645

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by CraigH, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. CraigH

    CraigH Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If I remember correctly, 645 will make 8x10's with no cropping. What do the 645 enthusiast's suggest.

    Craig
     
  2. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,677
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    6x7 doesn't need cropping for 8x10. 6x4.5 is 4:3. 10x8 are 5x4

    Are you looking for a 645?

    Bronica ETRSI cheap but it seems many have been sold off. KEH pickings are much slimmer then last year.

    Pentax 645 comes with motor drive and meter in the body. Added cost for the bronica.

    Mamiya wide range of ages and bodies.

    Bronica RF 645. Seems rare and expensive. Portrait format when held normally. I think.

    Various Fujis

    If you are looking for something in particular I'm sure somebody could suggest more.
     
  3. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I was looking at Mamiya 645 Pro TL cameras last night. Wow are they cheap.
     
  4. CraigH

    CraigH Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry, then it's 6x7 I'm looking for.

    Craig
     
  5. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Craig,

    Remember that the formats are all nominal, and vary from maker to maker. For example, I love Linhof's 56x72mm format which at a 3x enlargement is 168x216mm i.e. almost exactly whole plate. Other '6x7' formats go as low as 56x68mm in my experience, and lower for all I know. '645' is typically 56x41-43mm, but can be more or less.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  6. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,677
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    Then it's Mamiya RZ/RB
    Bronica GS Isn't one for sale here? :D
    Fuji Rangefinders

    But what else are you looking for? Between cameras and rollfilm backs you've got plenty of different choices.
     
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Craig,

    'Baby' Linhof. Graflex XL. Koni-Omega. Do not be deceived by big, heavy reflexes...

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  8. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,055
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My Mamiya M645 Pro and M645 Super offer a negative area of 56mm x 41.5 mm.

    This enlarges to approximately 10 3/4" x 8".

    That's not a heck of a lot of cropping.

    It requires even less cropping if you print to 5 x 7 or 11 x 14.

    IMHO, it would be a mistake to make your decision on formats based on this issue alone.

    Matt
     
  9. reellis67

    reellis67 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Central Flor
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I use 6x4.5 as my primary format, although I have been moving toward more and more 4x5, and 8x10 recently, and I have to agree completely with Matt. Don't make the choice based on something like that - choose the system that does what you need for the price that you can afford.

    - Randy
     
  10. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have both a Mamiya 645 and a Mamiya RB67 (I love 'em both). You're going to need to do some cropping regardless of which format you choose if you want an exact 8x10 print.
     
  11. CraigH

    CraigH Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I know, I'm not making a decision based on format size, just looking for something different from the 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 I already have.

    Craig
     
  12. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Randy,

    If we all based our decisions on what we could afford, a lot fewer of us would be photographers at all. Quite a few would avoid marriage, too. I've been lucky in both regards...

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  13. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,677
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Make a list of what your current camera doesn't have. Then rank the features in order of what matters to you.

    If you get a 6x7 with removable backs/inserts you likely can shoot 6x45 to.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. David Brown

    David Brown Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,607
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Craig:

    I shot 2 1/4 square (or 6x6) for 30 years. Enlarging to 8x10 required cropping and one ends up essentially using the equivelent of a 645 neg out of the 6x6. A few years ago I got a 645 rangefinder, and my prints were comparable (not counting the difference in lenses - another thread :wink: ).

    Last year, I moved "up" to 6x7. Now I can print bigger! (as it were)

    But, the most important thing I've "learned" is that there is nothing sacred about any format. If my 6x6 negs need cropping, they get cropped. Otherwise, I've started to print them square. Does it waste paper? Matter of opinion. Does cropping waste film?

    I just finished making 15 or 16 "exhibition" prints on 11x14 paper. Some 6x6 and some 6x7 negs. The actual images are 9x9, 9x11, 9x12 and one 8x12. It's all in what the neg required.

    Cheers
     
  16. papagene

    papagene Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    5,304
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What David said!!

    gene
     
  17. CraigH

    CraigH Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I crop most of the time, but it would be nice to compose properly & not crop.

    Craig
     
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Craig,

    Why can't you compose properly AND crop?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  19. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    "Cropping" is a dirty word. Has been since Cartier-Bresson started having his negatives printed with a black line around the image. :wink:
     
  20. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Lee,

    In my book, that makes H C-B a dirty word.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  21. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I have to agree with Roger on this.

    I cannot consider cropping a "dirty word". After all, there are times when it is physically impossible to locate yourself in the exact "right" spot to compose a shot just as you want it.

    Cropping sure helps there.

    And, when you are shooting "street"; there are times when an inconvenient butt gets in the way on one side. You're never going to get the shot again - so it's either live with the annoying butt or, crop away! :D
     
  22. CraigH

    CraigH Member

    Messages:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't mind cropping. It's just that I'd like sometimes to have the entire frame with no cropping on a 8x10.

    Craig
     
  23. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Mine too. Kinda. Sorta. Well...ah, shit.:sad:
     
  24. Bandicoot

    Bandicoot Member

    Messages:
    201
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Location:
    Eastern Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Slavishly following the proportions of the camera you happen to be using at the time is not "composing properly". The world isn't 'designed' always to look best in any given shape frame!

    For me, making the best picture in a given shape - ie. fully using the dimensions of a given format - is a good training exercise and a useful skill when shooting to a brief, but the real artist gets beyond that. The point is, surely, to decide what shape best fits the subject at hand, when making the exposure, and crop accordingly, if required.


    Peter
     
  25. mikeklensch

    mikeklensch Member

    Messages:
    63
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    Skagway, Ala
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Greetings,

    I'm also a fellow Mamiya 645 user (ProTL), and thinking about adding an RB to my outfit. I was wondering if you think having both systems is worthwhile, or if one or the other would do just fine. In your experience, is the 67 a real jump in quality over the 645?

    Thanks,
    Mike
     
  26. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    When I first got the RB67, I honestly thought of selling my 645 kit because I didn't think I'd use it anymore. Well, I was wrong. There are times when the actual size of the 645 makes it more practical than the RB67. And then sometimes I just want to shoot the 645 just because I like it :smile:

    That being said, I do use the RB67 most of the time. I like the bigger negative and I like the ability to change backs in mid roll (the 645 1000s doesn't have that ability).

    As far as quality goes, I think both are top notch so that shouldn't be a concern.