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

[Auer]

4:3 is jazz, 1:1 is 1980's German techno pop.

 

[Down Under]

Film economy. In this day and age, with the price of 120 films going up almost week by week, that's a big plus.

I've used 16 exposure kits in my Rolleiflex Ts and Rolleicord Vb for many years. The actual format size is a tad smaller than 645, but with careful focusing and exposure the negatives I made easily enlarge to 8x10" (although I prefer 5x8", being half an 8x10" sheet cut in my darkroom) and, on the rare occasion I do print larger, far bigger.

Waist level finders impose an entirely different discipline on one's shooting. Very Zen. Unobtrusive, unthreatening, polite. Fewer images but taken at a slower pace, more contemplative. All of which suit my essentially laid back temperament and seem to not offend my subjects, even when I'm street-shooting.

6x6 is another magic format for me, but doesn't always lend itself to certain subjects. Landscapes especially. It may for many others.

Thinking Square is not a natural concept for me, but when it does work it works really well. Minimalistically.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Really interesting, thoughtful answers. I'm pretty sold.

 

[braxus]

I like my 645 Pentax camera, as its fully automated with auto focus, and metering. Its just like using a 35mm film camera from the past 20 years. The format itself I call baby medium format, as its half the size of my other formats I use. I like getting 16 shots on a roll, on a negative twice the size of 35mm. Its still not a huge jump in resolution in comparison, but noticable. My Mamiya RZ also has a 645 back, but I havent tried it yet. It too gets 16 on a roll. Most 645 cameras only do 15 shots.

I also like how 645 is a little on the wider side for framing.

 

[Down Under]

4:3 is jazz, 1:1 is 1980's German techno pop.

I like this, but I'm not sure why I do.

Please would you elaborate on your thinking about this.

We may be on to something interesting here.

 

[gone]

6x4.5 is a nice ratio, and a little difficult to compose with initially. I once had a tiny 1937 Zeiss 6x4.5 folder w/ an uncoated Tessar that was amazing. Before that, there was a later Zeiss folder w/ rangefinder and a coated lens. In practice, the tiny, older, scale focus camera w/ the uncoated Tessar was better than the later model. The rangefinder on the Super Ikonta was a complicated affair, and added bulk and weight to the camera too.

It felt as if you were cheating when you could pull a tiny medium format camera out of your pocket and get the shot. If you used it regularly, you learned to have the speed and aperture preset. But what slowed everything down was the red window/knob wind setup, which made it important to try to get the first shot right, since there was seldom an opportunity for a second.

 

[alanrockwood]

An interesting comparison is to think about the linear film dimension or film area if you are going to crop an image to and 8x10 aspect ratio. If we just take the dimensions as 6x6 vs. 4.5x6 (without accounting for the fact that, for example, the nominal dimension of 6 cm is not the true dimension but something smaller) and figure out the maximum negative size used for an 8x10 aspect ratio in a print, the 4.5x6 format is about 94% as big as the 6x6 format in terms of the linear dimension, and about 88% as big in terms of area. In other words, you really won't lose much in terms of picture quality by using the smaller format... probably not enough difference to be noticeable.

Here are the numbers 4.5x6 crops to 4.5x5.625 and 6x6 crops to 4.8x6. in terms of negative area used to make an 8x10 format print.

 

[Auer]

I like this, but I'm not sure why I do.

Please would you elaborate on your thinking about this.

We may be on to something interesting here.

My views:

1:1 is predictable, stiff and one sided. Reliable, familiar and safe.
It feels like a form, where you pour in things to to make something.

4:3 immediately gives you two options. A choice. Opens things.
“I start in the middle of a sentence and move in both directions at the same time” - John Coltrane

I obviously don't expect my views to be anything else but that, my views.
I enjoy and appreciate photography as much as anyone else here, regardless of aspect ratio, film or digital.

I just know what I like, for my own use.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90747359@N08/

 

[Donald Qualls]

regardless of aspect ratio, film or digital.

And this is important. I have little use for digital (and when I do use it, my phone is ahead of the DSLRs I have access to), but I shoot every aspect ratio from square to 3:1 (24x70), and I like them all -- same subject will get different compositions in a 6x6 than with 35mm in a 6x7 back, of course, but I can usually find something interesting in either one or anything between for any given scene.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I shoot every aspect ratio from square to 3:1 (24x70), and I like them all -- same subject will get different compositions in a 6x6 than with 35mm in a 6x7 back, of course, but I can usually find something interesting in either one or anything between for any given scene.

I feel the same way, which is why I am curious about the 6x4.5, which is one of the few more popular ones I've never tried.

What I find most interesting in going from one format to the other is not only the question of composition (what you want to see and how it's organized within the frame), but also that each of them asks differently the question of what do you leave out.

 

[Dennis-B]

I went to 6x4.5 as my primary wedding camera in the mid-80's, replacing a Mamiya C330. A used Mamiya M645 started me, and then on to the Super, and finally the Pro. Yes the primary orientation is landscape, but I bought a Stroboframe with a rotating bracket, and went along my merry way. I used the combination until I retired. When I needed formal portraiture at the wedding, I brought along my Mamiya RB67 Pro, using a tripod and a Speedotron Brown Line setup.

I sold off all my medium format equipment in 2013, but I've since built some of it up with another Pro, Hasselblad, and even a Koni Omega 100.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

I occasionally use my A16 Hasselblad back, which has a horizontal format. But I would love to have the A16V, which has a vertical portrait orientation. Unfortunately these are few and far between. I've only seen one for sale and the asking price was $500. I thought that was too expensive so I passed, but now I regret it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I feel the same way, which is why I am curious about the 6x4.5, which is one of the few more popular ones I've never tried.

At 42x56 mm, it's identical aspect to half-frame 35mm (18x24). Someone above said it's close to the 28x40 of 828, but that's actually 7:10; 645 is also about the same aspect as the 13x17 of 110, Minolta 16 MGs and Kiev-format 16 mm cameras. Not to mention older video cameras, analog TVs, and the first generation of digital (640x480 px).

Of course, it's the biggest film with that 4:3 ratio...

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Like others have stated here, for me the size is a nice compromise that offers portability and ease of use. The saying goes something like "The best camera is the one that's with you."

I take my Mamiya 645 Pro TL's with me when hiking or traveling. They are also great for general street use, accompanying me to many local festivals and events. The 6x4.5 size is still much larger than 35mm and enlarges easily.

My 645 Pro TL makes for a fairly lightweight kit when set up with the WLF and hand crank. Granted, turning it on its side to shoot vertical shots is not the easiest with that configuration, but I can do it. In general I shoot horizontal more than vertical anyway. With one of the prism finders on, its a non-issue of course.

Jeremy

A few shots taken with my 645 Pro TL while hiking last fall at CVNP:

 

[wiltw]

Already expressed most of these in earlier posts, but I will reiterate to express my opinions about my Bronica ETRSi

• very close match to aspect ratios of common large print, so little needs to be cropped to fit well
• small size and low weight of equipment to obtain the imaging advantages (lower grain for same print size, better tonality and colors due to more film area on subject) cpmpared to 135
• ability to easily change films in mid-roll as needed, or
• faster change at end of roll during events
• guests at events immediately move aside to provide easier access to subject location because the equipment shows them you are not merely another guest
• with prism and speed grip, handles in a manner similar to handling 135 SLR
• ability to change finders easily to best suit shooting situation
• ability to mount a Polaroid back to review shot for missed details in scene before shooting final photos, when in studio shooting environment
• availability of motor drive for faster shooting at events
• spectacular knock-you-socks-off reactions by those accustomed to seeing 135 slide presentations

 

[mrosenlof]

On the other hand, I have never really warmed to the 645 format. I've used 6x6 for almost 40 years, and compose for square prints when using that format. I bought a Mamiya 645 (1000s) for a project a few years ago, but had switched over to 6x6 (Mamiya TLR with 105DS lens) before the project finished.

I still own a 645 camera and should give it another try. I have some good lenses. No technical problems, just didn't get my head wrapped around it.

 

[Helge]

4:3 is jazz, 1:1 is 1980's German techno pop.

Very much on the contrary!

6x6 is Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz and Miles.
Square had a big surge in the late forties, fifties and sixties with the best TLRs, folders and Hasselblad.

645, while it had existed for decades, really had a revival in the 80s with rangefinders and SLRs. New emulsion technology (T grain/epitaxial) made it possible to get extremely respectable results from 645.

 

[wjlapier]

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.

If the issue is the fading LCD then it’s most likely the ribbon. A company in Poland replaced the faulty ribbon in mine and the LCD is fully functional.

Smallest medium format camera I have is a Zeiss Super Ikonta 530A. A 6x4.5 camera with a rangefinder and a nice lens.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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.

It's exactly this for me as well. The GA645Zi is such a good camera that it makes the compromise of 6x4.5 worth it to me. I get more properly exposed, in focus sharp shots with that camera than with almost anything else. Otherwise I'd much prefer 6x7 or 6x6. I used my GA645zi so much this summer it makes me want to trade in some of my other cameras for a Mamiya 6 which is the most similar 6x6 camera to it.

 

[MattKing]

Of course, it's the biggest film with that 4:3 ratio...

Unless of course you have a 6x8 camera or film back.
(I would really like to have a 6x8 camera).

 

[Arthurwg]

Very much on the contrary!

6x6 is Dave Brubeck, Stan Getz and Miles.
Square had big surge in the late forties, fifties and sixties with the best TLRs, folders and Hasselblad.

645, while it had existed for decades, really had a revival in the 80s with rangefinders and SLRs. New emulsion technology (T grain/epitaxial) made it possible to get extremely respectable results from 645.

Got to be Prez, Bird, Dizzy or the Basie.

 

[Moose22]

Unless of course you have a 6x8 camera or film back.
(I would really like to have a 6x8 camera).

I shoot 6x8. The GX680iii which is a phenominal camera that is about the least portable thing before large format. I was interested in architectural and landscape when I got it, and there it shines.

I feel like an outcast sometimes. Got a film holder for scans, it comes with 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, and 6x4.5 masks. It's an oddball size.

But, there is a lot of room for error on the negatives. I can shoot portra 800 without bad grain, and 400 is as grain free as 160 on the 35mm (and sharper). Slides out-resolution digital, the results are ridicuously awesome. It's big enough for landscape width, really, and croppable. 6x8 is a great format, even if it is a weird format orphan.

That said, I'm here because I'm really wanting a 6x6 or 6x45 so I see the post title and click. I want it for portability and all the other reasons folks here have listed. Also, 9 frames is not a lot to experiment, a few more would be nice. I can't seem to find any format masks for the GX680, they're rare as hen's teeth, so...

But for all the arguments here, I'm still not sold on 6x6 or 6x45 as better. I think they are just what they are, and each is good in its own way. I'd have to get used to square to understand composition in the format, but that's not a negative. I'd even be happy with a 6x8 in a more portable format, it's the same ratio and pleasing and versatile enough, just 10 lbs is a little tough to cart around for street photos.

4:3 is jazz, 1:1 is 1980's German techno pop.

And 3:4 is a Waltz.

 

[Helge]

Got to be Prez, Bird, Dizzy or the Basie.

No, I very consciously choose two white guys and a very intellectual avant-garde jazz composer/performer.
Jazz had come of age and become, not quite polite and mainstream, but accepted as a serious and intelligent kind of music and maybe lost a little of its balls, immediacy and original zest.
Same with 6x6 in the fifties.

645 would be Yellow Magic Orchestra and Jun Fukamachi. Light, tight and modern and with “hidden” depths.

 

[brian steinberger]

I used my GA645zi so much this summer it makes me want to trade in some of my other cameras for a Mamiya 6 which is the most similar 6x6 camera to it.

That would be a very wise decision….

 

[Alex Benjamin]

6x6 is Dave Brubeck

Shouldn't Brubeck logically be 5:4?