Is the Extra 50% Worth It?

[Tom Hoskinson]

Carts?

Been there, tried that, PITA! Sticking with my backpack. I'm only carrying my 8x10 kit. About 27 pounds, tops.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would add to my previous post that if printing below 16x12 there is little point in going from 645 to 6x7. I can imagine that in colour, the difference is less pronounced compared to mono where grain and the half tone effect is more of a factor. As some have previously stated the 35-645 jump is far greater than 645-67.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The additional weight and bulk of a Mamiya RZ 67 over
that of a Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5, or SQ for that matter:
Does that additional weight and bulk justify when
print quality is the standard?


The choice is difficult. MY Mamiya lenses may be less sharp
than my Bronica lenses at Near wide open aperatures. That
be the case and working at near wide open the RZ's 50%
additional negative means nothing, or worse.

I'm sure others have wrestled with this problem.
Which has won? Dan

Sounds like you have both. So it should be what ever works for the situation.

I have both. To me the RZ is too big for off tripod use in the quick and easy way the ETRSI is. If I want a big rollfilm negative handheld my 6x9 is the choice. The ETRSI is also smarter then my RZ. It does fill flash with the TTL in it's sleep. It does a fairly good job with the metering prism. Adding the motor makes it pretty close to an overgrown 35mm auto camera. At times that is useful.


The RZ lives on the tripod almost 100% of the time. I can see it with the 110mm or shorter off but to me it seems a strange choice for handheld choice. At what point do you lose all the gain from the bigger negative to the handholding?

I'm not exactly scrawny. I can deadlift twice my bodyweight. But I'd rather handhold the Bronica then the RZ.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

yes, I would rather handhold the ETRSi over the RZ too! Its not about weight in absolute terms, but comfort. Why heave and sweat and feel the weight after a day of hiking if you dont have to!

 

[Q.G.]

Both the 6x7 and 6x4.5 negatives are very close to the
4x5 ratio. A 6x7 measuring 56mm x 70mm has an exact
4x5 ratio. A 6x4.5 measuring 44mm x 55mm has an
exact 4x5 ratio.

My 6x7 negatives measure 56mm x 69mm and my
6x4.5 negatives measure 42.5mm x 55mm. So, printing
full negative the 6x7 has 66% more negative area, not
100%. As said both have ratios very nearly 4x5. The
square format actually does a little better as a full
44mm is available. Dan

It has become my new hobby, so i'll add to this here too by pointing out that the difference between a 6x7 image and a 6x4.5 image is a factor of about 1.2 - 1.3.
So make a print from your favourite negative (doesn't matter what format or camera was used to take it), make a print of the same negative that is 1.3x larger, compare the prints, and behold the reason why you should or should not want to haul a heavy 6x7 camera around rather than a smaller and lighter 6x4.5.
If you think the difference in quality is significant, you need the 6x7. If not, pick the one that's more convenient.

I think i know what the choice will be...