Old Vs. New MF Rangefinders or Why 645?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
5:32 AM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
Hi All,
You know, I was just thinking here - and it doesn't happen very often ;). Not that I expect that many (or any) developments in this area as digital became so popular, but here it goes:

Can anyone explain to me - why did they make so many wonderful old folding RF coupled cameras back in a day that were 6x6 format and all (or most of the newer stuff, such as Fuji RFs , Bronica RFs, ect are all 645? That was the ONLY thing that stopped me from getting one of those. Well, not true, I did have a Fuji Ga645Zi Black for a year or so. Nice toy, but I hated that it was a VERTICAL oriented 645. I could deal with 645 (well, maybe) if it was horizontal.
Those Fujis have good lenses (but not as hood as Hassy, as some people claim), I heard good things about Bronicas RF too. But What in a world stopped them from making 6x6? Look at cameras like Iskra, lots of others - Welta, Mamiya, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc. - all could fit a 6x6 format, with optional frame for 645 in some cases, but all these modern cameras cant. Can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?

Any thoughts?
George
 
George it's just all in where your prejudices and preferences lie. I wouldn't buy a 6x6 camera because I don't like square. I shoot both 645 and 6x7. Vertical or horizontal makes no difference to me as I shoot about equal amounts of both. And all 645 SLRs except I think the Pentacon (645 option) are horizontal orientation, while all 645 RF cams are vertical. Just the way the film runs... :) BTW, the modern Mamiya 6 rangefinder is 6x6, so there you are...
 
square is far less popular today. Commercially popularity might be the biggest reason.
Yes, lots of pros still use(d) square format, 6x6, but those use hassies and rolleis with tripods, mostly. The real use of a medium format rf is in its portability, and out there the rectangular formats are just more often favoured.

It's not that I like the idea. I also like square a lot, and maybe would even use it more often if i could.
 
Out in the field 645 does have the advatage of more shots per roll. I've got a 67 and changing film every 10 frames is a pain, especially when my DSLR can shoot 200 raw frames on one card minimum
 
Pherdinand said:
square is far less popular today. Commercially popularity might be the biggest reason.
Yes, lots of pros still use(d) square format, 6x6, but those use hassies and rolleis with tripods, mostly. The real use of a medium format rf is in its portability, and out there the rectangular formats are just more often favoured.

It's not that I like the idea. I also like square a lot, and maybe would even use it more often if i could.
Click to expand...

Well, that's my point though - if they were able to make 6x6 folders and keep things portable in the old days - why can't they now? And for people that like 645 - add a mask- like they did back then. Also, you can always crop from 6x6 to 645, but can't go from 645 to 6x6. :(

George
 
Because most people today are sharpness freaks and an old style Tessar will not allow a new 6x6 folder sell. Look at the medium format normal focal length lenses of more complicated design with shutter in them. They are HUGE. My Kowa Six normal lens is bigger than my whole super ikonta folder!!
On the other hand, many people even want zoom lenses nowadays, even in medium format.
Anyway, both rangefinder and medium format are unpopular today. Combining two of the most unpopular designs will resul tin zero sales profit.
Maybe you'd buy one, maybe I also would, but how many more?
 
Technology and popular demand.

Part of the appeal of 6x9 and some of the even larger older rectangular formats was that they could be contact printed. Enlargers became more popular with the widespread use of 35mm film, because they were at that point a necessity. Also, rembember that film resolution improved through the years. At the point when 35mm photography became a good a enough medium, 645 was more than good enough.

Fuji tried to keep the ball rolling in the 6x9 format for many years, but demand dwindled. The Japanese built Plaubel Makina was an awesome package, but like the Fuji, too expensive for a mass market.

Times and tastes change. Now 6 megapixel digital is good enough for most people.
 
Pherdinand said:
Because most people today are sharpness freaks and an old style Tessar will not allow a new 6x6 folder sell. Look at the medium format normal focal length lenses of more complicated design with shutter in them. They are HUGE. My Kowa Six normal lens is bigger than my whole super ikonta folder!!
On the other hand, many people even want zoom lenses nowadays, even in medium format.
Anyway, both rangefinder and medium format are unpopular today. Combining two of the most unpopular designs will resul tin zero sales profit.
Maybe you'd buy one, maybe I also would, but how many more?
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that today it's a mute point. I was talking more about times when they were making those Fuji and Bronica and Mamiya MF Rf cameras. Now - the more pixels it has the better it will sell. Unfortunately. I just wish that they offered both - 645 and 6x6 at that time. Since they didn't - I have my old folders to play with. But I would really like to see a Bronica RF in 6x6. Why? I like square and I hate to have to turn camera to get a horizontal 645 frame.

