kelly_hughes

<p>I just went there and looked around the results I got by searching for "medium format" and found almost none of those. I saw a lot of women with self portraits holding cameras (not Japanese women) and lots of shots of bedrooms and unmade beds and inside shots of people laying around stairs and tortured souls and such. Maybe you got into a collection for which that was the central theme. It's easy to start off looking at generic categories and accidentally wind up in a specific category when you start clicking on pictures you like and landing in the pools that the artist belongs...</p>

<p>Then again, it sounds like you go there and look around from time to time, so you probably know more what you're doing than I do. Maybe I just didn't go deep enough into the results.</p>

<p>It would be nice to get more thumbnails per page. I didn't bother trying to set it up, but I would if I planned on going back from time to time.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>11,482. Ha! I think we can assume I'm correct until someone proves me wrong! (And since nobody will bother, I win!)</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>I think I read that it's a collection of 200 or so stitched pictures. Shot with a Canon DSLR. Can't remember where I read that, though.</p>

<p>To save you the click, the relevant passage is...</p>

<p><small><em>Pentax has two medium format camera lines, the <strong>Pentax 67</strong> and the <strong>Pentax 645</strong> . Unique among camera makers, Pentax has designed the systems so that the lenses from the 6X7 camera can <em>also </em> be used on the 645 body. They manufacture an adaptor for this that retains autodiaphram and open-aperture metering capability. Put it on a 645 body and you can use all your 67 lenses pretty much as normal. </em> </small></p>

<p>That's probably where I read it too.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

 

<p>I seem to recall reading that the Pentax adapter for 67 to 645 made the full functionality of the 67 lenses work on the 645. I have some 645 family cameras, but don't own any 67 lenses, so take that with a grain of salt until an actual owner chimes in. But my prediction is yes, presuming you're using the actual Pentax adapter.</p>

<p>-Kelly</p>

<p>Get a D300 or D700 instead, buy me a new motorcycle as a thank you for the recommendation that saved you so much cash, and stick the last $1000 in your pocket. </p>

<p>If you're coming from DSLR, you're probably not used to having a separate light meter in the process, so you might consider a camera with built-in metering. One model I know for sure has this (because I own one) is the Pentax 645 line (645, 645n, 645nII). Not only does it have metering, but also has the usual trio of modes - spot, center weighted, multi-segment (full scene).<br>

Furthermore, the two newer "n" units also have AF capabilities. This is a nice plus for times you don't want to fuss with all the settings, you just want to grab the shot (ie, handing the camera over to the wife for a shot or two, perhaps). If you have the old MF-only lenses, they work fine too, and will give you a beep/indicator when focus is correct.<br>

Having modern amenities doesn't mean you have to use them much. You can always go MF and twirl those smooth rings around and focus yourself in the luxuriously large viewfinder. You'll be able to have split or micro prism focus screens, which I just love.<br>

Of course, I'm not saying the Pentax is necessarily the right camera for you, just that it's a representative of the class of cameras that have modern conveniences built in which might give you more overall enjoyment. If you decide to go with a more automated system like this, there are lots of threads on here that lay out the pros and cons of various brands and models. The 645 with a 75mm lens is usually around $300 on eBay last time I looked, and 645n's with an AF 75mm lens are usually still under $500. The nII's are pricier, since they are the newest and the "top" of the family, but I'm not sure of the price. I saw <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">this page</a> and decided the mirror lockup wasn't needed, so I opted for the 645n which was substantially cheaper.</p>

<p>Mine does that too, and ... wait, what? There's an illuminator for the LCD? ;) Is that also on my 645n?</p>

<p>Yeah, I like the feature. You can peek down into the camera bag and see how many shots are left without taking the camera out or turning it on.</p>

<p>This one cracked me up:<br /> "If I was looking at the Pentax I would also consider the Contax 645 - this is more expensive but is a great camera."<br>

<br /> At first glance, I thought you were saying this, translated into dollars: "If you're shopping between two cameras in the $300 to $500 range, you should also consider a $10,000 one too."<br>

<br /> But I looked them up, and seems the price has dropped to around $2500 for Contax 645. Not as laughable as a couple of years back, but you can still get five of the Penxtax 645n's for the price of one Contax.<br>

-Kelly</p>

<p>I knew the mirror lock up myth would come up for Pentax. I almost said something to stave it off.<br>

I suppose by the fact that mirror lock up got included on the 645nII, people assumed it was needed on the 645 and 645n and somehow overlooked or skimped out (of a professional level camera?). The 645 series has dampeners that reduce the shock of the mirror slap, and therefore it wasn't needed on the first two generations.  It actually wasn't needed on the 645nII either, but I believe that many people (users included) didn't really fully understand that it wasn't necessary, and Pentax added it to the 645nII to pacify public opinion. Or perhaps there was some really obscure situation where it was actually needed, and this test didn't examine it well enough.<br>

In any case, here's the link to the test: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">645-MLU</a><br>

-Kelly</p>

<p>If you have 7 35mm cameras, why are you limiting yourself to only ONE medium format?  ;)</p>

<p>I have the Pentax 645n.  Started with a regular 645, then bought the 645n for AF possibilities and focus confirmation with manual focus lenses.  I ended up with a second body, due to buying an eBay auction that contained a relatively rare lens.  I got the body and two lenses for what the lens alone was worth.</p>

<p>The build quality of the Pentaxes are good.   I don't really have any reviews bookmarked, but here's a link to a thread where they compared the 645 to the 645n.  http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/000pP5</p>

<p>Both families have good reps here, I'm sure you'll be pleased either way you go.</p>

The focus confirmation also beeps, if you have the beeping enabled on the power switch position. Perhaps that can save you having to look aside for the green dot (which also happens even if the beeping is enabled, btw).

The warming and cooling filter numbers are 81a through 81c for warming, and 82a through 82c for cooling. The letter indicates the "strength" of the filter -- a 'b' filter is twice as much of the effect as an 'a' filter, and a 'c' filter is 3x the effect of an 'a' filter.

Assuming the flash is compatible with the camera, then I don't see why not. If it was good enough for wedding

photographers of old, and their results were on par with current equipment (or even better), then there's no

reason you couldn't learn it well enough to make the same quality results with that equipment today. The big

advantages to going digital are instant feedback that you got the shot right, major convenience with respect to

speed adapting to varying conditions that film changes and filter changes might prohibit, and not having to

wait to get photos back from the lab. I'm sure there are probably others I'm forgetting, but you get the point.

And I'm not a pro, so all this is armchair philosophy when it comes to wedding work.

 

<p>

With that said, you should probably be prepared to scan the pictures and work with them digitally. With all the

smoothing and tweaking that have become commonplace today, even very good shots might appear unpolished if you

can't remove all their imperfections, reshape their eggheads, make their boobs larger, whiten their teeth,

recolor their eyes, and give them glowing radiance that cannot physically appear in real life, etc. Not that

every shoot will require that, but it seems likely you might run into a bridezilla that will require it.

 

<p>

Personally, the galleries I've seen that I like the best don't involve unnatural manipulation with Photoshop. <a

href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=22970755">This one </a> uses angles nicely

and seems very creative. <a

href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=26340752">Here's</a> some more by the same

guy with some more wedding shots towards the middle. I also like some of <a

href="http://www.pbase.com/grig/wedding_photos">this lady's work</a>, though can't remember which particular set

triggered me to bookmark it for later viewing.

I don't know about the Mamiya, since I've never owned one, so I'll tell you some of the good things about the

Pentax models.

 

The entire 645 line from Pentax has built in metering (average, spot, and center weighted). Plus, they all have

motor drive and mirror dampening to reduce the mirror slap. This makes the 645 line more usable for handheld

shots than many medium format cameras. The 645n and 645nII have autofocus as well, but can still use the old

manual focus lenses too. With the manual focus lenses, the body can beep / light up a dot when the focus is

right, which I think is a neat hybrid between manual and auto focus on the cheap -- the feel of manual focus, but

with more speed and confidence that you got the focus right.

 

I wouldn't worry about the battery not being replaceable. If Pentax stops doing it, articles will pop up on

Internet showing how, and camera shops will probably still be able to do it with a simple printout to guide them.

Any battery they used, there will be something similar enough to substitute. It's just a certain voltage with a

certain number of mAh behind it.

Don't risk buying one with a probable issue. There are 645's and 645n's on eBay all the time that are great condition. Pick someone with a million positive feedback with 98% or higher rating, and you'll be fine.

 

Or was that site saying all of them had the noise? I hadn't noticed.

I'm not sure there's any difference between the

backs, mechanically speaking, other than the little notch that is in one position for 120 and the other position

for 220 so the camera can detect which type of film is in use (and therefore how many shots to allow).

 

I've read that you can loosen the screw and turn the notch around and effectively change the back into the other

type. Maybe

someone

more knowledgeable can verify whether the designs differ any to accommodate the two thicknesses of film. I have

both backs available for my inspection, should it be needed. I know I've compared both before to see the two

notch positions, but assumed everything else was the same without actually comparing that part.

 

My guess is, the exact distance from the lens to the film plane is substantial enough that a difference of an

amount equal to the difference in thickness between 120 and 220 film, isn't going to move the focusing enough to

be noticeable. I don't think there would be any harm in trying. The obvious thing to watch out for is a loss of

sharpness.

