Product review: Mamiya 645E, shooting medium format for a bargain

A while ago, I reviewed the Mamiya 645 1000S, a old entry level 645 film camera. It came out aiming at beginners in the field of medium format (MF), and it is quite frankly among the best image quality / price ratio you can get. The problem is that it's very old, and finding one that is not worn out with a working meter is hard.

I recently killed mine, the film winding mechanism couldn't tell anymore where was the next frame. The meter, although functional, became 1 stop off. It lasted 30+ years, not bad compared to the average life expectancy of a modern camera !

The lens however, a 80mm f2.8 (equivalent to a 50mm on "full frame" 35mm camera) is still superb, so I decided to got for a post 2000 version of this camera, the 645E.

What does it do

It is literally a 645 1000s with automatic aperture priority mode and a few improvements. In other words, the 645 1000S was suggesting the speed but you have to manually pick it, on this one shutter speed sets itself in auto mode.
Focus is manual, which on a spot metered camera is not an issue since you'll take time to work your shot. You can do multiple exposure and max shutter speed is 1/1000s. That simple, which is great became you can focus on the image instead of figuring out what is in what menu.

So why a 645E instead of a 1000S for even cheaper? 

Well you can find one in mint condition, while 1000S are now pretty much all dead. 

Why getting a Mamiya 645 at all?

• First of all, look at those images (from the 645 1000s). That's why you want to own a medium format camera. If you don't like that kind of output, you don't want one. If you do, and you wonder why your digital work never feels like that, then you want one. But keep reading, the best is yet to come...

• As promised, the best part: you can get that for less than a cheap compact camera. Let's be specific here: this camera goes for $300 with the lens. Mint. The cost of buying film and getting it developed is about $0.80 per shot, which means that the price difference between this and a Fuji X100 will get you about 1100 shots. Of course, when shooting film, you also pay a lot more attention to crafting, shoot less pictures and therefore improve your skills a lot faster. "Wait what? But but...I spend $5600 in my Canon 80D MarkXXV and it doesn't look any better ! Actually my B&W and the bokeh are not that nice! Could it be that...they are lying to us? We don't need 22nd century electronics and Active Power Sensor 3000 SPX technology to have beautiful rendering? - ALELOUYA ! Your eyes have been opened my friend. Join us in celebration of actual pictures instead of marketing techno crap !" On a more serious touch, this is a cheap and perfect supplement to an SLR, instead of buying an other accessories, you can get that for a very different experience.

• Why Mamiya and not Pentax or Contax, who also offer excellent 645 cameras? Well frankly, they are slightly better built than the Mamiya, but Pentax lenses now cost an arm because they launched the digital version, which pulled used lens prices up. The Contax is excellent, but harder to find and more expensive. Mamiya wanted to go entry level with this camera, and while the built quality remains correct, image quality is the same while prices are amazingly low second hand. 

You get the picture: if you are to shoot portraits in particular, you will want to play with depth of field, have nice bokeh and crisp images. Nothing gives you that better that a large sensor / film. Unfortunately, digital sensor are at best 33x44 mm, which is...a joke. It should not even be called medium format. 

Real medium format (60x70mm) leads to enormous cameras with often no built in metering. On the other hand 645 (60x45 mm) offer a format much much larger that full frame SLRs, with comparable size and automation. And it that field, the Mamiya is simply...well the cheapest.

If you want to start film photography, you could go for a Nikon FE / FE2 / FM or Canon equivalent. This would allow you to recycle your SLR lenses. But why? Why when for $150 more you can shoot medium format?

An other very important point, I mentioned that several times here: film photography with spot metering forces you to make decision in exposure and focus, so you actually work your technique. And most digital shooters really need that.

Finally the camera looks exotic, and all the SLR owners with big "I have something to compensate" lenses will be jealous of your edge :)

Here are some exemple from me and other people, with credits in captions:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/farhad_yassavoli/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanabramsphotography/

Review: Fuji X100...VS a actual film rangefinder, VS forthcoming X10...

I'm back !

My job (the one that pays the bills and the expensive repairs on my car) has been quite time consuming lately, so were my vacations :)

Anyway I'm back with new photos to post, and more tutorials.

But for now, a personal review of a camera that is being very successful, and acclaimed by critics, but not necessarily by real photographers. That makes it rather interesting since Fuji is clearly branding it as the compact for pros, when pros are too lazy to cary around too much stuff.

Also, by its looks and functionalities, it intends to revive a photo journalism way of shooting, and be the modern equivalent of a long line up of full frame film rangefinder cameras. And I'm wondering...aren't those old guys still not better than the fancy X100 ?

Let's start with the camera review itself:

I encourage you to Google it (after bookmarking this blog !), there's not point redoing what has been done well.

Some reviews:
- Ken Rockwell (classic)
- Steve Huff

However I would tend to weight differently the pros and cons of the camera than many others did. Let's remind us of those first:

Pros: great lens and sensor, low light performance, dynamic range, design and built quality, optical viewfinder. That's A LOT of great pros ! Some might even say, whatever the cons, it can only be great, but...

Cons: slow, very slow operations, dodgy user interface, AF is slow and MF is absolutely unusable (7 ring turns to focus 1 meter further, WTF)

X100 @ F2 ISO 400. The lens is definitely way on top in the compact world.

Why is that more of a pain that it might seem? Changing ISO while shooting was nearly unresponsive when I used it, a real pro used to rangefinders can manually focus and can do it quick. It is impossible here hence the all purpose of the camera is quite questionable. I would say a pro will be terribly frustrated and yet tempted: it's a beautiful object, it's nearly what we are dreaming of (full frame sensor + faster response of electronics + proper focusing would make it perfect), but it will be very frustrating when missing a shot because it takes 3 seconds to write on the card, or won't focus well.


Why not a proper rangefinder instead?

If you are a pro and can spend 1200 dollars on a portable rangefinder, you might be better off spending 80 bucks on a actual full frame film rangefinder, and shoot 1120 dollars worth of 35mm film...(150 rolls). Dynamic range on film is unbeatable, the classic journalist B&W shots will render way better on film (tone range of B&W film is unmatched), the full frame will allow greater definition, bigger files after scanning, deeper images. You travel in unsafe countries? It gets stolen? Ah whatever, order an other one, or 2. If you don't care about cost, you have a Leica M9 (Digital), or a Contax G2 / Leica M6...well you spend the extra bucks that will get you what you really want.

However you might want a X10; keep on reading.

The X10...

Here comes my main and I hopefully most insightful point of this post. If you are an amateur, is the X100 the holy grail? I would nearly say so. You will be able to shoot DSLR like shots with a pocket format, a lens that beats any DSLR kit lens, and a DSLR size sensor. The weaknesses of the camera won't bother you too much because you never shot a Nikon F5 or a Contax G2. So I would nearly say it's the perfect advanced amateur compact camera...if Fuji was not about to launch the X10.

Well let's face it, the X10 is likely to avoid the flaws of the X100, it has a zoom lens with high aperture (pretty uncommon and really cool to have on a compact), it's even smaller, looks as good, will cost half the price of the X100. The only thing is the CMOS sensor VS the DSLR like sensor of the X100, but once again, a DSLR sensor is not a full frame sensor, so it's not thaaaat mind blowing either, and mostly an amateur would hardly see the difference between the two (medium & large formats are the real thing). If the shoot is good, it's good no matter what sensor anyway.


Final recommendation:


First of all, if you bought or really, really want an X100, you're fine. You're miles away from making a mistake. I'm discussing details here and it is an excellent camera, with all essential features on top. Even the AF is not so bad, just not good enough VS a cheaper DSLR.

If you are to upgrade your G2, your S90, or some other premium compact as your main camera, wait a bit. The fix lens of the X100 is awesome, but it might be too much of a constraint never being able to zoom. The X10 should be more versatile, wait and try.

If you own a DSLR, get a fix 35mm 1.8 lens on it for 200$, don't buy a X100. Get a X10 as a portable backup, that will be way more complementary (providing that the X10 images come out good, we'll know quite soon).

If you're a pro looking for the small toy you can have in your pocket just in case, the X10 might be what you actually wanted, depending on how well its lens will perform. It's even smaller and since you shoot full frame or larger format, you find COMS and DX sensor similarly underperforming anyway.

Lens review : Mamiya Sekor 110mm F2.8

This is quite a niche product I'll review today : a Mamiya RZ medium format film body. Normally at that stage I lost 95% of you. However this is why you should keep reading a little farther:

• It is the best you can get for portrait and studio.
• It is the cheapest used >$1500 new, but a mint one can be found for $300 online without risk.
• If you're a growing amateur looking for the next level in photography (which should be medium format film, I'll explain why in an other post), this should be in your top 5 potential target product.
• You won't find reviews of MF lenses on most of the classic photography sites because well, digital sells so no one gives a damn.

Ok back to the lens. This is the standard lens sold with the Mamiya RZ, a studio photography reference. It's a bulky tank-like camera, but a wonderful machine for artists and portrait lovers. 

It is equivalent to a 55mm lens on a 35mm camera. 

I'll be very straight forward : this is the most exceptional portrait lens I have ever used so far. I could talk about sharpness (unreal), I could talk about the bokeh (sublime), and I will, but there is a subjective dimension to all appreciation, the image feel you get, and this lens perform terrific when it comes to that. See for yourselves (scanned at 2400 DPI with an Epson V700, I had to reduce the files since they are >20MO, 48MP equivalent !):

6pm window light at F2.8 1/60S

Let's be a little more analytical now. The most impressive part is the ability to perform the best at F2.8. It doesn't get soft at all, it remains as sharp as the sharpest thing you've seen, but the out of focus areas are smooth, soft, beautiful. For intimate images with that reserved feel, this is the one lens you need.

This is solid built, full metal, mine's quite old and nothing's shaky.

Some people mention a dust infiltration problem with that lens. I don't doubt it can happen, but I don't suffer from it, even though I took a sand storm with it. Be aware just in case you buy it used, servicing costs around $150.

I never review with charts, graphs etc. I trust my eyes and compare images. I don't give a damn if the whatever distortion is 3.4% or 3.5%. Anyway if you're a pixel junky you wouldn't be looking at film products :) The images should speak for themselves.

Pros : astonishing in low light at F2.8, crazy sharp, outperforming Leica 35mm lenses, cost the same price new but so easy to find for $300 used. Goes a classic MF body that cost $4000 new, but can be find used, in mint condition, for $600.

Cons: I believe it can suffer from dust infiltration in some cases (haven't had the problem myself). Hard to get serviced. 

Recommendation:

If you have a Mamiya RZ, I bet you already have it. So if you're looking for your first MF gear, this gets interesting. Legendary Mamiyas like the 6 or 7II are aiming at landscape. They just don't have such a lens. The RZ is a studio classic, fantastic camera. If you like shooting studio portrait, or portraits in a set up stage (tripod, make up artist, and tons of stuff along with any photoshoot), this lens justifies buying the Mamiya RZ67. However you might want to consider these alternatives:

- Pentax 67II body has built him metering and large aperture great portrait lenses too. It's more pricey and not better, just a little (really a little) more versatile.

- Rolleiflex TLR: Great lenses, but this is in a totally different price range, but a results that is no better, if not, in my opinion, inferior. 

If you get a Mamiya RZ system with that, for proper portrait photoshoot, you will never be disappointed, and often be wooowed by your own shots :)