Opinions on Medium Format Specifically 645

Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
151
Location
Minneapolis
I know there tons of opinions regarding regarding 645 format. I myself believe that a larger negative tends to yield better tonality and depth than 35mm and that is apparent to me when I shoot with my Hasselblad, but I also have a Mamiya 645 system. I love the way it handles with my power winder and it is a little easier to shoot than my Blad. My question is there really a marked difference when compared to 35mm? I use to think so considering the negative is almost three times larger than 35mm, but now I wonder if I should sell it. The first is shot with my my Mamiya with 80 f 2.8 Sekor on Delta 400 developed in Rodinal 1:50. The second was shot with my Nikon FA with 135 AIS f2.8 on Tri-x pushed to 1600 developed in Diafine. Probably not a fair comparison since different film, speed and developers were used, but in general can you tell which format? I'm only equipped to print 8x10 in a darkroom so massive enlargements are not too much of a concern.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
[/url]
comparison2 by TwinCityNikkor, on Flickr[/IMG]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
[/url]
comparison redo by TwinCityNikkor, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
596
Location
Ajman, United Arab Emirates
First of all, we can't tell the difference at web size, so if you post a large format 8x10 and 35mm at web size it will be not fair comparison, so unless you post at original large sizes 100% of each then we can tell.
Second, it is also a matter of printing, many times i hear people talking the main advantage of larger formats over smaller formats is when printing at large size, say 24x36" and larger [30x40, 40x60,....].
In fact i did shoot with Nikon F100[the center cameras] i think[or maybe Nikon F200?] during a workshop of darkroom, and i was using my Hasselblad 501CM, the negatives from Hasselblad blow away all the negatives out of that Nikon, this is same in digital when i compared my Hassy [39 and now 60mp] against my 1Ds3[21mp], there was no way to compare, the hassy shots win the game in term of quality, sharpness, details, colors, tones, even when people say that Canon/Nikon DSLRs win in term of ISO well i use Hasselblad digital at ISO 50 up to ISO 400 for studio and outdoors daylight, so if i were in your place i will never look back to 35mm, in fact i don't have any 35mm film camera at all, only medium formats which 2 of them can be modified to take 35mm and i didn't do that.
In fact the only advantages of 35mm over the medium format is the price and the weight, but the quality a big NO, 35mm can be closer to MF quality level but never surpass it or be superior, and i really don't think it can be at same quality level, i really don't know why people try very very hard to make any or some of 35mm cameras to beat MF cameras in quality, even that Leica the legend of 35mm films can't beat Hasselblad or Mamiya at higher formats such as 6x6 and 6x7, even my Fuji GSW690III beat that Leica M series with no mercy, the scans and prints can prove that so clearly not my talking.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
596
Location
Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Oh yes, i have a friend who shoot with Leica M6 and he has really nice lenses i think, he told me that although he prefers that Leica for street/candid photography but there is no way his 35mm [he also has Nikon F??] can beat his MF cameras, i gave him my Fuji 6x9 to use it for a while, he was blown away with it over 35mm no doubt.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
596
Location
Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Printing at 8x10 will not help at all if you need 35mm or MF or even LF, i heard some told me that even with 8x10 they can see a difference between LF and MF, so i can't imagine how it will be between LF and 35mm, will there be a difference @8x10 print between MF and 35mm? Funny you have both camera and you ask us, you should know the difference by yourself observations.
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
5,742
Location
El Cajon, CA
I haven't tried the 6x4.5 format, I have tried 6x7, which I didn't care for, 6x9 and 6x6. I like them both. If you are comfortable with 645 and 6x6, keep 'em both if you can. Your little models make those cameras sing. I have a very old Rolleiflex which is a delight to use. I shoot 6x9 with my equally old Graflex 2x3 with a 6x9 roll film back. :smile:
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
151
Location
Minneapolis
I dont know, I think even on the web like on Flickr, and even looking at my hasselblad shots, there is a distinguishable difference in quality I get from a 6x6 negative from 35mm just by looking. Doesnt matter if you print small or big, having done 8x8 wet prints from a 6x6 format negative and 5x7 and 8x10 from a 35mm negative, there is a marked difference in the two even at smaller print sizes. I cant seem to see the difference though from my 645 to 35. Maybe the hasselblad is just that good huh. Ill have to do some more controlled testing.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
151
Location
Minneapolis
All good points Tareq, but 35mm has many more advantages other than price and weight. Plus without a viable 35mm film market, I dont think MF film would survive. Anyway, anyone else gots any opinion on 645 compared to 35mm ?
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
596
Location
Ajman, United Arab Emirates
About the film availability this is not an issue of quality of the format, if i have only 1 film in 8x10 or 4x5 and 50 films for 35mm i will never say i will love 35mm more, but the manufacturers seems they know that people don't use those large formats or even many MF, so they keep more markets for 35mm films, if they will close or stop the business then all the films in all formats will be discontinued, Fuji and Kodak almost discontinued many films in the 3 formats [35, MF, LF] but still there are more films for 35mm, but when i check the markets for films i see i have really good choices or options of films for all formats, i don't need to use 10 different color films for each formats, but when i compare the three formats let's say with HP5+ or Velvia 50 i can tell there is a big gap between 35m and LF, MF is in the middle.

As MF, i prefer 6x6, 6x9 and 6x12/6x17, i didn't shot with 6x17 yet but i am looking to do this size in the future sooner or later.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
633
Location
Texas
There is no substitute for real estate. Size matters.
While 6x4.5 cameras have their place, my 6x6 & 6x7 negatives can be cropped to 6x4.5. The larger negatives can be cropped in many ways which overcomes any shortcomings in the original. Think of it this way: There are an infinite number of 6x4.5 images on any given 6x6 or 6x7 negative. If I get lucky, I can use the whole thing.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
388
Location
USA
All good points Tareq, but 35mm has many more advantages other than price and weight. Plus without a viable 35mm film market, I dont think MF film would survive. Anyway, anyone else gots any opinion on 645 compared to 35mm ?
Depending on the subject, it can be either easy or hard to distinguish film sizes.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


That's a 6x4.5 frame. When printed on 11x14, the details just pop out.

But if you just want to do 8x10, I'd use 35mm. There are plenty of 35mm lenses that will blow you away at that size.

One thing about your Mamiya (I assume it's the old manual 645, not the AF version), if you decide to keep it, look out for the 80/1.9 and 45mm lenses. They are excellent!
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom