6x4.5 users: what do you like about the format?

[Alex Benjamin]

I have two 6x6 cameras and am thinking of trading one for another format in 120. I've had a 6x9 a while back and might try to find another one, and I don't think I'll go for a 6x7, although there are some amazing cameras in that format.

6x4.5 is a mystery to me. Never had a chance to try any, and haven't met any photographers using it. So, curious to know what regular 6x4.5 users find appealing about the format.

Thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

The fact that it is 6x4.5. Sounds like a smarty pants answer except that it is not. I just prefer this size to 6x6 and having 16 shots per roll film is about right as well

Unlike Huey and his News I do not find it Hip To Be Square.

pentaxuser

 

[Kino]

The aspect ratio of this format seems more natural to me, but I know others feel differently.

Of course, as Pentaxuser mentions, the extra exposures per roll is a nice bonus...

 

[ignatiu5]

I have several MF rigs, from 645 to 6x7, plus many 35mm systems and 3 LF up to 8x10. My Bronica ETRSi (but I’ve owned many 645 systems previously) is what I reach for about 70% of the time. For me, it’s a good compromise between size, weight, balance, portability, removable backs, interchangeable lens options, negative size, and number of frames per roll. It’s not my favourite camera (that would be my Pentax 6x7), but it’s the one that is the best (for me) combination of all of the above.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In a folder, it's the smallest camera you'll get that uses 120 film. The 4:3 aspect ratio is nice to compose in, and the native vertical (in 645 cameras which have horizontal film travel) makes it nice for portrait. And if you shoot fast or a lot, getting 15-16 frames on a roll has some advantages, yet the negatives are still big enough you don't get a lot of grain as you would with 35mm on the same size print.

 

[Helge]

Flatness of film, more DoF, lens speed and quality, size of camera, number of shots per roll makes bracketing possible.
With SLRs the mirror is much lighter and doesn't have as long a "lever" to flip.
If you intent on cropping 6x6 shots anyway, then why not shoot in a format that is closer to what you intent?

 

[Dali]

The 645 aspect ratio is also more in line with paper sizes.

 

[MattKing]

It enlarges well into standard paper sizes if you like bordered prints - particularly 11x14.
It uses the same aspect ratio as 110, and is similar to the aspect ration for 828, so the aspect ratio has some history.
It is the same aspect ratio as M/4/3 as well.
I gravitate toward wider angles - 55mm is what I use as a standard lens on my 645 - and the slightly smaller aspect ratio (compared to 6x9) works well with that.
The 6x4.5 negatives enlarge to 11x14 effortlessly, and with reasonable care enlarge past that easily.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It uses the same aspect ratio as 110, and is similar to the aspect ration for 828, so the aspect ratio has some history.

Also same as half-frame (cine frame) 35mm, but with about six times the film area.

 

[Auer]

Its versatile and pleasant to the senses imo.
16 shots is a nice amount for my daily city walks.
Tiny folders rule

(Also just love the output of my Pentax 645N and It's lenses)

 

[Donald Qualls]

Tiny folders rule

No doubt. I wish my Zenobia had strap lugs, though; carrying it in a jacket pocket puts wear on the leatherette, not to mention is only practical part of the year.

 

[Auer]

No doubt. I wish my Zenobia had strap lugs, though; carrying it in a jacket pocket puts wear on the leatherette, not to mention is only practical part of the year.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Auer Now why didn't I think of that?

 

[abruzzi]

For me the biggest benefit is size. I have a GS-1 (6x7) and an ETRSi (6x4.5). In many ways they are functionally identical, but for travel, the ETRSi is noticably smaller and easier to carry. Same goes for that Pearl above. I have a Pearl III, and its barely larger than my Retina IIIC. 6x6 cameras might be similar size, but I really dislike square. Sure I can crop after the fact, but 6x4.5 gets a few more shots in a roll, and is easier for me to visualize the frame, since its already cropped.

 

[Dismayed]

645 is an excellent format. The film is about 2.7x times the area of 35mm, so there is less grain for the same sized print and nicer gradations of tone.

I had a Bronica RF645 that I loved shooting, but the film transport was poorly designed so I sold it. I currently have a 645 Zeiss Super Ikonta that fits easily into a coat pocket. My other MF camera is a Mamiya 7II - because it's nice to have interchangeable lenses in a compact package.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Because it's the smallest 120 camera you can find, easily fits into a pocket, yet produces prints with much less noticeable grain that 35.

 

[narsuitus]

When I was looking to replace my worn Mamiya 6x6cm TLR cameras that I had used for weddings, I considered switching to 645 SLR camera. I tried one at a camera store and was disappointed when I discovered that it was primarily designed as a portrait orientation camera and it only came with a prism finder.

I decided against it and chose instead a 6x7cm SLR that had a rotating back for portrait or landscape orientation and was able to use prism or waist-level finders.

 

[grahamp]

My 6x4.5 is a Fuji 645s which I mainly use as a travel camera - it alternates with a YashicaMat when I feel like a focusing screen. As a rangefinder, switching orientation is not too much of an issue, and 15 on 120 is useful when out and about. It also means I don't carry extra gear - just use what I have on hand.

 

[Donald Qualls]

chose instead a 6x7cm SLR that had a rotating back for portrait or landscape orientation and was able to use prism or waist-level finders.

If you want 4:3 aspect ratio, rotating back, and a workout, I have a 645 back for my RB67...

 

[Cholentpot]

Easier for me to scan. More shots. Double the options for framing a shot.

 

[Alan9940]

The only 6x4.5 that I own is a Fuji GA645Zi and it's one of my "go to" cameras for hiking, especially long distances. I set it on aperture priority f/11, normally shoot at the widest or longest zoom setting, and the camera does everything else. It's a light, handholdable camera that produces a fairly significant boost in size/quality over 35mm. These cameras can have issues, but I've not had any with mine.

 

[Rick A]

All good answers, so far. The one thing you need to understand is, a 6x6 is nothing more than a 6x4.5 that you never have to rotate to change orientation between portrait and landscape. Nearly all 6x6's have composition lines for this already marked in the view finder. Sure, you get more exposures per roll using a dedicated 645, but I prefer the ease of a 6x6 and the added advantage of composing square if I choose. If you like the aspect ratio shoot a 6x9 instead, bigger negative equates to bigger enlargements. It's only film, don't cheap out thinking more shots per roll is better, shoot more film and keep the manufacturers in business.

 

[Auer]

All good answers, so far. The one thing you need to understand is, a 6x6 is nothing more than a 6x4.5 that you never have to rotate to change orientation between portrait and landscape. Nearly all 6x6's have composition lines for this already marked in the view finder. Sure, you get more exposures per roll using a dedicated 645, but I prefer the ease of a 6x6 and the added advantage of composing square if I choose. If you like the aspect ratio shoot a 6x9 instead, bigger negative equates to bigger enlargements. It's only film, don't cheap out thinking more shots per roll is better, shoot more film and keep the manufacturers in business.

Being able to compose square is only and advantage if you enjoy that sort of thing.

Squares are....square.

 

[Helge]

Ansel was a fan of cropped 6x6…

Love square but when you want a rectangle 645 is the thing.
More resolution with modern film than anyone would want for almost any kind of enlargement.
Turning a camera is a non issue. As easy as turning an RB back.

 

[polka]

My first medium format camera was a Rolleiflex T, because you could put into it a screen to switch from 12 6x6 pictures to 16 6x4.5 pictures. I find the 4:3 aspect ratio of this format prettier than the 3:2 aspect ratio of 135 or 6x9 cameras. Besides, it is easier to find slide projectors for this format than for 6x7. Indeed, with a WLF it is rather difficult to shoot "portrait", so all my 6x4.5 slides are "landscape", but when you make a slide show, it is to my opinion more restfull when all the pictures have the same orientation (and more so when this orientation is "landscape"). So I use my rolleiflex T with square format for B&W or color negs, and with 6x4.5 format for slides.