The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[removed account4]

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?

hi,

i have never used a 645 camera, i don't think.
i have used 6x6, 2x3 ( 6x8? ), 3x6? half the 2 1/4 x 4 1/4 in my agfa sure shot (2 1/2 x 2 1/8 )
but never knowingly used a 645, but it seems like a nice format.
the reason i haven't used it isn't because i have a grudge against the might rectangle
but because i don't really have modern MF equipment. i had a yashicamat124 in the 80s ( sold it in 90' )
have roll backs for Lf cameras ( graflex 22 & 23 ), and a handful of folders/box cameras over the years ..
friends have and LOVE 645, but i always wanted to expose sheets, rather than rolls.
my pal saw my pentaxauto110 and said " a mini 645 !"
that is about as close as i have gotten.

 

[RobC]

Yup, there are so many variables that its impossible to make paper sizes which fit film format exactly and always match every framing and cropping ratio whether forced or by choice. But a little thinking ahead goes a long way to making things much easier down the line.

 

[mexipike]

645 is super huge right now among wedding photographers shooting film, particularly the contax 645AF.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used to use a Mamiya 645 1000S, but found that taking vertically oriented pictures to be a pain in the ass, since there's no rotating back for it.

As a result I decided to use square instead, and have been using a Hasselblad for a long time now, and Holga 120N along with Zero Image 2000 pinhole - all 6x6 format. I also use my 5x7 camera as 5x5 with the ground glass masked off.
I can crop the squares as I please, or I make it easy on myself to display images by printing squares, which means I don't have to worry about vertical versus horizontal.
How silly of me to fall in love with 35mm, then, where I deal with the smaller negative (which is a challenge I love) that is even less square than 645...

Photography works in mysterious ways. Never stops being confusing with respect to equipment, but luckily there are ways to use each format to their best advantage from situation to situation. Sometimes I even mix and match, and crop square negatives to 3:4 ratio, and then also crop 35mm negs to 3:4 ratio. I love that ratio for portraits. The possibilities never end.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Wait... shooting 6x4.5 vertically is a PITA but pinhole isn't??

 

[wiltw]

Wait... shooting 6x4.5 vertically is a PITA but pinhole isn't??

...it is easier to keep the pinhole lens free of fingerprints

 

[Roger Cole]

adjective
adjective: punk

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

Well thanks. But it's more (or less) than "informal." It's recent and almost exclusively urban. More importantly I bet I wasn't the only one to misunderstand it, just the only one who didn't care what people thought and spoke up.

 

[Ian Grant]

I used to use a Mamiya 645 1000S, but found that taking vertically oriented pictures to be a pain in the ass, since there's no rotating back for it.

As a result I decided to use square instead, and have been using a Hasselblad for a long time now, and Holga 120N along with Zero Image 2000 pinhole - all 6x6 format. I also use my 5x7 camera as 5x5 with the ground glass masked off.
I can crop the squares as I please, or I make it easy on myself to display images by printing squares, which means I don't have to worry about vertical versus horizontal.
How silly of me to fall in love with 35mm, then, where I deal with the smaller negative (which is a challenge I love) that is even less square than 645...

Photography works in mysterious ways. Never stops being confusing with respect to equipment, but luckily there are ways to use each format to their best advantage from situation to situation. Sometimes I even mix and match, and crop square negatives to 3:4 ratio, and then also crop 35mm negs to 3:4 ratio. I love that ratio for portraits. The possibilities never end.

You could say the same about 35mm cameras with a WLF

I've always used my M645's - a plain 645 and a 1000S with prism finders so never had an issue when in portrait mode (vertical) they had quite heavy professional use for many years. I found switching from Mamiya TLRs to the 645's I always composed to the full frame and never cropped, something I rarely dod except for some personal work with my Mamiya C3 or C33.

Now I only use 645 when shooting people, either for portraits or work with models, but I shoot morev6x6 and always work to the square frame.

We all choose different ways of working, it's personal choices, there is no right or wrong

Ian

 

[removed account4]

Well thanks. But it's more (or less) than "informal." It's recent and almost exclusively urban. More importantly I bet I wasn't the only one to misunderstand it, just the only one who didn't care what people thought and spoke up.

not sure about that
it meant that same thing in the 30s/40s
in suburban new england

 

[wombat2go]

If appropriate, I have following queries for my hobby, in this project machining Mamiya 645 back adaptors to other (older) cameras.

I refer to the ANSI standard ( USA) "Film Holder Specifications" ( and thanks to Dan for the link)
645 Pro ( etc) film back:
Is the "depth to film surface", the same as the distance on the RB67/Graflex RH10 ( ie inch : 0.197 +/- 0.007 mm: 5.00 +/- 0.178 ?)

645ADF ( etc) film / digital sensor back which includes the Phase One "M645" backs:
Is "depth to film surface", the same as the distance on the RB67/Graflex RH10 ( ie inch : 0.197 +/- 0.007 mm: 5.00 +/- 0.178 ?)

Thanks

 

[tomfrh]

particularly the contax 645AF.

You can blame jose villa for that.

 

[EdColorado]

I don't remember what I actually voted for in the poll the OP mentioned but at this point 645 would be my favorite. I think for me its because I started out with 35mm and my Bronica ETRSi with the speed grip and AE III prism handles much like a big 35mm body. Plus the aspect ratio is pretty darn close so its basically my new "35mm". I rarely shoot any of my 35mm cameras, except for some old scale focus Voigtlanders and such. I have 2 of the Bronicas plus an old Zeiss 645 folder, a few 6x6 TLRs (hardly use em. Don't do squares), an RB67, a 6x17 pinhole, and my newest love, a Fuji GW690. Of them all, the Bronica is a great balance of negative size and usability. I love the RB67 but it is a beast. Its my normal tool for when I go out specifically to shoot landscapes but otherwise I don't haul it much. The Fuji is fantastic but doesn't have interchangeable lenses. As I said I don't really do squares so the TLRs are mostly play things, and the pinhole is great, but its a pinhole. Since I don't print optically I don't have enlarger issues so it all pretty much comes down to the above mentioned balance of usability and negative size... plus I just like that little Bronica!

 

[canvassy]

I love my ETRS, and use it all the time. That and a Yashicamat LM are my two main medium format cameras, but I also have a few old 6x9 folders. I find the ETRS 645 works great for portraits, and easy to handle with the speed grip. I find the format easy to work with in the dark room although I haven't been printing for very long yet.

 

[Kerosene Hat]

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?!

I think the math here is a bit off. 6x7 = 42cm
4*2.54*5*2.54 = 129cm.

So, how is 6x7 almost the same as 4x5? About the same jump from 135 to 120, excluding movements, etc. pretty compelling. Plus,'the printing is SOOOO fun.

 

[DavidClapp]

+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!

Do you still have them - until last year there was nothing to touch the 35-70 f3.4 made by any manufacturer... incredible. I also used the 28mm f2 hollywood lens

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You could say the same about 35mm cameras with a WLF

I've always used my M645's - a plain 645 and a 1000S with prism finders so never had an issue when in portrait mode (vertical) they had quite heavy professional use for many years. I found switching from Mamiya TLRs to the 645's I always composed to the full frame and never cropped, something I rarely dod except for some personal work with my Mamiya C3 or C33.

Now I only use 645 when shooting people, either for portraits or work with models, but I shoot morev6x6 and always work to the square frame.

We all choose different ways of working, it's personal choices, there is no right or wrong

Ian

Yes, exactly. We all have different preferences. I like that you have a consistent approach. That sure makes printing, and creating series of prints a lot easier and a lot more coherent.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Wait... shooting 6x4.5 vertically is a PITA but pinhole isn't??

No. Pinhole is a joy, a dream come true. You point the camera in the general direction you think is going to work well. Open the shutter, and close the shutter. It is the easiest form of photography there is.

 

[cowanw]

punk (adj.)
"inferior, bad," 1896, also as a noun, "something worthless," earlier "rotten wood used as tinder" (1680s), "A word in common use in New England, as well as in the other Northern States and Canada" [Bartlett]; perhaps from Delaware (Algonquian) ponk, literally "dust, powder, ashes;" but Gaelic spong "tinder" also has been suggested (compare spunk "touchwood, tinder," 1580s).

 

[Alan Gales]

Do you still have them - until last year there was nothing to touch the 35-70 f3.4 made by any manufacturer... incredible. I also used the 28mm f2 hollywood lens

No , I don't still have them. I owned the 25, 35, 50, 100 and 180. I bought them all new. The 180 was a store display so I got it for half off when the new model came out with the electronic contact for Program mode. The salesman who I knew said it was never even taken out of the glass case to show a customer. The 25 and 180 were assembled in Germany. The others were the slower, assembled in Japan versions. All were very sharp! I just sold them a few years ago when I decided I wanted to shoot 8x10.

I really don't shoot 35mm any more except for a couple Stereo Realist cameras. I shoot large and medium format and a little digital. It was hard to sell them since I had them since the 1980's but I found a Wehman 8x10 I wanted. It turned out to be the right thing to do since I shoot the Wehman kit but the 35mm lenses were not getting use. Now others are enjoying them!

 

[DavidClapp]

No , I don't still have them. I owned the 25, 35, 50, 100 and 180. I bought them all new. The 180 was a store display so I got it for half off when the new model came out with the electronic contact for Program mode. The salesman who I knew said it was never even taken out of the glass case to show a customer. The 25 and 180 were assembled in Germany. The others were the slower, assembled in Japan versions. All were very sharp! I just sold them a few years ago when I decided I wanted to shoot 8x10.

I really don't shoot 35mm any more except for a couple Stereo Realist cameras. I shoot large and medium format and a little digital. It was hard to sell them since I had them since the 1980's but I found a Wehman 8x10 I wanted. It turned out to be the right thing to do since I shoot the Wehman kit but the 35mm lenses were not getting use. Now others are enjoying them!

The 35-70 and the 28-80 were stellar lenses in the digital world. Up until last year when Canon released the new 24-70's it was hands down the best lens you could put in front of a 21mp body. The Distagon range was simply superb in my opinion.

 

[wiltw]

I think the math here is a bit off. 6x7 = 42cm
4*2.54*5*2.54 = 129cm.

So, how is 6x7 almost the same as 4x5? About the same jump from 135 to 120, excluding movements, etc. pretty compelling. Plus,'the printing is SOOOO fun.

Admittedly I rounded the 645 stated size. To be precise the Bronica ETRS frame spec is 42.5 x 56mm, so 42.5:24 is 1.77x improvement (which I rounded to 1.8x) between 645 and 135.
The Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 frames are both 41.5 x 56, 41.5:24 is 1.73x improvement between 645 and 135.

For 6x7 I used the Mamiya RZ67 Pro II frame spec which is 56mm x 69.5mm, and I measured the Lisco film holder for 4x5 at 93mm; 93:56 is 1.66x improvement from 6x7 to 4x5.

 

[Prest_400]

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. [...] 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.

Indeed. Contax 645 + Fuji 400H is the rad combo nowadays. It's possible that over here 645 doesn't make waves as the guys mostly using it are out there shooting weddings and not discussing. Though, there is a lot of affordable 645 in the way of Bronicas and Pentaxes.
Canlas I see was a heavy influencer. I understand he was one of the Wedding photographers that popularised the Contax 645 but a few months ago I recall he said he moved to Pentax 645 for the most part; Also there is the Pentax 67 which is what he is using mainly nowadays. Continuing the OT on your line, that 105mm f2.4 seems a killer for people shots.

As my only MF being a Fuji 6x9 (645 is half frame), it's interesting how 35mm and 2:3 is widely accepted but 120 format popularity mostly revolves around Square and 4x5 ratio (taking 645 and 6x7). IIRC 6x6 and 6x9 were original brownie formats but the 4x5 ratio is older legacy from cut film.

 

[Alan Gales]

The 35-70 and the 28-80 were stellar lenses in the digital world. Up until last year when Canon released the new 24-70's it was hands down the best lens you could put in front of a 21mp body. The Distagon range was simply superb in my opinion.

That's interesting. I never used any of my Zeiss lenses on a digital camera.

I used to shoot Nikon a D200 and then later a D300 with 18-200VR. I shot a lot of Select fast pitch softball. At the long end I could get the batters and infielders from the dugout hole in the fence. I would have to crop a little on the outfielders. I could use the short end of the lens for pics of players in the dugout. I had accesses during games since I was the team's assistant manager and team photographer. I gave all the girls copies of my photographs as a gift.

My daughter is older now and no longer pitches. I've got a little Fujifilm X100s for family snaps and Ebay shots. Full frame DSLR's are nice but pricey. I thought about buying a used D800 but bought a Mamiya C220 instead. Digital is nice but I enjoy film more, especially large format 4x5 and 8x10.

 

[Tony-S]

Well, I'm planning to take my Bronica RF645 and a 220 roll of Fuji Pro 160S with me to Sicily in a couple of weeks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well thanks. But it's more (or less) than "informal." It's recent and almost exclusively urban. More importantly I bet I wasn't the only one to misunderstand it, just the only one who didn't care what people thought and spoke up.

I've been hearing that expression for the last 60 years. Perhaps it is more of a New England or Canadian saying.