I might be done with 645 as a system

[fotch]

No viewfinder blackout either.

 

[Kyle M.]

I tried 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 not in that order. I finally settled on 6x7, 6x4.5 was just too small for me, something about 6x6 just doesn't appeal to me, and 6x9 was too close to a panorama. I like the fact that I get 10 frames with 6x7 because it's hard enough for me to go out and find 10 good shots in one day, let alone 12 or 15. Thats the main reason I don't shoot much 35mm it takes me forever to get through a roll of film.

 

[ColColt]

I like the fact that I get 10 frames with 6x7 because it's hard enough for me to go out and find 10 good shots in one day, let alone 12 or 15. Thats the main reason I don't shoot much 35mm it takes me forever to get through a roll of film.

I can identify with this. Unless you're experimenting, at about 50 cents per shot you want to make each one count and think things through more than with digital or 35mm for that matter. Unless I'm going downtown to do some street shooting it's hard to find ten good shots anywhere since I don't travel around anymore.

It takes me a good week to try and get through 24 exposures, much less 36.

 

[Kyle M.]

I can identify with this. Unless you're experimenting, at about 50 cents per shot you want to make each one count and think things through more than with digital or 35mm for that matter. Unless I'm going downtown to do some street shooting it's hard to find ten good shots anywhere since I don't travel around anymore.

It takes me a good week to try and get through 24 exposures, much less 36.

For me it's not so much the cost, I stockpile film once or twice a year when I have the extra money. It's more about the fact that I'm very picky about what I shoot and even pickier about what I post. On my old flickr I had about 150 photos before I went through my blah phase where I left photography. Of those 150 there were probably 20 or 30 really good shots and maybe 2 or 3 excellent shots. My new flickr has a whopping 23 photos on it and I've had it for almost a year, out of those 23 most of them really aren't that great.

 

[ColColt]

If I'm running a series of tests I can get through 24 exposures in a day or two, taking shots of various colored cans in the garage by bringing them outside side by side, a neighbors house or car, my dog, my gas meter, whatever, just so I can see the results quicker of whatever film/developer/dilution level I may be wanting to test. With the 6x7 it's relatively quick to do that but you have to think a bit more trying to get 24 exposures and keep notes for each shot.

Other than that, it's a while till I get through those 24 or 36 exposures. Right now I'm waiting on some sunshine and the right subject to try out some 120 PanF I just bought.

 

[Kyle M.]

If I'm running a series of tests I can get through 24 exposures in a day or two, taking shots of various colored cans in the garage by bringing them outside side by side, a neighbors house or car, my dog, my gas meter, whatever, just so I can see the results quicker of whatever film/developer/dilution level I may be wanting to test. With the 6x7 it's relatively quick to do that but you have to think a bit more trying to get 24 exposures and keep notes for each shot.

Other than that, it's a while till I get through those 24 or 36 exposures. Right now I'm waiting on some sunshine and the right subject to try out some 120 PanF I just bought.

Yes if I'm doing a test I will shoot whatever just to get the shots, but I still prefer a 24 exposure roll of film. I've had times where I'll feel like I'm in a photographic vacuum and will just walk around the backyard and the neighborhood looking for inspiration, some of my best shots have come from this. Actually I lied earlier I try my darnedest not to waste 120, wasting 35mm doesn't bother me as much because I shoot so little of it that I usually buy cheap stuff like Arista EDU Ultra and Ultrafine, or people give me their expired film. My current stock of Tri-X and FP4+ was given to me a little over a year ago by someone who was going digital, and knew for an absolute fact that no one shot film anymore because they couldn't get it developed.

 

[ColColt]

I shoot Tri-X, HP-5 and FP-4 primarily in both formats but did want to try the PanF and just ordered in 35 and 120. About the best to be expected from an exposure standpoint is 125@f5.6 on a sunny day so, a tripod will definitely be in order for the 6x7 if I need more dof than that. I found long ago I could forget trying to hand hold a 6x7 at 1/60th second with most any lens.

I'll bet that guy was in for a surprise if he though no one shot film anymore. The only film I've ever sent out for developing was color.

 

[Kyle M.]

I shoot Tri-X, HP-5 and FP-4 primarily in both formats but did want to try the PanF and just ordered in 35 and 120. About the best to be expected from an exposure standpoint is 125@f5.6 on a sunny day so, a tripod will definitely be in order for the 6x7 if I need more dof than that. I found long ago I could forget trying to hand hold a 6x7 at 1/60th second with most any lens.

I'll bet that guy was in for a surprise if he though no one shot film anymore. The only film I've ever sent out for developing was color.

