6x4.5 - a format too far.

<p>i think you're looking for a bronica rf645, fuji ga645, or rollei 6000-series camera with the revolving 6x4.5 back.</p>

<p>Hmm... I realize other posters have already made similar points, but I'll add: looking at my cameras, I seem to have two 645 cameras that are vertically oriented (well, four if you count Holgas with their inserts), and one 645 SLR that has a vertical grip. So no issues with shooting vertically for me with any of my 645 cameras. Which is good because I probably shoot 95% vertical (I don't believe in that "humans see in landscape" business).</p>

<p>6 x 6 makes no sense? It does if you project your images on a screen. A square image projected has far more impact than an elongated image such as 6 x 4.5 or 35mm.</p>

<p>By the way, what does a Troll (a fearsome creature from Norse mythology) have to do with film format?<br />Regarding so called mirror slap, Bronicas are no worse than many other similar cameras, and in fact, used with mirror lock up, are vibration free.</p>

<p>"By the way, what does a Troll (a fearsome creature from Norse mythology) have to do with film format?"</p>

<p>From dictionary.com:</p>

<p><strong>troll</strong><br>

v.,n. <br /> 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Usenet">Usenet</a> designed to attract predictable responses or <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flame">flame</a> s; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/newbie">newbie</a> s" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/YHBT">YHBT</a> .</p>

<p><strong>Hi Ivan ...</strong><br>

I understand. As I mentioned previously, I was "forced" into using the technique I described because of the stroboframe flip grip that I use for my flash unit. Having used this method for what seems like forever, I find the other way very awkward. And absolutely no problem shooting at 1/8s.<br>

Hi David ...<br>

If a projected 6x6 image has more impact than an elongated image, I would wonder then why TV's have gone from 4:3 to 16:9 and why movie screens are usually in the 2:35 to 1 proportionally? I can't remember where I read this but the article stated that there was less waste of lens glass by fitting a square format in a circular unit. And that makes a lot of sense from many points of view. Whether it provides more impact than an elongated image I would think is somewhat subjective.<br>

Ray</p>

 

<p>In the past I had thought that a totally new film width - say 55mm sprocketed like 35mm, allowing for a 645 format - would have allowed for a new generation of compact MF cameras based on primarily eye level viewing. Imagine a slightly larger Leica RF 645, with the new width film - with maybe a 35-45-65-100-150 lens combo. Pano-width cameras with 9X4.5 and 12X4.5 would round out the program. <br>

And now imagine the above - with the inclusion of digital. Bodies would be likewise compact, useable with current-generation MF sensors. All would be right with the world. <br>

....and no issues with needing to install a prism onto a "new film format" MF slr for verticals, nor having to hold an mfrf "vertically" to shoot horizontal.<br>

With the above in mind...the next jump up would be to the current 120/220 size, with 6X6 and 6X8 formats being standard (6X7 is too square and 6X9 is too long) - then jumping to 6X12 and 6X17 for pano's. <br>

Now imagine a 6X8 version of the Mamiya 7, but with a collapsible mount like the 6, and with a 45-70-105-160 lineup. (not only do I feel that 6X7 is too "square" - but that Mamiya blew it with their lens focal length spacing for the M7 - should be more like 40-60-90-135). </p>

<p>Raymond,<br>

You can hardly compare a relatively small TV image to a slide projected on a screen. You have to bear in mind that a square slide will fill the entire projector screen, whereas an elongated image will not. This is where the visual impact is created.<br>

You are quite correct about less waste of lens glass with square format - it's the most (by a small margin) efficient use of the image circle.</p>

<p>Joseph Wisniewski wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The F5 and <strong>F6</strong> built the vertical grip into the camera and added duplicate shutter and aperture wheels, metering and AF mode buttons to the vertical grip, as did the D1, D2, and D3 series digitals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The F6 has no build in vertical grip</p>

<p>Holgas have the vertical option. Does that make them the pro camera of the MF world?</p>

<p>Fuji GA645Zi - vertical format, and an awesome camera!!!!</p>

<p>6x6 - Square is Cool, but it could be a real film burner, if your into rectangular/normal print sizes.</p>

<p>Hi David ...<br>

I suppose that it's a matter of personal preference: square or elongated. Small TV picture or screen presentation ... what about 60 feet by 25 feet movie screens. Not square by any means. Even Hasselblad have stopped producing their square format.<br>

