Which format? Pros & Cons?

[Spider67]

Hi as I always used 6x6 I am somewhat curious about using 645.
Is there a difference or is it just 35mm Film on steroids?
I saw some 645 for a handsome price made me think but to buy a whole new system?
Thanks for input!

 

[kaiyen]

I personally found myself rarely using my 645 cameras because their lighter weight and faster speed compared to most 6x6 cameras...well, if that was what I was going for, I'd use my 35mm stuff. 645 is definitely bigger than 35mm, but in terms of practical use I didn't find it compelling.

However, many people have trouble composing in a square format. Seems like you're used to it so sticking to 6x6 sounds logical.

Unless you have money to burn I'd stick with the 6x6.

 

[bmattock]

In MF SLR, I have only 6x6 (Bronica C). I like it. I do have both 6x6 and 645 in folders, and 6x6 in TLR. I tend to prefer the 6x6 shots. Sometimes it feels to me as if 645 is not enough extra real estate to bother not shooting 35mm.

However, truth be told, my favorite MF is a rangefinder - Fuji G690. 6x9 negatives are awesome to behold.

YMMV.

 

[oftheherd]

I only have 645 in a couple of folders. I am not a fan of 645 or 6x6. I think when I shoot 6x6 I am usually thinking of how the photo will look as a rectangle. 645 isn't big enough to go for that by itself. Mind you, when I had only 6x6 in MF, I was sure happy with the bigger negative, I just didn't think much in square. YMMV.

If you want 645, go for it. If not, stay with 6x6 or go for 6x7. Like Bill said, 645 by itself isn't a lot of space, at least for some of us.

You didn't say what your 645 might be. If your deal will wait, perhaps you should consider a 6x6 folder with a 645 mask to see if you like it. Or, if your 645 will sell for near what you pay for it, get it and see.

 

[Windscale]

6x6 has been my favourite format for a long time. The nicest thing is that you won't have to worry about vertical or horizontal. I do have one 645 camera. The good thing here is that it is light and takes 16 pictures. It is my spare medium format camera.

 

[DC1030]

if you don't use square format, 6x6 is the same as 4.5x6...
with a 6x6 cam you don't need a prism for you don't habe to turn the camera, you decide later. i personally prefer composing the photo in the finder.

 

[kuzano]

Well. The 35 on steroids is way understated....

Well. The 35 on steroids is way understated....

The 645 negative is 2.7 times the area of a 35mm. Actually, if you do the math, it's 2.91 X more. 35mm is 864 SqMM, and 645 is 2520 SqMM. Along with that comes all the advantages of tonality increase, etc. with moving up in format.

The 645 film camera market is flooded with selection and good deals. I have a GS645 that's no bigger than most 35mm's I have e ever packed around. I also have a slightly bigger one that is autofocus with a short range of zoom, spectacular lens, etc.

In addition, there are all the SLR 645'z... Pentax, Mamiya, Bronica ETR, ETRS and ETRSi. Huge selection in lenses of great quality.

I hardly shoot any 35mm any more. Both of my 645 Fuji's shoot 220, which gives me 30 shots per roll.

I have not been much of a 35mm film buyer since going to medium format which I shoot at 645 and 690 (6X9). Beyond that, it's a door opener to LF which I shoot a bit of.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I don't do a lot of MF stuff but have a 645 folder, a 6x6 TLR and a 6x9 folder. From my limited experience I would say that the 645 has an advantage in two ways over a 6x6. Firstly more shots per roll and secondly having used 35mm mostly I just don't see in square format so wind up cropping it. I don't crop much with 645 though. There is a big difference from 35 output too. The 645 folder is RF coupled and a joy to carry being very small and compact compared to the TLR. OTH the output of the 6x9 folder make the others look weak.