 

-Kelly

Is there a link to this set of photos?

 

-Kelly

I bought one, not knowing whether I'd like it or not. It worked ok, but you don't see the entire frame with it

in place. I don't remember the "percentage" that the view is reduced to. It seemed like you lost about 25% or

so due to the zoom effect. I either sold it off, or more likely, it's just sitting in a drawer somewhere waiting

for me to continue my evaluation. It is nice that it flips out of the way without uninstalling it, though.

That digital back was a new product at one time too. That was the "safe" purchase instead of risky used gear at the time. (Not that there was any in the digital back world, perhaps.)

 

I think any new product is going to suffer the same abandonment/pillage fate eventually. If you're in the pro camp using systems over $8k in value, you might as well plan on being ready to buy replacements whenever one of your pieces gets discontinued, if large repair bills bother you. If they make the new system backward-compatible enough to use some of the accessories, great, but consider them disposable if they are discontinued too.

 

These companies seem to operate on the theory that pros can afford whatever they charge, and they'll pay it because it's cheaper than buying a new model. Exorbitant purchase prices coming in initially for pro gear gives the manufacturers much more freedom to ream for repair costs. Do you think they could charge $4000+ for a repair when the entire new camera was only worth $2000? No, only pros using $8,000+ cameras could possibly consider such a cost worthwhile.

 

Just thinking out loud... makes me glad I don't play in the pro camp. It seems that as DSLRs become better and better, you might consider getting a top-of-the-line DSLR next time around. If it can cut the mustard in image quality for you, that lowers your max repair cost to the very cheap cost of a new body.

 

-Kelly

Exactly my thoughts -- sounds like the shutter button from what you described. Didn't occur to me about the on/off switch. Well done, Fred.

Also worth considering: You'll only get about one roll of film per set of batteries if you are using the

in-house brand AA batteries from Batteries.com. I thought I had a bad camera once because those batteries died

before a single roll was shot. I put in a second brand new set and the same thing happened. Luckily I had the

presence of mind to test a few more of the new batteries and immediately found that their lifespan was pathetic.

Not even 1/50 of what would be considered normal lifespan for AA batteries. I tossed all the Batteries.com

batteries that night and bought some Duracells. I'm about 10 rolls in, and still on the same set.

 

Come to think of it, I think it was one of my Pentax 645n cameras this happened on.

Try Kodak Portra VC or some other vivid film. They'll give you results that more closely resemble DSLR output, at least in terms of color. I like Portra VC myself. I wish Fuji made something similar, so I could have the self-grabbing hub thing as well.

 

Also, you might find that 400 is slow enough, unless you plan to shoot only outdoors on bright days. Grain in ISO 400 medium format film is still mostly unnoticeable, so don't feel too pressured to go with 160 speed. Staying under 200 to avoid grain is a convention that applies more to 35mm film.

The Pentax 645 system is a complete system, in that the viewfinder, motor drive, and metering are all built in,

and they usually come with at least one film back. If you get the 645n or 645nII, you also get autofocus

capabilities. The AF models can use the older cheaper MF lenses, but will add a beep and/or LED confirmation for

focus, which is kinda cool.

 

<p>

I think the downsides to the Pentax 645 system are that the backs are not removable mid-roll without rewinding

the film, and there's only a couple of leaf shutter lenses for them. The normal lenses (non leaf shutter) limit

you to 1/60 sec flash sync.

<p>

I chose the 645n for myself. It was substantially cheaper than the 645n2, and I didn't need any of the extra

features added to the 645n2. (see <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">

this page </a> regarding the mirror lockup)

<p>

A couple of reviews, if it sounds interesting: <a

href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645nii.shtml"> one </a> and <a

href="http://recphoto.blogspot.com/2007/06/pentax-645-review.html"> two </a>

In any case, they are a lot more like your 35mm than TLRs or other medium format rigs that make you meter separately.

<p>

Nothing wrong with the other brands, though. Just that Pentax tends to not get mentioned as frequently, so I

feel it gets overlooked by many who might find it to be the perfect solution.

 

-Kelly

I doubt it would be a bug in the software, because then EVERYONE would see "err" in their display.

 

More likely it's a dirty contact between the lens and body, or a failed component inside, or some internal wire has wiggled loose over time. You might try rewinding the film and rethreading it or replacing it. A roll that has somehow become sticky (too much heat? defect in manufacturing?) might require too much torque from the motor and cause it to think the motor has failed. I don't know for sure that this can happen on the P645 or whether that's the error message that would result if it could detect it -- it's just something off the top of my head.