35mm vs 645

[bryn_evans]

I've done a number of weddings now and generally carry an EOS 5 and 28-105 with

colour film then a EOS 500 with B+W film and 50mm f1.8. I have a Bronica ETRS

with range of lenses and metz flash I have used this the odd time for formals

on a tripod which helps define my space so when I approach the group to

organise them I can return to the tripod without people being stood there.

While there is a quality advantage to the Bronica my clients rarely order

prints big enough to see the advantages. I think MF makes the group shots more

deliberate and less hurried but for all the rest of the shots I almost

instictively reach for 35mm. I have a job coming up where there's restricted

photography within the church so may use MF for shots down the isle with tripod

as an architectural photo, then use a long lens for closer shots of them at the

alter.

I would be interested to hear where other photographers find the different

formats offer them an advantage in differents situations

[steve_levine]

I stopped routinely shooting formals with my 645, and do almost everything with 35mm now. The main reason is the "aspect ratio" of the 645 format allows for 4x5" prints instead of 4x6" with 35mm. Try explaining to brides that the bigger cameras produces smaller "proofs".

[DickArnold]

The whole time I did weddings I did formals with a Bronica 645. The proofs I provided were always smaller than my 35mm candids. I recently unpacked quite a few 645 11x14 prints I had made to post in my studio to market to potential customers. I printed them in my own darkroom. They are very nice, however, I think I am making better 13x19 prints today from my XTi or D60 with L lenses on my i9900 printer. I don't miss the darkroom. It was hot, smelled bad and there were times I spent a hell of a lot of time perfecting a single enlargement. It is a lot easier now with digital. I do think my MF formals were better than the work I did with 35mm. I had three Bronica bodies, three lenses and a lot of accessories. I had a lot of confidence using Vivitar 283s for flash fill on MF. However, I think I am doing better pictures today with digital and would use fast L lenses on a digital camera to shoot inside a church.

[William Michael]

We still use 645 for all the formal work and a few informal portraits. But we still use 35mm Film also. One of my jobs is to manage the change over to digital 35mm. At this time I am still undecided if the 645 film will stay long term: I can say it will stay for the next two years.

 

We have a good percentage return on 11 x 14 and 20 x 24 enlargements per Wedding. And the 645 gear does establish a professional presence on site, which we do not underestimate.

 

These are the advantages we see with 645 at this time; however I cannot speak two years hence: things are changing rapidly in both the marketplace and the technology. Also I cannot definitively speak regarding (any) workflow issues when using 35mm DSLR and 645.

 

It is the marketplace changes, not technology, IMO that will dictate more, however.

 

WW

[dave_thielen]

The one advanatage of the medium format - it seperates you from Uncle Bob. Get a digital back for it and you have the best of both worlds.

[greg jansen]

I know a photographer in my town who shoots both 35mm and medium format. To get around the different aspect ratio, she has all her 35mm and 645 prints printed 3.5 x 5, not 4 x 6. She said she drew some blacks lines on her focus screen with a sharpie to approximate where the lab will crop her images when printing.

 

I suppose you could do that with your 645 screen, if you wanted to print everything 4x6.

 

When I shoot 645 (which is rarely) I have them printed full-frame on 4x6, with a white border. The 35mm prints get a white border too. You can tell which prints were shot 645 because the white border is larger on two ends.

[steve_newberry___northern_]

I have used the 645N Pentax until recently and also use the EOS 5 (A2)still.

The Canon does great with the L lenses 24-105mm F4.0L

16-35 2.8L even the 50mm 1.4

I assume you have the consumer lens 28-105 which is rather soft compared th the L lenses.

Get the pro lenses and retire the 645.

My humble opinion.

[fotografz]

IMO, if you are going to use a MF camera use it to it's greatest advantage. Basing quality

choices using the proof stage seems strange to me. Just show the client a real print

sample from the bigger camera.

 

You can also use a higher ISO film with MF and end up with cleaner 8X10 prints than with

35mm of the same ISO.

 

Besides, today's albums feature jump the gutter panoramic spreads and full page bleeds

and when shot with a MF camera these can really sparkle. Even the traditional albums have

these now. I just did a 21" wide MF pano spread in a traditional album with 200 people in

it and every face was clear.

[DickArnold]

Every one of my wedding clients received an 11x14 print of the B&G printed by me from a 645 negative in my darkroom along with their proofs not later than two weeks and more likely one week after their wedding. I used Fuji 800 in lower light situations. I still have some of those prints and they are quite good compared to 160. I don't, however, do film anymore. I have more control and get as good prints from L lenses with digital.

[bryn_evans]

Thanks for all your replies, its interesting to see what people feel is the best aplication of their equipment.