Jump to content

645 vs 67 vs 4X5 for on-tripod use


rjpierrard

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I've already read through the "645 vs 67" thread, but as my goals are slightly different than the person posting there, I hoped to ask for my own needs.<br>

I'm looking to get a film setup, and have decided against 35mm format here, as I would be more likely to use a digital camera for general purpose photography.</p>

<p>Personal use: landscape, long exposure, and studio.<br>

I enjoy wide angle, usually between 20 and 24mm in 35mm format terms.<br>

I don't expect to use these handheld, as (again), I'd use a digital camera for that.<br>

I would like to be able to print very large, preferably 18X24 comfortably.<br>

I like the higher aspect ratio of 35mm film and digital compared to 4X5, 67, or even 645, but I know I could crop any of these as needed.<br>

I would also like the setup to be reasonably light and portable.<br>

With regards to volume, I probably wouldn't go through a great number of exposures per month, but it is preferable to keep running cost low.</p>

<p>From what I can see, I've got three options:</p>

<p>645 format, preferably a Mamiya of some sort. Lens of choice: 35/3.5N.<br>

67 format, preferably Mamiya RZ67. Lens of choice: 45/4.5W.<br>

4X5" format, preferably a folding camera like a Crown Graphic. Lens of choice: Nikkor 75/4.5.</p>

<p>What are your takes on these options, given what I personally would use them for? Would you suggest a setup I've not considered?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In technical terms, 4x5 is the clear choice for printing to 18x24 (I presume you mean inches!). 6x7 is less good but still adequate, 645 is on the limit at this size. Cost of equipment would be roughly the same, lightness and portability of a Crown Graphic comparable to an RZ67 (which is a heavy 67 compared with a Mamiya 7, for example), so it's really a question of the extra bulk of 4x5 film holders, the extra film cost and effort of processing, and also that 4x5 is not ideal in damp conditions,</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To the extent that there is a fairly linear relationship between size of the negative and the ability to make large enlargements, etc., bigger is better.<br>

<br />However, this is affected by the lenses available. <em>Some</em> LF lenses are not really so high quality as those available for some MF cameras.</p>

<p>It's not just a matter of negative size, but you need to consider what lenses you intend to use.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks,<br>

I know that the larger the film itself, the larger the potential image; and yes, the lens does matter a good deal.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7 is unfortunately out of my price range, though if I could, I would certainly consider it and the 43mm lens.</p>

<p>One detail I forgot: I would be scanning all (the good) images onto my computer and working on them digitally from there. I already have a scanner, though an Epson V700 would be nice if this type of photography becomes a regular occurance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The RZ67 would be my choice, based on your stated needs. It is relatively portable. The back rotates for easy vertical/horizontal shots. It focuses with a bellows, which allows for close focusing (the 645 is limited to about 3'). Best of all, used RZs don't cost very much. You can get a complete camera and lens for the cost of a single used Hasselblad lens - about $1000. Bodies and lenses are readily available. You get 50% more film area than 645, but only 10 shots/roll instead of 12.</p>

<p>Any of these cameras will produce an excellent 20"x24" print (18"x24" is non-standard). The formats are very close to standard print sizes, which are multiples of 4x5, so relatively little cropping is required. The widest lenses for medium and large format cameras are roughly equivalent to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera. The "normal" lenses are 80mm, 90mm and 150mm respectively. You limited at the long end too. The longest MF lens is 500mm and the longest common lens for a 4x5 is between 210 and 300 mm - bellows only stretch so far.</p>

<p>The larger the format, the bulkier and heavier the camera. Obviously, the Mamiya 645 is the most portable and handles much like a 35mm camera. The 67 is about 1/3rd larger, but still relatively portable. You probably need a roller or large backpack for a folding 4x5, although I've carried mine in a LowePro Photo Trekker.</p>

<p>Roll film is still relatively affordable, but you will probably have to wait a week to 10 days for processing. 4x5 film is very expensive at $1.00 to $2.50 a sheet, and commercial processing can run as much as $5 a sheet, if you can find anyone to do it at all.</p>

