6x4.5 - a format too far.

<p>It is that time of the year when I rant against the absurd 645 format. 6x6 - fine. That makes sense. But 6x4.5 is impractical. The reason being camera mfg. produce these in the horizontal orientation trying to appeal to 35mm users. </p>

<p>But, medium format being a professional format, it is used for more professional type photos like portraits or weddings. Have you ever seen a horizontal portrait? People are vertical. They stand up/down - not sideways. So, you have to flip the camera over on its side to use it and it "hangs" from your hand like a pendulum and that is the problem. Vibration. The purpose of medium format is higher quality images but, with a heavier camera hanging like a pendulum from your hand and your wrist becoming fatigued as shooting goes on, the element of vibration creeps in. Image degradation. Put it on a tripod? Then it is no longer portable. I might as well shoot with a view camera and get ultimate quality. Shoot holding it horizontally? Sure, then you have to crop the sides off to get back to a vertical orientation and, cropping that much off, you get nearly a 35mm sized usable image/negative anyway. </p>

<p>So, how ridiculous is the 645 format anyway? In the old days of folding cameras there were lots of 6x4.5 format cameras but they were all oriented in the vertical. Bronica, then Mamiya, came up with the 6x4.5 SLR. At least, with a 6x6 SLR you can hold the camera normally and never have to flip it over. Cropping is easy into any orientation. At least, in the 6x7 format, there is the Mamiya RB67 which can flip its back into any orientation. But, 6x4.5? The most impractical of the medium formats. You would have thought mfg. would have built these things in the proper orientation to begin with but that would have made them as big as a standard 6x6 camera anyway and "strange" to 35mm users who were going over to their first medium format system. </p>

<p>Ok, all that being said, my first serious medium format SLR was a Mamiya 1000s, next was the Pentax 645n and now it is the little Bronica. If I hate them so much why do I stick with the format? Well, uhm, I keep finding them at very attractive prices. </p>

<p>Troll.</p>

<p>If you don't like 645, then I suggest that you don't buy one.</p>

<p>Ditto. Kind of wasteful to add anything more to Robert's remark. <br>

Ray</p>

Well, it's a nice, long and well-written troll.

<p>I take more landscapes than portraits, so the 645 is built for me.</p>

<p>The RB67 also has a 645 film back, which as you stated, rotates 90 degrees. I can use it for landscapes and portraits equally well.</p>

<p>Different strokes for different folks.</p>

<p>jim</p>

<p>No; not a troll. I think it's well written as well. And I agree. Not to throw much more precious gasoline on the fire, but I've always felt 645 was for those looking to squeeze a few more shots from their 120 rolls. I used to think 120 was kind of a weenie film in the first place, preferring 4x5 and 8x10, but then something about my age crept in and suddenly 6x6 is the new 4x5, and 4x5 is the new 8x10. Plus it's a little slow this Sunday.</p>

<p>You have a time of year for this? </p>

<p>Oh, and let me check here; nope! No "Permission from You" button on my camera. Sorry. Try the DSLR people. Maybe you'll have better luck with them. Thanks. J.</p>

<p>645 lens circle is a tad smaller than 6x6, so it allows for a more compact design. Shorter focal lengths mean better DOF performance for near-far compositions, less diffraction from not having to stop down quite as far. Since most square images are going to get cropped into a near 645 for printing, getting 16 images out of a roll of 120 instead of 12 seems that much more efficient (less film loading and swap-out) not to mention cost effective. Huge improvement to 35mm for traditional optical enlargements and scanning resolution for 645 and negligible further improvement from 2-1/4. No, unless one is committed to shooting with a waist level finder or loves square compositions, it's hard to articulate many other advantages intrinsic to the 2-1/4 square format. Little wonder nobody save Rollei has brought a new one out in a couple of decades. (uh... I guess it didn't save Rollei, after all. They're in receivership).<br>

My Pentax 645N is one of the nicest designed cameras I've ever used, with a superb viewfinder, intuitive controls. How are you holding a 645 for verticals that it's a problem? I find it extremely ergonomic, even moreso than my Nikon F5, very transparent to the image-making process. Rugged with terrific integration of a slew of features you'd otherwise pay a great deal more to add these to a basic 2-1/4 body.</p>

<p>The P645N sells now for about ten cents to the dollar versus the original retail price. A tremendous bargain for anyone committed to shooting MF film, most of the lenses are rather inexpensive as well. Probably getting cheaper by the minute, with Pentax putting off the 645D until next year (which in this economy likely means never).</p>

<p>

 

<p>I'll take a stab. I would assume most portrait pros would use a larger camera, probably 6x7 (the RB was known as the workhorse for portrait photographers) because if they are pros they have studios and they will have a camera on a tripod. I thought hasselblads, Mamiya rangefinders, and 6x4.5 rangefinders, which are in portrait orientation, were most popular with wedding pros. So if that is true, that leaves landscape pros. They hike a lot so need something lightweight but good quality. The format lends itself to that type of work, as well. </p>

 

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But 6x4.5 is impractical. The reason being camera mfg. produce these in the horizontal orientation trying to appeal to 35mm users.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Camera makers made rectangular horizontal 6x9 roll film box and folding cameras decades before Leica launched horizontal 35mm. The reason being that the human visual field is basically horizontal, and portraits are such a rare subset of photography that turning a camera for that subset is quite reasonable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, medium format being a professional format, it is used for more professional type photos like portraits or weddings. Have you ever seen a horizontal portrait?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I have. Weddings tend to be group oriented events. Group portraits are horizontal.</p>

<p>Now, regarding your comment about "a professional format", the very most demanding task for a professional camera is editorial: the two page spread. Except for the centerfolds in <em>certain</em> magazines, the double page spread is always horizontal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, you have to flip the camera over on its side to use it and it "hangs" from your hand like a pendulum and that is the problem. Vibration. The purpose of medium format is higher quality images but, with a heavier camera hanging like a pendulum from your hand</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon F4 had a nice optional grip with a second release and shutter dial for painless, no "pendulum" vertical shots. The F5 and F6 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. Those controls also appear on the optional grips for F100, D100, D200, D300, and D700. Canon is similar across the line, and Sony vertical grips duplicate even more of the camera's fundamental controls. The <strong>fact </strong> that most of the medium format camera makers <strong>deliberately chose</strong> to ignore the needs of photographers and not adopt such features helps explain why MF sales were fropping at a rate of 40% per year from 1990 tp 2000, before digital SLRs based on 35mm bodies became a factor in the decline of medium format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the old days of folding cameras there were lots of 6x4.5 format cameras but they were all oriented in the vertical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A folder puts the film spools on the 6cm edge of the frame. The 6x9 was horizontal, the 645 vertical. Physics (what <strong>had to</strong> be) overruled both ergonomics (what <strong>should </strong> be) and user preference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bronica, then Mamiya, came up with the 6x4.5 SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A large SLR works best with a horizontal orientation, long side of the mirror horizontal. The vertical orientation quadruples vibration (moment of inertia increases with a high power of the length of the mirror arc) and lens back focus (decreasing optical quality). Keep these points in mind, because I'll be returning to them...</p>

<p>That's why only the tiny 35mm half-frame SLRs like Oly Pen F had vertical orientation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"strange" to 35mm users who were going over to their first medium format system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, on the subject of 35mm orientation: back in the "golden days" of the format, companies launched all sorts of variations.. Zeiss had a 24mm square IKON., Nikon tried to launch the 24x30mm horizontal "Nikon format". Rollei had both horizontal and vertical 24x36mm. My Realist is a vertical format. They gave the users unlimited choices, the users took out their wallets and voted for horizontal.</p>

<p>You talk of "35mm users who were going over to their first medium format system." The problem was that this was a market MF manufacturers believed was there, created advertising campaigns to attract, etc. but it turned out that the reality was MF users going over to 35mm at a considerably higher rate. Film format was one aspect of a camera. Ease of use and features were others. Lack of these caused the MF user base to erode at a dramatic rate.</p>

<p>Same thing happened in medium format: different manufacturers gave their users differnt formats. There was a 630, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17. The users voted with their wallets, and long before digital, Hasselblad collapsed and got bought by CINven, Rollei actually went bankrupt and some assets were bought by Samsung.</p>

<p>Now, remember what I said about the lenght of the mirror affecting both vibration and lens design? Because of the reduced mirror length, a horizontal 645 is dramatically quieter than a 6x6 or avertical 645. The mirror blackout is shorter. The shorter back focus increases the quality of wides and normals, while simultaneously decreasing the size, weight, and cost.</p>

<p>I have 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5 cameras.<br>

I quite like the 645 format.<br>

Each to their own I guess.</p>

 

<p>Have the RB67 Pro-s, the c220 and the Universal. Bought the 645 Pro to be used as a more portable and more shots, camera. (I only used 35 for a mounted on a telescope, format.) It would have been great if the Pro had a revolving back. For tripod shots, use the 220 and the RB, also for closeups. Besides, general use. The 645 is a bigger "brother" to the 35. It is easier to handhold, weight wise, a 645 than a 6x7.<br>

Maybe, Tom you also stick with 645 because it does the job, well.</p>

<p>I happen to like 645 format, it's more detail inclusive than 35mm, the cameras are smaller and easier to handle than 6x7, and, very importantly, are currently produced. I do understand the advantages of shooting 6x6, but how many 6x6 cameras are still being made? Current 645 cameras have the advantage of being able to use digital backs, parts are still made for many of them (excluding Bronica and Contax). I tend to think of a 645 camera as a larger 35mm with much more detail. Even though I own a 6x7 Bronica GS-1, I tend to think of that camera as a want-to-be large format camera with much less features. Although I love my Bronica, the only advantage it has over large format is AE metering. </p>

<p>645 has one important advantage, especially for wedding photographers: you get more frames on a roll.</p>

<p>I didn't like the thought of 645 format so I went with a 6x6 TLR. So what's the point of this conversation?</p>

<blockquote>People are vertical. They stand up/down - not sideways. So, you have to flip the camera over on its side to use it and it "hangs" from your hand like a pendulum and that is the problem.</blockquote>

<p>The Fuji 645 has a vertical (portrait) orientation when the camera is held horizontal. I had a great time using a 645Zi handheld at a family get-together with a Nikon SB-30 as a wireless slave for bounce flash. I got better quality than a 35mm in a reasonably-sized package.</p>

<p>Ditto to the comments about the Pentax 645 and landscape photography. I use the Pentax 645 on a tripod, and the dual mounting holes allow dual quick-release plates and effortless switching from horizontal to vertical orientation.</p>

<p>Bill De Jager</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Its the Brownie Bullet format! with 127 film too:); The Bullet shoot horizontal; F11 lens!</p>

<p>Tom, you seem to ignore the fact that Bronica had two 645 systems - the ETR-series SLRs, which have been addressed, and the RF645 - a vertically-oriented rangefinder.</p>

<p>As many people have said, the medium format market always was and even more so now is a vote-with-your-wallet area.</p>

<p>I love the ETRSi and landscape 645 because it matches my shooting. I use it in the street, and for applications where I have the time for a higher-quality set-up (though with the Speed Grip and AE-II it's not at all far from a 135 SLR now). It offers me the best compromise between the compactness of a 35mm system and the quality of a larger medium- or large-format system.</p>

<p>In fact, 645 isn't wide enough for me. I'm still searching for an affordable 135W back.</p>

<p>If you don't find that the above two are applicable to your shooting than there were and are hundreds of other choices. Why spend all that effort hating 645 when you could be loving 6x6 or 6x9 or whatever in a camera that transports film the way you want it to (maybe a Mamiya with rotating back would suit)?</p>

<p>I've noticed some of you stating that when shooting vertical, the camera "hangs from your hand". N O T.<br>

I have a number of cameras including a lovely 645N. By the way, I'm right-handed. When I switch from horizontal to vertical, I slide my thumb over to the shutter and move the camera to a vertical position so that it is resting in my SHUTTER RELEASE HAND. In this way, I can rest my elbow squarely and comfortably on my chest to take the shot.<br>

I appreciate that you use your finger to press the shutter release in a horizontal position but the thumb does a marvellous job for a vertical orientation.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Basic math behind why 35mm began to make such inroads on MF for events and portraiture was that by the late 90's medium and high speed print films were vastly improved and it was now acceptable and cheaper to shoot 35mm. Concurrently, better 35mm cameras were now sporting 1/250s and faster sync speeds for daylight fill-flash at noon, so leaf shutters weren't quite as mandatory as before. The high ISO and DR improvements of to digital sensors pretty much sealed the deal for the wedding pros. Result is there's a glut of 645 film gear flooding the market the past few years. Which certainly ought to be cause for rejoicing as it lowers the MF bar to entry for anyone shooting landscapes and scenics. What pro level gear once cost $3-5K now costs $3-500.<br>

I find it natural to steadily cradle most all the weight of the camera in the left hand and softly release with the right, so I'm not finding vertical release a problem because the bottom and the left side of the P645N are close to equidistant from the centerline of the lens. But I tend to do this even with 35mm cameras that have a V release like my f5, unless it's mounted on tripod with a telephoto having a rotating tripod collar.<br>

About the only time the weight of the camera hangs in my right hand is when I am climbing or scrambling on top of something to get the shot, then I appreciate the sturdy hand sized grip of the P645N SLR. This sort of work tends to be high shutter speed PJ work and there's not much of an issue with vibration, then.<br>

Raymond, I'm curious about that thumb release solution-- are you rotating the camera 90˚ clockwise to orient the shutter button down?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>6×9, 6×7 etc. must also be pointless formats. Oh, and don't forget the pointless 24×36mm format -- 24×24mm rules!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, medium format being a professional format, it is used for more professional type photos like portraits or weddings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is probably the best part -- "<em>professional</em> photos are always in portrait format"!</p>

<p>What Tom said about 645 being a horizontal format, "People are vertical. They stand up/down - not sideways. So, you have to flip the camera over on its side to use it and it "hangs" from your hand like a pendulum and that is the problem. "</p>

<p>Can also apply to most 6x7 Pro grade cameras. The Pentax67, etc. So, tom what you are saying is not so much against the 645, but, most non 6x6 MF Pro grade cameras. The only exception is the RB/RZ.<br>

The reason why most pros went digital, was because they couldn't afford the digital backs for their Hasselblads, RB's ,etc. Even though at the time, the digitals didn't compare with 35.</p>

<p>Hi Ivan ...<br /> That's correct, I rotate the camera 90 degrees clockwise. As I mentioned before, I'm right-handed and so the camera's grip is in my right hand in a vertical position with my thumb - most naturally I might add - on the shutter release.<br>

I most likely came to this manner of shooting vertical shots with my 645N because I use a Stroboframe grip to mount my flash. And so the camera MUST be oriented in the way I explained in order to properly flip the flash over the lens when shooting vertically.<br>

I have a battery grip on my digital camera and this does simplify vertical shooting.<br>

I would think that this "technique" I described should work on most cameras.<br>

Ray<br /> http://raymondvaloisphotograph.com/</p>

<p>Sorry, but it's 6x6cm that makes no sense. Printing paper, periodicals and computer screens all come in a rectangular shape - and I hate waste. Why take a bit of film that you're only going to have to crop away at some later date? Can't you make your mind up at the taking stage whether you need to shoot portrait or landscape?</p>

<p>As for wanting to get more shots on a roll; well what's wrong with that? As I hinted above, if you don't print from it, then it's just wasted film anyway. The 56mm width of the 645 negative is just as wide as the 56mm of 6x6, and without the extra slap that you get from having another 25% of mirror area (apart from Bronicas of course, which all seem to have explosive bolts releasing the mirror - flame,flame!).</p>

<p>Raymond, I think I'll stick with what I know. I routinely shoot the P645N down to 1/8s, and get tack sharp images from my 35mm f/3.5. Don't believe I'd achieve this if my cradlin' hand was also doing the shutter squeezin'.</p>