6x6 vs 35 mm for landscapes

I have both a 6x6 and 35mm cameras. I primarily shoot landscapes in

and around Yosemite. My 6x6 images I mostly view on a Kindermann

Slide projector. Thus, I can't crop the images. What I love is the

resolution of medium format. Also macro shot are really neat in a

square. However, at times I find this format to be frustrating. Does

anyone here use 6x6 for nature photography? I'd switch to a 645

system but would rather spend the money on a scanner so that I will

someday be able to print my work.

I used to shoot with an RB67 but switch back to 35mm for the wider variety of "choices" available and for the ability to use an affordable scanner to digitize the images. If you are happy with the 6X, and cannot justify the expense of change to differing format, I would seriously think about the addition of a scanner and a very high powered computer because the digitized image will be an exceptionally large file. Another option may be, if your equipment is one of the models which allow it, addition of the digital back in lieu of the scanner purchase. YMMV

For landscapes, I frequently use 6x6 or 6x7 when I am too lazy to carry a 4x5. The advantage of 35mm is of course that scanners are cheap; given some of the gear I have seen people carrying around Alaska, I am not convinced it is ligher than MF or LF :-)

Hugh,

 

I 've made and projected 35 mm slides for years. A few years ago I bought my current Bronica EC and after a while a MF projector. The large slides are so impressive that I don't bother doing 35mm slides anymore: they look too flat and dim in comparison (even a top Leica projector can't match my rather plain Rollei 66s). So no 35mm slides for me anymore.

 

I mainly shoot landscape & ecology, close-ups of flowers/rocks/etc. and last year even some wildlife: seals and seabirds (with 250 + 2xconv).

 

If you are really into wildlife I can imagine using 35mm along with MF. If just casual or if you like enviromental portrait (showing the animal/plant in its habitat) I'd go for a Pentax645 and 400 or even 600 lenses. I ve seen impressive wildlife photographs with that!

I've been using MF for nature/landscape photography off & on for 20 years & for me, the 6x6 format works well. Limitations are few, the resolution and tonality approachs(sometimes equals) 4x5, and most of

all it's forced me to change my visual perspective on the subject matter I like to shoot. I visualize, or 'frame', if you will, the subject and am forced to think 'How will this work, is it what I want to achieve?' within the 6x6 format. Possibly the frustration comes from making that transition to mentally/visually 'seeing' in a square format, it takes time. Keep working at it.

I use both a Nikon 35mm system and a Mamiya 7.

 

There's no question that the Mamiya produces the better images, but the 35mm wins hands down because of its versatility. I use the Mamiya 7 occasionally for landscape photography or when I really really need that extra size.

I like the square format, but you can crop slides by using glass mounts and mylar tape to mask them. There is also a company that makes cardboard "crop mounts" with different window shapes for 35mm use. I don't know whether such a thing exists for 6x6cm format.

Why do you need to choose between the two? For a trip, I always carry both a 645 and a 35mm, since each has its strenghts, and having two systems gives you a spare in the event of equipment failure; you never want to be caught without a working camera.

 

Two years ago, my Nikon froze in a mirror-up position, 2 days before the eclipse I was chasing. Had I not brought my Mamiya with me, I would have been forced to buy a new camera body or skip the event.

 

If you feel 645 is better than 6X6, you have the option of buying and selling used, with little lost in the way of transaction costs. Used has been very good to me over the years (three sets of cameras and several lenses), and you save SO much over new.

 

Finally, I would point out that a compact 645 without motor wind (is winding that little crank all that hard?) is only slightly heavier than those big Nikons and Canons I see. My Mamiya has been with me on mountain biking and ski mountaineering trips for years, and I find it very easy to carry. It fits on the same tripod as the 35mm, and weighs only a little more.

If you find a format "frustrating" then take a look at something else that won't have that limitation. In many respects I find the miniature & medium formats frustrating when shooting anything other than action or macro subjects. Not enough information on the film due to the small size. The compromise is to lug the 8x10 around. Fit the format to the intended results. You can always get the work printed and if you enjoy the format, whether 35, medium or ultra large format, your work will only get better. Try to get what you find to be more comfortable. Anything will work for nature photography, there is no one, best camera or format.