Pentax AF645 or Mamiya 645?

[ktmrider]

I have a chance to trade one of my M2's for either a Pentax AF645 or the Mamiya 645 and have no experience with either. The Pentax comes with AF and AE while the Mamiya has the 80f2 lens but is fully manual (I would have to buy a couple Mamiya lenses to get the AF and AE capability).

I have shot both and like the Mamiya better but I have never owned an AF camera. The Pentax is tempting so I am looking for suggestions. Presently I am leaning toward the Mamiya but it is heavy.

I will end up with two M film bodies (M2 and M5 from Sherry), an M9 and one of these medium format bodies. Again, I don't have much experience with either the Pentax or Mamiya so looking for suggestions.

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

I went with the pentax over the mamiya for a few reasons, I like the compact size of the pentax. Without interchangeable backs, viewfinders, or grips, it is much smaller. The focus is fast, plus, with an adapter, you can use all their 6x7 lenses. I did not like the mamiya.

Also, do you mean the mamiya 80mm f1.9?

 

[ktmrider]

Yes, the Mamiya 80f1.9. The Mamiya also has a custom focusing screen which makes the ground glass super bright.

 

[chrism]

I liked my 645n so well that I just bought a 645nII in case the older camera fails. The lenses are very nice indeed and can always be sold on to 645D/645Z users.

Chris

 

[ktmrider]

After shooting both for a week, I am leaning toward the Pentax. It would be the first film camera I have owned with auto focus and auto exposure. I keep wondering if the difference in size between 35mm and 645 negatives is enough to justify such a larger camera.

I keep thinking about going back to 6x6 for medium formate. Thoughts?

 

[CMur12]

The 6x6 format would offer more film area if you like square composition. It's also advantageous if you like to work with a waist-level finder, not having to turn the camera for horizontal vs vertical format, and cropping at the time of printing.

I, personally, like square composition and I always compose in the square. Nevertheless, I still reserve the ability to crop otherwise if I have a change of vision at the time of the final image. When using a waist-level finder, I can view the scene with both eyes and I am more sensitive to leveling and alignments.

A camera with a waist-level finder works especially well (for me, anyway) on a tripod, and the waist-level position requires less extension of the tripod, so a lighter one can be used.

- Murray

 

[Doug]

This is really a matter of preferences... I do not like square framing, or waist level viewing... while I recognize the Mamiya can fit a prism viewfinder, the rig may not really be designed from the start for eye-level use. This is the strength of the Pentax for me. Further I'm a Pentax user from way back including a lot of 6x7 gear so the choice for me was easy! I ended up with two P645NII, as I always thought cameras come in pairs... 😉

One benefit of 645 over 6x6 is getting more exposures on a roll, 15 or 16 depending on whether it's a P645 (15), P645N (16) or P645NII (choice of 15 or 16) IIRC. Some practical advantages to the 15 setting.

While the 645's are fine, I find that I prefer to use the P67, as it just feels comfortable like a big 35mm SLR. The P645 is narrow, but long front to back like a video camera, and I find it less handy to use. But it is quick and the quality is great.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Having owned multiples of each I'd definitely say the Pentax. The Mamiya is ok, I just always had trouble focusing them a lot more than I did with the Pentax cameras I had, even with a bright screen I still thought the Pentax was much easier to focus. Plus, you can mount some awesome Pentax 67 lenses and pick up a P67 down the line and keep everything in the same family and use the same lenses if you stick with the P67 lenses and just use the 75/2.8 as a normal for the 645 if you need to keep everything compact.

 

[Huss]

A brighter screen may make the image easier to see but it may take away from focus accuracy if you are intending to use the matte field instead of the split image.

I use a Mamiya 645ProTL and really like it. It's produced outstanding results. But I'm not claiming that it is better than the Pentax. I bought it because the deal was too good to pass up! Mint condition body w/ power winder, AE head, 3 lenses, 2 backs, multiple inserts and a bunch of other stuff for $500.

 

[Scapevision]

pronounce it with me "outoffocus"

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have a chance to trade one of my M2's for either a Pentax AF645 or the Mamiya 645 and have no experience with either. The Pentax comes with AF and AE while the Mamiya has the 80f2 lens but is fully manual (I would have to buy a couple Mamiya lenses to get the AF and AE capability).

I have shot both and like the Mamiya better but I have never owned an AF camera. The Pentax is tempting so I am looking for suggestions. Presently I am leaning toward the Mamiya but it is heavy.

