The Surprising Disinterest in 645

[JW PHOTO]

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.

Neil,
Those are pretty much my feelings also. When I got my Canon 5D MKI years back it replaced all my 35mm gear. As for 645? I was never a fan since the cameras were about the same size as my Yashicat and Rolleiflex or didn't offer anything over my Mamiya C330. I had a Mamiya M645 1000S with 80mm f1.9 plus three other lenses that just sat in its Mamiya aluminum case. It was a very easy to use camera since it had the AE prism on it and it handle actually better than a 35mm. But like I said, I didn't use it. Sold it to someone that wanted it worse than I did and he was very happy. I was very satisfied just using my old Hasselblad 500C. Today I just received two 645 cameras and plan on using them more than I did my 645 1000S. One is a pre-war Zeiss Super Ikomat with 70mm f3.5 uncoated Tessar and the other is a later Zeiss Super Ikonta with a coated 75mm f3.5 Opton Tessar in an MX Compur shutter. Why? It's because they are small, light and very easy to carry. If I want heavy, large and not so easy to carry I have many cameras to fill that bill. Even almost all my older 35mm gear is bigger than these two cameras combined. The best camera to have is the one that is with you and these two Zeiss cameras make that a lot easier. I won't buy a bigger 645 camera, but these two will give me a pretty good size negative in a small package.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

Your image looks underexposed. The 'bottom' end of the light spectrum isn't recorded very well, meaning lower midtones to shadows are lacking exposure.
When you put extension tubes onto the camera, you need to compensate with more exposure, which could be part of your problem.

 

[Huss]

I had a shoot yesterday using my 645Pro. This was the first time I used the full featured power winder (the one that uses 6 AA cells). Before I used the smaller power winder or the manual crank. I find the camera handles much better with the smaller power grip. The larger one puts the grip too far away from the camera body which allows more torquing of it against your wrist. Noticeable after a couple of hours of shooting.

 

[IanBarber]

Your image looks underexposed. The 'bottom' end of the light spectrum isn't recorded very well, meaning lower midtones to shadows are lacking exposure.
When you put extension tubes onto the camera, you need to compensate with more exposure, which could be part of your problem.

Ah... alarm bells are ringing now. I never added any compensation at all

 

[MattKing]

Ah... alarm bells are ringing now. I never added any compensation at all

Did you use a metering prism, or a seperate hand meter.

The metering prism will automatically take the extension tube into account. You need to tell the hand meter that it needs to take the extension tube into account.

 

[IanBarber]

I use a handheld meter. On this occasion, I metered for the petals on the flower and opened up 3 stops to place them on Zone 8 knowing that the darkest leaves (bottom left) should fall on Zone 5. Well that was the theory anyway. Just done a quick Google and it appears I should have added an extra stop as i was using the No3 extension tube

 

[DavidClapp]

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.

A good way of looking at it again. The Mamiya 645 1000s takes up a small footprint in my camera bag, which is why its so appealing. that and the 15 shots per roll, plus the ration when scanned haas that squarer film look than the 3x2 ratio of digital or 6x9 film for that matter.

 

[DavidClapp]

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

Thats a funny statement!

 

[DavidClapp]

Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50.

This one is magical Chris

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

This one is magical Chris

Thanks, David. That tree is one of my favorite subjects. I have photographed it many times over the past 20 years.

The one in my earlier post was shot in 2000. Here's one from 2008:

This was shot on Verichrome Pan developed in D-76 1+1. Hasselblad camera and 150mm CF Sonnar lens.

 

[IanBarber]

Thats a funny statement!

Hello David, did not realise you were using MF ?

 

[DavidClapp]

Hello David, did not realise you were using MF ?

Yes I have been playing around with it since last year but primarily large format. I got completely wound up in a blazing argument on 500px after catching a workshop participant montaging aurora shots and claiming they were real. I was shouted down, the whole experience left me slightly wounded and made me understand that I am now in a minority of modern landscape photographers who believe photography is about hiding your sources and embellishing it with digital art. The craving to display authenticity, to keep exploring skill than plugins, was a primary factor and still is.

I have a Mamiya 645 1000s, a C330f and a Chamonix LF with 6x9 and 6x12 backs. I will always remain primarily digital, I am exploring film photography and more importantly scanning with extended digital knowledge. The two are coming together nicely but as expected you can't just walking in and clean up!

 

[DavidClapp]

Thanks, David. That tree is one of my favorite subjects. I have photographed it many times over the past 20 years.

