SLR: Contax 645
RF: Mamiya 6/7/7II

Years ago I printed some B&W negatives that were taken with a Pentax 6x7. I was blown away at the quality of that size negative. I remember my photo instructor telling me the Pentax 6x7 had the flattest film plane of any camera of its type. With what they are selling for I think you would be hard pressed to find anything in the medium format realm that will yield better results. For what it's worth, the negative size difference between 645 and 35mm is 2.7 times larger for the 645.

Robert Way wrote:
Years ago I printed some B&W negatives that were taken with a Pentax 6x7. I was blown away at the quality of that size negative. I remember my photo instructor telling me the Pentax 6x7 had the flattest film plane of any camera of its type. With what they are selling for I think you would be hard pressed to find anything in the medium format realm that will yield better results.


Since there are few cameras if the Pentax 6x7's "type", having the "flattest film plane of any camera of its type" may be true. The Contax 645, a camera of a different "type", is a camera that paid special attention to film flatness as its a pet issue for Zeiss (since it can potentially make their lens look bad). They even have a nice White paper on the issue. The Contax 645 went so far to address this issue that they created a special vacuum film insert that actually sucks the film flat against the pressure plate. It doesn't get any flatter than that. They also used this type of feature on the 35mm RTS III body.

While the Pentax 6x7 is pretty good, it's pretty easy to find something that will produce better results. The Mamiya 7 will. Basically, the Mamiya 7 lenses are significantly. sharper/better and this difference is immediately evident in the results.

Further, picking up the newer Schneider Digitar or Rodenstock Digital lenses that cover 6x7 (there are about a dozen Schneider Digitars that do) on a Alpa, Silvestri or Cambo with a roll film back will also produce better results. These lenses are just fantastic. Of course, this type of set-up will cost you a lot more than the Pentax 6x7.



d-intrigue wrote:
SLR: Contax 645
RF: Mamiya 6/7/7II


This is my choice as well, just in case you can't tell. ;-)

Lovesong wrote:
The 645 is a bit of a waste, if you ask me. The negative is not that much larger than a 35mm. Going to 6x6, 6x7, or even 6x9 really does make a difference in terms of resolution (as well as camera bulk, unless you're going with an RF system like the Mamiya 6 or 7).


I agree with most of what you said, but would say that 6x6 often offers no significant advantage over 6x4.5 since most crop their images down to rectangular format anyway. I think 6x7 is probably the most useful for most since it is a large neg and corresponds to traditional print sizes.

If you can handle an RB67 (and it is a big monster), it's probably the best deal out there. When I looked ~6 months ago you could put together an entire outfit for $250.

I think it might come down to whether you use a tripod or not. If tripod, then the Pentax 67 and Mamiya RB/RZ cameras might be a consideration. If no tripod, then you really should look at the Fuji's or the Mamiya 7. There is a good used market for both lines. Some people swear by the earlier Fuji 6x9's with the replaceable lenses, while others discount the differences. The lens on the GW690II I used was amazing - see attached photo (World Trade Center Winter Garden after rebuild.) And I have rented Mamiya 7's with the 65mm and 45mm lenses. Also amazing. And both work very well without a tripod. Portraits are possible too. The f4 lenses made me practice my Ilford 3200 development techniques, but that's no big deal. But each to his/her own. If you can, rent these cameras before you buy one. Most if not all of these are usually available as rentals.

I wouldn't really bother with that vacuum insert, it's pricey, hard to find, and only uses 220 film stock, which certainly doesn't have the same range of types available as 120, and may even continue to shrink. Sounds like a cool concept, but I haven't seen much issue with 645 flatness in 120 vs. 220, on a Mamiya.

Lotusm50 wrote:
The Contax 645 went so far to address this issue that they created a special vacuum film insert that actually sucks the film flat against the pressure plate.

sirimiri wrote:
I wouldn't really bother with that vacuum insert, it's pricey, hard to find, and only uses 220 film stock, which certainly doesn't have the same range of types available as 120, and may even continue to shrink. Sounds like a cool concept, but I haven't seen much issue with 645 flatness in 120 vs. 220, on a Mamiya.

