Topic: New medium format advice. Pentax 645?

[chris667]

If so, how have you got on with it?

I have an exhibition as part of a local photography club coming up next month  and one later in the year, and everyone else seems to be making really big prints.

Back in the day, I owned a few medium format cameras (my first camera was a Seagull 4a, when I was about six). But I don't know what to go for really. I don't want much, just a standard lens, and for it not to be ridiculously expensive.

I was thinking of a Pentax 645. I never looked at them at the time, because I could never have afforded one when I was younger. But I'm not necessarily wed to an SLR. A TLR might be fine too.

Any suggestions?

[Pete_R]

If you're thinking 645 then I would have to suggest Mamiya. Lots of it about and really cheap for what it is. Excellent lenses and a range of bodies that I'm sure you'd find one that fits your needs (and wallet). My favourite was the 1000s.

[chris667]

Hmmm, Mamiya.

I had a 35mm Mamiya rangefinder. Just about the best camera I ever owned, at the time.

I know very little about them really.

And I'm not wed to the 6x4.5. I could do 6x6, or 6x7 too.

[02Pilot]

How much consideration have you given to format? I have 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x9 - each one has a different aspect ratio, as do 6x7 and 6x8. There are good options for each, but I think you'd want to decide what you want the final output to look like before you start thinking about the camera options.

That said, I find 6x6 my preferred format for MF, and for this TLRs are great - light, easy to use, and often cheap. If you decide you want 6x4.5, I concur with Peter's recommendation of Mamiya; limr has one, and the photos are great. I've seen whole setups with multiple backs and lenses go for surprisingly small amounts of money.

[chris667]

Honestly, rectangular medium format is all new to me. The only medium formats I have actually owned are 6x6 (the Seagull, a Yashicamat that self destructed and a procession of Lubitels).

I suppose the 6x4.5 is favourite, but that's really because it's closest to my 35mm frames.

[Francois]

6x9 format is actually identical in aspect ratio to a 35mm frame. But you only get 8 exposures per roll.

[Sandeha Lynch]

My first choice would always be a 6x6 TLR because of the angle of view, but if you're after a lens that's comparable with the SLRs already noted it would need to be something with a Planar type which gets quite spendful these days.  But, you also have the ease of formatting without turning the cam and the ability to crop to rectangle as and when you choose, not just in the moment of shooting.

[Jeff Warden]

If you're looking for large prints with detail you might want to check out Fuji 6x9s, aka the Texas Leica.  KEH has one now with a wide/slow lens that looks like a lot of fun if you're in to that kind of shooting, but they were available with normal lenses too.

Are you sure you need mf though?  35mm printed large has a distinctive look all its own, and the more I see it in galleries, the more I like it.

[Faintandfuzzy]

What is the subject matter?  For street work, I love grain and contrast...645 would for me, be a downgrade.  For landscapes thoigh, 645 is a happy comprimise between 35 and 4x5

[chris667]

I've been thinking about this. My solution might be a TLR for landscapes, and maybe a 645 for macro work. I'm photographing a lot of flowers at the minute.

[johnha]

Think about your format first, there are merits in them all. Way back in the day, shots per roll and portability were more important to me but this changed. I started with 645 (Mamiya), then went square (Bronica SQ-B) and ended up at 6x7 (Pentax 6x7). I used to burn through film with the 645, now that I work slower and less frequently, 6x7 is my favourite of the three. I could be tempted by 6x9 if I could find a suitable camera (rangefinder/folder).

For 645 SLRs you'll need a prism finder for 'verticals', Mamiya offer interchangeable backs on most (as do Bronica) which can be very useful. 6x7 SLRs get very big & heavy very quickly. Fuji did a reasonable selection of rangefinders in various formats.

Something with bellows focussing like a Mamiya C330F/S can give pretty much 1:1 macro with the standard lens - exposure factor & parallax due to the bellows extension can be guessed at reasonably well (I use the C330F exposure factor indicator in the finder as a guide to the top of the frame).

Most of this gear will be old/very old by now - I'd look for simplicity as this reduces the chance of failure and increases the chances of fixing any problems.

John.

[cs1]

Another factor that I'd consider is if you want to shoot from the hip or from eye-level. If shooting from eye-level is your primary focus, I wouldn't choose a TLR (for portraits it's generally more flattering if the camera is not held at waist level but higher). However, I understand that you're interested in landscape and macro photography. For macros, a TLR can be problematic if there's no parallax correction because without it it's probably more difficult to compose a macro shot properly, I suppose. I'm not entirely sure how many affordable TLRs feature parallax correction. And there also should be closeup lenses available for macro shots. I think that a 6x6 SLR should cover all of your requirements. Sure, you'll very likely end up with a Borg cube dangling from your neck but that's probably the price that you need to pay.

[Francois]

Afaik the only tlr that's really good for macros is the mamiya c330 .
I think the Rolleiflex also has a special close-up adapter.

The mamiya RB 67 and the RZ 67 have built-in bellows.

[chris667]

Interesting feedback.

I am not opposed to being spendful (splendid word, Sandeha). But I like the idea of simplicity above everything else. So I think a TLR might be the best choice as there is less to go wrong. I will stick with my Spotmatic for macro stuff.

