mamiya 645e? (Also, 645 vs 6x7)

So I'm staring down a 645e for $450 with the 80mm F/2.8 lens right now, and wondering if it's a good idea. I've always heard good things about medium format film, and have always been a little disappointed with 35mm. Is this a good place to go from, or knowing my lust for quality, should I just go up to 6x7? (Or hell, even a 4x5?)
How big is the quality difference to the discerning eye?
I'd probably just be using it for landscapes and the occasional portrait..

It will certainly blow away the 35mm although I'm not familiar with the 645e. Have you thought of going square maybe with a used 'blad? As for field cameras, I used to second shoot for a guy who'd do 8x10 wedding portraits. He had a separate bag for the film holders and that tripod was a monster.

I see you like trains.... you may find this series interesting: http://www.pbase.com/s​apearl/image/119607681

Really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If your intent is large prints the medium format negatives certainly deliver on this.

I still use both 645 and 6x7 fairly often. I have used a 4x5 but never owned one and, imo, the step from medium format to this is much larger than from 35mm to medium format. I use Pentax 6x7, Mamiya RB67 ProS for 6x7. I also have a Rollieflex twin reflex that I putz around with on occasion which is 6x7. I have an older Pentax 645 for that format and I like to use this for shooting weddings due to the more images per roll but I still like the quality from th 6x7 more than anything.

There are some smoking deals out there on used medium format bodies.

Is it in really good condition? I think you can do a bit better than $450 for a 645E.
http://cgi.ebay.com …meras?hash=item​35a54f53a7

I use a Pentax 67 and I've had a couple of RB67s in the past. If you don't mind the size I think you ought to go for the 6x7.

Medium format is wonderful for large prints. I have no regrets switching from 35mm to medium format; the IQ difference is absolutely insane. And now I can enlarge my photos way more.

Not the best shot but it should give a basic idea of how detailed the shots can be.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I have a 645e, though it has not seen much use for the past 3years or so.

Prior to that I used it for magazine orientated photographs (of trains as it happens!). It was bought specifically for that reason as the editor of a magazine I was freelancing some articles for said his preference was for medium format transparencies for accompanying photographs.

The 645e is pretty basic but should give good results. I have the 80/2.8 and 150/3.5 lens with mine. I really aught to either get it out and use it again or sell it on so someone else can play!

I would say it is a good place to start if you are unsure whether MF is for you and want to dip your toe in without spending $1000s!

I have Hasselblad H3DII which is 6x4.5, so i got 2 film medium format, one is 6x6 and the another is 6x7 [Hasselblad 501cm and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II], so i have different formats of MF to test, i am really looking to go larger with LF one day.
I recommend you to go with either 6x6 or 6x7 or even 6x9 if possible.

Trainboy wrote in post #9362404
So I'm staring down a 645e for $450 with the 80mm F/2.8 lens right now, and wondering if it's a good idea. I've always heard good things about medium format film, and have always been a little disappointed with 35mm. Is this a good place to go from, or knowing my lust for quality, should I just go up to 6x7? (Or hell, even a 4x5?)
How big is the quality difference to the discerning eye?
I'd probably just be using it for landscapes and the occasional portrait..

If you're going to dabble in it, take a look at the Mamiya Sekor "N" lenses...they're a notch better than the standard Sekor "C" lenses that are more common. I've had the Mamiya 645 1000s for many years, and have been giving thought to dusting it off and taking it out for a spin. Of course, I'll need to spend a few hundred bucks on a good scanner...the camera itself may be relatively inexpensive nowadays, but the cost of digitizing isn't. But TBH, $450 for a 645 with an 80/2.8 seems a bit high (unless it includes the prism finder and 120 back.

What about forgetting this deal and getting an RZ67?
I have absolutely no idea about how these camera bodies work, btw, so I'm -completely- lost.

Trainboy wrote in post #9365536
What about forgetting this deal and getting an RZ67?
I have absolutely no idea about how these camera bodies work, btw, so I'm -completely- lost.

Good idea, from all Mamiya MF cameras out there i went with RZ67, not sure why but i know one thing which is this camera was one of the best out there for the studio works, and it will still be great for landscapes, i don't know if Pentax 67II is better than Mamiya RB or RZ but if it is in same quality then a photographer who i met in Scotland was using and still his Pentax 67II for his spectacular landscape shots, so i think it is better to have 6x7 format than just 6x4.5, it is cheap used these days, i bought it from KEH.com that "LN" one, EX+ or EX is cheaper than LN.

Classically, any SLR 6x6 and smaller was considered to be better suited for field work, and cameras 6x7 and larger were largely relegated to studio work. A few cameras like the Pentax 67 were in the field a lot, but generally those who carried Mamiya RB and RZ into the field were more likely the hair shirt wearing afficianados. Many relatively light field folding 4x5 camera were taken out as well, but the fundamental design was implied in the name 'field' 4x5. Yes, you have 4x5 and 8x10 cameras in the field, and sometimes they are monorail designs and not field folding designs, and again these are the hair shirt wearing purists.

(I exaggerate the characterization of the large or heavy camera field user, for levity!)

In the interest of IQ, bigger is better, since larger captured image results in lesser magnifications to achieve a given large print size. So the detail resolution generally is better, as is the tonality benefit.