Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.
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.
Well, if you stated these things as your opinion it would be a lot easier to digest. In my world 35mm is by far the best allround format, because up to 16x20" print size I get such good print quality that it doesn't really matter. I don't need anything better. Can you see finer grain and slightly smoother tonal transitions? Sure! Does that make it better? Well, that's a matter of taste, isn't it...
Sorry. I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I assumed it would be taken as my opinion.
645 can be small, handheld, and is pretty streamlined. You spend less time changing backs or inserts, and film economy is pretty high. If you print rectangles, you don't waste film real estate. Weight isn't a ton less than other MF systems, but it is less, and a bit more compact.
For me, I start to see a level of grittiness up close that I don't like when I push 35mm past 8x10, and for detailed landscapes, I've found 645 the smallest format for acceptable smoothness and microdetail. My wallet hurts less when I want to bracket on 645, than if I did on anything bigger.
Yes, my technical quality would be better using my 4x5, but I can't handhold that, and it's big, heavy, and requires more accessories.
Yes, I'd have even more economy, a lighter and smaller kit, and even more hand-hold-ability by using 35mm, but I find the negatives a bit too small.
/opinion
that better for you?
Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
Much better. And fair even!
But you can hand hold a 4x5, particularly a Graflex SLR or something like a Speed Graphic.
For a while I owned a Mamiya 645 and I've had Fuji 645 rangefinders - both cameras were fantastic, and I love the prints I get from the negatives. It's just that for the most part I couldn't shoot the way I wanted to. 35mm allows me the freedom to shoot in very difficult lighting (which I enjoy), and somehow I really enjoy that beautiful grain when I make big prints from ISO 400 film, or even something like Delta 3200 looks incredible at 20x24.
I guess it takes all kinds. Thinking back to the original topic - awesome chromes - at 6x7 those things really come into their own as objects to just behold on a light table, which is my favorite way to look at them, exploring them with a good piece of glass.
Well, have you ever seen a photo/negative from the GF670? Why don't you show us some of your photos taken with your ultra-Hasselblad and your über-Zeiss lenses that clearly show their superiority over everything else. 12,450 posts of which many seem to boil down to "Hasselblad is the answer to all your photographic needs/questions/problems" and "square is the perfect negative shape". But not a single photo to be seen.
Here we go again. 645 or any other format is not better than 35mm. It is different.
Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
Better in terms of grain, resolution etc. but if you want a grainy look, no. If you miss the photo you would have gotten with 35mm because your 645 was too big to bring along or lacked the right lens etc. then 35mm would have been better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think what Thomas is getting at is that "better" and "worse" are not good words to use to describe formats, films, developers.....
More or less might be better, finer/courser, .....
Do you like big tomatoes or small?
I'm thinking of treasures such as Ralph Gibson and Elliot Erwitt, a caliber to aspire to, and they survived just fine with 35mm. I'm naturally drawn to 35mm work when I go to museums.
Yep. Exactly.
And for the record, resolution is a number game where with medium format often the lens is the limitation, while in 35mm it's the film. The end result is that 35mm can have as good resolution as 645.
But I hate numbers.
My appreciation for 35mm goes way beyond any numbers and has to do with the final look of the prints. All of the established yack about grain and such isn't even a consideration for me.
I'm thinking of treasures such as Ralph Gibson and Elliot Erwitt, a caliber to aspire to, and they survived just fine with 35mm. I'm naturally drawn to 35mm work when I go to museums.
The only time I appreciate larger film is with slides. An 8x10 chrome is just amazingly cool to behold.
Your preference of style is a perfectly good reason to stick with 35mm and I believe is puts you in a rare class. "A person who knows exactly what they are trying to get and how to get it." In a sense you have a fully developed business plan.
The biggest problems most of us have in picking formats, camera systems, lenses, viewfinders, films and developers, papers, toning, etcetera, is that we don't all know where we are going or how to get there.
I do enjoy HCB's work and Erwitt's and Steve McCurry's.
But I also find that I truly enjoy prints like Karsh did of O'Keefe, Hurrel's portraits, and Phil Borges' work. These styles require different tools and a different sensibility.
Simply switching from prism to waist level finder on my RB changes the way I see the world and the perspective I shoot from. Yeah my F5 can technically do the same thing but I can hardly see the screen at my waist let alone focus.
I have never really been personally happy with the prints I can get from 35mm larger than 8x10, and sometimes not even at 8x10. Sure, I've seen some that I do like. YMMV greatly, of course. It's certainly EASIER to get technically excellent prints from a larger negative, at least for me.
The need to embrace the process as a system, where all of the pieces fit together like a puzzle, is imminently important here.
The GF670 is expensive for what it is, and I'd totally rather have a GW670 or GW690
Thanks for the ideas guys, I might pick up either a cheap Pentax or Mamiya 645
Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm.
Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.
135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)
Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?