ivan_j._eberle1

Do you want a different look or a different style for how you work? Your desire for something reliably rugged + old style MF digital backs-- I'd say these are competing priorities and are mutually exclusive. Digital backs of more than a few years ago will be far, far less reliable than anything you're likely used to in 35mm DSLRs. Worsening matters, what may be most affordable today will have the least technical support going forward. There's been wholesale hari-kari in the MF world over the past decade, in no small measure because FF 35mm has become so good.

IIRC, with an insert installed, you've got to have film loaded in the P645N. You can't dry fire it without an flashing error code otherwise.

I used Pentax gear exclusively for 20 years before jumping ship, and have owned numerous Pentax LXs (one body owned from new that I beat the snot out of it for a dozen years before it required its first service).

In its moment, the LX was a better build-quality camera body than anything Nikon then had new. The Pentax LX offered weather sealing when Nikon did not have any in its SLRs, and it was very, very compact and yet truly a pro system camera. However, it must be realized that moment we're talking about was 1980 and that's nearly 37 years ago! By 1990, the LX was eclipsed by several other cameras, and it never got any metering or feature upgrades, which was rather a pity. By 1992 I was using a PZ-1 for its spot metering in Hyper Manual mode, and getting consistently better exposures on color slide film than I ever got shooting the center-weighted LX (The PZ-1 is admittedly ugly as sin, but they're super reliable and vastly more modern and feature laden than the LX. I sold mine for under $50--still working perfectly-- several years back).

The Pentax lenses that were spectacular in the day were the normal lenses that were quite commonplace, and notable other gems in more extreme focal lengths that often seemed as rare as hen's teeth. You will today pay silly money for the best of the Pentax exotics of that era, but so few come up on the market that it becomes a real waiting game. (The legendary SMC-A 200mm f/4 Macro? When it was yet "in production" in 1992, there were only 4 copies that had made it into the USA. I couldn't for the life of me get my hands on one.)

I jumped ship to Nikon in 2005 while still shooting film because even the upper echelon EDIF lenses for Nikon are not so exotic that you can't find several examples to choose from on any given day. The F5 Nikon turned out to be a vastly better picture taking instrument for most things than was my PZ-1 or venerable old LX, except that with it's integral motordrive, the F5 was a beast. Spot-metering, Matrix and really great fill flash were features the LX never got upgraded to (As mentioned, my PZ-1 had them, but it was no LX). Yet for what it did best, e.g. rugged and ultra compact backpacker's camera, the LX truly once was and still might be somebody else's perfect gem. Me, I never really abandoned the LX gear and tried to keep it alive by buying replacement bodies. This proved somewhat frustrating. Like mine, most LX were so well loved and well used that they'll be well worn or worn out. Even pristine looking ones that are shelf queens develop issues over time. I learned to repair cameras myself through keeping my LXs alive. But eventually all LX bodies develop focus problems as the rubber mirror rest stops compress every 12 to 15 years and the focusing gets out of register. Calibrating this is not an easy DIY job. Most repair shops that don't specialize in Pentax LX will not touch them or get it right if they try to tackle it. These are very complex cameras as there was both an electronic side and a full mechanically-timed shutter from 1/75-1/2000.

If you do decide to take the LX plunge anyway, the only person I know of who may still work on them is Eric, as noted above, though I've not used his services personally.

Reality today is that if you don't get out in front and specify one time publishing rights that do NOT include the web, and that your images are not to be used on the web edition for free, you are likely to discover too late that if your story does blow up big, it will be the result of everybody linking to the original story on the web, for which you got paid squat.

I'm dubious that any wide angle lens in 645 or 2-1/4 can top the Pentax SMC-A 35mm f/3/5 lens resolution. The existence of this one lens is the reason I got into P645N system, and it is still the only optic I have for it more than 5 years later. It was hard to find for awhile when there weren't many tilt/shift lens options available for 135 format sized DSLRs, they were useful via adapters without compromising resolution. Too, they were being used on a variety of third party pano adapters as well.

 

Clearly there are a number of Pentax lenses that are about as good as optics get, of any brand or pedigree. The Pentax 645 series glass never were cheap consumer optics, they just fell out of professional favor (through neglect in the decade Pentax dragged their feet on the 645D). In the years when Pentax had no pathway to digital captures, the came to appeal mostly to amateurs and pro fine art folks still using film. With rental houses dumping them and flooding the market due they were bargain priced as when I picked up mine.

 

The 645D got Pentax back in the game. I do note that the recent 25mm lens is rather stratospherically priced at $5K USD.

 

In range and number of lenses, Pentax once could claim to offer more in 645 than any other brand because all the P67 lenses also work at full aperture metering on 645 bodies with the 67>645 Pentax adapter. The 645 lenses will adapt to 35mm and DSLR camera with adapters, albeit with stop down metering, I think? The range of the legacy glass is slanted toward the angles of view that for full frame 645, not reduced sized sensors like the 645D.

+1 on the Pentax 645N's viewfinder. It's got the best SLR view I've ever experienced, hands down, and that includes some really fabulous ones like the Pentax LX and F5 in 35mm. The 645 format has a lot going for it and the viewfinder prism size may be what's contributing to the view being so big and bright. I've got the AG80 screen with the grid installed and with it find the P645N a snap to manually focus. It's also got a GREAT built in click-stop diopter objective, with a large adjustment range. For this camera have only the SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 lens (manual focus), but it's so smooth and tack-sharp I've never felt compelled to look any further or into the AF version. The right angle finder for the P645 is also a well-made accessory that works great.

Check your email!

The metal lens mount and bayonet are the ground conductors for Nikon's AF mount. Make sure to thoroughly clean these as well. At the time of introduction the D300 had a well known problem with the lens mount and contacts, which would get develop a black carbon-like accumulation over just a couple of week's time, which increase electrical resistance. Isopropyl alcohol didn't get at the problem for me nearly as well as DeOxIt did, which really helped until Nikon finally came out with a firmware update which seemed to lower the threshhold voltage under peak demand at which the camera would lock up due to a false low battery indication. After the upgrade the camera was not nearly as prone to locking up with a minor amount of gunk on the contacts and mount. My two F5s were also sensitive to black junk forming on the mount and behaved similarly. My D200 didn't seem to have any problems in this regard. Don't know about the D2X ever having this issue, but keeping the contacts clean can't hurt (unless you go and get some solvent entrained inside your lens). Might also want to check your firmware version to see that it was the latest and greatest?

<p>Horses for courses. I shot only slides in the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's, mostly Kodachrome. Slides were de rigeur when publications required them. They can be a real pain since the dynamic range of natural light often exceeds that which can be captured on a transparency emulsion. While I learned to make contrast-masked Ilfochromes in the darkroom, I get better prints from color neg film. Beyond that the hybrid prints I make today are better than I got in the wet chemistry darkroom with C41/RA4. Print film especially in MF and larger sizes, has real advantages over slide film. Ever since T-grained Ektar came back, grain and resolution are not reason enough to shoot slides all the time. No bracketing with print film... no center filters. I appreciate a nice slide and yes, it's easier to get a good color balance match on a transparency-- sometimes. It's not that hard with print film if you have a gray card reference somewhere in the shot to zero out the color mask. A tree trunk will often do in a pinch, and a white card reference slightly underexposed will do too!</p>

<p>Are you wanting to do the color paper processing from negs thing to keep a process alive, or because you think you'll achieve better results?</p>

Why all the long faces? Cheer up! The vast number of Hasselblads already in circulation are so durable that there will inevitably be working examples continuing to make beautiful images long beyond when those of us now living are turned to dust. More and more affordable used MF gear in the marketplace than ever before, even mint condition stuff indistinguishable from new. Perhaps it was inevitable, as pros stopped beating the snot out of their Hasselblads with everyday use, and migrated on to other cameras, that the replacement cycle on new equipment would never catch up with the many, many used bodies that got dumped relatively cheaply and now flood the used marketplace, largely bought by amateurs hitherto priced out of such photographic explorations. Incidentally, every other manual focus MF SLR system camera I can think of has already been out of manufacture some years now, for much the same reason.

Absolutely try it with a spare roll of film before returning it. My later P645N won't trip the shutter without film in it. Autowinds to frame one when the insert is installed, that is with the film wound onto the takeup reel, and racheted to the "Start" arrow position. All this and more is available in the P645 Owner's Manual, which can be downloaded for free.

Nikon is obviously in the business of selling new lenses. No 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S? No 200-400mm VR f/4 version I? Hogwash!

If a Bronica 645 was too much camera, you won't be happy with much in MF besides a rangefinder. These will have issues with parallax at close distances, and may not be suitable for portraiture. What subject matter is it that you like to shoot? Do you have an identified style yet? Are you having trouble finding a format size that allows sufficient detail to express what it is you are trying to say in your images, or is it an ergonomics question of what camera is comfortable enough to use for an extended day of photography?

 

I have used 135 film cameras since the late 1970's, 645 and 4x5 format for 5 years, and digital SLRs for 6 years. Each format has something going for it, and each has tradeoffs. It's going to be hard to pinpoint where each film format trumps a DSLR in image quality if you keep your prints under 16x24" these days. There are other compelling reasons to shoot film.

 

If you like what 645 film offers, Pentax 645N has the best viewfinder I have ever used on an SLR. The manual focus lenses are sublime precision, and some like my SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 are sharp as tacks. If you can handle a largish DSLR one of these is really not any bigger or heavier (The rig I describe is very close in weight to a Nikon F5, and handles as well or maybe even better. It's simpler with no menus, for sure.)

Head and shoulder portraits require a camera that can comfortably shoot a vertical shot, i.e. a revolving back. Most press cameras (Crowns, Speeds) don't have this but The Graflex Super Graphic, Busch Pressman Model D, and the Meridian 45B do have revolving backs-- all older classic cameras but they still exist in sufficient numbers. All monorails have them too, and you can pick up one for $100-400. $400 will get you set up in a used Sinar monorail, a great camera system that's modular and cost 10X as much back in the day to get your feet wet. For sufficient distance from your human subjects that you're not distorting facial features, and less intimidation, I'd suggest a 210mm f/5.6 plasmat lens in a modern Copal shutter thread. Mint lenses abound. These were once the coin of the realm for commercial studio photographers, but not so much anymore. Used these commonly sell for under $250 in a pristine shutter. The "backs" or film holders are about $5-10 each used. Most any sturdy tripod can be pressed into 4x5 use.

Once upon a time (1940's-late 1970's), starting out with larger format film transparencies made it vastly easier to dust, spot and retouch the optical half-tone color separations required with old style prepress work. Optical color separations were the original reason for a transparency-only color workflow. Decades later, digital service bureaus and their scanner and film recorder equipment adopted the standards established with analog workflows, in the transition period to digital. Low end drum scanners (the $50K ones back in the day) don't resolve well enough when scanning 35mm; worsening matters was that film recorder output (printing devices that rendered the 4 layer CMYK black and white analog negatives on photosensitive materials from a digital file) required in early digital prepress work, until the mid-90's, inserted yet another generational loss. Such losses could be overcome with the brute force approach of more film real estate and an abundance of detail that was mostly being tossed. The best 35mm lenses were very good indeed and the resulting original transparencies made in the 1980's were really not much different than what we have today, but they nevertheless too often didn't translate well into print. Photoshop was not on every magazine art director's computer, that was a 90's phenomenon.

So no, there was indeed a time it was unusual to see 135 format printed at full-bleed, double-truck in an art magazine or even high-end lifestyles magazine. But, as mentioned, that all happened a generation or more ago. Smaller sensor sizes than 35mm full frame work today in large part because the prepress methods have been not just evolving, but revolutionized, not because the lenses or format was inferior.

This certainly was stock in trade information found in pro photo business practice books up until the 1990s. As E6 films improved by the early 90's, and as film scanning overtook optical color separations (and as scanners themselves improved) the differences in quality became mostly imperceptible in print at the common print sizes used in magazines, at the typical screen resolution used on sheet fed and web fed printing presses. As mentioned Arizona Highways was one of the last to insist upon LF, but that might have been as much to winnow the volume of submissions by eliminating 35mm toting Galen Rowell wannabees.

 

There remained other reasons to shoot LF and MF like proofing (and larger viewing areas of proofs), for assigmnent work. Other reasons might be leaf shutter sync'ing of electronic flash to 1/1000 with certain MF lenses or 1/500 with Copal 0's in LF.

Zooms are nice but they have to fill a niche. I am primarily a wildlife photographer and have also owned a 70-200 VRI but found I didn't like it much, didn't use it but for events and eventually sold it last year. Never warmed up to it for it's long minimum focus distance. Certainly sharp enough, but not in my book a great portrait lens. Enormous for what it does, and intimidating to subjects for casual portraits. But then I also have the 105VRII and the 200-400 VRI. With kids, you do need a fast focusing, fast handling lens. Heartily recommend the 105VRII for that, it's just superb. For wildlife, I can't see that a faster focusing lens is more important than focal length. I'd recommend no shorter of a lens than a 300mm (on a DX body) for photographing dangerous North American big game. The 70-200mm simply is not long enough to capture many species of wildlife large in the frame without entering their danger zone with visible stress response being the primary emotional component of the resulting images.

 

A 300mm f/2.8 internal focus lens can focus manually plenty fast. I sold one of these last year, an excellent Tamron SP, for a good enough price that you could have both lenses for less than the cost of that 70-200 VRI, much less than the VRII.

One thinking-out-of-the-box approach I've seen mentioned in print might be shooting into a driveway mirror--particularly if on a budget or aren't looking to make more than a few images.

Re: the Pentax 645N and it's second tripod hole, I've got mine set up with Markins P67U Arca-style plate. With a QR clam like the Novoflex Q-base, it's a really quick operation to swap from horizontal to vertical.

Frankly, this camera is a terrific choice for handheld use and I can handhold it to silly slow speeds like 1/8s, so I find I don't use the tripod nearly as much as I expect to.

The responses so far don't mention that 35mm format macro lenses are among the sharpest lenses in all of photography. At middle apertures it's possible to achieve results equal to or better than the highest resolving camera sensors or film today. To all appearances your uploaded images are simply not wringing out anywhere near the potential of what your macro lens can do. Suggest you learn the equipment you've got first before going beyond 1:1. Sharp handheld macro photography is indeed quite feasible and fun with DSLRs; I spent many years chasing wildlife macro subjects and this is going back well into to the slow-speed slide film era.

 

Electronic flash can be extremely useful for stopping camera shake and allowing handheld use as can higher ISOs.

 

For static subjects like dewdrops and raindrops, a tripod with a focusing rail will offer precise framing and allow mirror-lock and use of a cable release under available light. Avail yourself of these, and you'll be able to take advantage of another revolutionary technique that will open doors for the higher magnifications beyond 1:1.

No discussion of macro today is complete without mentioning that focus stacking workflow that has come forth in the past decade has completely upended nearly all that went before vis a vis sharpness potential and depth of field with macros. I strongly encourage you to read up on the subject.

It's never been the case that my MF or LF scans look bad when down-rezzed for web use, detail is always stunning if it's there in the original file. It's frequently a minor challenge to get a small downsampled 10 or 12 MP DSLR file sharpened at 600x900 without blowing out contrast or subtleties. (But it really doesn't take more than moments to go into Photoshop and manually work with the USM settings for the DSLR images... nothing on the order of working with LF film and scanning it in the first place.)

Congratulations! The Meridian 45B is a great, great camera of the late 1940's era, rather under-appreciated at the time. There were only about a thousand 45B cameras made, and they were prized collector's items until most recently. I have owned a 45B, but now have and regularly use an even rarer model 45CE prototype. I know something of the history from researching the subject if you care to get more deeply into that.

 

At least one of the 45B features was unmatched by Linhof for another nearly 50 years (inner rail focusing for wide angle lenses down to 47mm, on a flat board without additional accessories, for instance). It's a very robust design that, for a fold-up all-metal technical camera at least, is relatively light in weight at 5 lbs, not quite a featherweight but with substantially more and more useful camera movements than any of the more common press camera like a Graflex Crown Special or Speed Graphic of the era (which have similar weight and bulk) and about pound lighter than any of the Linhof Technikas.

 

The 45B will also accept bigger lenses than a Crown and still fold up with them installed. Indeed, it was this feature that really sealed the deal for me. A Nikon SW90 f/8 on a flat board, and a Rodenstock Sironar-N 210mm f/5.6 on a slightly recessed board I machined out of 1/4" plate aluminum each fold up safely inside a Meridian 45B.

 

Check your bellows for pinholes with a flashlight in a dark room to see that they're light tight. As likely as not they still will be-- those original Dupont Fabrikoid bellows were astoundingly tough and durable. If the focus gearing is good (brass gear tracks not stripped), and the rotating horizontal to vertical back not all bolluxed up in an attempt to use a roll-film back (numerous one have been so butchered), it's not hard to service a Meridian yourself. The trickiest part may be getting the back post locks working correctly. I have some exploded view drawings of how it all goes together if you're interested in tackling the job.

 

Outside of the few halo brands that still exist (Sinar, Linhof, Ebony, Chamonix, an ever-dwindling few others), the LF classic camera thing is nowadays pretty much a Do It Yourself community. Meridian bellows, metal castings, and other critical components have not been available since the demise of the Meridian Instrument Co over 60 years ago. In other words, missing or broken bits and pieces can be acquired only through scavenging other parts camera bodies. Anything you can't find or scavenge, you may have to have it custom made by a machine shop. No one to my knowledge has much interest in restoring these cameras for other's use.

 

The Supermatic shutter on your Ektar may or may not be working at the correct speeds. They're fairly robust and simple. If it's gummed up from old lubricant, a simple Naptha soak and flush might be all you need to get going again. As with most leaf shutters of the era, it may be running slowly even after being CLA'd. Yet most modern negative films can withstand several stops of overexposure, so this may not be critical provided the shutter isn't sticking open.

 

In good condition, in the right hands, a Meridian 45B can be a terrific user cameras on a budget these days. Cosmetic condition won't matter so much if that's what you're seeking. Get a few film holders, load them up with a color negative film like Portra 160 or 400-- and go have tons of fun!

Dan,

Valid point with bugs and flowers you're going to freeze with a single flash pop, but this still doesn't seem to fall under the purview of being in the view camera wheelhouse, i.e. what LF does better than smaller formats. All due respect, I've also done a tremendous amount of macro work over the past 20+ years with bugs, flowers in the breeze, little pollinating critters buzzing and crawling around. Cannot imagine much or any benefit of doing this work with anything bigger than 645, myself, particularly unappealing if the subject matter were not perfect static. To get to life-size on film is double the infinity focusing extension, which is often going to result in an outsized rig, just to get to life-size (remember, life-size is exactly the same size on film or a sensor among all formats, and with LF and it's going to mean a dim ground glass view on the fly, with lenses that have f/5.6 or smaller apertures to begin with, no auto-stop down aperture at exposure, etc. Continuous Live View until the moment of exposure, and focus confirmation and all the nifty little viewfinder aids like right angle finders win the day here for smaller formats, in my opinion.

 

Too, smaller formats have a sweet spot of around f/8 to f/13 where sharpness isn't improved upon as a practical matter by going to a larger format and stopping down more to carry the same DOF at the same size magnification. Film limits or sensor limits will often apply to the smaller format, but diffraction limits constrict the larger formats, especially difficult with additional macro extension.

 

Food sets and other table top work of LF closeup photography often required multiple flash pops with the shutter held open, typically at an effective f/64 or f/90 or f/128 to carry DOF, so static subjects only here, too. Most of the table top commercial and product work has been multiple image composted since the advent of Photoshop.

I really like Fuji Quickloads for some things-- like travel through airports! Fuji Q/L also work really well in a late issue, pressure plate, single sheet Kodak Readyload holder. I'm told the reverse is not true, Fuji holders don't like Kodak R/L so much.

 

I bought a bunch of Q/Ls when they were discontinued though my supply is fast dwindling. Just about all the Q/L you'll find on eBay is now short dated or out of date; good news is this isn't very critical for LF neg film. (Grain might be a little bigger, but this won't be an issue, nor will slight color shifts if scanning).