645 format vs. 35mm???

The difference in quality delivered between 35 mm and 6x4.5 is huge.
That between 6x4.5 and, say, 6x7 (perhaps surprisingly) rather small.

And it certainly makes sense to use a 6x4.5 camera.

Although most of my film cameras are 35mm, I recently got a Mamiya M645 3 lens kit and am really enjoying using it; I am probably not yet exploiting the full technical potential yet, but for me right now the biggest attraction is the change of pace, working more slowly when shooting a fully manual camera on a tripod. I find it helps clear my head, photographically speaking.

QG: The difference in quality delivered between 35 mm and 6x4.5 is huge.

Click to expand...

For me, I rarely if ever print beyond 8x10, so I find no appreciable difference between 35 and 645. I do find a significant jump in image quality with a 5x7 or 8x10 contact print, which comes at its own price.

I love 645 and arrived at that conclusion after a lot of experimentation.

I feel lucky to have gotten serious about photography at the same moment that the whole world dumped their film gear for digital. I have been able to gratuitously sample some of the best equipment offered in 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x9 and 4x5. While I have kept a camera in each of those formats, I standardized on one format to build a kit: 645.

Shooting 645 with a Bronica ETRSi is definitely a compromise, but in the best possible way. It suits how I like to work. It's the smallest, lightest way to combine: SLR viewing; a waist level finder that is the minimum size I find comfortable (35mm WLF just doesn't work for me); "ideal" format negatives to maximize usable image area in printing or scanning; negs can be printed with smaller and more common enlargers; 645 film offers acceptable detail and tonality (over 35mm which I find lacking); leaf shutters for high speed flash sync; lenses that are typically f/2.8 (fast enough for hand holding and available light and faster than many larger formats offer).

Shooting 645 in the Bronica is clunkier than shooting with a 35mm camera to be sure... the Pentax MZ-S or Nikon F100 provide an extremely elegant experience of shooting. But the ETR is nearly as flexible (lots of lens options, etc.) as 35mm gear and lighter/more convenient than most of the bigger options.

There is a good difference between my 8x10 prints of 645 and 35mm film. Therefore 645 are superior.

Yes. The difference already is visible in 4x5" prints.
That "if you don't go beyond ..." thing is pure myth.

Q.G. said:

Yes. The difference already is visible in 4x5" prints.
That "if you don't go beyond ..." thing is pure myth.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I can usually tell the difference even in books. 35 is a very different look. Both can be great depending on the intended look. Is Brett Weston's work better than Selgado's or HCB's....I dunno but they sure look different.

I attempted to print 8x10 and 11x14 from 35mm once. the result was horible (ok my gear and technique lacked as well). 645 is a completely different experience.

also I like the system camera concept. suits me much better than 35mm where the modern systems have only one modular part: the lens.

There is a difference in technical image quality between the two formats. When the argument is made that there is not enough difference between the formats to warrant using 6x4.5, it often relies solely on math, and not on judgment of real-world prints made from film shot in real-world situations. I also does not take into account the details of the systems and how they behave in use, with most 6x4.5 systems being more convenient and lower in cost than most 6x7 ones.

Also worthy of note is that the argument against 6x4.5 should also cover 6x6 cameras, since the difference in linear enlargement between them and 35mm cameras and the difference between 6x4.5 cameras and 35mm cameras is the same for a given print size. The difference between 6x6 and 6x4.5 is only aspect ratio, not linear enlargement to make a print of the same size. However, how many high quality (and often quite large) prints have we all seen made with Hassies and Rolleis? I have not heard anybody, if anybody, ever arguing that these cameras should be bypassed in favor of 6x7 based solely on frame size. Because of this, I think that it is really just an elitist argument with little technical merit for most photographers. Professional-quality 6x4.5's were relative latecomers to the established world of pro photographers. When they came along, lots of people were already using Hassies and Rolleis, so why would a 6x4.5 appeal to them?

FWIW, I agree with one part of the argument against 6x4.5. There is a difference in technical image quality between 6x4.5 and 6x7. However, it is not as large as the difference between 35mm and 6x4.5, and I do not think that it makes the difference between 35mm and 6x4.5 unimportant.

The argument would make more sense for me if it were 6x4.5 versus 6x6. For instance, nobody with a Hassy needs to waste their time or money with a 6x4.5 SLR. However, for someone shooting a 6x7 SLR, a 6x4.5 in addition could be a valuable tool sometimes.

markbarendt said:

Another big difference is in perspective. With 35mm (and LF) cameras I find it tough to get the camera low enough many times. With a WL finder it's the opposite. MF Mamiyas can give me both perspectives easily.

Click to expand...

I know what you are saying about perspective, but I disagree that it is a "big difference." You can bend your knees or get down on the ground if the shot must be taken from a low perspective with an eye-level finder. Also, your post makes the implication that all small format cameras have built-in eye-level finders, and that all medium format cameras have built-in waist level finders, which is not the case. Many professional 35mm cameras can be fitted with waist level finders, such as my Canon F-1's, and my Nikon Fs. Even more medium format cameras can (and often are) fitted with eye-level finders.

P.S. I have, and use all of the following: 35mm (SLR and RF), 6x4.5cm (SLR), 6x6 (TLR), 6x7 (SLR), and 6x9 (RF). (There is also a 4x4cm scale focus Bella toy-like camera I have that is fun to use sometimes, and I'd love to have a baby Rollei some day.) I do not find any of it redundant. Each gets used for different things and for different amounts of quality in the prints. When I have the time, I use 6x9. It is a slow camera, as I use it with a ground glass back that must be removed for each shot to attach the film back. When I need an SLR, for reasons of speed and compositional ease, I use a 6x7 SLR. When that is too cumbersome, I use 6x6 TLRs or 6x4.5 SLRs, depending on the situation (probably 1:1 TLR:SLR). The only thing I might change is to some day get rid of the 6x4.5 SLR system and get a Hassy system to replace it (with 6x4.5 backs, for sure).

WOW...this has turned out to be a great discussion!!!! It is apparent from the answers that everyone understood my question.
I have a wonderful Nikon F4s and several great lenses and I really like the camera. I also have a complete Bronica ETRS system with several backs, extension tubes, tele-converters, right angle viewfinders, and three lenses.
I also have a Mamiya M645 1000s and three lenses and an RB67 kit. I think I actually prefer the ETRS over the M645???? I know many will think that is a crazy statement but the ETRS lenses seem to have a bit more contrast.
My F4 is certainly easier to carry but like Mark, my old eyes find 645 and 6x7 negatives much easier to work with.

When I look at some of the 35mm work from people like Galen Rowell and Moose Peterson,I see high quality images and certainly they printed to larger sizes. Ralph Gibson was a Leica guy but I guess with his bold grainy style 35mm actually helped him achieve his" look"???? Is it correct to say that it would have been more difficult for RG to achieve that edgy look with MF where 35mm makes it easier?

Part of the learning process is experimentation and trying different formats, films etc. Photography is CERTAINLY not an overnight educational process! I only have a few years under my belt and it seems the more I learn the more I need to learn!

The reason I originally ask the question is to try and understand why I have three formats and do I need three formats?

I have 2 leicas, a Contax 35 system, a Mamiya TLR, M645 & RB and a Pentax digital. All were acquired at various stages in my exploration of this discipline. My Leicas are the oldest and my RB most recent. I can't speak for anyone else but I use what system fits my mood. Qualitatively, yes my 35's won't stand up to my MF but the subject matter and content certainly will. Photographers use cameras like a good craftsman uses his tools. She/he will use whatever gets the job done to his satisfaction.
Interesting thread! Let's keep the comments going.

Re: Ralph Gibson and grain,

I think he probably would find a way to get the edgy grain, even with MF. Lith printing or pushed Tri-X in Rodinal (in 120) would get you in the ballpark. Once comfortable with the tools you have, you can start to push the limits and find your own vision. Some people thrive on jumping between systems and formats while others work best with a limited selection. There's no good or bad, just choices you have to make on your own.

stradibarrius said:

The reason I originally ask the question is to try and understand why I have three formats and do I need three formats?

Click to expand...

To my thinking 6x7 is the unnecessary format of the 3. The increase in size over the 645 is only a 1/6th (on the long sides) and that doesn't give that great an increase in quality particularly in view of the increased weight and size.

Ian

I've tried 35mm, 645 and 6x7(RZ), and even though I was happy with the overall quality of the camera, I decided to sell the 645 and get the RZ. My 645 system was a mamiya 645af and 3 prime lenses, an excellent camera that I would have liked to keep; but I had to sell it to finance the RZ. Yes, the 6x7 is bulky and heavy, but I liked, and now prefer, the bellows focusing for close up work without extra accessories, the rotating back, and the larger negative.

