6x6 vs. 645

[claude_batmanghelidj]

OK, well most of my experience in medium format has been on a 6x6

Bronica EC, and then quite a bit on a Fuji GA645.

 

Last week, after wrangling a good deal I ended up with a Mamiya 645,

and put my Bronnie up for sale, feeling like too much of a consumer

for having two such similar cameras. Then, after wandering the

streets, with the Mamiya, it struck me, this camera is almost useless

with the waist level finder, which is how I like to shoot. Throw a

prism on, and it becomes just like a 35mm SLR, with a bigger neg.

 

If it had a 6x6 format, I would love it, but there seems to be no way

to do this with the mamiya, so, I took it to the store, and put it on

consignment and took the Bronnie back. I realised that square format

is the best for this kind of shooting, at waist level, plus I prefer

the area of the square prints.

 

The reason I wanted to swap originally was that the Bronnie is a

behemoth, much heavier and noisy than a Hassie, so that made the

lightweight, high tech, Mamiya look really good, and then the bright

clear viewfinder looked positively space age compared to the Bronnie,

so I was all over it like the proverbial fly on a brick.

 

 

Then as I took some slides to the store to have em printed last night

I realised that a third of the frame was missing from all the Mamiya

With the Bronnie, thelenses are blindingly sharp, and it is very

flexible, and cheap. The backs are available all over the place for

50 bucks, and they can take 120 or 220 film. Even Hassie cannot do

this, and the other drawback is that Hassie does not focus close,

keeping you always at an arms length (80mm lens, lens shutter, not FE

model). But the Hassie is lighter, much quieter, and just so smooth.

 

So off went the Mamiya.

 

Anyway, enough blabbering, any thoughts on the format wars, 645 vs.

6x6?

 

Then there are the Rolleiflexes, the Sl66s, the other Rolleis, the

Hassies, the Bronnies, the Ruskies, et al, and then there are all the

645 cameras such as Contax, etc. etc. Any thoughts on the whole waist

level thing?

[bruce_erickson1]

I recently got a Rolleiflex 2.8 fx. I also have a Hassie. The Hassie is now collecting dust and I will never go back to it. I am even thinking of getting the Rolleiflex fw (50 mm 6X6) though the price slows me down considerably

[simonpg]

6x6 for me. If I prefer the shot in rectangular format I can always crop it. With 6x4.5 whatever cropping you do you get less film to work with so 6x6 just has that added fliexibility for my liking.

 

I once had a Bronica SQA outfit and enjoyed it - good lenses and Hasselblad like modularity.

 

While Mamiya IMHO makes very good lenses on all their gear, I find their MF SLR equipment horribly clunky - nothing that inspires me. The 6x7 (like the format) is like carting around an awkwardly shaped brick, so just not for me. I do really like the Mamiya 7II though.

 

So ten years after I sold my Bronica kit (young kids and little use etc) I got back into 6x6 and decided on Hasselblad gear. Every component speaks for itself - great engineering, design and build quality. I love square format and when I'm seeking more film area especially for big landscape stuff with lots of detail, I use my LF 4x5 kit - nothing comes close to it especially with the lens and back movements possible.

 

One day I grabbed the opportunity to buy at a wonderfully cheap price a Rolleiflex 3.5F (build the year I was born) and enjoy that for street shooting.

 

In terms of imaging my heart lies with my Hassy's wonderful Carl Zeiss lenses. I like the German lens tonality and these fit well with images from my Schneider and Rodenstock LF lenses.

 

A nice feature of my Hassy 501 and 503 bodies is that they are "digital ready"! But I'm sure affordable full frame 6x6 digi backs are a long long way off.

 

But, I'm sure that there is no "bad" MF kit - the bigger film area is a great advantage over 135 format. But for me 6x4.5 is only a "toe in the MF water" and 6x6 is ideal for me. While I like the 6x7 format it forces the equipment to become huge and less enjoyable to get out with. Hasselblad manages to keep 6x6 to a very comfortable size.

 

Finally Claude, you comment that Bronica backs enable 120 and 220 film use. My recollection is that they offered separate 120 and 220 backs just like Hasselblad does. I'd be very nervous loading a 120 back with 220 film for obvious reasons. But that's accademic now since much of the 220 film is becoming unavailable.

 

With regard to finders: I use a WLF on the tripod - a great way to enable critical focusing. My 501 tripod use is early morning or late afternoon so the WLF is generally free of reflections and the Hassy pop-up magnifier works a treat. But on my 503 I use a 45 degree prism finder - very comfortable and bright and 45 degrees is great for me when hand-held and with the CW winder attached. Hassy offers a 90 degree but I do not like it - too 135 format SLR like and the bigger body and lens "in your face" is not so nice.

 

But when compactness is a must I take the WLF which is so much more compact than any prism finder.

 

Enjoy!

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Hey Bruce,

 

The Rolleiflex is kind of perfect. It is lighter than a Hassie, and certainly lighter by far than the Bronice. Also, it is very quiet, basically silent in operation, and of course, it has the same strength that rangefinder cameras have, it has no mirror to go slopping up and down, so slower shutter speeds become available. But the fatal flaw for me, with both the Rollieflex, and the Mamiya 6 another superb lightweight MF camera, is their distant close focusing distance of aroun 0.9 or 1 meters. This is a problem for me, because often I want to do a decent head and shoulders portrait. This is the same flaw of the Hasselblad.

 

Extension rings and close up adapters are no bloody good,they are too much hassle. I don't want my Hasselblad to be a Hassleblad!

 

Any thoughts!?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Uh, Simon, I totally agree with you on the issue of formats. 645 is fine on a rangefinder, and kind of fun, but on a big modular system it kind of defeats the purpose. Pentax dispensed with the waist level finder, and I think that is just as well. Why on earth did Contax make their camera a 645? What is the deal with 645 these days, even the new Hassel is a 645. That is just strange. It's a kind of tyranny of convention.

 

Anyway, the Hasselblad is a really neat piece of equipment, but it is a fact that the backs are 120 or 220, and that the lenses only focus to around 0.9 meters, right? How do you tight headshots with a Hassie, and especially with the standard 80mm lens, which is all I could afford if I was to get one?

[StuartMoxham]

A long time ago I bought a Mamiya 645 super but with no prism I could not do vertical shots very easy. I was possible with a tripod but as you could imagine to hand hold was just wierd. After a few day I found a bronica ETRC with a prism and speed grip so got that instead. This made thing much easier but what I really wanted was an SQA as I liked the waist level finder. In the end I sold the ETRC when I went off to work on cruiseships the idea was to pick up a cheap used SQA in New York but I never got round to it. Anyhow a couple of years ago I got a Yashica TLR and of coarse shooting verticals is now no problem. I like the square format and print a lot of square prints. I made a whole album that is nearly all square 7x7 inch prints even the prints from 35mm were printed square. I like the waist level finder as a compositional tool for some reason I just seem to shoot a bit better with the waist level finder. The only camera I would like more would be an RZ67.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Hey Stuart,

 

That was exactly the camera I bought, A 645 Super with the 1.9 standard lens, a waist level finder and a prism, all for $350.00. I usually hate plastic, but for some reason I like the way Mamiya does plastic, they do it right, it is the only plastic camera I like. But the 645 frame was a deal breaker. When faced with the miserliness of the size in comparison with 6x6, and the inability to shoot verticals, and just the plain fact that at that size and in that format i just plain preferred a square, that was it.

 

I know I sound like a bit of a fanatic, and if it was my only camera it would work as a kind of SLR on steroids, but for the kind of shooting you do with a 645, a regular 35mm SLR seems better to me, and a 6x7 (with the exception of the Mamiya 7 and the Plaubel) is just too big.

[tvih]

I've basically only shot medium format as 6x6. Well, one roll of 6x9 with a Kodak Brownie too. But many rolls with a Rolleicord and a Rolleiflex 2.8 E2. As I've said on other threads, my main gripe with those was the lack of close focus. Now that I have a SL66, I no longer have that problem. I would've loved to keep the 2.8 E2 too, but well, that didn't make sense financially at this time (and if I had kept it, couldn't have gotten the SL66 either), hopefully I can get another one at a better price later on.

 

As for 645, well, I'd like to have a 645 back for the SL66 in addition to the 6x6 back(s). Sometimes it'd come in handy and would enable shooting without wasting a part of the frame, for exampe for many landscapes. Too bad 645 backs for the SL66 are so damn expensive, since they're rather rare.

 

Waist level finder is really nice when shooting on a tripod or near ground level, and in general a nice change from in-your-face 35mm. Sure it'd be nice if the finder image wasn't mirrored horizontally, but obviously it can't be any other way.

 

So overall, I have really like both Rolleiflexes I have used, the 2.8 E2, and have, the SL66. The TLR was smaller and silent, while the SL66 enables close focus and has changeable film backs, and of course lenses, but I only have the 80mm lens for now.

[mag_miksch]

"....I realised that square format is the best for this kind of shooting, at waist level......"<br>

<br>

I shot waist level on 35mm, 645, 6x6 and 6x7, either you like it or not, but I dont see the the context to film size, except 35mm gives you a smaller image in the viewer^^

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Uhm, Mag,

 

You must have missed it. When shooting with the 645 at waist level you can only shoot

horizontal. That is the problem.

[calvin_lee]

The Proxar close-up filters (.5m,1m,2m) will enable you to get closer with any of your Hasselblad lenses.

 

Lately, on my travels, I have been shooting landscapes with a Mamiya 645 Pro with a waist-level finder and have actually become quite adept at taking tripod-mounted vertical shots with it. It feels a little strange at first, looking at the scene from a 90 degree sideways position, but one can readily adapt to it. I always keep the prism in the bag for verticals, but these days it just never gets any use. Sure wish my D2x had waist-level finder.

[mikeseb]

I've shot 6x6 and 645. My most recent system is the Contax 645. I simply love this camera, and do not find the supposedly "barely medium format" 645 to be any kind of impediment. I have made huge enlargements from these negatives and slides that I'd put up against anything shot on a Hassy or Bronnie or any other MF camera. I don't consider 645 to be anyone's poor relation.

 

I admit that there are times that square format would be more convenient--the headshot portraiture that I find myself doing a lot of (my kids)--mainly from the standpoint of having to tilt the camera on the tripod (I know of no arca-compatible QR bracket for the Contax that will let you do this without having to rotate the ballhead 90 degrees laterally)-- just as often, it would be an impediment. I disagree that either the rectangular or square format has any intrinsic advantage over the other--with either you will likely find yourself cropping away useful image area for some shots.

 

The 645 negative area is just over three times the size of 35mm; that's a huge proportional jump that you don't see when going up further from 645 to 6x6 or 6x7. The advantages of lighter weight (I handhold a great many shots with the Contax) in most 645 gear, and of the fabulous lenses of the Contax system specifically, outweigh the purported advantages of larger formats.

 

What works for me won't work for everyone else, eh?

[flying_tiger]

Claude,

 

I wouldn't worry about the close focus on a 80mm Hassy. It's a standard lens and is not ideal for close-up shots. With other system, you may get closer focusing but the image(i.e. portrait) won't be flattering.

 

For close-up portrait (head/shoulder or closer), I use 120/4 Makro and 150/4, with 16E tube if necessary. For a 2-lens Hassy kit, you may want to consider 50/4 CFi and 100/3.5 CFi, or 60/3.5 CFi and 120/4 Makro. I have all 4 plus 150/4 CFi. They're all beautiful lenses.

[vapparn]

This summer I jumped into WLF without any experience and like it a lot. A lot of fun.

 

http://anton.turismiweb.ee/05.07.17_SunDance/index4.php

[vapparn]

-Those are not my pictures of course. Just one example how to use WLF.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I really like the 645 format. But it is best with a prism finder as the 645 SLR's really do handle like a large 35mm SLR.

 

So, if you want small and light-weight in 6x6, you's better spring for a Mamiya 6.

 

Robert

[paul_sauer]

I definitely appreciate the negative size difference between 6x6 and 645. I have a Minolta

Autocord and a Pentax 645. I'd love a 'Blad but to outfit it with lenses would cost a

fortune compared to the Pentax. For fast shooting, I prefer the 645. For fun and fast

shooting, I prefer the Minolta and its waist level finder.

[mag_miksch]

Claude, I shot a lot in landscape and architecture with my F3/20mm in portrait orientation with the waist level finder, but mostly from tripod. In the beginning its a little confusing^^

[pavelp]

I sold Bronica GS1 because I could not find an easy way of using it with WLF for vertical shooting. It's too bad but 645 cameras don't come with rotary back (I think only Rollei has rotary 645 back for their 66 cameras).

 

If you print traditional rectangular sizes, there's not much difference between 645 and 66 in the final product. On the other hand, when I shoot 66, the final composition is done in postprocessing (it's lots of fun to try differen crops and many times I end up with a different crop (portrait vs landscape) then I originally planned to (it's kinda like having a second chance in composition).) 6x6 is my preferred format by all means (an ocassional square print always attracts attention :-) ) but 6x7 comes very close (with rotary back of course).

[madwand]

I have a Contax 645 and a couple of vintage TLR's (which I like). I prefer to compose in the viewfinder and not in Photoshop, and don't like having to discard so much of the image in order to print a 6x6 image on a normal page (or conversely to print it smaller size on the same paper, essentially cropping the paper instead of the image -- my print sizes are limited). I also don't like the additional data size and related time that I need to spend scanning the 6x6 images - 440 MB vs. 330 MB is a significant difference (16-bit 4000 dpi). I also like fitting in more images for the same film and developing costs, and appreciate not increasing the Contax 645 size and weight further.

 

That said, I also appreciate that the 6x6 is significantly larger than the 645 and gives in general more cropping options. But in all, 645 seems to me to be a reasonable and effective compromise.

[the shuttered eye]

I have a Contax 645 and a Mamiya 7ii. Everything Micheal said about the Contax 645 is true and more. It is simply a great camera to use that has great lenses and great flexibility (the macro bellows unit is probably the best of its kind). I do really like the Mamiya 7 as well -- great lenses, more film real estate, and very light and portable. It's not for everything, but used within the cameras limitations, it's hard to beat. I'll tell you this, if I'm going to be out in the woods carrying a camera and few lenses around for 5 or 6 hours, I'd much rather have the Mamiya with me.

 

I had a 6x6 Rollei 6008 for a while, and just found the Contax to be faster, lighter, better handling, and all-around more useful. After the Rollei and with the Contax, I never thought about 6x6 again.

[photom]

Size advantage of 645 vs. 6x7 vs. 35mm. Assuming you crop to 5:4 ratio, 6x6 and 645 are very close in final picture size (of course).

 

Again, going to a 5:4 final crop: 645 gives a 73% larger photo than 35mm and 6x7 gives about a 34% larger photo than 645 or 132% larger photo than 35mm. This is measured in linear difference which is what matters. But, yes as mentioned, heavier than 645.

[eskoi.pohjanpalo]

For sure SL66 4,5x6 filmback E or SE with the eBay price tag 150+? is an issue. But on the other hand then you have actually 2 cameras, formats with a very fast change-over. Someone here commented earlier that only horizontals are possible in waist-level, yes it is a cumbersome exercise to shoot verticals. Easier it is with a ball-head monopoid/tripoid, then of course loosing the mobility.

[carl photography]

We have two YashicaMats, a Mamiya 645 1000S, and some Nikons. Overall, I prefer the

645 format which is the "best of both worlds."

 

Our 645 with a motorized grip handles much like a 35mm, in my "XXL" hands. It is steady

to hold, due to its mass. It also is a fine tripod-mounted portrait camera. We use

Mamiya's rotating 645 mount, which cost $52 on eBay, on tripods and monopods.

 

Ironically, we get better quality with 645 negatives than with 6x6 negatives. Our local labs

(one Noritsu, and one Agfa) scan 645 frames at 5.8 megapixels, but they scan 6x6 at only

4 megapixels (go figure!) at the same cost ($14 per 220 roll, with processing).

 

(For poster-sized enlargements, we have our 645 and 6x6 negatives re-scanned for $8 by

a lab using a NIkon 8000.)

 

"Brandon's Dad"

[van_camper]

I wish Hassy would bring out a 6x7 version. I'll be the first to buy, whatever its cost.