645 or 6x7

samnc0 · Dec 27, 2008

Hi all!

Right now, I am on DX digital, and 35mm with an old nikon f4. I am thinking about going to MF, primairily just to dabble with it. I am thinking about the 645, but I am not really sure if it will be worth it to make the move from 35mm to 645 since its not that much bigger than 35mm...is there really a big difference b/t 645 and 35mm

or, should i jump straight to 6x7? If i get 6x7, I will have to get a rangefinder like a mamiya 7 since I think the SLRs are way way too big for non-studio use.

What are the advantages of the 645 over 35mm? Is the quality really that much better than 35mm, or do i have to go up to 6x7 to see a big difference at prints smaller than 20x24?

any brand suggestions for something entry-level and inexpensive?

Shelley-Ann · Dec 27, 2008

There are many threads here on that same subject...
Why not start with a lower cost Yashica 124? At 6x6, it is right in the middle, and will give you an idea as to whether you like medium format or not.

Another option is to borrow/rent a medium format system to see if you like it.

2F/2F · Dec 27, 2008

645 has lots of advantages. I listed the ones I thought were big not that long ago. I am definitely not one of those who feels that 645 is a waste of medium format. While I have 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 cameras, I use my 645s the most for medium format. Here; I found the post. Number 14 was added by someone else.

"Because:

1. You can hand hold 645s at significantly slower shutter speeds given the same angle of view.
2. Across the board, 645s have a better variety of faster lenses. Faster shutter speeds, better hand holdability, and ability to shoot in lower light. F/2.8 long lenses is a huge plus of a 645 system.
3. Many 645 SLRs have interchangeable backs. Those 6x7 SLRs that have interchangeable backs are a good deal larger and heavier than 645s.
4. You get 1.5x more shots per roll (1.6x more with a Contax or Fuji).
5. 6x7 image quality is overkill for much work that lends itself to being shot hand held.
6. 645s are less awkward to handle. They are lighter, smaller, and much more discreet than a Mamiya Press, RB/RZ, or a Pentax 6x7, etc.
7. 645s are cheaper
8. 6x7 SLR cameras are all significantly larger and WAY heavier than the TLR that the OP already thinks is "awkward".
9. 645 cameras have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1, while 6x7 cameras have an aspect ratio of 1.25:1. (35mm is 1.5:1.) Many feel that the 1.33:1 is a more active aspect ratio than 1.25:1, and may find it more suited to capturing things in motion; a much more likely subject matter when shooting hand held.
10. There are many leaf shutter lenses available for 645.
11. Focal plane shutter 645s generally have a higher flash synch speed than focal plane shutter 6x7s. You cannot likely get a sharp hand held daytime shot using flash with '30 as a maximum synch speed. '60 on the 645 is doable with 55mm and wider lenses, and not too hard with an 80mm (normal).
12. For a given angle of view, 645s give you more depth of field, which can be a huge benefit in hand held shooting.
13. 645s are significantly easier to focus, especially in low light.

Most of these points will apply to any comparison between a larger and a smaller format.

The main issues for me when shooting hand held would be camera shake and maximum apertures of lenses."

14. There's no practical and affordable way to project 6x7 slides.

bdial · Dec 27, 2008

Depending on the image and film, the difference between 35 and 645 is certainly noticeable even in an 8x10, but a 645 neg is still pretty small compared to a 6x7 or a 6x9.
If you want to dabble with something inexpensive, you should consider a folder that takes 120 film. There are many around and they often have excellent optics, but are quite inexpensive. All but the most desirable ones are available for 100 or less USD, often more like 10 or 20 USD.
The cheaper ones zone focus, and the more expensive ones have rangefinders. They are compact, light weight and fun to use.
You will likely need a light meter, or carry the digi or Nikon along to serve that function.

jordanstarr · Dec 27, 2008

There's quite a big difference between 35mm and 645 in terms of detail. I've blown up 20x24s with 645 negs, but wouldn't think to even go 16x20 with a 35mm negative unless it was on a very fine grain film. You'll probably notice a difference between 6x4.5 and 6x7 negatives on a sheet of paper that size. If it was on 8x10 you might be hard pressed to find a difference.

In terms of equipment, I've heard awesome things about the mamiya 7 and plan on getting the mamiya 6 myself. It's WAY lighter than a 6x7 camera like the RB67 or RZ67 that mamiya makes. If you have the money, go for it. Personally I'd go for the RZ67 because it has interchangable backs and you can even get a 6x4.5 back for it too. It's also a fraction of the price. For a full Mamiya 7 kit with a 43, 65, 80 and 150mm lens, you'd be looking at $4000. The equivalent in the RB67 or RZ67 is about $800-1500. For me it would be worth lugging around and having the extra money unless it was for a serious assignment or unless you only shoot landscapes.

Mark Fisher · Dec 27, 2008

Something else to consider.....a 6x6 camera is close to the same size as a 645. It is also a different way to look at the world...square instead of rectangular! If you are looking for inexpensive and compact, a Mamiya TLR system is hard to beat (medium sized camera, small lenses, small tripod). It is not great to hand hold, though. I had a Pentax 645 which was a good camera and probably the best choice for a 645 that you will hand hold (good grip and really well damped mirror).

SamWeiss · Dec 27, 2008

A classic error made by many novices is thinking that a larger film size will automatically make for better images, usually due to supposedly less enlargement.

More correctly, the difference in enlargement can only happen if one scales up the image proportionately.

The "image" is what is created by the lens. To do less enlargement at the time of print, one needs a larger image size. Thus, to get a bigger image one needs a lens that is either longer focal length, or one has to position the camera closer to the object.

Thus, on your Nikon F4, if you use say the well known Nikkor 105mm lens, and want to improve upon that result by using a 645 camera, and assuming you will be the same working distance from your subject, you will need a longer lens than your Nikkor. How much longer is difficult to appreciate because the format of 645 and the 35mm film is different, but if you are going by frame height (and not image circle), then the ratio is circa 44mm/24mm = 1.83 (the 44mm comes from the short side of the 645 frame, the 24mm comes from the frame height of a 35mm camera image.)

So, let's say you are going to shoot a flower from 3 feet away. To get full advantage of the 645 film, compared to working with the F4 and 105 Nikkor, you would want a 1.8x105 = 190mm lens.

This is one of the problems with going to larger film sizes, and why 35mm came to dominate.

Furthermore, let's get more into the heart of the matter of getting a better image. Both your DX DSLR and F4 are being used handheld most of the time, no? If so, you can get image stabilized lenses, and wide aperture lenses. Most lenses for MF are much slower, requiring longer shutter speeds (and there are no IS/VR lenses for MF.)

To get better quality than what 35mm brings you (or the DX size digital), it is best to go for a tripod mounted photography. Making that switch, from hand-held to tripod shooting, alone will do more than going up in film size by 1.8x (even if you can also scale up the lenses by 1.8, which is difficult to do if your "eye" is such that you like the smaller angle of view that long lenses bring.)

Robert Brummitt · Dec 27, 2008

"645. Glorified 35.
6x7, a format made from heaven."

That was the quote I always got from commercial photographer, when I processed their film.

Ole · Dec 27, 2008

SamWeiss said:
... if you are going by frame height (and not image circle), then the ratio is circa 44mm/24mm = 1.83 (the 44mm comes from the short side of the 645 frame, the 24mm comes from the frame height of a 35mm camera image.)

So, let's say you are going to shoot a flower from 3 feet away. To get full advantage of the 645 film, compared to working with the F4 and 105 Nikkor, you would want a 1.8x105 = 190mm lens.
...

No, your mathematics is wrong as are most of the rest of the arguments in your post.

At "3 feet away", assuming that this is camera to subject, a 190mm lens is well into the macro range where the focal length (always defined at infinity focus) is replaced by "effective length". To get the same result in your example, a 160mm lens would do nicely.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, "most lenses" for 645 are not that slow. I certainly don't consider the f:2.8 lenses for my Bronica ETRS all that slow, and thanks to the larger film area and leaf shutter it can be hand held at significantly slower speeds than a 35mm SLR. Shooting in anything resembling daylight, the resolution on film is limited only by - the film. Even hand held at 1/125s.

