645 or 6x7

[Q.G.]

Yes!
Or 6x12. Or 6x17. Or 8x10". Or...

Unless practical considerations...

 

[keithwms]

For a fun and inexpensive entry into general medium format photography, you might consider one of the fuji rangefinders. I had a great time with the ga645zi (zoom) and the ga645w (w=wide). Really beautiful and easily projectable slides. Relatively low expense. Very reliable autofocus. And quite lightweight.

Like Nick, I guess my MF stuff can be divided into three categories...

(1) Available light, fairly quick, kinda like 35mm, general purpose from landscape to macro to sports to wildlife: mamiya 645 afd and 645 pro. Lenses from 35mm-500mm + TCs; lenses roughly equivalent to, say, 22-300mm in small format are available.

(2) travel landscape and scenic: mamiya 6. Lenses from 50-150, roughly equivalent to ~28-100mm in small format.

(3) closeup/macro/still life/portrait, artsy stuff incl. landscape: rb67 and rz67. Lenses from 37-360 + TCs; affordable lenses roughly equivalent to ~fisheye-300mm in small format are available.


Now, even though I am now a mamiyan through and through, I have utmost respect for the fujis and have been coveting a gsw690 for some time.

Now, I happily use 35mm for many things- portrait, available light, travel, sports, whatevah. But quite generally I think for wide angle you will prefer a larger format, and for tele you will want a smaller. This has to do with lens handling, top available shutter speed, and how much detail you can practically resolve when you take into account lens and film MTF and what lenses are actually available.

 

[Q.G.]

I divide my MF stuff into even more categories.
But i use one and the same system for all of them.

Joking apart: that's quite possible.
And - though buying all kinds of different gear is fun - a possibility to look into seriously.
A good all-round system will, for instance, remove the need to agonize over what system to use today.
It's cheaper too.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The problem with getting one system is you end up with an 8x10 with lots of rollfilm backs. You'll always be compromising. The beauty of several systems is you always have the best possible for the occasion.

It can actually be cheaper to go with multiple systems to. You'll find some things cheaper with one system then others. Imagine sticking a 645 back on a bigger camera. If you want a wide angle lens you need to go with a much more expensive lens to get the same result. 40mm lenses are fairly cheap and common on 645. But a 40mm on 6x7 ends up being fisheye terriority.

 

[weasel]

I did head to head testing (posted elsewhere), where I could find no appreciable difference between a pentax 645 and pentax 67 when making enlargements as big as my omega d2 will go on fuji acros film.
I find a major improvement from the 35mm to 645 jump, but have to go 4x5 to see the same from the 645.
This is very counter intuitive to me, as I have always been of the mindset that bigger is better.
The 645 has become my standard mf slr for this reason.

 

[JBrunner]

645 was originally conceived to be a competitor to 6x6. The logic was that for "normal" aspect ratio prints the negative area used would be very similar, and so why not get more frames from the same roll, and have a lighter faster camera. Made sense then, and still makes sense now, so unless you like square, the advantage of 645 is exactly that, if you are disposed to being somewhat precise with your framing.

With 6x7 you get a bit more negative (not as much as you got going to MF from 35) at the expense of a bit of weight and speed, not enough to make a real world difference until you start past prints larger than 8x10.

If you print "normal" aspect ratios and can compose, 645 is advantageous over 6x6, if you like squares, 6x6 will give you that plus 645, if you intend to print large with medium speed films, 6x7 wins by a neck. There is no free lunch.

 

[Ian Grant]

I did head to head testing (posted elsewhere), where I could find no appreciable difference between a pentax 645 and pentax 67 when making enlargements as big as my omega d2 will go on fuji acros film.
I find a major improvement from the 35mm to 645 jump, but have to go 4x5 to see the same from the 645.
This is very counter intuitive to me, as I have always been of the mindset that bigger is better.
The 645 has become my standard mf slr for this reason.

Have to agree with you almost totally, the quality of images improves very significantly between 35mm & 6x4.5, but there is only a very small difference between 6x4.5 & 6x7.

It's practical results that matter rather than comparisons of format ratios etc, and as others have said it's also about ease of use and weight considerations. I'd rather use a 6x4.5 than a 6x7.

Ian

 

[Curt]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I have had a Mamiya 645 since the first one came out many years ago. I think it's a great format. I would without any reservations recommend a 645.

 

[iamzip]

Without getting dragged into the argument, I will try to address the OP's questions directly.
Firstly, 645 is appreciably bigger than 35mm. Assuming 60mm by 45mm for 645 format (YMMV), you get an area of 2,700 square mm. Assuming 24mm by 36mm for 35mm format, you get a negative with an area of 864 square mm. That means the 645 gives you a negative that is 3.125 times bigger than 35mm. Personally, I would not call that "not that much bigger."

Another issue which no one else has brought up, and which may not matter to you, is how many shots per roll. 645 gives you 15 or 16 shots per roll, depending on camera, for 120 film, or 31-32 shots per roll with 220. Having never used 6x7 I don't know how many shots per roll you get.

Thirdly, if you are used to 35mm and digital autofocus, you may be put off by the size and complexity of some systems (you may not, I don't know). A MF SLR is a bit large and cumbersome in usage, and a MF folder, while smaller, can also be complex in usage. A great camera is the already mentioned Fuji GA645. It is AE, AF, with some manual settings, not too big, quick enough to use when taking pics of your kids, and with an excellent lens.

 

[sanking]

I especially like the GA645 Zi, which has a 55-90 variable focus lens. The range is not wide but I find it very useful.

If you use 220 film with the GA645 Zi you get 32 shots per roll (16 per roll with 120), which makes it about as convenient as 35mm. The camera is not all that large compared to a 35mm, and I personally see a big jump in image quality in sizes over 8X10 with 645 compared to 35mm.

Sandy King

Thirdly, if you are used to 35mm and digital autofocus, you may be put off by the size and complexity of some systems (you may not, I don't know). A MF SLR is a bit large and cumbersome in usage, and a MF folder, while smaller, can also be complex in usage. A great camera is the already mentioned Fuji GA645. It is AE, AF, with some manual settings, not too big, quick enough to use when taking pics of your kids, and with an excellent lens.

 

[keithwms]

I did head to head testing (posted elsewhere), where I could find no appreciable difference between a pentax 645 and pentax 67 when making enlargements as big as my omega d2 will go on fuji acros film.
I find a major improvement from the 35mm to 645 jump, but have to go 4x5 to see the same from the 645.
This is very counter intuitive to me, as I have always been of the mindset that bigger is better.
The 645 has become my standard mf slr for this reason.

How much of a format "jump" you actually get will depend on quite a few things.

Of the pentaxes, I was more impressed overall by the 645n (I think it was the first n) than the p67. The p67 can offer great results but I do not think you can shoot it in the same quick style as a 645 or 35mm. It is styled to suggest that you can, but you actually cannot get optimal results that way. Some p67 users may disagree, this is just my own assessment.

Anyway, concerning grain and tonal smoothness, I attempted a very rough little analysis in my apug blog that might amuse. Bear in mind that this is a very simple thought exercise, what you might call a "spherical cow approximation."

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I think if you factor in actual lens MTF and available shutter speeds and film flatness and mechanical issues like mirror damping, the jump from 35mm to 645 is probably more substantial than what the basic math predicts. But print size is a really big factor and you have to decide for yourself what levels of grain etc. are acceptable or desirable.

 

[nworth]

There is a big difference between 645 and 35mm. The 645 images are much sharper; in fact they are significantly sharper than those you get with the better digital SLRs. But, when it comes to image quality, there is no substitute for square inches. A 6X7 or 6X9 will give you better images, if you know how to use the camera. The last part of that is important, because the larger cameras usually lack many of the features available on most 645s that make taking good pictures easy. You also have the issue of size. The larger cameras generally need a tripod to perform well. The 645s definitely benefit from a tripod, but you can often hand hold them if the light is good. The larger image size is definitely not overkill. There are really a lot of times when it makes a difference. The difference is often apparent when just looking at comparable photos in both formats. But the bigger size also allows you to use faster film and allows you more freedom to crop.

 

[ChrisC]

My view on this basically comes down to what and where you shoot.

I was in a similar boat to you 6 months ago. I like to take my cameras hiking and wanted a new one before a trip to Nepal. 6x7 is just too bulky, heavy and the lenses slower, generally. I shoot a lot of handheld shots (used a tripod like 3 times in Nepal) to which 6x7 is just too big and if I was planning on tripod work I'd have just taken a 4x5 kit.

6x4.5 is actually quite a jump from 35mm. I thought if I was going to go big with 645 I'd be constantly wishing I'd gone 6x7 but I've never wished this once. 645 is still a lot bigger, and although most 645's handhold like a 35mm camera, I still compose a lot more carefully, probably due to less shots per roll.

If you work from a tripod a lot, or want to/are happy to, I'd go with 6x7. I know a lot of people do handhold 6x7 and take good photos doing so, but I personally wouldn't want to.

 

[hadeer]

From experience, I can agree with the contributers who say that from 35 to 45x60 is a big jump in quality. I suppose you would get the same when going from 45x60 to 4x5', but I probably never will. I have several reason for sticking with the 45x60:
For one thing, I get better results with 400 ISO film in a 45x60 than I had with 100 ISO in a 35 mm camera, and not only because the grain is still very modest in the 45x60 images, but also because you get faster shutter times given the same lighting conditions wit 400 ISO, and thus less movement fuzziness. For that reason, I use 400 ISO now as a standard, if I do not need the ultimate in quality (but that implies using a tripod as well).
For another thing it is still very wel managable if you like to shoot by hand (especially so with a speed grip mounted as on the Bronica ETRSi I use). My third reason would be that weight and size form a good compromise if you want to travel compared to a 6x6 or bigger.
Hans

 

[Q.G.]

Compared to 6x6, most (if not all) 6x4.5 cameras offer no size advantage, are just as big.

 

[Ian Grant]

But they have the advantage of 15 or 16 shots per roll of 120, and no real disadvantages over 6x6 unless you want square format.

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

I only wanted to point out that there is no size advantage.

But there is one real disadvantage: you need a prism finder to be able to shoot 'verticals'.
How much of a disadvantage that is, is a personal matter.

 

[weasel]

Compared to 6x6, most (if not all) 6x4.5 cameras offer no size advantage, are just as big.

True with fixed lens cameras, I'm not so sure about slrs

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9 and 6x17. I like them all but my 645 Mamiya's are the fastest & easiest to use I find in some circumstances that the 15 frames per film can be a big advantage & I always use the prism finder.

On the other hand I also like using a TLR - 6x6 format which I've only just returned to after 20+ years, it's a case of just making a decision and sticking with it. The Mamiya's get used for commercial work & the TLR's and 6x17 for my personal projects, the 6x9 is just a back up to 5x4.

Whatever the final choice of Format using 120 film (or 220) is a massive advantage over 35mm regardless of the variations between 6x4.5, 6x6 & 6x7 and it's really down to personal choice you need to be printing larger than about 12x16 before you'll really notice any significant differences with today's films.

Ian

 

[Nick Zentena]

But there is one real disadvantage: you need a prism finder to be able to shoot 'verticals'.
How much of a disadvantage that is, is a personal matter.

But at least you can shoot verticals. With 6x6 everything is always square. No matter how you turn the camera.

 

[jamusu]

I have a Pentax 645 that I won off ebay 6 months ago, and although I have yet to actively use it, I must say that I really like it. The format of the negative is kind of a mix between 35mm and medium format.

Our very own CHERYL JACOBS uses this format. Her work is AWESOME and played a major role in my wanting a 645 camera.

Also, Sebastiao Salgado is currently using a Pentax 645 for his Genesis project. I hope to one day make enlargements as nice as his with mine.

Jamusu.

 

[Q.G.]

True with fixed lens cameras, I'm not so sure about slrs

I wasn't even thinking about fixed lens cameras.
It's true for SLR's with interchangeable everything.

 

[Q.G.]

But at least you can shoot verticals. With 6x6 everything is always square. No matter how you turn the camera.

That's very true...
Luckily, you can put 6x4.5 magazines behind most 6x6 cameras.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To OP - 645 prints of 11x14 size look much better to my eyes than 35mm. By no small margin either. However, I like square format, and find myself cropping the 645 negatives to squares a lot, which is why I ditched the 645 in favor of 6x6 slr. The Hasselblad 500 series cameras are wonderful to hand hold, you can even get a grip for it if you want, but I don't use one. It does take a bit of getting used to, but to me the 6x6 format is a catch all solution, especially if I decide I want to crop a negative I have both vertical and horizontal compositions in the same negative.

And a 6x6 square print or crop can and will look great even in very large prints.

- Thomas

 

[Robert Budding]

To OP - 645 prints of 11x14 size look much better to my eyes than 35mm. By no small margin either. However, I like square format, and find myself cropping the 645 negatives to squares a lot, which is why I ditched the 645 in favor of 6x6 slr. . .
- Thomas

And I found myself always cropping 6x6 because I prefer rectangular prints. So it really comes down to personal preference. But I absolutely agree that 645 at 11x14 looks a lot better than 35mm.