The more ideal format, 645 or 67?

WolfTales · Jul 8, 2009

Hi,

I'm sure this has probably been debated back and forth, but can you get the same amount of tonality out of 645 as you could from 67 on an 8x10 print?

Got the Mamiya 67 now but it is a brick and a half wrapped up in a pillow in my backpack and since I rarely print larger then 8x10, might just be better off with a 645.

I have used 66 cropped to 645 and the results seem acceptable to me... anyone have any other first hand experience that would help deter me from buying another camera?

I shot close ups of nature where tonality is important, but got a 45 for sweeping landscapes. 35 leaves something to be desired for me.

Thanks!

Q.G. · Jul 8, 2009

WolfTales said:
I'm sure this has probably been debated back and forth, but can you get the same amount of tonality out of 645 as you could from 67 on an 8x10 print?

Yes, but...
The difference isn't very big at all, but bigger is better.

WolfTales said:
I have used 66 cropped to 645 and the results seem acceptable to me...

Well, there's your answer!

WolfTales · Jul 8, 2009

Yes but but..... it's another camera!! and they are getting cheaper every day now...

Andrew Moxom · Jul 8, 2009

Just get a 6x6 and be done with it Be there or be square.. I'm the latter and proud.

Ian Grant · Jul 8, 2009

I shoot 645 and 6x9, I love the 645 format, I only switched to it when my C3 & C33 Mamiya's were stolen.

Tonally 645 is great up to about 16"x12" , I had thought about 6x7 but the weight & bick like size put me off. I already shot 5x4 so a 6x9 back for my Wista made a lot of sense.

Should add I also shoot 6x6 with 3 TLR's

Ian

Steve Smith · Jul 8, 2009

WolfTales said:
I have used 66 cropped to 645 and the results seem acceptable to me...

WolfTales said:
Yes but but..... it's another camera!! and they are getting cheaper every day now...

There you go. You've already given yourself two correct answers!

Steve.

Sirius Glass · Jul 8, 2009

Andrew Moxom said:
Just get a 6x6 and be done with it Be there or be square.. I'm the latter and proud.

What he said.

For decades Hasselblad used to advertise that square was the perfect format. You have been told what is good, now go forth and heed the word!

Steve

Q.G. · Jul 8, 2009

Ah, but do not forget that, starting 1956, Hasselblad also sold 6x4.5 magazines.

The message was/is: do whatever you want.

WolfTales · Jul 8, 2009

That's a good idea - I can just get a 645 back and try it out for a while on the RZ.....

Thanks!

keithwms · Jul 8, 2009

Using a 645 back on an rb/rz is not such a good idea IMHO. I did so and was underwhelmed. It'll likely give you a very poor impression of what 645 can do. My recommendation would be to borrow a 645 pro or such, get a really fast tele on there and have fun. If you do that you will see that it is an experience entirely different from the rb or rz.

I almost never concern myself with which format offers better tonality, detail, whatever. Far more important to me are the huge differences in the lenses for each system- differences in the field of view and the lens speed (max aperture). Ergonomics is important too, of course.

In 645 you have some very fast lenses covering a very wide range of focal lengths, and overall the gear is easily handholdable. That is the biggest plus for 645, in my book.

I have various systems including the mamiya 645 afd, the pro, the rz, rb, mamiya 6, and various others. In my case, the choice often comes down to transportability, speed, and field of view. If I want a tighter field of view then the 645 systems win almost every time. Likewise if I plan to work handheld in low light- the rb/rz are bricks in that situation. Only the rz 110/2.8 is fast enough for that and, IMHO, it's not got a chance against any number of 645 lenses for handheld, low light work.

So... it all depends, as usual...!

Incidentally, I'd say "ideal format" really has more to do with how much (or little) cropping you need to do for your desired enlargement. Ideal is whichever format allows you to compose and print what you want with the least fuss.

archphoto · Jul 8, 2009

A camera like a Bronica ETRs 6x4.5 with grip would be a good addition to your 6x7: it is lighter, so better for backpacking and long hikes, you would have to try it.
On the other hand if you use a standard lens only a TLR would do too, it is even lighter than a Bronica.
A 6x6 screen can be taped finely for 6x4.5, I did that and it worked.

6x7 versus 6x4.5 grain: you will see an increase in grain eventualy, but you need very good eyesight to see the diference on a 8x10 print.

But....... what if........ you come across the shot of your life, one to be blown-up to wall-size and you don't have the 6x7 with you.....
Ever thought about a Pentax 6x7 ? Not as bulky, it's about one brick only.......

Peter

Pumal · Jul 8, 2009

The best answer for your needs is 6X6. Allows you for many composition options and fits the bill when it comes to grain. It's lighter than 6X7 too.

eddym · Jul 8, 2009

I can only speak from my own experience, from about 25 years ago.
I used a Mamiya 645 for several years and loved it. Then I got an RB67 and was amazed how much better the pictures were from it.
Then I got a Hasselblad and was amazed at how much better its pictures were than the RB's!
Then I got a Linhof Technika 70 and....
Nevermind.

E76 · Jul 8, 2009

As others have said bigger is better, but you have to think about the advantages and disadvantages that come with an increase in negative size. For example, a 6x7 camera is going to be a lot bigger than a 6x4.5 or even a 6x6. An RZ/RB67 is a great camera, but it's huge! Almost as big and heavy as a 4x5. (This was one of my main reasons for going to 6x6, as I plan on moving to LF eventually, at which point a 6x7 would be a little redundant.)

I've often heard of the 6x7 format being a good choice if you don't plan on ever moving up to 4x5.

WolfTales · Jul 8, 2009

Thanks Keith - you pinpointed a crucial area!

Thanks everyone for the fine ideas!

brian steinberger · Jul 8, 2009

Why not have all three formats! I have a Bronica RF645, a Mamiya 6, and a Mamiya 7II and use all depending on what I'm shooting. If I'm shooting broad landscapes where details may be very small in the negative I'll go for the 6x7. If I'm in the square frame of mind (which happens very often) I'll go for the 6x6. And if I'm traveling light, hiking, exploring a subject, or shooting closer in, I'll grab the 6x4.5. Point is, one camera can't do it all. The other advantage of having multiple cameras is if you get sick of shooting with one camera or in one format you can switch things up for a while. It's funny how you'll set a camera aside for a few weeks or months and pick it up again and shoot and wonder why you ever let it sit for so long!

weasel · Jul 8, 2009

The difference in tonality between 645 and 67 will not be great; nor will grain, or anything else for that matter. I would almost guarantee that if you set the prints made from the two side by side, no one could really tell.
The format is not as much of an issue as the quality of the lenses, the dampening of the shutter, the viewfinder, and all those subtle things that can make a camera sing in ones hands.
Is a 645 really any smaller and lighter than the mamiya 67 you are using?

2F/2F · Jul 8, 2009

I have printed 645 negs full frame onto 16x20 paper with HP5 and have been impressed. At 8x10, I doubt you could tell much difference between the RZ and a 645. This is all assuming a "technically sound" shot, of course. The 645s are definitely better hand held IMO, especially if you shoot 220, get a model that takes backs, and keep them preloaded in a bag or something. Then you can put fresh film on straight away, and reload when you get to a good stopping point.

P.S. One more point: sometimes I use the M645 instead of the RZ when I want a picture that looks less technically clean than 6x7, but not as dirty as 35mm. Generally this is with Delta 3200 or grainified HP5 or Tri-X 320.

P.P.S. The best 645 out there for flat-out quality is a Hassy with an A16 back. (I am not sure if they ever made an A32 back for 220 film in 645 format, but that would be even better, assuming you shoot color or Tri-X 320.) The question is how much do you want to spend to have the advantages of the Hassy over any other 645? For just doing 8x10s, and perhaps being on a budget, I would not recommend going this route. Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, and some other companies have great 645 SLR systems that sell for peanuts. OTOH, with the Hassy, you also get a 6x6 camera or a 70mm camera by swapping backs.

fotch · Jul 8, 2009

I think of my Mamiya 645 as sort of a 35mm on steroids. At the larger sze of 6x9, which for me is using a roll film back, as an alternative to 4x5 for less cost and more speed. In between, 6x6 is well in between. I wish I had a real portable 6x9, like a older Super Ikonta C.

If you have a lot of choices, you pick the preferred film first and then the best camera to use for the shots you want to make.

At least that is the approach that I found works for me.

Sirius Glass · Jul 9, 2009

2F/2F said:
P.P.S. The best 645 out there for flat-out quality is a Hassy with an A16 back. (I am not sure if they ever made an A32 back for 220 film in 645 format, but that would be even better, assuming you shoot color or Tri-X 320.) The question is how much do you want to spend to have the advantages of the Hassy over any other 645? For just doing 8x10s, and perhaps being on a budget, I would not recommend going this route. Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, and some other companies have great 645 SLR systems that sell for peanuts. OTOH, with the Hassy, you also get a 6x6 camera or a 70mm camera by swapping backs.

Yes, Hasselblad did make an A32.

Steve

Mark Antony · Jul 9, 2009

My photography is well suited to a 6x6, I think that a small TLR (Yashica, Rolleicord etc) with a close-up lens will work well. That said I've been carrying a 6x9 folder (Bessa I) in my backpack over the last week or so and have enjoyed shooting landscapes with it, as its perfect large neg small package camera and at £20 was cheap as chips.
I could do 90% of my photography with a Rollei TLR and a 6x9 folder, of course lens choices are restricted but then I've always been a 1 lens type of guy....
Mark

Pupfish · Jul 9, 2009

Shorter lenses for the same FOV means a DOF advantage accrues to the 645 for the extreme near-far landcape work I do in MF. It's the perfect niche for 645.

Beyond what I can do with an ultrawide 35mm on my P645N I want camera moves, so I reach for my 4x5.

The more ideal format, 645 or 67?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency