Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,832   Posts: 1,582,366   Online: 863
      
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 118
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,230
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
    The GF670 is expensive for what it is, and I'd totally rather have a GW670 or GW690
    Thanks for the ideas guys, I might pick up either a cheap Pentax or Mamiya 645
    I used to think this as well. I originally owned a GSW690 camera and did so for several years. I could not understand how the GF670 could be so expensive. Now that I have a GF670, I can see that it is worlds apart from the other Fujifilm rangefinders. The build quality is much, much better. Each and every part seems meticulously made. My GSW690, apart from the lens, felt very cheap in comparison.

    The GF series cameras are just a step up in about every way, save negative size, compared to my GSW690.

  2. #72
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,139
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm. I have printed formats from Minox to 11x14 contact prints. To imply or plead that a smaller negative can do the work of a larger negative is kinda silly. It comes down to the look one is seeking along with time and economic constraints. OP test the 645 waters. Someone mentioned a 1950's Zeiss Netar plus one from me it was outstanding if you were good at guessing focus. Not knowing OP finance I simply made recommendation benefiting my personal 20-20 hindsite on foolhardy purchases based on current prices of once top shelf equipment. Hope you do good work with whatever camera and format you may step up to.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    San Rafael, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    55
    Lots of good suggestions. Mine would be to go for a Mamiya 645 1000. There are lots of them around, meaning lot's of lenses and other stuff too. They have eye level or waist level finders, would fit easily in a carry bag, and are, I find, great to handle. I have 2, plus 2 of the later Pro's, plus 2 of the even later auto focus. All great cameras.

  4. #74
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,754
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm.
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56 = 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm


    And for the heck of it, 6X7 relative to 135 and 645:

    6X7= 56 X 67 = 3752 sq.mm (6X7, slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 645 to 6X7: 1.61. ---- 1.61 X 2324 = 3741 sq.mm
    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 6X7: 4.35. ---- 4.35 X 864 = 3758 sq.mm
    Last edited by lxdude; 03-08-2014 at 02:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #75
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  6. #76
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,754
    A good point, Matt. Thanks for adding that.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #77
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or more practical yet 8x10, 16x20

    135: 24x30=720 vs 645 (720/2152=0.334 or 1/3rd) vs 6x7 (720/3591=0.200 or 1/5th)
    645: 41.5x51.875=2152 vs 135 (2152/720=2.988 or 3/1) vs 6x7 (2152/3591=0.599 or 6/10ths)
    6X7: 53.6 X 67 = 3591 vs 135 (3591/720=4.9875) vs 645 (3591/2152=1.66868 or 1-2/3rds)
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #78
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,556
    Images
    300

    Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or, you like the aspect ratio of 35mm and crop you 645 negs... Goes both ways.

    I print panoramic pictures from both 35mm and medium format negatives. Here only the long dimension needs to be considered.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #79
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    793
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin

  10. #80
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,556
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin
    Possibly it has to with what different people call good enough. To me 35mm is good enough for any size print I care to make.

    My friend Steve uses a Minox, and out of that tiny little frame he makes some of the most wonderful prints.

    Don't be so hung up on format. Get a camera that suits how you work, and then work on your print making skills to become better and better and better.
    I just went to see a photo exhibition at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, where large format, digital, 6x6, and 35mm hung side by side. Print quality on all was superb, and it wasn't the freaking camera that got them into the show; it was their skill, vision, and ability to produce interesting and important photographs.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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