I don't know of any trouble spots with the original 645. Like any mechanical toy, they wear with time and use, so newer is better I suppose. a. The 645 meter is more primitive than the 645n or 645nii. But it is very good. b. The original 645 allowed exposure compensation (via a push button on the top), but only in full stops. There was a wheel thingie that you turn to select S (= Single) or C (= Continuous). An option was available to have a factory modification made wherein the wheel thingie becomes a second control for exposure compensation, now in half stops. When I bought my (modified) 645 from KEH, it cost about $100 more than an unmodified with the same rating. I don't know if the newer 645n and nii have adopted more sophisticated exposure comp systems, but I would expect so. c. I never liked the push button exposure control on my ME Supers. I have no problem with the buttons on the 645. Go figure. I think it is because the 645 buttons are further apart and not so prone to having both pressed at the same time by a fat finger. d. When the 645n first came out, I thought that the data imprinting on the film was the best thing since sliced bread, and I would have gone for the 645n just for that if the price was at all doable for me. But, since then I have acquired an MZ-S with similar imprinting and I find that I very seldom look at the data except to use the roll sequence number to quickly put film in the order that it was shot. e. I occasionally use autofocus with my MZ-S, and did with the PZ-1p before it, but mostly I use older lenses. If I bought a 645n or nii, I would stil use the manual lenses which are available used at reasonable price. So the autofocus would be irrelevant for a few years until a large market develops for FA645 lenses. f. In my ideal world I would have an assistant to carry stuff for me and hand me the right things at the right time, one who wouldn't knock over tripods to which is attached an expensive camera and lens. But meanwhile, I struggle with the 645 limitation that it is a pain to load the film and it is hard to carry all that many pre-loaded film inserts and so one really does need to be more conservative in film use. [See item (b) above. I cannot imagine using the C setting if I had it!] [Actually, I do have it, as I have a second 645 body of the unmodified version. And I still cannot imagine using the C setting.]
Summary: the 645 will be less expensive, but it will have been used to a greater or lesser extent with unknowable remaining lifespan. It won't have autofocus, but you may not care. It won't have quite as good a meter, but it is quite good anyway. It probably has less capable exposure compensation, but then you can always go to full manual and do as much or as little comp as you like. Stan > From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:40:31 -0400 > To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: 645 vs 645n( or 645nii)? > > So, I'm pricing out MF options. Looks like I can score a 645 body in nice > condition with insert for something like $700 from KEH. A 645n body with > insert is closer to, say, $1400. > > I like the 645n user interface better, but autofocus seems pretty optional > for a landscape camera. Is there anything about the original 645 that is > bad or problematic? Any good reason to stay away? > > --Mark > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
