6x7 vs 645 prints

[ColColt]

I've had three of the MLU variety over the years and all were superb in reliability, function and sheer quality. I don't have any of the older Takumar lens anymore(save the 90 LS lens) but the 55,75, 90 and 165 lens are more current and just great in sharpness and contrast. I couldn't want anything better. With the exception of the 165 lens I can shoot hand held at 125 and above but below it's time for either a good monopod or tripod. the Pentax 6x7 mirror sounds like a guillotine falling...especially at slow speeds like 1/30th second.

My most "new 6x7".

P6x7 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[tomfrh]

What's the funny looking wooden grip thing all about?

Is it useful?

 

[ColColt]

Sure is-it's the only way to mount on camera flash for one thing unless you want a large funky bracket. With the speed ring around the lens you can hold the camera by that handle and focus the lens with a few fingers much easier than without it.

 

[Alan Gales]

What's the funny looking wooden grip thing all about?

Is it useful?

If you buy the 6x7 MLU, you will want the grip. My buddy doesn't use flash and he still has the grip on the camera. I added the Mamiya "L" grip on my RZ67 and it made a world of difference. They make large, heavier cameras easier to use.

 

[johnha]

I don't find the grip that useful when shooting - very good for carrying the camera around but it gets in the way of cradling the lens with my left hand (35mm style) - I don't have the speed ring though.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

I have used both Pentax formats. I find the 6x7 negatives easier to print, especially in 16x20, than the 6x4.5, and the bigger negs also show more ... hmmm ... hard to describe in words ... three-dimensional qualities, presence, mood. I find that, as the negative gets smaller, these qualities are more laborious to reproduce when printing. And the line between 645 and 67 - to me - separates small and large negs, 67 being the first of the big negatives. A well exposed and developed 6x7 prints like sheet film.
I also found the 645 to be a lot more sensitive to temperature, weather and altitude. I learned to always take my Rolleiflex as back-up, since the 645 was prone to tantrums. Not good when you are in the middle of nowhere and suddenly it decides not to work...

 

[craigclu]

I have the Pentax wood grip but tend to prefer a right hand grip. There are a number of designs. I've attached a picture of the one I use (note the bubble level). It makes the camera much easier to handle as you hold the camera in your right hand, focus with the left and also easily reach the shutter button. The little bit that I use a flash with the P67 has me using a bracket flash anyway. Remember, the Pentax handle isn't a hot shoe so you'll need connections/mounts/synch cords, etc to function with it. In a pinch, I used it in an emergency situation once and it worked just fine. Luckily, I had the odds and ends in my gear bag to rig it up quickly (not on purpose, though!). This was about 10 years ago and I'm having a slight panic attack recalling it as I only had a short time allocated to include our Wisconsin Sec of State in a shot. This stuff never happens when you're pre-checking your equipment at home.

 

[bluez]

I have a Mamiya 645 and Mamiya rb/rz 67. There is a difference, even if the prints are of the same size, the 6x7 format has a little better image quality. In the 80s and 90s in some hi-quality photography magazines i could usually spot if the camera was 6x4.5, 6x7 or 4x5" even if the difference between 6x4.5 and 6x7 wasn't that great. In B/W film type and development process might matter more than what type of medium format. One question, is it always important to have grain free and sharp pictures? For example i sometimes like portraits shoot in high ISO films in 6x4.5 format they have some grain but are still sharp.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've used the P67 for 35 years without the hand-grip, no problem, even for handheld shooting. I only bought a grip this past year because I also bought the 300 EDIF, and with my fingers starting to get arthritic, I sure as heck wouldn't want anything that cumbersome and expensive to slip out of my hand!

 

[paul ron]

but the wood grip looks so cool!

 

[tomfrh]

I like the look of those right hand grips. I tried a p67 last week (which turned out faulty) and found the flat body really uncomfortable. The ergonomics are terrible.

 

[brian steinberger]

One question, is it always important to have grain free and sharp pictures? For example i sometimes like portraits shoot in high ISO films in 6x4.5 format they have some grain but are still sharp.

