6x7 vs 645 prints

[tomfrh]

I have a Pentax 645n at the moment. I use it a lot, and really enjoy it. I'm going to start making b/w prints from it. Im also wondering about 6x7 cameras. I don't have one at the moment, however i plan to get one sooner or later, if only to look at bigger slides on the light box!

Regarding b/w prints, what sort of advantage do you see in practice between a 645 and a 6x7 print? At what size does the 6x7 show a decisive advantage? Eg at what size print would you be able to immediately pick one from the other in a blind side-by-side test?

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

The best answer here is obviously try it yourself and see, although that is pretty unhelpful in this case.

I'm guessing it all depends on a lot of factors, of which the following are only a few your technique (handheld, tripod, subject matter), film, enlarger and so forth.

Here begins the simplifications.

However, since an enlargement of 8x is common with 35mm (8x10" print) and is bordering too much for critical viewing (to some, YMMV!), let's say 8x is a good point to measure the different formats here.

For 6x4,5, an 8x enlargement would equal a long side of ~48 cm and a short side of ~36 cm, so roughly 40x50 (with some cropping).

For 6x7, that would be ~56 by ~48 cm so roughly 50x60 cm with some cropping.

So in case you print your 6x4,5 to 50x60 cm you'd see a slight difference against a 6x7 negative of the same subject, with the same perspective, the same film and so forth.

However, I think that these differences might be hard to notice. In case you work with a Pentax 6x7 camera, the shutter shake might reduce the resolution in the negative compared to a leaf shuttered 6x4,5 negative, etc

 

[tomfrh]

Thanks for the reply. That figure of 8x makes sense to me. I had an APS camera and I remember the prints looked worse than 35mm prints for Prints above 6x4, which corresponds to about 8x.

My mother used APS too after a long time using 35mm, and she wasn't at all troubled by the difference, so I guess you are right that it's ultimately a personal judgement ..

 

[paul ron]

at 16x20 (my max print size) you will not see any difference... I do both 6x7 n 645 on TMax film if that makes any difference in the equation.

 

[rowghani]

Very good reasoning thanks.

The best answer here is obviously try it yourself and see, although that is pretty unhelpful in this case.

I'm guessing it all depends on a lot of factors, of which the following are only a few your technique (handheld, tripod, subject matter), film, enlarger and so forth.

Here begins the simplifications.

However, since an enlargement of 8x is common with 35mm (8x10" print) and is bordering too much for critical viewing (to some, YMMV!), let's say 8x is a good point to measure the different formats here.

For 6x4,5, an 8x enlargement would equal a long side of ~48 cm and a short side of ~36 cm, so roughly 40x50 (with some cropping).

For 6x7, that would be ~56 by ~48 cm so roughly 50x60 cm with some cropping.

So in case you print your 6x4,5 to 50x60 cm you'd see a slight difference against a 6x7 negative of the same subject, with the same perspective, the same film and so forth.

However, I think that these differences might be hard to notice. In case you work with a Pentax 6x7 camera, the shutter shake might reduce the resolution in the negative compared to a leaf shuttered 6x4,5 negative, etc

 

[ic-racer]

Eg at what size print would you be able to immediately pick one from the other in a blind side-by-side test?

Any size. Because if you print them at the same magnification, the print from the 6x7 negative will always be bigger.

 

[benjiboy]

Unless you enlarge your negatives to larger than 20" X 16" on a regular basis I think it would be unwise to go to the trouble and expense and considerable extra weight to lug about 6X7 equipment for the hoped for extra image quality it may supply. Another consideration is film costs of only 10 exposure a roll on 6X7 against 15 on 6X4.5

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've decided that 4x5in is probably the largest format I can carry and set up these days. Since 6x7cm is fairly close to as much film area and because 6x7cm camera systems are fairly heavy/bulky, I'd probably opt for 6x4.5cm because bulk/weight/convenience are the only reasons I'd opt for the smaller format anyway. Also, I think there's relatively little difference in final print quality between 6x7cm and 4x5in, so downsizing to 6x4.5cm makes more sense, IMO.

OTOH, if I could still shoot 8x10in then the next logical downsize to medium format might be 6x7cm.

 

[destroya]

I have, shoot and enlarge both formats. like mentioned above if you are going to stay at or under 16x20, they are very similar in terms of grain depending on the film. tonality is also very similar. I do like enlarging 6x7 the best though as it allows me to use almost all the image frame without having to crop off some IF i want to maximize paper are in the enlargement. depending on the image taken, I can sometimes see a slight difference in the quality at 16x20 if I crop the image that would make the entire print a size that would have been larger than 16x20, but thats about it.

get a pentax 67 so you can then use the 6x7 lenses on your 645n. thats what I do. it makes taking a 2 body outfit lighter as you can use the lenses on both bodies. get the Pentax 67 to 645 lens collar if you can find it.

 

[MattKing]

When I am in the darkroom, I prefer printing from a 6x7 negative - but the difference is relatively small.

I have cameras for both formats, and 6x4.5 backs for my 6x7 camera (RB67) so obviously I am conflicted.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's all relative. I can barely squeak a 16x20 print from P67 into the same portfolio as contains 16x20's from 4x5 or 8x10. Anything less would be frustrating. I'd prefer 6x9, but often the practicality of the P67 is just what I need. It's a very nice vacation camera for when my wife doesn't want to
wait for me fiddling with something bigger, and real nice for rainy day walks when I want something easy to dry off. In the darkroom I hate any kind
of roll film. It's thin, flimsy, easily marred. Sheet film is sooooooooooooo much easier to print. But then, I'd miss a lot of nice shots if I wasn't flexible
in that respect. I sure printed a lot of 6x7 negs this winter. And despite all the hoopla about much more expensive MF camera systems, I really love
the rendering of certain P67 lenses.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Edward Weston was as married to the legacy of Pt Lobos as Ansel Adams was to Yosemite Valley, so many people here on the West Coast identify him
more with landscape photography than anything else.

 

[DREW WILEY]

oops. wrong thread. Tried to delete it.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

My use of the 6x4.5 format is restricted to my Zero Image pinhole, and seldom at that (presently the format is set to 6x9). Though now also using the 6x6 format, the 6x7 trannies coming from the Pentax 67 certainly deliver very considerable leverage when you need to impress -- and print big, very big. The huge print sizes would be the biggest advantage (this also applies to 6x6). Put your feelers out for somebody using the 6x7 format and the work they are producing, or noting you are in Sydney, get on your bike and ride down to Melbourne and meet lots of photographers using the 6x7 format! ☺

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot a Pentax 645Nll. It was great for carrying around and shooting hand held people shots at parties and such. At the same time I owned a Mamiya RZ67 which is bulky and heavy for hand held use. I shot the RZ on a tripod with studio lights. I never blew anything up larger than 11X14. Why own the RZ? Well I loved using the waist level finder and the revolving back. It's a pain flipping a 645 camera on a tripod when shooting portraits and going back and forth from portrait to landscape orientation. I also don't like peering through a viewfinder while the camera is on a tripod. I did that for a long time with a 35mm camera. I eventually sold both cameras when I started shooting large format. I use a digital camera for hand held. I've been kicking around buying another medium format camera for hand held. Maybe a TLR.

I'm just saying that there are advantages and disadvantages to each besides just negative size.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's why people shoot square 6x6 with 645 backs. They just flip the back from horizontal to vertical. But that's what we can do with view cameras too, without even having to become a "square" to do it! But ergonomics also come into play. My brother used to sell that marvelous Rollei SL66 system, and had a couple rigs of his own. But every time we went shooting together, he'd ask to borrow my Pentax 67 instead. Guess he just liked the more intuitive handling, kinda like a big 35mm SLR. Then I loaned it to him for about a decade before he passed away, since I shot exclusively large format during that era. There are pros and cons to all these systems, and in the long run, you just get comfortable with whatever you have, like an old pair of shoes that finally fits comfortably.

 

[johnha]

I shoot Mamiya 645 & P67 gear, usually shooting trannies (on the light box 6x7s look so much better) but rarely make big prints. I doubt you'll see much difference unless printing really big - 6x7 transparencies look so much better on a light box because they're much bigger but a 16x20 print would still be 16x20 in both formats.

What you shoot and the system(s) you're looking at might make a big difference. For me, the P67 (without the left-hand grip) is more ergonomic than my Mamiya 645 Pro (with prism & grip). Although bigger, it feels a lot less 'boxy' and although heavy, it feels lighter than you'd expect from looking at it.

Shooting 6x7 makes me think harder and the 10 frames take longer to shoot than the 15 I get on 645.

John.

 

[ColColt]

Back in the mid 90's I was doing weddings and portraits with the Pentax 6x7. Never was disappointment in the quality of the enlargements and neither were my clients. I carried two bodies, both loaded with 220. When my on tripod camera ran out of film the assistant passed me another body loaded with the same 220 film while he loaded the spent one. 16x20 and 20x24 were exquisite.

 

[rwreich]

I think you see a great difference, though not necessarily in the size of the print, but rather in the character of the rendering. I have a Pentax 645 that is really fun and easy to use. My RB67 is a much more deliberate process. When I print, though, the end-result is that I feel slightly more satisfied with the 67's unique quality. Only thing left is to start investing in large format.

 

[xtolsniffer]

This is an interesting discussion for me. I use an RB67, which I love, though it is a bit of a beast to carry around. I recently started using a Mamiya C220f, limiting myself to an 80mm and 55mm lenses. It's much more portable and I have the option of 6x6 or cropping the image to landscape or portrait. I've yet to print large (I can do up to 12"x16") so not sure how the images will compare to those from 6x7. I use HP5 mostly.

 

[craigclu]

I shoot and print from 35 to 4X5. I'm always surprised at what can be wrung out of 35 and 645, detail-wise. The larger negatives (6x7 and up) produce nicer tonal transitions and are more pleasing to my eye, though. As the format size goes up, I think there are some diminishing returns in resolution advantage from equipment bulk/handling, optics challenges, film flatness control, etc that allow the smaller formats to compare quite well in overall detail rendered. Even the best techniques don't allow the smaller formats to compare in tonal rendition, at least with my skill set!

 

[Alan Gales]

Like I said earlier, I had an RZ outfit. I had the 50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm lenses. All that added to a lot of weight. You can get a 4x5 wooden folder and 3 lenses and that kit would be a lot lighter if you want to backpack or hike trails. You might want to keep your Pentax and add a 4X5 instead of 6x7. With the 4x5 you get a larger negative, the ability to develop each negative separately, and most important you get camera movements.

 

[tomfrh]

I just sold my 4x5 kit actually. I haven't been using it lately as I have a young family, and I didn't want to hoard it while someone could be enjoying it.

I'll keep using the Pentax 645n for the time being, as I love this system, With a view to getting a 67 in future.

Regarding Pentax 67s, I see there is a big price range across the various incarnations. Is there a good value one? Eg the equivalent of a Pentax 645n?

 

[Alan Gales]

There were 4 models of Pentax 6x7 cameras, 6x7, 6x7 (MLU), 67 and 67ll. MLU stands for mirror lock up. Here is a comparison chart: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...entax-6x7-pentax-67-pentax-67ii-compared.html

I have never shot one myself but a buddy of mine owns the 6x7 (MLU) and loves it. Whatever you get, I'd skip the first version without mirror lock up.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shoot the MLU's. Since these are themselves getting old, one wants to be certain the light and dust seals are either in good shape or get replaced.
The cameras in general are very durable and prized for their reliability. Mirror lockup is pretty much necessary for exposures below 1/125 sec, when
the mirror slaps. The newer P67 II has certain added features which I do not personally need, and you'll obviously pay way more for one of those
simply because they are relatively recent. Newer generation lenses tend to be excellent optically. A few of the old Takumars are so-so. But overall,
with the exception of a couple of the very latest lens designs like the 75/2.8 and 300EDIF, the entire system is a real bargain at the moment.