645 with vintage optics vs 35mm with modern optics

[alanrockwood]

One possibility could be to get a Kiev 60 that has been modified for 645 format. They used to be dirt cheap on ebay. Now they are not quite dirt cheap, but still relatively inexpensive. The 645 variant shows up every once in a while on ebay. There's one listed on ebay right now, including the TTL prism, for about $210, including the shipping charge The seller claims it works well. However, I think that's just for the body.

Consider this however, The only thing you gain by going with the 645 version rather than the 6x6 version is a few extra shots per roll. Externally the two versions are identical. Given that, it might just be best to buy the regular 6x6 format version. Unless you shoot a lot of 120 format you won't save all that much in film costs by going with the 6x6 format, and you will only need to change rolls a little more often.

Handling isn't too bad, kind of like a king-size 35mm slr. TTL prisms are available (not coupled). Lenses are pretty good.

You can spend a little more and get one that is more likely to work well if from a place like Hartblei. Here's what they say at their website.

"The base model of the Kiev 60 camera, offered by Hartblei, is completely reassembled and adjusted version of the camera Kiev 60, made by Kiev Arsenal plant.

Hartblei Company makes two basic modifications of the Kiev 60 camera: Kiev 60 / Kiev 456 and Kiev 60 Master / Kiev 456 Master. The Master model has a pre-release mode (MLU, Mirror Lock-Up). Kiev 60 Master / Kiev 456 Master camera allows you to lock-up the mirror before releasing the shutter by pressing the mirror release button. The mirror control mechanism allows avoiding undesirable impact from mirror actuation with a shutter release and thus improving image sharpness.

Kiev 60 / Kiev 60 Master camera works with 6×6 cm format and takes 12 exposures per 120 roll film. Kiev 456 / Kiev 456 camera works with 4.5×6 cm format which allows to take 16 exposures per 120 roll film."

Their website lists a price of $365 for the 645 format version with an 80mm Arsat lens and a basic pentaprism (not the TTL pentaprism).

There is a fairly wide range of lenses available, including some Zeiss lenses if you want to go that far.

Araxfoto is another company that sells rebuilds. I think maybe they are more expensive than Hartblei, though I don't know for sure.

 

[takilmaboxer]

To address the OP's original question: speaking as a long time user of both formats (old folders and new 35s), I'd say that the 35 lenses are much sharper, especially at f/8 and faster. The 35 also has a range of lenses available and is much faster and more accurate to focus.This would make for a better street camera, where grain is likely to be less important and time is of the essence.

 

[Helge]

That hasn't been my experience. I can't conjure up a nice street shot out of thin air, that depends on conditions that are out of my control. I'm sure it works the same for everyone. All you can do is remember to bring the camera, remember to put the film in, etc. Street opportunities are brief, often almost instantaneous, and like Dr John always said, you have to be in the right place at the right time.

Aren’t you more or less repeating what I said in other words?
You of course increase your chances of getting that shot vastly by being out there, moving, or knowing “a place” and staying there for set amount of time.
Walking through town on the right day, seeing “something”, being in the right position, letting go of everything and having time to pull out the camera ends up being a cosmic occurrence, like winning the lottery.

 

[hsandler]

Revenons a nos moutons, I find a significant improvement in my 645 Zeiss Ikonta 521A with 3 element Novar compared to my Nikons with good 50mm Nikkors at f8. I scan, which I think tends to increase apparent grain. Results may depend on your workflow after development. The Ikonta is a nice little pocket camera for carrying, but not fast to use. To the extent looking at screen images can show anything, here are examples from each: 645 for the skaters, 35mm for the juice bar, both on xp2.

Skating on the Rideau canal by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

Juice Bar, Westboro by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[benveniste]

I realize that this is likely a heresy in this forum, but my suggestion is that you pick the option that you will enjoy using the most. For a "walk-around" camera, I'm just not that concerned about resolution differences. In the past, I've used a Pentax 110 SLR and a Nikon Pronea S as my "fast and light option," and I while I still have a few 110 cartridges in the freezer, I most use a micro-four-thirds digital camera in that role.

The downsides I see to the Konica are:

• Lack of versatility -- At least to my tastes, 75mm is a bit long for street photography.
• Uncoated Optics -- You'll probably want a lens hood to reduce the chances of flare, but you have to remove it to fold the camera.
• Manual Shutter Cocking
• Lack of strap lugs

The first is purely a subjective opinion and for a deliberate style like yours, the last three are minor. As for your 35mm gear, a lot depends on your lenses. Since you mentioned a Zeiss Planar, I'll assume you're using a 50mm lens. The Konica, LTM 50mm lenses, and Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 use a 6-element, 4-group double-gauss/Planar design dating back decades. The last generation of Zeiss Planars in C/Y mount used a 7-element 6-group design, which was an evolutionary improvement, but not significantly different than that found in the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 or Nikon, Canon, and Minolta "fast fifty" lenses from that era.

Another thing to consider is your film choice. If, for example, you are using Tri-X or HP5+, do you want more or less grain visible in your enlargements? If, on the other hand, you are shooting Velvia 50, will the extra 2 or more stops offered by a 35mm option allow you to put more shots "in the can?" Personally? I thought about getting a folder, but I decided to spend the money on repairing and refurbishing my grandfather's camera. I just got it back and will be shooting it later this month:

 

[gone]

Aren’t you more or less repeating what I said in other words?

We're speaking of street shooting, right? It's probably just semantics at work, but in a way we're on similar tracks. When I leave the house w/ the Nikon, I'm going about my business, and also aware that a shot may pop up anytime. When you ride an eBike, awareness is a big deal.

But if I have the little Pentax, it doesn't have the Leica R 90 lens that's on the Nikon, and it's 50 lens can't take many of the shots the Nikon could, especially close up. So it's probably more of a casual affair w/ that camera. But in either situation, I still should be ready for a shot, right? Theoretically anyway. And at that point, like I said, it's out of my control....... the weather, the sun, the street activity, all of it.

The main idea is to always have the camera near. That Rolleicord above is beautiful. The Triotar is one of the best 3 element lenses in MF.

 

[Helge]

I realize that this is likely a heresy in this forum, but my suggestion is that you pick the option that you will enjoy using the most. For a "walk-around" camera, I'm just not that concerned about resolution differences. In the past, I've used a Pentax 110 SLR and a Nikon Pronea S as my "fast and light option," and I while I still have a few 110 cartridges in the freezer, I most use a micro-four-thirds digital camera in that role.

The downsides I see to the Konica are:

• Lack of versatility -- At least to my tastes, 75mm is a bit long for street photography.
• Uncoated Optics -- You'll probably want a lens hood to reduce the chances of flare, but you have to remove it to fold the camera.
• Manual Shutter Cocking
• Lack of strap lugs

The first is purely a subjective opinion and for a deliberate style like yours, the last three are minor. As for your 35mm gear, a lot depends on your lenses. Since you mentioned a Zeiss Planar, I'll assume you're using a 50mm lens. The Konica, LTM 50mm lenses, and Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 use a 6-element, 4-group double-gauss/Planar design dating back decades. The last generation of Zeiss Planars in C/Y mount used a 7-element 6-group design, which was an evolutionary improvement, but not significantly different than that found in the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 or Nikon, Canon, and Minolta "fast fifty" lenses from that era.

Another thing to consider is your film choice. If, for example, you are using Tri-X or HP5+, do you want more or less grain visible in your enlargements? If, on the other hand, you are shooting Velvia 50, will the extra 2 or more stops offered by a 35mm option allow you to put more shots "in the can?" Personally? I thought about getting a folder, but I decided to spend the money on repairing and refurbishing my grandfather's camera. I just got it back and will be shooting it later this month:

View attachment 297740

75mm is approximately 45mm equivalent. That is perfectly usable for street. Tele longer than 100mm equivalent is too long, and very wide requires you to get awfully close to not just get the dots in the horizon effect, and you will have to like the distortion.

The optics are single coated. Put a shade on and you’re good. It’s a very simple lens. I’ve shot into the light, no problem.

Manual cocking is the price to pay for a simpler, sturdier linkage. You only have sixteen frames. Nice with a little breather between shots.
A 135 half frame would be another option, if you’d just like to fire away. 72 frames last all day.

You should get it with the case. Otherwise you can carry it in the tripod bushing.

 

[Helge]

We're speaking of street shooting, right? It's probably just semantics at work, but in a way we're on similar tracks. When I leave the house w/ the Nikon, I'm going about my business, and also aware that a shot may pop up anytime. When you ride an eBike, awareness is a big deal.

But if I have the little Pentax, it doesn't have the Leica R 90 lens that's on the Nikon, and it's 50 lens can't take many of the shots the Nikon could, especially close up. So it's probably more of a casual affair w/ that camera. But in either situation, I still should be ready for a shot, right? Theoretically anyway. And at that point, like I said, it's out of my control....... the weather, the sun, the street activity, all of it.

The main idea is to always have the camera near. That Rolleicord above is beautiful. The Triotar is one of the best 3 element lenses in MF.

I have a camera near me all the time. It’s my phone. There is about 10 great “street”, non staged shots out of those 20.000.
I have plenty of good to great candid film shots. Either from bars, off the street. Four or five binders, plus framed slide.
All taken when I was in “photographer mode” concentrating.
If you run around with an SLR around your neck all the time, not only are you going to hate it within a week, it will also look terrible soon, and chances are people around you will also start to tire of it.

 

[Evergreen States]

Madeleine, did you ever settle on a suitable camera?

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Yep! I got a Leica iif as a curiosity, and it quickly replaced almost all my other cameras, I just love shooting with it so much. I have good glass for it, but I also realised how I see with the camera is much more important than what it technically produces anyway.

With an external viewfinder the little iif is nicer to use than any M imo, and I’ve taken some of my best work with it

 

[Evergreen States]

That's great!

 

[Besk]

I can understand your feelings for the iif. I have a iiif myself and am more apt to pick it up than any of my other 35's.
(They include an M6 and Nikons.)
It just is more satisfying to use.

 

[Eff64]

I think most street photographers would disagree with you. What works for your process isn’t a universal truth. I have plenty of “keepers” that I’ve taken on my lunch break, both the images I posted before included. This kind of weird gatekeeping is something that really gets to me in the film photography community.

Madeleine-First, let me say based on the two samples you posted above, I like your sense for composition.

Second, I am so with you on your answer to Helge’s comment.

Many famous photographers have done beautiful street photography, Fred Herzog being one of my personal favorites. He passed away at an old age, in 2019 I think, but had taken hundreds of very much what I call fleeting moment type images. His “Man with Bandage” is terrific.

 

[guangong]

Why 645? A 66 folder isn’t much larger, and turning camera on its side can be an annoyance. (I have a Fuji 645 folder that I find is often too slow for the kind of pictures I take.) One of my walking around cameras is a Super Ikonta B that I’ve had since mid 1970s. After shooting, one can crop for desired format. There are lots of high quality older 66 folders to choose from.

 

[Helge]

Why 645? A 66 folder isn’t much larger, and turning camera on its side can be an annoyance. (I have a Fuji 645 folder that I find is often too slow for the kind of pictures I take.) One of my walking around cameras is a Super Ikonta B that I’ve had since mid 1970s. After shooting, one can crop for desired format. There are lots of high quality older 66 folders to choose from.

Four extra frames?

No need to crop (possibly as much) if you want a non square frame.

Better flatness of film.

More cropped lens circle which possibly means less vignette and less edge blur.

Significantly smaller camera.

If you crop to a square “4.5x4.5” you get a nice portrait lens effect (somewhat like a 65mm).

Still over three times the area of 135 (folders usually have a larger gate than standard 645 cameras).

 

[wiltw]

No it’s not.
Though it’s a common fallacy.
Grain is not binary. It can be and most often is exposed and developed to any degree.
With a monodisperse emulsion, you can in theory have all the range in one grain. But overlap is almost always an important factor in reaching DMax.

It has been a statement for many decades (before digital) about medium format an its advantages of 'better tonality gradation'...in an article even in 2019

The Medium Format Look: Real or Hoax?

With the release of the Fujifilm GFX 50R, the Hasselblad X1D II 50C, as well as a burgeoning used market, digital medium format has become more attainable than ever by professional photographers wanting to step up to the next level in image quality. However, the full frame market is firing back...

fstoppers.com

"Back in the film days (let me pull out my cane and wag my finger for a bit), the advantages attained by jumping from 35mm film to 120 film formats were huge and obvious. When you needed a step up in quality, typically in portraiture and landscapes, moving to medium format was the logical step up. Even 6x4.5, the smallest medium format size, showed smoother tonality and a large jump in resolution when compared to 35mm....​

​

"The advantages of medium format are greater resolution potential and better, smoother tonality. ..​

​

"Tonality is the big one that photographers seem to forget about, and yet it is the greatest strength of larger formats. Because the frame is larger, there is more space to make a tonal transition than on 35mm. Therefore, the transition can be smoother. Period. The larger the format, the better the tonality can potentially be. That's not my opinion. That's science. Think about it this way: You have to go from white to black within 2 inches. Now, make the same transition from white to black within 6 inches. You can place more tones in 6 inches than in 2. It's that simple. This greater space for tonal changes creates truer, more lifelike images."​

And another article, by a professional film processing establishment https://thedarkroom.com/35mm-vs-medium-format-film-comparison/

"With about 4 times the surface of the 35mm film format, the medium format can be enlarged significantly without losing quality. Artists often use the medium format size for large prints because it has less apparent grain and finer details. Also, it has better tonality (smoother gradations). The biggest and obvious difference in 35mm and 120 Medium Format (Can be referred to as “Medium format” or just “120”) is the size.​

"...Aside from its size, there are other, more subtle advantages to shooting medium format film. Because the tonality is better (smoother gradations) and lack of perspective distortion, medium format images have a distinct feel that is instantly recognizable.​

And from this article, http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html

"Compared to 35mm, medium format uses 3~4 times as much film surface. This allows for better tonality (smoother gradations), finer detail, and less apparent grain. "​

You seem to be the downstream swimming salmon in your opinion.

 

[guangong]

Four extra frames?

No need to crop (possibly as much) if you want a non square frame.

Better flatness of film.

More cropped lens circle which possibly means less vignette and less edge blur.

Significantly smaller camera.

If you crop to a square “4.5x4.5” you get a nice portrait lens effect (somewhat like a 65mm).

Still over three times the area of 135 (folders usually have a larger gate than standard 645 cameras).

If 645 works for you, go for it! I should note that because a square frame innately lacks dynamics, I seldom print a negative from my Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, or Super Ikonta as a square print. I usually preview composition in
my mind’s eye while shooting.
Never noticed a lack of flatness in any of my 66 cameras, and since 645 also uses 120 film, I don’t see how there could be much of a difference. Never noticed any lens flare at edges, but 645 still has the 6. Lack of noticeable flare could be related to better lens quality.
All in all, choices depend upon conditions while shooting, convenience of equipment at hand, and he object being shot. I shoot from 45 to Minox. Each camera has its purpose. It’s just from my own experience 645 is not as handy
for me as I thought it would be. Everybody’s experience is different.

