As I did a search on the Mamiya 645 to determine which model I have I began feeling quite old. This fine camera is barely known to some of the "experts" of today. What they did report was BS or plain old wrong. What I did find a consensus on is that the original models of the series are tanks as opposed t much more flimsy designs of today. That's a given. Mamiya was bought by a large didital products company and there is not much comparison betseen the new product name similarly as opposed to the older ones.
I read these various blogs and questions and answers and I want to cry out Stop!. This is all wrong! Instead I write in my own blog the much needed vintage info from someone who was actually there.
"What I did find a consensus on is that the original models of the series are tanks as opposed to much more flimsy designs of today."
ith the huge success of the Mamiya RB and RZ 6x8 Format Cameras, and as film emulsions became exponentially improved it was only a mater of time before camera companies look to the neat 120 film format deamed A16 on Hasselblad backs offering 5x4.5. This proportionately is the same format as is the 6x7 format, but it had a 2X gain on the number of exposures per roll. So, for wedding photographers in particular this was a hge boon. The images were automatically in an 8x10 or 10x8 format (turning the camera was required) for both what we now
call Portrait and Landscape images (vertical or horizontal).
Con Review: http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/05/mamiya-645-rb67-rz67-c330-test-review.html
The camera prior to the model in my eBay ad was labeled the Mamiya 645. It didn't take long for a couple of improvements to be added, and it was called a 645 Pro Model. My camera was the in-between model. It did not have interchangeable backs but the film inserts could be preloaded for very fast film changes. The 645 models were much more manageable by small hands than was the RB series.
Photo samples made with 645: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGall2.asp?camID=1179
The 645 enjoyed a very prolific life spurred by the burgeoning wedding photography market prior to Digital. Even though 35 mm films could now produce excellent enlargements the format was not as conducie to accepted candid formats. The so-called ideal format was much more desired, and even though the 645 produced a smaller negative than the accepted ideal format touted for the RB67, it was still in that same proportion. Just as with the 35mm films new film emulsions made fine grain enlargements and great color a cinch.
Wide availability of lenses and other accessories assured the Mamiya 645 a good run in the market. Mamiya had become ledgendary by this time for producing superb lenses. The 645 lenses were no exception. While it is true that some Mamiya lenses are better than others, this is a relative matter. This factor is largely academic. Unless one is doing extensive lens comparisons, the net photographic results will be commercially acceptable for all.
Bear in mind that the 645 format bandwagon was loaded up with many competing prioducts including those from Bronica, Pentax, Fuji, and whichever other makers I am forgetting--virtualloy all of the existing medium format cameras had their offerings. At one time or another I tried them all. I had gained an overall respect for Mamiya product by this time, which undoubtedly figured into my decision. However all of these products were good products each with their own pros and cons.
http://www.williamsphotographic.com/ocr/mf/mamiya.html
The Mamiya 645 took very little getting use to for me. I used it for outdoor protraits primarily. Aesthetically seasoned in my style, and picking and choosing my subjects--usually models or aspiring models along with family portraits--these photographs are perhaps among my career best.
645 lenses can be adapted to other 35mm cameras: http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/473/158/
