How did you conclude that there was a 2 stop difference in EV?

OP - I have actually read this entire thread - shocking, I know. I believe there are too many variables to conclude as to the cause:

- auto white balance
- jpg conversion by camera
- slightly different composition
- aperture priority auto exposure mode that let the camera set the shutter speed
- evaluative metering (not sure exactly what this is, but assuming it is some sort of averaging that would be impacted by composition)

Yes, the EVs appear to be the same. Yes, the lighting looks to be the same. Something is clearly different.

When you rerun your tests, in addition to the tripod, I would set everything to manual & RAW files. If all works fine in manual/RAW, start adding in one variable at a time until you have tested all the combinations. If you don’t plan to always shoot in full manual mode, be sure to test the various modes as well. Unless you show obvious hardware issues in manual mode, this testing will take a long time.

For the crowd that says “the EVs are equal, therefore, the metering system is out of the equation” - yes, the EVs are the same - but they got that way because the metering system set the shutter in response to the manual change to the aperture. So, the metering system set 1/3 of the exposure triangle based on the user input for the other 2 points. In both cases, the camera had final say over the exposure and the results are very different. What we don’t know is what was metered by the camera in its evaluative metering scheme.

At 17:30 here

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eWsSSFQCP4o

I thought this review was the most balanced.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKpor-nvDs

The delta I saw in favor of DSLR was the buffer issue (if real), low light performance and better subject isolation when wide open. The isolation is simply physics and why MF>FX>DX>M43

In one of the E-M1 mrII reviews I watched on YouTube, the guy was shooting a soccer match and noted that when he shot a burst of shots he had to wait for the buffer to clear and he missed action. I am not sure if he was using it properly, but if he was, that would knock it out of professional sideline duty. It looks like a fine bit of kit, but for the same, or even less money, I can get better overall performance and not have to buy new glass.

I like the smaller size for a briefcase camera that you have with you all the time. THBS, it is outside my price range for that duty.

Nope, I am not a pro shooter, but I have shot a lot of sports and published team web-sites. I have never had a D3, D4 or D5 for the job, although I would have liked one primarily for the advanced ISO performance over my D200. If you have never shot a D200 in a dimly lit HS gym where only a 1.4 lens will let you stop action, you wouldn't get the issue - eyes in focus with noses & ears out of focus and noise everywhere. Not publishable work.

My D200 was my main body for years and now my D500 is. While I have not had the top of the line pro bodies, I have purchased the best glass I could afford. This was generally pro-level fast glass, but unfortunately, the Nikkor 400/2.8 has always been out of my price range. I know my gear is better than I am, and I would like to keep it that way.

What I have seen in doing further research on the M43 cameras noted above is that they do very well in well lit environments, but may fall a bit behind in low light. Additionally, when shooting portraits, the M43 lens was, to my eye and that of most of the reviewers, less pleasing than DSLR, particularly FX DSLR sensor/lens pairings as the M43 lens did not separate the subject from the background as well. The other big hurdle for me is that I have a box full of fast Nikkor glass, zooms and primes that would not support the M43 systems. Good glass is expensive.

One does not have to be a pro shooter to desire to attain pro-level skills or at least the best skills they can attain. There are many reasons to make pictures and making money from it is only one. I am not a wedding shooter, but I was pressed into service at my son's wedding due to cost reasons. I did the research and practice (and bought a bit of lighting kit) to pull the job off in a workmanlike fashion. Sure there are better wedding shooters, and some of them specialize in weddings with a PHOTOGRAPHY budget of $100K. Yup, I am not in that league. However, after I published the album, several prints & the high & low resolution jpg images to the bride, several of her friends noted that the work was better than what they paid several thousand $$$ for at their weddings using a pro shooter. Do Pye Jursa, the Grays (Zach & Jody) or other top-end wedding shooters have anything to worry about from me - nope, but, it appears that if I so chose, I could make money at shooting weddings. I make more money at my consulting job and I prefer my weekends free.

I agree with you - shoot what you like. I apologize to you and all if the OP came across as attacking M43, although I can see how it did as what little researched I had done was dated. The thing that got my interest was some marketing literature I read that seemed be saying that 4:3 was something that was recently invented. This may well have been just an odd advert, but it started me thinking...

I was actually thinking about picking up a M43 camera with a small lens as a briefcase kit, but the Olympus noted above costs more than my D500

Ok, taken out behind the shed ... I have to admit that I am not that conversant with the Micro 4/3 options. One thing I have seen consistently stated is that they don’t autofocus fast enough for action sports. One of the blessings of the internet is info availability. One of its curses is that stuff doesn’t get updated.

So, please school me. Are there Micro 4/3 camera/lens options that can keep up with traditional DSLR offerings on an NFL sideline? I have looked at B&H lens offerings for Micro 4/3. There appear to be fewer with wide open apertures, but given the crop factor, I guess they gain a stop in exposure. Also, from what I have gathered, they seem to lose about a stop in DOF to anfull frame - that is just physics.

