Can anyone here give me some advice on medium format film cameras? Specifically, in your opinion, is the Pentax 645 comparable to the Mamiya 645? Are both of them good cameras? Also, has anyone here used twin lens reflexs like the Yashicamat, Autocord or others?
Thanks.
I’m no expert, but used to know a little bit. All the major brands are good. The Pentax has (I believe) a focal plane shutter, so it only “synchs” with flash at maybe 1/60 sec.
The Mamiyas, Bronicas, Hasselblads will synch up to 1/500, which makes them better for fill flash. (Using flash in daytime to get rid of harsh shadows.)
Pentax medium format cameras were known for good handling, and were closer to the 35mm experience than most others.
I haven’t used Twin Lens Reflex cameras much. Own an old Rolleiflex, but barely used it. Again, the quality should be fine for Yashica, Mamiya or Rollei. Mamiya made a series of interchangable lenses for their TLRs.
TLRs camera provide a flopped focusing image, and old time focusing screens can be very dark.
Most Medium format cameras provide between 10 and 16 pictures per roll. Or you can use the less common 220 film for twice that.
If you want to make enlargements between 11 x 14 and 20 x 30 then an average medium format camera will probably be better than an excellent 35mm camera.
I’m never ambitious enough to look things up until after I post. The Mamiya 645 also had a focal plane shutter.
Do the Pentax and Mamiya 645s have a depth of field preview?
All Mamiya 645 lenses have a switch on them to stop down the lens. I don’t know about the Pentax. The Mamiya 645 1000s body also has a separate depth of field preview level.
Info here. (Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal. Then again, I don’t think I’ve ever used the DOF preview in my shooting.)
I have a Mamiya 645 and I think it’s the bee’s knees. The modular design is really well thought-out. The actual camera is just a small cube with the mirror and electronics inside. The film back, auto-winder (optional) viewfinder (optional), lens, flash, etc. all connect to the body and are replaceable. You can even get a digital back for it (but it’s like 20 grand or something crazy like that.)
If you have any specific questions I’ll answer them to the best of my ability, but I’ve never used a Pentax or any other brand for medium-format so I can’t compare them.
Most of the square format TLRs have a very useful feature. They force you to slow down and use the photographic process. Very useful for learning.
In other words, looking down into the WL finder with its reversed image, figuring out the exposure needed, deciding which combo of shutter speed and aperture for that exposure, makes one slow down and consider composition, depth of field, shutter speed motion stopping, etc…
I already do that no matter what camera I’m using…I only shoot in manual mode. And I prefer film to digital, which spares me the distracting temptation to check every shot in the LCD after taking it.
I’m probably the slowest photographer ever…I’ll walk around a potential shot for 5 or 10 minutes, looking at it at different angles, framing it through the viewfinder, testing different depths of field (with the preview button), etc, before ever activating the shutter. I go for quality over quantity (another reason to use film - it forces you to do so.) Obviously if there are people, animals or moving objects involved, I have to go faster, but with stationary subjects, i take my time.
Unfortunately they don’t make a lot of films in 120/220 format any more. 
They have Ektar and Velvia in 120; that’s enough.
Yeah…
The upside is, since digital is taking over even in the med format world, certain higher end older film cameras can be had for a very low price.
I used Mamiya and Hassy a lot back in the day. Growing up on 35mm, I kind of preferred the rectangle formats. Easily translated into the regular enlargement sizes. The square formats were good, too, allowing me to choose vertical or horizontal later. Or, the interesting looking (and wedding album format) square pics.
I played with the Pentax 645 in store, liked it, too. I rented/borrowed the 6x7s from Mamiya and Pentax for specific jobs. Liked the results, but the weight is a factor to consider. I never used a TLR for a pro job, but loved them for fun. Used both Rollie and Yashica. Never got to use a Rollie SLX or SL66. Played with the Bronicas, had friends who loved them.
As for quality, most of the premier brand mediums are excellent. Go for feel and features, imho. ymmv
Other models to consider:
The Plaubel Makina, a 6x7 folding camera with modern (for the 1980s) electronics.
The Mamiya 7
And Fuji made an interesting series of medium format cameras including a 6x17.
The rangefinder645, and the 6x7 and 6x9.
The Fuji links connect to a site with extensive info on medium format cameras.
IMHO almost every medium format camera is a good camera, with the exception of some folding cameras, early Soviet copies, and toy cameras.
In the OP, are you comparing the autofocus Mamiya 645 or the older manual focus version. The MF version is hugely affordable but older than the AF and the Pentax 645.
Another option in 645 is the Bronica ETRS. The lenses all have leaf shutters, which is good for flash synch and less good for reliability and lens pricing. I have an ETRSi.
I would recommend that you look at the Medium Format section at www.keh.com to get a feel for what’s out there and what camera and lens prices are like.
If you want a solid camera and weight/bulk is not a concern, a Mamiya RB67 is an excellent choice – these are professional workhorses and very inexpensive in the used market. 6x7 negative is a great aspect for printing to common paper sizes such as 8x10.
I have a Yashica TLR that was my first medium format camera. It is tricky to compose handheld, in part due to the waist-level viewfinder (image is laterally reversed) and in part due to the shape of the camera – there is not really a grip (unless you add a flash bracket!) so it’s tough to compose and straighten everything up.
One thing you might not anticipate is that it’s tough to get lens caps, hoods, or filters for a TLR lens.
That said, it is a unique shooting experience and I love the look of the cameras. An attention-getter in public to be sure.
Another thing about TLRs-- they tend to give a low vantage point which is undesirable sometimes when shooting people. You are shooting from your chest or stomach rather than at eye level. Sometimes this works to your advantage though, and makes your portraits distinctive.