645 or 6x7

[telkwa]

I put a comparison of this very subject on my webpage a couple years ago.
http://www.nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

 

[removed-user-1]

I've used 645 (Fuji RF), 6x6 (Yashica TLR), and 6x7 (Mamiya RB). I have yet to really push print sizes with my RB67, but the Fuji 645 made great enlargements... The quality difference between small format and medium format is impressive. For example, one of my photo professors once thought an 8x10 enlargement from a 645 negative was a contact printed 8x10; he was very surprised to learn it was roll film. I've never been asked that about 35mm or digital work!

 

[Robert Budding]

I put a comparison of this very subject on my webpage a couple years ago.
http://www.nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

That's the most sensible comparison that I've seen. Nice work!

 

[sanking]

That is a nicely done comparison and thanks for posting it.

One thought that did come to mind is that the comparison of Pentax 645 to Pentax 67 might be misleading. The Pentax 645 has a newer generation of lenses, and much sharper, than the Pentax 67 lenses. I owned both systems for a while and did a bunch of comparisons myself and in many cases the Pentax 645 beat the Pentax 67.

In comparing the 6X4.5 cm format to 6X7 cm format we must take into consideration the quality of the lenses and the capability of each system. I have owned and used both Mamiya 7II system and Pentax 67II, and when I had the two at the same time I compared. The Mamiya 7II system was just in another league compared to the Pentax 67 system (four lenses each system of comparable focal length). And I always compared with mirror lock-up on the Pentax 67. In optimum conditions the Mamiya lenses would consistently resolve 80+ l/mm, while the Pentax 67 lenses were in the 50+ range.

Sandy King

I put a comparison of this very subject on my webpage a couple years ago.
http://www.nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

 

[markm]

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.

If you want to dabble and not spend many $$, get a 1950's German or Russian folder, or a Koni-Omega, in 6x7. The Zeiss-Ikon's had good optics for the day, but do a little research and pay attention to which make of lens is on the camera. I personally would (well, did) pick one (or more) with a coupled rangefinder. (The Soviet Moskva's aren't that bad since they got the East German factories.)

- Mark

 

[telkwa]

One thought that did come to mind is that the comparison of Pentax 645 to Pentax 67 might be misleading. The Pentax 645 has a newer generation of lenses, and much sharper, than the Pentax 67 lenses. I owned both systems for a while and did a bunch of comparisons myself and in many cases the Pentax 645 beat the Pentax 67.

This is true, and it's why one of the first things I mention is lens quality. The best lens is the 35mm, then the 645 is pretty close behind, and the old 6x7 lens bringing up the rear.

 

[Pupfish]

A Pentax 645n has in the past 9 mos or so become my favorite walking around camera for scenics. The body weighs almost exactly what one of my Nikon F5 bodies weighs. I bought it specifically to use with the much underrated Pentax 35mm f/3.5 SMC-A lens, which is tack sharp at f/8-11. Field of view is about equivalent to a 21mm in 135 terms. It seems to have less distortion than most anything as equivalently wide. Bought both lens and camera for what an ultrawide prime alone in 135 would cost, far less than my Nikkor 17-35mm was, used.

The one thing I would most like to mention about my jump to 645, is that the apparent sharpness is much better than expected from such a wide optic. Velvia and Astia chromes can be astounding.

While they're also great for other uses, the biggest factor in the popularity of 645's is that they were used professionally for wedding portraiture with neg film of higher speeds. Thus back in the day 400 or 800 ISO speed film was used for mixed lighting and dimly lit church interiors, etc with results that held up in 11x14s and 16x20s whereas 135 on similarly fast film was beyond falling apart at the larger sizes. Today this sort of work is being done almost exclusively with digital due to the ISO and resolution improvements in 35mm sized sensors outperforming 120 film (not to mention the lower per-frame media cost) under such conditions. There's a glut of very fine 645 gear being unloaded and flooding the market the past couple of years at prices that are a mere ten to twenty cents to the dollar of what this pro gear cost new. If there's a caveat here, it's that some of this equipment has seen a lot of actuations, even though it might still look pretty good externally. So it helps to know the provenance of the gear you're buying. (Then again, the same would be true of RB67 gear, often very heavily used in studio environments)

 

[joko]

There is a good jump from 35mm to 645. I love my 645; a recent KEH catalog suggested that the bodies could run below $300. I recommend the "645" model; there are other, more advanced ones, but "this one is mine."

If you have a Pentax 35mm, I recommend the 645 to K mount adapter; you can use the same lenses from the 645 onto the 35mm rig. I do this; I haven't much used any of my old 49mm dia lenses since.

The 645 is a good camera. In terms of cost; operating a 6X7 is going to be more pricey; the lenses tend to be more expensive. I enjoy Pentax equipment in 645. Overall, as long as you have a rig that works, it'll be okay. If I had to do it all over again, I would still have chosen what I have. I've been curious about the 67 many times; but, I enjoy the equipment that I have.

The best medium format camera is one that is used frequently. Good luck. J.