New to medium format. Help needed!

[Mark J]

The comments are coming from people who have used a number of different medium format cameras over many years.
I will just clarify that 6 x 4.5 cm tends to require slower films up to 100 iso to get the MF benefit, whereas with 6x7 or 6x9 there is more flexibility with film choice.
I agree that 6x6 is its own scene, where you need to like the square format, otherwise 6 x 4.5 is more logical.

 

[Hassasin]

The comments are coming from people who have used a number of different medium format cameras over many years.
I will just clarify that 6 x 4.5 cm tends to require slower films up to 100 iso to get the MF benefit, whereas with 6x7 or 6x9 there is more flexibility with film choice.
I agree that 6x6 is its own scene, where you need to like the square format, otherwise 6 x 4.5 is more logical.

I have used every MF format there is, 645 is a huge benefit over 35 mm. And no, you do not need 100 ISO film to get that. Apples to apples got to be compared.

 

[Pieter12]

There are square format SLRs that can take 645 backs, some that even rotate so shooting vertically is not a major contortion (sometimes working on a tripod with a prism finder can alleviate that, of course).

If the viewfinder has the appropriate guides, it is simple to compose for 645, even if you're shooting 6x6. Major bonus--you get square plus both horizontal and vertical cropping options when you go to print.

I personally love the square format and crop everything that way, including 4x5, 6x7 and 35mm. Except 617 panoramas.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have used every MF format there is, 645 is a huge benefit over 35 mm. And no, you do not need 100 ISO film to get that. Apples to apples got to be compared.

Yes.

645 is just over 3 times the area of 35mm.
6x6 is just over 4 times.
6x7 is just under 5 times.
6x9 is just over 6 times.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

645 is just over 3 times the area of 35mm.

No it isn't, quite. If the image dimensions were 6 and 4.5 cm, the area ratio would be (60 * 45 /24 /36 ) = 3.125, but those are only approximate dimensions.

The problem here is that the 120 film was specified in inches. The '6x4.5' image is actually more like 2¼x1⅝ inch, or 58 mm x 41.5 mm; my Mamiya 645 Pro instructions even say 56 x 41.5 mm

If the long dimension is 58mm, the area is 2.79 times that of 35mm, not 3. (for my Mamiya the ratio's only 2.69).

I'm confident the frame of my Yashicamat is about 58mm: that gives an area ratio of 3.9

The instructions for the RZ67 give its image as 56x69.5mm; that gives a ratio of 4.5; if the image was 58mm tall it would be 4.67.

'6x9' is actually 2¼x3¼ inches in most cameras; 58x83mm, giving an area ratio of 5.57


But what people are saying is true. Medium format, even at the bottom end, gives you a usefully bigger negative. At the same time, those 645 cameras still have some of the portability of the 35mm SLR, and in some conditions you can sensibly use them hand-held with a prism and a grip.

 

[OAPOli]

Ok so after having read everything (thanks again for all the answers) I think that for me the main interest of the 120 is the result of the pictures. More detailed and therefore with the possibility of making large prints.

That being said, I will not go towards Hasselblad since many of you mentioned the fact that it may jammed from time to time, and may not be suitable to a beginner anyway.

Regarding the format, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9... It is kind of a mystery to me since I am not exactly sure what impact it will have for me at the end of the day. But I take that 6x6 is the most common out there. So I think that before choosing a model, I might need some insights about the format because I am sure that there is more to understand than what I can gather on the net.

An advantage of 6x6 (and reflex cameras) is the WLF. It saves a lot of weight vs. a prism. In terms of composition I suggest you take a look at some galleries on flickr. 6x6 will look perfectly natural, but so will all the other aspect ratios. There is no huge impact.

 

[GregY]

Medium format offers many choices. My favourites have been the ones that are really portable: Mamiya 6MF, Plaubel Makina at the top of the list. If you use a tripod a lot Hasselbads and Mamiya RB/RZ 67 or even the Fuji GX 680. I have a Pentax 645 with 3 lenses and it's a great rig with sharp lenses.... but i have to say I use my Rolleiflex T and Voigtlander Perkeo ll far more often. If you can handle the bulk...the Fuji GW670/680/690 are superb. I'd suggest figuring out which characteristics are your priority....is it lens interchangeability, portability or negative size? Whichever way you approach MF, you'll be surprised by the advantages of the bigger negative over 35mm.

 

[Kowloon]

Ok so, after extensive online research including hours of youtube videos, I think that I am gonna pull the trigger for the Pentax 645n.

I am still considering a 6x7 size wise but on paper I think that the 645n is something that would satisfy me for a while: 645 allows me to have a decent amount of exposures, AF or MF lenses are interchangeable, there is a prism, built in light meter, etc.

Pictures looks very nice given that all the good conditions are met and lenses seem sharp as well.

If a roll is started I am not able to change it until finished and the camera is quite noisy when the shutter is pressed but I think I can live with that for a while.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ok so, after extensive online research including hours of youtube videos, I think that I am gonna pull the trigger for the Pentax 645n.

I am still considering a 6x7 size wise but on paper I think that the 645n is something that would satisfy me for a while: 645 allows me to have a decent amount of exposures, AF or MF lenses are interchangeable, there is a prism, built in light meter, etc.

Pictures looks very nice given that all the good conditions are met and lenses seem sharp as well.

If a roll is started I am not able to change it until finished and the camera is quite noisy when the shutter is pressed but I think I can live with that for a while.

Sounds like a well thought out decision. Good luck.

 

[Hassasin]

Ok so, after extensive online research including hours of youtube videos, I think that I am gonna pull the trigger for the Pentax 645n.

I am still considering a 6x7 size wise but on paper I think that the 645n is something that would satisfy me for a while: 645 allows me to have a decent amount of exposures, AF or MF lenses are interchangeable, there is a prism, built in light meter, etc.

Pictures looks very nice given that all the good conditions are met and lenses seem sharp as well.

If a roll is started I am not able to change it until finished and the camera is quite noisy when the shutter is pressed but I think I can live with that for a while.

While a little more money, always consider 645NII if you can afford it. It looks identical to 645N, but comes with mirror lock up which you may want to explore at some point of your MF journey. Otherwise it is a great camera, AF is actually quite responsive (I have NII, but believe AF is same on both) and the lenses are top class as it's always been the case in MF system cameras anyways.

 

[Kowloon]

What lenses would you recommend? In my case, for close up portraits and architecture. The 75mm is apparently the most common and can be good for street photography. For landscapes/architecture I was thinking of a 35mm bur for portraits, I am not really sure...

 

[Anon Ymous]

The 150mm f/3,5 is a nice portrait lens.

 

[wiltw]

What lenses would you recommend? In my case, for close up portraits and architecture.

Coming from 135 format, the 'portraiture' lens tends to be 85-100mm (many photographers like longer FL for 'headshots')...so if you are accustomed to the shooting characteristics of that FL...

• 85mm FL is about [3.54 * short-dimension of frame], so in 645 that would be about 159mm for equivalent FOV along the short dimension of the film (where the shoulders fit!)
• 100mm FL is about [4.17 * short-dimension of frame], so in 645 that would be about 175mm for equivalent FOV along the short dimension of the film
• Bronica users often have found 180mm FL to be a very nice FL that permits tight framing yet preserve better facial perspective than getting too close with 150mm

Architecture interiors I find to best be done with 24mm in 135 format, so that would be about 40-45mm FL on 645 for same FOV in short direction of the frame...but closer to 40mm FL since 135 format is much wider aspect ratio.

 

[GregY]

What lenses would you recommend? In my case, for close up portraits and architecture. The 75mm is apparently the most common and can be good for street photography. For landscapes/architecture I was thinking of a 35mm bur for portraits, I am not really sure...

I'm not particularly fond of the 'normal' lens for street photography in med format. In 35mm i typically use a 28mm/35mm and 400 ISO film and set hyperfocal distance. I did once find myself in Paris with only a Rolleiflex. I would tend less towards grab shots and more towards framing in advance and letting humans walk into/out of the frame before shooting. It might be my predilection for rangefinder cameras but i am slow to focus with my Pentax 645. I do like both the 45mm and 75mm though.
When you say portraits, what style are you referring to? .....head and shoulders or more environmental? I prefer my Rolleiflex for portraits...sometimes with a Rolleinar 1......to rotating my Pentax 645 to get portrait mode.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm not particularly fond of the 'normal' lens for street photography in med format. In 35mm i typically use a 28mm/35mm and 400 ISO film and set hyperfocal distance. I did once find myself in Paris with only a Rolleiflex. I would tend less towards grab shots and more towards framing in advance and letting humans walk into/out of the frame before shooting. It might be my predilection for rangefinder cameras but i am slow to focus with my Pentax 645. I do like both the 45mm and 75mm though.
When you say portraits, what style are you referring to? .....head and shoulders or more environmental? I prefer my Rolleiflex for portraits...sometimes with a Rolleinar 1......to rotating my Pentax 645 to get portrait mode.

Vivian Maier seemd to do fine with a Rolleiflex for street photography. It sometimes helps when you don't look like you're pointing a camera directly at the subject, just looking down into the camera.

 

[GregY]

Vivian Maier seemd to do fine with a Rolleiflex for street photography. It sometimes helps when you don't look like you're pointing a camera directly at the subject, just looking down into the camera.

I agree.... though the OP has a Pentax 645N. (I have one too)....& it's a big obvious camera with a lot of throw from one end of the focus scale to the other.