A good point, Matt. Thanks for adding that.
Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?
-
A
- Thread starter GarageBoy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 4x5 film holders
- Started by Early Riser
-
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
Forum statistics
Or more practical yet 8x10, 16x20
135: 24x30=720 vs 645 (720/2152=0.334 or 1/3rd) vs 6x7 (720/3591=0.200 or 1/5th)
645: 41.5x51.875=2152 vs 135 (2152/720=2.988 or 3/1) vs 6x7 (2152/3591=0.599 or 6/10ths)
6X7: 53.6 X 67 = 3591 vs 135 (3591/720=4.9875) vs 645 (3591/2152=1.66868 or 1-2/3rds)
Or, you like the aspect ratio of 35mm and crop you 645 negs... Goes both ways.
I print panoramic pictures from both 35mm and medium format negatives. Here only the long dimension needs to be considered.
Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.
Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!
So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin :confused:
Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!
So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin :confused:
Possibly it has to with what different people call good enough. To me 35mm is good enough for any size print I care to make.
My friend Steve uses a Minox, and out of that tiny little frame he makes some of the most wonderful prints.
Don't be so hung up on format. Get a camera that suits how you work, and then work on your print making skills to become better and better and better.
I just went to see a photo exhibition at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, where large format, digital, 6x6, and 35mm hung side by side. Print quality on all was superb, and it wasn't the freaking camera that got them into the show; it was their skill, vision, and ability to produce interesting and important photographs.
Exactly... my point above ^^^ thanks to the rest for rubbing my nose in a numbers game.
I have been making published images by the thousand. In the pre-digital world. 35mm was fine for newsprint and offset reproduction below 6x9". Glossy large reproduction was the stuff of MF. There is a reason Natl Geographic was photographed exclusively on Kodachrome 25 and 64 for soooo many years. This is a fact. Other coffee table book publishers specified that 35mm was done on Kodachrome, or if faster stock was used you stepped up to a larger format. Do what you want guys... but TO THE OP, 645 is a near quantum leap in "qualities" than 35mm.
Tom B. I respect your technical abilities... BUT... anything you can do with 35mm will look all the better on 645... not saying in your case 35mm in inferior. <<< not at all. But OP was asking legit question. Cheers.
I know very well that surface area has an impact.
That isn't my point, however.
If Henri Cartier-Bresson can have 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives hanging in museum and private collections all over the world, then how come it isn't good enough for us?
I realize 35mm isn't for everything. And I'm not trying to convince the OP to not get a 645. I just get tired of all the tedious norms about not printing bigger than 6x9 from 35mm, when you can see prints much bigger than that, mural size in fact, of Salgado for example, in museums. It just vehemently contradicts the 'norms'.
Bresson, and Salgado, photograph "journalism".... it is what it is.
I have a 20x30 from 35mm of a football coach... but it is crunchy looking, and I'd rather it not be so crunchy for that purpose.
For a fine portrait, still life, landscapes... sometimes ... I like to move on to a larger media.
And in the pre-digital age the client (right or wrong) REQUIRED IT!!! 35mm need not apply for many jobs.
I have a 20x30 from 35mm of a football coach... but it is crunchy looking, and I'd rather it not be so crunchy for that purpose.
For a fine portrait, still life, landscapes... sometimes ... I like to move on to a larger media.
And in the pre-digital age the client (right or wrong) REQUIRED IT!!! 35mm need not apply for many jobs.
I have seen lots of product photography. E6 mostly, in the early 2000's. I know what you're talking about. Magazines, posters, etc.
I just don't agree with it.
I respect your opinion, but I very much dislike rules, particularly when it comes to expressive art forms.
I know very well that surface area has an impact.
That isn't my point, however.
If Henri Cartier-Bresson can have 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives hanging in museum and private collections all over the world, then how come it isn't good enough for us?
I realize 35mm isn't for everything. And I'm not trying to convince the OP to not get a 645. I just get tired of all the tedious norms about not printing bigger than 6x9 from 35mm, when you can see prints much bigger than that, mural size in fact, of Salgado for example, in museums. It just vehemently contradicts the 'norms'.
Well, because we aren't Cartier-Bresson. And because we don't all shoot with his style or goals so it isn't just "we don't have his skill" either.
It would be just as fair to point out that CB's work could have never been done with an 8x10 and say therefore he was lacking as a photographer because if 8x10 was good enough for Ansel (and for Weston for anti-Adams crowd) it should be good enough for CB or us. Horses for courses and all that.
You can certainly print as large as you like from any format, and the results may be fine for your purposes. Only the photographer can determine that based on their vision. I think we are in agreement. The only reason I waded into this was that someone suggested that 645 was not much of a step up in format size from 35mm and I disagree with that. It's a big jump and I agree with those who say that it makes a bigger difference than the jump from 645 up to 6x7.
The commercial standards of another era need not apply.
A good point, too.
It seems to be a semantics war now.
"Rules" "Standards"... to me it was "engineering specifications". And to some extent comes down to that.
Although my 18MP MF camera has an entirely different look than my 18MP DSLR. And it can not be easily replicated with the other.
"Rules" "Standards"... to me it was "engineering specifications". And to some extent comes down to that.
Although my 18MP MF camera has an entirely different look than my 18MP DSLR. And it can not be easily replicated with the other.
Those standards were what they were because Kodachrome was so superior to other color films of the day. At one time ad agency preference was for either a 34mm Kodachrome or 8x10 Ektachrome; anything else was seen inferior leaving medium format out completely. That wasn't true for a very long time as E6 films caught up with and surpassed Kodachrome.
No, it's not about semantics. It's about making the box, that we are supposed to think outside, disappear.
I break norms for a living, find solutions to what others find impossible. So I'm inclined to believe what I can witness with my own eyes.
Will prints from 645 negs be smoother? Of course! Does it matter? That's for you to decide. I think, for the most part, that it doesn't matter.
Don't you guys sometimes go against convention and make fun discoveries?
I break norms for a living, find solutions to what others find impossible. So I'm inclined to believe what I can witness with my own eyes.
Will prints from 645 negs be smoother? Of course! Does it matter? That's for you to decide. I think, for the most part, that it doesn't matter.
Don't you guys sometimes go against convention and make fun discoveries?
When you are doing something for your own enjoyment, aspiring to make art or not keeping within engineered specs doesn't really enter into it. There was a time when even newspapers didn't want anything less than 4x5, but times change. Every format has it's own syntax and quality can be defined in many ways.
No, we are not Cartier-Bresson. But we have access to better materials than he had in his day, which should give us an advantage from a standpoint of print quality.
Anyway, what I'm getting at, and you all contributed wonderfully, is that when you change camera format, you also change how you shoot.
Again, pick a camera that fits your working style. Then, go make prints whatever size negative you happen to make. Make beautiful prints. The end.
We don't even need to change format to see how this happens.
For a long time I was enamored with purely mechanical cameras. One of my favorite cameras from that phase was my Nikon FM2, I finally sold it and all my manual focus lenses because for the type of shooting I do with 35mm cameras it simply couldn't keep up with my F5 or F100 or even my lowly N90s.
Autofocus was a distinct and important part of the decision but even more important was having bodies and lenses that could support automatically balanced fill flash. (I do though still marvel at how my RB67 system fits together, it's like a transformer for big kids like us.)
The modern Nikon bodies and lenses simply let me shoot in ways that the FM2 and manual focus lenses wouldn't.
When we use Medium Format or larger cameras we do need to remember that we give certain things up.
For me the bigger formats are dedicated purpose tools for use when I have something very specific in mind, which is fairly regular. They are typically heavier, slower, less automated, and require more work; so the larger cameras needs to provide something 35mm cameras can't; to earn their keep.
The oft mentioned, "The best camera is the one you actually use.", comes to mind.
You can chase cameras, and formats, to the end of the earth and never be happy.
All else being equal, the larger the format the larger the enlargement before you start seeing grain and softness.
I do suspect that if you haul your 8x10 to the local gridiron to shoot some Friday Night Lights action, you will come away disappointed.
The discussion started at 645. I travel to Orlando a few times a year, on business. Often enough that now I take one camera so I have to really use it in and outside its strengths.
A couple of years ago I took my M645 Super. Visited the mouse and all that. I've got three backs, and several more film cartridges. I used the eye level AE finder, and the motor drive. Got lots of looks, and a Canadian fellow almost cried telling me how much he missed his. I found the camera to be flexible and light enough to carry the full day. (I was 62 at the time, for reference.).
I would not hesitate to carry it again.
6x6 is also a good choice. No rotating the camera to go portrait or landscape.
Unless you are going large on your prints, I think 645 may be the sweet spot.
Most importantly, what fits your hand? What feels balanced? Which controls are in a comfortable place to find them? If you are trying to catch a moment, and what you have is awkward to handle, a beast to focus, or fiddly, the specs will never matter.... You missed the shot.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You can chase cameras, and formats, to the end of the earth and never be happy.
All else being equal, the larger the format the larger the enlargement before you start seeing grain and softness.
I do suspect that if you haul your 8x10 to the local gridiron to shoot some Friday Night Lights action, you will come away disappointed.
The discussion started at 645. I travel to Orlando a few times a year, on business. Often enough that now I take one camera so I have to really use it in and outside its strengths.
A couple of years ago I took my M645 Super. Visited the mouse and all that. I've got three backs, and several more film cartridges. I used the eye level AE finder, and the motor drive. Got lots of looks, and a Canadian fellow almost cried telling me how much he missed his. I found the camera to be flexible and light enough to carry the full day. (I was 62 at the time, for reference.).
I would not hesitate to carry it again.
6x6 is also a good choice. No rotating the camera to go portrait or landscape.
Unless you are going large on your prints, I think 645 may be the sweet spot.
Most importantly, what fits your hand? What feels balanced? Which controls are in a comfortable place to find them? If you are trying to catch a moment, and what you have is awkward to handle, a beast to focus, or fiddly, the specs will never matter.... You missed the shot.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Hell yes I do..... BUT that is not what the OP asked.
I don't know why I care about people I never met.
The internet is a blessing and a curse. I'm not out to evangelize.
Just offering advise from the portfolio of knowledge this skin bag of mine has collected.
Why did we have to start admonishing folks that for whatever reason see larger formats as a right or wrong step up from 35mm.
Many started using a 35mm and are not silly for seeking a new format to try.
Read the OP's post and how did we get to where this thread is now? ^^^^
TB... you do BW in the darkroom. This poster was speaking originally about big delicious chromes.
I like big delicious chromes, and ones in cardboard mounts and still am asked to make them, Although I haven't made one in 4x5 size in a couple years... I have a 5x7" camera... I'd like to make some in that size, but someone I am sure will tell me that is silly. (ok that's as snarky as I am going to get). It was about 7 months since my last use of APUG... hope it's not the case again.
BTW if OP is still tuned in... WLF on my Hasselblad isn't much trouble with glasses when you use the magnifier. Also doing the Hyperfocal thing is fun on sunny days. You can take photos all day long with some folks not being the wiser, taking photos while sitting on a curb, or park bench as the world goes by.
Last edited by a moderator:
a very nice discussion here, a bit off-topic towards the end. I'll throw in my share, as I recently had the same question.
I'm an artist photographer, shooting 6x6 nearly all of my artist's life. a lot of studio work, most of it done with the mamiya tlr system. yes, I tried slr, but it didn't suit me better, and seen the budget...
field work was mostly done with a tripod. fine. but then I wanted to do more street work and my beloved system touched it's limits. I read 100s of forum discussions and decided to try out 6x6 rf folders.
via this great auction site I got myself nearly all of them which were reputed to be excellent (super ikontas and isolettes, super baldax, mamiya six, seagull 203, iskra...). it was great fun to test them. they were really nice, but in the end, no, this wasn't it.
then, by chance, I acquired a konica pearl III, a 645 from the 50s. it is much smaller than all of the 6x6 stuff and it is more fun. but still, metering takes it's little moments. so I ended up with a twin couple: a fuji gs645 in one pocket of my jacket and a ga645wi in the other. 900 grams each, sharp as hell, both metering systems always to the point, the finders astounding. these cameras are just ideal tools to get my new ideas onto film.
as some posters already said: the ga cameras are really amazing. not even 2 pounds and pocketable. you forget about all the hassle and just take your pictures.
I'm an artist photographer, shooting 6x6 nearly all of my artist's life. a lot of studio work, most of it done with the mamiya tlr system. yes, I tried slr, but it didn't suit me better, and seen the budget...
field work was mostly done with a tripod. fine. but then I wanted to do more street work and my beloved system touched it's limits. I read 100s of forum discussions and decided to try out 6x6 rf folders.
via this great auction site I got myself nearly all of them which were reputed to be excellent (super ikontas and isolettes, super baldax, mamiya six, seagull 203, iskra...). it was great fun to test them. they were really nice, but in the end, no, this wasn't it.
then, by chance, I acquired a konica pearl III, a 645 from the 50s. it is much smaller than all of the 6x6 stuff and it is more fun. but still, metering takes it's little moments. so I ended up with a twin couple: a fuji gs645 in one pocket of my jacket and a ga645wi in the other. 900 grams each, sharp as hell, both metering systems always to the point, the finders astounding. these cameras are just ideal tools to get my new ideas onto film.
as some posters already said: the ga cameras are really amazing. not even 2 pounds and pocketable. you forget about all the hassle and just take your pictures.
I am trying to offer a counter point to the notion that bigger negatives are always better. That's all. I get really put off when people dismiss 35mm as if it's some kind of junior category of photography, all while some of the best photography ever made has been created on that platform.
I'm not trying to persuade the OP into NOT trying 645. I just want them to think about the flip side of the coin. You get longer focal length lenses for the same view, smaller maximum apertures, which means you usually have to shoot faster film and possibly negate much of your gain.
I do understand that with chromes it's beautiful to watch 120 format on a light table or projected - I get that. I understand 100% of what you're telling me.
My point is entirely that with a 645 or 6x6 camera you don't just get bigger negatives. You get a different experience. My advice to the OP is to see if they can maybe try cameras out from local friends, just to see if it's an avenue they'd like to pursue before spending too much money on it. If it were me carrying around a medium format camera, I'd look for a rangefinder or a TLR (I shoot Hasselblad 500 and have used it around town, and it works, although it slows me down significantly compared to a rangefinder).
I'm not here to make enemies or to tick someone off. I am a natural devil's advocate.
I'll go out in a limb - unless you are intentionally aiming for a grainy look, bigger negatives ARE always better _all other things being equal._ They rarely are equal. 35mm has advantages of size, weight, speed of use, automation and lens availability that can make it the best tool sometimes. (Or at least it CAN - with one of the pro grade autofocus 35mm cameras one might as well be carrying a MF SLR. But there are still advantages in lens availability even then.)
A technically better negative does not always mean an artistically better print either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A technically better negative does not always mean an artistically better print either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
This thought brings up one of the right questions.
What is the intended look of the print?
Experimenting with other formats can be one piece of the puzzle, as can experimenting with films, developers, ... Learning to print well is a biggie.
IMO very, very few people have really defined or researched this question well enough to answer that properly. Seems to me myth and emotion drives most camera and materials choices.
Thomas has been pressing the other question.
How ya gonna get the shot?
| 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:  |