The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[Roger Cole]

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

Well ok then. In my mind I was lumping it in with "dope" as a good thing. I distinctly recall the first time I ever heard that, as in "XXX is really dope.." and I had to ask the guy if he meant it was good or bad. That was maybe three years ago. I don't think I've EVER heard "punk" in this context and, while I could certainly have looked it up, I kind of wanted to make the point that if someone who spent all his life in the US didn't understand it right away, it was even more likely to confuse others for whom English (er, American English even) isn't a first language.

 

[craigclu]

Other than the nicer tonal transitions as the format size goes up, I believe there is a declining advantage of detail resolution. Each increment upward in format (in a general manner) brings with it more concessions in optics for coverage needs (both in taking lenses and enlarging lenses), film flatness challenges increase and general camera control issues increase. SLR's extend these differences even more. I shoot from 35 to 4X5 and try to pick equipment (type and format) suited to the task and go with the larger negative when possible but am amazed what can be pulled from even 35mm given good equipment and careful technique. In recent years, I've found I'm doing very little telephoto and macro work and the MF rangefinders are a good compromise for quality and portability. I do candids at friends' weddings/gatherings, etc and grab a Bronica RF645 for its vertical format and quick handling, a Mamiya 7 when I know I'm apt to make larger prints (11X14 or larger) and a GSW680III when the mood and situation strikes me right.

In some side by side shooting to satisfy my curiosity, I literally could not tell prints apart at 8X10 between the Bronica and the Mamiya on FP4+ in Pyrocat. A moderate weight pod is sufficient for the rangefinders so the whole package is much more portable and more apt to be taken along. As I get older and less willing to fuss, I'm getting the sheet film rig out less and less, too. I guess I'm trying to express that there are many and varied reasons for choosing a format besides some hair-splitting incremental differences. I trust most the biggest format I am willing to shoulder for a task but am always pleasantly surprised at what can be pulled from a smaller format, too. One's enlarging equipment can affect greatly the finished product (glass carriers, good glass and well-aligned enlarger gear). That adds to some format flexibility, too.

 

[pdeeh]

The only reason I don't shoot 645 any more is that I broke my 645 camera.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I worked my way through a Mamiya 645 followed by 645J then 1000S then 645 Super and accumulated a 3 lens kit.
Main problem was that if you have to walk a long way it's a bit heavy to take more than one lens at a time.
So I gave up Mamiya and now have a 1950s 645 folder for occasional use and mainly back to 35mm again.
In 6x6 I have a Bronica SQ-Am for studio and a TLR for walks.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

A whole roll??

 

[Alan Gales]

A whole roll??

Well it is a 220 roll!

 

[RattyMouse]

Well it is a 220 roll!

I shot around 45 rolls of film my last trip to Italy. 1 roll? Impossible.

 

[gone]

It's not a favorite format of mine for compositions, being neither fish (35mm) nor fowl (6x6), but you can get some amazingly small cameras like this 1938 Nettar 515 for peanuts, and the negative is big enough for largish prints even if you need to crop. Unfortunately I wasn't able to downsize the photo, so it's about twice the size of the camera! Anyway, take my word for it, it's tiny, and has a very sharp lens. That's the attraction of 6x4.5....being able to carry a medium format camera in your pocket.

 

[Alan Gales]

I shot around 45 rolls of film my last trip to Italy. 1 roll? Impossible.

Well maybe he's also shooting 35mm or digital? One roll though isn't worth bringing the camera.

My stepson just got back from Italy a few months ago. He owns an AE-1 and burned through quite a few rolls of 35mm film. Beautiful country and people! He and his girlfriend loved it.

 

[IanBarber]

I am also new to film and have just bought a Mamiya 645 Pro which cam with an 80mm f/2.8 lens

So far I am not over impressed, not sure if its because I am not used to how film looks. The images do not appear sharp enough to me, maybe I am doing something wrong.

I bought a No3 extension tube with a view to getting in closer to still life but its not that easy to use, your either to far away or to close.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am also new to film and have just bought a Mamiya 645 Pro which cam with an 80mm f/2.8 lens

So far I am not over impressed, not sure if its because I am not used to how film looks. The images do not appear sharp enough to me, maybe I am doing something wrong.

View attachment 155272

I feel it is difficult to judge from this thumbnail, Ian. Can you give us some other shots, preferably normal outdoor ones? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I had a 645 Pro TL system for a couple of years, with the 80 2.8, 150 3.5, and 45 2.8. All three lenses were incredibly sharp. Even with the power winder and the camera handheld, it yielded great results. I ultimately gave up the system because it was just a tad cumbersome for me after a lifetime of 35mm.

 

[rwreich]

I am also new to film and have just bought a Mamiya 645 Pro which cam with an 80mm f/2.8 lens

So far I am not over impressed, not sure if its because I am not used to how film looks. The images do not appear sharp enough to me, maybe I am doing something wrong.

I bought a No3 extension tube with a view to getting in closer to still life but its not that easy to use, your either to far away or to close.

View attachment 155272

Ian, if you used the extension tubes, you may have to stop down a bit to get sharper images - not just because of the shallower DoF, but also because the lenses were designed with an optimal focusing distance in mind and tubes can take them out of their comfort zone.

 

[IanBarber]

I feel it is difficult to judge from this thumbnail, Ian. Can you give us some other shots, preferably normal outdoor ones? Thanks

pentaxuser

Does clicking on the thumbnail open it in the lightbox?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I love 645. I think it gives an incredible increase in quality from 35mm. I got my Mamiya 645 Super when I was in high school, and I still remember being absolutely blown away by the image quality it gave compared to my 35mm equipment. My 35 gear was top-quality, a Nikon F4s and Nikkor lenses. The Mamiya was far superior, and I have done some of my best images with it over the last 22 yrs.

Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50.

This door is on the house in the first photo. Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50.

Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50.

Kodak T400CN, C-41 process BW film.

I like 645 because of the image quality available in relatively small cameras and lenses. I've been in poor health since childhood, and carrying something like a Pentax 6x7 or (especially) a Mamiya RZ67 would be impossible.

 

[IanBarber]

Im not quite getting the quality you have here. Are you metering with a light meter and also what lens do you use.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Im not quite getting the quality you have here. Are you metering with a light meter and also what lens do you use.

I use a handheld spotmeter and the Zone System. The camera was used on a tripod with cable release. Lenses were the 45mm f2.8N for the first and last photos (the house and the pier), the 80mm f1.9N for the door, and the 150mm f3.5N for the tree.

 

[IanBarber]

Thanks for the information. Take the dot image which I really like. If you were to look at the straight scan with no adjustments, how much different does it look to the final image.

I am finding that when I do the initial scan, it doesn't look anything like how I visualised it when I calculated the initial exposure, the initial scan always appears to bright. For my exposures, I use a spot meter, meter the shadows and then close down 2 stops.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks for the information. Take the dot image which I really like. If you were to look at the straight scan with no adjustments, how much different does it look to the final image.

I am finding that when I do the initial scan, it doesn't look anything like how I visualised it when I calculated the initial exposure, the initial scan always appears to bright. For my exposures, I use a spot meter, meter the shadows and then close down 2 stops.

I sent you a private message to answer your question about scanning, since we're not supposed to talk about it on APUG's public forums.

 

[IanBarber]

I sent you a private message to answer your question about scanning, since we're not supposed to talk about it on APUG's public forums.

many thanks Chris. I have just received the notification and will head over to read it now

 

[RattyMouse]

I shot 2 rolls of 645 this weekend, both on Ektar film.

 

[wiltw]

Well ok then. In my mind I was lumping it in with "dope" as a good thing. I distinctly recall the first time I ever heard that, as in "XXX is really dope.." and I had to ask the guy if he meant it was good or bad. That was maybe three years ago. I don't think I've EVER heard "punk" in this context and, while I could certainly have looked it up, I kind of wanted to make the point that if someone who spent all his life in the US didn't understand it right away, it was even more likely to confuse others for whom English (er, American English even) isn't a first language.

My wife, a school teacher, told me that the term 'hella' had been recently added to Webster's Unabridged dictionary due to its apparent widespread usage today (although I haven't heard it being used). So I looked up 'dope' to see if it had evolved to such status, but a search just now finds only in the Urban Dictionary, yet not even in the Internet Dictionary, is 'dope' listed with the definition as used in the earlier post. 'Hella' is listed even in the Oxford Dictionary for formal language, but OTOH 'dope' as an adjective is used in informal ways only.

Back to the topic of popularity of 645, it was more popular in the 1990s, for enthusiast purchase as a somewhat more affordable entry to medium format and its IQ. It was used for professional usage particularly wedding coverage, although the dominance of Hasselblad made the square format 'more professional'...you had to buy frames and albums and mattes from professional sources! Hasselbald's advertising was somewhat built around the 'square is better because...' and only because of the non-availability of square format digital (and until recently, they could not offer a full 645 size frame!) did Hasselblad change that tune. 645 had popularity in Japan since the early 20th century, more so than in US and Europe. After my purchase of 645, I totally abandoned use of 135 format, except when I needed extremely fast aperture lenses in low light, because of the image quality of 645.

 

[Ian Grant]

The only reason I don't shoot 645 any more is that I broke my 645 camera.

It's one of the reasons I shoot little 645 as well. I lent mu M645 body to a friend a few years ago and it seized she didn't have the cash to get it repaired, then I had issues with my 1000s which went to Johnsons Photopia (Importer and official service./repair)for repair), it came back with the same faults, they had it back managed to fix the flash sync didn't fix the other fault (easy to fix) and managed to chip the pentaprism. I was rather disillusioned, ideally they need replacing but the 1000S is still usable and I mainly use TLR's instead.

I have a Zeiss Ikonta 645 in Turkey but the pre-WWII lens is foggy & soft, I've a new replacement post WWII coated Novar lens for it (never been on a camera) and will swap the cells over, I'd rather use the original Compur Rapid than the later Prontor.

Ian

 

[Karl K]

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?

The 645 format was extremely popular with wedding and event photographers from the late 1970's until digital cameras became the choice of the pros and the "weekend warriors". Many of the 645 cameras produced verticals when held in the normal position, and that is most suitable for portraits. Also, the 645's perfect 8x10 aspect ratio was a natural....no cropping required. One last thing...645 gave you more shots per roll, thereby reducing costs and time wasted changing films during the event. I used a couple of Mamiya 645's and had several film inserts all loaded up and ready to go before each wedding.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

At one time, 645 was appealing because of its compact size, yet it produced higher quality images than 35mm film. But, I think that 35mm digital has turned the tables on 645. The reverse is now the case.

So if I'm going to use a film camera, it's going to be at least 6x7. Even 6x6 seems kind of smallish. Plus, 6x7 (and 6x6) medium format cameras have become a lot less expensive.