Why 6x9 8 7 over 6x4.5? Why 6x4.5 over 35mm?

[Antonio Marques]

I'd like to have an MF rangefinder (but I don't). The reason I'd like it is that I love how even the smallest of MF negatives or slides look in comparison to 35mm.

My impression is that 6x4.5 RF or P&S are about half the weight of 6x9 counterparts, and almost half when compared to 6x7. For me, that would be just great. When I want weight, I have an SLR. So my question boils down to, if you have a GW690 and an RF645, what makes you take one or the other when you go out? What makes you sell one and keep the other?

As I was writing this, I realised much the same might apply to 645 vs 35mm. While I can tell when to use a GW690 vs an M6, I'm less clear when the comparison involves a 645 camera. For me, of course, the size of 120 film makes it worthwhile over 35mm, but why stop at 645? Is there a line to draw?

(I usually send film to the lab for development and then scan it.)

 

[frank]

There's no substitute for square inches of negative area.

But you have to find your own personal balance point with regards to portability and features. This will change with different photographic situations.

 

[Alan9940]

Why stop at MF?

Seriously, though, generally the primary reason for moving up in format is for smoother tonal transitions, better sharpness, less grain, etc; in other words, simply better image quality. But, these things are all relative, too. I've seen some absolutely gorgeous B&W prints from 35mm and some rather crappy prints from LF. A lot depends on your knowledge and skill level.

IMO, there is not that much difference in size/weight between different cameras in the MF category. Sure, a Mamiya 7II is certainly lighter than an RB67 or Rollei SL66, but if you're moving on up from 35mm your best bet is to consider how you plan to use the system and what result do you expect. For example, I have choices between 645, 6x6, and 6x9 in MF. I can assure you that the difference in quality between, say, 6x4.5 and 6x9 is readily apparent in larger prints (8x10 or smaller you probably wouldn't notice a difference.) There is a lot to choose from in the MF realm; you have rangefinder style cameras, folders, and SLR-type cameras. You can get a LF camera and shoot roll film with the proper back. You can get LF-style cameras that shoot "MF" sized sheet film. Lots of choices and lots to consider...

Good luck!

 

[frank]

Medium format (for me) is the sweet spot between convenience/features and performance/quality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on your expectations as well as the ergonomics. In other words, how big do you wish to print, and how much bulk or weight are you comfortable with? If you're only talking about an 11X14 print, for example, 645 might do quite well indeed. But even with something as modest as
16x20 prints, 6x7 or 6x9 will offer a distinct further improvement, but obviously not to the degree of 4x5 film. Budget can also be an issue. There
are some wonderful bargains on used pro MF gear at this point in history.

 

[jho]

Also consider aspect ratio depending on your shooting style. I settled on a mamiya 7 II because of the 6x7 aspect ratio.

 

[mklw1954]

And the larger the format, the more limited you are with telephoto lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9 and have backs for 6x7 (also larger LF sizes). All are vastly better than 35mm in terms of image quality, grain, sharpness, tonality once enlarged past 10x8.

The biggest step change is 35mm to any 120 format, the differences between 6x4.5 and 6x9 are less noticeable up to about 12x10. I'm predominantly an LF shooter but regularly shoot 6x6 witha TLR alongside, I think Frank's right about MF being a sweet spot, a good compromise. I work quite differently with MF always hand held only very rarely using a tripod, in fact my TLRs have completely replaced my 35mm shots where I shot with a Leica M3. In my case it was the mismatch of showing 35mm work alongside LF despite hunfreds of 35mm films I've used 3 or maybe 4 for exhibitions since the mid 1980's. I have no issues mixing 120 work with LF ansd like the change of format either 6x6 or 6x17 alongside 5x4 (&10x8).

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

You all so need to consider what sizes you print. I don't have a 6X4.5 camera or back but because I usually print 8X10 and 11X14 from 6X6 I do shoot 6X4.5. I never moved to a 6X4.5 system because I shoot a lot of landscapes and it I prefer to use the waist level finder and crop rather than use an eye level find and turn the camera for a landscape orientation with a 6X4.5. Although not quite the same when shooting 6X9 and printing 8X10 I am shooting 6X7. I do have a 6X7 back but over the years have gotten use to 6X9 and 6X9 and 6X6 negatives use the same Print File negative page.

 

[flavio81]

For me, medium format was about image quality that approaches large format (4x5 large format), with the speed of operation that approaches 35mm cameras. Not really about portability since there are LF cameras that are portable as well. So yes, a "sweet spot".

As for the formats, each format has its advantages:

6x9 has maximum image quality and common 2:3 aspect ratio
6x7 has the aspect ratio of common print paper sizes and image quality really close to 6x9
6x6 is the square format, great if you like square aspect ratio (an art in itself), and you are making three images at the same time: Square, 6x4.5 vertical, and 6x4.5 horizontal
6x4.5 for economy (16 shots in a roll is quite an improvement compared to 8 or 10 shots per roll)

 

[grahamp]

[...]
As for the formats, each format has its advantages:

6x9 has maximum image quality and common 2:3 aspect ratio
6x7 has the aspect ratio of common print paper sizes and image quality really close to 6x9
6x6 is the square format, great if you like square aspect ratio (an art in itself), and you are making three images at the same time: Square, 6x4.5 vertical, and 6x4.5 horizontal
6x4.5 for economy (16 shots in a roll is quite an improvement compared to 8 or 10 shots per roll)

Add in a little for portability/flexibility (My GS645s is lighter than the Mamiya 6, and I don't have to decide if I should carry more than one lens), and this about sums it up.

 

[Dali]

I fully agree, the Fuji GS645S is a darn good camera.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

To me 6x9 is nice to have as simple, still compact camera. I have tried 6x9 RF and get rid of it, but it is nice to have Agfa Billy Record (Art Deco). It is very simple and elegant camera with two focus distances (near and close) and simple lens. Yet it gives enough for contact prints and I think this is for what 6x9 was initially meant to be. I see plenty of contact prints of this size in antique stores. Enlarger for 6x9 is huge...
I skipped 6x7, 6x8 as it is something weird to me in terms of cameras for this format. And I used simple 645 folder for five or so years and recently tried 645 Mamiya SLR. 645 is very easy to print, gives plenty of frames and it is still in completely different league from 135. This summer I did same people close up portraits with 645 and on 135. 645 MF wins without any doubts. Tonal range and amount of details on prints. 645 is supported by almost any small enlarger and fits nicely on paper. Where are some modern and old 645 RF cameras to choose from, but honestly I never have problems to get it in focus by scale.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I threw my Fuji 6x9 RF along with my P67 into my pack this weekend. The RF certainly doesn't have the equal feel or same joy shooting, since you
aren't seeing exactly what the lens does, and your're stuck with just one focal length; but it is supremely lightweight and fills a niche, so was fun to
practice with. Its taking lens is quite sharp. 645 is just too small a neg for my typical needs.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I used to do a lot of flower photography. With 35 mm I had to choose between good detail in the main subject and no setting or the flower in its setting and poor detail in the main subject. I moved to 2.25 x 3.25 because at the magnification I used to get just the blossom with 35 mm I could get the setting too.

There are many good reasons to use 35 mm, also many good reasons to use larger formats.

 

[narsuitus]

"Why 6x9 8 7 over 6x4.5? Why 6x4.5 over 35mm?"

Over my lifetime, I have enjoyed using 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, 8x10 inch, and 11x14 inch film cameras.

If I were forced to use only one camera format for the rest of my life, I would choose medium format because it is a good compromise between the 35mm small format and the 4x5 inch large format.

A medium format camera with a square aspect ratio was my first experience with photography. I love not having to worry about portrait or landscape orientation when I use the square aspect ratio.

The 6x7 is a good general purpose aspect ratio. I especially like it for shooting people.

The 6x9 is good for landscapes and large group photos. Plus, it is identical to the 35mm aspect ratio.

The 6x8 is also a good general purpose aspect ratio. Plus, it is identical to the 6x4.5 aspect ratio.

I have never used a 6x4.5 camera because it was not available when I first started shooting. When I had a chance to replace my aging 6x6 TLR cameras with 6x4.5, I decided against it because I felt that it was too close to the 35mm format I was also using. I decided to try the larger 6x7 instead.

However, if I had been starting from scratch, I would have started with a 6x4.5 camera because based on the subject matter I shoot and my shooting syle, I never would have needed another format. The 6x4.5 would have provided me the small format features I needed for action, macro, and close-up subjects. It also would have given me images that were close to large format quality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For closeup work, of course you can do all kinds of interesting things with small cameras, and even acquire tilt/shift macro lenses these days. But I
still consider the true full range of control and sheer size offered by view cameras to vastly exceed anything possible in 35mm, with med format
being pretty darn restrictive in this particular category. 4x5 is wonderful for this, and even 8x10 if you have the right equipment. Snapshooting is a
completely different subject, or even quickie tripod work. Airline or vacation convenience is yet another arena where the compromise of medium
format is well worth it. Or high wind conditions where a view camera can become a kite. But long lens work, which I gravitate toward, can require
a serious weight and tripod commitment in MF. For instance, with a 4x5 camera, even with a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back on it, a 300mm Nikkor M
lens weighs next to nothing, and the focal extension is done with lightweight bellows. By comparison, my 300 dedicated lens for my Pentax 6x7
requires a big metal barrel and just as much support as my 8x10 camera, right atop a big wooden Ries tripod. I love the thing for what it does,
but wouldn't term it highly portable!

 

[Ronald Moravec]

It is like cars, no substitute for cubic inches on in films case square inches. All else being equal like enlarging and taking lenses.

36 MP digital cameras are somewhat equal to 2 1/4 x 7. You will need to go to 4x5 and the prints need to exceed 11x.

 

[Ron789]

"Why 6x9 8 7 over 6x4.5? Why 6x4.5 over 35mm?"

You could also ask: "Why 35mm over 6x4.5". 35mm offers great advantages, allowing to shoot fast and in a spontaneous, intuitive way. Larger formats simply don't allow that.
I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 6x9 and 4x5 inch. Of course, the definition of a 4x5 image is impressive. But I keep coming back to 35mm and most of my favorite photo's were done with 35mm. Most of the time I don't need the sharpness and detail of larger formats, but I need to be fast and flexible, often even shooting without looking through the finder.

 

[wiltw]

135 frame is 24mm tall, 645 frame is about 43mm tall, 6x7 frame is 56mm tall, 4x5 frame is 93mm tall. So to make a 20x24" print requires

• 21.2X enlargement of 135
• 11.8X enlargement of 645
• 9.1X enlargement of 6x7
• 5.5X enlargement of 4x5

So 645 requires only 56% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 135
And 4x5 requires only 60% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 6x7
And 6x7 requires only 78% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 645

So we can see that the largest benefit is 645 over 135, and the smallest benefit is 6x7 over 645. For those who think 645 is too insignificant of a gain over 135 (not true mathematically), 6x7 requires only 43% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 135.

And that is 'Why'.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I have two medium format cameras. A 6x7 Mamiya and a 6X6 Hasselblad. When i want smaller it is usually to get faster and or longer reach. As far as I am concerned you can't beat 35mm for that and 645 sits in an awkward spot between the bigger negative and the faster system.

 

[Pioneer]

I love em one and all.

 

[moto-uno]

^^^Wiltw , I find your description very hard to understand , I believe I know
of what you speak , but use of enlargement and grain visibility and percentages
just confuses the heck out of me .
Peter

 

[Greg Heath]

I'd like to have an MF rangefinder (but I don't). The reason I'd like it is that I love how even the smallest of MF negatives or slides look in comparison to 35mm.

My impression is that 6x4.5 RF or P&S are about half the weight of 6x9 counterparts, and almost half when compared to 6x7. For me, that would be just great. When I want weight, I have an SLR. So my question boils down to, if you have a GW690 and an RF645, what makes you take one or the other when you go out? What makes you sell one and keep the other?

As I was writing this, I realised much the same might apply to 645 vs 35mm. While I can tell when to use a GW690 vs an M6, I'm less clear when the comparison involves a 645 camera. For me, of course, the size of 120 film makes it worthwhile over 35mm, but why stop at 645? Is there a line to draw?

(I usually send film to the lab for development and then scan it.)

I think it's whatever you prefer really. I shoot all formats. 6x4.5 is a favorite as well as 6x6. The most important thing for me is portability. That's why I love the Fuji GS645S. It has a super crisp lens and it's great to get 16 shots per roll of 120. 6x4.5 is also a rectangle, and some prefer that look. I also prefer rangefinders. If you really want portability, then I usually take my old Agfa Isolette III. I rebuild them. The are small, and pocket carryable for less than $150, and the lenses are fantastic, but that is of course 6x6. The Zeiss folders are great too, and have the 6x4.5 format. Yes, old bellows pocket carry. Not exactly super light, but they are fun.

 

[wiltw]

^^^Wiltw , I find your description very hard to understand , I believe I know
of what you speak , but use of enlargement and grain visibility and percentages
just confuses the heck out of me .
Peter

If I have to enlarge 24mm by 21.2X to fill a print 20"x24", the grain size in the film (e.g. Tri-X) is enlarged by 21.2X. But if I have to enlarge my 4x5 neg by only 5.5X to fill the 20"x24" print, my Tri-X grain is similarly enlarged by only 5.5X. 5.5X is only 25.9% of the 21.2X degree of enlargment. About a 4:1 improvement in apparent grain (smaller visible grain in the print) when the neg is from the larger format.

So I simply did that comparison for

1. 135 vs. 645
2. 645 vs. 6x7
3. 6x7 vs. 4x5

and the smaller the fraction (e.g. 25% vs. 75%) is the greater degree of improvent in going from smaller format to larger format. So comparing the statments

1. So 645 requires only 56% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 135
2. And 6x7 requires only 78% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 645
3. And 4x5 requires only 60% of the enlargement and grain visibility of 6x7

The largest degree of improvement is #1, the smallest degree of improvement is #3...and 4x5 vs 135 is the largest degree of all of them (5x5X is 25.9% of the 21.2X degree of enlargment. About a 4:1 improvement)

We are, of course, ignoring other 'improvements' resultant from larger format size, such as tonality or detail resolution. Based solely upon reduction of apparent grain size in the resultant print, #1 is better than #3, but the jump from 135 to 4x5 derives the greatest advantage off all.