This was shot on Verichrome Pan developed in D-76 1+1. Hasselblad camera and 150mm CF Sonnar lens.

It's all about the other one! The diffusion through the fog is sublime. I have a few favourite trees on Dartmoor that I shoot periodically. Nothing wrong with a revisit...!

 

[IanBarber]

Interesting comment David and in some respects, I know exactly where your coming from hence the reason for buying the 645 pro. The only reason I chose the 645 pro was because of the adjustable diopter on the finder for my ageing eyes, when you hit 50 everything seems to head south.

If you have read my other threads, you will hear that I am not that blown away with the 645, maybe I am still not trained to see film, who knows. Although its doing a reasonable job, the weak link in my workflow is now the Epson V800 and this is the one reason which is slightly holding me back from trying LF.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

a bit odd of a format and not the same quality jump from 35mm as 6x6;always must be significantly cropped when enlarged,which seems like a loss of negative real-estate;more comfortable with 6x6

 

[wiltw]

a bit odd of a format and not the same quality jump from 35mm as 6x6;always must be significantly cropped when enlarged,which seems like a loss of negative real-estate;more comfortable with 6x6

???
If you print 6x6 to 8x10 you crop 20% off one side, it is only if you print 10x10 or 8x8 that you do not crop..and THAT is only if the enlarger uses a FULL frame carrier and not the typical one -- which does NOT have 56x56mm opening.
And with 42.5 x 55.1mm 645 frame (Bronica ETRS/ETRSi) on 8x10 paper with 1/4 borders, you lose only 1.6mm of the long dimension of the frame...the part you do not see in the viewfinder anyway and which falls under the negative carrier's mask.

The 'quality jump' for 135 to 6x6 for 8x10 (1.25:1) print is 30mm long dimension for 135 vs. 56mm dimension for 6x6, both printed within the 9.5" length of the print paper....1.86x increase linearly, and the long dimension of the frame is the same (Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 have 56mm, vs. 55.1mm of the Bronica ETRS...which brings us BACK to the issue of the opening in the negative carrier being only 55mm to begin with!)

 

[wiltw]

Although its doing a reasonable job, the weak link in my workflow is now the Epson V800 and this is the one reason which is slightly holding me back from trying LF.

Yes, 645 (or ANY film) was intended to be enlarged optically, not scanned with an inferior scanner. One cannot jump to ANY conclusion unless you know your scanner can CAPTURE all that is on the film. 4800dpi is only 189 pixels/mm and even digital folks think THAT is a very modest accomplishment compared to 241 PIXELS per mm on a digital sensor...189 pixel/mm on digital sensor was what was exceeded ten years ago! At 6400 pixels/inch mode for the V800, that is 252 pixels/mm, which is only 3% better than what the best current digital camera captures.

If scanning 645 neg, it has 42mm vs. 24mm for frame height, so the 645 image needs 144 pixels/mm from scanner for equal resolution to 135 digitally scanned and that is exceeded by all of the current digital medium format sensors.

 

[Diapositivo]

Yes, 645 (or ANY film) was intended to be enlarged optically, not scanned with an inferior scanner. One cannot jump to ANY conclusion unless you know your scanner can CAPTURE all that is on the film. 4800dpi is only 189 pixels/mm and even digital folks think THAT is a very modest accomplishment compared to 241 PIXELS per mm on a digital sensor...189 pixel/mm on digital sensor was what was exceeded ten years ago! At 6400 pixels/inch mode for the V800, that is 252 pixels/mm, which is only 3% better than what the best current digital camera captures.

If scanning 645 neg, it has 42mm vs. 24mm for frame height, so the 645 image needs 144 pixels/mm from scanner for equal resolution to 135 digitally scanned and that is exceeded by all of the current digital medium format sensors.

6400 ppi is an unrealistic value for any desktop scanner.

If mathematics is allowed:

The Epson Perfection V800 seems to scan your negatives at a real, actual resolution of 2300 ppi
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html

According to Steinhoff - VueScan Bible, when a Canon Canonscan 8800F scans at its maximum optical resolution of 4800 ppi, it delivers, measured against an USAF chart, an effective resolution of 1600 ppi.

According to the same source, a Nikon Coolscan 5000 has an optical resolution of 4000 ppi and an actual resolution which is very close and very high, 3900 ppi.

At 3900 ppi, a 24x36 mm scan yields a 20.4 mp scan, real pixels (1 inch = 25,4 mm so 3900 ppi = 153,5 pixel per mm) and a 56x56 mm scan yields, if that actual resolution is obtained, a 8596 x 8596 = 73.9 mp.

