645 vs. 35mm

divewizard

divewizard

perspicaz
Local time
7:58 AM
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
833
I just got back 6 rolls of black and white from NCPS. There is two shots that are very similar. One was taken with a 35mm Nikon FE with a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI lens with an Nikon O56 filter. The second was taken with Fujifilm GA645ZI at 55mm with a Nikon O56 filter. Both shots were taken with Kodak TMAX 100 which was processed and scanned by NCPS. Can you tell which came from which camera?

84210031xl.jpg



84240016xl.jpg


©2011 Chris Grossman
 
I'd say the first one is 35mm, the second (bottom photo) is 6x4.5. More detail and clarity, and less grain in the second one.
 
Hey, we're unanimous! Bokeh is also nicer in the second shot... :)

About a 1952 Pontiac? Outrageous hubcaps! That would take extreme care to drive, as low as that... maybe he can raise it up a few inches for getting it home?

Edit: Hey, it IS raised a ways in the second shot!
 
From my iPhone I can not tell grain. Other than the first seems to be shot with the 28mm.
Both look excellent. Nice work Chris.
 
f16sunshine said:
From my iPhone I can not tell grain. Other than the first seems to be shot with the 28mm.
Both look excellent. Nice work Chris.
Click to expand...

I even saw differences (gradation, bokeh) on my i-pod touch (2nd den, no retina display). Looking at this on a laptop it is blindingly obvious.

Leaves me wondering whether the to high contrast, blown high light in the 135 image is just a poor scan/poor development or whether the 645 just handles that better.

Also the grain in the 135 seems excessive to me. Tmax 100 is the best Kodak offers at present. The looks like HP5 to me. Aliasing problem? Poor interpolation when down sampling or over sharpened?

Time to get my Rollei out of the box ;)
 
I assume the first is 35mm. if it is, I know Tmax 100 is capable of much less grain and much smoother tonality. That might be due to scanning showing up the grain.
 
1 - 35 mm: more wide angle, higher grain, detail is lost compared to the 2nd one (look at lower corners). Maybe this was shot at f2.8 and the details are smeared because of poor wide-open performance?

2 - 645 :D
 
Actually I don't need pictures as evidence to know that medium format has higher resolution and density than 135mm. But the difference to me in these shots is not that big that I wouldn't go for 35mm, especially if one considers (in most cases) the more hassle of using 120 film and its cameras. I leave my rollei in the cabinet, but would like to try once a 1950 Super Ikonta just for fun and my 1920 Nettel.
 
Clearly...

Clearly...

Clearly...
Second shot MF. All sorts of clues... the asphalt in front left of car, more clarity in the background, grain in #1. Telling would be a big print of both. #2 would be much bigger before it blows out in many areas.

Why are so many unwilling to accept the distinct advantage (in my consideration) of MF overall.

Also, can you imagine what would happen on a 6X9, which one could shoot with the same convenience as 35mm, pretty much. Although, I would never shoot MF w/o a tripod.

The Fuji you used is probably one of the best 645's you could have used in this test regarding features and size compared to most 35mm cameras. Only slightly larger, with AF, Zoom and correct metering. Some manual override. Superb camera for the money.
 
kuzano said:
Clearly...Why are so many unwilling to accept the distinct advantage (in my consideration) of MF overall.

(...) which one could shoot with the same convenience as 35mm, pretty much. Although, I would never shoot MF w/o a tripod.
Click to expand...

IMHO not a difficult question to answer:
1. 120 film is harder and harder to get;
2. 120 film is harder and harder to get well processed;
3. 120 film cost many times more - less shots per roll;
4. the lenses are hardly suitable to take pics in darker circumstances;
5. even during sunny days, a tripod provides for better results;
6. not suitable for snapshots;
7. in most cases cameras are big and heavy.

I did a lot of MF work but since I got to know the famous Leitz lenses combining with 135mm, I never looked back. Still I like the quality of MF, just recently scanned all my old 6x9 and 6x6 negs and they came out wonderful.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
IMHO not a difficult question to answer:
1. 120 film is harder and harder to get;
2. 120 film is harder and harder to get well processed;
3. 120 film cost many times more - less shots per roll;
4. the lenses are hardly suitable to take pics in darker circumstances;
5. even during sunny days, a tripod provides for better results;
6. not suitable for snapshots;
7. in most cases cameras are big and heavy.

I did a lot of MF work but since I got to know the famous Leitz lenses combining with 135mm, I never looked back. Still I like the quality of MF, just recently scanned all my old 6x9 and 6x6 negs and they came out wonderful.
Click to expand...

1) false. It is no more difficult to find than good quality 35mm film. Everyplace I buy film has both.

2) The number of places the do good processing is decreasing for all film, not just 120. It is no harder to find good processing for 120 than 35mm.

3) true if you consider cost per shot, however if you look at cost per film area 120 is less.

4) Yes but by that measure 35mm can't hold a candle to digital in low light. Also Ilford Delta 3200 looks great in 120 photos.

5) False, I shoot my 6x9 rangefinders and GA645zi handheld in midday most of the time with great results. The shot above was handheld.

6) False, my GA645ZI is easiest to use film camera I own. It is easy to load, the autofocus works great in low light, and I have taken great family snapshots with it.

7) Sometimes true, but my GA645ZI is not much larger than the Nikon SLR and as you can see from the photos above the quality is much better.
 
Last edited:
The first photo is the Nikon 35mm SLR, the second is the Fujifilm GA645ZI.

The lighting conditions are not the same for the two shots, so I would not read to much into the lighting difference. The Nikon shot was taken about an hour later with direct sun. For GA645ZI shot the sun was partially obscured by light coastal clouds.

I don't have any more MF shots from that day, but I do have one more shot with the Nikon from a different angle.

84210032xl.jpg


©2011 Chris Grossman
 
Doug said:
About a 1952 Pontiac? Outrageous hubcaps! That would take extreme care to drive, as low as that... maybe he can raise it up a few inches for getting it home?

Edit: Hey, it IS raised a ways in the second shot!
Click to expand...

These shots are from Los Angeles and that is a Low Rider Car. Almost all Low Rider Cars have hydraulics to raise and lower them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom