To jump from 645 to 67 or not to jump?

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I very rarely use a tripod. I shoot 6x6 and 4"x5" hand held.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Of course you have similar options shooting 5x4 hand-held, I do this with a Crown Graphic or a Super Graphic, the latter giving greater flexibility in terms of movements.

Ian

 

[mdarnton]

Totally agree with Ian's Graphic suggestion. But you should know that all the cool kids are shooting 5x7".

I had used a RB67 in the past, and thought about buying one a couple of years ago, but skipped directly from 35mm to sheet film instead. For me, the reason to do that was that the RB67 really does need a tripod--you can use it as a hand camera, but frankly, a Crown Graphic is a better hand camera--so why not go all the way?

Afterwards, I discovered that sheet film made me think more, and differently, in a good way, and got me out of my 35mm mindset rut, and that I liked big film a lot, so now I'm shooting 5x7 and 8x10 (xray film = 1975 film prices!), and hardly any 4x5 at all. Not much 35mm, either, in fact.

 

[Moopheus]

Another low-cost option for 6x7 would be a Koni-Omega--excellent lenses, sells for almost nothing these days. The biggest drawback is finding backs that aren't too worn out.

I'd also suggest that the OP not overthink it too much. It's great that he wants to consider different formats, and they all have their various pros and cons. If he sticks with it, whatever he gets now is likely not going to be the last thing he buys. It make take a couple of tries before he settles on what works for him.

 

[bluez]

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.

Could the fact that you got better pictures with the 645 than the Pentax 6x7 be because of the large shutter in the 6x7?
I have never owned a Pentax 6x7, but i remember when i was going to buy my first Medium format camera in the early 90's a Pentax 6x7 user told me how he loved his Pentax 6x7 but wasen't sure if he would recommend it because the strugel with vibrations from the huge shutter.

 

[johnsey]

Could the fact that you got better pictures with the 645 than the Pentax 6x7 be because of the large shutter in the 6x7?
I have never owned a Pentax 6x7, but i remember when i was going to buy my first Medium format camera in the early 90's a Pentax 6x7 user told me how he loved his Pentax 6x7 but wasen't sure if he would recommend it because the strugel with vibrations from the huge shutter.

Also wondered the same thing. It also could have been the lens i suppose as some are less than stellar. That said I own a variety of lenses and never ran into the issues of sharpness some people complain about.

 

[johnsey]

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

Right? I suppose the vast market of used film bodies does help. I remember in HS saving up to upgrade into an LX outfit. Never would have tried to afford MF at that time.

 

[sir_mamiya]

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.

This is way beyond his means according to his savings plan.

 

[johnsey]

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.

I see you mentioned Linhof Technika and Cambo. I know your on a budget, and usage becomes more of a deciding factor as you move up in format. I think the Cambo is a great bet if you shoot studio, and the Technika is a classic field camera. I prefer the wooden folders for the field but you can research folders and decide what you like (if you notice my signature). Also you could get yourself a speed Graphic for probably about 200 bucks if you wanna try your hand with LF, something to really consider for the price.

I don't think you need to see the 645 or 67 as competition. My 67II is my go to film camera as I prefer the ratio but find it more friendly to mail in rolls of 120 than sheets of 4x5. I shot more sheet film when i was in college and had unlimited darkroom access.

Also I wouldn't worry about moving to a large format if you are printing 11x14 and getting sharp images. You have plenty of time to explore different cameras and formats as your pocketbook allows, no need to rush.

 

[film_man]

I find that I prefer the 6x7 ratio to 645 and that's the main consideration. The other thing I really like is using my RB67. There is something about the massive viewfinder, the rotating back and the fact that it is so smooth you can hand hold it at 1/15 that makes it a pleasure to use. I don't find it a tripod-bound camera, in fact I can't remember the last time I used my tripod with the RB67. Finally I do love how the latest Mamiya 67 lenses render.

In your position, the main things I'd be concerned about 6x7 vs 645 are:
1. image ratio
2. extra cost of 10 vs 16 shots

 

[Axle]

So here's the big question...do you feel that 6x4.5 is holding you back photographically, that you cannot complete your final vision on paper with the 6x4.5? If you've answered yes, then wait two three months, keep shooting and printing your 6x4.5 at 11x14...if after the two/three months you still feel this way. Go for it and move to 6x7. If not, keep shooting the 645 and spend the money on film and paper.

Also maybe try shooting a different film stock or developing it differently.

I've printed 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, and 5x4 to 11x14 with great results!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think if I wanted to go beyond 6x4.5 then I'd jump all the way to 4x5. Here's why...

There's a big leap between 135 and 645. There's a big leap between 645 and 4x5 (if you make large prints). There's far less difference between 6x4.5 and 6x7.

