Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,935   Posts: 1,557,057   Online: 1253
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: 645

  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    How about a Mamiya 6x9 press camera? I use a Mamiya RZ67 for studio portraiture and I have a Plaubel Makina 670 if I want bigger than 35mm but want to travel light. The downside of the latter is a fixed non-interchangeable lens.
    Dear Keith,

    Never owned the Mamiya, though I do have a Polaroid 600SE with 75mm and 127mm lenses and the (very rare) Mamiya roll-film adapter. Bulky bugger, though.

    I envy you the Plaubel but they are expensive and I have so many other cameras I've never been able to justify buying one -- but I'd really like that 80/2.8 Nikkor, which is what I recall on the front of the Plaubel that belonged to a friend 20 years ago. For that, I'd live with a fixed lens.

    But do I recall that the Japanese Plaubels were battery dependent? It's been a long time...

    I've had a few German Plaubel Makinas, and was underwhelmed.

    Cheers,

    R.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,062
    645 (4:3) is close enough to 8X10 for practical purposes. The crop for a full sized print is very minor, and a full frame print involves only a very minor trim of the 8X10 (it's 7.5X10). It's pretty much the same for 11X14.

    I've been using a Pentax 645 for a number of years now, and I'm really surprised at how much better the quality is compared to 35mm. The actual image area is 56X40 mm. That is 2.6 times as large as 35mm. It makes a huge difference in both sharpness and ease of handling.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth View Post
    ... I'm really surprised at how much better the quality is compared to 35mm.
    No question! Next to 35mm, 645 really tips the balance on pure technical quality. But my own feeling is that although the difference between 645 and larger formats is much more subtle, if you're going to go the the hassle of roll film (cost, weight, loss of fluidity), it's worth it.

    Cheers,

    R.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    No question! Next to 35mm, 645 really tips the balance on pure technical quality. But my own feeling is that although the difference between 645 and larger formats is much more subtle, if you're going to go the the hassle of roll film (cost, weight, loss of fluidity), it's worth it.

    Cheers,

    R.
    I'll second that. David.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,062
    I probably do most of my work with 6X9, and some with 4X5. I basicly agree with Roger's remark. There is a definite improvement as you go to the larger formats, but the really big jump is going from 35mm to 645. The advantage of the 645 format is the availability of small, easy to use SLR cameras. They offer all the convenience of 35mm along with the advantages of the larger negative size. Although the Pentax 67 SLR is an excellent camera, its bulk begins to slow you down. Good rangefinder cameras are available in 6X7, 6X9, and even 4X5 that are pretty fast and convenient, although lens interchangeability and viewfinder use suffers some, particulaly close to the subject.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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