Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

[Tom1956]

645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one. You can't buy 220 any more, so it can't replace a 35 for shooting willy-nilly. And it can't do what a 67 can do in terms of neg quality. It's closer to a 35 than anything else, so why not stick with a 35? Just extra bulk and expense for diminishing returns. Unless you're a wedding photographer still using one. Then you're a poor man because the digital people are killing you.

 

[lxdude]

645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one. You can't buy 220 any more, so it can't replace a 35 for shooting willy-nilly. And it can't do what a 67 can do in terms of neg quality. It's closer to a 35 than anything else, so why not stick with a 35? Just extra bulk and expense for diminishing returns. Unless you're a wedding photographer still using one. Then you're a poor man because the digital people are killing you.

Portra is available in 220. There are wedding photographers who are doing well with film- they're not on the lowest end of the scale, though.

 

[MattKing]

I spent much of today helping a friend who is new to medium format and close to new to darkroom work. We were working on an 11 x 14 print from one of her first rolls shot with a Bronica ETRs. In this case, she used a tripod.

The detail we were able to reveal in her print was wonderful. The shot, which I believe was on FP4+, could easily have been enlarged to 16x20.

I regularly get similar results with my Mamiya 645 Pro and either Plus-X or TMY-2. And I regularly get transparencies that are both a joy to project and, when scanned, give excellent 12x16 colour prints.

If you print rectangular photographs, 6x4.5 is capable of the same quality as 6x6.

I also shoot 6x6 and 6x7. The negatives from those cameras are also good to print.

Finally, I shoot 35mm film as well. When I print to something like 11x14, I can usually get results I am happy with, but I definitely prefer 6x4.5 negatives, because they are substantially larger than their 35mm cousins.

Either an ETRS or a 645 Pro is a fair bit more bulky then my 35mm eqipment, but it is similar in size to some of the digital equipment out there.

 

[Tom1956]

Then why not go on fleabay and get yourself an old Mamiya m645 and give it a go? Can't lose much.

 

[Roger Cole]

645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one. You can't buy 220 any more, so it can't replace a 35 for shooting willy-nilly. And it can't do what a 67 can do in terms of neg quality. It's closer to a 35 than anything else, so why not stick with a 35? Just extra bulk and expense for diminishing returns. Unless you're a wedding photographer still using one. Then you're a poor man because the digital people are killing you.

I'll reign in my initial reaction and just say that I respectfully disagree with you.

645 is something like double the image area of 35mm (I'll let someone else do the math(s) if they want to get a precise number) and whatever those numbers may seem to imply, the actual impression of step up is substantial. It's also the same image area you will get if you crop a 6x6 negative to 8x10 proportions which I find I do about half the time with my 6x6 negatives (the fervent anti-cropping crowd can disregard that.)

It is true, of course, that 6x7 is a huge step up again, doubling the negative area again. But it's also a huge step up in size and weight. A 6x7 rangefinder will be huge compared to a 645 one. There are folders but any camera in 6x7 is just going to be a lot larger than the same type of camera in 645. An RB 67 makes a great tripod camera but, while it CAN be handheld, I wouldn't swap my Mamiya 645 Pro for one for carrying around - the 645 Pro, as someone alluded, is big enough.

The 645's proper competition is 6x6 not 6x7. And it just depends on whether you will crop much of the time, in which case you might as well shoot 645, or print square. In this case we are talking about slides and a projector that can handle 645 and 6x6 will be MUCH more affordable (though still a lot more than one for 35mm) than one that can handle 6x7.

I shoot all three in one form or another, 645 in my Mamiya 645 Pro, 6x6 in my Yashicamat 124 and 6x7 via a RF back (mainly for color) in my view camera. Leaving aside the view camera which is a very different kind of shooting, the Mamiya is the most versatile, the Yashica is the most fun, and 35mm does in fact often get the nod over the 645, partly due to size/weight but mostly due to fast primes and having a couple of good zooms in 35mm. The 80mm 1.9 is, of course, available for the 645, I just don't have one.

