The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[DavidClapp]

Being relatively new to film, I keep revisiting the poll about formats, 645, 6x6, 6x7, etc and I am really surprised at the the results and the disinterest in 645.

It's quite amusing actually because the two formats I love the most, 645 for it's convenience and 6x12 for it's unbeatable usefulness in the landscape, were the least appreciated!

6x12 aside, when I look at the second hand market, the resurgence in film over the last few years, eBay etc, the expense of film and the accessibility of quality but affordable 645 gear, I am certain 645 should be more popular as cameras seem to sell continually.

If you don't like 645, can I ask what the reasons are?

 

[Tony-S]

I don't dislike 645; it's my second most-used behind 6x7 (Bronica RF645 rangefinder). I prefer 6x7 because I'm "trained" to see in 4:5 aspect because of printing to the standard sizes (e.g., 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) so no cropping from a 6x7 negative. 6x12 requires a 4x5 enlarger, so I'm not interested in that (even though I have a 4x5 camera). 6x6 is my least used. It's baggage from the WLF-only days.

 

[DavidClapp]

I don't dislike 645; it's my second most-used behind 6x7 (Bronica 645 rangefinder). I prefer 6x7 because I'm "trained" to see in 4:5 aspect because of printing to the standard sizes (e.g., 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) so no cropping from a 6x7 negative. 6x12 requires a 4x5 enlarger, so I'm not interested in that (even though I have a 4x5 camera). 6x6 is my least used. It's baggage from the WLF-only days.

Ah ok, I never considered the print ratios, should have thought about that... Interesting you say 6x6 is your least used as it was the most popular in the poll...

 

[ic-racer]

It is not square for one reason...

Actually, in the 1970s that Mamiya 645 in the Sears catalog was on my Christmas list every year. Never did get one though.

 

[Huss]

I love my Mamiya 645 Pro TL. My current show was shot using it, and I have an upcoming shoot this weekend that it will be used for.
Maybe the best bargain in MF photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

I like 645 but it's never been a format I seriously used. 6x6 is so much more flexible. But I did buy a 645 camera once for a portrait project that still hasn't happened - it is vertical format so seemed quite right for that kind of project.

 

[Kirks518]

I have 6x4.5 (Mamiya M645 1000s & Fuji GA645), 6x6 (Y-Mat 124G, Rolleicord, & Mamiya C330), and 6x7 (RB67 ProSD). I have more lenses and accessories for the C330 & RB67 then I do for the M645, but I always seem to grab the M645. Maybe it's because I grew up on 35mm, and the 645 format is similar in composition, so it's more of what my mind's eye sees? I also like getting 15 (sometimes 16) frames out of a roll.

I don't go larger then 13x19 when I (digitally) print, and the 645 holds up to that size just fine.

But I do like the (relatively) huge negative of the 6x7, and I do like the square framing of the 6x6, but I use the 645's 90% of the time.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If I'm going to carry anything larger than a 35mm camera, then I want the larger negative.

6x6 is as small as I'm willing to go - and that's only because my Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes aren't really that big.

My RB67's are big, but those 6x7 negatives, plus the joy of using the camera, are worth it.

 

[Jager]

If I'm going to carry anything larger than a 35mm camera, then I want the larger negative.

Pretty much this. I love my Bronica RF645. And I'd love to have a Contax. But 6x6 and 6x7 negatives are what make medium format so compelling for me. And a Hasselblad... once you experience that long, rapturous, rolling shutter release. It's like mainlining crack. You're done.

 

[DWThomas]

Well I voted for 6x6, as that square format was where I was headed when I "upgraded" from 35mm. I started with the Poor Man's Hasselblad, AKA, Bronica (SQ-A), and have since added a Perkeo II with Color Skopar and a Yashica Mat 124G, that's how hooked I am on 6x6. BUT, if I decide I want rectangular, I also have added an Ercona II with 105mm f/3.5 CZJ Tessar that gives me way more negative area than 645. But it's all good and not based on any weird religious dogma or anything!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I accidentally exposed a roll of film in my Zero Image 6x9 MF set to 6x4.5 last weekend, and was not at all happy with the results. It reminded me too much of 35mm, even though it was bigger of course. Just didn't sit well with me. The 645 format is probably the only one I have not used in roll cameras; I went straight up from 35mm to the bigger sizes. My favs are 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Happy and sorted.

 

[Kyle M.]

I like the 645 cameras aesthetics and ergonomics. I've had a Mamiya 645, 645 1000s, and a 645 Super, but theres something about the the actual format that I don't like. I really like 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. I'm more of a waist level finder fan than an eye level guy, waistlevels and the ground glass of a view camera really appeal to me more than an eye level finder. Waist levels don't really work well with 645 unless your a contortionist, and for 6x7 I always used and RB/RZ so I had the rotating back which I absolutely adore.

 

[MattKing]

I think 6x4.5 is a great format.

Lets see if this will upload without being turned to mush:

 

[cramej]

I like 645. For me, what I use depends on what I'm shooting. If I'm shooting individual portraits, then 645 is fine and I don't have to carry around relatively large lenses to reach out a little. I also don't have to carry quite as much film. I did shoot some portraits last week with 6x6 just because I wanted to get the camera out and shoot with it. Mamiya has provided me with almost any format I want. I have a 645 AFDii, Mamiyaflex C2 and C3 and a RB67. I don't have any wide lenses for the 645 yet so I shoot something else if I need wide.

 

[images39]

I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro a few years back, and have nothing but good things to say about it. I'm continually taken with the quality of the Mamiya lenses. My photography got markedly better when I started using this camera.

Dale

 

[Alan Gales]

To be honest I can't understand why more people don't shoot 645 over 35mm. I used to shoot a Pentax Nll and enjoyed shooting it handheld more than my 35mm cameras.

 

[tomfrh]

I have a Pentax 645N system which I really love. It's significantly better than 35mm for all but the smallest prints.

That being said I just bought a 6x7 system, and I think the 645 will become redundant, caught in no-mans land between my 35mm canon eos (which are more nimble), and my 6x7, which gives more serious negatives.

Then again maybe I'll decide the 645N is the perfect sweet spot!

 

[wiltw]

There has been a bit of prejudice that 645 was not enough of an improvement in IQ over the 135 format. If we analyze a bit...

• the frame height of 645:135 is 43mm:24mm, or 1.8:1
• the frame height of 4x5:6x7 is 93mm:56mm, or 1.66:1

...so just why the double standard, that 645 is NOT such an improvement over 135, yet 4x5 IS indeed a big improvement over 6x7?!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There has been a bit of prejudice that 645 was not enough of an improvement in IQ over the 135 format. If we analyze a bit...

• the frame height of 645:135 is 43mm:24mm, or 1.8:1
• the frame height of 4x5:6x7 is 93mm:56mm, or 1.66:1

...so just why the double standard, that 645 is NOT such an improvement over 135, yet 4x5 IS indeed a big improvement over 6x7?!

The jump from 6x7 to 4x5 is at best only a modest gain, chiefly in terms of the maximum enlargement possible (but when you think of it, who actually prints 4x5s bigger than 1.2 metres??). Things get a lot more serious with the larger formats above and beyond 4x5 e.g. 8x10. I have viewed identical scenes shot with 4x5 and 6x7 in parallel — one observation I made was single sheets are easier to locate than 2 exposures spread over 2 6x7 rolls. Otherwise, I did not fall for the Goldilocks format that purports to be superior over one that has better served me in practical and organisational form. YMMV.

 

[Roger Cole]

The biggest things you get going from 6x7 to 4x5 for prints of, say, 20x24 and smaller are camera movements, lens selection, and odd as it may sound, potentially at least a more lightweight and portable camera! You also gain the easy ability to develop each shot independently for zone system style expansion and contraction.

645 cameras are far easier to carry and hand hold than most 6x7 cameras.

