645 format vs. 35mm???

how T-Pan looked in MF

Click to expand...

Still available in (Agfa) Copex with extended red sensitivity: Rollei ATP1.1 (Advanced Technical Pan). iso 25-32 in the Spur/Rollei ATP-DC developer. Spur also have a modular UR chemical system now: Parts A,B,C,D usable in particular combinations for all types micro films (CMS 20, Copex, Imagelink, Tech Pan, ATP1.1 etc.)

Interesting about a good Tech Pan alternative as it was my main film in my cameras for years and when it was withdrawn I lost a lot of interest in photography. Guess I'll have to try to find some rolls.

Interesting topic and some interesting responses. A couple of days ago in cleaning out some boxes I came across a test that was done in a class about this issue. In answering it, the Bronica is a big help in that it has both 35mm and 120 backs. The class was curious about shooting in both formats and whic was better ( a relative term at best) so an experiment was done. The camera was mounted on a tripod and a still life subject set up. I believe but can not remember that the lenses used were the 50 and 75mm lenses and then both with the 2x adaptor so 4 lengths used in the experiment. Each lens was used to shoot the subject twice, once with the 120 back and once with the 35mm back. We used color print film as the photo lab said they could develop both rolls at the same time eliminating developing variables resulting from hand developing b&w. Sadly, I have the prints but can't find the negs so can not remember the film. Speed and aperature were the same for all shots. The lab then printed the 35mm to fill an 8x10 and centered the neg for cropping. He then printed the same view from the 120 print. The result was the interesting in that the order of magnification actually is the same and variables such as development and lens quality were eliminated.

The difference was that of course the 120 contained so much more information than the 35mm lens view but, was not used.

We then set up another experiment, basically the same except we substituted lenses to try to get closer to their relative equiv focal lengths in each format. We used the 75mm for the 120 film and the 50mm lens for the 35mm back. Not quite an exact match so we did move the camera to adjust for subject size. After development and printing, the class as a group did a blind test (the prints were coded as to which were 120 and which were 35mm) and almost as a complete group picked the 120 format prints as having more detail and the better. While far from scientific it lent some support that the larger format could produce better results. I believe trying the same expperiment using different cameras and different branded lenses will have too many variables to get to a universal decision.

As for the which is better, I do not find either better per se, only different reasons for each. Admittedly, I am not a multiple lens freak and only have 5 lenses for the ETRS and a 2x lens and 3 lenses for my 35mm. I do find when I want to shoot 35mm, I simply pop off the 120 back and pop on the 35mm on the ETRS. I usually shoot wl and no speed grip, etc so the weight is quite light. Converting it to a 35mm style form style with the AE prism and speedgrip does add weight but it is not far from many of the largest 35mm. Even stripped down it still is not p&s sized so that is why I still use the Leica CL.

hpulley - I shot the style of images I shoot most for my own testing purposes: wide angle landscapes.
Q.G. - at the time I did the comparison I only had something like 12 rolls left of TP in 120 format and didn't want to use one up with a test, but since I had several hundred feet of TP in 135 (which I've now sold), using it up was no big deal.

Ian Grant said:

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

Click to expand...

On the short side the increase is 1/3, and those millimeters do add up. The increase in surface area is significant, though not like the jump from 35mm to 645. Slightly less than 1.7X, compared to 2.7X.

Just sayin'. For me the increased weight and bulk isn't worth it either, and I use 645 (35mm too, but less of it.). I might jump to 6x6 though...I used to dislike the square but lately...:confused:

telkwa said:

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

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for sharing this experiment. It's interesting how different Techpan and Tmax are at 35mm. Techpan is impressive.

I haven't read the entire thread, but here is my view on it:

There is an obvious difference between 35mm, MF and LF. How much of this difference is appreciable depends on the enlargement factor of the print.

Comparing these film formats by comparing 8x10 prints will not reveal a huge difference, because a good 35mm can easily resolve 80 lp/mm. Since it only took an 8x enlargement factor to make an 8x10 print with a 35mm negative, there are still 10 lp/mm left for our eyes to marvel about. Considering that young healthy eyes normally peak at 7-9 lp/mm, more resolution will bring no advantage.

With 11x14 prints things change considerably. 35mm needs an enlargement factor of 12x to make such a large print. That leaves 6.5 lp/mm, not bad, but our eye can do better and will notice the change.

A MF negative, on the other hand, only needs a 6x enlargement for 11x14. Unfortunately, most MF lenses peak at 60 lp/mm, but still, that means 10 lp/mm for an 11x14 print are not unusual. This will be a clear advantage for MF over 35mm.

An enlargement factor of only 3x is needed to make the same 11x14 print from a 4x5 negative. Given the relative poor performance of most LF lenses (40 lp/mm), the print resolution will only be slightly better than MF, and to make things even less significant, the difference is beyond most eyes, and therefore, we cannot appreciate a huge quality increase when going from MF to LF, unless of course, we make even larger prints.

For prints 16x20, the print resolution for LF lenses drops to 10 lp/mm (same as 35mm and 8x10), which is very good. MF performance drops to 7 lp/mm (at the threshold of visibility), and 35mm is down to 4.5 lp/mm (even poor eyes can do much better than that).

In conclusion, yes, there is a huge difference between 35mm and 645 negatives, but unless you print larger than 8x10, you might not be able to appreciate it. And unless you print larger than 11x14, LF will not bring you the same performance increase over MF, which you saw when moving from 35mm to MF.

Disclaimer:
There is more to print quality than lens resolution. Increased enlargement factors also have an influence on grain and micro tonality. Print quality will always increase with negative format, regardless of print size, but the above does explain some of the experiences discussed in this thread.

BrianL said:

Interesting about a good Tech Pan alternative as it was my main film in my cameras for years and when it was withdrawn I lost a lot of interest in photography. Guess I'll have to try to find some rolls.

Click to expand...

You should definitely try ATP 1.1. It is an outstanding emulsion in my short experience with it. I use it with D-19 for halftone results, but I am sure that continuous tone can be squeezed out of it even more than that shown in the data sheet (in which they suggest only shooting it in flat light).

Sharp enlargements from 645 negs are easy to produce and look great. But the best thing about the 645 format is the form factor of the cameras. My Bronica RF645 isn't significantly larger or heavier than a Nikon DSLR to handle and carry, and is simple and fast to load and shoot with. It's the only MF camera I really ENJOY carrying around. I love my RB67 Pro S for it's bigger neg and rotating back, but sure don't like to carry it around. So it and the big 'ol tripod get left at home many times in favor of the handy little RF645 with 65mm lens, which I can comfortably hang around my neck like any respectable tourist. I do carry a Nikon F100 loaded with HP5+ a lot too, but the ease of enlarging those 645/6x7 negatives is too strong a lure to resist.

I have had the ability to use one of my cameras as a 645 instead of a 6x6 for years. It has not happened yet and probably never will.

Steve

If Ilford Pan F 50 and Rollei Pan 25 were available in sheet film; 4X5, 5x7, 8x10 - laughs out loud, then I wouldn't need to use the roll film camera that much. My Nikon F3hp with its 55mm MicroNikkor is very sharp and so is my Mamiya m645 with an 80mm Sekor "C" lens. The 35mm uses 36 exposure rolls that are small in size, the 645 uses 120 roll film which is larger and yields 15 exposures on a roll. The 645 gives a larger negative than the 35mm; each has a place and each has accessories that are different and features that are different although the differences are not that great. One system is smaller in size and the other is larger in size, if I were shooting Kodachrome and traveling I would be using the Nikon.

I enjoy enlarging from a 645 negative, if I had a 6x6 I would not have to turn the camera for a portrait view however but I would crop the square down so it's a matter of personal choice as to format and each person gathers the information to support their decision and exclude others. Isn't it like that in most items people collect?

You really need Pan F? Can't shoot FP4+ or Delta 100 at 50 sheets? The grain of the 100 films is almost negligible in 35mm, tonality changes too must be invisible in sheets.

People like to think they bought the right thing so it is their job to convince everyone else to get the same thing. That way they made the right purchase... otherwise they must sell what they have and buy something else, right?

I have seriously considered a Bronica RF645. Everyone seems to like them but also say they are fragile cameras???
The main advantage IMO is the portability/size of one of the 645 systems. I have both a Mamiya M645 and a Bronica ETRS and like them both.

Resolution aside, you can't get medium format bokeh from a 35mm system. I love the look of the planar 80mm at 2.8.

I see the potential bokeh of MF as the selling point.

How would a 35mm with a 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.0 compare for bokeh to 80mm f/2.8? I suspect it would be pretty much a wash.

It might be pretty much a wash, but it definitely will not be exactly the same. Bigger cameras have a different look simply because of physics. This is because magnification and aperture work together to produce the final blur and DOF characteristics of the image. For a given angle-of-view, different format sizes will have a different look due to these factors and there is nothing you can do to cheat them either (except change physics).

Of course, which of these characteristics are desirable is entirely a value judgement, and the greater DOF and closer hyperfocal distance of smaller formats can be seen as a great advantage in many ways and for many applications.

You're right, if the depth of field is the same for the two cases I described the 80mm lens will magnify the out of focus areas more so the bokeh will be bigger, however I think it is still possible that the 50mm f/1.x will give you bigger out of focus highlights at the end of the day. Calculations are tough, the proof is in the print of course.

If I decide to buy the RB67 I'm looking at this afternoon and I can figure out how to load, process and print 120 film before too long then I'll do an experiment: 120 6x7 90mm f/2.8 vs. 135 24x36mm 55mm f/1.2 both printed to the same size and image scale.

I've wondered that too. Would a zeiss 50mm 1.x look similar to the 80 2.8? The lens I really want is the Planar 110 f/2. That would be sweet.

Well, I got the RB67 so once I figure this thing out I will indeed try the 90mm f/3.8, 127 and 180mm lenses against my 55mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.8 in 135 format and print them, a little project.

Congrats

hpulley said:

Well, I got the RB67 so once I figure this thing out I will indeed try the 90mm f/3.8, 127 and 180mm lenses against my 55mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.8 in 135 format and print them, a little project.

Click to expand...

Then you will have to buy a 645 back for the RB so you will have an RB645, that way you can have it all or almost, no 35mm back for the RB. At least it's not an RB66, that would be ridiculous.

I have an RB67 with the 90mm and 180mm plus the Mamiya 2x extender. It's a nice camera that can slip right into your pocket. I also have the Calumet C1 8x10 which slips right into my truck.

Curt said:

Then you will have to buy a 645 back for the RB so you will have an RB645, that way you can have it all or almost, no 35mm back for the RB. At least it's not an RB66, that would be ridiculous.

I have an RB67 with the 90mm and 180mm plus the Mamiya 2x extender. It's a nice camera that can slip right into your pocket. I also have the Calumet C1 8x10 which slips right into my truck.

Click to expand...

Yes, I might need to find the 645 back for it. Actually the 6x8 motorized back sounds cool! And the sheet film holder... At least there is only a very limited set of lenses available so the GAS is not endless with the RB67 system.

And yes, it is a beast. I was calling my EOS-1N RS a tank but if that's a tank then the RB67 is a battleship! OMG, holding it by hand with the flash bracket for just half a roll (5 shots) is a chore. It shouldn't be that much heavier than my EOS-1N RS with 400mm lens but somehow the compactness of the RB67 makes it feel like an engine block!

I managed to find one (1) double sided sheet film holder for mine. Those are hard to find, harder than hens teeth. At least it's not a lightweight!

Curt said:

I have an RB67 with the 90mm and 180mm plus the Mamiya 2x extender. It's a nice camera that can slip right into your pocket.

Click to expand...

Although you do have to have special pockets added to your clothes.


Steve.

Only found this post today. Took me a long time to read it, and dont know if anyone will be reading it again. Also dont know if Stradibarrius was satisfied with the replies, and if he got his answer. But, by what I saw, with some exceptions (BetterSense), it seems people were just advertising they're own equipment and the format they mostly use. The choise of format doesn't depends just of size or resolution. There are many other factor to take into consideration. I'm saying this, because I also had the same question myself, and I ended up by staying in the 35mm format. First, because of money - dont have money to spend in new cameras, lenses, and a MF scanner. Second, I also use a digital SLR, and this way, I can easily use all my lenses in my Nikon's digital and film cameras, wich is much more pratical. Besides, I can choose among of many other types of lenses, while MF the choice is much more reduced (no VR/IS, no tils and shift, no long zooms or teles, etc.). And then, there is also the subject issue. I think most of the posters here shoot nature or portraits? Or still-live subjects? I would like to see a MF photo of a sports event, wildlife, streetphoto, photojournalism. What is the best fps a MF camera does (film, not digital)? 2, 3 fps? And how much do we have to pay for a good MF scanner (dedicated, not a flatbed), if they still producing them? I truly respect the obvious qualityes of MF, but sometimes the optimal is ennemy of the Good (sorry, dont know if this proverb exists in English). And for my needs, I realy prefer a much more "elastic" and cheaper system like the 35mm can offer.