Lotusm50 wrote:
The Contax 645 went so far to address this issue that they created a special vacuum film insert that actually sucks the film flat against the pressure plate.




It, however, works great. And the most used films are all available in 220 -- Asti, Velvia, Provia, E100G(X), VS, Kodak Porta films, Fuji Pro color negative films, and others. You can't get many of the low volume, boutique B&W films in 220, but if you're shooting color just about everything you could need is available in 220. If you don't think it is an issue, read the Zeiss white paper. It's obviously most important when shooting wide open, and at macro distances. You may not know what you're missing -- I assume you've never done a side by side comparison -- or know what to look for.

I've got 2 of the vacuum inserts. They are easy to find now that many Contax 645 users are shooting digital. They are well worth the price.

Lotusm50 wrote:
You can't get many of the low volume, boutique B&W films in 220, but if you're shooting color just about everything you could need is available in 220.


As far as I know, you can't get any B&W in 220. Tri-X 320 in 220 (and 120) was recently discontinued.

I recently had the same desire to shoot film again, mostly just for fun and for artwork.

I happened to win a bid on eBay for a Bronica ETRSi kit w/ the 75mm f/2.8 and the 150mm f/3.5, the speed grip, a 90-deg prism, 1 120 back and a polaroid back. All for a sub-$200 bid.

For that price I will absolutely live with 6x4.5 , I used to shoot 6x4.5 with my Hassy H1, but my real favorite was the RZ. I had the RZ Pro about 6 years ago, and it was just an outstanding camera.

I would gladly buy another one, but I figured for how little I just got my whole kit for, I can have some fun

kidtexas wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
You can't get many of the low volume, boutique B&W films in 220, but if you're shooting color just about everything you could need is available in 220.


As far as I know, you can't get any B&W in 220. Tri-X 320 in 220 (and 120) was recently discontinued.



which is why I said, "...if you're shooting color..."

snipped I do a lot of landscape/cityscape shots. I am mainly interested in the Pentax 67 system or the Mamiya RB/RZ 67 system.

The move to from 35mm DSLR/SLR handling to Pentax 6x7/67 handling is more 'natural' for me than the Mamiya RZ/RB. There is a Pentax 75mm shift lens available which is quite nice, I regret selling mine. They are out there and reasonably priced $400 - $700 range if you look around a bit. The longer lenses 200mm, 300mm are quite affordable for a different perspective in your shots. The wide lenses are plentiful and sharp.

I have a hard time understanding blanket statements that line X's lenses are better than line Y's lenses. These are not hand ground optics made from the bottom of coke bottles some high school kid put together for fun. These are quite good and sometimes outstanding optics that should yield good results. It does not sound like you want to take your lenses and set them up on a optical bench and split hairs with resolution tests etc., so pick a system that seems to work best for you and want you want to do now and think about what else you might like to photograph in the future.

The great thing is, most prices are really low right now. There has been a spike recently with Pentax 645 gear with the announcement of the Pentax 645D, but the Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya RB/RZ prices seem to be stable if not in ever so slight decline. A great time to be looking for medium format gear.

I have owned and shot with Pentax 645/645N, Pentax 6x7, Bronica SQAi, Fujica GW690. I have handled Mamiya 7, Mamiya RB/RZ, Hasselblad 500 series film gear. It is all quite nice and one did not blow the other out of the water for me. IF you get a chance to lay your hands on some gear to see how it feels and how intuitive (or not) the layout is - do so. It might help rule one out and make the decision easier for you.

Do you have a link? "Zeiss white paper vacuum back" didn't get me far with Google. I did find this post from 2005, in which some people "we know" chimed in on the subject. I'd like to read the paper.

I don't really shoot 220 anymore. I got tired of the pronounced kink in the middle the three labs I used here in LA, always present.eh...somewhere between frames 12 or 16, when shooting with a Mamiya. Likely from the dip-n-dunk tank depth available?

I agree with you, it's likely I don't know what I'm missing by not having ever used a 220 vacuum insert/back combo, but my Spidey sense tells me that if film flatness were such a gnarly issue for all these years of 220 being out there, the likes of Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Fuji, Rollei...would have done something more similar to Contax/Kyocera. Maybe they did it "just 'cause"?

Not to be dismissive, but Occam's razor suggests we not sign up for Contax's solution to the 220 problem. For the price, specific system, and the fact that I mostly stick with 120 anyway...well, I'll read their white paper if I can get my paws on a PDF.

Lotusm50 wrote:
If you don't think it is an issue, read the Zeiss white paper. It's obviously most important when shooting wide open, and at macro distances. You may not know what you're missing -- I assume you've never done a side by side comparison -- or know what to look for.

Lotusm50 wrote:
which is why I said, "...if you're shooting color..."


I know. I just didn't want people to think the more mainstream B&W films were available in 220.

One reason a lot of people think the Mamiya 6/7 series is so high res is its high film flatness; and I never saw a problem with it or the other 4-5 rangefinders used over a decade.

Then again, MF RFs transport the film just like a 35mm camera, spool at either side, long flat space in between. Very different proposition perhaps with a brick-shaped SLR with a tortuous film path.

I also leave post-processed film around for a week or two prior to scanning to help the material become more flat, some labs seem to induce a curl to it. 35mm is often much worse than 120/220 in this regard.

The vacuum idea also seemed intuitively sound.

The RZ makes very nice B+W images. Although it's large and cumbersome I always used it over any Contax or Leica R film equipment. The sheer size of a 6x7 film kills any 35mm for sheer image quality.

The RZ has some very nice lenses. The 110 is common and very nice.

The problem with RZ's, and maybe other bodies too, is that the roll film holders play up all the time. They often have an uneven spacing and some times overlap which can ruin an image. I've had many repaired and was never really happy with them. Maybe my local repair guy just wasn't very good. It's some thing to be aware of though. At least they are cheap and you can have plenty of them, including 645 if you like.

If I ever went to the effort to shoot film again it would be with at least 6x7 regardless of the brand.

JJ

I used to have an RZ67 II pro with some lenses and now have a Mamiya 7. Both great cameras. The RZ67 is probably the best bang for the buck but too big and heavy to carry around. So I'd go for the M7 even if it's little more expensive. One thing the M7 has is the (excellent) 43mm lens witch is much wider than the (very good) 50mm SLD RZ lens if that's of any importance to you.

Hrannar

Note that if you print on any standard paper size (or crop to a rectangular aspect ratio), 6x6 and 645 are essentially identical resolution-wise since you have to crop 6x6 down to something very close to 645 to fit the paper. It's a big step up from 35mm (but not necessarily from high-MP 35mm format digital).

6x7 is another big step up from 645/6x6. I'd also suggest the Mamiya 7's as a good starting point, or the Pentax 67's on a budget. The RB/RZ series are just a little too big and heavy, if I'm going to haul that much I might as well haul a 4x5 field camera instead.

An interesting alternative option is the Bronica GS-1, they're remarkably light for a 6x7 SLR and the lenses are excellent and not terribly expensive.

mawz wrote:
Note that if you print on any standard paper size (or crop to a rectangular aspect ratio), 6x6 and 645 are essentially identical resolution-wise since you have to crop 6x6 down to something very close to 645 to fit the paper. It's a big step up from 35mm (but not necessarily from high-MP 35mm format digital).

6x7 is another big step up from 645/6x6...

+100

6x6 is great if you keep the square image (I do like the square format too) but not real good if you throw much of it away to print a rectangular image. That's why 6x7 is in another league. I think a lot of people over look that simple fact or don't realise quite how much difference it seems to make.

JJ

I guess I look at 6x6 all wrong then. I like 6x6 because it *is* square. Why would I want to crop it? I'm sure it's because I'm not a pro who is constantly thinking of magazine layouts...

kidtexas wrote:
I guess I look at 6x6 all wrong then. I like 6x6 because it *is* square. Why would I want to crop it? I'm sure it's because I'm not a pro who is constantly thinking of magazine layouts...

I like square too, but printing usually means cropping down to a rectangular format (it's not just for magazines).