6x4.5 camera taking landscape photo's

[johan_de_groote]

Is there a 6x4.5 camera that takes "landscape" photo's when you hold it

"upright"?

 

All the 645 cameras I took a look at take a photo with the long dimension

vertically when you hold then upright. This makes sense if you intend to take

mostly portraits. But for general purpose photography I prefer the landscape

view with the long dimension horizontal.

 

I understand you can turn the camera 90? but most cameras are not lntended to

be used that way for extended periods. Viewfinders and controls work best if

you hold the camera upright. Holding the camera is also likely easier.

[shambrick007]

?I don't get it? The Mamiya, Pentax, and Bronica 6x4.5s are in landscape mode when holding the camera normally.

[steve_levine]

"""Is there a 6x4.5 camera that takes "landscape" photo's when you hold it "upright"?"""

 

 

I've never seen a 645 camera that wasn't horizontal when upright? They all must be turned 90 degrees to shoot vertically (portrait).

[mike_earussi1]

Try the Pentax 645.

[shambrick007]

"I've never seen a 645 camera that wasn't horizontal when upright? "<p>The only ones I can think of that are not are the 6x4.5 rangefinders or folders.

[a few images]

Bleh.. Don't waste your time..

 

Go straight for the Pentax 67 or Mamiya 6...

[johan_de_groote]

Are they? I got the impression they always are in landscape mode. Oh well, that makes it easier.

 

A 6x7 is out of the question, I want to project slides.

[User_502260]

I think that if you used a Bronica GS-1 with the 645 back the film would give you portrait and not landscape format with the camera held horizontally. You could get a 135W for an ETR series camera. This would allow you to make 24X54mm images with 35mm film. With a 40mm lens you would get a nice wide view. You would also be able to use films not made in 120 size.

[robert_marvin]

I use 6 X 6 for most of my landscapes. Since I always crop to make verticals or horizontals I'm effectively shooting 6 X 4.5. I've printed as large as 20" X 24" with no problem (other than the usual athletic problem of working that large in the darkroom).

[jonathan_james]

All the Mamiya 645's are landscape when held upright. You don't need to go to the larger formats to get the best of medium format. The biggest difference comes in going up from 35mm. The difference between 645 and even 6 x 7 is much less significant.

[bueh]

Landscape format: The long side is horizontal.

<p>

Portrait format: The long side is vertical.

<p>

All 645 <abbr title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> use the landscape format. All 645 rangefinders are portrait format. Virtually all 6x7+ <abbr title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> and rangefinders are in landscape format, but those with a rotating back (RB/RZ67, GX680 etc.) can use both orientations without tilting the camera. Unfortunately, there is no 645 camera with a revolving back.

[don_hill]

Bronica ETR series

[chauncey_walden]

Johan, for projection, skip the 6x4.5 and go to 6x6. You are going to have to have that projector anyway and the wow factor is infinitely greater for the 6x6. The 6x4.5's just come off as a good 35mm.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"The 6x4.5's just come off as a good 35mm."

 

Not in my experience. Projected 645 slides are much better than 35mm.

[johan_de_groote]

"for projection, skip the 6x4.5 and go to 6x6. You are going to have to have that projector anyway and the wow factor is infinitely greater for the 6x6."

 

You're right about the projector of course. Have been taking 6x6 now for some time and when I compare with 35mm then it doesn't always "feel right". I accept that this might be no problem with prints where the 6x6 gives more cropping possibilities.

 

But for projection I fear the square format doesn't work as well as the rectangular one. Often lots of lost space, like a nice row of houses with a lot of sky and street. Also I find that often the rectangular format conveys better the visual impression, like when you shoot down the nave of a church. If in that case you keep the height in the frame the same, then a portrait photo gives a far better impression of the height than a square one, even if you see less. (probably you all know that already, for me it is new and I'm a lousy photographer as well)

 

Or do you crop 6x6 slides?

[steve_levine]

In 645 format, film moves vertically through most cameras to place the long sides of the frame across the film's width. In 6x7 cameras film moves horizontally through the camera. This places the long sides of the frame along the film's edge. These two examples allow both formats to be in landscape mode with their respective cameras "upright".

[chauncey_walden]

True, everyone on this list knows that 6x4.5 images are better than 35mm, but, the general public's perception of them is no different than for 35mm because of the rectangular image. If you fill up a 70 inch screen top to bottom and side to side the impact is much greater. You can hear the reaction from the audience. Of course, the photographer has to be comfortable with the 6x6 format. And, yes, I do crop medium format images for projection; I crop 6x4.5 to super slide format (using the Mamiya dedicated cutter) to get square, screen filling, images using a standard 35mm projector.

[rgeorge911]

While I hesitate to bring cold logic and math into such an emotionally-charged discussion, I will. The area of a 645 negative is 3.1X larger than 35mm (while 6X9 is 6.2X).

 

Take from that what you will. I can notice a 3X increase in negative size.

 

Reed

[rodeo_joe1]

Area! What on earth has area got to do with the comparative perceived quality of two different formats?

 

To introduce area into the argument is a total red herring, and not "cold logic and math" at all. An exponential increase in area is simply the unavoidable consequence of increasing both of the linear dimensions of any two-dimensional object.

 

It's linear increase in size that counts when assessing the subjective image quality of two formats, since the only fair way to compare the images is to enlarge them to the same size. And enlargement ratio is measured by linear size or diameter, and not by area.

 

So the 6x4.5cm format is (56/36=) 1.56 times better than 35mm, and 6x7cm is (72/56=) 1.29 times better again, or 2 times better than 35mm, not 6 times better, or aywhere close! Anyway Reed your maths is wrong. A 6x7cm negative has only approximately 4.67 times the area of a 35mm negative.

[rodeo_joe1]

Sorry for slighting your calculation there Reed. I've just noticed you were writing about the 6x9cm format, which nobody else had even brought into consideration. However, even the 6x9 format, which actually measures about 56mm x 84mm is STILL only 5.44 times the area of a 35mm frame, or 2.33 times bigger in real (linear) terms.

[eric_chong2]

Both my Bronica RF645 and Fuji GA645 rangfinders are "portraits" format when holding them in "upright" position. They do take some time to get use to when framing in landscape position, since the focusing hand (left hand) might block the range finder while focusing in such position. But once you used to it, it is no big deal.