I might be done with 645 as a system

[Alan Gales]

That is because square is the perfect format.

What about round?

 

[DannL.]

I thought the early Kodak's round image was the cat's meow. Drrrrrr.

 

[cowanw]

Well, I did go from Contax 35mm to 120, but I feel the Contax 645 is film camera perfection. it handles like an extension of me!
So naturally it gets discontinued just as I buy into it.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Reading your post, you suggest that there is something wrong with the camera and/or lens (or the interface thereof). I don't see how the format comes into the equation when the camera/lens is malfunctioning.

A few other points.
Square may be referred to as "the perfect format". But it is not the ideal format. That belongs to something a little bigger!
6x7 is much bigger than 645. And 400% bigger than 35mm (just in case you were curious...).
6x7 cameras are usually BIG too. But not universally. Get a Pentax 67 and modern SMCP lens assortment and discover real quality in imaging.

 

[ColColt]

Get a Pentax 67 and modern SMCP lens assortment and discover real quality in imaging.

Amen-that's one camera that just clicked with me. I wanted something I was use to and a big SLR was the ticket. Moreover, the best quality imagines I ever had before...or since. After all, it's the largest roll film negative you can get before going to 4x5 format. Enough said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What about round?

Round is not the perfect format. Square is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

645 it too close the 35mm to be worth the effort.

 

[mweintraub]

Reading your post, you suggest that there is something wrong with the camera and/or lens (or the interface thereof). I don't see how the format comes into the equation when the camera/lens is malfunctioning.

A few other points.
Square may be referred to as "the perfect format". But it is not the ideal format. That belongs to something a little bigger!
6x7 is much bigger than 645. And 400% bigger than 35mm (just in case you were curious...).
6x7 cameras are usually BIG too. But not universally. Get a Pentax 67 and modern SMCP lens assortment and discover real quality in imaging.

I wasn't saying that because the camera/lens is giving me problems that I don't like the format anymore. I'm saying that since I don't use the camera/format enough and it's giving me problems, I might sell it and abandoned 645 as a system.

I already have a Pentax 6x7, that has issues at 1/500 and 1/250, and I love it. I was thinking of selling the ETRSi to fund the CLA of the P6x7 and get another lens or two. I already have the RZ67 and love that even more.

ETA: What I liked about the ETRSi is the small form factor and the leaf shutter. I'll have to invest in some LS lenses for the Pentax.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, well if the Pentax 67 was of a smaller form so it is easier for a person with small hands to wrangle, I'd probably love it more.
It's often said that if the shutter speeds of the 67 are off, it can be caused by leaving the shutter cocked on a selected shutter speed (other than T or B) for an extended period of time. It's good to have a camera that has a few idiosyncrasies -- though not so many to put me off!

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[mweintraub]

Yes, well if the Pentax 67 was of a smaller form so it is easier for a person with small hands to wrangle, I'd probably love it more.
It's often said that if the shutter speeds of the 67 are off, it can be caused by leaving the shutter cocked on a selected shutter speed (other than T or B) for an extended period of time. It's good to have a camera that has a few idiosyncrasies -- though not so many to put me off!

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

I have small hands and love the Pentax. Similarly I like the larger SLRs compared to the smaller form factors.

I never heard that about the shutters. I'll see what I"m doing.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I leave the shutter speed dial in Pentaximus set to B (the mode I use by default when shooting at extended time values). A similar quirk applies to the leaf shutter lenses during storage -- release the diaphragm prior to storage, or as the caution label for my 165LS states:

"SMC Pentax 67 165mm f4 LS
Before storing this lens, release and close the leaf shutter to remove tension from springs. Push down on lever at rear of lens with the lens set to LS mode."

This also applies to the 90mm LS lens.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[wiltw]

645 it too close the 35mm to be worth the effort.

I look at it from a different point of view. If we compare frame width:

1. 4x5 sheetfilm (93mm wide) vs. 6x7 (55mm wide) is 1.7x improvement in frame width
2. 645 (43mm wide) vs. 135 (24mm) is 1.79x improvement in frame width.

Just how many people think sheet film is 'not worth it' improvement over 6x7 ?! So why is 645 'not worth it' over 135, when it is a larger improvement?

 

[Alan Gales]

Round is not the perfect format. Square is.

Ever print triangles?

 

[frank]

645 it too close the 35mm to be worth the effort.

I totally disagree with this. I usually print to rectangular 8x10 with my Hasselblad (so 645 equivalent) and it blows away 35mm printed to 8x10.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I look at it from a different point of view. If we compare frame width:

1. 4x5 sheetfilm (93mm wide) vs. 6x7 (55mm wide) is 1.7x improvement in frame width
2. 645 (43mm wide) vs. 135 (24mm) is 1.79x improvement in frame width.

Just how many people think sheet film is 'not worth it' improvement over 6x7 ?! So why is 645 'not worth it' over 135, when it is a larger improvement?

A lot of people. I look at what can be done with print size, rather than format.
In fact the resolution gain in large format over medium format is very modest, at best. Certainly not stellar. Consider that the maximum enlargement size from 5x4 before viewing quality is compromised is 1.6m x 2m (if you can find a darkroom printing that big, good for you). For all practical purposes, it is only a small amount less than that maximum than for 6x7! I have no wall space left for monster prints now. Ultra-large format is another matter, but it is questionable to invest in LF and only print postcard size prints as so many people strangely do. Fill a room with a print!

 

[TenSpeed]

Well, lenses technically. But 645 is not something I first think to grab off the shelf. Would that change if I had a Contax 645? I don't know.

if i had a contax 645, i know it would be my main camera for awhile

such a nice camera, just so expensive

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, lenses technically. But 645 is not something I first think to grab off the shelf. Would that change if I had a Contax 645? I don't know.

my format uncertaincies were over after going 6x6.Thay way, I can catch all and cancrop in the darkroom to taste.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I was done with 645 before I even started. I stayed with 6x6 in MF.

because you're smart

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What about round?

It's getting increasingly tough to get paper in that shape

 

[hsandler]

I had an ETRSi system and generally liked it. At the time, I found composing to fill the 4:3 aspect ratio seemed to suit me. I loved the waist-level finder, and that was the problem. For practical verticals, I had to mount the prism finder, although I did shoot the occasional vertical looking sideways into the WLF. I also did not have an L-bracket to put it vertically on my tripod, so I resorted to flopping the camera on the ball-head over on its side for verticals, which was not very stable.

For these reasons, I changed to an SQ-A system. Even though the SQ-A is a bit bigger, when you consider that you don't really need to carry a prism finder, speed grip or heavy duty tripod, it actually is a more portable kit. I originally intended to mainly crop the squares to rectangles in post-processing, but my tendency is to fill the viewfinder as I see the scene, so I've grown to like making square photos.

 

[mweintraub]

I had an ETRSi system and generally liked it. At the time, I found composing to fill the 4:3 aspect ratio seemed to suit me. I loved the waist-level finder, and that was the problem. For practical verticals, I had to mount the prism finder, although I did shoot the occasional vertical looking sideways into the WLF. I also did not have an L-bracket to put it vertically on my tripod, so I resorted to flopping the camera on the ball-head over on its side for verticals, which was not very stable.

For these reasons, I changed to an SQ-A system. Even though the SQ-A is a bit bigger, when you consider that you don't really need to carry a prism finder, speed grip or heavy duty tripod, it actually is a more portable kit. I originally intended to mainly crop the squares to rectangles in post-processing, but my tendency is to fill the viewfinder as I see the scene, so I've grown to like making square photos.

Pretty much this. (and 6x7, love me some 6x7).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was done with 645 before I even started. I stayed with 6x6 in MF.

because you're smart

It runs in the family.

 

[nosmok]

What, no love for 6x9 here? I'll chime in with it. Twice 6x4.5, almost 33% bigger than 6x7, 50% bigger than 6x6. Plus 6x9 cameras are not a huge amount bigger than 6x6 or 6x4.5. And I just find squares awkward to frame in. My favorite format so far. Although in my project box is the world's smallest 6x4.5 (it's 127 film) waiting to be put back together.

 

[fotch]

my format uncertaincies were over after going 6x6.Thay way, I can catch all and cancrop in the darkroom to taste.

Useful for those who cannot make up their mind. Although you can still do the same even with 6x7 or 6x9, that is, crop.

 

[Alan Gales]

Useful for those who cannot make up their mind. Although you can still do the same even with 6x7 or 6x9, that is, crop.

A lot of wedding photographers liked 6x6 because they could make their mind up later about cropping. They also liked that they never had to flip the camera on it's side for portrait orientation like you do with a 645. Shooting 6x6 is also a lot less cumbersome than shooting 6x7.

I like to tease Sirius Glass but sometimes 6x6 is the perfect format.