Bob

 

[rich815]

I'm pretty much firmly in the camp that if you want to go for medium format and the seemingly smoother tonality and detail you can get from it the jump from 35 to 645 is simply not significant enough to justify the cost, time, weight, effort and so forth. Put some 6x9 or even 6x6 chromes on a light table from a Fuji GW690 or good Rolleiflex TLR, SL66 or Hassy and you'll see what I mean. The 645 size is good, very good. But is like making half a jump. That said a couple years ago I found a Fuji GA645 for a very nice price and I grabbed it. I now use it when I want really good quality P&S images. And I treat the camera like a P&S. It's rarely used for my more serious work like documentary, architecture or landscape/cityscape stuff since for that I prefer a more methodical and slow approach and use a tripod therefore the extra size, bulk and weight of the larger 6x6 or 6x9 gear is no real issue. However, it's nice to slip my GA645 in my coat pocket and shoot a day at the park with my young son, or a BBQ, or a birthday party. Loaded with some nice B&W or color Portra NC or NPZ and the images I come back with blow anyone using a 35mm P&S or digicam out of the water.

So, no, my opinion is that for serious work I feel the jump from 35mm to 6x6 as a minimum is best. However if you want some of the better quality (a subjective term!) of MF in a convient, easier to carry around package then 645 might work.

 

[bmattock]

The 645 negative is 2.7 times the area of a 35mm. Actually, if you do the math, it's 2.91 X more. 35mm is 864 SqMM, and 645 is 2520 SqMM. Along with that comes all the advantages of tonality increase, etc. with moving up in format.

I know, I don't disagree with you. I simply find that for me, the move up is not significant enough to be worth the trouble in most cases. It is better, just not enough better. But that's me, and I would not argue that it is true for everyone.

I have used the same argument in defense of 6x9, but others have correctly argued that for their needs, 6x9 is simply overkill. Me, I love that great big honking neg that I can very nearly contact print from.

 

[raid]

I got a 645 SLR so that my clients saw me with a professional looking camera when I was doing wedding photography for 2-3 years. That's it basically.

For "real" landscape photography, I used the 6x6 Rolleiflex TLR and the 6x9 Fuji GL690 and Graflex XLW which had multiple size backs 6x6/6x7/6x9.

 

[kuzano]

Don't get me wrong BMattock....

Don't get me wrong BMattock....

I know, I don't disagree with you. I simply find that for me

I wasn't defending 645 based on your comments. We all do what we feel works best for us. And, when I want serious "negative", I haul the Fuji G690bl out. You're right about that negative. In fact it is 5000 SqMM of serious film.

But, since I am not inclined to change lenses, I find my GS645 folder more transportable than even 35mm. I must also admit that I bought this last GS645 knowing the pitfalls that they all suffer from. So, I was able to get a price that allowed me to send it in for complete overhaul and new bellows from Frank at CameraWiz. Anyone purchasing a GS645 should be wary of it's many faults unless overhauled and then "used by the rules" in the manual.

I too, love a well exposed 6X9. My only point is that personally, if I don't want to carry the big Fuji, my favored camera is the small Fuji folder.

That's also one of the reasons I am planning on lining up for the new GF670 folder if it comes to market.

I do have a ton of 35mm camera's, but they are so hard to load, what with those little canisters and such😀😡😀

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think its funny how many people here are saying that 645 isn't big enough but 6x6 is. They're THE SAME SIZE if you crop to a rectangle. And most people do because most people don't know how to compose in a square. Unless you like the square (and I do) then you're better off with 645 because you get the same effective film area with more shots on the roll.

To those saying that 6x9 is better than 645 I agree...it is twice the area. I personally shoot 645 and 6x6 both. I love square format for a lot of what I shoot but for a lot of things a rectangle is better so I shoot 645. I don't use 6x9 because all the cameras are fixed lens, and I like to have a choice. I use the standard 80 for 95% of my 6x6 and 645 work, but I like having the other lenses I own for the times they're needed. I didn't get a 6x7 because the cameras are too heavy for me to carry a lot; I have some health problems and cannot carry heavy weight very long. 645 or 6x6 (I have a Mamiya 646 and a Hasselblad 500C) are both fairly small and light with considerably improved image quality over 35mm.

 

[tedwin]

Its one thing to discuss negative size.

Its one thing to discuss negative size.

I have gone back to only shooting 35mm. I had been shooting 6 X 6 and 645 alongside my 35mm. And yes, the negatives are spectacular by comparison. Trouble for me was that my best pictures always seemed to be on the little negs (hardly suprising, 3 rolls of 36 exp versus 2 of 12!) And a good picture on a little neg is a world away from a not quite so good one on a big neg. If I only shot landscapes I'd use the larger formats, but with people, when the expression has to be right, I need to increase my chances with some quantity. Top notch 35mm stuff enlarging up to 12" X 16" causes no grief anyway.

Ted.

 

[shadowfox]

Des, you're welcome to look into this flickr set. It has some of the shots from my Mamiya 645 1000s.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mastaka/sets/72157604105892905/

Like kuzano said, 645 gears are plentiful, excellent optics, and cheap. I recommend the Mamiya 645 line because of those criteria.

As for the film area, compared to 35mm, it's plenty big. Plus 15 exposure for a 120 roll is perfect for me, not too few, not too many.

 

[shadowfox]

I have gone back to only shooting 35mm. I had been shooting 6 X 6 and 645 alongside my 35mm. And yes, the negatives are spectacular by comparison. Trouble for me was that my best pictures always seemed to be on the little negs (hardly suprising, 3 rolls of 36 exp versus 2 of 12!) And a good picture on a little neg is a world away from a not quite so good one on a big neg. If I only shot landscapes I'd use the larger formats, but with people, when the expression has to be right, I need to increase my chances with some quantity. Top notch 35mm stuff enlarging up to 12" X 16" causes no grief anyway.

Ted.

Ted, I am not questioning your decision or taking issue with anything you said. But I just want to point out that bigger negatives offer more than just the ability to enlarge up to 12x16 or bigger.

To me, with bigger negatives you get more details that you don't miss when you look at the similar shot in 35mm *unless* you look at them side-by-side. To your point, I agree that in some shots, it doesn't matter, but for those that matters, the difference can be pretty glaring.

Secondly, the bigger negative allows me to control DOF in my shots in the manner that 35mm could not.

For example this shot won't have quite the same effect if taken with a 35mm film:

Des, the above is another example from the Mamiya 645, btw.

 

[Spider67]

Thanks for your replies!
I already have 2 6x6 TLR's (an Ikoflex and a Yash-mat 124G that needs repair )
and 2 Moskva RF folders (6x9 + 6x9/6x6)
I was thinking of an Arax but found intersting offers for 645 Mamiyas on the bay.
As the Kiev 6's/60's and Pentacons have a a bit of a reputation, and I don't want to replace a TLR in need of repair with another camera possibly in need of tinkering I was thinking of a Mamiya or a Bronica (with Sellers in my town so that I can inspect them).
So thanks all by helping me on my quest!

 

[Windscale]

Ted, I am not questioning your decision or taking issue with anything you said. But I just want to point out that bigger negatives offer more than just the ability to enlarge up to 12x16 or bigger.

To me, with bigger negatives you get more details that you don't miss when you look at the similar shot in 35mm *unless* you look at them side-by-side. To your point, I agree that in some shots, it doesn't matter, but for those that matters, the difference can be pretty glaring.

Secondly, the bigger negative allows me to control DOF in my shots in the manner that 35mm could not.

Most of my enlargements are 24x36 or 30x30 upwards. Some are as big as 60x60. These would have been much less effective with 35mm, even with your leica, zeiss and what have you. If one is only thinking of 12x16 then probably any good 35mm camera will do.

 

[Keith]

I like that comment about 645 being 35mm on steroids ... it's sort of true! 😛

I like 35mm and venture into 645 regularly with my Bronica.
6x6 has never done it for me and 6x7 doesn't interest me but one day I would like a 6x9. That's not a lot of shots from a roll of film and it would make you think before tripping the shutter! 🙂