6x6 6x7

[Graham.b]

Hello, i have 35, 120, i am thinking well i will be going to the above when all you good people out there can point me in the right way.
I have read a lot of post on this, but with so many views it is getting more and more confused. I have looked at the Pentax looks the job, it will not be for pro work as i am not in that position.
All thoughts and ideas will be great full. Cost, lets not go to mad. Say up to the 1000 (£) mark.

Regards Graham

 

[Slixtiesix]

ugh, that´s difficult. I think you will get 100 different advice from
100 different people. May you give us some more information?
You mentioned the Pentay, so I think you are looking strictly for a SLR,
am I right? What is your main subject? Landscape, architecture. portraiture?
Do you intend to use flash a lot?
I think 1000 GBP is already a nice budget.
Greetz, Benjamin

 

[Graham.b]

ugh, that´s difficult. I think you will get 100 different advice from
100 different people. May you give us some more information?
You mentioned the Pentay, so I think you are looking strictly for a SLR,
am I right? What is your main subject? Landscape, architecture. portraiture?
Do you intend to use flash a lot?
I think 1000 GBP is already a nice budget.
Greetz, Benjamin

I like to get into anything and everytning, but landscapes and history, buildings, bridges, Steam engines, i have all ways tried to work in the the light around me. I do have a RF Slr, and a RF645 Broni, so some thing along these line's. Never done studio so flash may be a after thought.

 

[mrtoml]

If you like the Bronica RF645 then a Mamiya 7 or 7ii RF. A basic kit with one or two lenses can be had for under £1000.

 

[Graham.b]

Now the Mamiya has come out on the top of the list, never played with one, i think Mifsuds has them in stock and as we are going to visit out laws in a few weeks, shall pop in and have a look.

Graham

 

[2F/2F]

Please tell us more! Do you need a camera with a large system to back it up? How many lenses to you envision yourself using? How important is flash synch speed to you? Do you need a camera with interchangeable magazines? Do you need an SLR? Do you need fast lenses? Do you need to hand hold the camera? How large will you be printing? What films will you be using?

If you are looking for a simple good start in medium format without having to worry about all these considerations, I suggest an E-Bay or KEH Rolleicord and a high-quality CLA. You are talking no more than $100 for the camera, and perhaps $200 for a CLA (maybe less). 300 USD = approx. 170 GBP. You will be able to get used to medium format, and will have a sweetly constructed camera that will provide you with excellent results for as long as 60mm film is made. Spend your other budget on a nice darkroom setup, if you don't already have it. When you feel limited by the camera, take note of what you feel is limiting you, and start doing your research. My $0.02.

 

[bnstein]

OK I am a little confused here. You *have* RF645 from what I gather: what is wrong with it? You wonder 66 / 67 and then raise pentax: good stuff but only 645 or 67.

Biggest issue in starting MF for me was to decide am I for the square or not? If you dont know then 2F/2F has very sound advice to try TLR and see.

 

[Nick Merritt]

Hmm -- you might want to wait for this new Voigtlander Bessa III/Fuji 670 that's got so many of us a-twitter! Folding camera, switchable between 6x6 and 6x7. Cost looks to be around $1200 US; coming out early next year.

 

[Graham.b]

Hello 2F/2F, i think i got one of these kicking around the house i will try to locate it. On point of trying out MF i do have a 645 Bronie RF. I was wondering how much difference there would be in a step up to 6x6 6x7. Good point on the Rollei.

Nick i have been keeping a keen eye on these Bessa III/ 670, as i have never tried a folder.

Graham

 

[mrtoml]

There have been a few threads recently about the step up from 645 to 6x7. Maybe do a search. I think the consensus was that it makes a noticeable difference for some depending on size of enlargement and film used, but there wasn't a unanimous opinion.

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks, Graham. 6x7 certainly is sweet, and IMO noticeably more sharp and neat than 6x4.5 at the same print size (or just as sharp and neat at a larger print size). If that is what you are after, it is worth the jump. it also lets you use faster films with less grain.

You do lose some features that are great about 6x4.5, however. Fast lenses, very low cost, smaller size (in general), less mirror shake, and all this adds up to fairly easy hand holdability...but if those things aren't a issue, there is no problem.

I would not say to bother going from 6x4.5 to 6x6, unless you specifically want to print square prints. Once you crop, you end up with practically the same amount of enlargement as 6x4.5.

I am at a point where I am trying to convert to 6x7 as a 4x5 alternative for many situations, so I have similar considerations, but in reverse.

 

[Graham.b]

Hello again 2F/2F, what i thought i had is not a Rollei, it turned out to be a (Cornonet Twelve 20) Colour filter Model, made in England. The other one is a No 2 Brownie.
But the wetting has been done by your comment on differences in final print. I do not go above 20"x16". I do and can get that with the 645, but we are all ways looking for info in the final.

Regards Graham

 

[nworth]

I use both 645 and 6X9 cameras. The 645 SLR (I have an old Pentax) is great - easy to handle with all the SLR conveniences. But there is no substitute for square inches in the negative. A 6X7 gives a better picture. As for 6X6, you will usually crop the result to something close to 645. Unless there are cost or operational considerations, I would go for the more versatile 645 or the bigger 6X7 (with a bias toward the 6X7).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use both 645 and 6X9 cameras. The 645 SLR (I have an old Pentax) is great - easy to handle with all the SLR conveniences. But there is no substitute for square inches in the negative. A 6X7 gives a better picture. As for 6X6, you will usually crop the result to something close to 645. Unless there are cost or operational considerations, I would go for the more versatile 645 or the bigger 6X7 (with a bias toward the 6X7).

I compose the photograph for the format I am using. Therefore almost all my 6x6s are square. I would not crop a 6x6 to a 645 because I would be composing it for a 6x6. I compose my 135 for a 135 frame; it has been an extremely rare 135 photograph that I cropped when printing or mounting a slide to a square frame.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

If you want to know how big the difference is between a 6x4.5 and 6x7, print a 6x4.5 neg on, say, 8x10" paper, and then print the same negative on a sheet of larger paper, to a size of 10.3x12.9".
I bet you'll then wonder what people are lugging those big things around for...

 

[mrbryanmarshall]

The 645 format is great for building a system, and you will get fancy things like a light meter (and priority) and lenses that you can change quickly. if you spend more than GBP400(ish) you might even get AF... I have a Mamiya 645 Super, power winder, prism and a few lenses - great and cheap and the quality is great. If i want big (16x20) prints with little grain - use slower film. IMHO, the results are better on 6x7 or 6x9, but i think that if you are worried about the size of enlargements rather than the content of the shot then you would have to reasess your approach. i.e. will the camera do the job of getting your shot - what are you shooting? e.g. if you want fine grain, big prints of portraits shot in a studio - slow film with a 645; 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 will be fine regardless of their features (except for lens.) if you want to to take candid portraits on the fly, (or street,) a 645 Mamiya/Pentax is much more versatile and easy but you will need a more versatile film like HP5 to hanlde difficult light - IMHO.

I personally use a 4x5 in the studio for portraits/nudes and a 6x6 c220 for walking around. 4x5 for grain free enlargements (which i love) and the 6x6 for fine grain stuff, but due to the nature of shooting and subject, grain is not too much of a problemas it becomes part of the feel of the shot. Thats just me tho.

Best of luck. B

 

[weasel]

You know, I have been shooting and developing film in all formats since the late 60's, and all I can say is that a lot of the old assumptions that I used to adhere too are outdated.
The old adage that bigger is better is not always the case. Modern films are light years ahead of what we used to shoot in terms of resolution and grain. Lenses are much better.
In my own head to head testing, I find no difference between 645 and the larger medium formats that can be attributed to negative size.
I think that with any fairly modern mf camera in good repair, film choice, and technique, from shooting through to the final print, is going to have much more of an impact on image quality than the difference in film size.
YMMV