It's a good format, though I use my Yashicamat more than my M645 Pro, mainly because it's so small, light and easy to carry. IF I would limit my 645 to one lens and back making it more comparable to the TLR anyway then this difference would be less but if I end up taking the 645 at all I take a couple of lenses and backs and... Still even the 645 alone with one lens and the prism and winder grip (and it handles so much better with the winder I never use it without it unless my battery fails and I'm caught without one) is considerably larger and heavier than the TLR. Having to carry a separate meter for the TLR offsets some of this, though.

 

[DavidClapp]

Thank you for all your replies, I really appreciate the breadth of user knowledge - I can guarantee on great discussion in this forum.

One thing I have found over the last year is that showing people my images as 6x9 invokes the question - 'is that film or digital?' - 'Film', I reply - 'it looks like digital to me' - simply because the 6x9 ratio is the same as the 3x2 ratio of a DSLR.

I was very fortunate to get myself an LS9000 for a brilliant price (through word of mouth not online) and I have been scanning my 645 negatives as well as some 6x9 and 6x12 from my Chamonix LF camera with different 120 backs. I rarely print and deal more in digital image sales, so the size is less of a concern to me.

At 4000dpi the MF scans are still huge, 28" by 21" when the dpi is dropped to 300dpi.... What is a concern are some fundamentals - the system weight / speed of setup / quality of lenses (i'm not keen on the Mamiya 6x6 TLR wide angle lenses for instance) - hand holding etc..... so my Mamiya 645 1000s has really worked. I do love the 85mm f1.9 in particular - a wonderful optic.

Saying that, a 6x9 scan is 43" by 30" and they do look utterly beautiful when the image comes together, they just take a little longer to create.

 

[Ian Grant]

My first 120 cameras were TLRs and I enjoyed using them, however when they were stolen I replaced them with a pair of Mamiya 645 cameras and loved them. I still use them but less often these days I loved the format, the the size giving greater flexibility compared to 6x7 cameras.

I mainly shoot LF and these days have gone back to TLRs alongside them because I like the square format.

Ian

 

[Slixtiesix]

I like 6x6 over 645 because I prefer the waist level finder and the square and many 6x6 cameras are not that bigger than 645 cameras. Compare a Mamiya M645 to a Hasselblad 500CM! The difference in size and weight between a Hasselblad and an RB67 on the other hand is quite apparent...
However, I would definitely prefer 645 over 35mm.

 

[Roger Cole]

I like 6x6 over 645 because I prefer the waist level finder and the square and many 6x6 cameras are not that bigger than 645 cameras. Compare a Mamiya M645 to a Hasselblad 500CM! The difference in size and weight between a Hasselblad and an RB67 on the other hand is quite apparent...
However, I would definitely prefer 645 over 35mm.

Well the thing about that is, at least 1/2 to 2/3s of the time I end up cropping my 6x6 negatives to something roughly 6x4.5 anyway.

OTOH I don't ALWAYS do so and I agree, I like waist level finders. Probably if I HAD a 6x6 SLR system I'd like it, might even prefer it to my 645. But Hasselblad stuff is still outrageously expensive and out of proportion to what you get. Bodies, backs, and 80mm lenses aren't so bad but other lenses - ugh, just no. Not worth the money to me.

Of course there are others, the SQ for example, and if I had one it might, or might not, displace my M645. But I don't, so it hasn't!

 

[Dan Fromm]

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.

I suspect that if (big if, I wonder whether the OP can support his claim that there's little interest in 645) there's little interest in 645 the reason is that its too "in between." Gate not that much larger than 24x36, gear not that much smaller than 6x6.

As for 6x12, well, I have a 6x12 roll holder for my 4x5 Cambo and love it. But the gear is larger and heavier than my 2x3 kit and cost more too.

I suspect that if (big if again, and for the same reason) there's not much interest in 6x12 the reason is that is too "in between" too. In particular, gear no smaller/lighter and more expensive than 4x5.