Hi all,
When I first started in photography I use a 6x6 TLR for a while before settling on a 35mm SLR system. Well, I've been toying with the notion of picking up a used 645 SLR something. They are relatively cheap now and I'd like to get your thoughts as to whether this is even worth considering and what brand I should look for.
During my final 2 years in 35mm film before I made the jump to digital I had grown tired of the mega-contrast of color transparency and had switched to Fuji Reala color negative with very satisfying results. If I add a MF 645 to my equipment I'd like to use this film if it's possible.
Any thoughs or wisdom to share?
Thanks
Bob
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 4, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The image quality between 645 and a DSLR with 10mp seems to be about the same, except the digital is cleaner capture. I have a complete Bronica 645 system that I once used as my main camera, but haven't used it at all since buying the Nikon D80. Not sure why you would want the hassle of scanning 120 negs, but I think the Bronicas are the best buy used because they are discontinued and have no digital backs available. They are going so cheap I haven't even bothered to sell mine on eBay yet. Believe it or not, I have been toying with the idea of buying a Leica IIIc made during the early 1940s and one or two lenses to shoot b&w with. I was inspired by a book of photos made during WW2 with one.
Thanks for the wisdom. I wasn't aware that 10mp digital is comparable to MF. I think the incentive for me is the prospect of using Reala one again. I really miss the image characterisics that it gave me. My DSLR is close ... image quality exceeds anything that I could reasonably expect from 35mm, color is similar to Velvia but with wider dynamic range but not quite as forgiving as color neg. So there's no reason to go back to 35mm, however I still consider MF if I could use Reala. As for scanning, I don't think I'd bother ... just use it for prints. The camera shop that I prefer has an on site pro lab which used to do my Reala for me and they're very good.
If you are consiering a larger format, you might take a real close look at 4x5. It will certainly be somewhat costly for the kit, and there is a learning curve, but the results are astonishing.
I have a Mamiya 645E kit and still use it when use of my 4x5 is not possible. It is for this reason that I am holding onto my system.
-PB
Thanks for the wisdom. I wasn't aware that 10mp digital is comparable to MF. >>>
Let me correct. I'll say a FF digital is closer to 645 scanned when factors like scanning time, processing cost are also taken into consideration. I'm not sure if my D80 is better than a 35mm slide scanned using higher end scanner. It is cleaner but better? who knows.
When I said that the IQ from my DSLR is better than I could reasonably expect from 35mm, I really should qualify that statement. If I need a 16x20 @300dpi I must use an advanced upsamling algorithm like SizeFixer or Genuine Fractals. PhotoShop's bicubic interpolation simply won't cut it. My personal favorite is a program that was developed in The Netherlands and, fortunately, the final result often looks better than an 8x10 printed at the native resolution.
Otherwise, I'm very happy with my DSLR in terms of color rendition and dynamic range.
I mostly agree with Preston. The 4x5 view camera has a lot more advantages than just image detail. Adding movements will open a lot of new opportunities for you. Still, if image quality is your only deciding factory, I'd stick with digital and add a TS/E lens and/or good stitching software.
To me the only real reason to use film cameras is for the sheer joy of it, rather than any characteristics of the image. View cameras require a different process that at times is very relaxing and enjoyable (at least until you have to pull out the credit card to pick up your processed film). I also love the way V-series Hasselblads handle with a waist-level finder. It's just those romantic little things that a DSLR doesn't quite inspire.
Speaking in favor or medium format, it offers several advantages. Film offers greater dynamic range, with softer tonal clipping-- and much greater DR, if you shoot negatives. And the viewfinder of a good MF SLR is a joy to behold, cmpared to the wee peepholes of most contemporary DSLRs.
I took the MF plunge last year when I snagged a Pentax 645 (original manual model) at auction, with just the two lenses I wanted: the 45 prime and the 80-160 zoom. At $450, it was small fraction of the cost of the kind of full-frame, maxi-megapixel DSLR I'd need to come close to its IQ. Even with cheap scans from Colorado Camera, my 645 results show far more detail than my 6 mp DSLR's biggest files. The P645s are dissed because they didn't have mirror lock up (until the final version), but they don't really need it. They were designed with vibration compensating shutter mechanisms, as was the Olympus OM-1, and in both cameras the shock of shutter events is about equally minor. Some use Russian tilt-shift lenses on them and report good results. With wide lenses and MF film sizes, you also have the option of cropping out the bottom to avoid tilting the camera when facing tall subjects.
You can make a strong case for a 4x5 view camera instead. But you have to consider the cost of film and processing. I don't know, but I've heard that a single frame can cost a dollar or more. With 30+ exposures on 220 film, shooting 645 is little more expensive than using roll of 35mm. So for my next & final film camera, I'd prefer a lightweight, carbon-fiber bodied 645 or 6x7 field camera with groundglass and rollfilm backs, movements and a full set of wide-to-tele lenses. Like my old pig-iron Linhof, but with a third the weight. Too bad-- now we finally have the materials to make such a camera, but we probably won't bother.
We paid for our commercial studio, the building it's in and a lot more using Fuji NPS (160 ISO print film) and Mamiya 645's. It is a superb film for portraits due to its pallate, most reminiscent of the neutral colors of Astia in the chrome world. If you make the dive, I'd try that along with the Reala and compare results.
Gotta say it was the Fuji S2 Pro (6mp) rather than any 10mp camera which knocked off our Mamiyas. In side by side comparisons, shooting the same model under the same lights, then enlarging to 20x30, the MF didn't even come close. More advanced cameras have widened the gap in ensuing years.
If this tells you anything about MF vs 4x5, we have five Mamiya bodies and close to 20 lenses that have not been used once since our switch to digital, but we still use our 4x5's. More expensive per shot, but so much more capable that the expense is worth it. When the digital bodies are ligther than the MF and giving better results as well, it's a pretty easy choice.
Discussion
9 repliesWhen I first started in photography I use a 6x6 TLR for a while before settling on a 35mm SLR system. Well, I've been toying with the notion of picking up a used 645 SLR something. They are relatively cheap now and I'd like to get your thoughts as to whether this is even worth considering and what brand I should look for.
During my final 2 years in 35mm film before I made the jump to digital I had grown tired of the mega-contrast of color transparency and had switched to Fuji Reala color negative with very satisfying results. If I add a MF 645 to my equipment I'd like to use this film if it's possible.
Any thoughs or wisdom to share?
Thanks
Bob
Kent in SD
Bob
If you are consiering a larger format, you might take a real close look at 4x5. It will certainly be somewhat costly for the kit, and there is a learning curve, but the results are astonishing.
I have a Mamiya 645E kit and still use it when use of my 4x5 is not possible. It is for this reason that I am holding onto my system.
-PB
Let me correct. I'll say a FF digital is closer to 645 scanned when factors like scanning time, processing cost are also taken into consideration. I'm not sure if my D80 is better than a 35mm slide scanned using higher end scanner. It is cleaner but better? who knows.
Otherwise, I'm very happy with my DSLR in terms of color rendition and dynamic range.
To me the only real reason to use film cameras is for the sheer joy of it, rather than any characteristics of the image. View cameras require a different process that at times is very relaxing and enjoyable (at least until you have to pull out the credit card to pick up your processed film). I also love the way V-series Hasselblads handle with a waist-level finder. It's just those romantic little things that a DSLR doesn't quite inspire.
Guy
I took the MF plunge last year when I snagged a Pentax 645 (original manual model) at auction, with just the two lenses I wanted: the 45 prime and the 80-160 zoom. At $450, it was small fraction of the cost of the kind of full-frame, maxi-megapixel DSLR I'd need to come close to its IQ. Even with cheap scans from Colorado Camera, my 645 results show far more detail than my 6 mp DSLR's biggest files. The P645s are dissed because they didn't have mirror lock up (until the final version), but they don't really need it. They were designed with vibration compensating shutter mechanisms, as was the Olympus OM-1, and in both cameras the shock of shutter events is about equally minor. Some use Russian tilt-shift lenses on them and report good results. With wide lenses and MF film sizes, you also have the option of cropping out the bottom to avoid tilting the camera when facing tall subjects.
You can make a strong case for a 4x5 view camera instead. But you have to consider the cost of film and processing. I don't know, but I've heard that a single frame can cost a dollar or more. With 30+ exposures on 220 film, shooting 645 is little more expensive than using roll of 35mm. So for my next & final film camera, I'd prefer a lightweight, carbon-fiber bodied 645 or 6x7 field camera with groundglass and rollfilm backs, movements and a full set of wide-to-tele lenses. Like my old pig-iron Linhof, but with a third the weight. Too bad-- now we finally have the materials to make such a camera, but we probably won't bother.
Gotta say it was the Fuji S2 Pro (6mp) rather than any 10mp camera which knocked off our Mamiyas. In side by side comparisons, shooting the same model under the same lights, then enlarging to 20x30, the MF didn't even come close. More advanced cameras have widened the gap in ensuing years.
If this tells you anything about MF vs 4x5, we have five Mamiya bodies and close to 20 lenses that have not been used once since our switch to digital, but we still use our 4x5's. More expensive per shot, but so much more capable that the expense is worth it. When the digital bodies are ligther than the MF and giving better results as well, it's a pretty easy choice.