 comes to mind, but don't know about other brands.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>Are you sure? Of course, there is a very small measurable difference between the film thicknesses, but does the 120 vs 220 back really have a different design with that difference in mind? I don't have a Bronica, but my Pentax 645 backs are exactly the same, save for a little lever (which is reversible) to tell the camera whether it's a 120 or a 220 back. That tells me that the manufacturer used the exact same back for both types, and only installed the lever one way or another to pick the film type. Clearly the only reason the camera has to know 120 vs 220 is how many shots to allow. Pentax obviously decided the difference in film thicknesses wasn't enough to affect critical focus accuracy.</p>

<p>Interestingly, many Pentax people have flipped that little lever and made 120 backs out of 220 and vice versa. The only drawback is that the label on the back says the wrong film type and might be confusing for the user. (And if you don't have a way to flip the camera's detection, it will stop halfway through the roll with 220 in a 120 back, and roll off the end with 120 in a 220 back.)</p>

<p>So while there IS a difference in thickness, my guess is that it isn't really part of the design considerations of the backs.</p>

<p>No offense to anyone, just saying it might be worth a look. And it goes without saying that I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p><em>"And Carlson told us that it will not be marketed in the United States because Pentax predicted it would only sell 200 units there. "</em></p>

<p>Sure, because they'll probably charge $54,000 for one! LOL</p>

<p>I'd love to have one myself, and already have several lenses for it, assuming previous 645 lenses work. However, it would have to be about $4000 for me to even start considering it. (So I could catch one for $2500 on eBay a year or two later.)</p>

<p>Then again, I'm not even a pro...</p>

<p>(But it's still good news. I was sad to see it discontinued.)</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>Sweet. It sure would be nice if it had spools like Fuji with the little hook to grab the film for easy take-up, without having to add a small piece of tape...</p>