Medium Format Regret?

[narsuitus]

There is no slight improvement in quality. It is a massive improvement.

What you subjectively see as massive, I subjectively see as slight. At least we agree that there is an improvement.

The bottom line is that the amount of improvement I see between 35mm and 645 is not enough to make me willing to maintain two systems.

 

[Prest_400]

I shoot small format, medium format, and large format.

On the other hand, if I were starting from scratch, I would gladly invest in a good 6x4.5 system because it is an excellent compromise between a 35mm small format system and a larger medium format system.

The main problem I'd find carrying MF and 35mm is "film commonality". Two MF cameras of different formats can use the same pool of film.

Fuji did have an interesting complementary approach in their Medium format. 6x9 as a large frame with the all manual Texas Leicas GW690 and then a more convenient (first metered, later AF P&S) 645 "system". There is the possibility of interesting combinations there, choosing wide/tele in each of them.

I only have a GW690 and do feel there is a gap that a 645 would fulfill nicely, maybe even disposing of 35mm.

Now I am at 36 Exp 135 and 8 Exp 6x9 MF. 15/16 Exp 645 is actually a good point.
I've got the idea of sometime doing a SE Asia trip and the quantity of rolls to bring does give me some thought, considering carry limits.
On the topic of 220. Now it's all but gone and expensive, 7 yrs ago it was at the current price of 120 approximately. That converts a 645 into a 30 exp camera. The 6x9 would have a respectable 16 exposures.

OTOH, 645 is not 645 is not 645. I've seen Mamiya 645 and they aren't really small. Granted the GW690 is big, but not that terrible and doesn't make some 645's smaller. There was an image comparison of a Contax 645 and a Bronica RF 645 and the SLR was big.

I can't really comment about 35mm vs 645, even though I have an ideals toward 645. All I have is taking a 6x9 frame and just do half 😀

 

[pressureworld]

I'm also not crazy about the quality of 35mm. I own a Leica M6 and it's a beautiful camera, but it's hard to get excited after looking at the shots from my Pentax 67II or Hassy 501c.

I'm trying to narrow my kit, so I can focus, but it's hard to decide what goes and what stays!

 

[SteveM]

645 is a definite step up in image capture quality and compared to larger formats the camera and lenses are quite portable. So yes, they do have a place, and if you have more than one M body and can trade one, it is a format worth exploring. I have a Bronica RF645 which is not much larger than a Leica M (taller), but the lenses are definitely bigger. 645 will give you 16 shots on a roll of 120, which I find fine since I don't shoot large numbers of frames even in 135 format. For larger negatives, I shoot 6x6 and 6x9 folders, which are highly portable, but very old tech and don't have interchangeable lenses. I've held a Pentax 67 and compared to my Bronica, it is a massive camera. I've also handled but not shot with a Mamiya 7 and it is a very nice light camera indeed. However, it's also around twice the price of my Bronica system and not worthwhile for me to change. A lot depends on personal preference in factors such as weight, size (of camera and lenses), cost etc. OP: Are you thinking of projecting any slides (that alone will show the difference compared to 135)? I do, but my projector only goes up to 6x6, so again, 645 works well for that.

Steve

 

[tunalegs]

There is a much larger difference between 6x4.5 and 35mm than there is between 6x4.5 and 6x6. If one thinks they can see a big difference between 6x6 and 6x4.5, I'd have to think they must be imagining it.

I have a couple of cameras which shoot both 66 and 645 and I can say from experience, all other things being equal (camera body, lens), the only perceptible difference between formats is the shape of the photo.