The Surprising Disinterest in 645

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
These days, I have all the sizes covered to some extent, ranging from 6x4.5 to 6x9. But back about six years ago, I was looking for deals on a good medium format system camera setup. Bronica SQ was at the top of my list. Even though prices were at an all-time low back then, Hasselblad was still more than I could justify spending. Hence a Bronica SQ. Well, as things turned out -- rather unexpectedly in my case -- I fell into a great deal on a Bronica ETRSi outfit. Camera body, 120 and 220 backs, prism finder, and 75mm lens. The price was unbeatable and, since the Bronica ETR system is a modular one, which is what I was after, I just decided to stick with this ETRSi for a while. And here it is, six years later and I still have it. Plus I've added two lenses, a Speed Grip, another 120 back, an AEII metered prism, and a Metz SCA300 TTL flash module to the outfit. And I love it. Hey, the way I see it, if I were shooting with a 6x6 camera, I'd likely be cropping the image anyway, which means I'll be cropping things down into the 645 range. Besides, with the Speed Grip attached, it handles like a big 35mm camera anyway, which makes things very easy and convenient.
 

unityofsaints

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
141
Location
Sydney
Format
ULarge Format
What an interesting discussion this has been, all 7 pages of this!

I'll freely admit I'm replying this more as "bump" to keep gathering input on the format but that being said I'll add my 2c:

For me personally I'd struggle to find a place for 645 in my crowded lineup of 35mm, 6x9, 4x5" and 8x10". Currently I'm leaning much more in the direction of filling the gap between 4x5" and 8x10" than 135 and 6x9. I could easily see it replacing 35mm completely for a shooter as their smallest format or for those who need a lot of shots per roll. I enjoy the 8 shots per roll on 6x9 and find 36 frames hard to fill on 135 so I'm not one of them. I keep 135 around because of the lens commonality with my video setup and its ruggedness so it's also hard to make an argument for 645 from that point of view.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
I'm obsessed with technical image quality and therefore abandoned 35mm for MF where I found the best image quality with Hasselblad and Mamiya6, both 6x6.The Hasselblad is used mainly in the studio and the Mamiya 6 is an excellent travel camera.
 

macfred

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
3,839
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I have three 6x4.5 cameras (FUJI GA645, FUJI GA645Wi and a Bronica ETRSi)- one 6x6 camera (Super Ikonta III 531/16), one 6x7 camera (FUJI GW670iii) and one 6x9 camera (MOCKBA-5).
I really like my 6x4.5 for it's convenience - it's a great system for traveling and hiking and I love the 6x7 for it's superb image quality.
My 6x6 Super Ikonta is my every day shooter - it fits the inside pocket of my Tweed jacket.
Least of all I shoot 6x9 (though the i.q. is great) - I do not like it's aspect ratio.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
I switched to 645 because of the cost of 120. I don't mind the 6x4.5 although I do like the 6x6 better. In the end it makes more sense due to getting 15 shots out of a roll and it prints over a whole sheet of paper rather than cropping.

I got a Mamiya M645 recently and once I got past the meter issues it's a fun camera to shoot. I love the winder to get to the next frame.
 

essensebe

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
30
Location
Belgium
Format
Medium Format
I started and worked a lot with 645 with Mamiya, Pentax and Contax camera's. Since I discovered 67 with my Pentax 67ii I'm hooked to this format.
However nothing wrong with the 6x45 format and it's a lot more economic for commercial jobs.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
To me 645 is a neither fish nor fowl size. It too closely mimics the 35mm aspect ratio, which is one I don't particularly respond to anymore. It's also the very smallest of the medium format frames, so it doesn't gain you that much in quality over 35mm compared to say 6x9 or even 6x7. It's also too small for contact printing as single frames. If I want to go wide, the 645 aspect ratio is not wide enough- if I want a lot wider than 6x6, then I'll go all the way to 6x12 and shoot panoramic (I'd love to go 6x17 for panoramic but the cameras are huge, and when they're not huge, they're huge and expensive. And a 3:1 ratio gets a lot harder to artistically justify - there's a lot more that fits into a 6x12 than a 6x17).
 

naaldvoerder

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
705
Format
35mm
Unfortunately the lack of interest in 645 never led to the collapse of Contax 645 prices...
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
naaldvoerder said:
Unfortunately the lack of interest in 645 never led to the collapse of Contax 645 prices...
Click to expand...
THAT is one of the few 645 systems I would be interested in - you have the sweet spot of 645 - auto-focus, mind-blowing Zeiss lenses, can be adapted to digital backs, and if you can find 220 film, it has the vacuum-plane pressure plate backs as an option that will hold the film completely flat across the film plane- I believe it really does make a difference even in the RTS III 35mm, so it would be even more apparent on 645. But Pentax and Mamiya 645 cameras were made in much larger quantities, for much longer periods, so they lack the cachet of the Contax, and certainly the Pentax can't be adapted to shoot digital, so they're even less sought-after than the Mamiyas.
 

Grif

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
321
Location
Selah, WA
Format
Multi Format
Just swapped a really nice 645 Pentax,,, it just did not bond with me at all. I had a lot of fun with it. Took some really nice pics (all color), not so happy with B&W. In my mind, with my behavior from the dark room days, the 645 and 6x6 were one and the same, but I didn't need to twist the 6x6. I was a frame in the darkroom guy with 6x6 (C33 Mamiya). Almost always cropped to 5x7 or 11x14, so why have a 6x6, but I liked the vertical format,,, and so on and so forth. Long story short. It was a lot like selling a Chevy to a Ford guy. Just wasn't gonna work ;-) I may have a Mamiya TLR at some point again just for the nostalgia of it. The one fun goodie in my arsenal is a mini-speed graphic with a 6x9 back and holders for 2 1/4x3 1/4 It's enough gizmo to use I don't think I'll notice or whine about the orientation of the film.
 

Svenedin

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,191
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF


Yes, I completely agree. I love my Zeiss 645 folders. I have the A530 and A531 pre and post-war Super Ikontas. They easily fit in a jacket pocket.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,930
Format
8x10 Format
My specific gripe with 645 is that I sometimes mix 16x20 prints from MF cameras into the same portfolios as prints taken on 4x5 and 8x10 film. It already reaquires an exceptional 6x7 or 6x9 negative just to pull that off, and I don't think 645 realistically can run in the same pack. Might be fine
with analogous originals or individually. What I would like to own, however, is a reliable old MF rangefinder with more "character" to the lens than
my modern clinically-sharp MF options.
 

moto-uno

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
585
Location
Burnaby, B.C
Format
Medium Format
^ A Mockba 5 might fill the bill for that desire , and heck they're some cheap for the real estate available . Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…