Has anyone ever used a Flexaret, or a Ricohflex, or am I better off with an Autocord? I have a Meopta enlarger, and it is a nice thing. There are a couple of them on a certain auction site.

[02Pilot]

I have a Flexaret IIIa, which is a nice enough camera, but I haven't used it much. Mine has a triplet, but you'd probably want one with a Tessar-type lens for better overall resolution. In TLRs, I've also got a Mamiyaflex Automat A with Olympus lenses, which is very nice but overly complex and rare; an Old Standard Rolleiflex with an uncoated Zeiss Tessar, which I love dearly but is not the most ergonomic camera (a later Rolleiflex or Rolleicord would be a better choice for a first TLR, I think); and finally a Zeiss Ikoflex Ic, which is much more modern in design and execution, and has a later coated Tessar - this is a very underrated and capable camera with an excellent lens, a bright viewfinder, and a built-in meter.

If you can find a good later Ikoflex with a Tessar, it will likely be cheaper than the functionally-equivalent Rollei. The Autocords have a great reputation, but I haven't used one (the Flexaret is similar in operation, however). The Ricohflex you mention is likely a relatively generic Japanese TLR, similar to many other -flex labelled cameras of that era - probably OK, but not likely to be anything special.

There are only a few functional differences in TLRs: lenses, obviously, but also lever vs. knob advance, automatic frame spacing vs. red window, lever vs. knob focus, which side the controls are on, meter vs. no meter. Sizes vary somewhat, but most are pretty close (big Mamiyas excepted). If you can, try to handle a few and see what works best for you.

[Francois]

I know it might sound strange but I think you should consider if shutter noise is an issue.
From the totally silent and feature full Mamiya C330 (my dad's cousin used to shoot weddings with one) to the epic break your wrist slap of the Pentax 67, there's a whole range of options.

[Kai-san]

I have a Minolta Autocord and I can fully recommend it. The film advance operates the same way as Rolleiflex and Yashica Mat 124, the focus is done with the slide below the taking lens which I find easier (and more elegant) than the knob on the side. The Rokkor lenses are very sharp and can compete with some of the Rolleiflex lenses.
If you should decide to get very "spendful" in the 645 format there is always the Contax 645. It handles like a small format SLR and has a superb balance. It is heavy (3 kg with the 35mm lens) but I do not notice it the way I do with a Pentax 67 or a Polaroid 600SE. But do not look that way if you're not prepared to pay the price, it's addictive. 

[chris667]

The Contax doesn't appeal. I had a 139 once. It put me off the brand for life!

[chris667]

I know it might sound strange but I think you should consider if shutter noise is an issue.
From the totally silent and feature full Mamiya C330 (my dad's cousin used to shoot weddings with one) to the epic break your wrist slap of the Pentax 67, there's a whole range of options.

Interesting. I hadn't really thought about noise. I don't think anything I photograph would care.

The C330 would be a contender, I suppose. Medium spendful. But then medium complicated too.

Are they still reliable?

[Francois]

The Contax 645 had a really good reputation when it came out. Lenses were superb and build quality excellent. But I don't know how well they aged.

[chris667]

The Contax 645 had a really good reputation when it came out.

Just my prejudice! My 139 didn't last long.

[johnha]

Medium format can become addictive - especially 'system cameras'. I've used a lot - chronologically: Lubitel 166U, Mamiya C330F, Mamiya 645 Pro, Bronica SQ-B, Pentax 6x7. I'm a Pentax shooter in 35mm, I'd have loved to go for a P645 but I felt the fixed film back was a big drawback (the P6x7 isn't as significant as I have two bodies and you only get ten shots).

All MF cameras will be old now, the more advanced they are, the more likely they'll be to fail. If buying an 'automated' (film advance, battery dependent etc.) I'd suggest looking at modular systems (so if the film advance motor fails you can swap a different winder, if the metering packs up you can swap the metered prism). Systems like Mamiya 645 Super/Pro and Bronca ETRSi allow you this and swappable film backs (and polaroid backs). My Mamiya, Bronica & P6x7 all require batteries but it's just a small 4LR44 kind of battery - carrying spares is not a problem.

Some require obscure rechargeable battery packs - these are likely to be exhausted by now. The Rollei 6000 series looked really good (you could put the 645 back in either landscape or portrait orientations) but they rely on OEM NiCd batteries (a pain even when new). IIRC the Pentax 645 uses AA batteries (lots of them) but may not be suited to rechargeables.

The main benefit of the P645, is that it's a very compact 'fully loaded' system camera. Some MF SLRs seem clunky with winders, prisms, film backs hanging off the body. Whenever there's a joint, there's the risk of mis-alignment, slop and wear. Prisms offer some protection from rain, something to consider when shooting in inclement weather conditions.

If you're looking at 'arty' work (rather than a specific discipline: landscape, portrait etc...) I think something like a Mamiya C330F/S is a very good option. The interchangeable lenses give more options and have their own shutters - the usual advice is that the black lenses are 'better' than the silver lenses. The camera is convenient to use (single throw crank winding which cocks the shutter in the process, mechanical operation, bellows focussing, multiple exposure). Although the back is fixed, you can still change lenses with film in the camera. The difference between 12 & 15 shots per roll is not really significant unless you're shooting commercially (or quickly).

Just a few thoughts.

John.