major difference between 6x7 and 645

[stradibarrius]

I know the obvious, that the 6x7 is a larger negative that a 645 but when it comes to prints is there an obvious difference in the results? I really love RB67 but ther are time I wish I had something like a 645 with a speed winder so I could use it like a large 35mm.

 

[Mark Fisher]

At smaller enlargements, I doubt you'd see a difference. Anyone who uses a Hasselblad and has a rectangular picture has essentially shot 645. I think the bigger difference will be the difference between handheld and tripod.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not a huge jump, I like the 645 format and used it extensively. In terms of print quality you'd need to look closely to see the difference and the portability and easy of use makes the smaller 645 camera greatb to use.

Back in 1986 I looked at moving up to an RB76 from my Mamiya 645s and in the end decided as I nearly always used a tripod I'd shoot 5x4 instead - similar weight etc.

Ian

 

[Toffle]

I've had a Bronica GS-1 for several years now, and I really like it. I don't shoot 645, so I don't really have anything to compare it to. One of the first things I did was remove the speed grip and swap the bulky prism for a WLF. Shooting at waist level, this is a great camera hand-held. Nonetheless, I do do most of my shooting with a tripod. The GS-1 is not meant for portrait orientation, but for me that is not a problem. For me, the biggest drawback of 6x7 is negative storage. One roll of 120 will not fit on a single page; pretty minor, I admit, but it is irksome.

One other thing... the shutter kicks like a shotgun (and is nearly as loud... don't use it at political rallies) so you'll want to use the mirror lock-up - but not shooting hand-held. :confused: Someone, er... told me about that. Wasn't me. Never happened.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Barry,

To me, the big jump is from 35mm to MF. As Mark notes above, prints using standard paper sizes typically have similar enlargment whether from 4.5 x 6(full frame) or 6 x 6, but 6 x 7 negatives do have a bit of an edge over the smaller formats, especially those from my Fuji 6 x 7 RF with its absolutely terrific lens. Right now, I keep being tempted in the opposite direction from you. The Bronica 4.5 x 6 camera has a definite appeal; someday the GAS syndrome will become too strong, and I will probably yield to it.

Konical

 

[stradibarrius]

Thanks for the responses. What I would really like to have is a Fuji folding 6x7. It shoots 6x6 or 6x7 and folding up would really be nice!

 

[revdocjim]

If you are planning to stick with Mamiya for 645, the Pro TL is a sweet system I enjoy a lot; the lenses are plentiful and cheap; and with the speed winder and metered prism finder it is a very user friendly system. Just don't forget to make sure the lens switch is on "A"!

 

[Andre Noble]

With 6x7 B&W you can have a sloppy negative (slightly out of focus, grainy, slightly underexposed, etc.) and still pull a very nice looking 8x10.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Barry,

"What I would really like to have is a Fuji folding 6x7."

Amen! If only it didn't cost as much as about half of my annual property tax bill.

Konical

 

[cjbecker]

I see a difference between 645 and 67 at small enlargements, the smoothness is the major factor for me. But saying that I shoot a hasselblad.

 

[MattKing]

I use both an RB67 and Mamiya 645 Pro.

The advantages of the RB67 are:

1) larger negatives/transparencies, with all the inherent resolution, detail and "tonality" that results;
2) rotating back that makes use with a waistlevel finder or chimney finder simple and easy;
3) leaf shutters on all the lenses;
4) lenses that have contrast and resolution characteristics that I particularly like to print from;
5) common filter size (77mm) across all my lenses;
6) 6 x 4.5 backs that give me the option to take and project slides in my projector; and
6) a hand grip with built in shutter release that works for me.

The advantages of the 645 pro:

a) negatives/transparencies that are large enough to assure excellent resolution, detail and "tonality";
b) when used with a grip and prism finder, reasonably easy to use in either portrait or landscape orientation;
c) reasonably small and light, when used with a prism finder. Lenses and accessories also reasonably small and light;
d) good metering results with a metering finder;
e) inexpensive and plentiful used film backs and inserts;
f) slides that will work with my medium format projector!;
g) a roll of 6 x 4.5 negatives or slides will fit in a single Printfile negative/transparency sheet, without any orphan leftovers; and
h) a hand grip with built in shutter release and hot shoe that works for me.

 

[Heywoodphoto]

You should try the Pentax 67 system. It basically handles just like a giant 35mm camera and the optics are excellent. You can get a system for a fairly low price too.

 

[DanielStone]

I sold my 645 system(Pentax 645nII) but have been shooting some 35mm recently, and in all honesty, there is a HUGE jump in the quality and "draw" compared to using 645, much less 6x7. Almost to the point that I've considered selling my Nikon system and going back to a Mamiya 645AF or something like that and leaving the "miniature format" stuff to the digit@l realm entirely...

That said, I also use a GX680 kit, and despite it being heavy and bulky, the lenses are stupendous, and absurdly sharp even wide open.
And the 3x4 ratio(same as 645) is nice too.

-Dan

 

[jadphoto]

What's your normal print size? That's an important consideration.

I have worked with both 645 (Mamiya) and 6x7 (Mamiya and Pentax) and in my opinion 6x7 is a lot closer to 4x5 than 645 is to 6x7.

Even in 11x14 the difference is noticeable, not that 11x14s from a (really good) 645 negative are all that bad.

I once had a client change the specs on a location shoot at the last minute from wanting a series of 16x20s to wanting some 16x20s and a 5x7 (feet!) enlargement. I had left my 4x5 at home (200 miles away) and only had my RB67, called my lab, they said no sweat, they made the print and it was beautiful. Happy client and one totally amazed photographer. And this was on Kodak CPS!!!

JD

 

[Photo Engineer]

Reading Matt's reply I can add that I have an ETrsi and an RZ67. Both have nearly the same features such as leaf shutters. There are two big differences to me:

1. ETrsi has a smart connection for flash. The RZ does not unless you can get special adapter modules.
2. The RZ is a LOT heavier.
3. The RZ has the tilt and swing lens.
4. The RZ has a compensation scale on the side and can do closeups more easily.

Otherwise, I find that they have very similar features and the negatives print up to 16x20 from both with good quality given the same film and process.

PE

 

[lxdude]

I've had a Bronica GS-1 for several years now

One other thing... the shutter kicks like a shotgun (and is nearly as loud...

I assume you mean the mirror?

 

[lxdude]

Reading Matt's reply I can add that I have an ETrsi and an RZ67. Both have nearly the same features such as leaf shutters. There are two big differences to me:

1. ETrsi has a spart connection for flash. The RZ does not unless you can get special adapter modules.
2. The RZ is a LOT heavier.
3. The RZ has the tilt and swing lens.
4. The RZ has a compensation scale on the side and can do closeups more easily.

Otherwise, I find that they have very similar features and the negatives print up to 16x20 from both with good quality given the same film and process.

PE

RE #1: A spart connection?

RE #3: The ETR series did have a tilt/shift lens. Made by Schneider, it's named Zenzanon-PE Super Angulon 55mm f4.5 PCS. Not a lot of them out there. The same Schneider lens is in some other MF mounts also.
BTW, which two of the four are the big differences?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Personally I don't see a need to get a bigger negative (and camera) if you print 16x20 or maybe even 20x24. If you stand more than three feet away from the print, you're not likely to spot much difference. It depends a little on what film you use.
A properly exposed and processed negative in 645 format will yield a virtually grain free 16x20s. Heck, shooting Acros/Xtol in 35mm I get almost grain free 16x20s; you'd have to press your eye up against the print surface to see it.

My advice - In interest of the pictures themselves, you're best off shooting the camera that feels the most natural in your hands and fits into your work flow best. Unless you like to look at your prints with a loupe. Those are my two cents.

 

[cliveh]

Sorry to go off topic of original post, but the question made me think of it and perhaps also not applicable to APUG. But wouldn't a 35mm size d*g*t*l with a shift lens of the correct focal length be able to take multiple shots of a static subject and join them up to give a large format equivalent?

 

[cjbecker]

^ no ^

Haha just joking.

 

[Toffle]

I assume you mean the mirror?

You assume correctly. I misspoke. I stand corrected.

 

[Alan Gales]

I sold my 645 system(Pentax 645nII) but have been shooting some 35mm recently, and in all honesty, there is a HUGE jump in the quality and "draw" compared to using 645, much less 6x7. Almost to the point that I've considered selling my Nikon system and going back to a Mamiya 645AF or something like that and leaving the "miniature format" stuff to the digit@l realm entirely...

That said, I also use a GX680 kit, and despite it being heavy and bulky, the lenses are stupendous, and absurdly sharp even wide open.
And the 3x4 ratio(same as 645) is nice too.

-Dan

I did that and don't regret it. I sold my pair of Contax 167 MT's and my 5 Zeiss lenses and put the money towards my 8x10 outfit since the 35mm outfit had sat unused for a couple years.

I found that between my DSLR and my Hasselblad, I really don't need a 35mm camera.

 

[Klainmeister]

Personally I don't see a need to get a bigger negative (and camera) if you print 16x20 or maybe even 20x24. If you stand more than three feet away from the print, you're not likely to spot much difference. It depends a little on what film you use.
A properly exposed and processed negative in 645 format will yield a virtually grain free 16x20s. Heck, shooting Acros/Xtol in 35mm I get almost grain free 16x20s; you'd have to press your eye up against the print surface to see it.

My advice - In interest of the pictures themselves, you're best off shooting the camera that feels the most natural in your hands and fits into your work flow best. Unless you like to look at your prints with a loupe. Those are my two cents.

What he said. I develop 35mm Acros in Pyrocat and Xtol and so far 11x14 are sharp and without any grain...quite remarkable really. That being said, a MF neg has more fine details, which can have a dramatic effect on the overall image/composition.

 

[Heywoodphoto]

Sorry to go off topic of original post, but the question made me think of it and perhaps also not applicable to APUG. But wouldn't a 35mm size d*g*t*l with a shift lens of the correct focal length be able to take multiple shots of a static subject and join them up to give a large format equivalent?

Sigh... I suppose in the same way a synthesizer can be made to sound like a grand piano. It sounds fairly close to the average listener but is an entirely different experience for the musician.

 

[RattyMouse]

This thread has me thinking that I should drop my lust for a Fuji GF670 and just shoot my GA645 happily.