Making that switch, from hand-held to tripod shooting, alone will do more than going up in film size by 1.8x (even if you can also scale up the lenses by 1.8, which is difficult to do if your "eye" is such that you like the smaller angle of view that long lenses bring.)

You seem to have overlooked that the larger film area gives a wider field of view with a MF than a 35mm, keeping the focal length the same.
For 35mm, the "normal lens" should be a 43mm. For 645, it's a 75mm. Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR and a 90mm lens on 645 gives about the same vertical field of view - there is no "smaller angle of view".

Alexander Ghaffari · Dec 27, 2008

Wow, reading some of this made my head hurt. I shall try to overlook the misinformation...oh, so hard...anyway, I shoot 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, and I have to say that I enjoy the 6x7 format most (probably due to my liking of the RB67 camera/system). The RB67 is hard to beat for a camera system/quality price wise, but apparently it is too heavy for some...I do not know how, but it is according to some.

Let us see how this tread develops. Hopefully someone can help the OP to decide.

2F/2F · Dec 28, 2008

Robert Brummitt said:
"645. Glorified 35.
6x7, a format made from heaven."

That was the quote I always got from commercial photographer, when I processed their film.

I wouldn't listen to anyone who makes up little rhymes to make their arrogant points.

Brandon D. · Dec 28, 2008

6x7 camera that has the ability to use a 6x4.5 back.

(like a Mamiya RB67)

ozphoto · Dec 28, 2008

I agree with Brandon totally.
6x7 with a 6x4.5 back - the best of both worlds!

(Bronica GS1)

- Nanette

keithwms · Dec 28, 2008

OP: you have to say more about what you plan to shoot, whether you need fast lenses etc. What you may not realize yet is that there is *far* more diversity of equipment in medium format than in 35mm. In 35mm you have pretty much only focal-plane-shutter SLRs and RFs. In MF you have those plus leaf shutter slrs and RFs and also tlrs, and mini view cameras and folders, and AF RFs, and....

A few years ago I had the bright idea to do a grand tour of all the MF gear that I could get my hands on, to find the best system for me. I tried just about everything, literally dozens of different makes and models. Took more than a year, actually. Did I ever settle on one favourite medium format body? Wellll.... no, now I have many different ones, each with their own strengths. I use mamiya 6es, an rb67 pro sd, an rz pro2, a mamiya 645 afd, a 645 pro... you get the point. So much for my original plan of picking what suits me best! Shucks, I love 'em all!

Nick Zentena · Dec 28, 2008

keithwms said:
So much for my original plan of picking what suits me best!

Makes sense to me. But then I ended up going down the same road. Instead of trying to find one perfect compromise camera I just ended up with three fairly different setups.

Bronica ETRSI smaller,lighter,quicker and can be more automated.

Mamiya RZ When I want something heavier then my 8x10

A fuji 690 for the perfect 6x9 format.

Now if only somebody had made a 6x9 back for a camera the size and features of the ETRSI

SamWeiss · Dec 28, 2008

Ole said:
No, your mathematics is wrong as are most of the rest of the arguments in your post.

No, I believe they are not. Rather, I tried to simplify the problem instead of delving into the glories of optics, assuming that if the OP were interested they would ask for more details.

Also, I tried to not confuse the OP by the concept of "normal" lenses and formats, as what is considered "normal" is a matter for discussion.

The key point for the OP is that they will need a much longer focal length of their MF lens if they want to replicate their way of seeing the world that they did with the 35mm camera; it is also true that most MF lenses are indeed slower than lenses for smaller formats.

Ole said:
Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR and a 90mm lens on 645 gives about the same vertical field of view - there is no "smaller angle of view".

Concur about the 90mm and 50mm comparison, but please read my statement again carefully. I did not imply what you think I did. The OP has to realize that if he prefers long lenses on his Nikon (and many Nikon shooters do use tele-photo lenses), that means he prefers to "see" using a small angle of view. To duplicate that using MF is difficult, expensive, and requires large and expensive lenses.

Nick Zentena · Dec 28, 2008

SamWeiss said:
The OP has to realize that if he prefers long lenses on his Nikon (and many Nikon shooters do use tele-photo lenses), that means he prefers to "see" using a small angle of view. To duplicate that using MF is difficult, expensive, and requires large and expensive lenses.

For sports and wildlife yes. But for anything else? MF portrait lenses aren't exactly rare. For 645 cameras they aren't exactly huge either.

An 85mm 35mm format lens would be similar to a 150mm 645 lens. If he wants something like a 135mm lens on 135mm then that's closer to a 250mm lens. I know my Bronica lenses aren't large nor were they expensive.

It gets harder with larger formats but all those studio cameras had plenty of portrait lens choices.

Hmm my F4s is within grams of my Bronica. My long Bronica lenses are lighter then my longer Nikon lenses so with a long lens my Bronica is lighter.

If you're going to stick a F4 on a tripod how is this better then sticking a bigger camera on a tripod? Sticking a 35mm camera on a tripod never made sense to me if you have a bigger option. Ignoring sports and wildlife.

rossawilson1 · Dec 28, 2008

I know there is a size in neg difference but I've never seen it as worth worrying about too much, instead the aspect ratio is a much better deciding factor for me.

Which aspect ratio do you like best when framing? Do you want a bigger choice of smaller cameras and cheap use lenses? Or must you have that large negative with that particular aspect ratio?

I've used both and preferred my Bronica to the Mamiya 7II, didn't like the aspect ratio or the thought of having to frame with cropping in mind with the Mamiya. I also didn't want the ranger finder for that sort of photography. I now use a Contax 645.

rossawilson1 · Dec 28, 2008

If 645 is glorified 35mm at 2.7x its size, then 6x7 is less than glorified 645 being that it's only 1.7x the size of 645!

samnc0 · Dec 28, 2008

thanks for the discussion

I am enjoying this discussion. I would be primarily shooting landscapes and general photography. For my action shots of my kid or other fast-moving stuff, I would probably still be in digital.

I dont want to invest alot of $$ into MF yet, but at the same time, I dont want to get a 645 if its nothing more than a fancy 35mm w/o a major bump in quality.

jbbooks · Dec 28, 2008

rossawilson1 said:
If 645 is glorified 35mm at 2.7x its size, then 6x7 is less than glorified 645 being that it's only 1.7x the size of 645!

35mm = 24x36mm=1:1.5
645 = 45x60mm=1:1.33
6x7 = 60x70mm=1:1.17

So, the 6x7 is the runt of the litter?

Q.G. · Dec 28, 2008

You're comparing aspect ratios.
And you're using nominal sizes, instead of real sizes: 6x45 = 56:42 = 1.33, 6x7 = 72:56 = 1.29. So that (being close enough the same) will not make 6x7 the runt of the litter, no.

But as mentioned: if a 2.7x increase in size merrits use of the word "glorified", a lesser 1.7x increase would be less than "glorified", right?
That will do...

Shelley-Ann · Dec 28, 2008

The difficulty of asking such a question is that everyone is going to have a different opinion of the 'best format' - as you can readily see in this thread. It's helpful, but it can be very confusing. At the end of the day, the OP has to make that decision for himself.

Q.G. · Dec 28, 2008

samnc0 said:
[...] I dont want to get a 645 if its nothing more than a fancy 35mm w/o a major bump in quality.

It is more than a fancy 35 mm, and does provide a major improvement in image quality.

The old "the bigger the better" still holds though.
Which does make 6x7 the format you should go for.

With that settled, you can then weigh up the disadvantages of going as big as possible, and see if practical considerations will make you want to take a small (!) step back in size.

That has always been the way to choose. Noone having a basic understanding of photography ever selected to shoot a small format for any other reason than that the next larger format up was deemed to be too uncomfortable.

André E.C. · Dec 28, 2008

Q.G. said:
The old "the bigger the better" still holds though.
Which does make 6x7 the format you should go for.

Therefore, the OP should go 6x9, Q.G!

Cheers

André

645 or 6x7

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency