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.
Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?
-
A
- Thread starter GarageBoy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
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.
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?
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Going to have to try handholding by B&J Press Camera once I recalibrate the Kalart (and clean the fungus). I have shaky hands, so I don't know how it'll go, but it should be sweet.
I spend a lot of time backpacking. For the landscape type stuff I do (not big scenics, usually cool rocks and formations), I just could't get the textures I want out of 35mm-- I spent a lot of time with Nikon, Pentax, FP4, Delta, and all kinds of things to get better detail. I had an 'AHA!' moment as soon as I tried MF. I considered a Pentax 6x7, Century Graphic, RB67, and sticking with 4x5. Basically, my conclusion was, that I could use a 645 rig for everything I do, so I wouldn't have to stock multiple systems. I'm down to nothing but 645 and 4x5 now.
If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get the GA645zi-- And will still probably snag one, soon!
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.
I also take 4"x5" photographs. The GF670 is convenient because it is a folder, however later it will not allow the user to use different focal lengths. Both the GF670 and the Hasselblad can be sold for about what it costs if the OP decides that particular camera is not for him/her.
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
My GF670 fits in perfectly inside my jacket pocket. That to me, is mind blowing. Medium format, 6 x 7 no less, in my pocket.
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 do enjoy my GF670 without a doubt, but I guess I will have to go find a working Hasselblad system with an 80mm to see if there is any difference. I kinda have my doubts but I can't say until I try.
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.
Add to that WHEN they used 35 mm, and consider that we nowadays have materials and equipment that are more capable than what those guys had. I have seen fantastic prints from 35 mm, both chromes and black and white, 20 x 30 inches, totally convincing in terms of quality. So although I might struggle to produce that quality consistently, I do believe that it is possible. Actually, we have no excuses in terms of available materials and equipment.
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.
Yes, indeed. Except I am not as confident in my 'style' as you think...
Gotta pick a camera that suits how we work and what we're trying to accomplish. I like shooting landscape with my Hasselblad, because I can use a waist level finder or a 45 degree prism to get really close to the ground, which is how I like to shoot landscapes. And I like the square format a lot. Plus the Hasselblad sits VERY sturdily on the built-in swivel ball mount of my Berlebach tripod. I don't need a tripod head, so it sits very low and is sturdy even in very high wind, also due to the compact size of the camera. Perfect for me.
The 35mm is a great choice for almost everything else, because I shoot a lot of hand held where I can just hold the camera up to my eye and fire away. For portraits I try to use an SLR with super precise focusing, and everything else that is more casual, around town, street photography, and so on, is done with a rangefinder.
None of those decisions regarding film format has anything to do with print quality. The quality is, for my taste buds, more than good enough from 35mm to shoot landscape and print big. If my 35mm cameras would lower close to the ground as easily as the Hasselblad, and would shoot square photographs, I would just as happily use them for landscape photography.
But that doesn't mean I won't use the Hasselblad for portraits (I have one series where I wanted to get out of my comfort zone and used it exclusively for a range of portraits), and I have shot a fair bit of landscape with 35mm, just to prove a point to myself that it can indeed be done.
But anyway, I think the discussion surrounding print quality sometimes gets absurd. While it's true that a larger negative will give a print that is possibly more lifelike with smoother transitions of tone, and more well defined edges, a photograph is always a manipulation of reality, so it's better to aim for what we think the photograph should look like. I think we have to try to figure that out first and then choose the tools to accomplish that. But it also has to fit the method with which we photograph. That compromise is often hard to negotiate.
Back on topic, a 645 rangefinder is a fun camera to use and great for walking around. If you find one that takes 220 film you can shoot Portra and have over 30 frames per roll, which is exciting if you enjoy the larger negatives. The longer lenses will, however, be more difficult to negotiate in dim lighting, in combination with the smaller maximum apertures. Some of that can be remedied by shooting Delta 3200 for example, or Portra 800, or even Provia 400 pushed a stop if you can find it...
Last edited by a moderator:
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
I was lucky enough to have a friend loan me a GSW 690 to shoot with. I'm very glad he did, as I THOUGHT I would like it, but after using it I realized it didn't suit my shooting style at all. Do yourself a favor and if possible borrow one of the cameras you're thinking about using, or failing that, buy one from someplace that has a decent return privilege like KEH so you can have time to see if it works for you before you're committed.
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.
It wasn't until I started paying attention to how the paper I use (Ilford Multigrade IV, which will be replaced with the new Classic when I run out), in combination with the paper developer (Ethol LPD), has certain characteristics, and that I could work with my film processing and exposure to suit those characteristics, that I was able to start making convincing large prints from 35mm negatives. The need to embrace the process as a system, where all of the pieces fit together like a puzzle, is imminently important here.
I can't take one of my older 35mm negatives and make a print that is convincing to me. Has to be a newer negative with much attention paid to getting the most out of the whole system. I'm not saying you're not doing this, and our tastes are obviously not the same, Roger - I'm just trying to make sure my approach is well understood.
If the OP is shooting slides, a lot of this becomes pointless, and size of the film, if viewed as an object in itself, is of course incredibly important, same as we would choose paper size to accommodate the print size we prefer.
This is something that took me a long time to get.
I used to think this as well. I originally owned a GSW690 camera and did so for several years. I could not understand how the GF670 could be so expensive. Now that I have a GF670, I can see that it is worlds apart from the other Fujifilm rangefinders. The build quality is much, much better. Each and every part seems meticulously made. My GSW690, apart from the lens, felt very cheap in comparison.
The GF series cameras are just a step up in about every way, save negative size, compared to my GSW690.
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. I have printed formats from Minox to 11x14 contact prints. To imply or plead that a smaller negative can do the work of a larger negative is kinda silly. It comes down to the look one is seeking along with time and economic constraints. OP test the 645 waters. Someone mentioned a 1950's Zeiss Netar plus one from me it was outstanding if you were good at guessing focus. Not knowing OP finance I simply made recommendation benefiting my personal 20-20 hindsite on foolhardy purchases based on current prices of once top shelf equipment. Hope you do good work with whatever camera and format you may step up to.
Lots of good suggestions. Mine would be to go for a Mamiya 645 1000. There are lots of them around, meaning lot's of lenses and other stuff too. They have eye level or waist level finders, would fit easily in a carry bag, and are, I find, great to handle. I have 2, plus 2 of the later Pro's, plus 2 of the even later auto focus. All great cameras.
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
And for the heck of it, 6X7 relative to 135 and 645:
6X7= 56 X 67 = 3752 sq.mm (6X7, slight variation between makers)
Approximate area multiple, 645 to 6X7: 1.61. ---- 1.61 X 2324 = 3741 sq.mm
Approximate area multiple, 135 to 6X7: 4.35. ---- 4.35 X 864 = 3758 sq.mm
Last edited by a moderator:
MattKing
Moderator
This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.
In which case, the numbers are:
135= 24 X 32 = 768 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: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |