645 vs. 6x6+

[ben_wickerham]

Am just gettin into medium format photography and am intrigued by the possibilities of larger printing. I

am familiar with digital printing techniques and consistently get good results with 35mm at 12x18, but

feel limited with the printing size. I have done some research about these sizes and want to get some

opinions on some advantages and weaknesses of some of these negative formats. Id like to get started as

soon as possible, the only choice thats stopping me is the which size is best. As a side note, how large

realistically can a 645 be enlarged compared to say a 6x6 or 6x7...would the 645 be plenty for a large

portion of needs? The only reason I ask is results:price, although I dont want to feel limited again with the

645. Ill stop now...let me know what you think.

[derek_stanton2]

6x6 has an advantage over 6x4.5 only if your final print retains the square format. If you

shoot CD covers, or 'fine art,' a square is appropriate. If you shoot for publication or

normally print/exhibit/etc. prints in a 'rectangular orientation,' you'll end up cropping a

6x6 image to 645 anyway.

 

645 is a significant improvement over 35mm. How significant depends on your particular

requirements, technique, expectations.... How large can something be enlarged is a

question only you can answer. Some people don't mind a bit of grain. Some people

consider evidence of grain to be the limit of enlargement. And, B+W is usually evaluated

diffferently from color, as far as the acceptability of grain.

 

Be aware, though, that using Medium Format may force a different set of rules and

standards. You may find that 35mm lenses, because of their speed, allow you to use finer

grained film, and so the advantage of larger film is somewhat diminished. In that respect,

6x7 does have an advantage over 645 as it relates to 35mm.

 

How large do you really need/want to enlarge? What is your subject matter? Do you shoot

color or b+w? Do you scan and print yourself, or print conventionally? Do you use a

tripod? Will you realistically carry around a large camera, such as a Mamiya RZ67, or is a

645 rangefinder more practical? If you don't have the camera with you, there's no picture

to blow up....

[mark liddell]

Need a bit more info:

 

Do you like the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm? If you do, look at 6x9 cameras. If you prefer closer to 4x5, look at 6x7 or 645 cameras. For square 6x6.

 

I know you said your consideration is results:price but what and how do you shoot? Medium format slrs can get pretty big at formats over 645 making handheld shoot hard and do much better on a tripod. Would a rangefinder and it?s limitations (close focus distance, problems with grad filters etc) fit what you shoot?

 

You can probably get 6x7 probably as cheap as 645 these days in the shape of the excellent RB67.

 

If you are OK with a 13x enlargement (based on the print size you posted from 35mm), 645 could probably get you close to 20x30? though I personally wouldn?t go this big.

[j_m32]

The decision between 6x6 or 6x4,5 is really more about square vs. rectangular than about printing size. If you don't like the square composition and you're sure that you will be cropping most 6x6 photos then you might aswell use a 6x4,5 camera to get more frames per roll.

 

Personally, I prefer the square to the rectangular most of the time so 6x6 is the perfect format for me.

[h._p.]

This is a straightforward religious question. Personally, I'm a squarist. Tried 645 and found the negs a little too small. Tried 6x7 and found the cameras a bit too big. Gone back to Rollei and Hasselblad and feel just fine...<div></div>

[simon_platt1]

Ben

 

One factor nobody has mentioned is that you need to rotate a 645 to get an upright shot. This usually means you need some kind of fancy head for your tripod so that you keep the centre of gravity in the right place. Also once you put it on its side you need a prism of some sort.

 

I have had a Bronica 645 for 15 years and got used to needing a bracket and a prism. But I now have a Hasselblad as well and not having to rotate it is wonderful.

 

On the other hand the Bronica is hand holdable and more portable.

 

If you plan to work on a tripod I would go for a Hasseleblad or a Rollei, if portablity is quite important go for a Bronica ETRSI or one of the Mamiya 645s or the Pentax 645. If portability is a key consideration then maybe a Mamiya 6 or 7 or a Bronica rangefinder.

