could I change the film back from 6x6 to 6x4.5?

[leo_mansu]

<p>I am thinking gettting a medium format camera..and have problem deciding between 6x6 or 6x4.5 film back<br>

is there any camera that allows me to switch between film backs? (bronica,mamiya....etc)</p>

[wai_leong_lee]

Hassys come with 6x6, 645 and even superslide and 35mm backs.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Rollei (6000-series) does too.</p>

<p>"Come with" means that a choice of different format backs is available, and you can switch freely between them.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Bronica made 645 backs to fit the SQ series cameras as well as the more usual 6x6. They aren't too hard to find.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Leo,</p>

<p>The Mamiya RB and RZ systems also have 645 backs and are the only medium format cameras I can think of that have a rotating back. That means you can keep the camera oriented normally and rotate the back for either horizontal or vertical images. All the others require turning the camera on it's side to go to a vertical composition with the 645 backs or inserts. To be honest, the only real advantage I can think of to going with a 645 over a 6x6 back is adding a couple of extra frames per roll. That's only a very marginal savings in film cost. The inconvenience of trying to work with the camera in a sideways position, even with a prism finder, would drive me up a wall. It's quite easy to compose for cropping to the 645 area on the screen, so why not use the 6x6 back and have the luxury of deciding on your final crop later while printing or scanning?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>I believe that Rollei's 6x4.5 back rotates as well.</p>

<p>The ones from Hasselblad don't. But they 'made up' for that by introducing a back that produces 12 6x4.5 frames in 'portrait orientation".<br />Silly... ;-)</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>There are lots of them. I have both 6x6 and 6x4.5 backs for my Hasselblad 500C/M.</p>

<p>I very rarely use the A-12 (6x6) back any more as when I print I usually wind up right at the 6x4.5 proportions. The nice thing about the 6x6 is you don't have to rotate the camera between vertical and horizontal.</p>

[racerxphoto]

<p>Mamiya used to make a 6x6 back for the RZ series. They are rare but pop up on used market from time to time.<br /> So for RZ you can have 645 6x7 6x6<br /> Actually one is selling on fleabay right now<br /> http://cgi.ebay.com/Mamiya-RZ67-120-220-6x6-Pro-Film-Back-RZ-67-MINT-_W0QQitemZ380190386046QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20091222?IMSfp=TL091222169002r38929</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Mamiya also has a 6x8 for the RB at least, I know in that I have one.<br>

Jim</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Have used a 6x6 graphic back on my RB. The RB even has 6x6 marked in it's viewing screen. 645 gives more shots per roll. But, if.you crop a 6x6 for an 8x10. You basically get a 645 size area. The Mamiya press series have a 645,6x6,6x9 back available. If,you can find one with the masks.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Actually, 6x6, and 6x4.5 backs for the RZ series of 6x7 cameras are anything but rare. They cost more than the standard 6x7 backs on the used market, but they are always available, and still dirt cheap compared to the price of a new back. Polaroid backs for the RZ's are so cheap as to almost be free, and Fuji still makes instant film. There is also a 4"x5" sheet film back that captures 8x8cm images that I have yet to find used, but the other options are readilly available for cheap. KEH is a good source for all things RB, and RZ.</p>

<p>I currently own a couple of RZ bodies, and a well rounded kit of lenses and accessories for them. For those times when I HAVE to consider portability as a priority issue, I have a good basic Bronica SQ-Am 6x6 field kit. For me, the 6x4.5 format cameras like the ETRSi simply do not offer enough savings in weight and volume to justify the loss of a full 10 mm of exposed film real estate compared to a 6x6 system.</p>

<p>My medium format experience began in the early 70's with Hasselblad, but that ended in the late 70's with the rise of 35mm system complexity filling most needs, and the coincident relatively cheap availability of 4"x5" sheet film gear flooding the used market to handle situations that were beyond the capability of 35mm film gear at the time. I even used various Graphic and Tachihara 4x5 cameras for capturing as many "setup" shots in a wedding shoot as I possibly could, and used 35mm film to deliver images of those parts of a wedding where the "action" of the moment made 35mm the proper choice.</p>

<p>Adding 4x5 sheet film photography to a wedding album offered spectacular highlights to a wedding album, but it was a serious time hog, expensive, less than portable even in a fantasy world, and as time wore on, there were fewer and fewer local pro labs available to process the stuff. The thrill of developing and printing my own 4x5 images wore out by the mid 80's. It consumed all the working time I had left after a day of shooting 4x5.....</p>

<p>So, an alternative solution was needed... The fact was that film was becoming much better in all respects as time wore on, and medium format options were begining to look great again, at super reasonable used prices. In the meantime, I pretty much abandoned 4x5 as a regular imaging media for my needs, and welcomed the digital revolution in 35mm as possible salvation. Of course, digital became a very competent imaging choice over time and the bazillions of Dollars I spent to keep up with it as it grew through puberty and into adulthood. It still wasn't (isn't) the do-all imaging solution that was promised though.</p>

<p>I still own much of the 35mm film gear I bought and used for photo profit over the years, spanning the peak of the Canon FD era, and continuing through the best of the EOS film era. I even use them from time to time to this day. My current digital working gear includes a full suite of Canon EF L and EFs lenses, and bodies from the 30D through the 7D, the 5D, and a brief encounter with a 1Ds.</p>

<p>For me though, digital just didn't do it all, and do it right. That's when I re-discovered medium format film. Film offerings over the past few years are simply awesome. I mourn the demise of Kodachrome for sentimental reasons, but the bulk of current film options are simply wonderful. I thought about re-entering the Hasselblad realm, but (no offense to fans) the price of re-admission was way too steep, as it wasn't all about legendary quality alone. It is a pioneer MF marketing legend, but it's high prices have far more to do with the taxation burden of the social policies of it's home country than real measurable value in build quality. Hasselblads break and jam, as often as any other quality brand. They also offer limited functionality for the Dollar spent, and their glass isn't made out of unobtainium, no matter how differently a fan might present the facts. <br>

Japanese labels like Mamiya and Bronica also delivered lenses of legendary quality, and developed far more functionally innovative MF systems as they challenged the Hasselblad legend for Pro market share. They did it all at a far more reasonable price point to boot, and the sheer volume of product that reached the Pro market before the digital revolution means that we have super bargains available in the used market today. </p>

<p>To keep a long story from becoming a book, I fell in love with the Mamiya RZ67 6x7cm system, and the affair continues to this day. With current films, and it's extensive list of accessories, it delivers imaging fantasia in spades. I don't miss toting 4"x5" gear around in a trunk to capture awesome images with the RZ67 in play. Developing 120 film is a snap in all forms, and scanning is offered everywhere for digital printing. The 6x7 format simply rocks. It also remains a healthy system that has a huge Pro following, and a very sound digital imaging future ahead.</p>

<p>For a lighter weight 6x6 system for those times when absolute portability is a priority, I chose the Bronica SQ system with the later film backs, and PS lenses as my go-to MF film camera. It isn't a 6x7, but I like it as a fill-in for the 6x7 system when needed. Despite the fact that Bronica is a dead brand in terms of future development (ask Tamron how that happened), I like it's features, reliability, dirt cheap used prices, and outstanding glass offerings that suit my needs in a portable MF system better than I like anything similar in scope that is offered by Hasselblad in same secondary role to the 6x7 format..</p>

<p>So, the ultimate in a " full system" MF film camera is the Mamiya RZ67 (in my view). It can answer most any photographic need, and answer it perfectly at a value price. It is also very current, and has a bright future in all types of image capture. It isn't a lightweight, but to be fair, here is a pic of a basic RZ67 "photo brick" next to a 1980's vintage Canon "New" F1 35mm camera with a motor drive attached. The F1 is still a wonderful 35mm film camera, and was considered the ultimate Pro tool in highly portable camera systems of it's day, yet as pictured, it weighs about the same as the RZ67 "photo-brick" pictured with it. Expectations change with time, but great photo tools remain great tools despite time....</p>

<p>The second shot is a pic of the RZ67 with a standard 110mm f/2.8 W lens alongside the Bronica SQ-Am (motor drive 6x6 camera) with it's standard 80mm f/2.8 PS lens, and AE prism finder, which is next to a naked ETRSi body for a size comparison. The RZ is much larger than the others, but, as you can see here, the SQ body is not that much larger (or heavier) than the ETRSi body and system. I just can't see the justification for going for a fixed 6x4.5 format camera like the ETRSi at all. None of the three cameras pictured wil ever be confused with a modern, lightweight 35mm digital body, so go for the maximum film area that you can stand to tote when you are searching for a medium format film alternative to 35mm.....<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4400029613_1efb5436c4_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

<p> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4400054676_9b834e3234_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>