 

[Helge]

It has been a statement for many decades (before digital) about medium format an its advantages of 'better tonality gradation'...in an article even in 2019

The Medium Format Look: Real or Hoax?

With the release of the Fujifilm GFX 50R, the Hasselblad X1D II 50C, as well as a burgeoning used market, digital medium format has become more attainable than ever by professional photographers wanting to step up to the next level in image quality. However, the full frame market is firing back...

fstoppers.com

"Back in the film days (let me pull out my cane and wag my finger for a bit), the advantages attained by jumping from 35mm film to 120 film formats were huge and obvious. When you needed a step up in quality, typically in portraiture and landscapes, moving to medium format was the logical step up. Even 6x4.5, the smallest medium format size, showed smoother tonality and a large jump in resolution when compared to 35mm....​

​

"The advantages of medium format are greater resolution potential and better, smoother tonality. ..​

​

"Tonality is the big one that photographers seem to forget about, and yet it is the greatest strength of larger formats. Because the frame is larger, there is more space to make a tonal transition than on 35mm. Therefore, the transition can be smoother. Period. The larger the format, the better the tonality can potentially be. That's not my opinion. That's science. Think about it this way: You have to go from white to black within 2 inches. Now, make the same transition from white to black within 6 inches. You can place more tones in 6 inches than in 2. It's that simple. This greater space for tonal changes creates truer, more lifelike images."​

And another article, by a professional film processing establishment https://thedarkroom.com/35mm-vs-medium-format-film-comparison/

"With about 4 times the surface of the 35mm film format, the medium format can be enlarged significantly without losing quality. Artists often use the medium format size for large prints because it has less apparent grain and finer details. Also, it has better tonality (smoother gradations). The biggest and obvious difference in 35mm and 120 Medium Format (Can be referred to as “Medium format” or just “120”) is the size.​

"...Aside from its size, there are other, more subtle advantages to shooting medium format film. Because the tonality is better (smoother gradations) and lack of perspective distortion, medium format images have a distinct feel that is instantly recognizable.​

And from this article, http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html

"Compared to 35mm, medium format uses 3~4 times as much film surface. This allows for better tonality (smoother gradations), finer detail, and less apparent grain. "​

You seem to be the downstream swimming salmon in your opinion.

It’s again about the definition of tonality.
From DMin to DMax, what is the shape of the curve and how does the image utilize it?
I can’t see how grain and detail has anything but at best incidental effect on that.

 

[snusmumriken]

"...Aside from its size, there are other, more subtle advantages to shooting medium format film. Because the tonality is better (smoother gradations) and lack of perspective distortion, medium format images have a distinct feel that is instantly recognizable.

I may be veering off-topic here, but 'lack of perspective distortion' in medium format? How does that work? My understanding is that perspective is determined solely by viewpoint.

 

[gone]

People have mentioned a Rolleiflex w/ a prism finder on top. I had one and used it sometimes for street. It worked, but the camera is a pig w/ that heavy prism on top. If you didn't mind that, then no problem. A pre-focused TLR w/ a sports finder was a lot better for me. My Fuji GS645s had a wonderful lens, but there's no parts for the shutters now.

Shooting street w/ folders is a difference experience. They're nearly all knob wind, so that usually nixes a second shot. If you want a hood, you have to take it off to fold the camera again. Little things like that made it more trouble than just swinging a 35mm camera from your shoulder to your eye in about one second.

As for resolution, that's nothing to be concerned about, nearly all the MF glass is good in that department. I have an 11x14 darkroom enlargement that was made from a 1940 Zeiss folder w/ uncoated Tessar, and it's as sharp as any modern camera lens. Street shooting really has nothing to do w/ that anyway, does it? Landscape shooting I could understand.

 

[pentaxuser]

Don’t walk around with it in your pocket all day though.
No camera really likes that.
A pocket is a terrible environment for a camera. It’s humid and far more bumpy than you imagine. Ask Donald what it does to leatherette in short order.
Your beautiful vintage folder is going to look like crap in a week or two.

Wow I never knew that my vintage folder is going to look like crap in about 2 more days if I am lucky and maybe overnight if I am not so lucky. I am sure over the course of several years that my vintage folder has been in my pocket for at least several days and may be as much as a week or more on a cumulative basis hence my worry that when I next take it out of its case it will have changed into crap, rather like Cinderella's coach going back into a pumpkin

Just out of curiosity,what is it about a large lined, soft empty jacket pocket with a flap that the camera doesn't like and what is that turns the folder into crap in a week

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[jtk]

If I was shooting film I'd certainly prefer larger format over smaller for my kind of images...assuming of course that I was doing darkroom printing. Which I'm not.

If you're scanning, why? Presumably to avoid the darkroom? I think inkjet is a great tech. I can print more and better from scans.

 

[Helge]

Wow I never knew that my vintage folder is going to look like crap in about 2 more days if I am lucky and maybe overnight if I am not so lucky. I am sure over the course of several years that my vintage folder has been in my pocket for at least several days and may be as much as a week or more on a cumulative basis hence my worry that when I next take it out of its case it will have changed into crap, rather like Cinderella's coach going back into a pumpkin

Just out of curiosity,what is it about a large lined, soft empty jacket pocket with a flap that the camera doesn't like and what is that turns the folder into crap in a week

Thanks

pentaxuser

A “a large lined, soft empty jacket pocket with a flap” is probably a lot better than the often mentioned jeans pocket.

But still, there will be an unessary amount of polishing and movement in general.
And I don’t know about you, but I turn over my camera bag once in a while and vacuum it out. I don’t do that with my jacket pockets.

A jacket pocket will also super easily get hit by a door, accidentally fall off a chair, get turned over or cook in the sun.

There is the recently (like the last twenty to thirty years) prevalent, extremely vexing attitude of being happy to find something in super condition (even insisting), but not sparing a single seconds thought about how, after several decades, it arrived to you in that condition.
Or wanting to do anything, like changing your own behavior with consumer objects, to keep it in that state.
Even if they seem humble, and not cost much, objects like these are really not ours in the traditional sense and for us to Use (with a capital U).
They are non replaceable little gems. And should be treated as such.

 

[Helge]

If 645 works for you, go for it! I should note that because a square frame innately lacks dynamics, I seldom print a negative from my Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, or Super Ikonta as a square print. I usually preview composition in
my mind’s eye while shooting.
Never noticed a lack of flatness in any of my 66 cameras, and since 645 also uses 120 film, I don’t see how there could be much of a difference. Never noticed any lens flare at edges, but 645 still has the 6. Lack of noticeable flare could be related to better lens quality.
All in all, choices depend upon conditions while shooting, convenience of equipment at hand, and he object being shot. I shoot from 45 to Minox. Each camera has its purpose. It’s just from my own experience 645 is not as handy
for me as I thought it would be. Everybody’s experience is different.

Square is fine in itself. Calm and monolithic. And very flexible too as you mention.

We are talking vintage folders here though. The gate and pressure plate is generally not as well developed for a variety of reasons.
The smaller span the film has to traverse makes it easier to keep it closer to the ideal flat.

With folders, let’s be honest, it’s easy to fuck up a frame, because of general stress and distractions. That makes having 16 frames ideal for the kind of more contemplative shooting necessitated by folders.

 

[Lachlan Young]

but I also realised how I see with the camera is much more important than what it technically produces anyway

This is the important bit that everyone arguing about irrelevant hypotheticals about wobbly old folding cameras seems to have utterly missed. It's the same reason why I dislike monorails and like Pentax 67's. Sadly, people would rather argue about hypothetical specifications than question the metaphysics of why some cameras might (for some) be so actively unpleasant to use that they effectively erect barriers to imagemaking.