I found the Mamiya 645 to be a little bit heavier, bit with the 401 grip
and winder (the good one) it felt better balanced to me. I also find that
with interchangable bits for just about everything the mamiya is a more
flexiable system. What swung it for me was the abailty to swab backs so
easily. The ability to have backs loaded with B&W, Transp or differend
speeds is a boon. I have 3 backs plus 2 film cartridges for fase reload.
Great system, not nocking the Pentax 645, but the Mamiya works for me.
Rob.
--
(\__/) This is Bunny.
(='.'=) Help him and his friends by sup****ting the
(")_(") Rabbit Welfare Association: www.houserabbit.co.uk
"Toni Nikkanen" <toni@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:rlp63xobxxr.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Rob Bradford" <rob.polymnia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> I had a Pentax 645 for a while didn't like it, I now ahce a mamiya 645
>> Pro
>> TL far more capable camera in my view, aA lot easier to carry. But
when
>> I
>> want the image recording in glorious detail out comes the 67!
>
> Well, I spent a lot of time contemplating: The Pentax or the Mamiya 645?
> The mamiya had some obvious advantages: switchable film backs and a
> faster normal lens (80/1.9). On the other hand, I already had the
> Pentax 6x7 and thought I'd probably like to use some of its lenses
> on the 645. One of the things I never quite figured out for myself was
> the size and weight difference between a Mamiya 645 (super/pro/pro tl)
and
> a Pentax 645 (or 645N). How would you describe the difference?
>
> ..there's no going back now, I have a nice bunch of P645 lenses already,
> but it's nice to know :)
|
