pdx138
Established
I'm considering picking up a medium format rangefinder. Never mind the models available - it will probably come down to what is available at the time that I can afford. What I really want to hear are arguments for and against the 645 format.
I like the shape of the rectangle, but is it really enough more negative than 35mm to justify medium format?
Please let me know your opionons. Thanks!
I like the shape of the rectangle, but is it really enough more negative than 35mm to justify medium format?
Please let me know your opionons. Thanks!
Stewart
Member
Everyone will have a different view on this; here's mine. Bigger is better, but you have to trade size off against - well, size. When I want the best possible picture I can get (regardless of convenience) I shoot LF. When I want a good compromise between portability and image quality I shoot Hasselblad 6x6. When portability is the overriding consideration - eg on a work trip where a Lowepro backpack isn't an option - I take my Bronica 645. If it has to be REALLY small then I take a 35mm RF.
Yes, if you have only shot 35mm before, 645 will look pretty good. My Bronica kit is similar in bulk to my 35mm kit, but I hardly use the latter these days. But if I have room I will take a bigger camera than 645.
As for rectangular vs square format, when I got my old Hasselblad 500CM I was quite worried about the square format and spent some time looking for a 645 back and paid quite a bit for one when I found it. I seldom use it - following the logic above, if I am going to take my Hasselblad somewhere, I want to use the biggest image size of which it is capable. And since I now have access to every format from 35mm through 645, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5", 6x12 and 6x17, the answer is that they are all good and I find that I frame the shot to take advantage of the aspect ratio. I find no intrinsic superiority between 6x6, 6x17, or anything in between; it is how you place the image within that space that matters.
The good news is that these days all of these options are cheaper than they were, thanks to the flight to digital by many commercial photographers.
In summary, if portability is not a deciding factor - go bigger than 645.
Yes, if you have only shot 35mm before, 645 will look pretty good. My Bronica kit is similar in bulk to my 35mm kit, but I hardly use the latter these days. But if I have room I will take a bigger camera than 645.
As for rectangular vs square format, when I got my old Hasselblad 500CM I was quite worried about the square format and spent some time looking for a 645 back and paid quite a bit for one when I found it. I seldom use it - following the logic above, if I am going to take my Hasselblad somewhere, I want to use the biggest image size of which it is capable. And since I now have access to every format from 35mm through 645, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5", 6x12 and 6x17, the answer is that they are all good and I find that I frame the shot to take advantage of the aspect ratio. I find no intrinsic superiority between 6x6, 6x17, or anything in between; it is how you place the image within that space that matters.
The good news is that these days all of these options are cheaper than they were, thanks to the flight to digital by many commercial photographers.
In summary, if portability is not a deciding factor - go bigger than 645.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Just compare how large a print you can get from equal enlargements. A 10x12 print from 35mm has an area about 90x the area of a 35mm negative. The same enlargement factor applied to a 645 negative would give you a 16x20 inch print. That's a huge difference in print size for equal enlargement factors.
R
ruben
Guest
Your invitation is to coment about the 645 format vs the 35mm format and not vs the square format.
Well there are two basic points, camera and film.
As for the cameras, no one around can match the VERSATILITY, MODULARITY (lens and accesories availability), COMFORT, SPEED OF MANIPULATION etc, etc, of the 35mm format. No way, no chance, no hope. Nothing. Plain desert land.
As for the film and resulting image, the story is vice-versa. In order to match the image quality of the 645 format you may have to invest in 35mm gear many times more what you have invested in the 645. And even then I am not sure if you will succeed, but I don't further comment here to avoid flames around, and in particular because I cannot claim I have the top of the top lenses in 35mm.
So one step forwards, one step backwards: Welcome to MF country.
Yet, fortunately, you can start cautiously at low priced folders like an Iskra remodeled to 645 (Fedka store only !) and then after some use you can evaluate what better model you can purchase, what it will give you and for how much.
Cheers,
Ruben
Well there are two basic points, camera and film.
As for the cameras, no one around can match the VERSATILITY, MODULARITY (lens and accesories availability), COMFORT, SPEED OF MANIPULATION etc, etc, of the 35mm format. No way, no chance, no hope. Nothing. Plain desert land.
As for the film and resulting image, the story is vice-versa. In order to match the image quality of the 645 format you may have to invest in 35mm gear many times more what you have invested in the 645. And even then I am not sure if you will succeed, but I don't further comment here to avoid flames around, and in particular because I cannot claim I have the top of the top lenses in 35mm.
So one step forwards, one step backwards: Welcome to MF country.
