major difference between 6x7 and 645

[Photo Engineer]

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?

Re #1, SMART!!!!! Ok, so I spelled it wrong.

Re #3. These may have existed but were in no catalog or literature that I ever found, and I amassed a lot of data on the entire Bronica series.

The two most important? The weight and the weight!

My wife and I carried an RB and lenses all over the place on hikes at one time. No more.

I should also mention that the Bronica takes 2x more photos per roll, which gives me a lot of shots per shoot with that less weight.

PE

 

[k_jupiter]

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.

Unfortunately true. The Nikon sits.

 

[polyglot]

If you regularly shoot ISO400 on your 6x7, you'll probably find that you get the same quality from ISO100 on 645. But then, it's pretty damn hard to beat Acros or TMX in 6x7...

 

[David Nardi]

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.

I agree with Thomas. 30x40 is about the limit I go with 645 so a 20x24 is no sweat for this format. I use a Mamiya 645E and use it when 4x5 or 8x10 is impractical.

 

[David Brown]

I think there are other variables to be considered. I have and use the RB67, a Mamiya 645, a Fuji GS645, and the Mamiya TLR system. Prior to owning the RB, I used a Kowa 6.

The RB is my "serious" camera. Always on a tripod, and with interchangeable backs, I use it much like others use sheet film. (other than the individual sheet development). Second, though, is the Fuji. Usually used handheld, it yields negatives very comparable in most prints from the RB. It just has a different "look". However, I'll take the Fuji places I won't bother with the RB.

They are all tools, and you have to use the one that's comfortable for you to use and meets your needs. Size, weight, lens selection (or not - see: Fuji) and shooting style all figure in.

A carefully exposed and processed negative from 645 can be beautiful. In fact, I am having good enough luck with T-grain films in 645, I've started to shoot some in 35mm just "to see"! YMMV

 

[Noble]

Re #3. These may have existed but were in no catalog or literature that I ever found, and I amassed a lot of data on the entire Bronica series.

Should have tried Google and ebay. They pop up for sale more often than you would think.

And as was mentioned they were available in multiple mounts. You can find one for your Rollei 6008 here.

 

[cjbecker]

Wish they had one for the hasselblad!

 

[Photo Engineer]

When I bought the Bronica, there was no Google or E-Bay. My last purchases were the 500 mm lens and 2x telextender.

I've gotten some beautiful shots at 1000 mmm, and a lot of questions because the total lens set reaches nearly to my toes.

PE

 

[cjbecker]

I want to see a pic of that setup. Haha

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

6x7 negs/trannies are 400% bigger than 35mm; in the 645 format, a little smaller, but still a whopping improvement. At printing, there will be no discernible difference, save only for any faults introduced by you e.g. exposure errors, focusing off, etc.

There is an endemic quality of imaging at for either of the MF sizes (including 6x6 and slight variations) and print quality will be uniformly excellent, in terms of viewing to whatever size you desire (currently I'm printing at 81x61cm).

 

[sbjornda]

I personally don't have much use for 645. It's not different enough from 35mm. My 16MP digital can already print a 20x24" just as well as my 6x7; but I can hold my 6x7 transparencies up to the light and people go "oooh", whereas the 645 and 35mm transparencies just make them squint.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Bottom Line

If you are interested in very smooth tonal gradations of grayscale, and if you are interested in as little grain as possible, you should carry the largest format camera around that you are able to carry, and you are able to use with as few limitations as possible to what you wish to achieve.

If you are interested in only getting a good picture, you carry around the camera that you are intimately familiar with, and don't give a dime whether there is grain in the picture or not, because you know that for most purposes, even 35mm will be more than good enough with super careful processing and printing.

Likely you're somewhere in between, or maybe even do both side by side. Then you have to compromise.

There IS a difference between 645 and 67. No question about it. You will get 'better' print quality from a 67 negative. The real question is how much that really matters to you, and whether you're prepared to only get half the photographs in the same amount of film, and if the extra bulk doesn't bother you.
You COULD purchase something like a Fuji or Mamiya rangefinder and shoot 6x7 with a camera that is very light, portable, and extremely capable.

Good luck with your choice. Whatever you pick, make sure it meets your demands for portability, picture quality, shooting speed, etc.

 

[Noble]

Wish they had one for the hasselblad!

Lol! No you don't. The one that sold last month went for $1,800 for the Bronica mount. The Rollei mount costs $2,500... I assume because of all the automation.

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.

What is strange is if you have the money with a little bit of patience they pop up on eprey on a regular basis. I guess lenses like that don't get mistaken for junk and thrown out. There are at least three available for sale at the moment. A couple of Bronicas and a Rollei mount.

When I bought the Bronica, there was no Google or E-Bay.

I guess that's the good thing about coming late to the party. I assume I know nothing and research like crazy. I've known about that lens for almost a decade though. Pretty much ever since I started looking. There are all kinds of weird things that were manufactured for medium format cameras.

 

[lxdude]

When I bought the Bronica, there was no Google or E-Bay. My last purchases were the 500 mm lens and 2x telextender.

I've gotten some beautiful shots at 1000 mmm, and a lot of questions because the total lens set reaches nearly to my toes.

PE

You'll get better pictures pointing it another direction.

 

[lxdude]

Lol! No you don't. The one that sold last month went for $1,800 for the Bronica mount. The Rollei mount costs $2,500... I assume because of all the automation.

Or because they can get that much.

From what I have heard, the T/S for ETR cost new something over ten grand. I'm surprised Bronica didn't offer it in SQ mount, as it was offered for other 6X6 cameras.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Noble]

Or because they can get that much.

I guess I wasn't clear. That $2,500 was an eprey price. I haven't actually seen one trade at that level. Even if I did all you did was restate the price/demand equilibrium where as I was trying to ascertain the drivers of demand.

And it appears my initial count was wrong. There appear to be no less than three Schneider PCS lenses in the Rollei mount trading on eprey. That doesn't include the two Rolleigon PCS lenses for the Rollei mount.

Very interesting.

From what I have heard, the T/S for ETR cost new something over ten grand.

And those came out llloooonnngggg time ago. Lord knows what they would be in today's dollars. I wonder what one would to with such a contraption to make it worth it vs large format back in the day?

 

[wiltw]

I had seen the Schneider 55mm PCS in Bronica E mount at swap meets, offered by one guy for a number of years, at the asking price of $5500 back in the early 90's.
I had always wondered what appeal for a relatively small AOV of 55mm, considering the availability of 24mm shift lens from Olympus, 28mm shift from Nikon; While wider AOV than 35mm shift lenses from both Nikon and Canon, it didn't seen to provide the coverage for architectural work that could be had with a lot less expense with Olympus or Nikon!
It was far cheaper for me to buy a large format rig than spend $5500 for a used lens for my ETRSi.