To jump from 645 to 67 or not to jump?

[natertots]

I own a Mamiya M645 Super and I loooove shooting with it! My high school has a darkroom and recently I've switched to printing 11x14 prints. I am satisfied with the quality but a lot of people say it is at 11x14 where 67 pulls ahead of 645. Is this difference worth getting a 67? Based on my current information if I got an RZ67 it would be married to my tripod, and currently I use my tripod with my Super about half the time, so I probably would not sell off my Super to get the 67. Being in high school, I am on a rather tight budget and I am able to save only roughly $100 a month, with it costing $600 to get an RZ67 Pro II and lens on ebay. Would those of you with experience printing both formats recommend getting an RZ if 11x14 is the largest I'm printing?

 

[anfenglin]

What about an RB67? Over here at least, they're quite cheap.

 

[snapguy]

bull

Yeah, the bull in the pasture next door swears he gets more heifers than any of us. The first thing you have to learn about photography is to ignore what "they" say. "They" are always wrong. You need to perfect your craft/art and stop looking over the fence at other heifers.

 

[R.Gould]

Stick with your 645, if you want to try bigger then get an old folder, you can get them to take 69 and that way you would not be chancing a lot of money for something you may not like, plus these folders are the easiest MF cameras to hand hold, and if you chose your camera carefully you also have the mask for 66, you have a fixed lens, which I find helps my photography, I personally use folders for a lot of my photography, and enjoy using them

 

[Trail Images]

Reading your comment I guess a question would be what size prints are you wanting or needing to make? If there is no real need to scale up then the 645 sounds like it is meeting your needs already.
If you decided differently then an RB67 will work just fine and be all manual like the 645. Additionally, the RB units out there are plentiful in comparison to the RZ and for the most part cheaper to purchase. The need to use the tripod is almost always required when scaling up, at least IMO.
Good luck with your investigative process overall.

 

[LMNOP]

I own a Mamiya M645 Super and I loooove shooting with it! My high school has a darkroom and recently I've switched to printing 11x14 prints. I am satisfied with the quality but a lot of people say it is at 11x14 where 67 pulls ahead of 645. Is this difference worth getting a 67? Based on my current information if I got an RZ67 it would be married to my tripod, and currently I use my tripod with my Super about half the time, so I probably would not sell off my Super to get the 67. Being in high school, I am on a rather tight budget and I am able to save only roughly $100 a month, with it costing $600 to get an RZ67 Pro II and lens on ebay. Would those of you with experience printing both formats recommend getting an RZ if 11x14 is the largest I'm printing?

Try not to think about the print size, you're shooting 120mm - so you're all set in terms of available resolution. Shooting with an RZ is FUN and satisfying, you will not regret acquiring one. I started on 645 when I got into 120, and it was great for a while. When I got my hands on an RZ, the amount of work output DOUBLED instantly, I was just shooting way more, and I would say about 50/50 on the tripod. You DO NOT have to use a tripod with the RZ, despite what people say. I agree with what someone above said, maybe try an RB67 to save a few bucks. I saw a kit on Adorama for like $300 the other day.

At the end of the day, it is nice to have variety. Your 645 camera can be useful when you go out and you don't want to spend as much time composing, or you want a lighter haul. I just took my RZ out onto a frozen lake yesterday, no tripod, and I carried a second camera. Handheld RZ is a blast!

 

[Ian Grant]

I've used 645 Mamiyas for well over 30 years, I wanted a step up in terms of quality and thought seriously about an RB67. Then I asked myself what we.re the short-comings I felt I was really wanting to address, I realised that what I really wanted was the ability to use movements mostly a little front tilt. I then thought about the increase in quality I might expect moving fro 645 to 67 and it really is quite small 6cm to 7cm in one plane, 4.5 to 6cm in the other.

So instead of moving to 6x7 I moved to using 5x4 and a large format camera, that met my needs far better and gave that noticeable increase in image qualities I was after. I'm not suggesting you move to LF, first make the most of your 645 and maybe look at other options later.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

A. A. Blaker suggested in his book Field Photography that moving up in format without at least doubling both dimensions of the frame wasn't worth the expense or bother. 645 is half frame 6x9 (2.25" x 3.25" in the deity's own measurement system).

If you must move up, think about getting a 2x3 Graphic. You don' need no steenkin' SLR.

Until you're dissatisfied with the results you're getting and can show that moving up in format would solve the problem, stick with what you have.

 

[LMNOP]

A. A. Blaker suggested in his book Field Photography that moving up in format without at least doubling both dimensions of the frame wasn't worth the expense or bother. 645 is half frame 6x9 (2.25" x 3.25" in the deity's own measurement system).

If you must move up, think about getting a 2x3 Graphic. You don' need no steenkin' SLR.

Until you're dissatisfied with the results you're getting and can show that moving up in format would solve the problem, stick with what you have.

I like this perspective, and I've recently gone to 6x9 - which was more satisfying, but working in multiple formats is a lot of fun. I guess there is a practical way of looking at this, but when you love to collect and try new cameras, you're not thinking that way. I wouldn't have responded to your post if I didn't feel compelled to tell you, "You don' need no steenkin' SLR." made me laugh out loud.

 

[weasel]

I went throught this a few years back, when I came across both a pentax 645 and pentax 6x7 at prices I couldnt refuse when I had cash in my hand. I did extensive testing, and what I found was that at enlargements as big as can be made with my omega d2, the 465 actually gave better images- sharper, and I could not see any difference in tonality, and no difference in grain using acros 100. Being an old school bigger is always better guy, this was very counterintuitive to me. Sold the 6x7.
I have found that for me, to get any real advantage over any or the medium formats, I have to jump to 4x5.

 

[gzinsel]

its not a jump, its a lateral move! A "jump" would be to 5x4! or larger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

I suggest that you move up to 6x6 and then you will not have to roll the camera on its side to fit the format. Also then if you print square 11"x14" paper makes an 11"x11", and an 16"x20" makes 16"x16". Besides Hasselblad is smaller than the Mamiyas and Bronicas.

 

[M Carter]

If the OP has read this far, he'll see plenty of well thought-out posts, pros and cons, even recommendations. RB's, 4x5, etc.

And with respect to all of those valid comments, I'll add: you never know until you try.

There's something that still, to this day, makes me go "ahhhh" when I frame up my first shot in an RB shooting session. That big-ass, bright viewfinder, it's like seeing an Imax film after watching TV. Something in how color and DOF renders while framing, it still brings back the first day I opened a KEH box and looked through my first MF viewfinder. The chunky clunky body, the wind-it-twice process… all of that effects the way I shoot and the way I feel about shooting those particular moments.

It's really not just about the neg size (though the neg size on a light table is still, after a couple decades, kinda thrilling to me for roll film). So much of this game is your connection to the gear, are you a "the gear just disappears when I shoot" type or "I have to fight with the gear but it's like fighting with a hot woman"?? Only you can answer that, but… if you find you're drifting off to sleep dreaming of RZ's… get your hands on one and see. Photography and gear isn't like American marriage - it's like french dudes with three mistresses and a wife. You can love them all. (This reply is getting non-PC and sexist, ain't it??)

That said, on a high school budget - I'd look hard at an RB Pro-S setup - you can go much cheaper than RZ and your negs will be the same (other than any RB vs. RZ desire issues, see above paragraphs where logic isn't the only factor).

And a high school shooter wanting to add 6x7 to his 645? Respect, man. There's hope for the planet after all!!!

 

[natertots]

good 4x5/6x9 cameras?

Thank you all for your feedback! I decided 645 vs 67 is probably not different enough to justify adding an extra system in my bag. However, I'm now starting to gravitate to a camera that can do both 6x9 and 4x5, as the flexibility to go with 6x9 when I want more shots/less hassle developing is appealing as is having the option to go large format when I'm shooting for maximum IQ. Currently, I am thinking the Linhof Technika series is my best option. Are there any other cameras I should look in to?

 

[Vaughn]

Here is a fun assignment for you. Take two (or even three) images next to each other on the roll with the 6x4.5, and print the two or three frames at one time (as if they were one larger negative). Compare the over-all image quality of the 11x14 print with one made from one of the single 6x4.5 frames. Use the same enlarger/lens. If the lens is beat and the enlarger not aligned. you probably will not see much difference. Hopefully one will have nice sharp grain across the entire print.

Vaughn

4x5's -- so much depends on the type of work you will be doing...also where. There might be someone in your area with a Speed Graphic who would love to get it into the hands of someone willing to use it.

 

[Jim Jones]

I agree with Ian and Dan. A moderate increase in film size at an immoderate price is illogical. I've rarely used anything between 35mm and 4x5. With careful shopping, someone on a $600 budget can get BOTH a 2x3 press camera and a 4x5 camera.

 

[emjo]

Just to add some stir into this thread. 645 is a great and flexible format, my GA645Zi is still a definite favourite of mine. A sufficient jump up from 24x36mm film to make a difference.

Through "Acts of Gas" I also have a Mamiya 7 (6x7 format), Fuji GW690 (6x9 format) and a 4"x5" (5"x7" even). I am happier with the 6x9 aspect ratio but find the image quality of the Mamiya 7 better. Shooting 6x7 and cropping to 3:2 feels like a waste though.

The 4"x5" is another thing entirely. Handling is cumbersome to say the least. For a fanatic/enthusiast it is quite fun (I like it!) but if you are not in that category I'd stay away and you will have much more fun with the "hand holdable" formats. 4"x5" is also pricey.

So: If the aspect ratio of 6x7 is what you want then go for it. Otherwise a 6x9 is a nice experience, not least for satisfying the lust for larger negs, larger they are! I have found out that I think a built in meter is on the plus side also (the GW690 does not have one unfortunately).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you all for your feedback! I decided 645 vs 67 is probably not different enough to justify adding an extra system in my bag. However, I'm now starting to gravitate to a camera that can do both 6x9 and 4x5, as the flexibility to go with 6x9 when I want more shots/less hassle developing is appealing as is having the option to go large format when I'm shooting for maximum IQ. Currently, I am thinking the Linhof Technika series is my best option. Are there any other cameras I should look in to?

If you want flexibility at a reasonable price you don't want a Technika. You want a Cambo SC-2 or any of several Sinars. Both are relatively abundant, relatively inexpensive, and their systems are large. I have a Cambo, many posters here and on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ prefer Sinars.

 

[M Carter]

Well, for 4x5 it also kind of comes down to studio-style camera or field camera. 4x5 really isn't a grab-the-moment kind of thing, but the control it gives you is immense.

From what I've seen, the calumet/cambo 4x5 is probably the most available on the used market. The Calumet and Cambo only differ in knob styles, logo and sometimes color, far as I know (my 4x5 is a Calumet but is exactly like a friend's cambo, except the knobs on his are a little cooler/high-tech/modern looking). That is, until you get into geared movement cameras. They are very solid cameras.

When I shot product with 4x5, I'd often mask the back standard so I could rotate the back and get two shots on one sheet for bracketing. The half frame of 4x5 is sort of like a slightly panoramic MF frame.

 

[natertots]

Thank you for the suggestion! The Cambo certainly looks nice and half slides of 4x5 sound interesting. They are not too far off what I was expecting to pay for an RZ either, and with my 645 for faster and less methodical shooting I think it would compliment my 645 better than a 67 camera, which would almost compete with it.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I owned both a Bronica ETRS kit and an Mamiya RB67 Pro-S kit. The ETRS was a pleasure to shoot with the speed grip... almost like shooting 135 format. The RB67 was heavier and significantly more cumbersome but there was a noticeable improvement in image quality on larger prints. That stated, when I bought a 4x5in kit I sold the RB because I could no longer justify keeping it. The difference in quality between the 6x4.5cm and 4x5in was huge but only marginal between 6x4.5cm and 6x7cm. I figured if I'm going to carry a monster camera into the field then it might as well be a 4x5.

So yes, in my experience, my 6x4.5cm kit largely competed with my 6x7cm kit whereas the 4x5in kit was a a very nice jump upward.

 

[MattKing]

I have and use a Mamiya 645 Pro, a Mamiya C330 and a Mamiya RB67.

I use all three both hand-held and on a tripod.

I have separate bags for each - the smallest is the C330 bag, the 645 bag is next and the RB67 bag is the largest.

I would suggest trying an RB67. They are very reasonable in cost, their close focus capabilities are great, and if you want to change to an RZ67, the RB lenses work with it too.

You need to decide for yourself whether the rotating back on the RB/RZ cameras works for you - I know it works for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, for 4x5 it also kind of comes down to studio-style camera or field camera. 4x5 really isn't a grab-the-moment kind of thing, but the control it gives you is immense.

From what I've seen, the calumet/cambo 4x5 is probably the most available on the used market. The Calumet and Cambo only differ in knob styles, logo and sometimes color, far as I know (my 4x5 is a Calumet but is exactly like a friend's cambo, except the knobs on his are a little cooler/high-tech/modern looking). That is, until you get into geared movement cameras. They are very solid cameras.

When I shot product with 4x5, I'd often mask the back standard so I could rotate the back and get two shots on one sheet for bracketing. The half frame of 4x5 is sort of like a slightly panoramic MF frame.

The way to use 4"x5" hand held is to use a press camera which can be used kinda sorta as a limited field camera.

 

[Frankly Unsharp]

Jump twice!

Why not jump back to 35mm? Sharpness is not everything, and once You have understood that, You will have so many more options to chose from. No more carrying around a big and heavy equipment, when all You need fits in Your pocket.

 

[marton]

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but if you want to shoot a larger negative without being married - as they say, to tripods, Mamiya 7 would seem to be a good option. Interchangeable lenses, portable etc etc plus great quality. Good luck with it.