These mp are "real" because each pixel contains a true RGB information, while with a sensor each pixel only connect the luminance information, and 1/4th of the chrominance information.

So I think that yes, the weak link in that chain is the V800, optical enlargement should extract much more quality than scanning at 2300 ppi.

A 645 (56 x 42 mm) scanned at actual 3900 ppi would yield a 8596 x 6447 = 55.4 mp, again actual mp with complete RGB information for each pixel, this easily beats, as a raw number, most digital cameras around.

 

[Huss]

Thanks, David. That tree is one of my favorite subjects. I have photographed it many times over the past 20 years.

The one in my earlier post was shot in 2000. Here's one from 2008:

This was shot on Verichrome Pan developed in D-76 1+1. Hasselblad camera and 150mm CF Sonnar lens.

Dang Chris that is good. Really really good.

 

[rubbernglue]

I shoot most formats today, I bought a Mamiya 1000s for vacation, and recently upgraded it to a Pro TL - however since the Pro TL does not yet have a proper finder (I need a WLF and a manual crank) it is yet to be used. I suppose one problem might be to shoot pictures in "portrait" when there is no rotating back is more of an issue with such a big camera, most definitely when shooting with a wlf (!!)

 

[johns photos]

Shot the following formats over the past 25 years: 612, 67, 645, 4x5 and 35mm. Use mostly 6x7 SLR now but a few weeks ago fired up my Bronica ETRSI with 250mm PE lens viewed with the distortion free AE3 prism and maxwell screen it was a true pleasure to use even with the heavy manfrotto tripod I had to lug with me up the side of a mountain. ETRSi was the first real medium format I ever used and was my go to camera for serious tripod work for over 10 years all the while owning a Mamiya 7 for handheld work. Never regretted the decision to buy into what was at one time a fairly expensive camera system (Bronica circa mid to late nineties). Frankly, up to 16x20 print size I find it hard to distinguish my ETR/PE glass shots taken on a tripod with those taken with the Mamiya 7 or my current 67 camera: Bronica GS1. 6x7 does pull ahead at larger print sizes but at what cost? less shots, more expense and significantly heavier gear if we are talking SLR.

645 is a great format. The gear is not much larger than 35mm gear while the results obtainable from the larger neg are in different stratosphere. Try printing just about anything from 35mm larger than 11x14 and .. forget it!!!

 

[Huss]

Just shot this with my Mam 645Pro TL and Fuji Velvia 50. It's part of a series I'm working on. Love this film (deliberately chosen for the intense colours), love the format.

 

[tomfrh]

nice! skin and velvia, I love it.

 

[R.Gould]

I shoot both 645 and 66 in MF, I shot some 645 with my Ensign Autrange 220 set to 645 yesterday

 

[dynachrome]

In medium format I shoot 4X4, 6X4.5, 6X6 and 6X7. I haven't made it up to 6X9 yet but I am considering a 6X9 back for my 4X5 camera or maybe a Fuji 6X9 RF. Recently I picked up another Bronica ETRS. This one came with, among other things, a working AEII finder. Although I sometimes wish for a shutter speed higher than 1/500, I find shooting hand held with an ETR/ETRS with a prism finder and a Speed Grip comfortable. My Mamiya M645/J/1000S cameras, whether used with a left hand 'L' grip or the right hand motor winder are just not as comfortable to use hand held. With leaf shutters in each lens and right hand Speed Grip, the ETR series cameras saw a lot of use hand held with flash units for event photography. The Mamiya M645/J/1000S cameras are awkward to use hand held without a grip or motor wonder too. Still, I like the 6X4.5 format and find that it makes very nice 8X10 and 11X14 enlargements. In recent months I added two lenses for my SQ-A/AM cameras. These are the 65/4 PS and the 135/4 PS. They make a nice shooting pair and I don't mind using them hand held with an SQ-A with a waist level finder and a crank. The 65 is wide but not too wide and the 135 has closer focusing than the 150/3.5 S or 150/4 PS. Most people think of 6X7 (SLR 6X7) as too large a format to use hand held. This is because they usually associate the format with the Mamiya RB/RZ cameras. I have those and they are quite awkward to use hand held but the Bronica GS-1 with a Speed Grip is much easier to use hand held if the light is adequate. Based on what medium format equipment is selling for you could guess that very little of it in any format is getting much use. You would probably be right.