I will agree that a 645 Pro is a big honkin' camera to carry around though. Even with the 80mm 2.8 or my 55mm 2.8, add a film magazine and the winder grip (which makes the camera handle MUCH better) plus the AE prism finder and it does somewhat resemble an albatross around one's neck. It handles great though and the results are superb, and the size/weight penalty relative to 35mm is often mostly offset by the interchangeable backs meaning I don't have to also carry spare bodies loaded with different film. This may may not matter to you but I often need at least a couple of kinds of film available and loaded, even with the 15 shots per roll I get with the 645.

 

[RattyMouse]

Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.

 

[markbarendt]

645 is something like double the image area of 35mm (I'll let someone else do the math(s) if they want to get a precise number) and whatever those numbers may seem to imply, the actual impression of step up is substantial. It's also the same image area you will get if you crop a 6x6 negative to 8x10 proportions which I find I do about half the time with my 6x6 negatives (the fervent anti-cropping crowd can disregard that.)

I agree Roger, this almost doubling is a significant step.

41x57
vs
24x36

HP5+ is a good practical example, It is a film I enjoy in Medium and Large Format. In 35 mm I have a love hate relationship with HP5+.

it is dependent on the subject matter. If the main subject matter is large in the frame it seems to work fine for me; Head and shoulders portraits for example, full length portraits, not so much. What changes for me is the size of the details in relationship to the grain.

 

[MattKrull]

I've owned a 1950s era 6x6 folder (Nettar), and I have to say, the images were incredibly sharp. It took far better pictures than I expected, AND it was no bigger than a 35mm SLR. However, I only shot two rolls of film with it and then sold it. Why? because the view finder was uselessly small. Maybe if I had a shoe mounted VF things would be different, but I just found it too hard to use.

I have since moved on to a Bronica ETR-Si. I've only shot a handful of rolls on it. But, without the grip it isn't too large to carry in a DSLR bag, and holding it isn't overly akward (even with a prism). Adding the grip makes it pretty huge, but very easy to use. For all the talk of mirror slap, I took a number of very sharp hand held shots at 1/30 (something I really can't pull off with a 35mm SLR).

I can't comment on the quality of 6x4.5 vs 6x7. But, as has been mentioned, for non-square prints, there is effectively no difference between 6x6 and 6x4.5. When looking at enlargers, many enlargers can only do 6x6, so if you have your own dark room (or aspire to have one), a 6x7 or larger will require a larger enlarger.

I'm still new to darkroom printing, but I found that making really good looking prints from 645 is easier than from 35mm, and at 8x10 I can tell the difference. After making my first 8x10s from 645 I've vowed to use my Bronica much more.

I think the idea of a TLR is a very good one for the OP (presuming you can get used to the WLF). They are small, take great photos, and work especially well on the street. With a WLF the 645 SLRs can be used similarly, but are longer and (imo) bulkier. The nice thing about a 645 is that it gives you choice, it can be a waist level street camera on day and a traditional SLR the next.

 

[dorff]

645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one.

When it comes to shooting slide film, there is significantly more to extract from 645 format than 35 mm. Typically 35 mm will be scanned at 4800 dpi giving a 4535 x 6803 (i.e. 31 MP) file of not such great quality. A 645 will be scanned typically at 3200 dpi, giving a 5291 x 7055 (37 MP) file of much better quality. The best scanners (like the Hasselblad Flextight / Imacons) will get a great deal more out of a 645 than a 35 mm. I often shoot slide on 6x7 (Pentax), but very seldom in 645, preferring it for black and white which is always intended for darkroom printing rather than scanning. In printing, there is a significant difference in the two formats (35 mm and 645), which is immediately apparent, especially when faster film is used (but that is sort of a circular argument as faster lenses exist for 35 mm). My personal view is that the MF lenses paint a bit differently than the 35 mm lenses, and the combination with film emphasizes that. The best MF lenses are very significantly better than the best 35 mm lenses on the same film. It shows in prints even as small as 8x10; by the time you get to 16x20 it is obvious. Yes, 6x7 is much better than 645 even, but the jump from 35mm to 645 is more pronounced than the jump from 645 to 6x7 or even 6x9. 645 is a very practical and useful format, and most of the lenses are really excellent.

With regards to what the OP wants to do with it, the 645 rangefinders seem an obvious choice, but the Mamiya 6 and 7 are also worth considering. Unless you take a very slow and measured approach, you'd want something with AE capability for shooting slides. That rules out most TLRs and many of the more basic SLRs as well, unless you get AE prism finders for them (assuming they exist).

Unless you're a wedding photographer still using one. Then you're a poor man because the digital people are killing you.

Whatever, Tom. That is a faux argument, as the OP is not a wedding photographer and very likely already has a silicon chip camera, or would have had if he really wanted to do photography that way. Most of us have hybrid systems, and still prefer MF and film for good reasons for some purposes. It stands to reason that commercial work on film is now rare, but that certainly doesn't discourage my interest in film.

 

[brian steinberger]

Bronica RF645 all the way. Much better camera than the fuji's though more expensive. Interchangeable lenses and superb VF and metering. Best walk around MF camera IMO.

 

[GarageBoy]

I'd love to jump up to 6x7, but that's HUGE
Sure, I can get a Graflex XL (worst user interface camera for a "press" camera, EVER), but the RB/RZ are giant, and the Pentax 6x7 is crossing the price boundary for me

I don't really think in square either...

This is just for fun, and I love the slide colors and I'd love to shoot more of it in case it ever goes away (Fuji doesn't inspire confidence)

 

[markbarendt]

I don't really think in square either...

One of the fun things about square is not having to turn the camera 90 to change orientation. P vs L.

Crop however you please later.

 

[SpicySaffron]

I can speak for the Mamiya 645 1000S. I don't use mine much (I prefer 6x6 negatives so my Rollei and Kowa receive more attention), but it is a solid camera, with a variety of gear choices for little money. The prism finders aren't bad, however make sure to watch out for glass separation (looks like a solid grey line when viewing through the prism. They are bulky, but very robust cameras.

 

[pbromaghin]

645 is 3 times the area of 35mm. 6x6 is over 4 times. Darned right that's significant.

I had a lot of trouble with the square format. It took 3 years to start to get acceptable results, but now I 'm hooked and am enjoying it much more than 35mm. If you don't want to make any radical change in format shape, 6x9 is the closest to the 35mm layout, and it is over 6 times the area. When I was at your decision point, I got an inexpensive Zeiss zone-focusing folder, liked what it did and then moved up to a Mamiya tlr. Right now on eBay, Jurgen (certo6) has 3 Zeiss 6x9 folders ranging from $120 - $450, depending on the model, so you can get in pretty cheaply, or not so cheaply. All of his cameras have been CLA'd and are in good user condition.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.

Well no. And I'm sure they are winderful, albeit quite expensive cameras. Of course however a camera is designed a 645 of the sane design can be at least a bit smaller than a comparable 6x7. That doesn't mean such "otherwise comparable" cameras are actually made if course.

My real point is just that 645 is a viable format and a very significant step up from 35mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fretlessdavis]

The Bronica ETR series seems to be the smallest SLR 645 that I know of. It's not a bad kit too.

They're really cheap these days. I got into my system because it's one of the few 645's with interchangeable backs, and it's one of best values for money.

To echo some other comments, the Fuji GA645zi has probably been one of the best cameras I've handled. Basically a P&S camera with a stellar lens onto s 645 piece of film. Light and small, too!

 

[ataim]

IMHO a Mamiya 7 would be MY choice. You'll get twice the film area as a 645 and still be careering less weight. But is a range finder and focusing can be a challenge.

 

[MattKrull]

645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one. You can't buy 220 any more, so it can't replace a 35 for shooting willy-nilly. And it can't do what a 67 can do in terms of neg quality. It's closer to a 35 than anything else, so why not stick with a 35? Just extra bulk and expense for diminishing returns.

There have been a couple of 645 threads recently, and I've seen this comment come up a number of times - the 645 was a wedding photographer format. I don't know if it is written with derision, but I always seem to read it as derogatory.

When I think about it, a wedding photographer requires a number of difficult compromises:
-The camera has to be light, because they will be carrying it all day
-The camera and lens system has to take good shot in all sorts of conditions (dark churches, bright open areas, near, close, etc)
-It has to be quick to handle, since your subjects won't be holding still much, and there are no do-overs for missed shots
-The negative has to produce fantastic 8x10s, and will be expected to make larger enlargements from hand held shots.

I mean, when's the last time you read "Monorail 4x5s are for studio work. That's the only redeeming quality I can see in one." ?
Okay, so you get 15 shots instead of 36, so you won't be shooting willy-nilly (although multiple backs lets you shoot willy-nilly and in multiple emulsions if you so chose).
And yes, the negative has half the information of a 67, but that requires you to have a bigger enlarger to make use of it. I'd say it's closer to 6x6 than any other format (6x6 only has 1/3rd more surface area, instead of the 3x the surface area a 645 has over a 35mm).

It doesn't sound so bad to me, but then, my favourite colour film is Porta 400, which if I understand it, was created specifically for the wedding market as well.

 

[Roger Cole]

IMHO a Mamiya 7 would be MY choice. You'll get twice the film area as a 645 and still be careering less weight. But is a range finder and focusing can be a challenge.

I paid $450 IIRC for my 645 Pro with 80mm 2.8N lens, two backs, two 120 inserts, AE prism finder pro and winder grip. I got a Polaroid back free from someone online who hadn't realized it wouldn't work with his 645AF. I forget what I paid for my 150 3.5N and 55mm 2.8N from KEH but it wasn't much and they are superb. Likewise my additional backs and inserts were basically had for pocket change, almost.

Would I rather have a Mamiya 7? Well yeah - if someone else paid for it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

It doesn't sound so bad to me, but then, my favourite colour film is Porta 400, which if I understand it, was created specifically for the wedding market as well.

Nor bad to me, and I like Portra too.

I've honestly thought about getting a 645 back for my RB, it's on my list of maybes, just not at the top. One of these days I'll find one at a price I can't resist. 6x6 back too.

 

[fretlessdavis]

There have been a couple of 645 threads recently, and I've seen this comment come up a number of times - the 645 was a wedding photographer format. I don't know if it is written with derision, but I always seem to read it as derogatory.

When I think about it, a wedding photographer requires a number of difficult compromises:
-The camera has to be light, because they will be carrying it all day
-The camera and lens system has to take good shot in all sorts of conditions (dark churches, bright open areas, near, close, etc)
-It has to be quick to handle, since your subjects won't be holding still much, and there are no do-overs for missed shots
-The negative has to produce fantastic 8x10s, and will be expected to make larger enlargements from hand held shots.

It doesn't sound so bad to me, but then, my favourite colour film is Porta 400, which if I understand it, was created specifically for the wedding market as well.

Yeah, those were the characteristics I looked for in an SLR system before investing in an ETRS.

You really can shoot willy-nilly in comparison to a 35mm, too-- 15-16 shots on a roll isn't too bad. If you preload inserts, you can swap in 15 seconds. If you preload backs, it's about 5 seconds.

Portra is fantastic in both 160 and 400. Still available in 220, too!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another option to throw a monkey-wrench in the works - a Kodak Medalist. 6x9 cm, so you get the huge negative, the Ektar lens on it is really a Heliar variation, so you get the Heliar look. They're built like a tank - if someone tries to rob you, just bonk them in the head with the Medalist and you'll render them unconscious long enough for the cops to get there. It's rangefinder focusing, so you're shooting eye-level instead of waist-level. They'll go anywhere - Sir Edmund Hilary took one with him to Everest, IIRC (or maybe that was a Kodak Retina - have to check that), I know they've been used in the Arctic before, and they saw combat duty in WW II and Korea.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well no. And I'm sure they are winderful, albeit quite expensive cameras. Of course however a camera is designed a 645 of the sane design can be at least a bit smaller than a comparable 6x7. That doesn't mean such "otherwise comparable" cameras are actually made if course.

My real point is just that 645 is a viable format and a very significant step up from 35mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. 6 x 4.5 is definitely better than 35mm, even at small print sizes. I could easily tell the difference when I see and compare prints. It's just that once you taste medium format quality, you always want more. It's addictive.

GF670's are almost half price used. Maybe 60% cheaper as of now.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here we go again. 645 or any other format is not better than 35mm. It is different.

 

[fretlessdavis]

I'd say 645 is the best all-around format.

Also, plenty of people claim they can't see differences between 35mm and 645 on small prints. It's pretty obvious to me on the 5x7's I proof with. FP4, D76, handheld with both, the 645 looks so much better.