Yet, fortunately, you can start cautiously at low priced folders like an Iskra remodeled to 645 (Fedka store only !) and then after some use you can evaluate what better model you can purchase, what it will give you and for how much.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
sleepyhead
Well-known
I think that alot of this is subjective - opinions are fine, but you have to SHOOT with stuff to really find out if you like it.
I "grew up in photogrphy" with 35mm SLRs, 35mm RFs, and a 6x6 Rolleiflex. At some point a Mamiya 645 pro with a few lenses came along at a really sweet price and I bought it. I LOVED the way the camera handled (it had the AE prism and motor drive), and it was well-built and pleasant to use.
BUT, from the very first roll, I JUST NEVER LIKED THE 645 FORMAT. I can't explain it rationally, I just didn't like it. Maybe it was having to decide whether to shoot horizontally or vertically; with the 6x6 you just shoot and crop later, or keep the classic square. With 35mm the frame is elongated enough that it's usually obvious if you want to shoot horizontally or vertically.
645 gave me 15 shots on a roll, 6x6 gives 12. Wowie Zowie, big savings on film... Maybe if you shoot hundreds of rolls a year it will save you some money. I shoot like 20, so savings isn't a factor.
So I sold the Mamiya 645. A bit later a Balda 645 folder came along nearly for free. I shot a couple of rolls with it but HATED the fact that vertical format was the "default" if you hold the camera normally. Most of my shots are horizontals, so it was ackward to hold. THIS IS WHY I'LL NEVER GET A BRONICA 645, no matter how fantastic it is.
Try, see what you "click" with! Have fun.
I "grew up in photogrphy" with 35mm SLRs, 35mm RFs, and a 6x6 Rolleiflex. At some point a Mamiya 645 pro with a few lenses came along at a really sweet price and I bought it. I LOVED the way the camera handled (it had the AE prism and motor drive), and it was well-built and pleasant to use.
BUT, from the very first roll, I JUST NEVER LIKED THE 645 FORMAT. I can't explain it rationally, I just didn't like it. Maybe it was having to decide whether to shoot horizontally or vertically; with the 6x6 you just shoot and crop later, or keep the classic square. With 35mm the frame is elongated enough that it's usually obvious if you want to shoot horizontally or vertically.
645 gave me 15 shots on a roll, 6x6 gives 12. Wowie Zowie, big savings on film... Maybe if you shoot hundreds of rolls a year it will save you some money. I shoot like 20, so savings isn't a factor.
So I sold the Mamiya 645. A bit later a Balda 645 folder came along nearly for free. I shot a couple of rolls with it but HATED the fact that vertical format was the "default" if you hold the camera normally. Most of my shots are horizontals, so it was ackward to hold. THIS IS WHY I'LL NEVER GET A BRONICA 645, no matter how fantastic it is.
Try, see what you "click" with! Have fun.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I'm with sleepyhead about the 645 rangefinder cameras -- portrait as the "normal" format really doesn't work for me. I like the 645 format very much, though. If you aren't totally committed to getting a rangefinder in 645, then I'd advise you to look very seriously at the Mamiya 645 cameras. I'm thinking particularly of the original ones from the '70s -- the M645, 645J and 1000s. These are quite cheap these days, and really well made. The lenses are excellent too. The cameras handle quite well.
If you really want a rangefinder, you might consider a 6x6 and just crop to a rectangular format. Yes, you get fewer pictures on a roll. But there are a lot more 6x6 rangefinder cameras out there then 645, I think.
If you really want a rangefinder, you might consider a 6x6 and just crop to a rectangular format. Yes, you get fewer pictures on a roll. But there are a lot more 6x6 rangefinder cameras out there then 645, I think.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
645 does bring some needed wiggle room for cropping when making enlargements beyond 8 by 10.
Take note of the comments on the 6x6 format. Cameras tend to be more cumbersome when positioned vertically on a tripod, which is what one does when shooting landscapes with a 645.
Real Estate - Seriously, I would prefer a 6x9 over a 645, but that is a personal preference, as I have my own darkroom.
A cropped 6x6 or a much less cropped 645 neg needs to be enlarged 22 times to cover an 8 by 10 print. A standard 35mm frame printed to its full 24mm width needs to be enlarged by a factor of 72 to cover an 8 by 10 print.
A cropped 6x9 printed to its full 56mm width needs only to be enlarged by factor of 13 for an 8 by 10 print, 25 times for a 11 by 14.
Take note of the comments on the 6x6 format. Cameras tend to be more cumbersome when positioned vertically on a tripod, which is what one does when shooting landscapes with a 645.
Real Estate - Seriously, I would prefer a 6x9 over a 645, but that is a personal preference, as I have my own darkroom.
A cropped 6x6 or a much less cropped 645 neg needs to be enlarged 22 times to cover an 8 by 10 print. A standard 35mm frame printed to its full 24mm width needs to be enlarged by a factor of 72 to cover an 8 by 10 print.
A cropped 6x9 printed to its full 56mm width needs only to be enlarged by factor of 13 for an 8 by 10 print, 25 times for a 11 by 14.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Reuben hit the nail on the head. Subject to a truck-load of caveats, 645 will get you a higher quality than 35mm. I will go out on a limb and say that it does not matter what 35mm equipment you have. The difference in quality is real. Now whether the slower lenses, fixed focal length cameras (e.g. my beloved Fuji 645), bulkier cameras, reduced film-stock choices etc. make any difference to your decision, only you can tell. After all, if you NEED an f:1.4 lens to do what you need to do or NEED a 12 fps motor drive, or NEED to shoot with a long telephoto . . . you get the idea.
When I last went to Japan (in the pre-digital age . . .), I took two Leicas, assorted lenses and a Fuji 645. The Fuji was light-weight and has a wide-ish lens on it, given the format. I used them for different things and was very happy to have the larger negative option.
Good luck in your hunting . . . I have seen lots of excellent medium format gear around for bargain basement prices.
Ben Marks
When I last went to Japan (in the pre-digital age . . .), I took two Leicas, assorted lenses and a Fuji 645. The Fuji was light-weight and has a wide-ish lens on it, given the format. I used them for different things and was very happy to have the larger negative option.
Good luck in your hunting . . . I have seen lots of excellent medium format gear around for bargain basement prices.
Ben Marks
pdx138
Established
Thanks all. As usual I know its going to come down to preference and what I feel comfortable, but I appreciate the different views. Food for thought. I'll let you know how it shakes out for me. Thanks again.
Meleica
Well-known
Despite having used Pentax 67 for 10+ years as well as 35mm, I have found the Fuji GA645Zi to be a near perfect camera for me. 16x20's with ease.
Dan
My Fuji 6x4.5 Rangefinder Informaion Page
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/fujirf.htm
Dan
My Fuji 6x4.5 Rangefinder Informaion Page
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/fujirf.htm
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I use 35mm, 645, and 4x5.
I reach for 35mm gear when I shoot in low light or I'm shooting sports and need fast AF. It is a very useful format, but the image quality at larger print sizes pales when compared to medium and large formats.
I also own a Bronica RF645. It's very light and compact for medium format. And I got it at a fantastic price (that's why I don't own a Mamiya 7). As for the portrait orientation - not a big deal for me. It really is just as easy to rotate and hold the 645 as it is to rotate and hold a 35mm camera. But perhaps the people who object to the portrait orientation only shoot their 35mm cameras in landscape. They may just hate turning cameras 90 degrees. Those folks might prefer 6x6 or 6x7 cameras.
As for tripod use - an L clamp and Arca Swiss plate solve the problem of changing orientations on a tripod. Works great for 35mm gear, too!
I reach for 35mm gear when I shoot in low light or I'm shooting sports and need fast AF. It is a very useful format, but the image quality at larger print sizes pales when compared to medium and large formats.
I also own a Bronica RF645. It's very light and compact for medium format. And I got it at a fantastic price (that's why I don't own a Mamiya 7). As for the portrait orientation - not a big deal for me. It really is just as easy to rotate and hold the 645 as it is to rotate and hold a 35mm camera. But perhaps the people who object to the portrait orientation only shoot their 35mm cameras in landscape. They may just hate turning cameras 90 degrees. Those folks might prefer 6x6 or 6x7 cameras.
As for tripod use - an L clamp and Arca Swiss plate solve the problem of changing orientations on a tripod. Works great for 35mm gear, too!
ncd_photo
Nikon Fanatic
How big do you want to print? I like the fact that I can shoot 6x4.5 for Landscapes with a small fuji manual rangefinder and can scan my own negs for superb 16x20 prints. I lusted after MF quality for ages but soon ran out of wall space!
If you want to print at home for your own wall, 8x12 is more sensible and 35mm (or 6-10Mpx DSLR) will give you that.
MF is great but its slow and expensive in the long run.
One thing I would say is that shooting MF has made me a better photographer - knowing you've only got 12 shots and each one will cost you a few quid slows you down and makes you think - is the shot really worth it? Would I put it on my wall?
I also like the 6x4.5 rectangle - better for portraits and I sometimes find 35mm is just a little to wide.
Nick
If you want to print at home for your own wall, 8x12 is more sensible and 35mm (or 6-10Mpx DSLR) will give you that.
MF is great but its slow and expensive in the long run.
One thing I would say is that shooting MF has made me a better photographer - knowing you've only got 12 shots and each one will cost you a few quid slows you down and makes you think - is the shot really worth it? Would I put it on my wall?
I also like the 6x4.5 rectangle - better for portraits and I sometimes find 35mm is just a little to wide.
Nick
sircarl
Well-known
I'll echo what Robert says. I love my Bronica RF645, for its superb images, versatlity, and portability. The portrait orientation does take some getting used to, but I find it invites me to take more portrait photos than I normally would, and I'm discovering that's not a bad thing. For situations where I need a "quicker" or less obtrusive camera or faster lenses, I still use my Contax G2. But otherwise I much prefer the Bronica -- and the 6x4.5 print format as well.
colinh
Well-known
I'd like to suggest that you consider 6x6 again. Square framing does have something special about it. Also, you can crop to 6x4.5 easily. Croppping 645 to a square, should you ever want that, get's you 4.5 x 4.5 - which is pathetic. Also, turning my Contax 645 sideways (to get portrait) is a pain!
If you're an M shooter, I think you would really enjoy a Hassleblad 500 type camera. The viewfinder is gorgeous (it's like watching a slide show
). If so, get a late one (503CW).
colin
If you're an M shooter, I think you would really enjoy a Hassleblad 500 type camera. The viewfinder is gorgeous (it's like watching a slide show
). If so, get a late one (503CW). colin
sf
Veteran
RObert Budding said:
The 645 format is my favorite of all. I've used 35mm, 645, 6x7, and 4x5, and I've never found that I have needed more square footage than 645. The Bronica RF645 produces negs that enlarge to 13x19 with detail to spare. I had a Mamiya 645e that did portraits very well and still holds the medal for most beautiful glass I've seen. I've seen images from a Fuji GA645, and I thought for sure they were 4x5 - seemed sharper even than the RF645. Our RFF artist "Bryce" shoots with a Fuji, and his work is stunning.
I find that I prefer vertical format rather than the traditional horizontal, and even when I took a Nikon D200 on a vacation instead of the RF645, I shot more vertical format images than horizontal. 645 is the only format that will produce enough resolution to please me AND allow me to shoot vertical without twisting my arms.
645 is perfect. Because of it, I will never want for a Leica enough to buy one. At least as long as there are 645 rangefinders with parts and 120 film is in existence...
pdx138
Established
colinh said:If you're an M shooter, I think you would really enjoy a Hassleblad 500 type camera. The viewfinder is gorgeous (it's like watching a slide show
colin
Actually, I had a chance to play with a Hassleblad last weekend and it kind of started (or encouraged) my bug for a medium format camera. The viewfinder was a joy to use, but the camera was so cumbersome that after a couple of handheld shots, I mounted it to the tripod and never took it off again. I could see getting some use out of one, but it doesn't suit my common style of shooting. I guess I'm more of a rangefider guy. I'm mostly considering the 645 format because the cameras tend to by less bulky, which after playing with the Hassleblad seems like a definite plus.
Thanks all.
colinh
Well-known
pdx138 said:
Go on, get the Hasselbald - you know you want it...
Cumbersome? Not when you get used to it. I like not having to turn it sideways.pdx138 said:
C'est la vie.pdx138 said:
My 645 (SLR) is *much* heavier and bulkier than my 500C. If you're thinking of a RF, I hear ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm ) that the Mamiya 6 is a nice, compact MF RF.pdx138 said:
Good Luck,
colin
SCOTFORTHLAD
Slow learner,but keen!
I just picked up an Ensign Selfix 16/20 Folder,in 6x4.5 ,which will be my first experience in this format.Not a r/finder so I will have to get used to using the DOF scale.It is pretty compact and turning the camera over from portrait format seems pretty convenient,although the shutter button is on the left side of the top-plate which doesn't help.
It has a Ross Xpress lens,which is highly thought of,so I have great hopes of some nice landscape shots of the Welsh Coastline hereabouts.
Brian.
BTW,I thought that this format would produce 16 shots per roll,but the labs all quote prices for 15 shots??
It has a Ross Xpress lens,which is highly thought of,so I have great hopes of some nice landscape shots of the Welsh Coastline hereabouts.
Brian.
BTW,I thought that this format would produce 16 shots per roll,but the labs all quote prices for 15 shots??