The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[benjiboy]

645 does not provide enough increase in negative size from 135 to warrant the bulkier and heavier camera. For that kind of mass, I would rather and do use 6x6. I find that for me the 6x7 cameras are bulkier than the 6x6 and not worth the effort. Rather than shoot 6x7 use one of the two 4"x5" cameras.

With respect Steve, I disagree the negative area of 645 is around three times that of 135.

 

[FujiLove]

The square aspect is one of the main reasons I shoot medium format. I struggle to compose images with 35mm cameras, and 645 is too similar. 6x7 is rectangular enough for my eye/brain to deal with.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

With respect can't agree Steve, a 6x4.5 negative is about three times the area of a 24x36 one.

If one crops 135 format to 4:5 ratio then 6x4.5 is nearly 4 times the area.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I really like the fact that I can project 6x4.5 slides. My projector won't handle 6x7. I even use 6x4.5 backs some times on my RB67.

With the same projector you could project 6x6. So on that front, the playing field is level.

 

[ac12]

I went from 35mm to 6x6, for the larger negative image size. And 6x6 is the max film size my Durst M600 enlarger can handle.
Though, now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, I would rather go all the way to 6x9. This is to get the largest roll film image size, before going to 4x5 sheet film in a view camera.

Secondly, I don't have to turn a 6x6 camera to get a V or H format. Though I don't know how comfortable or clumsy it would be to turn a 6x4.5. Now I really wished that I tried the Mamiya 645, when I had access to one at the local community college, just to see just how comfortable or awkward rotating the 645 would be. After all I am used to turning a 35mm camera to get a V format. But I guess, having the 6x6, I wasn't interested in the smaller 6x4.5, which was rather short sighted of me.

Finally, for me it was cost and opportunity. I bought my Hasselblad 500c with 80mm lens, for LESS than I paid for my Nikon D70. That was sad for the camera, but good for me. In the past the Hasselblad was the dream camera that I figured I would NEVER be able to afford. So I went for the Hasselblad, rather than looking at a Mamiya 645.

Were I to start from scratch (no existing cameras), I might start with a 645, and skip 35mm completely. Now that makes sense.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

ac12... I can only compare the Bronica ETRSi system to the many 135 format systems I had. The Bronica had the speed grip and metered prism. IMO, it handled just as well, horizontally and vertically, as any 135 cameras I had. Athough it was obviously a bit bulkier and heavier, it was a fantastic compromise between image quality and portability. The speed grip was essential for easy handling, especially for vertical shots.

 

[ac12]

A comment about film format vs paper size.

A big issue that I have with paper is that you can't scale from one size to the next without an image cropping issue.
Example, if you print 'full frame' on 8x10, then the client says he wants a 5x7, then you have to crop the long axis of the 8x10 image to fit a 5x7. Even going from 8x10 up to 11x14, you still have to crop a bit on the long axis.
So as long as you are printing to standard size paper/print size, you will always have to deal with a situation where you have to crop the image to fit the paper.

I just ran some numbers, a 6x4.5 or 4.5x6 has a 1:1.33 ratio.
This does not match the ratios of any of the standard size papers that I ran numbers on
- 5x7 = 1:1.4
- 8x10 = 1:1.25
- 11x14 = 1:1.273
- 16x20 = 1:1.25
So you still have to crop the film image to fit any of these standard size papers, you are not printing full frame.
Granted not as much as with a 6x6.

Yes you can print a custom size to exactly match the film image ratio, but then you are into a framing issue. Frames are made to standard sizes. So, do you dry mount the print so that it will fit into a standard size frame, or do you make a custom size frame to fit the print? I've done both, but it was a hassle.

 

[wiltw]

I just ran some numbers, a 6x4.5 or 4.5x6 has a 1:1.33 ratio.
This does not match the ratios of any of the standard size papers that I ran numbers on
- 5x7 = 1:1.4
- 8x10 = 1:1.25
- 11x14 = 1:1.273
- 16x20 = 1:1.25
So you still have to crop the film image to fit any of these standard size papers, you are not printing full frame.
Granted not as much as with a 6x6..

So-called 645, frame area is actually 41.5-43mm x 55-56mm. My ETRSi frame is 42.5 x 55.1 mm, or 1:2.9 and very little need be cropped off for 8x10

An RZ67 frame, at 56 x 69.5, is 1:1.24, and does not fit 8x10 perfectly either! Methinks your issue is a paper tiger ;-)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No idea why.
Personally, I have no square vision. I don't print square. And my 645 classic folder was recently sold within few days.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The Bronica I had matches what wiltw stated. Very little cropping for 8x10in or 16x20in prints.

 

[Diapositivo]

My personal suspect is that medium format sales are - or were - mainly driven by the professional market, and that meant, for most, the use of a tripod or the need to switch fast between portrait orientation and landscape orientation. With the exception of those Mamiya with a rotating back, comfortable work with a tripod requires square format and waist-level finder.
For portrait professionals, ceremony professionals, and product professionals, and some other studio works such as fashion, being able to let the camera alone on the tripod while re-composing the shot (one person, vertical; three persons, horizontal; one steak: horizontal; one wine bottle: vertical; three wine bottles: horizontal etc.) and leaving for a later moment the orientation of the final picture meant a great saving of time.

I also consider that before the Barnack invention all cameras probably had a square or quasi-square format. Barnack's had a rectangular format just because they used motion picture film. Maybe if 24 x 36 had never been, also 4.5 x 6 would have never been.

My first camera was a Kodak Instamatic (126, that's square, which is nice for a beginner, you don't have to think about "orientation" when you make a picture). The second one was a Polaroid: and that also was square, and very likely for the same reason, you don't have to really decide what to put in and out of your picture at the moment of the picture.
My third camera (by the age of 14) was a SLR (a beloved Minolta SrT 100x which I still own and use). That forced me, for every shot, to decide "in advance" the final destiny of the image, the orientation. Now it's pretty obvious that it must be so, but - in retrospect - I understand, or remember, it is not obvious at all. And tripod work is a bit slower with the rectangular format, for sure.

 

[Fr. Mark]

This has been interesting to me. From time to time I think 35mm is too small and my family (and some other situations) dictate against using a LF camera. Now that I have been playing with the square pictures on the iPhone I'm getting more comfortable with square composition. So, I'd been thinking of either a pocketable folder or TLR someday for MF. Also, after going to sheet film, 12 exposures is plenty for most days. For a lot of what I do hand held and even LF a normal lens is fine. If I get MF gear it will be mechanical. And probably leaf shutter. But that's going to mean scanning or enlarging and increasingly I want bigger contact prints and not enlarging.

 

[Roger Cole]

Formats? Preferences? Oh, dear. There's no disputing tastes.

That said, several centuries ago one of my friends moved up from 35 mm (Canon, I think) to 645 (Pentax, I think) and was absolutely delighted with his 645 results. Until, that is, he came by and I showed him 2x3 trannies shot with my humble Century Graphic. 645 is half frame 2x3. 645 trannies look pretty punk when compared with 2x3s. In truth, however, 2x3 trannies look pretty punk when compared with 4x5s.

"Punk?" I'm not even sure that this means and I'm sure there are others who are in an even worse position (because I THINK I know what it means) but are too embarassed to say. I THINK this means that 2x3s fair pretty well compared to 4x5 transparencies. But I'm not sure. You could be saying they look as feeble next to 4x5 as 35mm does next to 645.

How about using standard (or American) English instead of urban lingo that many of us have to guess about?

In any event, one can get a projector to handle 645 and 6x6 transparencies fairly inexpensively though not nearly as common and inexpensive as a 35mm one. Projecting 4x5? Um...

645 does not provide enough increase in negative size from 135 to warrant the bulkier and heavier camera. For that kind of mass, I would rather and do use 6x6. I find that for me the 6x7 cameras are bulkier than the 6x6 and not worth the effort. Rather than shoot 6x7 use one of the two 4"x5" cameras.

For those of us who end up cropping many of our 6x6 negatives all we get with the 6x6 camera is more film area wasted. Now granted I sometimes print square. I like it, for some images but not most. But even so, even a 4.5 square is a LOT better than doing the same from 35mm which would be 2.4cm square.

I really like the fact that I can project 6x4.5 slides. My projector won't handle 6x7. I even use 6x4.5 backs some times on my RB67.

With the same projector you could project 6x6. So on that front, the playing field is level.

Sure. But if I print a minority of my prints square I think I'd want an even smaller minority square when projected AND cropping would require custom mounts or masking each slide or something.

I went from 35mm to 6x6, for the larger negative image size. And 6x6 is the max film size my Durst M600 enlarger can handle.
Though, now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, I would rather go all the way to 6x9. This is to get the largest roll film image size, before going to 4x5 sheet film in a view camera.

Secondly, I don't have to turn a 6x6 camera to get a V or H format. Though I don't know how comfortable or clumsy it would be to turn a 6x4.5. Now I really wished that I tried the Mamiya 645, when I had access to one at the local community college, just to see just how comfortable or awkward rotating the 645 would be. After all I am used to turning a 35mm camera to get a V format. But I guess, having the 6x6, I wasn't interested in the smaller 6x4.5, which was rather short sighted of me.

Finally, for me it was cost and opportunity. I bought my Hasselblad 500c with 80mm lens, for LESS than I paid for my Nikon D70. That was sad for the camera, but good for me. In the past the Hasselblad was the dream camera that I figured I would NEVER be able to afford. So I went for the Hasselblad, rather than looking at a Mamiya 645.

Were I to start from scratch (no existing cameras), I might start with a 645, and skip 35mm completely. Now that makes sense.

Hasselblads are deals now compared to new, for the body, back and 80mm lens. When you start trying to add more lenses the comparison to other brands starts to be a lot more spendy.

As for turning for vertical, my M645 Pro with winder grip handles fine turned vertically and is probably even easier to shoot verticals with, due to the grip, than my 35mm cameras. No problem there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
But if I print a minority of my prints square I think I'd want an even smaller minority square when projected AND cropping would require custom mounts or masking each slide or something.

Whereas I print most of my 6x6 as square and many be two or three prints in a decade as rectangular.

Hasselblads are deals now compared to new, for the body, back and 80mm lens. When you start trying to add more lenses the comparison to other brands starts to be a lot more spendy.

The additional lenses are not that expensive for what one gets for Hasselblad equipment. It just means that one has to wait a little longer to get the next lens. Waiting adds to the appreciation.

 

[Alan Gales]

It just means that one has to wait a little longer to get the next lens. Waiting adds to the appreciation.

+1

I remember scrimping and saving to buy my Zeiss lenses for my 35mm Contax years ago. It took me a while but boy did I appreciate those lenses once I got them!

 

[Dan Fromm]

I also consider that before the Barnack invention all cameras probably had a square or quasi-square format. Barnack's had a rectangular format just because they used motion picture film. Maybe if 24 x 36 had never been, also 4.5 x 6 would have never been.

Interesting. Folding Pocket Kodaks as were sold in most of the world including Italy were offered well before Barnack started work on his exposure tester. Here's a list of sizes (Kodak's own scheme) and formats in inches:

0 1.625 x 2.5
1 2.25 x 3.25
1A 2.5 x 4.25
2 3.5 x 3.5
2C 2.875 x 4.875
3 3.25 x 4.25
3A 3.25 x 5.5
4 4 x 5
4A 4.25 x 6.5

You might want to recalibrate what you consider to be true.

 

[cowanw]

adjective
adjective: punk

1. 1.
   North Americaninformal
   in poor or bad condition.
   "I felt too punk to eat"

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

645 is actually still hugely popular in pro wedding circles. The Contax 645 took over the industry for a while there and prices went nuts. They're now selling used with no support not too far from what they were new. IMO you shoot 645 if you want to beat 35mm in quality but want to borrow some of the conveniences. Contax, Pentax, Mamiya and Hasselblad eventually came out with very capable AF bodies that can manage 16 frames on a roll or like 32 in 220. At a wedding, that's awesome. If we all had our druthers we'd shoot the Pentax 67II... but it's huge, loading it is a PITA. The only guy I know who shoots weddings 95% with a 67II is Jon Canlas and he uses 1-2 assistants and 1-3 bodies to make that happen. A 645 only requires a set of pre-loaded backs or inserts, and maybe one assistant to re-load. I don't currently have a 645 kit, but I am about to pick up a 645z so I may get an 645n body to go with it. Eventually I'd like another 67II as well! For personal work and shoots not requiring a great deal of speed though, I love my Rolleiflex, and wouldn't want to go smaller than 6x6. Honestly movements aside, with the new Portra films a 67 neg from a Pentax gives me 99% of what I want from 4x5 too. It's pretty amazing, but that's wayyy OT.

 

[filmamigo]

645 works pretty well for me. It's my "goldilocks" format.

645 negatives have substantially better tonality than 35mm negatives. This is easily visible to me and to folks (with untrained eyes) who see my photographs. The "it's too close to 35mm" argument seems like a straw man.

Sure, even bigger negatives can look even nicer. But with my 645 (Bronica ETRsi) I get other benefits: leaf shutters for flash sync at all speeds; 15 shots per back which makes portrait work and travel/street photography easier to manage; no real cropping to print 8x10s and 16x20s (my favourite print sizes.) The lenses are reasonably fast too, mostly 2.8.

I've used square format (Rolleiflex and Yashica) and found I crop to 8x10 almost 90% of the time. So those are really 645 cameras that I don't have to rotate, but which are harder to judge the framing with. I did add a Pentax 67 recently, and love the resolution and look of Pentax lenses. But it will not displace the ETRSi because of the advantages I listed above.

 

[Diapositivo]

Interesting. Folding Pocket Kodaks as were sold in most of the world including Italy were offered well before Barnack started work on his exposure tester. Here's a list of sizes (Kodak's own scheme) and formats in inches:

0 1.625 x 2.5
1 2.25 x 3.25
1A 2.5 x 4.25
2 3.5 x 3.5
2C 2.875 x 4.875
3 3.25 x 4.25
3A 3.25 x 5.5
4 4 x 5
4A 4.25 x 6.5

You might want to recalibrate what you consider to be true.

Good answer. Wrong tone.

 

[RobC]

So-called 645, frame area is actually 41.5-43mm x 55-56mm. My ETRSi frame is 42.5 x 55.1 mm, or 1:2.9 and very little need be cropped off for 8x10

An RZ67 frame, at 56 x 69.5, is 1:1.24, and does not fit 8x10 perfectly either! Methinks your issue is a paper tiger ;-)

Your aspect ratio calcs are a little odd. The normal way would be to have the larger value on left and then divide to get small divisor values.
Both of your 645 cameras end up being very close to producing 4:3 aspect ratio neg frames which is what you should expect from a 645 camera.

And from there it follows that if you are printing close to full frame then your display frame window mat should be using a 4:3 aspect ratio window cut out.
On a 5x7 display frame that means a 6x4.5 cutout so a mat border width of 1/2 inch on long side and 1/4 on short side. If you want equal mat border width all round (or none ) then yes you will need to crop image but only a tad. That's why you shouldn't crop too tightly in camera so you have a litlle wiggle room when printing to different paper formats.

 

[wiltw]

645 negatives have substantially better tonality than 35mm negatives. This is easily visible to me and to folks (with untrained eyes) who see my photographs. The "it's too close to 35mm" argument seems like a straw man.

Agree on this point. And relative to grain, if 135 shows grain at 16x20 (16.9x magnification), the same level of grain is seen with 645 format in a 28"x35" print (16.9x magnification)!

I have shot many weddings on 645 format. Having 56% of the apparent grain at the same 16x20 final print size is nothing to sneeze about.

 

[wiltw]

Your aspect ratio calcs are a little odd. The normal way would be to have the larger value on left and then divide to get small divisor values.
Both of your 645 cameras end up being very close to producing 4:3 aspect ratio neg frames which is what you should expect from a 645 camera.

And from there it follows that if you are printing close to full frame then your display frame window mat should be using a 4:3 aspect ratio window cut out.
On a 5x7 display frame that means a 6x4.5 cutout so a mat border width of 1/2 inch on long side and 1/4 on short side. If you want equal mat border width all round (or none ) then yes you will need to crop image but only a tad. That's why you shouldn't crop too tightly in camera so you have a litlle wiggle room when printing to different paper formats.

Rob, yes I normally do put the bigger number in the front (1.25:1) but since I was replying to a post in which that person had stated it as "1:1.25", I posted backwards (vs. convention) only for consistency with that person's post. Restated (to please your sensibilities on the subject):

• Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 (56 x 41.5mm): 1.35:1
• Bronica ETRSi (55.1 x 42.5mm): 1.296:1

And with a 1/4" border on 8x10 film we have an image area of 9.5 x 7.5", or 1.266:1 rather than the paper's 1.25:1 apparent aspect ratio. So cropping for a bordered print (e.g. with matte in photo album) is less of an image area loss than printing borderless. In fact, I just measured a matte for 8x10" print for an Art Leather album (long considered one of the quality books for wedding products) and it is exactly 1.267:1 with 9.33" x 7.36" cutout.

Applying the same 1/4 border logic to 8.5" x 11" paper, we have an 10.5" x 8.0" image area which is 1.31:1

 

[RobC]

You have to plan for these things at taking stage having first asked client what frame sizes they want to use. If they change their mind after the event then its their fault if it doesn't work that way. But only if you have warned them in advance of the event.
Again giving your composition in camera some space to breath gives you some flexibility down the line. I was taught that you should crop as tight as possible get maximum film area usage, especially with 35mm film but I think it really depends on what your final format will be and you need to think about that in advance othewise you're stuffed and forced to produce bad crops when printing.

 

[wiltw]

You have to plan for these things at taking stage having first asked client what frame sizes they want to use. If they change their mind after the event then its their fault if it doesn't work that way. But only if you have warned them in advance of the event.
Again giving your composition in camera some space to breath gives you some flexibility down the line. I was taught that you should crop as tight as possible get maximum film area usage, especially with 35mm film but I think it really depends on what your final format will be and you need to think about that in advance othewise you're stuffed and forced to produce bad crops when printing.

^ If you crop loose while shooting, it affords the maximum flexibility of final print aspect ratio. After all, where an 8x10 (1.25:1) might go well in a wedding album, a 5x7 (1.4:1) might be better for a reasonable sized print for framing and putting on a mantlepiece, and 11x14 (1.27:1) might be better suited for an average home's wall portrait (than a 16x20 for a mansion).
In all cases, you can fit the area of greater interest to maximize the image area on the print, although it does not necessarily mean maximizing film image as print image (for minimizing grain and maximizing lens delivered detail resolution).

And in this discussion about cropping to fit film image to print image, there has been overlooking the fact that one cannot necessarily SEE the entire image area in the viewfinder of the camera, so you are composing loose inherently! Then there is also the consideration that the negative holder in the enlarger may fail to have an opening to project the entire image area, further confounding the issue.