Exactly! 6x4.5 is my go to rectangular format. I love how it enlarges to 11x14 and 16x20. I'm shooting HP5 and the grain and sharpness is just lovely!! It works well for my photography.

 

[wiltw]

From a purely analytic point of view (vs. actual test differences)...The 645 neg is about 43mm x 56mm, while the 6x7 neg is 56mm x 70mm, so you have about 30% more film per axis devoted to the image of the same subject from the same camera distance (assuming the FL is precisely proportional to the frame dimension, or about 86mm on 645 vs. 112mm on 6x7 so that the subject is the precise same percentage of the frame height in both photos).

• GRAIN VISIBILITY: You can enlarge to a print which is 30% taller from the 6x7 neg than from 645, and have identical grain seen in both prints from the same viewing distance -- same mag factor of the film image. So the question is "At what print size (magnification of 645 neg) do you see grain?" and at that same magnification you have similar grain but a 30% taller total print from 6x7.
  Let's start with the assumption that I see grain from 135 at 16x20" print, which is a 16.9x print.
  The 16.9x print from 645 is 28.6" tall, and 16.9x print from 6x7 is 37.3" tall, and grain will be equally visible at the same viewing distance in all three prints.
  
  
• TONALITY: You are also devoting 30% more film grains (per axis) to capture of the same subject, so your subject tonality gradation could be 30% better...each grain is limited in the range of tones, but you have more grains across the same distance...yet that might be somewhat difficult to appreciate.
  For example, assuming a grain could represent 10000 values of tones, if you have 10000 grains to reproduce the gradient that it would be better than only 1000 grains across the same subject to reproduce the same gradient. Yet a 10:1 advantage is far easier to appreciate than a 1.3:1 difference.

DETAIL RESOLUTION: The issue of lens resolution and contrast enters the discussion as well, as one would have to ASSUME that the 6x7 lens delivers a certain amount of detail resolution at a given contrast level as the 645 lens. It is difficult to find MTF charts and detail resolution quantification across different formats and we have a lot of mere speculation unless the same testing lab does the same testing and MTF graphing for all three format's lenses. So we have to let this aspect of potential difference/similarity go undiscussed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here's my personal take on it, which might be quite different from the needs of others. I primarily shoot large format, namely both 4x5 and 8x10.
Let's say I'm making a portfolio of 16x20 black and white prints. An exceptional 6x7 image will barely squeak into that company. 6x9 would be preferable (cropped to its native proportion), and 645 would probably stand out like a sore thumb. That's as big as I ever print med format b&w negs.
Once in awhile I can get a reasonable 20X24 color neg print from Ektar via 6x9, rarely 6x7. It all relative. I don't believe in any of that "normal viewing distance" nonsense. If a Chihuahua wants to run in the same pack as Rottweilers and Dobermans, it better have attitude!

 

[tomfrh]

Here's my personal take on it, which might be quite different from the needs of others

It's very interesting hearing the different takes on what is good enough!

On the one hand some people say I won't see any difference at 20", but you say a 645 looks awful at 20" compared to bigger formats.

I've set up a darkroom now, so it's time to check it out myself!

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot 645 less regularly now but would never bother moving to 67, I do shoot a lot of 6x6, I thought about it very seriously about 30 years ago but the increase in size of the negative/transparency is quite small and it's really not worth it.

The move to 5x4 is a very significant move and far more worth while

Ian

 

[Luis-F-S]

I'd stick to 6x6 for the reasons mentioned above. It's the most logical format with the best available equipment. L

 

[Tony-S]

Let's say I'm making a portfolio of 16x20 black and white prints. An exceptional 6x7 image will barely squeak into that company. 6x9 would be preferable (cropped to its native proportion), and 645 would probably stand out like a sore thumb. That's as big as I ever print med format b&w negs.
Once in awhile I can get a reasonable 20X24 color neg print from Ektar via 6x9, rarely 6x7.

I don't follow. A 6x9cm cropped to print on 16x20" or 20x24" would be exactly the same as if from a 6x7cm.

 

[Soeren]

One thing is what you can do with a perfect negative from either 4,5x6 or 6x7 another thing is which format is most likely to provide you with perfect negatives or just the best. Whats your shooting style? How much work do you put into it? How does the camera fit your hands is not using g a tripod? And which will you end up using because it's the most joyfull?

 

[Alan Gales]

One thing is what you can do with a perfect negative from either 4,5x6 or 6x7 another thing is which format is most likely to provide you with perfect negatives or just the best. Whats your shooting style? How much work do you put into it? How does the camera fit your hands is not using g a tripod? And which will you end up using because it's the most joyfull?

There is a lot of truth to what you just said.

I think my friend's Pentax 6x7 feels like a clunky overgrown 35mm camera. I don't care for it much. He of course loves the camera and absolutely hated the RZ67 I used to own. He called it a "monster" camera.

To each their own.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

While I agree with all that you also get much slower, some might say laborious, film loading and DUST, or at least heroic measures required to avoid dust.

I love shooting 4x5. I hate loading film holders and would like to banish dust from the earth, or at least my darkroom. Working on that.

I'm actually looking at getting an RB or RZ system, but I don't expect to be using it in the field much. I'm setting up a little studio setting in my basement to play around with portraiture and still lifes and envision using 6x7 for that. For field work either the 4x5 or my M645. Either is more portable than an RB or RZ.

I do have a rollfilm back for my 4x5 but the camera just isn't nearly as easy to use for something like that compared to a 6x7 SLR with WLF or even prism.

 

[Roger Cole]

From a purely analytic point of view (vs. actual test differences)...The 645 neg is about 43mm x 56mm, while the 6x7 neg is 56mm x 70mm, so you have about 30% more film per axis devoted to the image of the same subject from the same camera distance (assuming the FL is precisely proportional to the frame dimension, or about 86mm on 645 vs. 112mm on 6x7 so that the subject is the precise same percentage of the frame height in both photos).

• GRAIN VISIBILITY: You can enlarge to a print which is 30% taller from the 6x7 neg than from 645, and have identical grain seen in both prints from the same viewing distance -- same mag factor of the film image. So the question is "At what print size (magnification of 645 neg) do you see grain?" and at that same magnification you have similar grain but a 30% taller total print from 6x7.
  Let's start with the assumption that I see grain from 135 at 16x20" print, which is a 16.9x print.
  The 16.9x print from 645 is 28.6" tall, and 16.9x print from 6x7 is 37.3" tall, and grain will be equally visible at the same viewing distance in all three prints.
  
  
• TONALITY: You are also devoting 30% more film grains (per axis) to capture of the same subject, so your subject tonality gradation could be 30% better...each grain is limited in the range of tones, but you have more grains across the same distance...yet that might be somewhat difficult to appreciate.
  For example, assuming a grain could represent 10000 values of tones, if you have 10000 grains to reproduce the gradient that it would be better than only 1000 grains across the same subject to reproduce the same gradient. Yet a 10:1 advantage is far easier to appreciate than a 1.3:1 difference.

DETAIL RESOLUTION: The issue of lens resolution and contrast enters the discussion as well, as one would have to ASSUME that the 6x7 lens delivers a certain amount of detail resolution at a given contrast level as the 645 lens. It is difficult to find MTF charts and detail resolution quantification across different formats and we have a lot of mere speculation unless the same testing lab does the same testing and MTF graphing for all three format's lenses. So we have to let this aspect of potential difference/similarity go undiscussed.

In total area the 6x7 is 1.6 (and change) times larger than the 645.

The idea that it takes a 16x20 print to see grain from a 35mm negative seems bizarre, unless you are shooting a remaining supply of Tech Pan or something. Even with 100 speed films (maybe not TMX but then I never really got along with it) I can see grain from 35mm at 8x10, and smaller than that from 400 speed films. That doesn't mean it is necessarily objectionable, but I can certainly see it.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's very interesting hearing the different takes on what is good enough!

On the one hand some people say I won't see any difference at 20", but you say a 645 looks awful at 20" compared to bigger formats.

I've set up a darkroom now, so it's time to check it out myself!

Drew is...rather picky.

Either he can see differences others can't, or he's convinced himself that he can, or he really likes to see how many legs come right off when he pulls hard enough. But his advice is almost always good.

I like 16x20 prints from my 645. I think the ones from my 4x5 negatives are better though not necessarily overwhelmingly so. My 645 lenses are much better and barring a vacuum back (which I don't have nor does anyone I know) sheet film is never held nearly as flat as roll film in a modern camera. There's more to it, though. Most often I shoot with the M645 handheld, while my 4x5 negatives are ALWAYS shot from a tripod.

I would expect 6x7 to be in between but closer to 4x5. I have that 6x7 back for my 4x5 but haven't made large prints from negatives I shot in it, since I use it mainly for more affordable color shooting when I'm out with the view camera.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'd stick to 6x6 for the reasons mentioned above. It's the most logical format with the best available equipment. L

Some of us end up cropping our 6x6 negatives to rectangles much of the time. When I do that I get the same size (close enough anyway) image area from my 6x6 Yaschicamat as from my M645Pro. Of course I do leave some shots square and use the whole area.

To me the advantage of 6x6 is not having to rotate the camera. Just shoot square and crop as desired when printing. This makes a WLF (absent a rotating back like the RB/RZ which is very nice but makes the camera the size of a 7x7 camera) much nicer to use, among other things.

 

[cooltouch]

I have both systems, as well as a couple 6x6 folders and a 6x6 TLR.

My 645 is a Bronica ETRSi. I bought it at the bottom of the medium format market, some five years ago -- paid $127 for an outfit which included two backs, two lenses and a prism finder. I've since added another 120 back, a metered prism finder, a speed grip, and another lens. The ETRSi is a great system camera, IMO. I really like the fact that it uses leaf-shutter lenses and regular style film backs. It's been a great machine and has taken great photos.

Last year, I bought a Pentax 67. I've wanted one of these monsters for over 30 years, so it was more a matter of dealing with a "want" rather than with a "need." Big difference. Still, it's been a lot of fun shooting with that big thing. And I'm enjoying the fact that prices for outfit items are rather cheap right now, especially most lenses. I have three lenses, wide angle through telephoto, plus a teleconverter. I also sprang for the metered prism finder. It seems to be quite accurate, but I don't know what to think of it yet. To me, the way a meter meters a scene matters a lot to me and I suspect that this one employs just a straight averaging system. But then, so does the ETRSi's, far as that goes. I have a hand-held spot meter if I need to get more precise.

As for differences, that's a good question. I bought the Pentax 67 partly because I just like the idea of having that big 6x7 negative or slide. Quite a bit more emulsion area than a 6x4.5 sized one. An extra 2.5 x 6 = 15 cm if my math is correct, or more than 50% more area over a 6x4.5 negative or slide. That big of a difference has to matter when it comes to making enlargements, it seems to me. But in the real world, chances are the differences may be rather small.

This reminds me of a comparison I was asked to do once by a good friend of mine, who shot large format a lot. One day, he handed me a couple of 8x10 glossy B&W prints and asked me if I could tell which was taken by a 35mm and which was taken by a 4x5. I studied them for a moment then handed them back and indicated which one was taken with the 35mm. He asked how I was able to tell the difference. "The grain," I responded. And that was it -- the only difference I could detect between the two photos was that one had more pronounced grain than the other. The level of detail was the same. Now I don't recall anymore which 4x5 and which lens he used, but it was a decent outfit. As for the 35mm, it was a Leica IIIg with a collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. Ever since then, my respect for the humble old Elmar has been very high. But something else I came away with from that comparison was that, under the right circumstances, a format can perform well beyond what people give it credit for, given the right techniques and the right gear.