The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[paul ron]

I love my ETRS for street n as my carry around camera. BUt my choice of favorites is the RB67 for the large negative.

Either way the quality of both are wonderful.

 

[spijker]

Another 645 fan here. I think the "belittling" of 645 is for a large extend conservatism and some brain washing by the Hasselblad car sales men. Personally I don't care for square, paper isn't square so you'd be wasting either film (cropping) or paper (not cropping) by printing a square negative on a rectangular paper. I don't care for waist level finders either. So 645 gives me a compact ergonomic modern camera with accurate avg/spot TTL metering, autofocus, modern lenses, an accurate electronic fast focal plane shutter, interchangeable back, etc. I can fit my Mamiya 645 AFD3 with the 80mm and 45mm lenses in a small camera bag and carry it all day without it becoming a burden. When you do the math, 6x6 gives you essentially the same resolution as 645 if you don't print square. It is good enough (for me) for prints up to 40 x 50 cm. And let's face it, even Hasselblad came to the conclusion that square isn't all that great and moved to 645 with the H series. But in the end any format can produce good photographs. It's not about the format or the equipment but all about the photographer's vision. And as long as you're enjoying whatever you use, that's the most important thing.

 

[Dali]

I would not mind shooting 6x9 but I am limited by my enlarger... My Fujica 645 is as convenient as a 35mm rangefinder with bigger negatives. Don't regret my purchase!

 

[RobC]

My suspicion is that 6x4.5 is ideally suited to full or half length portraits and was a format favoured particularly by wedding photographers who have now nearly all gone digital. Therefore demand has dropped right off the scale which is good news for anyone wanting a 645 film camera today.

ALSO

the 4:3 ratio image actually works very well in a 10x8 picture frame if you have a mat with 8x6 inch opening which leaves approx 3/4 inch mat border showing in an 8x10 inch frame.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree that the 6x4.5cm systems in which I'd be interested are a excellent choices for portability and I much prefer 6x4.5cm over 6x6cm. I too prefer 6x12cm for landscapes. Even if I crop 6x12cm to 6x9cm that doesn't waste much film and I have the option of using the full 1:2 format if I want to. This provides options and versatility. I like options and versatility. BTW, I'd rather not carry two different roll film holders... just one 6x12cm holder... and I don't want a pricey/complicated adjustable one.

In the poll thread mentioned in post #1, I voted 6x9cm and 6x12cm but only because I don't want to shoot with a MF camera because I prefer a lightweight 4x5in with full movements. So I won't need the portability of a 6x4.5cm system. If I did shoot MF then I would have voted for 6x4.5cm and 6x12cm.

 

[xya]

one more for 6x4.5, but for folders. I discovered a pearl III, 2 or 3 years ago, since then one of my favorites to carry just in a coat pocket. I tried the fujis, but came back to my pearl. still looking for a pearl IV to compare, but the few on the market are quite expensive.

 

[Alan Gales]

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!

I had an RZ when I had the Nll. I used the RZ on a tripod and shot the Nll hand held. A 35mm camera is nice if you like really wide or long lenses. The 35mm wide angle lens for the Pentax 645 system is really nice though.

 

[sportster44]

Nothing against 645, in fact I never tried the format. But when I made the jump to medium format I wanted a negative substantially larger than 35mm and gave me gobs of resolution. Went with a RZ and never looked back

 

[benveniste]

I use a Pentax 645n. For me, it's not a matter of interest or disinterest; it's just that the system is boring to write about. For me, this is a good thing; when I'm spending the extra time and effort to use medium format I don't want surprises. The two tasks which I found myself wishing for a 6x6 or 6x7 format are coin photography and couples' portraiture, but neither one is enough reason for me to switch.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[MattKing]

Part of the problem with the poll is the word "favorite". In my mind, "favorite" usually implies a singular entity.

If the question in that poll was which formats do you like and use frequently, I would have expected 6x4.5 to have scored higher, because it is such a high quality compromise.

 

[rwreich]

I shot 35mm for years before deciding I wanted to take on the expense (in both time and money) of shooting MF. My first idea was an RB67 Pro-S (but got the Pro-SD backs and adapter) because I loved the idea of getting all of that real-estate on the negative. After using it for a while, I found that it was fairly slow to operate, which is completely fine. There is a time and a place for that. Afterwards, I decided that I wanted to get something that would still be MF, but would afford me the luxury of being cheap and almost as fast as 35mm. I settled on the Pentax 645 (the original, not the N). I only have the 75mm f/2.8 manual-focus lens, but I find that it's really perfect for what I wanted. It's definitely yards ahead of 35mm for character, but doesn't require a tripod/monopod like the RB.

Where does that leave me? I use 35mm for documentary, 645 for candid portraiture, and the RB67 for anything I can control. Now, if I could just find a way to transport all three systems without breaking my back...

 

[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.

6

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

 

[Arcturus]

I was initially one of those who thought that 645 wasn't a big enough improvement over 135, until I started shooting and printing 645. A Fuji GA645 is my go to hand held camera and I make terrific 11x14 prints from it. It has the automation and convienence of 135, but the larger negative is a big improvement on the print. If I'm making a print larger than 11x14, then I'm going to be shooting 4x5. 645 and 4x5 are pretty much my only formats now. 6x7 and 6x9 are really in a no mans land for me. They aren't flexable enough for fast candid shots and use more film. They don't produce as good of a big print (IMO) as 4x5, and if I'm bringing a tripod with me I might as well be using my 4x5 field camera. I understand the appeal of 6x7, it can make high quality enlargements and uses a much smaller enlarger than 4x5, but I'm one of those people who claim to be able to see a big quality difference between the two.