<p>The best reason to shoot 4x5 is the Scheimflug effect and perspective control. That's very useful when keeping the hoodoos vertical and parallel shooting in Bryce Canyon, or for toenail to horizon depth of field for landscapes in general (selective focus is not a "landscape" technique). Sometimes that's worth the backaches and waiting for windless days.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you missed a choice: If you like the aspect ratio of 35mm, you should consider a 6x9 camera. A Fuji GSW69 would do the trick, and of course you could use a baby view camera 2x3" to get similar results.</p>

<p>If a Mamiya is out of your price range: what is your range? MF is not cheap. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If your not developing film yourself, sheet film can get a bit expensive. There are economical instant pack film backs for sheet film cameras, that take readily available 3.25 X 4.25 Fuji, instant color and B&W film. This makes learning to use a sheet film camera very affordable; about 80-90 cents a shot.</p>

<p>There are also roll film backs for sheet film cameras. Many width options; some extremely wide, with extremely high prices. Others, with more conventional widths, 6X7 or 6X9, in the $75-$125USD range on used market.<br /> Both the 645 and RB/RZ cameras have Fuji, instant pack-film capable, Polaroid-405 backs on the used market.</p>

<p>Since you say your hand held work will be done with digital, I would skip the 645 option. Most folks employ a 645 when they want a negative larger than 35mm, yet still want to have a camera that handles closer to a 35mm. (My opinion) Why limit yourself to only increasing your negative size by 3X that of 35mm, from a 645, when you can increase by 4.5 times, with a RZ negative.</p>

<p>I am a RZ shooter. Lenses and accessories for the RZ are costlier, (average, across the board) for the same focal length, prism, winder, etc...than for a 645 system. The widest [normal wide] lens for the RZ is 50mm. Shooting the 50mm on the RZ, would be about a 28-30mm(?) on your 35mm camera.<br /> The only lens wider for the RZ is the very expensive 37mm fish-eye.</p>

<p>For sheet film, I wanted all the movements I could get. For me, the only answer was a monorail camera.<br /> It's not that heavy, but definitely has some bulk, mainly due to the purpose built monorail case, allowing you to keep the camera assembled and ready to use, yet protected and transportable.</p>

<p>Monorail cameras require a sturdy tripod, and RZ's also shine on a tripod or monopod. I often shoot my RZ from a monopod, when on-the-go.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the detailed replies!<br>

@Edward: Thanks for the pricing for film developing. With regards to the 18 vs 20X24": given that I enjoy and would more often use the 1.5 aspect ratio, I went with that size, even if 20X24 is more standard.</p>

<p>@Michael: Previously I couldn't find many examples of 6X9 cameras; the only 6X9s that I've seen recently have been fixed-lens only, with the lenses being approximately a stop slower than the comparable Mamiya RZ lenses.<br>

My price range is somewhere in the range of $1000, which I've priced the setups of the Mamiya 645, RZ, and Crown Graphics to be (with the wide angle lens prices I've seen).</p>

<p>@Marc: From the calculations at <a href="http://www.mat.uc.pt/cgi-bin/rps/fov">http://www.mat.uc.pt/cgi-bin/rps/fov</a>, 50mm on 67 should be 83*, equivalent to 24mm on 35mm film. Since this seems to be my FOV of choice, I'd prefer not going narrower.<br>

I'm not sure yet if I'd be use the movements very often, and experimentation is looks expensive when it comes to large format.<br>

Thanks for the tip about tripod/monopod usability for these systems.</p>

<p>I think it's pretty much decided for the RZ67 then: thanks!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Congrats on the RZ decision!!!</p>

<p>Last year/year and a half i went through the same decision process. Ultimately, I chose the RB Pro-S, but obviously same format as the RZ and *love* it!!!</p>

<p>I lugged it up/around a few mountains local to me yesterday and while heavy, it really does a magnificient job (can't say enough good things about my new Feisol CT-3342 carbon-fiber tripod!!!!).</p>

<p>I chose the 6x7 b/c it's 120 film size is the largest (easily obtainable) *roll* film available. It has all the convenience of 35mm and provides a much, much larger neg.</p>

<p>Enjoy!!!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Or you can get a Cambo Wide and shoot 4x5 inch or 6x12cm, 6x9 cm, 6x7cm. Cambo Wide cameras with a 58mmXL, 65mm or 75mm show up regularly. The camera is light and the lenses are superb.<br>

A lot of the landscapes on my website <a href="http://www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com">www.frankbunnik.zenfolio.com</a> are made with a Cambo Wide with 65mm, 90mm or 120mm lenses.<br>

Good luck with your choice, Frank</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know much about them but no one has mentioned the Fuji 680 which is 6x8 and does take interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>Years ago I went with a 6x6 Mamiya TLR and 55mm lens, then upgraded to a Speed Graphic 4x5 with 65mm. In the past few years the films of choice, for me, became very hard to find, processing became very hard to find, and shooting with digital became so easy, that I ignored the 4x5. Medium format and 4x5 Velvia transparencies are unbelievabe to view but in the spring I sold the 4x5 system to buy a Canon 17 TS-E. Now it is coupled with a 5D II and although shifting and stitching may not be for everyone I can now create files similar to medium format that can be enlarged to the sizes you are thinking about. For your purposes the TS-E 24 II could be amazing. Just a thought! </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18" x 24" is not a big print, my smallest print now is a on size C paper, 17" x 22". 135 format digital is more than capable

of high quality prints at that size, and larger, pare a 5D MkII with a 24 mm TS- E and you have the capacity to print larger

than that even before stitching. Get into stitching and you end up with a 36mm x 36mm, 36mm x 48mm, or even a 24mm

x 60mm sized sensor with perfect parallax free images that are effortless to stitch perfectly in post.

 

Before I get crucified for that I would point out that I use 135 format digital as well as 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 film cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@Robert,</p>

<p>I don't know if it's appropriate for me to post this, but I have "baby view", a 6x9 Arca Swiss that I'd like to sell. It's probably from the 60's, but it is excellent shape. I just had a new bellows made for it, at the factory in France. (they've moved from Switzerland, apparently for customs reasons or something).</p>

<p>It has a Galvin back, which lets you view the scene, then slip in a roll-film adapter. Very slick. Also has Graflex back so you could use film holders. I have three 6x9 rollfilm backs, and six lens boards - three are recessed.</p>

<p>I'd like to get $950 for it.. we can continue corresponding off-site if you wish, with more details and photographs. Again, I hope it's ok to mention this, I've seen others do it occasionally. If not ok, the moderator can delete this.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p> </p>

www.paulwhitingphotography.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert,<br>

I have a Horseman VHR view camera with a 6x9 back. I went with this system because it is relatively compact and I can scan using my dedicated Minolta Multi Pro. I also find using lens movement can really make (or break) an image. The lenses are small, quite sharp, and easily found used at reasonable prices. The drawbacks are that the widest I go is 65m which maybe is not as wide as you like and I find that viewing the image on ground glass is not that bright and takes practice. My prints from velvia are superb. Still for the most part I mostly use my Nikon d300. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've always considered a flatbed scanner to be the weak link in the chain in obtaining large, high-quality prints from a medium-format or large-format camera. Rather than sending film out to be drum-scanned, I'd prefer to do it myself, and the most cost-effective way to do this, IMO, is with the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 scanner. Of course, this scanner has been discontinued, and the market value of these scanners has increased by about 50%. If I were in your shoes, I'd rather go with medium format over large format simply because of the enhanced at-home scanning possibilities, although a good scanner isn't cheap. Pick your favorite medium-format camera, get the best deal you can on a dedicated film scanner, and you'll be producing large, high-quality scans and prints with relative ease.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I think the RZ would be a good choice. The 6x7negative is really great and the RZ is a workhorse and these days the price is quite reasonable. Scanning is the next consideration. The Nikon 9000 scanner for a person on a budget is probably to much for a used scanner. I would just buy the best scanner you can afford and use it and improve on the system over time. The last consideration is having the film processed. Some area's still have some good labs and others do not. But you can still process your own B/W if you want to do that. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You've heard this already, I'm quite certain, but shooting a 645 or a 6x7 camera isn't appreciably different than working with a 35 mm camera. Look through the viewfinder, focus, maybe apply MLU, and then press the shutter release. Tripods are recommended, but you can easily work without one as in fashion studio shooting with strobes.</p>

<p>4x5 is a completely different animal. Lenses (always primes) come from companies other than your camera's manufacturer and have to be mounted in lens boards. You need to choose boards that fit both the lens (shutter size) and your camera (many varieties). Every time you unfold the camera, you place it on a tripod, attach the shutter release cable to your lens-board-mounted lens, and attach the whole assembly to the camera.</p>

<p>Level the camera (very important). Remove the ground glass protector. Pull out your loupe and go under the dark cloth for the first pass at focusing. Oops! Everything is dark, so open the shutter. Next, use rise, fall, shift, and tripod movements (requires re-leveling) to compose the image. If you need to use a different lens, you'll have to repeat a number of the previous steps. When the composition looks right, refocus. Apply tilt or swing if desired, but that will add at least a couple more minutes to the process.</p>

<p>Stop the aperture down to the desired setting and check again to see how everything looks. Warning, the image on the ground glass could be quite dark. Now, close the shutter, because if you don't you're going to ruin a piece of film when you draw the dark slide. You'll learn this lesson the hard way a few times before it sinks in and you start to check this step obsessively for every exposure.</p>

<p>Pull out your handheld meter, you gray card if applicable, and any cheat sheets that you've developed in order determine the correct exposure. Set the shutter speed by turning a dial on the lens, a dial that can be difficult to read in low light or if you're using any filters. Re-check the aperture setting as it's easy to bump it with your finger when setting the shutter speed and now suddenly you're two stops away from the exposure that you thought you were making.</p>

<p>It's not a bad idea to open the shutter to double-check your focus at this point. You might have bumped something when you set the lens parameters. Or you might have forgotten to lock down the focusing knobs. When finished make sure to close the lens - AGAIN - and check the aperture - AGAIN.</p>

<p>Now you're ready to put a film holder into the camera, the film holder that you spent time loading last evening when you would rather have been sleeping or enjoying your dinner. Make sure that the white label of the dark slide is showing or your create a second exposure on a pre-exposed piece of film. Make sure that the holder snaps in tightly or you'll have light leaks. Check ONE MORE TIME that the shutter is CLOSED. Draw the dark slide in a smooth, steady motion. Not too slow or you'll have light leaks. Not too fast or you'll move the camera and you'll have to start all over again.</p>

<p>Now comes the magic moment. Press the shutter release. Of course if you're using a slow film and a small aperture, the shutter will be open long enough to ensure that wind will blur your shot. Or something might move into your frame. If all goes well, replace the dark slide (black label out this time signifying an exposed sheet). Congratulations! You've captured one shot. Now all you have to do is make sure that the holder doesn't open accidentally until you get back to your base of operation where you'll use hot, steamy changing bag to transfer the film into a light-tight box, keep track of the sheet so you can apply processing adjustments if necessary, and get it all home safely without some overzealous airport security person ripping open the box and destroying all of your hard work.</p>

<p>The strange thing is that some of us actually LOVE this tedious process. Who knows? You might be one of us! Give it a try!</p>

<p>One not on 75mm lenses. They work work on all 4x5 cameras. You might need a recessed lens board. Check with a knowledgeable dealer or with someone who has experience using your camera model.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert, just a couple of pertinent questions:<br /> 1) Have you used film before?<br /> 2) Do you plan on processing and/or printing your own film?</p>

<p>If the answer to both of the above is "no", then I'd really think hard before jumping into film - just because it sounds fun, arty, cool, etc.</p>

<p>The <em>only</em> reason to use film nowadays IMHO, is to darkroom print it by traditional "wet" methods. If you're going to scan it or (horror) have it scanned and printed by someone else, then there really is little, if any, advantage to shooting film over digital. As an earlier poster suggested, a good full-frame DSLR will pretty much equal the quality you can get from going the film/scanning/digital printing route. Wet printing, especially for B&W, is a slightly different matter, but then you need to add the cost of a darkroom or darkroom rental into your budget and negotiate the steep learning curve for film processing and printing.</p>

<p>The other thing you'll find is that the general quality of MF super-wideangle lenses is lamentable, short of blowing your entire budget on the lens alone. The Mamiya 35mm f/3.5 isn't a stellar performer if edge and corner definition is important to you, and it's only the equivalent of a 23mm focal length in 35mm terms.</p>

<p>Am I sounding negative? Very probably when it comes to using MF film with a hybrid digital workflow. I'm actually trying to be very positive about what a 100% digital workflow has to offer. Coming from a commercial photography background, I'm of the opinion that the equipment or medium used should be secondary to the finished image, and if digital capture offers the most efficient solution to getting a given image quality, then to me that seems the obvious way to go.</p>

<p>Below is a comparison between scanned 6x4.5cm medium format 100 ISO B&W film and a 12Mp full-frame DSLR. The same subject was shot using lenses with equivalent angles of view. I know which one I'd choose to blow up to 18" x 24", and I'm sure the difference would be even greater using a higher resolution digital camera.</p>

<p>PS. I should add that those are very small crops, and that if you saw the whole frame at the same magnification it would probably easily be equivalent to a 16" by 24" print.</p><div>00ZdDl-417287684.jpg.ece03878596f45da69ea4b4cef7630a5.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just to throw out another 6x9 suggestion, have you looked into the Mamiya Press/Universal/23?</p>

 

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mamiya_Press

<p> <br>

The widest lens is a 50mm f/6.3, so a little slower than you'd probably like but definitely wide on a 6x9 frame. Also, the Super 23 did have a bellows back that allowed for some minor movements and the use of a ground glass if that was something you were into, not to mention allowing you to use 2x3 sheet film, or any number of backs including 6x9 and 6x9. <br>

 <br>

They can be had for fairly cheap as well.<br>

 <br>

Just a thought.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>18" x 24" is not a big print, my smallest print now is a on size C paper, 17" x 22". 135 format digital is more than capable of high quality prints at that size, and larger, pare a 5D MkII with a 24 mm TS- E and you have the capacity to print larger than that even before stitching. Get into stitching and you end up with a 36mm x 36mm, 36mm x 48mm, or even a 24mm x 60mm sized sensor with perfect parallax free images that are effortless to stitch perfectly in post.</em></p>

<p>Scott and I butt heads a lot over other questions on this forum, but I'll back him 100% on this answer. Modern, 12 MP and higher DSLRs are capable of the print size specified. (You will see some advantage with landscapes by going with even higher MP sensors.) In comparisons between CoolScan scanned 6x7 and 18 MP files I don't really notice any advantage to the film until past the 30" size. A 3x18 MP frame stitch out performs the best 6x7 scans I've seen, even from drum scanners. Note that flatbed scanners are worse than the CoolScan.</p>

<p>That said if you simply want to shoot film for some work and have a flatbed scanner I think I would go with 4x5. Even on a flatbed 4x5 looks great, you're shooting from a tripod any way, and there's plenty of detail should you ever want to print larger than 24". It's a different shooting experience, but if portability and hand holding are not a concern then you might as well step up to LF.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Rodeo Joe, absolutely.</p>

<p>Unless you were wet printing, I`d not jump to a film camera. I simply hate the look of scanned film (I have a V750PRO, b&w films in every format). Sending the film for quality scans and prints is an extremely expensive pain; by far I prefer the results I get in my own darkroom.</p>

<p>Sheet film and/or view cameras with roll film backs are even a more complex and different approach. Again, if you don`t have your own darkroom, I`d say they are certainly unpractical <small>(and I`m saying this as a darkroom freak!).</small></p>

<p>For color work, I don`t need other than a full frame DSLR.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...