I had told myself not to get into a square vs rectangular discussion but here I am. So easy to fall into these traps.<br>

Sorry.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Anything smaller than 4x5 is for limp wristed weaklings who can't carry a tripod and are too stupid to understand movements.</p>

<p>One troll deserves another.</p>

<p>Ray, I have to say that I too try not to get involved in square versus elongated arguements. I admit that I am biased and hate the 35mm format with a passion.<br>

Regarding movie screens, have you ever been to an Imax theatre? The screens are practically square, and have far more visual impact than a conventional wide cinema screen.<br>

BTW, I didn't realise that Hasselblad had stopped producing square format cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I shoot a 645 Bronica, a square Rolleiflex GX and a Mamiya 7. I prefer all of these aspect ratios to 35mm as its too elongated for my tastes. At one time I thought of trying 6x9 but did not for the aforementioned reason.<br>

I agree with the above comment about the square in the sense that there are specific compositions that benefit from this ratio. The square is very graphic and when used effectively can create stunning results. It can also be incredibly boring and mundane if not used correctly. Adapting to a square compositional style takes some time to master. Personally, I have not. Square cameras do give the crop to 645 option so that the MF advantage is maintained. Who cares if you waste a little real estate in the process. Who cares if 645 tries to squeeze more shots on a roll of film for those who prefer quasi rectangular aspect ratio? Horses for courses.<br>

645 is my favorite format for portability and handling ease along with what I consider stunning image quality if properly drum scanned. To each his own though. The original poster is a troll. If you dont care for a specific format then do not shoot it. As far as SLR size my Bronica ETRSI is quite a bit smaller than the Bronica SQai or Mamiya RB/RZ for instance. Depends on how much gear you want to lug around. Everything grows proportionally with format size when you are talking MF SLR's. The Bronica and Pentax 645 cameras are very compact systems. I can haul a complete ETRSI system with AE3 prism, a couple of backs and four PE prime lenses easily on a long hike with a tripod and not be overwhelmed with "gear". <br>

And to the original posters contention that portability is lost by mounting a camera on a tripod I say: Rubbish. You loose so much by not using a tripod with just about any MF SLR it defeats the purpose of the increased film and processing costs. Why would you shoot one in the first place if you were not after maximum quality? ((excepting the case of outdoor flash photography)). You just about have to use a rangefinder in MF to work handheld. MF SLR's were never designed to be used handheld for nonflash photography unless one is willing to settle from some image degredation. If you want to work handeld with an SLR buy a Nikon D700 or some other high iso wonder cam. Just be ready to pay for it.</p>

<p>Hi David ...<br>

Good point about IMAX ... I did not remember the almost square format of the IMAX media: 72 ft x 53 ft or 1:1.36. As one poster said ... horses for courses I guess. Unlike your actually hating the elongated format, I simply don't see the point or the passion that is usually associated with the square format or the elongated format. I must unabashedly admit that I've never shot square format.<br>

I think this is somewhat like faith: If you believe, no explanation is necessary; if you don't believe, no explanation is possible. I would think that this applies to both viewpoints.<br>

And so the golden rectangle: 1:1.618. Multiplying each of these factors by 4 yields 4:6.47 and almost 4 x 6 or 8 x 12, etc ... an almost primal and ingrained visual pleasure for the eye (I read somewhere), sounds good to me.<br>

Sorry David, it's been awhile since a good square and rectangle discussion. Believe me, all in good fun and sharing of differing viewpoints.<br>

Ray</p>

 

<p>Last(?) in a long thread: As with film versus digital, different situations demand different compositions. Luckily I have <em>both</em> the PME45 <em>and</em> the PME90. An A12 back and an A16 back. And I do not feel ergonomically set back by turning my 503CW 90 degrees anti-clockwise for the vertical compositions with the PME90 making this possible.<br>

Greetings<br>

Bengt</p>

<p><strong>I make photos. I use a camera. Period.</strong></p>

<p>Medium format single lens reflex was never meant to be hand held? I guess 60 years of the Graflex SLR was all for nothing and the famous photog.s who used them, like Berenice Abbott to mention only one, along with their work, can all be dismissed. </p>

<p>I don't know why this topic has degraded to its present level. No one said the 6x6 was perfect as-is. It does present the opportunity to crop it down to 6x4.5 with the option of choosing, after the fact, whether to use any of 6 possible crops. If you use "perfect format" 6x4.5 (or 6x7) then you have to have perfect composition. How many famous photos were shot "on the fly" and cropped later? Thousands. How many photos stand still for you to compose perfectly? A lot less. </p>