I guess the thing I found most interesting was the “discovery of the 4:3 format” in the marketing literature.

It seems there is quite the hype these days about the “Micro 4/3” format. This is a digital, mirrorless system that shoots a 4:3 format image. If I understand things correctly, the venerable medium format “645” cameras shot a 4:3 image size and have done so for at least 45 years, probably longer.

All the marketing fluff makes it seem like this 4:3 image format is a new revelation never before seen in the photo world. I realize the “Micro 4/3” industry is in its nascent stages and while there may be benefits, there are also still a few bugs to be worked out - like lens availability, autofocus speed/accuracy and price point. I also see a market for a smaller SLR camera which can produce professional quality images that can pop into a briefcase and be a constant companion without the bulk of another bag - although sensor size may be a limiting factor here.

What I don’t get is the promotion of the image ratio as a new thing rather than riding the coattails of the 645 MF film cameras while discussing the affordability of the Micro 4/3 cameras compared to the modern MF 645 digital cameras. Why not market the Micro 4/3 gear as “giving you a historically significant image ratio while eshewing film but still offered at an affordable price. Oh, BTW, these are mirrorless and smaller & lighter than your traditional DSLR so you can take them anywhere. Pairing a Micro 4/3 camera gives you options. Check one out at your local camera store.”

Am I missing something here?

Just got the following reply from the camera repair guy that works on Mamiya cameras.

"Hi Kevin,

It looks like the light seal that runs along the film door hinge may need to be replaced.

Open the film door and run your finger along the light seal. If it is sticky, or doesn't
have any sponge to it, it needs to be replaced.

We recommend only using factory issued parts from Mamiya to assure the correct function
of the door latching and light leaking into your camera.

We offer free estimates if you wish to send it to us for evaluation."

If the seals I ordered don't work, then I will likely send it off to this repair shop.

Yeah, I know. I have been watching the RB67 & RZ67 prices on e-bay. One of the guys at the local camera store has a RB that he got for a song when they took it on a trade. He recommends the RZ67 because it is smaller and lighter. I kind of like the RB67 because it is completely manual, i.e., no batteries.

I liked the look of the Bronica, but, if I got it accurately, it maxes out at 8 sec for the shutter and does not have a bulb. The ebay pricing seemed fairly similar and I occassionally use a longer shutter, so I went with the M645. If I really get into MF, I will likely look a bit harder into what is available. I suspect I might go 6x7 in addition to the 645 format.

Richard - I hope you are wrong while acknowledging you may well be right. I have an e-mail into a guy that does shutter repairs on the Mamiya 645 cameras. I hope to have the seals replaced before he gets back with me so I will have better knowledge about the issue. The only reason I am thinking that it might not be the shutter is that, as some one noted above, the light line extends outside of the frame to the edge of the film. Time will tell.

Thanks for the info. I am hoping that the light seals fix the issue. There are no matching light seals on the camera and I am pretty sure what is there is not factory. All 3 channels on the body are bare and the door has no bottom seal, which is most likely the culprit for the noted problems. I hope to have the light seals next week and get things tested. I will report back to this thread when I have shot a roll after the seals have been installed.

Yes, this is the first gen M645 - shutter maxes out at 1/500. All the other models go to 1/1000. I have 2 120 reels, 1 with a box and 2 220 reels without boxes. The 220 reels are like buggy whips and I may sell them on ebay and see what I can get for them, but I have no use for them. When I loaded the camera, I put a roll of Hp5 in the camera body and a roll of Tri-X on the other 120 insert in its box. The impacted roll was loaded into the camera and removed in a subdued light environment.

Bob - Interesting thoughts. First, it has a curtain shutter in the body. I like your thought on the reel alignment, but given that the reel is a concentric circle and 13/15 shots have the issue in exactly the same place (I blew out shot #1 and shot 15 just kept winding and rolled up the roll, so it was not at the point where a light leak could impact it) I find it hard to see how the reel could be the culprit. Additionally, shot #15 could have been impacted in the tank as it was properly exposed and but it was not impacted.

This thread has brought up several things to consider and that has been very useful. I still think that the missing light seals is the most likely culprit and it is really the only explanation that fits all the criteria, especially given that the last shot was not impacted. I have marked the reels so that I can tell them apart. This roll was developed on the reel with 1 mark on it. If the light seals don't solve the problem, the shutter and developer reel will have to be more closely examined. That reel will get used again in the near future. Examining it, it looks like a normal reel. Time will tell.

There are several models that have interchangeable backs. The M645, M645S, M645J & M645E do NOT have interchangeable backs, but have the film inserts that can be swapped out - but only after a roll is run out. The M645 Super, M645 Pro & M645 Pro TL all have interchangeable backs and can run the newer "N" series of manual focus lenses or the older lenses. They have progressively more modern metering systems and the Pro TL can work with flashes in TTL fashion. The M645 Pro AF and later versions have autofocus and some can take a digital back. While they may be able to use the older lenses (not sure), what would be the point?