I also have to say that I've seen 16x20 prints made from 645 negatives by Bruce Barnbaum, and the quality was impressive.


Axel

BetterSense said:

If you have to drag a tripod out, you might as well shoot 4x5. Why shoot those annoying, impossible-to-rewind-mid-roll medium format films when you can just expose as many slabs of 4x5 as you need? I

Click to expand...

I can't carry my 4x5 and 200 double-film holders on week- or month- long trips, or on outdoor adventures, quite so easily (to say the least) as my Rollei and 20 rolls of film, and the Rollei gives a kind of image I don't get with my 35mm. And I can shoot it either handheld or tripod-mounted just fine.

The size of my format is inversely proportional to the unpredictability and speed of my subject. I don't mind schlepping a 4x5 around for static images, or for portraits that hold still; in fact, I enjoy large format photography most of all. But when I photograph the kids for myself or for family consumption I almost always shoot 35mm. I'll occasionally try the 645 on them, but only when they and I are both relaxed.

For me, my M645D is primarily a great walking around system for casual photography. I get 15 shots per roll and an SLR-like experience with a noticeable bump in quality. It doesn't hurt that the manual lenses are sharp, contrasty, and (like me) cheap!

Horses for courses. Ive owned all the formats up into LF and used that which satisfied the requirement or my desires that day. I will say that 35mm usually does the job so carry a smaller body/kit if I can, but I have been shooting a TLR here recently and like the weight savings beyond the limited FL; You compensate. I ofted the 67 and 645. Just don't need em. But everyone's different.

Reading your followup post, the only thing that seems silly/redundant to me is having both the Bronica and the Mamiya 6x4.5's.

On the topic of 135 vs. 645...

• It is not merely about apparent grain, although grain is only 56% as apparent with 645 than with 135.
  
• It is also about tonality advantages...the same subject area will be portrayed with 3.4x more area when shot on 645 vs. 135, so there are 3.4x more grains or color clouds to represent subtle tonal differences.
  
• Lens resolution is magnified 1.77x more, with 135 format lenses, yet the marginal resolution advantage of the smaller format lenses is much less than 1.77x...the advantage which larger formats have always enjoyed in delivered resolution on print.

stradibarrius said:

WOW...this has turned out to be a great discussion!!!! It is apparent from the answers that everyone understood my question.

The reason I originally ask the question is to try and understand why I have three formats and do I need three formats?

Click to expand...

Personal observation, I have several photographic hobbies.

Snapshots/pocket stuff, using it for note taking with other projects, parties and so on,,, usually use the "DarkSide" products that shall not be mentioned. More of a nobrainer user mode,,, not so much photography as a pen and paper.

Pack a camera around in the back seat so it's there with me, tripod getting beat up as well. 35mm Nikons and two or three lenses. One body with slow color, the other with faster film of some (random) kind.

Then there's the mental photography game. 4x5, tripod, spot meter, sometimes the 35 gets dragged kicking and screaming into this realm. It's a mental break from reality for me in this mood/mode. Being focused on a project and blocking out everything that happened last week, at least for a short while.

Now we get to the fun stuff. My baby speed graphic with roll back, hand holding the linholf, Delta 3200 in 120, my old graflex22. Working on my Argus C3 and others, a minolta 16 or three. Dark room, doing some developing, building a light meter, repairing a densitometer, and so on and so forth. Next project is a refinishing project on a B&J 5x7 commercial.

So, for me the format is like a lot of the rest of the hobby. It just is. Not good, not bad. Some days I want to work on the electronics of a densitometer, some days I want tri x in a 16 mm,,, some days I wish I had my buddies C33 back.

So, and the final answer for me,,, YMMV: Of course you need at least three formats. I'm just not sure how you get by with only three ;-)

I agree that the twp 645 cameras are redundant. They are both in great condition so I guess I should pick one and sell the other???

stradibarrius said:

I agree that the twp 645 cameras are redundant. They are both in great condition so I guess I should pick one and sell the other???

Click to expand...

Ignore the format for a bit. Do the two systems support different photographic needs for you?

Is one serious, and the other a point and shoot?

Or do they get in the way of each other?

If having two 645 cameras is redundant then why do I have so many 35mm cameras? LOL

Or better yet, send one system to me,,, I'll give it a warm place to live, and take it out only on Sundays when the weather is warm and nice, and it will never need to worry about feeling like it's being compared to another ;-)