George
 
Let's hope that on the new Mamiya ZD that sensor is rotated 90 degrees, so that the landscape aspect is horizontal. ;)
 
Krosya said:
Hi All,
You know, I was just thinking here - and it doesn't happen very often ;). Not that I expect that many (or any) developments in this area as digital became so popular, but here it goes:

Can anyone explain to me - why did they make so many wonderful old folding RF coupled cameras back in a day that were 6x6 format and all (or most of the newer stuff, such as Fuji RFs , Bronica RFs, ect are all 645? That was the ONLY thing that stopped me from getting one of those. Well, not true, I did have a Fuji Ga645Zi Black for a year or so. Nice toy, but I hated that it was a VERTICAL oriented 645. I could deal with 645 (well, maybe) if it was horizontal.
Those Fujis have good lenses (but not as hood as Hassy, as some people claim), I heard good things about Bronicas RF too. But What in a world stopped them from making 6x6? Look at cameras like Iskra, lots of others - Welta, Mamiya, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc. - all could fit a 6x6 format, with optional frame for 645 in some cases, but all these modern cameras cant. Can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?

Any thoughts?
George
Click to expand...

I think the choice to do 645 was for two main reasons : more shots on the roll (you're going to crop anyway for printing in standard sizes), and smaller bodies. The RF645 by Bronica would have been wider if the frame had been 6x6 or 6x7. Look at the GIANT 6x9 Fujis.

I never print larger than 13x19, and the 645 neg from the Bronica is plenty to get perfect prints.
 
I've a feeling that the number of shots per roll isn't the deciding factor. With 220, there's room for 24 square pics, or 20 of 6x7. Not exactly the same, but comparable to small format..

I also can't believe that it's merely a matter of size. If you've ever seen a Minox35/Oly-Epic/Ricoh-GR1 side by side with a Nikon F5, you'd never have guessed they all use the same film..

I think it's a matter of quality, or rather perceived quality, and what that quality brings.. Film has gotten better and better, and you can argue that modern 645 gives the same resolution as 6x7 would thirty years back. Given that the larger the image circle, the more expensive the lenses are for the same aperture, it's understandable that an economical solution with the same quality level is viable..
 
shutterflower said:
I think the choice to do 645 was for two main reasons : more shots on the roll (you're going to crop anyway for printing in standard sizes), and smaller bodies..
Click to expand...

In addition to 6x6, I also shoot 6x9 and with paper aspects that we have today, you will have to crop a good bit of the image on the negative when printing. 645 on the other hand is a perfect match for an 8x10.

Where a smaller body really matters is when schlepping a camera bag. Hence, my preference for folders.
 
Solinar said:
645 on the other hand is a perfect match for an 8x10.
Click to expand...

??? How perfect is "perfect" for you? 4/3 is still not 5/4

4x5" format is the only "perfect match" i'd say...

edit: Anyway, I think it's rather strange to adapt your photography to the commercial paper size/format.
 
4x5" is killer when printed at only 2x enlargement.

I print with a conventional darkroom and believe me it is quite common to shoot keeping the paper aspect in mind.

Although, there times when I do find the composition is better in the native film format, let's say 6x6, and do print to the film format, I find that some people have no idea what to do with print afterwards. Square frames and matting are not the norm as they once were.
 
Solinar said:
.. I find that some people have no idea what to do with print afterwards. Square frames and matting are not the norm as they once were.
Click to expand...
It pays to look around a bit. I don't regularly come across them in photo/camera stores. However, places like IKEA have square frames in all possible sizes. Probably to go well with their furniture, but nonetheless..
 
To answer one of your questions, to have a horizntal 645 would require the film to travel vertically. That might make for a larger or stranger looking camera. If it travels horizontally, it follows the more traditional design, and I woud assume that is easier to design and therefore cheaper to manufacture. Horizontal travel of course requires a vertical format, requiring the camera to be tilted for horizontal photos. It doesn't seem that hard to do. I was doing some of that yesterday for the local 4th of July parade with my Welta folder. It isn't that hard, but it is an extra step so I understand your wishing it weren't so.

I have been experimenting with the 645, trying to find a way to like it. Mostly that is because I think 6x6 is often a waste, since as others have pointed out, 6x6 is usually cropped close to 645 anyway for printing. I guess what I really need to do is take some photos with the Welta at 6x6, and the Rolleiflex and compare the quality. That is, what do I loose resolution wise versus how the photo "looks." Might be interesting.

645 with the folder saves film for sure, but of course, it won't compare with my 6x7. I don't know how important that is, because as Shutterflower pointed out, how large are we going to print anyway. Right now, 8x10 is as big as I can print with my Epson printer, and I doubt I will set up another dark room. But if I did, the 6x7 would rule!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom