Now that I know a bit about the capabilities – both positive and negative – of the Contax 645, I thought I would give a more modern 645 camera a try. Enter the PHASEONE 645AF (the P1). This camera is a re-badged Mamiya 645 AFDiii. It is identical to the Mamiya in every respect other than the name painted on the front. [in 2009 Phase One became the majority shareholder of Mamiya]. This post really should be called a preview instead of a review, since I’ve only shot a few rolls, but “review” gets more web hits – so sue me!
[all the camera images in this post taken with my Canon G11]
The big deal about this camera is that it is a current production camera that just came out in mid-2008. That makes it about a decade newer than the Contax 645. My expectation is that a camera that’s a decade newer should have significant improvements over the older model, but we’ll see. This is the latest current production 645 film camera that you can buy, and probably the last auto-focus medium format film camera that you’ll ever be able to buy. My understanding is that Mamiya will no longer introduce new 645 film cameras. This puppy may be the end of the line.
You can buy it brand new here. I got mine on eBay from a reputable dealer, Capture Integration in Atlanta. The deal I got made me feel like a criminal it was such a steal: less than $1,000 for the camera body in LN condition. I got an EX+/MINT film back with insert and 80mm Mamiya f2.8 lens for another $450 total. Brand new this camera setup is >$6,000. If I sell this camera I will probably make a few hundred bucks profit. By the way, Capture Integration has a few more of these bodies, so if you want one you better contact them and act quickly. Okay, enough with the deal, on with the camera.
Body and design
As usual, I will first compare it with my bread and butter Canon 5D Classic. The width is similar, just a bit taller than the Canon. It’s a bit heavier, but not horrendously so.
The real size difference is the depth. Like all 645 cameras, the P1 is quite a bit deeper from front to back.
Compared to the Contax without battery grip you can see they are very similar in height and width.
However, the Contax is bigger, chunkier and heavier in almost every other dimension. The biggest difference is the size and weight of the lens.
Like pretty much every camera made these days, the P1 is constructed of a metal chassis with a plastic coating. It has kind of a crinkle matte finish which looks like it will wear well over time. The rubbery coated grip is nice and soft and feels good in the hand. Overall, it feels solid enough.
Controls
Of course like all modern cameras it has an LCD. Also, like most modern cameras the aperture control is not on the lens, and the shutter speed is not a dial on the top of the camera. Demerit! Just like my 5D, the aperture and shutter are set by little plastic wheels, one on the top and one on the back. The back dial is in an awkward place. You’re supposed to turn it with your thumb, but it’s not positioned where the thumb is, I have to cross my thumb into an unnatural position to turn it. I suppose I’ll get used to it, but this one earns another demerit. Changing the ISO on the Contax is easy, I just turn an ISO dial on the film back. With the P1, I have to hold down a tiny little button and watch the ISO change on a microscopic little LCD screen – another demerit. This is one reason why I like older cameras like the Contax and my lovely Nikon film bodies (which I stupidly sold when I went digital). Don’t get me wrong, everything works and with practice I should be able to get very fast, but it’s just not as intuitive or pleasant to use as an old-style camera.
Viewfinder
Big, bright and beautiful, just like my Contax. It displays the shooting mode, aperture and shutter speed, along with a green focus confirmation dot. However, I wish the focus confirmation dot was on the focus spot (like on my 5D) rather than on the bottom of the viewfinder. The P1 has 3 focus points: left, center and right, and there is no indication in the viewfinder which focus point is active. You have to look at an itty bitty icon on the LCD that’s on the top plate to tell which point is active. The icon is maybe 5 pixels wide – barely visible to the human eye, and nearly invisible to anyone over the age of 40! Demerit. Any camera with multiple focus points should have the active focus point in view without having to take the camera away from your eye.
Loading Film
Loading the film insert is just about identical to the Contax 645. There is only one insert, a 120/220, so you’ll have to remember to rotate the pressure plate when you’re changing film sizes. If you have the pressure plate set to 120 and you’re shooting 220 (or vice versa) you’re going to get out of focus images. And I think if you’re shooting 220 and you have it set to 120 it will also rewind the film after 16 frames. There is no vacuum insert available so I’ll just have to trust that this dual 120/220 insert will hold my film flat. (flatter film = sharper images)
Batteries
Unlike the Contax, which takes a wimply 2cr5, the P1 takes 6 rechargeable AA batteries. Woohoo! The P1 shoots and scores!! No bulky battery grip is therefore needed. Indeed, Mamiya never made one for this body so you can’t get a grip even if you want one. That’s fine with me. I don’t use battery grips with any of my cameras except the Contax. I prefer the smaller size and weight of a sans-grip body. Mamiya’s specifications indicate 150 rolls with a set of alkaline batteries, so I expect to get quite a few more than that with a single charge of my nimh AAs. At the rate I shoot this camera, a single battery charge could theoretically last me a few months!
Lenses
Mamiya is known for having excellent optics. So far I only have the normal 80mm f2.8 lens, and as I expected, it’s plenty sharp – maybe even sharper than the Zeiss. However – and there’s no scientific way of saying this – but it doesn’t render quite as beautifully as the Zeiss. In terms of build quality, the Mamiya lenses are MUCH smaller and lighter. That’s both an advantage and a disadvantage. The reason they’re smaller and lighter is because the barrels are plastic and the glass is one stop slower. The 80mm Zeiss is an f2.0 lens, whereas the Mamiya is a 2.8. The Zeiss 140mm is a 2.8 while the Mamiya 150mm is a 3.5. The Zeiss lenses also look and feel incredible with their solid metal barrels. On the other hand, Mamiya lenses are much cheaper on the used market. So on balance I would say it’s nearly a wash: smaller, lighter and cheaper versus heavier, bigger and a stop extra speed.
Lens hoods
The hoods on the Zeiss lenses are terrible, even though they are made of solid metal. The Mamiya lens hoods are plastic – just like my Canon – and are easy to put on and off and easy to reverse for storage.
Auto focus
The P1 autofocus appears to be MUCH, MUCH better than the Contax. There is a clear half-press point on the shutter button, so there is absolutely no danger of accidentally snapping a picture before you’re ready. The focus hits the confirmation easily without all the back-and-forth hunting that the Contax goes through. And it focuses considerably faster than the Contax. And it has three focus points! Now this seems somewhat ridiculous when you compare it to the dozens of focus points you get in a DSLR, but three is better than one. The three points are laid out left, center and right. Of most interest to me is the right focus point. That’s because when I take verticals I rotate my camera body counter-clockwise. This will put the right focus point on the top half of my viewfinder, so I can focus on my subject’s eyes without having to recompose nearly as much as I would need to if I were using center point focus. That means my focal-plane will be shifting much less, resulting in eyes that stay in focus. I wish the point was further away from the center point, but any amount of separation is better than nothing. All of these improvements are not that surprising, given how much newer this camera is.
Okay, now here’s the bad news: The autofocus is LOUD. The P1 uses an in-body focus motor instead of in-lens. It sounds like a hydraulic drill used to take your wheels off at the tire shop. Now don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather have loud focus that was faster and more accurate than quiet focus that was slow and inaccurate, but it still is an unpleasant feature of this camera. I think it would be loud enough to scare babies. Good thing I don’t shoot many newborns. In my opinion the autofocus is also too loud to use for an indoor church wedding ceremony. Not a huge deal, since for a ceremony I would probably be shooting with a 35mm camera anyway.
Digital backs
It’s inevitable – at some point in the future I will be buying a digital back. Probably when I can get today’s best PhaseOne/Leaf 30-50mp digital backs for under $4k used. The P1 was built from the ground up to work primarily with digital. No stinkin’ adapters or anything required. It will integrate flawlessly to any modern digital back. PhaseOne/Leaf is the only maker of medium format digital backs now, and all of their backs are simple plug-n-play with this body. Hasselblad has moved to a closed system so their backs only work on their bodies.
The images
No great fine art here – just a few quick snapshots. Mainly I was testing the autofocus.
The b&w images are on Kodak T-Max400 @ISO400 and the color is Fuji Pro400H @ISO400. I couldn’t rate this any lower because I needed the extra speed – it was a really dreary day, even by Seattle standards, plus I shot a lot indoors. Process and scan by NCPS.
With my first two rolls (one roll of 120 and one roll of 220 – 48 images total), how many would you guess were in tack-sharp perfect focus? Drum roll please………… How does 48 out of 48 grab you?! Holy Mother of God!
Preliminary thoughts
The P1 simply works. You get a tack sharp lens in front of a large piece of film with reasonably fast and accurate auto focus. Everything on this camera is modern and up to date. Unfortunately, this means modern controls (tiny buttons and tiny LCD screens), but since it comes with modern performance, I’ll take it.
Up next will be the final death match: Contax vs. P1. Stay tuned.
__________________________________________________________________
Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!
"No great fine art here – just a few quick snapshots." I disagree-- great shots. Maybe it's because I take mediocre photos or there is magic in MF. Either way, I enjoy looking at them. (March 16, 2011 | 08:06am)
Great shots! It looks like the P1 is a worthy contender against the Contax and I'm so looking forward to seeing how they perform, hopefully with some children where the auto focus will really be put to the test! Thanks so much for doing these posts. (March 16, 2011 | 10:13am)
Even at 2.8 the OOF looks like it is a 1.4 or 1.8. Medium Format looks so good. Very exciting to see when you do a full wedding with these cameras! (March 16, 2011 | 03:20pm)
@Michelle: I'd only use a medium format system for children who are old enough to pose. If you're going to be chasing around toddlers in the park, you're going to need a 35mm slr. No medium format auto focus system on the planet will work fast enough for that. The Canon 1V or Nikon F100 will both do the job nicely. (March 16, 2011 | 06:29pm)
This has been my dilemma for a few months now! What medium format camera will work best photographing children, and yes they are mostly under 4 yrs old. I tried a bronica sq manual focus and got some decent shots, but there is no opportunity to try out different film cameras here so I have no idea what will work best for me - which is why your posts trying out different film cameras are so wonderful for those of us on a really tight budget! It gives a bit of insight which is so valuable. I will have a look at 35mm, but for some reason my heart is set on medium format, but whether that is practical or not........... (March 17, 2011 | 01:39am)
F*cking amazing. Sorry for the f word, but I'm really blown away by the sheer, unadulterated quality here. I seriously need to consider a MF film camera, because I spend way too much time fiddling in Color Efex Pro to get film-like looks from my DSLR. It might be wiser to just go for the real thing. (March 17, 2011 | 01:58pm)
After the death match.. can I have the loser? (March 17, 2011 | 06:51pm)
Man, I wish I could give everyone a film camera. The only way to keep Kodak/Fuji in business is for more people to buy film! (March 18, 2011 | 04:53pm)
It's really interesting how affordable digital backs are on eBay. It's conceivable to buy a full MF film system for well under $1,000, and add a digital back for anywhere from $2 - 6K more. So assume $5-6K in if you shop around and hunt down deals. The Nikon D3X and Canon 1DS Mark III will both set you back around $7K, and that's BEFORE you consider the cost of lenses. Assuming you don't need the responsiveness and speed of traditional DSLR's, the only disadvantage of a used MF digital system appears to be the lack of warranty on a used digital back. But I'd assume that they're built pretty tough since they don't have many if any moving parts and are made to be used on big-time productions. (March 18, 2011 | 07:07pm)
It's okay Mr. Kim, I got my EOS 3 from ebay already. You just have to give the rest of the blog readers :) (March 20, 2011 | 07:08am)
Laurence, great preview of the camera and a great camera of course! The shots look really nice. I have a request - can you perhaps write some thoughts regarding how lenses compare in your side by side comparison of the Mamiya and the Contax. The lenses and their very special own "drawing" is a quite important part of any MF system. I have read several times reviews on Mamiya covering exactly what you said by the way - excellent, tack sharp optics, but very raw, lacking "character" if you wish in the focus to OOF gradation and the OOF rendering. Thanks again for pointing so many people to the direction of film and MF - this will be revelation for many, I believe that a professionally drum-scanned MF ektachrome slide can offer many aspects superior to digitally captured files. These two technologies should really be used side by side, film IS great. The tonal gradations and the medium and balanced contrast together with excellent sharpness make your shots here look just EXTRAORDINARY. Thanks again! (March 21, 2011 | 11:39am)
@Yanko: I really haven't shot enough rolls to make an in-depth comparison. The unique look to the Zeiss appears to be it's ability to look sharp yet smooth at the same time. I don't know how else to say it. The Mamiya looks more familiar to lenses I've used in the past, although very sharp. Perhaps I'll have more insight into this over time with more rolls under my belt. (March 21, 2011 | 09:04pm)
The shots you took are great. But that's what film does. They have that undeniable film look/quality that just makes photos pop. The colors are beautiful which is something i've come to expect from film versus digital. The photos in the case of a casual shooter are great. But i gotta tell you that the Contax and that Zeiss lens you used blow this Mamiya out of the water. There is just no comparison. As untrained as my eye may be, i think the difference in quality is like night and day. For what you do, which is professional photography; and you're a great one at that, the Contax and Zeiss are the way to go. If it wasn't for the fact that i have seen your Contax shots, i would have said this Mamiya and lens are just AWESOME compared to anything digital. I mean you got great looking pics without even trying. They remind me of 60's, 70's magazine photos. But the kicker is, If i was going to hire you for a wedding event, i'd personally demand you bring the Contax and the Zeiss lens and leave that Mamiya where it belongs, back home. (March 22, 2011 | 11:00am)
Darn! I was hoping that you would have chosen the Pentax 645N or 645NII as an alternative to the Contax 645 AF. I'm really curious to see how the autofocus system and image quality of the Pentax stack up against the Contax/Zeiss combo. I suspect that the Pentax autofocus is better than Contax, but the Zeiss optics would render the bokeh better. However, I understand the logic in choosing the PhaseOne/Mamiya, as the Pentax 645N design cannot accept digital backs, which is sadly the trend. (March 22, 2011 | 12:16pm)
Laurence, In your opinion, do you think the PhaseOne autofocus performance is good enough for those wedding shots in this context : - Outdoor location. - Subject is walking, not posing formally? I agree that no medium format AF system is going to track little kids running around even in sunny daylight. I have trouble photographing my 1-year old boy even when he's in his play saucer with a Nikon D40. He moves around so quickly! (So I used that excuse to justify a Nikon D300 purchase to my wife.... ;-) - the bride/groom is walking and not posing formally? (March 22, 2011 | 12:31pm)
@joel: I personally would hesitate on making many judgements between two topclass 645 systems based on 300x400 web pics. However, the previous Contax shots do seem to have a certain ooh-la-la. Maybe it was just the setting, subject, or lighting. Or slightly shallower DOF. However, I agree that there seems to be more of an "aroma" from the Contax. Just to make things more difficult. Did anyone make a Contax-to-Mamiya adapter? (March 22, 2011 | 02:16pm)
@Keith: I think the P1 autofocus is good enough for slow moving subjects - like a couple strolling arm in arm. I'm not confident it can capture movement faster than that. But let's not dismiss 35mm film cameras for that - I've been testing some 35mm film systems and have been pleasantly surprised with the results. @NL: I'm not aware of any Contax to Mamiya adapters. If any such creature did exist, you would of course lose autofocus. But if you're willing to focus manually, there's no reason not to stick with the Contax to do that. I think you're onto something with the DOF - most of my Contax images were taken at f2, which is not available on the P1/Mamiya. (March 22, 2011 | 04:14pm)
@NL: Point well taken. Plus you made mention of somethings i had actually thought about but made no mention of, mainly: setting, subject, and lighting. I will readily admit however that i had forgotten about the photos simply being 300x400 web pics. Still.. as far as first impressions go I was most impressed by the: "First 2 Rolls with the Contax 645", blog post than anything else previously posted by Laurence. I think that's a testament not only to Laurence's great artistry and technical skill, but that the Contax645 along with the Zeiss lens allowed him to express; and us to see, his vision in a way that the other camera/s has/have not been able to do even with the first two rolls. Perhaps if I look closer I would see that what I'm really in love with is that Zeiss lens. Even Laurence readily admits he's in love with his bread and butter Canon 70-200mm L 2.8 lens for the way it renders images. I think Laurence called it his beauty lens. But since Laurence is looking for a system, and the Mamiya can't do Zeiss then for me the Contax is the way to go. Then again, my livelyhood does not depend on photography. I suppose that if it did, as much as i love the look of that Zeiss lens, I would be considering how much money I would be saving by having each shot in focus and not wasting film. I have a lot respect for Laurence's work and I suppose whatever decision he makes I'm still going to love his work because he's a great photographer. But.. and perhaps only in my mind, the photos of the kids on those first two rolls and the blog about,"erin and ryan", are just so superb in my humble opinion that it would be a shame to see that lens go. (March 22, 2011 | 07:53pm)
Is there anyway you can do a full portrait of a subject shot wide open by both the mamiya and contax? I sure would like to see the dof difference between 2.0 and 2.8. Really great photos! Thanks. (March 23, 2011 | 03:08pm)
@Tim: I might try a side-by-side comparison on a future shoot. However, you can approximate the dof difference with your current DSLR. The Zeiss 80mm f2 shot at f2 has about the same DOF as a 50mm lens at f1.2 with a DSLR or 35mm SLR. The 80mm at f2.8 = a dof of f1.6 on a DSLR. (at a focal length of 5 feet). (March 23, 2011 | 05:15pm)
FYI, adapters tomount Mamiya lenses on a Contax body do exist, but they're very, very rare and not presently available except from a camera machinist such as S.K. Grimes. For better or worse, for technical reasons, there are no adapters available to mount Contax lenses on a Mamiya body. Because the lens registers of the two bodies are quite similar, any adapter would have to be less than 1mm thick, so as a practical matter, there isn't enough room for one without also modifying the lens mounts and/or the body as well, and then, of course, the Contax lenses use an electronically controlled aperture, which further complicates matters unless you are willing to shoot wide-open all the time. (That said, there is a way to workaround this, but it's clumsy and slow.) Bottom-line: If you want to achieve the Zeiss "look" using a Mamiya body, then you'll need to an adapter for Hasselblad lenses, not Contax lenses. Fortunately, those are readily available and inexpensive to boot! (April 05, 2011 | 02:59pm)
So glad to see you are enjoying your Phase One AF! If you have any questions about the body, need additional lenses, or would like to discuss digital backs I hope you'll consider Capture Integration again! If you haven't checked them out there are some great older lenses like the 80mm / 1.9 and 140mm Soft Focus Portrait lenses that have very unusual draw. Those lenses aren't super sharp technical lenses but they are very interesting. This body is also compatible with the super sharp Phase One D glass including the 150mm / 2.8 D lens which is one of our favorite lenses regardless of platform. It's also compatible with Hassy 500 and 200 series lenses like the infamous Hassy 110 / 2.0 lens. Beautiful image of the two people sitting in the coffee shop. Dave Gallagher, President - Capture Integration dave@captureintegration.com (April 14, 2011 | 07:34am)
[...] The most advanced MF body: The P1645 / Mamiya AFDIII (the same camera with different labels) is the most current medium format film body [...] (December 20, 2011 | 01:13pm)
Laurence, I was thinking about picking up one of these - http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm, Curious if you've ever had a chance to try one and what you thought of it... (February 01, 2012 | 06:25pm)
I've never shot a roll of film with the Mamiya 6, I've only played around with one in the store. I wouldn't recommend it for portraits due to the long minimum focus distance and the slow lenses, but it should make a fine travel/landscape camera. (February 01, 2012 | 08:08pm)
I have been reading you blog for a while now and have learn so many useful tips about film and MF cameras. Just now I realized you live in Seattle, WA. I just live in the Ballard area. I'm so EXCITED because now I can set up a couching with you! I'm going to write down all my question and contact you! SUPER EXCITED! (February 20, 2012 | 03:29pm)
Hi Laurence, I ran into your blog by accident as I am searching for a 645 system. What a great blog to put to rest the Contax 645 vs Mamiya sharpness and whatnot. What I was looking for was a side-by-side shots to would compare them. You have very good points about the AF feature in Mamiya which I def need for children portraiture on location. One question, is Mamiya 645 AF (which uses exactly same in terms of film functionality, auto focusing etc with this P1/Mamiya 645AFD III?? Thank you! Andi (March 10, 2012 | 10:47am)
@Andi: I'm not sure I understand the question the way it's written. Please rephrase. (March 10, 2012 | 01:44pm)
i think i understand what andi asked you. its about what camera model.. you see mamiya has made 4 MF 645 cameras so far. the AF, AFD, AFDll and AFDlll, the last one also became known as phase one AFDlll after Phase One took over Mamiya. im also interested on which one did you try out! (April 21, 2012 | 03:10am)