645: Mamiya vs Pentax

[wiltw]

You can crop a 6x6 to 645, but cropping 645 to square results in a relatively small negative.

A very different of viewing the 'advantage' of 6x6 over 645 format is that if you shoot portraits and crop to standard 10" x 8" print size for clients, you only use 44.8 x 56mm of the 6x6 film image... and 645 frame is about 43 x 56mm (depending upon which brand of camera. So the 'size advantage' is a virtual one, unless you always print square (which itself is a handicap to the customer buying the frame in a store)
The photographic print paper's aspect ratio effectively trimming down the square is even worse for European sizes, which A4 is 0.7X whereas US paper is 'squarer' at 0.8X

 

[Sirius Glass]

And now, with the adoption of digital backs, Hassy has abandoned their mantra about the square format. Marketing.

Which is exactly why I have had no interest in the digital backs. If there was a square digital back for a Hasselblad, I would be interested.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A very different of viewing the 'advantage' of 6x6 over 645 format is that if you shoot portraits and crop to standard 10" x 8" print size for clients, you only use 44.8 x 56mm of the 6x6 film image... and 645 frame is about 43 x 56mm (depending upon which brand of camera. So the 'size advantage' is a virtual one, unless you always print square (which itself is a handicap to the customer buying the frame in a store)

What disadvantage? I always pay for custom matting, which is needed if one were to crop, and custom framing. My photographs are always worth at least that.

 

[wiltw]

What disadvantage? I always pay for custom matting, which is needed if one were to crop, and custom framing. My photographs are always worth at least that.

As the artist, you have a very different perspective on the issue than a customer wanting a frame for his/her shot taken by the studio...square frames are not as readily found in a store you would walk into is a casual search for matte or frame, in as wide a variety of finishes and styles. One is largely forced to use custom frame shops to have both made to order, a great disadvantage from walking around a bazaar and looking through tables full of bargain frames for sale, for example....or even in conventional stores. Find me a plastic square frame so that my wife can add a family photo on top of our grand piano, please.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As the artist, you have a very different perspective on the issue than a customer wanting a frame for his/her shot taken by the studio...square frames are not as readily found in a store you would walk into is a casual search for matte or frame, in as wide a variety of finishes and styles. One is largely forced to use custom frame shops to have both made to order, a great disadvantage from walking around a bazaar and looking through tables full of bargain frames for sale, for example....or even in conventional stores. Find me a plastic square frame so that my wife can add a family photo on top of our grand piano, please.

There are square frames in Michaels and many other arts and craft stores in my area and on the internet. I just prefer a higher quality mat and frame.

 

[JWMster]

Made a decision: Ordered a Pentax 645N for squishy reasons: 1) AF (which Mamiya has, too), but also 2) already had a manual Pentax 645 A 150mm on hand ....which I wasn't thrilled with on a Fuji GFX, so it kind of moved me there to either unload or consider it here for an interim. Also picking up an AF 45mm f/2.8 too as a cheaper AF than the other options, AND if the 645N proves itself, might switch the A 150 for an AF 150mm and possibly an AF 75mm. Not necessarily in that order, and certainly no rush. But 3) Liked the EXIF film tagging that I think only the Nikon F5 also has - but could be wrong. Finally 4) Didn't want swing for the 645N2 at this point as that only adds MLU but runs another $200 to $300, and if that's really a factor I should be shooting 4X5 or mirrorless or trade for the N2 later.

Why not the Mamiya: Getting the Mamiya parts together reminded me of the Rolleiflex 6008AF series which was kind of a bitter experience for me.... and just too many aging parts.... all of which are old and fiddly. Yes, they were wonderful when they worked... that just wasn't often enough. Rollie's tight tolerances were beautiful and the lenses, too, but there's no repair... and sometimes things go swish-bang-jam as in "that's didn't sound good." Heebie Jeebies, and yes, that drops out a lot of possibilities 'cause assembling all the gear you need - even basics like a cable release - just adds time and $'s that a little simplicity cures. Mamiya 6 appealing as it is, seems just more spendy than necessary and suffers the RF issue when you go to portraiture where the smaller focus and framing square makes you wonder "is this really a good idea?" - although I'm still reserving that possibility as a "stop gap option" if the 645N fails to grip. As to Hassy... don't even get me started. I've dropped big $'s on lenses before chasing the Zeiss "glow"... and they're beautiful, but I didn't see getting lost there. Increasingly keeping my "kits" light... 3 lens max (though the carry may be less) and devoting my energies to what's in front of the lens, on the lens, inside the camera and mostly in my brain and trying to get that into an image. FWIW, GFX is SOOOO good that I'm over the Hassy.... I may also be over the GFX as it could be overkill, but that's another story.

Finally yes, I like square ...but only to a point. It's a compositional challenge unsuited to architecture and landscapes IMHO. YMMV. But I'm really looking for a 120 size camera that can be a bit faster than 4X5 with a roll back. Doesn't have to be a race car, but AF is not just nice to have any more as my eyesight geezes. Beating 4x5 in set-up or carry time ain't hard either. Photography doesn't have to "Everything Ever-owned (Carried) All at Once". Rather leave behind too much (even in the car) and missed it than carried too much. Yes, I'm a geezer and thankfully regret is something you've gotten used to by now... so it bothers you less.

 

[Pioneer]

Congrats. Enjoy your camera.

 

[GregY]

What disadvantage? I always pay for custom matting, which is needed if one were to crop, and custom framing. My photographs are always worth at least that.

Yes, there are many examples of square photos mounted in rectangular frames.

 

[JWMster]

Pioneer (Dan): There's a "Pioneer" on a site somewhere speaking of owning a 645N. Maybe that was you.

All: Thanks for the input. Equally to the tireless (endless) youtubes some have made. Love my TLR, but will let it and 6X6 go to have a MF camera with SLR for some variable focal lengths. Don't need more than 2: Shots of peeps (portraits) and landscape. If I carry a "norm"... that's a possible (later).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, there are many examples of square photos mounted in rectangular frames.

I have had that done too.

 

[chuckroast]

Think maybe my miscues with 120 cameras have been due to my favoring 6X6 and the resulting weight kind of begs the question "Why not 4X5?" as the "pack" begins to weigh in close to the same. MF lenses can be kind of bulky whereas many LF lenses can be quite small. That conclusion pushed me to the Rollieflex TLR which has worked fine - even within the limitations for most purposes. But maybe a 645 would be modestly smaller and more compact.... push some of the everyday shooter benes into 120?

But I do like the larger negatives I can see without magnification. The risk is that to my eyes, 120 seems to be unique in that roll film seems more vulnerable to mishandling somewherre in the chain than either 35mm or LF 4X5 which are both protected for the most part and easier to handle. I mention this because I find 120 film defects from time to time in the middle of the roll.... the image forms just fine, but it looks as though there's been a twist or a poke from rough handling. I don't think it's me either though I can't rule that out entirely. But I find these things ONLY with 120, so I wonder whether it's something that might happen in the course of slitting, rolling and confecting or whatever. Sounds unlikely to me, but anything is posible and I wonder whether I'm alone in this.... and therefore it really is moi.... but I've not mentioned this to anyone before. At any rate, it doesn't affect the image or the scan per se, but when the film is dried after development and still hanging before cut and sleeved, you see it fairly clearly.

My 35mm Nikon F4 does duty in the SLR category, and don't really need to duplicate that but hasn't got a lot of show lately - replaced largely by digital when needed.... even my iPhone these days. But the question I'm edging toward is whether to dump the TLR and 35mm and use just 4X5 and MF 645... and trade the TLR and 35mm for a Mamiya 645 Super or Pentax 645N. Pentax has Af and that has some utility, but comments about the dark viewfinder for manual focus are a bit of a concern. The Mamiya 645 Super doesn't have AF, but I'm wondering whether about the brightness of the viewfinder. And the risk in this move is that the Nikon F4 is a truly wonderful system... while the Mamiya might not be in the same league.... ergo the net gain minimal.... And if the only net gain were a slightly bigger neg that was less easily made and not of the same quality as the F4's production... than the whole would be a fool's errand just after a ride on another horse that after a brief thrill could soon lead to "Why'd I do that?" The TLR by contrast is just a wonderful piece of hardware... fun to shoot for the challenge of taking it manual... fully... but while I have a set of filters, doesn't really facilitate a yellow-plus-polarizer combo without a lot more futsing. It's a candidate who's served well but might be time to go.

Read over comments on MF collections and one that resonated: "We keep buying MF cameras looking for one that will get it done...." to which I'd add "Yeah we just don't have stores anymore where you could try before you buy" for these beasts, so it's pretty much "Buy-Try-and-_______" where ______ means "hoard" or "dispose". I've takent the hits and disposed using that dummy math that the unused gear is "found money".

So I'm open to suggestions, thoughts - even counsel.

• My favorite MF camera - by a mile - is a Hasselblad.
  
  
• My favorite MF format - by a mile - is 6x9.
  
  
• My favorite 6x9 options are:
  
  • Mamiya Universal with a G back - Because it has interchangeable backs and lenses. But it's a big beast, especially with a long lens on it.
    
    
  • Fuji GW690II - Because it's (relatively) portable and has great glass. But ... no lens interchangeability.
    
    
  • "Baby" 2x3 Speed Graphic w/Graflok back (or a Century Graphic) - Because you can shoot 6x9 sheet film or 120/220 rollfilm. With the appropriate back, you can shoot 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on rolls. More importantly, the lenses are interchangeable and there is terrifically sharp glass available that works with this camera. The default 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is an absolutely fine lens, but you can stick modern Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Fujis, and Nikons on it. 2x3 lenses tend to be smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, so a 3 lens kit doesn't weigh in all that heavy.