 

[BetterSense]

I like the idea of the "645/4x5" split, but what keeps me away from 645 as my "small" camera is the lack of manual 645 cameras. All the appealing (compact) 645 cameras are "wedding" cameras with electronics. Correct me if I am wrong. I also like the looks of the GA645zi but again, electronics. Bronica RF645...electronics. In 35mm I have my OM1 kit and in 6x6 I can have a Hasselblad but where is the all-mechanical 645 that retains the 645 advantage of compactness (i.e. is not a masked-down larger camera)?

 

[GarageBoy]

Every time I use my Pentax 645, I question why I shoot 35 mm film

 

[Drew B.]

Love the 645...best for carrying around Europe.

 

[tomfrh]

645 does not provide enough increase in negative size from 135 to warrant the bulkier and heavier camera

I think this is a bit tough on poor old 645! It's almost three times the area, about the same difference between 6x7 and 4x5.

I notice a massive difference in results between my 35mm and 645 cameras.

 

[Down Under]

Spot on, everyone! I have 645s (Fuji GA), 6x6s (Rolleis and a Hasselblad), one 6x9 (a Zeiss Nettar with a coated Novar lens good for exquisite HUGE slides), and one odd format few people have ever heard of - 455. Yes, 455, or more specifically 4x5.5 cms. A beaut 1960s Rolleiflex T2 camera (black model) with the (optional) 16 exposure kit, produces this somewhat unusual format. Easy to print up to 11x14 with a little care. also an added plus, with careful cranking, I get 17 images on one roll of 120 film. The Zeiss Tessar is a wonderful lens. Okay, so I'm limited to one lens, a 'normal' 75mm. So what? This imposes a much-needed (certainly in my case, as when I go overboard on a subject or location I tend to machine-gun images in THAT electronic medium) discipline on my photography, that and also the relatively high cost of 120 film in expensive-for-everything Australia. Buying film OL from overseas suppliers and in bulk lots, reduces the cost somewhat, but even then it's an expensive pastime as we all know. But the results - oh, my.

A Rollei T, 16 kit, lens hood, one or two filters, a neckstrap and a small Gossen exposure meter when I travel, and that's it. Oh, and of course film. Until a year or two years ago it was rather difficult to find stocks of 120 in most camera shops in North America and Europe, but this is now changing. Maybe due to Holgas, Lomos and other Dinky Toy cameras which are seen everywhere now. But people are using these things and they are also buying film for them, which means more film for us, the serious amateurs. In this sense, the wheel has again turned to a half circle and is back at the top. Long may it last!

as for the Fuji 645s (I own two GAs, one being the wide angle model), they are the hidden gems of the medium format world. Why more photographers don't use them is beyond me to understand, tho I must say I am not complaining - my plan is to buy another wide angle model later this year, and if an oversupply and disinterest on the part of shooters mean that the prices will be down, well, so be it. My gain, your loss.

6x9 is also a superb format, but using my Nettar in public makes me feel somewhat like a character out of a Scott Fitzgerald novel. A nice accompaniment to binoculars (Zeiss of course) in a leather case, spats, a Stetson sun hat, and a walking cane. But again, if I remember to shoot at f/8 or f/11, the results, woo hoo!

I know many bemoan the good old days, 1960s and 1970s, when everything photographic was cheap and manufacturers seemed to be producing new items every second week. But to my mind we have never had it so good. Today's films, wow! Tho I do miss Verichrome Pan, Panatomic-X and Plus-X...

 

[CropDusterMan]

My reason in never utilizing the format was that it was too close to 35mm...if you're going to go to medium format, 6x7, 6x9...just my take on it.

 

[MattKing]

All the appealing (compact) 645 cameras are "wedding" cameras with electronics. Correct me if I am wrong.

I think it is more accurate to say that the Mamiya 645 cameras are more electric than electronic.

They are really robust.

The most mechanical is probably the Super, because it has a single all mechanical shutter speed. Ironically, it may have the weakest film transport gearing.

 

[NJH]

Well for me it is rather simple, I just have never really got on with SLRs with their Pentaprisms and handling up in the air in front of my face. Rangefinders and WLF viewing just works for me and this tends to mean formats other than 645 in the main (the rare Bronica RF645 excepted). I agree though having owned a 645 system camera and big modern DSLR type cameras in the past, if one likes that sort of thing I can't see much point in setting for a beastly sized auto everything 35mm or 'full frame' digital body when would could be shooting 120 roll film in a camera system of similar bulk, weight and lens sizes.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Actually I have shot everything from 110 (my first camera 30 years ago when I was ten) 135, APX, 6x4.5 (Rollei SL66 & Hy6) 6x6 (various Rolleis) 6x9 (a really old Voigtländer) to 6x12 (Noblex). For Shooting 6x4.5, I need to carry around the same equipment as for 6x6, so there is not much point to it. Besides I have a lot of 66 magazines, but the 6x4.5 are rare. OK, it gives you more shoots per film, but usually that is not a problem. I like the ratio of the 6x4.5 more than the square, but in the end it is the print which matters.

 

[brunocstreet]

Another fan of the 6x4.5 here! The GA645W is my main camera for 3 years now, I just love the 4:3 ratio (specially in portrait orientation, where the 3:2 just looks too tall for my taste), and since the lens collapses it's easier to carry in my backpack than any 35mm camera with a wide angle lens.. and the lens it's sharp as hell

 

[MattKing]

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.