I've never shot with the Pentax 6x7 but with the RB67 I can hand hold 1/60th just fine, I've managed 1/30th on the two occasions that I tried it, but I try to avoid it if at all possible. Funny thing about that is that I can rarely handhold a 35mm SLR or rangefinder at 1/30th, maybe something to do with the weight of the RB makes me steadier.

 

[Alan Gales]

I tried 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 not in that order. I finally settled on 6x7, 6x4.5 was just too small for me, something about 6x6 just doesn't appeal to me, and 6x9 was too close to a panorama. I like the fact that I get 10 frames with 6x7 because it's hard enough for me to go out and find 10 good shots in one day, let alone 12 or 15. Thats the main reason I don't shoot much 35mm it takes me forever to get through a roll of film.

That's one of the reasons I like sheet film. You can take one photo and then develop it if you want.

 

[ColColt]

That's one of the reasons I like sheet film. You can take one photo and then develop it if you want.

But, you develop a hernia sooner in life lugging that weight around.

 

[Alan Gales]

But, you develop a hernia sooner in life lugging that weight around.

That depends upon what you carry and how you carry it. I had a Tachihara 4x5 wooden folder. The kit was a lot lighter than the RZ67 outfit I had before.

I now have an 8x10 Wehman which weighs 8 pounds. I pull it around in a wheeled cordura tool bag. With a couple lenses and film holders it is heavy. Plus I carry a wooden Ries J100 tripod.

I mostly carry my feather light Fujinon X-100s. It's a good scout camera. If I get something good I can go back and shoot it with the 8x10.

 

[CropDusterMan]

6x4.5 always seemed like the red-headed step-child to me...it's medium format, but just barely.

6x6, 6x9, 6x7, now we're talking.

 

[ColColt]

I had considered at one time a Toyo 4x5 view camera but, then I got to thinking about learning how to use it with the swings, shifts, tilts, how to load and develop 4x5 sheet film, and attempt to get use to an upside down image, etc. and had second thoughts. I can see LF allure, however.

 

[mweintraub]

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.

I'm not a big fan of 3:2, so 6x9 is not that appealing. Not sure why I thought 645/4:3 would be appealing. I think it was the Mamiya 80mm 1.9 I was drooling over.

 

[klownshed]

I like squares...

 

[Sirius Glass]

6x4.5 always seemed like the red-headed step-child to me...it's medium format, but just barely.

6x6, 6x9, 6x7, now we're talking.

This should read "6x4.5 always seemed like the red-headed bastard step-child".

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like squares...

 

[paul ron]

dirty contacts? prism metering interfearing? clean them all first.

then, strip everything off n fire it as you reintroduce parts.

otherwise, buy another body for $50 if you think thats the problem?

 

[mweintraub]

I've decided to sell it. The money will go towards fixing the Pentax 6x7 or buying a replacement body for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blockend]

6 x 4.5 became popular because magazine editors wouldn't look at 35mm transparencies. Sunday Times, National Geographic, yes. Pig Breeders Monthly, definitely not. Lots of pros and semi pros worked in editorial photography for picture editors who wouldn't move their backsides to a light box and a lupe but were prepared to hold a roll film slide to window light. The format also fit magazines pretty well and was cheap enough for people who might get a handful of published shots a year.

6 x 4.5 SLRs linger in no man's land since the demise of film for publishing. If I was desperate to use the format I'd opt for a little Fuji rangefinder, and if I was sold on medium format film as a serious create tool I'd go for a Mamiya 7.

 

[ColColt]

I like the Pentax 645N. That's the one I'd go for if I were after that format. They're relatively inexpensive and if you decide it's not for you, you haven't lost much.

 

[Dismayed]

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

Nonsense. Go in the darkroom and print an 11x14 with 35mm and with 645. You'd have to be blind not to see the difference. The 645 neg is 2.7 X the area of a 35mm neg.

 

[macfred]

Nonsense. Go in the darkroom and print an 11x14 with 35mm and with 645. You'd have to be blind not to see the difference. The 645 neg is 2.7 X the area of a 35mm neg.

146 posts against 12276 ... - so what ?

btw ... - I have three 645 cameras and I love them all !

 

[ColColt]

And, 6x7 is 56 x 72 mm compared to 24x36mm-quite a difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Nonsense. Go in the darkroom and print an 11x14 with 35mm and with 645. You'd have to be blind not to see the difference. The 645 neg is 2.7 X the area of a 35mm neg.

Yes, there is a difference. A small difference that is not even beginning to make the investment in MF equipment. 645 does not compare to 6x6 and larger.