<p>Yes, you can get more shots on a smaller format for economy. If that is the goal, there is always half frame 35 or a movie camera. </p>

<p>Really does surprise me that all these 645 SLRs are being used for landscapes. That is more of a job for a view camera with perspective correction. </p>

<p>I thought the real reason so many weddings were being shot by 35mm users had nothing to do with film technology improving but that there was a proliferation of cheesy little guys passing themselves off as "photographers" working out of their garages who either didn't know any better or just didn't really care about quality and professionalism. They were inspired to go into "business" by those seeminly questionable org.s like IFPO whose purpose, in my opinion, was to sell "credentials" and further abetted by an ignorant public blinded by the joy of an impending wedding. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only portraits I take are of people lying down. 6x4.5 works great for me! ;-)</p>

 

<p>Hi Tom, I suggest you to rent a Bronica rf645 for 2/3 days!!!</p>

<p>645 is a great format. Its about the only rollfilm format that gives you anything like the depth of field required for deep landscape shots (tilt lenses notwithstanding). I know for the majority of landscapes I shoot I could not manage with 6x7 in terms of depth of field, whereas I can generally just get by with 645s at f/22. This is why there are load of people using 645 SLRs for landscapes, plus they are pretty cheap, cheap running costs, and you can then use the same camera the next day for shooting action, closeups, portraits, travel etc. A 645 slr stripped down to a hand winder, prism and a normal lens weighs no more than most 35mm/DSLRs, and take up little more space.</p>

<p>All this about 6x6 being great because you don't need to rotate the camera for verticals is all very well, but is means bigger image circles, thus bigger lenses, heavier lenses, heavier bodies, bigger prisms, bigger mirrors, heavier tripods, changing film more often.</p>

<p>Plus it surprises me that this idea that you can be pretty slapdash with the composition on 6x6 and then tweak it afterwards to horizontal/vertical is seen as being a benefit. What makes great photos, particularly landscapes, it taking the time to frame and compose properly, this is if anything the single thing that makes the work of great shooters stand out from the rest. Anyone can focus a camera, anyone can wait for great light, anyone can get the correct exposure, not everyone can compose properly. If you're taking a shot and you're not sure what your composition should be then you shouldn't be taking the shot yet. Composition is almost always best done then and there, when you've got the whole scene in front of you, and you're reacting to it and the light. if you're cropping later on the lightbox then you're only reacting to your full square slide, and possibly a shaky memory of the scene. You're not going to get the same raw emotion and reaction in the composition.</p>

<p>Plus lets not forget that some people like to compose seeing just what is in frame, and a proper 645 finder beats an unmasked 6x6 finder for this if you're intending to shoot a rectangle. You could of course mask your 6x6 finder and use a A16/645 back, but then you've essentially just got a rather heavy camera which you've still got to rotate for verticals. In my mind, if you want to mainly shoot squares, then go 6x6, otherwise get a rectangular format.</p>

<p>4x5" for landscapes with tilt is fantstic for some people, isn't necessarily any bigger of heaver than a medium format setup, but with something like a tenfold increase in film/processing costs, and less versatility. Some, if not most people may never print big enough to warrant the detail that 4x5 gives anyway. A good modern scan of a 645 or 6x7 transparency can be printed surprisingly big.</p>

<p>"I don't know why this topic has degraded to its present level."</p>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>Also, the comments that 645 isn't a format for landscapes. Then, why do people use 35 for that?</p>

<p>Square frames are hard to find,,,,I shoot digital & Hasselbald at weddings, I cut the 5x5 down to 4x5,,,if you like old-school square wedding photos, than it is great. You do not have to flip the album back & forth. But nowdays of photojournalistic style shooting, shooting 2000+ shots at a wedding, med. format is about $1.10 per click for film, processing, & print. Do the math,,,,,</p>

<p>Who said anything about printing square? Never said square prints were the way to go. The topic was how awkward holding a 6x4.5 camera is on its side to take a vertical shot and how doing so induced vibration/shake that reduced the advantage of using medium format. The only point was using a square format camera provided less problems since it didn't need to be held in an unnatural position to shoot verticals. Of course, the photo will be cropped afterward. </p>