 

[Pioneer]

• My favorite MF camera - by a mile - is a Hasselblad.
  
  
• My favorite MF format - by a mile - is 6x9.
  
  
• My favorite 6x9 options are:
  • Mamiya Universal with a G back - Because it has interchangeable backs and lenses. But it's a big beast, especially with a long lens on it.
    
    
  • Fuji GW690II - Because it's (relatively) portable and has great glass. But ... no lens interchangeability.
    
    
  • "Baby" 2x3 Speed Graphic w/Graflok back (or a Century Graphic) - Because you can shoot 6x9 sheet film or 120/220 rollfilm. With the appropriate back, you can shoot 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on rolls. More importantly, the lenses are interchangeable and there is terrifically sharp glass available that works with this camera. The default 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is an absolutely fine lens, but you can stick modern Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Fujis, and Nikons on it. 2x3 lenses tend to be smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, so a 3 lens kit doesn't weigh in all that heavy.

Slightly off topic here but I have always enjoyed working with 6x9 and have owned, actually still do, several 6x9 cameras. However once I discovered the 2x3 Graflex RB and 2x3 sheet film I find myself using that camera more and more. But the one I have owned the longest, and have enjoyed the most, is my "little" Pentax 645Nii. That camera and color slide film consistently deliver for me. All the rest, including the 2x3 Graflex, are more like projects in motion.

 

[abruzzi]

However once I discovered the 2x3 Graflex RB and 2x3 sheet film I find myself using that camera more and more.

if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.

 

[chuckroast]

if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.

There are plenty of choices, actually. 2x3 sheet film is available in:

FP4+
HP5+
Arista 100
Arista 400
Adox CHS 100 II

Not all of these are always available. They tend to be made in batches periodically, so you have to keep an eye out for them. Ilford absolutely releases it during their ULF season, for instance.

I also buy a lot of out of date film and semistand process it with good results. If you can find it, the Efke PL100M is an amazing film in 2x3. Keep an eye on eBay as people periodically get rid of their existing stock ... if I don't beat you to it

 

[Sirius Glass]

• My favorite MF camera - by a mile - is a Hasselblad.
  
  
• My favorite MF format - by a mile - is 6x9.
  
  
• My favorite 6x9 options are:
  • Mamiya Universal with a G back - Because it has interchangeable backs and lenses. But it's a big beast, especially with a long lens on it.
    
    
  • Fuji GW690II - Because it's (relatively) portable and has great glass. But ... no lens interchangeability.
    
    
  • "Baby" 2x3 Speed Graphic w/Graflok back (or a Century Graphic) - Because you can shoot 6x9 sheet film or 120/220 rollfilm. With the appropriate back, you can shoot 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on rolls. More importantly, the lenses are interchangeable and there is terrifically sharp glass available that works with this camera. The default 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is an absolutely fine lens, but you can stick modern Schneiders, Rodenstocks, Fujis, and Nikons on it. 2x3 lenses tend to be smaller than their 4x5 counterparts, so a 3 lens kit doesn't weigh in all that heavy.

I grew up in the US Standard Measurement System and I live in that system most of the time, but I am more comfortable and happier in the metric system.

 

[Pioneer]

if only there were more options for 2x3 sheet film--I'd love for Ilford to add that to their ULF sale--Delta 100 and FP4+ especially. I have a couple of 2x3 grafmatics that I use on my Horseman and Linhof--one has Foma 100 and the other has Foma 400.

It is out there. I am currently using 2x3 HP5+ that I picked up from Freestylephoto. They also have AEU400 and AEU100 available in 2x3. I also have a box of Adox CHS 100II to test that just arrived from BHPhoto. And as far as I'm aware Ilford does sell 2x3 sheet film through their ULF program.

 

[JWMster]

chuckroast: Thanks for writing. Love the name btw. Like your distinction betwee "camera" and "format. I get it.

But gee... If wishes were horses, of COURSE hurt me with a Hassy 503CW and some CF lenses. Wouldn't have to be much. Unfortunately... geezin' tends to change your views on what's costly... even now with old film cameras having crept back up close to some of their original prices when they were new.

And oddly, I looked VERY seriously at switching the 4X5 for a 6X9 (2.5 X 3.5) ....Baby Crown Graflex.... but couldn't pull the triggers. So yes, there is sheet film in the size - I think Ilford and Foma / Arista, but not enough. Many of the largeformatty types told me that the 4X5 format is "more forgiving" and the tolerances on image circles much tighter as you shrink the format.... which I can only take their word for. So that didn't happen, but I did pick up a Horseman 6X9 - if I didn't already mention that. So you're hitting a lot of my sweet buttons here.

I think the 2X3 lenses are shorter, but a lot were made for Linhofs and so can get quite pricey. And from what I could find, a lot of the better 2X3's are easily heavier than my 4X5's. There's just no free lunch out there, and lunch gets more expensive the later you arrive at the party.... which would be me.

Pioneer Dan: Thought I spotted you.