 

 

Simon

[joshx]

Ben, I agree with what has been said. You need to decide a few things for yourself, and then inform people here so that you can get more specific answers. You need to decide:

 

1. What aspect ratio do you prefer? 1:1? 4:5? 2:3? (I prefer the 2:3 aspect ratio of a full frame 35mm photo, which is one reason I opted for 6x9.)

 

2. How large of an image do you need? Sure, it would be great if we could all easily carry a camera whose negatives had near infinite enlargement capability. But we can't. So if we know roughly what size prints we want in advance, then we have a better idea of what size negative we want, and therefore narrow the range of cameras to choose from. (I am rather conservative when it comes to enlarging, and don't like to enlarge more than 6x, so the larger the negative the better.)

 

3. Are you shooting portraits? Landscapes? A little bit of everything? Different cameras (and types of cameras) can be more appropriate for a specific subject matter. You must consider a whole camera system, lenses and all, when following through on your preferred subject matter. (I shoot a little bit of everything and didn't want to carry a laden camera bag all day, so the best option for me was a fixed-lens rangefinder rather than an SLR and a bucket of lenses.)

 

In the end, the camera is a tool. You want to choose the appropriate tool for the job. I wanted a MF camera to shoot a little bit of everything, ultimately wanted a 2:3 aspect ratio for my photos, and I am rather conservative when it comes to enlarging. With those requirements I settled on a fixed-lens ("normal" length) 6x9 rangefinder.

[leicaglow]

Also, Hasselblad makes a 6x4.5 back, but they're kind of spendy used because everyone just shoots 6x6 and crops later if they don't want the square. At least if you buy a 6x6 you have some options... even though a couple less shots per roll.

[david_henderson]

Nowhere do you say how large you actually want to print and how you're going to do it. At anything over 18" x 12" you lose the ability to simply take your negs/slides/CD's along to a Frontier and its going to be hard/expensive to get the maximum sizes from a sharp medium format original from anything most people would want at home unless they're making a whole lot of prints. So you're left with big lab inkjets and the LightJet/Chromira/Lambda type of output and the task of deciding how you're going to scan (you'll need a medium format film scanner at the very least and a drum scan would be nice if you need the absolute best). Then you have to decide whose going to make and profile the file, how you're going to proof, and so on.

 

If you do all of this pretty well then you'll be able to get a quality (ie saleable/exhibitable) print up to about 36"x 27" from a 645 original, 36" sq from a 6x6 and maybe 42 " x 36" from 67. Which of these are big enough?

 

The issue of format is important and you need to decide whether you are happy with the angular shape of 35mm or whether part of the reason for changing to medium format is to adopt a different shape. Incidentally it isn't correct to imply-as does a previous poster- that 6x6 images have to be cropped and indeed many of the world's best MF photographers shoot square and make square prints. In view of the print size flexibilities created by digital printing, its likely that the format decision is more significant than which can get you the prints you want.

 

Finally its fair to point out that MF is not the only way to get bigger prints. A top end digital slr may well allow you to use current lenses and whilst likely to be more expensive than a MF outfit, you would save money on a scanner or lab scanning. You may not get quite as big a print as you might from 6x6 or 67 but you will get a lot bigger than you get now.

[thomas_hardy1]

Hi Ben, Just wondering how will you be scanning your Med format film? I had one of those scan at time of processing deals and the resolution was surprising low.

[StuartMoxham]

What I like about 6x6 is that I don't need to rotate the camera and can use the waist level finder all the time. I like the TLR I have now much more than the Bronica ETRC I had before. I have used an RZ 67 quite alot and like that very much the rotating back is great and generaly I found the camera very easy to use but then it was on a camera stand in a studio. I don't think I would want to carry one around to much though. There is really no difference enlarging 645 or 6x6 unless you like square prints. I like square prints and have cropped 35mm to square sometimes. It really depends what you want to and what you photograph you can crop 6x7 to 6x6 if you want square prints and 6x7 will enlarge bigger than 645 if you want to make really big prints but with 6x7 you get 10 shots per 120 roll with 645 you get 15 and with 6x6 you get 12. If you can try to borrow or hire some gear to decide what you need.

[StuartMoxham]

David Henderson makes some really good points about geting the film printed you can't get 120 developed and printed everywhere so that is worth thinking about.

[fwstutterheim]

The most comfortable 645 backs are made by Rollei for the 6000-series. You are able to

switch between landscape and portrait without turning the camera over. Off course the 6000-

series cameras take 6x6 as well. Beware of the old style 4.5x6 backs that are not switchable.

[bueh]

6x4.5 is huge in comparison to 35mm. I heartily recommend it as the cameras are pretty inexpensive and very portable -- a nice Mamiya M645 system with all the cool lenses can be found for less than $1000. Tonality and sharpness are wonderful.

 

However, if you are into serious photography, where you can take your time for each shot, have a tripod and use mirror lock-up, a Mamiya RZ67 would be my weapon of choice. Image quality is breathtaking and there seems to be no limit how large you can print.

 

Don't hesitate because you cannot decide. Most of us have several medium format camera systems, all with their drawbacks and unique strengths. You won't find the perfect camera (unless you are into only one type of photography), and any medium format negative will blow 35mm away. Anyway, good technique is still the key to great pictures.

[e._r._averitt]

Hello Ben;

 

This post should be close to what you are looking for.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IKa2

[roland_vink]

"One factor nobody has mentioned is that you need to rotate a 645 to get an upright shot. This usually means you need some kind of fancy head for your tripod so that you keep the centre of gravity in the right place"

 

The Pentax 645 has an additional tripod mount on the side so you can set the camera in either horizontal or vertical format - fantastic!

[k5083]

I faced this exact question just a couple of weeks ago; I am a medium format newbie myself, and my style is mainly not square, so I realized 6x6 would be no better than 645 for me.

 

I would have loved 6x9, but I am not impressed with the available offerings in that format, especially on a budget.

 

I opted for 6x7 and bought an RB67. I think it will make a noticeable difference over 645 and there is a 6x8 motor back available (although really it's more of a 6x7.6.) Of course, if I ever decide that 645 is big enough for some particular application and want more frames per roll, I can get a 645 back for it.

[scott_koring3]

As a long time user of classic focal plane Bronicas, I have always loved the square. Actually ever since my first medium format camera, a Yashica 124. This past Summer both of my Bronica bodies went belly up in 1 week. I replaced them with a Mamiya 645 outfit. 3 Bodies and 6 lenses, including 2 35mm lenses, for $400. How could I go wrong I thought. Well it has been a mixed blessing. It took me a while to find my sense of composition for the rectangle. I like

getting more exposures per roll. I guess what I'm trying to say is try both out for yourself if possible.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/large/37.jpg"><br>

Point of Ayre, Isle of Man<br>

<i>©2002 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Hasselblad 903SWC</i><br>

</center><br>

I love squares. But I have to admit that 90+ percent of my photographs compose better

into rectangles. I prefer the less-square rectangles usually ... So having sold the

Hasselblads a couple of years ago, I've acquired a Pentax 645 with 35mm and 45mm

lenses. Love the SWC field of view, the 35mm lens does it well. The 45mm is more useful

most of the time.

<br><br>

Mostly I make prints onto 11x14, A3 and A3 Super paper from ASA 100 and ASA 400 film.

The results are very good. I'm sure I could go much larger.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I opted for a Bronica RF645 because I wanted a camera that I could easily carry anywhere. A body and 3 lenses fits nicely into a small Timbuk2 messenger bag. And it's lighter than a small 35mm SLR kit. Also the camera is oriented to portrait. It's easy to rotate to landscape.