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

[macfred]

Shouldn't Brubeck logically be 5:4?

Brubeck and his quartet had a penchant for odd time signatures - Take Five with its 5⁄ 4 or Blue Rondo A La Turk with a 9⁄ 8 time signature are examples.

 

[Auer]

Martians go home

 

[macfred]

Martians go home

With the rise of National Socialism, most Martians emigrated to America.
I am amazed that there are still feelings of resentment towards them.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I don't have a 6x4.5 system at the moment, but to take one example, here in the UK there seems to be more Bronica ETRSi (or Mamiya 645 etc) equipment available on the used market compared to the GS-1 or SQ series.

 

[macfred]

I don't have a 6x4.5 system at the moment, but to take one example, here in the UK there seems to be more Bronica ETRSi (or Mamiya 645 etc) equipment available on the used market compared to the GS-1 or SQ series.

AFAIK the UK always was 'Bronica land' - I bought my ETRSi body in Japan but my lenses, AEiii prism, Speed grip and backs came all from the UK.

 

[flavio81]

What i like about 6x4.5?

I went from 6x7.to.6x4.5 because the aspect ratio of 6x7 was difficult to compose for (to me). It was neither a square neither a strong rectangle.

I find 6x6 easy to compose with too, but the bonus of more exposures is always good; even more so the difference in size.

When I had my Mamiya RB67, i considered it a machine able to give near-LF (4x5) quality with much better convenience and speed of use.

Now that I'm a keen Bronica ETR system user, what I have is a machine just a bit bigger and heavier than a pro 35mm SLR, yet with far higher image quality results and the convenience of interchangeable magazines and lens shutters. The 4:3 aspect ratio I find far easier to use than the 6:7 aspect ratio.

If i want auto exposure or motor drive, i simply add it to my camera. TTL flash, too.

And of course to junp from 10 to 15 (or 16) exposures is very significant. With 220 film (i have some rolls left) i get 30 exposures, which is a lot...

 

[Donald Qualls]

6:7 aspect ratio

One should note that the actual image on 6x7 is 56x70 mm -- exactly 4:5, virtually identical aspect to 4x5 or 8x10 large format film. That was one of the reasons for its popularity; like the common large formats, it can print to standard paper sizes with virtually no crop.

 

[Drew B.]

that's simple...more images per roll

 

[Donald Qualls]

that's simple...more images per roll

If that's your main goal, you should look for a Bencini Koroll 24. Shoots half-frame on the 6x6 track, with a roughly 3x6 vertical mask. Twenty-four on a roll of 120. Pretty common triplet lens (f/8 IIRC), but it seems a valid format, too.

 

[Helge]

If that's your main goal, you should look for a Bencini Koroll 24. Shoots half-frame on the 6x6 track, with a roughly 3x6 vertical mask. Twenty-four on a roll of 120. Pretty common triplet lens (f/8 IIRC), but it seems a valid format, too.

That's just wasting good 120 film, like the Holga.
Use the whole width or use 135 instead.

A 56x3 frame would make sense, especially with a wide lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Use the whole width or use 135 instead.

You misunderstand. The Koroll 24 uses the whole width; it shoots a roughly 2:1 aspect vertical frame.

Edit: Okay, obviously it's been too long since I used mine -- this article shows it as 3x4.5, same frame size as half-frame (16-on) 127, but 24 on a roll. Still not tiny, it's a bit bigger than 828, and image quality is very similar to a triplet-equipped Pony 828 or Bantam RF.

 

[Helge]

You misunderstand. The Koroll 24 uses the whole width; it shoots a roughly 2:1 aspect vertical frame.

Looks like it's a 3x4.5 frame. That can't be full width any way you turn it.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

That's just wasting good 120 film, like the Holga.

How is shooting with a Holga "wasting good 120 film?"

Jeremy

 

[Alan9940]

Otherwise I'd much prefer 6x7 or 6x6.

Me, too. But, that little Fuji is a whole lot easier on the shoulder and neck vs my Pentax 67!

 

[Wayne]

the only thing I find appealing about it is that it gives me an option that isn't square on my Mamiya 6 folder. I haven't even developed a roll of 6 x 4.5 yet although I think I have one in the queue. Since I don't have a 6 x 4.5 negative holder I'm not rushing.

I'd take 6x7 as a better option any day.

 

[wiltw]

With the rise of National Socialism, most Martians emigrated to America.
I am amazed that there are still feelings of resentment towards them.

They do not mix well into society, but stay in their own conclaves and make no effort to become part of the mix. They are visually very distinctive in both dress and appearance, and they always speak in their own language all the time. How can we be inclusive when they segregate themselves?!

 

[wiltw]

One should note that the actual image on 6x7 is 56x70 mm -- exactly 4:5, virtually identical aspect to 4x5 or 8x10 large format film. That was one of the reasons for its popularity; like the common large formats, it can print to standard paper sizes with virtually no crop.

Like 645, there is no universal truth about frame dimensions. Mamyia RB67 is 56mm x 68.4mm according the Mamiya documents, which is 1.22:1, and the Fuji GW670 has 56 x 68.5mm, virtually the same as the Mamiya.

 

[Cholentpot]

If that's your main goal, you should look for a Bencini Koroll 24. Shoots half-frame on the 6x6 track, with a roughly 3x6 vertical mask. Twenty-four on a roll of 120. Pretty common triplet lens (f/8 IIRC), but it seems a valid format, too.

Ok now, a half-frame 120 camera?

I'm gonna need for info on which one to get, I love half-frame. Never heard of half-frame 120 though...Are there any other models of half-frame 120 floating around out there?

What i like about 6x4.5?

I went from 6x7.to.6x4.5 because the aspect ratio of 6x7 was difficult to compose for (to me). It was neither a square neither a strong rectangle.

I find 6x6 easy to compose with too, but the bonus of more exposures is always good; even more so the difference in size.

When I had my Mamiya RB67, i considered it a machine able to give near-LF (4x5) quality with much better convenience and speed of use.

Now that I'm a keen Bronica ETR system user, what I have is a machine just a bit bigger and heavier than a pro 35mm SLR, yet with far higher image quality results and the convenience of interchangeable magazines and lens shutters. The 4:3 aspect ratio I find far easier to use than the 6:7 aspect ratio.

If i want auto exposure or motor drive, i simply add it to my camera. TTL flash, too.

And of course to junp from 10 to 15 (or 16) exposures is very significant. With 220 film (i have some rolls left) i get 30 exposures, which is a lot...

I put hand rolled 220 through my M645. Felt like shooting 35mm, very strange.

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

More like 3.5 times 35mm! Thinking of it as a cropped 6x6, the resolution difference is huge. I don't much like HP5 in 35mm, but love it in 6x4.5.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ok now, a half-frame 120 camera?

I'm gonna need for info on which one to get, I love half-frame. Never heard of half-frame 120 though...Are there any other models of half-frame 120 floating around out there?

Not really quite half frame -- as Helge reminded me, it's 3x4.5, so a regular 3:2 aspect. Still, bigger than 828, comparable to half-frame 127, and 24 on a roll. The lens on the Koroll 24S is a decent triplet, as I recall, but the exposure range is quite limited (one speed ~1/60? and f/8 or f/11). I don't think I've ever heard of another 24-on 120 camera (though Bencini seemingly had two different models or minor variations). The camera is the same size as a 6x6, just a little shorter nose, so there's little gained over shooting a 6x6 or 6x4.5 folder, aside from frame count. It will, however, make slides that fit in 2x2 mounts (don't know if anyone ever made mounts that size, but you could probably improvise with 828 mounts) -- whether you could get correct exposures, hard to say, but I've taken decent slides with fixed-everything Instamatics and even with a Baby Brownie.

 

[Helge]

How is shooting with a Holga "wasting good 120 film?"

Jeremy

Sorry Holga fans. I was alluding to the huge mechanical vignetting.
Shoot your Holgas and be happy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My Holga exposes all the way to the corners of the 6x6 frame. There's a little exposure fall-off, but that's not surprising on a camera that was originally designed as a 6x4.5 or perhaps a 4x4 (like the original Diana).

 

[Cholentpot]

Not really quite half frame -- as Helge reminded me, it's 3x4.5, so a regular 3:2 aspect. Still, bigger than 828, comparable to half-frame 127, and 24 on a roll. The lens on the Koroll 24S is a decent triplet, as I recall, but the exposure range is quite limited (one speed ~1/60? and f/8 or f/11). I don't think I've ever heard of another 24-on 120 camera (though Bencini seemingly had two different models or minor variations). The camera is the same size as a 6x6, just a little shorter nose, so there's little gained over shooting a 6x6 or 6x4.5 folder, aside from frame count. It will, however, make slides that fit in 2x2 mounts (don't know if anyone ever made mounts that size, but you could probably improvise with 828 mounts) -- whether you could get correct exposures, hard to say, but I've taken decent slides with fixed-everything Instamatics and even with a Baby Brownie.

Rolleicord VA and VB seems to have a mask that'll give you 24 frames. I'm not sure I'm gonna cough up what those things fetch but it's nice to know incase I somehow get one some day.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Martians go home

"So long and thanks for all the film."
- Ansel Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Zone System, when escaping from Yosemite right before a single-coated Vogon ship blew it to pieces.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Sorry Holga fans. I was alluding to the huge mechanical vignetting.
Shoot your Holgas and be happy.

Great, found another person to put on my ignore list here.

Thanks,

Jeremy