645 format vs. 35mm???

[Q.G.]

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.

I agree completely.

6x7 cameras are great. But big too.

 

[Allen Friday]

Well, I shoot a Mamiya 7 II most of the time. It is not much bigger than, and weighs less than, my 35mm SLR equipment.

 

[Q.G.]

Well, I shoot a Mamiya 7 II most of the time. It is not much bigger than, and weighs less than, my 35mm SLR equipment.

Apples and oranges.
How much bigger than a Leica CL?

 

[RobertV]

6x7 cameras are great. But big too.

My C.V. Bessa III 667 (6x7 OR 6x6) weights less then my Leica M7 + standard lens.

Apples and Oranges? Apples and Appels? Apples and Lemons?

I have a Mamiya 645 Pro system since 1994 but when it's equipped like an auto SLR with motor drive, AE prismn and standard lens it's pretty much more (kg) then a same 35mm SLR.
Yes, the quality is better but it's almost about the same when going from 6x4,5 to 6x7.
I like the 6x7cm pretty much (C.V. 667) but a lot of minilabs have a problem with it. So when I know it in advance the film will be printed by the minilab I am switching back to 6x6cm negative format.

Greetz,

Robert

 

[MattKing]

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???

If you feel that you have available to you in each system all the lenses and accessories that you are likely to need or want, then the answer is yes.

You may find, however, that issues of market availability of certain special lenses or accessories may lead you to decide to keep both.

As an example, if you like to use fill flash, the fact that all the lenses for the Bronica have leaf shutters may cause you to decide to keep some Bronica equipment. If you like longer lenses, my perception is that there are more available in the Mamiya line, so you may decide to keep some Mamiya equipment.

In my experience, it is the hard to find little fiddly bits that tend to influence the decision for me.

 

[hpulley]

I just realized I could use my double reel 35mm tank as a single 120 reel tank, duh... So I just need to find someone giving away their MF enlarger and I'll be all set...

 

[MarcoGiardini]

i understand you. I have 35mm, 2x 6x4,5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and recently 4"x5". Personally i think that each one has some positive and negative points. But each is special for what you use it. I do not use the 6x9 at all, and use the 6x4.5 very seldom. But i love the 6x6 and the 35. I'm totally in love with 4x5. Of course i cannot shoot reportage wiht the Hassy or Sinar, nor i can use the Leica to shoot buildings.
My idea? If you do not need money, keep all the cameras you have. And use them ALL!!

 

[Q.G.]

My C.V. Bessa III 667 (6x7 OR 6x6) weights less then my Leica M7 + standard lens.

Apples and Oranges? Apples and Appels? Apples and Lemons?

I have a Mamiya 645 Pro system since 1994 but when it's equipped like an auto SLR with motor drive, AE prismn and standard lens it's pretty much more (kg) then a same 35mm SLR.

How about compared to a Mamiya RB or RZ?
Apples and apples...

 

[telkwa]

While I'm a little late to get to OP's question, I tend to post a comparison I did every once in a while b/c someone is curious. It is with real results, not test charts.

http://nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

 

[P C Headland]

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

Three formats does seem a little "nowhere-landish". I'd say you need to add a 6x9 and 4x5 for starters...

 

[stradibarrius]

Great article! I know that some will shoot holes all in it but for a real world test I think it "works". Thanks for posting that link.
As far as why the three formats were selected...it is because they are the three formats that I have. I do not have a 6x9 camera or a 4x5 camera, it was that simple.

 

[elekm]

This is an interesting question. I sometimes wonder that myself. Does 6x4.5 offer enough of an advantage?

Among folding cameras, you can get a very compact tool that yields a larger negative.

However, on the other end, I do wonder if a much larger camera, such as the Pentax 645N, is a worthy tradeoff. It's a nice camera, but it's a beast with significant weight. Would I be better off with a high-end 35mm rangefinder or SLR?

In the end, I think it's a decision the photographer must make.

I will say that the larger negative gives better tonality, particularly with black and white film.

In many ways, photography is all about compromise, and that certainly is true in this debate.

 

[stradibarrius]

Compromise is the key word in life I think!!! I agree it is about the vision of the photographer. The reason I originally asked the question was to get input to help me learn which format best fits for me. Then possibly thinning the "herd" of gear that I don't really need.

 

[markbarendt]

Been playing in the darkroom this weekend and printed a couple 11x14s.

One shot was a landscape shot on a tripod using an N90s and 35mm AI lens on Kodak 160vc. I printed it 8x10 first and it really is pretty nice there, when I went to 11x14 though it was simply too much. The details started falling apart in the background and what looked sharp at 8x10 was trash at 11x14.

I had a hand held 6x6 Holga shot done on 400nc that I liked at 8x10 and gave it a try at 11x14 and even cropped it a bit, I'm guessing close to 645.

I was truly astounded, the Holga shot printed great and held the details and crispness and from the look of it I could go bigger yet.

This isn't the first time my Holga has kicked my Nikon's tail either, in fact it's regular enough that I really wonder on occasion why I bother with my Nikons.

I'm not saying 35mm can't do big prints well, all I'm saying is that it takes more effort and care than with larger formats.

 

[jeckyll]

While I'm a little late to get to OP's question, I tend to post a comparison I did every once in a while b/c someone is curious. It is with real results, not test charts.

http://nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

Thank you for the link. Very interesting.

I only have a 35mm and 645 and the difference is striking. Even when comparing ISO 100 on the 35mm with ISO 400 on the 645.

 

[jacarape]

Rob, nice post. You have summed my experiences well.

 

[pentaxuser]

However, on the other end, I do wonder if a much larger camera, such as the Pentax 645N, is a worthy tradeoff. It's a nice camera, but it's a beast with significant weight. Would I be better off with a high-end 35mm rangefinder or SLR?

I appreciate this is a rhetorical question for the purposes of debate but for those who haven't researched the high end 35mm SLR just be aware that such cameras as the Nikon F5 is a very big 35mm beast and depending on the kind of photography you choose to do offers a similar weight and handling issue as a Nikon F5 without the benefit of a large neg. All 35mm SLRs aren't necessarily smaller and easier to handle than some big beast 35mm SLRs. The P645N compares very favourably with the F5 in these respects. There is no contest however between the two if I were a wedding photographer( the P645N wins hands down here IMO) or a sports photographer at most sport events ( the F5 wins hand down).

It has to be down to what you like to shoot that determines whether it is 35mm or MF.

All thing being equal, including film, the 645 will give a better print than the 35mm.

pentaxuser

 

[Vonder]

One of the biggest fallacies in 35mm versus medium format is the notion that you'll get a bigger image to work with. This simply isn't true for any work with telephoto lenses where you want maximum magnification of a distant subject. There aren't many (any?) affordable medium format lenses that can compete with even the most modest 35mm 400-800mm lens in terms of giving you the biggest image.

 

[markbarendt]

One of the biggest fallacies in 35mm versus medium format is the notion that you'll get a bigger image to work with. This simply isn't true for any work with telephoto lenses where you want maximum magnification of a distant subject. There aren't many (any?) affordable medium format lenses that can compete with even the most modest 35mm 400-800mm lens in terms of giving you the biggest image.

This is totally dependant on the style of shooter. I don't think I've ever found the need for shooting longer than 300 on 35mm, most everything is shorter that 80mm.

 

[stradibarrius]

I never shoot longer than 300mm either. I do not shoot sports or wildlife/birds so for me 300mm is enough. The longest 645 lens I have is 150mm.

 

[hpulley]

Yes, rather than simply testing wide angles and blowing things up to make the 35mm camera look bad you should also take three pictures of birds with 300mm lenses on 35mm, 6x45 and 6x7 cameras and print 8x10 images without cropping and see which one shows a better bird. You can of course crop the 6x7 camera's 300mm image to be the same size on print as the 35mm but at that point the format size advantage will be gone.

 

[jeckyll]

hpulley: I don't think it's about 'making 35mm look bad'. I think it's about the statement in the first post which stated that when it comes to the 645 negative there isn't enough difference over the 35mm negative to make it worth it.

In a way, this is very much like the "Full frame vs. DX" discussion on digital. Too many people think the 'need to go full frame' when in fact wildlife shooters are often much better off with the cropped sensor. I'd say the same applies here.

The subject and the type of shooting needs to be considered when selecting the equipment. Period.

But that's getting rather far from the original post IMO. The 645 negative should contain significantly more detail than the 35mm negative. That doesn't mean that medium format is the 'better' solution for all types of shooting.

Just my $0.02

 

[Steve Smith]

Think of it another way. If you can get good quality from 35mm, you can get even better from 645.


Steve.

 

[tomalophicon]

I'm more amazed at the look of the slow 35mm. That's fantastic.

 

[Q.G.]

Yes. You can imagine (he should have tested that too) how T-Pan looked in MF.