[bikehead90]

The nuisance my friend was referring to was the crowd and unwanted attention. Not to mention the fact of people getting in the way of the shot. He loved the camera and the results. Since he usually carried a massive tripod with it, it was not the most discreet setup.

Thanks,

That’s why I’m leaning more toward shooting landscape/architecture (maybe occasionally portrait)with the MF and leaving?street and the bulk of portrait to 35mm. I’ve got a robust Bogen legs/head combo I love/hate due to its bulk.

[Silent Street]

The 645 format is the least appealing of any of the MF formats, being [6x4.5], 6x6 (a pro favourite for many decades), 6x7 (the ideal format), 6x9 (an old but much less popular format pioneered by Fuji and Mamiya) and 6x12 (semi-pan). At a minimum, the serious impact of a 6x7 image that can be cropped any which way with no loss of quality should be foremost in points of consideration. Do you really think that each and every 6x4.5 image will be just fine without any cropping?

Reading your post, I think you are conflicted with spurious impressions that don't actually equate to the real world in terms of medium format. Consider that if you have only 3 or 4 worthwhile images to print from a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film, then now is not the time to make the leap to MF, with its inherently short rolls (10 in terms of the 6x7, which makes you consider and think out each and every exposure). Each and every exposure on 35mm should be a personal benchmark, not a reject.

On the flipside, it is much easier to meter MF format film than something the size of a postage stamp (35mm), especially with high contrast films like Velvia 50 where everything is crammed into a very small area, small enough to pose a major challenge to any camera meter if conditions are not appropriate.

You do know that it is a big step moving from 35mm to e.g. 6x7 (645 is not much bigger than 35mm), with bigger, often less automated cameras (no autofocus), heavier (mostly older, but with some stellar, if costly newer 67 beauties) lenses and a whole retinue of processes and procedures (and foibles!) to master in order to extract the maximum image quality. The 645 is getting old, but nowhere near as old as 6x7 cameras that can trap you with sudden failure due to age or abuse, or both (those which have seen heavy professional studio/location use in the 70s and 80s are a major risk of a cascade of crippling faults and failures).

Of the two cameras, the old (1969 era) Pentax 6x7 is best avoided, the non-MLU version especially. New parts are not available; they are scavenged from like-cameras -- when and where you can have repairs made! Same with the 645 and variants. Though no Cinderella in terms of ergonomics or beauty, the 1989+ Pentax 67 can be a better choice, because this camera had engineering refinements made that improved on earlier versions, but it still must be treated with care and respect. A small number were also modified to make multiexposures. Backs are not interchangeable (this also applies to the 645, which I think uses cartridge inserts).

The 5-stop metering range of any of the 67 cameras (fitted with the TTL meter) will give you pause for thought to invest in an incident/spot/multispot handheld meter, and power away with skills development from the get-go, as 1 second is as far as these old troopers go -- any longer and you must have the nous to guide the camera to the exposure.

Despite being heavy and at first sight, looking unwieldly, they hold considerable promise: with tripod-mounted shooting, mirror lockup and separation of both mirror slap and shutter inertia, the big 67 cameras will deliver in aces and spades: print the best images as big as you can (don't stuff negaves away never to be seen again, that's not what it's for). To the clumsy and inefficient however, they will bring only tears and tantrums: you be prepared for the learning curve and the bumps in the road toward proficiency.

Finally, I am not a fan of kitting out the already big and heavy Pentax 67 with grips, dangling straps etcetera. The cameras gain nothing from adding these versus the weight added. Keeping these cameras simple and uncluttered means you must reduce risk of hazard to the camera through unnecessary bulk, weight and extravagance as much as possible.

[Pablo Villegas]

I finally got the first part allowing me to develop 35mm film, and if you give a mouse a cookie, I want to start shooting analogue medium format. I’ve wanted to for a long time, but finally having the means to see the final product is a huge plus. My question is I’m torn between the 645 and the 67. I know they’re in the same umbrella of “medium”, but they’re two beasts entirely. Please feel free to add, comment to, or correct my thinking on both cameras.

I’m leaning toward the 645 (the 645N to be specific), for a few reasons: one I like the film back concept. I like the similarities between the 645 mount lenses and K-mount, in that I can use the older lenses on a newer body. Eventually I would like to get the D or Z, so this is a big plus. I’m a little concerned that the ergonomics aren’t entirely the best.

I haven’t exactly considered a 67 or 67ii, but it’s not entirely off the table. The used market is still kind of pricy, but I get it, they’re insane cameras. The fact that there isn’t a digital version of the 67 mount kind of makes me shy away from it. However, I like the larger image size that this camera takes. The other feature I really like is the interchangeable viewfinder(s). I also kind of like the similarity the 67 shares with an SLR.

What are these cameras like in the real world?

I would get a Mamiya RZ67 or RB67 Pro SD. Bigger negative, excellent waist Finder! And a lot cheaper than Pentax 67ii or similar. The lenses are superb on the Mamiya, and very inexpensive.

[johnha]

Medium format is a whole different ball game to 35mm. There's a plethora of formats, camera types and some important factors. If you print in the darkroom or project slides 6x7 requires much bigger enlargers and projectors (possibly scanners too ) than 645 or 6x6. There are cameras that work handheld others are far better on a tripod or in a studio.

If you want a D or Z in the future, keeping it Pentax is a good idea (either 645 or 67 lenses with the adapter can give excellent results). If a D or Z isn't that important, there might be better options (depending upon your use) with other systems. Most are modular and the price of an outfit that pleases you may involve buying quite a few bits of kit (prisms, winders, grips etc).

The chief problems with 645 is the need for a prism and the need to turn a heavy camera for verticals. The P645 gets round both (second tripod socket on the side).

The 645 and P67 are different approaches, my P67 is a great system, but it's very old and essentially unrepairable if anything goes wrong. A 645n will at least be a lot younger. If buying either today (prices can be very high for old cameras) I'd buy from a dealer with warranty of some kind online bargains can be a huge risk.

---

Last edited by johnha; 10-26-2019 at 01:57 AM.

[RICHARD L.]

I got my first Pentax 67 camera in 1991. I traded the 67 body for a 67 II a few years later when it became available. It is a wonderful instrument for landscape photography. Over the years, I acquired a 45 mm f/4, a 55 mm f/4, a 75 mm f/2.8, a 90 mm f/2.8, a 105 mm f/2.4, a 100 mm f/4 Macro, a 135 mm f/4, a 165 mm f/2.8, a 200 mm f/4 and an M* 300 mm f/4. The viewfinder image is a wonder to behold and the automatic exposure meter has proved totally reliable. You can imagine it almost takes a lama to carry all this stuff plus a heavy tripod around but the results were always beyond expectations.


Then I discovered the 645N about 5 years ago, I acquired almost for peanuts a like-new used body on eBay, 3 film backs and a lot of lenses too (A35 mm f/3.5, A45 mm f/2.8, A55 mm f/2.8, A45-85 mm f/4.5, A80-160 mm f/4.5, A120 mm f/4 Macro, A150 mm f/3.5 and A200 mm f/4). The 645N is much lighter and pleasant to use (film loading is easier thanks to the film inserts and film advance is mechanized), the viewfinder image is quite impressive and frankly the results were highly satisfying too. I recently got a Pentax 645Z digital with 3 new FA zooms (FA 45-85 mm, FA 80-160 mm and FA 150-300 mm) plus an FA 400 mm f/5.6 telephoto. All my older 645A lenses still fit on the 645Z. The 67 lenses also fit on it in Aperture-priority mode with a Pentax adaptor.


Conclusion : Choosing a system is a personal matter, you should try both the 67 and the 645 film cameras before deciding which is best for you. Personally, I think the 645 system is the perfect compromise.

Regards,

Richard

[RICHARD L.]

I also got an FA 200 mm f/4 dirt-cheap ...

[bkpix]

I shot with a P645, alongside a 35mm LX, until I switched to digital a few years back. I also have a C330 6x6 TLR. I found the P645 fun to shoot with, more spontaneous than the TLR. But then I got a 4x5 view camera and realized clearly how important format size is in film photography, if you're looking for detail and tonality. The nice thing about the Pentax 645 is that it's small enough to travel with. I spent a couple weeks in Panama with it as my only camera. Nice images.

If I were starting out in film and wanting to do landscapes I'd probably look at a Pentax 67. But I'd also look at Hasselblad, Fuji, Mamiya (especially the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7) and anything else that can run 120 film in front of a decent lens.

Spend some quality time daydreaming at KEH -- just search "Medium format body."

I still have all my 645 equipment, and a couple years ago rented a 645D to play with. Quickly realized it doesn't give me enough of an image boost compared to a K-1 that I will ever buy one. And it's quite difficult to use my old manual focus lenses on.

[yurihuta]

If you have an opportunity to handle these, ideally both together (645/645N versus 6x7/67/67II) I would highly recommend it. I went down a path of trying out different medium format camera systems many years ago and while owning a few different systems over the years, I find that I use my 645N the most and it has stayed with me for over ten years now. I still have some of the other systems including Pentax 67, but find that for how I like to shoot, what I shoot, what I like to hold and look through and change settings on, the 645N fits my particular set of needs and likes best. In my opinion, the most complete and versatile system is the Fuji GX680 (viewfinders, interchangeable backs, lenses and more lenses, front standard tilts and shifts etc.), but it is big and heavy and I still find that I reach for me 645N more.

I finally got the first part allowing me to develop 35mm film, and if you give a mouse a cookie, I want to start shooting analogue medium format. I’ve wanted to for a long time, but finally having the means to see the final product is a huge plus. My question is I’m torn between the 645 and the 67. I know they’re in the same umbrella of “medium”, but they’re two beasts entirely. Please feel free to add, comment to, or correct my thinking on both cameras.

I’m leaning toward the 645 (the 645N to be specific), for a few reasons: one I like the film back concept. I like the similarities between the 645 mount lenses and K-mount, in that I can use the older lenses on a newer body. Eventually I would like to get the D or Z, so this is a big plus. I’m a little concerned that the ergonomics aren’t entirely the best.

I haven’t exactly considered a 67 or 67ii, but it’s not entirely off the table. The used market is still kind of pricy, but I get it, they’re insane cameras. The fact that there isn’t a digital version of the 67 mount kind of makes me shy away from it. However, I like the larger image size that this camera takes. The other feature I really like is the interchangeable viewfinder(s). I also kind of like the similarity the 67 shares with an SLR.

What are these cameras like in the real world?

[ghosteclipse]

A Pentax 645 is much cheaper than the 645N or 67. If you plan to test MF first then getting a 645 is probably your best option. I acquired a 645 plus 150 f3.5 for 25000 yen which is about 250 USD. So far the output is amazing. It is so good you want to shoot it a lot but the film cost is too much also. Carrying it also is a bit prohibiting and I am reserving for great events.

[kaseki]

One possible advantage to the 645N is that it can put important data on the film strip edge. This may be useful if one needs the camera exposure parameters of a shot to evaluate one's choices or even just the date of exposure.

[Fluegel]

............. but you will need to spend some cash on a great tripod. DO NOT be cheap here, a good tripod is a must if you want great images with your 6x7.

A good tripod is a must in all situations that call for slow shutterspeeds.
With training you can use MF cameras with shutterspeeds as slow as 1/15 second.

May I recommend the Manfrotto 028B tripod, new around 250 USD.
Used ones go around 100 USD.
Reaches op to 2.25 m, is steady as a rock and has modest weight.


The secret that goes with all photography lies in the lenses.
When thinking about MF look at Hasselblad cameras.
Hasselblad uses Carl Zeiss lenses, do I need to explain what opportunities you have with those lenses?
A 500CM body, 80 mm Planar lens and a filmback sets you back around 1000 USD.
Finding a recently serviced kit is important, service and maintenance costs are considerable.

Just for fun: my 1952 Hasselblad camera with Kodak Ektar lens.
Still going strong after a full rebuilt several years ago.
Last picture the 503CW body with Carl Zeiss 80 mm Planar lens.

[clickclick]

Just for fun: my 1952 Hasselblad camera with Kodak Ektar lens.

Like the way that looks. Just fits.

[bikehead90]

Ok, I apologize for the lack of interaction(s) with this post, but I feel like I’ve had a revelation: I’m going with a 67 when the funds become available. I was recently at Central Camera in Chicago, and I got to compare them side by side. The heft and presence of the 67 was unreal. The camera had one of the lenses with a leaf shutter (I don’t remember the exact terminology) and I was wondering what the advantage/reason for this kind of mechanism is/are. For analogue photography, what is the difference between 35mm and 120?

[barondla]

Ok, I apologize for the lack of interaction(s) with this post, but I feel like I’ve had a revelation: I’m going with a 67 when the funds become available. I was recently at Central Camera in Chicago, and I got to compare them side by side. The heft and presence of the 67 was unreal. The camera had one of the lenses with a leaf shutter (I don’t remember the exact terminology) and I was wondering what the advantage/reason for this kind of mechanism is/are. For analogue photography, what is the difference between 35mm and 120?

The Pentax 6x7 has a focal plane shutter, like all 35mm slr cameras. The 6x7 shutter is much larger and thus the flash sync speed is slower. 1/30 is it. This makes it very difficult to use outdoors fill flash on sunny days. Leaf shutters are in the lens instead of the body. Leaf shutters can flash sync at any speed they offer. Say 1/500 or 1/1000. This makes outdoor fill flash much easier. Wouldn't buy leaf shutter lenses for the focal plane shutter 6x7, unless fill flash is very important. The leaf shutter adds complications and are less reliable.

135mm and 120 are different size films and cameras. 120 film is much larger and can provide higher image quality.

Enjoy,
barondla

[Fluegel]

The Pentax 6x7 has a focal plane shutter, like all 35mm slr cameras. The 6x7 shutter is much larger and thus the flash sync speed is slower. 1/30 is it. This makes it very difficult to use outdoors fill flash on sunny days. Leaf shutters are in the lens instead of the body. Leaf shutters can flash sync at any speed they offer. Say 1/500 or 1/1000. This makes outdoor fill flash much easier. Wouldn't buy leaf shutter lenses for the focal plane shutter 6x7, unless fill flash is very important. The leaf shutter adds complications and are less reliable.

135mm and 120 are different size films and cameras. 120 film is much larger and can provide higher image quality.

Enjoy,
barondla

Leaf shutters are not all that bad. Since 1957 virtually all Hasselblad cameras are fitted with Carl Zeiss lenses that use leaf shutters.
Very few Hasselblad cameras use focal plane shutters, these cameras allow the use of faster lenses.

Larger negatives lead to a considerable IQ gain, the 6X6 120 format is 9 times larger than 24X36 mm from 35 mm film.