I will end up with two M film bodies (M2 and M5 from Sherry), an M9 and one of these medium format bodies. Again, I don't have much experience with either the Pentax or Mamiya so looking for suggestions.

Few weeks ago I purchased Mamiya 645 with lens, which was three times less than M2 in price. It isn't really big or heavy with 80 2.8 and basic prism. It was interesting experience, but I prefer Leica. 🙂

 

[ktmrider]

Prefer Leica Myself

Prefer Leica Myself

I don't really see the 645 system (which ever I choose) becoming my main camera. I have owned and used various 35mm systems since 1970 and don't see that changing. I have also used a couple 'blads in the past.

My main camera has been a Leica M film camera since 1990 or so. Presently, I have two M2's, M9, R6.2 and a Nikon F. And I have an M5 on the way from Sherry. So the opportunity came along to trade one of my M2's for a mf film camera which would be used primarily for landscapes I thought I would take it.

Besides giving me a larger negative to work with for landscapes, it allows me to spread the Leica gospel to an infidel who has never used one before. And now he wants a film M body. Funny, like me he is a military pilot and flew Blackhawks, lived in Hawaii before coming to El Paso for the Army fixed wing course, and now has the Leica bug. He is presently using one of my M2's with a 15mm on the front while training as an instructor pilot down at Fort Rucker.

I think the 15mm might give the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Al., an interesting perspective.😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

After shooting both for a week, I am leaning toward the Pentax. It would be the first film camera I have owned with auto focus and auto exposure. I keep wondering if the difference in size between 35mm and 645 negatives is enough to justify such a larger camera.

I keep thinking about going back to 6x6 for medium formate. Thoughts?

Do it properly with at least 6x7 (ideally Linhof 56x72) or bigger. The 645 format is "super 35mm", overcoming 35mm at the margin. The 6x6 format, with cropping, is effectively no bigger. Go to proper MF (6x7 or bigger) and you have "small LF". It's hard to tell a 3x enlargement off 56x72 from a whole-plate contact print. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/medium formats.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[Spanik]

But you have to like the 6x7 format. I don't for instance as it is neither square nor rectangular. And a 6x9 camera is hardly any larger. Likewise there is not much sense in lugging 6x7 or 6x9 lenses with you if you are going to use them with a smaller format.

I do prefer the 645 format and use quite a lot my Mamiyas. Very easy to use handheld with a nice viewfinder and good selection of reasonably priced lenses. Also plenty around and to choose from. Personally I don't likethe "old" version as much as the "new" with changable backs. But that may be just me. Anyway, the lenses fit both equally well.

 

[Pioneer]

If you are serious just get a Fuji 6x9 or, better yet, a Crown Graphic with a couple Graphic 23 roll film holders.

Lately I use my Travelwide using the Graphic 23 roll film holders. Really no bigger than the Fuji GW690, quite a bit lighter, and I am getting the benefit of using my Schneider Angulon 90 as a slight wide angle, or wide normal, lens. Plus, when I want, I load some 4x5 film in a film folder and get large format photo detail.

Options abound!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

But you have to like the 6x7 format. I don't for instance as it is neither square nor rectangular. And a 6x9 camera is hardly any larger. . .

Well, actually, it is rectangular. What do you think "rectangular" means?

I fully agree that 6x9 isn't much bigger, but for me, it's too long and thin as compared with 56x72mm. Again, for me, 645 is a nasty little format, a modest improvement on 35mm. But if you like it, it's fine for you, despite that fact that a 3x enlargement (see my previous comment about contact prints) is far too small.

Cheers,

R.

 

[unixrevolution]

But you have to like the 6x7 format. I don't for instance as it is neither square nor rectangular.

If it's not square or rectangular, what is it? I believe the 6x7 format is a rectangle. I measured the film gate on my Pentax 6x7 carefully, and it's not a trapezoid or a hexagon or a circle or anything.

And a 6x9 camera is hardly any larger. Likewise there is not much sense in lugging 6x7 or 6x9 lenses with you if you are going to use them with a smaller format.

6x9 cameras can be quite small, especially folders. But when a friend of mine wanted 6x9, the options for use were nowhere near what there are for 6x7 in terms of system cameras. Most of them were rangefinders, and he was really looking for an SLR, and 6x9 SLRs are simply too rare to be of consequence.