The above stated, you may only need an incremental improvement so maybe 6x7cm is precisely what you need. It just wouldn't be the move "I" would make. However, I prefer longer formats so I would DEFINITELY jump from 6x4.5cm to 6x9cm.

 

[frank]

6x9 is as large as you can go with 120 film in a 120 film camera. (Longer panoramas can be done with 120 backs on view cameras.) The lure of roll film convenience is strong.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

6x9 is as large as you can go with 120 film in a 120 film camera. (Longer panoramas can be done with 120 backs on view cameras.) The lure of roll film convenience is strong.

There are 120 panorama cameras in 6x12cm, 6x17cm, 6x24cm as well as some in between. However, I only have a 6x12cm RFH for use on a 4x5in camera but not a 6x7cm or 6x9cm RFH because if I crop to those ratios then I'll shoot sheet film.

 

[frank]

There are 120 panorama cameras in 6x12cm, 6x17cm, 6x24cm as well as some in between. However, I only have a 6x12cm RFH for use on a 4x5in camera but not a 6x7cm or 6x9cm RFH because if I crop to those ratios then I'll shoot sheet film.

You are correct.

 

[M Carter]

There's one aspect of 6x7 that I really feel gives it the nod over 645... when you decide to up your printing game with masking.

Doing unsharp and shadow contrast masks with 6x7 is pretty slick. Overall, I prefer the big 6x7 neg and the ease of use vs. 4x5 (I do own 35, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 formats).

One can find a basic RB Pro-S starter setup for under $200 with some shopping around, so it's as close to a no-brainer as this stuff gets if it appeals to you. I haven't gotten ou the 4x5 in years, but that's me...

 

[jimmyklane]

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?

I'm a bit late to this party, and haven't read the entire thread....so forgive me if I repeat another's advice.

The Mamiya 645 system is a kick-ass camera system, and was my own entry into medium format....I've gotten fantastic results with everything from PanF+ to Delta3200 with it. I came upon the opportunity to purchase a fully loaded RZ67 ProII Kit a few months back, and ***FOR ME*** it has been a huge jump in output quality. My reasons for that are undoubtedly different than yours, but mainly have to do with forcing a more considered workflow.

My 645 has only the metered AE Prism and winder grip...pretty much a totally automated system like a high-end 35mm setup (F5, etc)...The RZ67 also has the AE Prism, power winder, LH Grip, and split-vision Finder allowing me to run fully automated but for outside of the studio I have stripped it down completely to waist-level finder, body, back, and lens....and I carry a meter. Now I have to stop and think about the dark slide, think about winding the film manually, use the magnifier in the WLF to get critical focus and often use the lens' cable release to avoid the vibrations from that giant mirror! It is much larger, significantly heavier, and slower to use in general...but I regularly shoot handheld and get fantastic results.

you may not always have access to that darkroom...I have to use a friends enlarger for proper prints and therefore I often scan the negatives....the difference between 645 and 67 are more apparent in this scenario, allowing deep crops if necessary. Speaking of crops: I've found it much easier to compose images that do not require cropping at all looking through that massive ground glass.

my advice: save for 6 or 7 months and buy an RZ67...at least the Pro II if possible, since ***heresy alert*** someday you might want to try a digital back. It should come with the fastest lens in the series, the excellent 110mm f/2.8 and depending on what you like to shoot the 50mm or the 180mm would make a great second lens for cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With the Pentax 67 you've got a huge mirror. If your shutter trips before this slaps, you can get excellent handheld shots. This obviously depends on the focal length of the lens. But when possible I like to lean the camera onto a rock of fence rail etc when shooting handheld.
But with a normal or wide-angle lens shutter speeds maybe 1/125 or preferably faster can yield very sharp images. After all, this was once
a popular aerial camera for handheld use. Slower than that, or with long lenses, and you'll want to use a tripod and the mirror lockup feature.

 

[Ian Grant]

6x9 is as large as you can go with 120 film in a 120 film camera. (Longer panoramas can be done with 120 backs on view cameras.) The lure of roll film convenience is strong.

Quite wrong, you can get 6x24 120 cameras although 6x17 is the most common. I have had one but so do many others . . . . . . .

Ian

 

[bluez]

I have both (RZ67 and 645 pro)

A 6x7 have a surface area that is only 1.66 larger than 645. Still i think the 6x7 is noticeably sharper. But this might not only be because of the increased size but because of the leaf shutter in the RZ67 lenses makes less vibrations. But i must admit i also use "mirror up" more often on 67, that might be a factor.

 

[benjiboy]

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!

you're shooting 120mm

120 film isn't 120mm in any dimension, 120 is just a film type number because Kodak in the early years started giving films when they brought them out a type number starting at 100, hence 35mm film has the designation 135.