patrick_drennon

I've had a Fuji 645Zi since mid October and I love it. E-mail me if

you want details on my experience w/ it.

All accurate and good points. If you prefer an SLR and the Bronica

proves to be out of your price range the old Mamiya M645 series

(M645J, M645, M645 1000s in low to high price order) are solid

workhorse type SLR's. They do not make these cameras anymore but they

tend to be very reasonably priced used. The new 645 lenses will still

work on them. They are available with a folding finder as well as

three different types of prisms.

Which could explain the popularity of the P67....

I'm not sure why the previous responder poo-pooed the Sinar F-1 but my

experience with it (14 years) has been great. The F-2 is very

little different from the F-1 (some front standard differences, no

difference on the rear standard or front tilt mechanisms which are

easily the most commonly used). Both are solid, durable, and usable

monorail (yaw-free) cameras. The P-2 is dramatically superior, it is

also dramatically heavier, bulkier and more expensive. In between the

F's and P's is the Sinar X, more like the P but less expensive.

 

<p>

 

I know this is an MF forum but this is one of those instances where

the line blurs. I very much agree with Mr. Vener in his recommendation

of a view camera with MF backs. The perspective control provided by

the Fuji 680III (imho) is aimed more at control in photographing

architectual subjects (field uses) than the perspective control that

you describe for studio applications. It seems to have some range of

front tilt but from what I've read nothing compared to a view camera.

I believe Mr. Vener is accurate in every way with the exception, don't

miss at least considering the F-1.

I agree with Brian, and it should work well with the described 'pull'

method to get normal density and some reduced contrast w/ transparency

film. With color negative film, which inherently possesses wide

latitudes, a 1 to 1/2 stop underexposure coupled with normal

development will produce usable negative densities and lower contrast.

Changes in development practices (i.e. time and temperature) will also

affect contrast but will tend to create unpredictable color shifts.

 

<p>

 

With B&W films the only way I know to do this is through calibration.

Exposing for the shadows will often produce a dense negative that has

low contrast because of pegging certain densities in the negative to

their max value, everything else 'catches up' and overall contrast is

diminished. Thin negatives with no shadow detail at all will have low

contrast but will not tend to produce pleasing images.

 

<p>

 

We have all been so intent on gaining contrast (and sharpness) that I

don't know if this interesting question has ever been raised before.

Nikon lenses have always had an excellent reputation not because they

were particularly 'sharper' than anyone elses but rather because they

are much more 'contrasty' than anyone elses which provides the viewer

with the sense of sharpness.

The answer is yes....and no. I have an 80mm /f4 APO-Rodagon that will

cover all of the 6X7 image circle w/out vignetting. The El Nikor 80mm

will also. There are others that will cover that image circle @ any /f

stop w/out vignetting but there are some good lenses that will not. I

had a Minolta Rokkor 80mm /f5.6 that is an excellent and economical

choice UP TO 6X6cm. It does not effectively cover the 6X7 image circle

(that is why I now own the APO Rodagon).

 

<p>

 

Conventional wisdom from 10 years ago dictated the use of 90mm

enlarging lenses for 6X7 enlargements. 80mm lenses were available then

to cover the image circle. Now, any of the higher quality (and higher

priced) lenses will likely cover it. I have not studied it outside of

those lenses mentioned but would bet the other manufacturers will have

similar offerings.

I own the 45 /f4 that you rented and use it more than any other

(105, 165LS, 600)I own. I do not do many landscapes (I live in West

Texas, good landscapes are few and far between, it is NOT an

attractive desert). If I did I would probably have the 55 instead of

the 45. The 45 is rectalinear but it is a 90 degree coverage lens and

therefore tends to destort perspective quite a bit (which is exactly

what I like about it).

 

<p>

 

Steve R., who is one of your respondants is very articulate and

educated on P67 glass and has described some of the long lenses as

'super-apochromatic'. I personally do not know what this means but

interpret it to say they couldn't be better corrected for chromatic

aberrations. I know that I am totally hooked on the system and

encourage you to continue your education on it. I am particularly

impressed that you rented and test drove before buying. EVERYBODY in

this forum recommends that you approach it in that way.

 

<p>

 

As concerns image brightness, I have little trouble with the Pentax

screen so have not been tempted to have it changed but others swear by

the increased brightness in the Beattie screens. The upcoming (B&H

says in 1-2 months) P67II is rumored to have a 2-3 stop brighter

screen that is user interchangeable so you may want to wait and check

it out. You are going to get many responses (these types of threads

always generate alot of opinion). Most opinion will guide you to the

55 and 75 for sharpness but I have trouble believing they could be

significantly sharper than the 45 and 105 I own. Fact is, if you pick

any of the P67 lenses with the possible exception of the 200 you will

likely be blown away by your images. Have fun figuring it out!

The old 645 series included the M645j, M645, and the M645 1000s. The

cameras are identical except that the 645j is the basic, the M645 has

MLU and multi-exposure capability (both have a max 1/500 shutter

speed), the M645 1000s has the features of the M645 and also has a

1/1,000 sec top shutter speed (it may also have a self timer, I can't

recall). The M645 and 1000s also have one additional shutter release

on top of the body for use when using a folding lens hood.

 

<p>

 

I have a rather complete M645 system including metered prism, waste

level finder, all three extension tubes, 80 2.8C, 45 f4C, 210 f4C. I

have had this sytem for 17 years and have not had 1 minutes trouble

with it. The bodies are machined castings (they're pretty heavy for

non-interchangeable back 6X4.5's) and they are very durable. The

lenses (particularly the 45) perform well but are not 'tack' sharp. As

a matter of fact I know several portrait photographers that swear by

these camera/lens combinations because they get great images without

the problems associated with 'tack' sharp faces.

 

<p>

 

I have since changed over to a P67 (3 years ago) and do not get much

use out of the M645 now but can heartily recommend the camera for MF

entry-level+.

John, are you suggesting to Robert that he 'handhold' an RZII? I am

familiar with the RZ & RB 67's (I've never owned one but have used

them)and they are remarkable studio cameras but I would personally

dread any thought of handholding one. They are heavy and awkward (for

me) any time they are removed from a tripod.

If you're shooting grandkids it seems to me that none of the choices

suggested so far will best siut your stated application.

 

<p>

 

Go to a good camera store, hold and 'feel' each type of camera that

suits your interest, rent & test the one (or several) that feel the

best. Pay particular attention to the RF's like the Mamiya 7 and the

multiple Fuji RF's.

 

<p>

 

20 Years ago there was probably a big gap in sharpness and contrast

between Zeiss optics and those of other manufacturers. Thanks to

modern design and manufacturing techniques these gaps have vastly

narrowed and have arguably disappeared making the choice of cameras

virtually completely dependant on application and system choices. The

Hasselblad is inarguably a fine camera but the arguments for it in

this forum seem to center much more around issues of 'feel' than those

of superior image quality.

 

<p>

 

I am a Pentax 67 owner and can also 'afford' the Hasselblad. My choice

of system was based on my choice of system flexibility as it suits my

shooting style.

 

<p>

 

I do not own a Mamiya 7 but have seen several original B&W images shot

with one and can attest to the top performance of the Mamiya optics

(no way out-performed by Zeiss or Pentax). That camera is highly

portable and very fast handling with an acceptably wide choice of

lenses including what would be my favorite, a 43mm.

 

<p>

 

You will find no shortage of opinion on this forum which is exactly

the reason I enjoy it so much, we all vehemently defend the system we

have loyalty to.....but....

 

<p>

 

The photography industry has changed a great deal in twenty years and

it has all been for our benefit. Take your time reading the threads in

this forum, then test and feel. You may come away from it w/ a sixties

vintage or brand new Hasselblad, then again you may find one the other

choices will suit grandkids more effectively. Most of all, have fun in

the journey to the new system.

 

<p>

 

Here's our hope for many happy shots!

I have had the 645Zi for about a month now and bought it for

portability/flexibility. My favorite is my P67 system but it isn't

remotely designed to satisfy the portability issue, I take the 645Zi

wherever I go mostly carried in my softside briefcase and it is very

suited to that use. I don't know what the frame is constructed of but

the exterior is titanium clad. Since there is no history on these

cameras it is impossible to ascertain durability but it feels tough.

The results are remarkable, all of my output has been exceptionally

sharp and contrasty. I've had no problems yet (but expect to) with the

f6.9 max aperture @ 90mm.

 

<p>

 

I don't know if other GA645 owners have run into the same thing but I

tend to treat this camera as a large point and shoot. I find that I am

not as thorough in composing shots and have wasted a few just due to

the speed and ease of use. The P67 demands a more thoughtful approach,

this is good and bad I suppose.

 

<p>

 

More to the point, for the application you describe the 645Zi is a

good if not excellent choice IMHO.

To CSL:

Sometimes the forum can go off in its own direction without warning

but Brian did a good job of steering this thread back to your original

question.

 

<p>

 

I am a P67 user and have the 45, 105, 165LS and the 600 so I tend to

defend the system. The P67 takes too many knocks on its studio

prowess. It is quite useful in the studio mounted on a tripod or

handheld which I believe is a huge advantage for my particular syle of

studio photography (just try to handhold an RB67) using studio flash.

The RB will beat the P67 hands down in any close focus pseudo-macro

application because of its rack & pinion/bellows focussing

characteristics, but that is the only advantage that immediately

comes to mind (I don't miss interchangeable backs).

 

<p>

 

For 14 years I have owned and used a Sinar F-1 and will admit it is

the ultimate studio camera because of movements, flexibility in format

choice and a vastly superior Polaroid back. I've used the back for the

P67 and there is just no comparison in my ability to evaluate it vs. a

4X5 Polaroid.

 

<p>

 

But... for shear flexibility in application (field, studio, macro,

telephoto, EXTREME telephoto, sports, etc.) the P67 is the least

limited and most cost effective system currently available to get the

big negative. There are disadvantages that are vocally expressed in

this forum, but after 3 years and a couple hundred rolls of film I

have never wished I'd chosen a different system.

Robert,

 

<p>

 

I have had a GA645Zi for a week now. I do not have the handbook with

me right now but if memory serves the close focus (automatic) is 1

meter. With the zoom set @ 90 it might be a touch wide to accomplish

your task. It is possible to manually set the focus distance to 1

meter.

 

<p>

 

Now I'm going to open myself up to getting blasted for an opinion. I

personally do not believe in rangefinders being used in the

applications you describe. I have made errors with MF SLR's due to

the inherently shallow depths of field and critical focus problems

that are much less an issue with SLR's than they would be with

RF's. One of the reasons the M7 does not focus that close is that

split image focussing (or autofocus w/ the 645Zi) can make an error

costing you the shot. SLR's, OTOH, are uniquely suited to this

application. For the same reasons there do not tend to be macro

capabilities applied to RF's I do not beleieve them to be suited to

head shots. Just my .02 worth.

 

<p>

 

My one roll of TMX400 shot through my 645Zi bears this out. I tried to

get a tight shot of my wife's dog @ +/-1.5M. The only thing in the

shot that is not tack sharp is the dog's face (I allowed the auto

focus to make the decisions) the rest of the shot is quite impressive

but completely unusable.

 

<p>

 

Now the good stuff, I do have the camera with me as I now carry it

wherever I go (that is how I was able to varify the close focus limit

in manual mode). I can do that with this camera, something completely

out of the question w/ my P67. The shots I took with it that were not

to close to confuse the AF are remakably sharp and contrasty. I am

extremely pleased with the camera overall but it and the M7's

advantages IMHO are great optics in a quiet, lightweight and portable

package with the tradeoffs previously described.

 

<p>

 

So buy yourself a new P67 with the 135mm /f4 and for not much more

than the cost of just the M7 65mm get you a Fuji 645Zi for that

application

Concerning the P67 600mm/f4, I live in the Desert of West Texas, we haven't seen rain much less ocean mist but the lens is threaded for a protective filter. The overall lens diameter is 170mm so the filter would have to be in excess of 150mm. I know it must be available but is listed in terms I do not understand in the size charts. If anyone out there knows the front thread size of a P67 600mm/f4 I would obviously like to know.

The camera is available. I tested one @ Camera Exchange in San Antonio, TX. B&H has them in stock @ $1889.

Sorry, must apologize for a lengthy response to a question that wasn't asked. I missed refernce to 645

I have owned a 600/f4 for about a year and have shot roughly 20 rolls of film with it in that time so my experience is limited. I purchased the lens for sports and can say it is well suited to that application in daylight shooting.

 

<p>

 

It needs to be supported either on a STURDY monopod (Gitzo 1565 or heavier)or tripod. The lens/camera combination outway the heftiest of bowling balls and it is not blessed with finger holes so stability on a monopod is tenuous. I have read in this forum of suggestions for supporting this combination with two tripods but I haven't tried it and frankly don't have a clue as to how to do it. If shutter speeds drop below 1/250 mirror lockup is an absolute necessity.

 

<p>

 

This lens could prove to be a pain in wildlife photography from a blind or supported on a bean-bag type of prop due to the method of focus. It has a rack and pinion type focussing mechanism as opposed to the more common helical mechanism.

 

<p>

 

The lens is also large, Pentax dows supply a well built case for transport (it is only slightly smaller than the Pentax trunk case).

 

<p>

 

Now that I have emphasized all of the things that I found negative about the lens let me now say that I was initially and am still blown away by the images that it can produce in the hands of a skilled and patient photographer. I say this because, frankly, when I first started using it I sucked. I had enough good early images to encourage me and through trial and error (I live in West Texas so there are not a large number of people to ask) I have improved my methods but I will still muff a shot that would have been a keeper with a bit more care on my part.

 

<p>

 

I have the 45mm/f4, 105mm/f2.4, and 165mm/f4LS lenses in addition to this one and can say without hesitation it is the most unforgiving lens I have ever used, BUT, when you pull off a good shot with it I have never seen anything quite like it. It is contrasty and as sharp as any lens in the goup. When properly supported it is also very easy to focus (viewfinder images are quite bright). I am hooked on this lens and can heartily recomend it.

Had a chance a few weeks ago to test fire a roll of TMX 100 in Fuji's new auto focus zoom rangefinder 6X4.5. I currently have a Pentax 67 and am looking for something more compact and portable when I can't haul the Pentax. Does anybody have any experience w/ this camera? My impressions from the forum are that the Fuji rangefinders produce sharp/contrasty negs and this roll bears that out. I would appreciate comments.