Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,285   Posts: 1,535,251   Online: 967
      
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 118
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,910
    Images
    37
    Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.

  2. #32
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,680
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    645 is something like double the image area of 35mm (I'll let someone else do the math(s) if they want to get a precise number) and whatever those numbers may seem to imply, the actual impression of step up is substantial. It's also the same image area you will get if you crop a 6x6 negative to 8x10 proportions which I find I do about half the time with my 6x6 negatives (the fervent anti-cropping crowd can disregard that.)
    I agree Roger, this almost doubling is a significant step.

    41x57
    vs
    24x36

    HP5+ is a good practical example, It is a film I enjoy in Medium and Large Format. In 35 mm I have a love hate relationship with HP5+.

    it is dependent on the subject matter. If the main subject matter is large in the frame it seems to work fine for me; Head and shoulders portraits for example, full length portraits, not so much. What changes for me is the size of the details in relationship to the grain.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  3. #33
    MattKrull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    106
    I've owned a 1950s era 6x6 folder (Nettar), and I have to say, the images were incredibly sharp. It took far better pictures than I expected, AND it was no bigger than a 35mm SLR. However, I only shot two rolls of film with it and then sold it. Why? because the view finder was uselessly small. Maybe if I had a shoe mounted VF things would be different, but I just found it too hard to use.

    I have since moved on to a Bronica ETR-Si. I've only shot a handful of rolls on it. But, without the grip it isn't too large to carry in a DSLR bag, and holding it isn't overly akward (even with a prism). Adding the grip makes it pretty huge, but very easy to use. For all the talk of mirror slap, I took a number of very sharp hand held shots at 1/30 (something I really can't pull off with a 35mm SLR).

    I can't comment on the quality of 6x4.5 vs 6x7. But, as has been mentioned, for non-square prints, there is effectively no difference between 6x6 and 6x4.5. When looking at enlargers, many enlargers can only do 6x6, so if you have your own dark room (or aspire to have one), a 6x7 or larger will require a larger enlarger.

    I'm still new to darkroom printing, but I found that making really good looking prints from 645 is easier than from 35mm, and at 8x10 I can tell the difference. After making my first 8x10s from 645 I've vowed to use my Bronica much more.

    I think the idea of a TLR is a very good one for the OP (presuming you can get used to the WLF). They are small, take great photos, and work especially well on the street. With a WLF the 645 SLRs can be used similarly, but are longer and (imo) bulkier. The nice thing about a 645 is that it gives you choice, it can be a waist level street camera on day and a traditional SLR the next.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    645's are (were) for wedding photographers. That's all the redeeming quality I can see in one.
    When it comes to shooting slide film, there is significantly more to extract from 645 format than 35 mm. Typically 35 mm will be scanned at 4800 dpi giving a 4535 x 6803 (i.e. 31 MP) file of not such great quality. A 645 will be scanned typically at 3200 dpi, giving a 5291 x 7055 (37 MP) file of much better quality. The best scanners (like the Hasselblad Flextight / Imacons) will get a great deal more out of a 645 than a 35 mm. I often shoot slide on 6x7 (Pentax), but very seldom in 645, preferring it for black and white which is always intended for darkroom printing rather than scanning. In printing, there is a significant difference in the two formats (35 mm and 645), which is immediately apparent, especially when faster film is used (but that is sort of a circular argument as faster lenses exist for 35 mm). My personal view is that the MF lenses paint a bit differently than the 35 mm lenses, and the combination with film emphasizes that. The best MF lenses are very significantly better than the best 35 mm lenses on the same film. It shows in prints even as small as 8x10; by the time you get to 16x20 it is obvious. Yes, 6x7 is much better than 645 even, but the jump from 35mm to 645 is more pronounced than the jump from 645 to 6x7 or even 6x9. 645 is a very practical and useful format, and most of the lenses are really excellent.

    With regards to what the OP wants to do with it, the 645 rangefinders seem an obvious choice, but the Mamiya 6 and 7 are also worth considering. Unless you take a very slow and measured approach, you'd want something with AE capability for shooting slides. That rules out most TLRs and many of the more basic SLRs as well, unless you get AE prism finders for them (assuming they exist).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Unless you're a wedding photographer still using one. Then you're a poor man because the digital people are killing you.
    Whatever, Tom. That is a faux argument, as the OP is not a wedding photographer and very likely already has a silicon chip camera, or would have had if he really wanted to do photography that way. Most of us have hybrid systems, and still prefer MF and film for good reasons for some purposes. It stands to reason that commercial work on film is now rare, but that certainly doesn't discourage my interest in film.

  5. #35
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,331
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Bronica RF645 all the way. Much better camera than the fuji's though more expensive. Interchangeable lenses and superb VF and metering. Best walk around MF camera IMO.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    333
    I'd love to jump up to 6x7, but that's HUGE
    Sure, I can get a Graflex XL (worst user interface camera for a "press" camera, EVER), but the RB/RZ are giant, and the Pentax 6x7 is crossing the price boundary for me

    I don't really think in square either...

    This is just for fun, and I love the slide colors and I'd love to shoot more of it in case it ever goes away (Fuji doesn't inspire confidence)
    Last edited by GarageBoy; 03-05-2014 at 09:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #37
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,680
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
    I don't really think in square either...
    One of the fun things about square is not having to turn the camera 90 to change orientation. P vs L.

    Crop however you please later.

  8. #38
    SpicySaffron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4
    I can speak for the Mamiya 645 1000S. I don't use mine much (I prefer 6x6 negatives so my Rollei and Kowa receive more attention), but it is a solid camera, with a variety of gear choices for little money. The prism finders aren't bad, however make sure to watch out for glass separation (looks like a solid grey line when viewing through the prism. They are bulky, but very robust cameras.
    saffron-studio.tumblr.com

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,350
    Images
    58
    645 is 3 times the area of 35mm. 6x6 is over 4 times. Darned right that's significant.

    I had a lot of trouble with the square format. It took 3 years to start to get acceptable results, but now I 'm hooked and am enjoying it much more than 35mm. If you don't want to make any radical change in format shape, 6x9 is the closest to the 35mm layout, and it is over 6 times the area. When I was at your decision point, I got an inexpensive Zeiss zone-focusing folder, liked what it did and then moved up to a Mamiya tlr. Right now on eBay, Jurgen (certo6) has 3 Zeiss 6x9 folders ranging from $120 - $450, depending on the model, so you can get in pretty cheaply, or not so cheaply. All of his cameras have been CLA'd and are in good user condition.
    All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. Choose the one that has heart.

    Don Juan

  10. #40
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.
    Well no. And I'm sure they are winderful, albeit quite expensive cameras. Of course however a camera is designed a 645 of the sane design can be at least a bit smaller than a comparable 6x7. That doesn't mean such "otherwise comparable" cameras are actually made if course.

    My real point is just that 645 is a viable format and a very significant step up from 35mm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin