I am in the process of deciding which camera system to buy. I thought maybe I should just spend the extra money, put up with the extra size and weight and buy a Mamiya 645 super or pro. I sat down and did some simple algebra. Comparing the area of both 35mm and 645 negatives, I found that a print slightly larger than an 8x10 (nowhere close to 11x14) enlarged from a 645 neg should have the same quality as a 5x7 from a 35mm neg, all things being equal (which they never are, but you see where I'm going). I can see that a 6x7 negative would have a huge advantage. My question: Did I miss something? It would seem from just the neg size to print size ratios that a 645 system is a rather overpriced item. Would most photogs agree that MF should be thought of in 6x6 and 6x7's? It would seem that a Pentax 6x7 would be more cost effective in terms of final image quality. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I understand the limitations of the Pentax 6x7 and the Mamiya 645. I have used both. My thought was to buy a 645 instead of a 35mm, thinking it would be far greater in image quality than my simple calculations would suggest. If my little simpleton figuring is correct, I will probably go for a Contax system and get a Mamiya TLR or Pentax 67 down the line. Can anyone straighten me out on this? Please understand this is not a "which is better?" type question. I feel I simply just don't have enough information to make a decision. Thanks to anyone that can help.

-- John Kilmer (jontar5@dreamscape.com), July 16, 1999

Answers

Of course all things being equal, the print quality of the 645 will be better than the 35mm. But where and what kind of work will you be doing? I think I know what you are asking with the 645 being a slightly smaller neg. area than the 6x7. But you should think through the ease of handling issue. Personally I go with what A. Adams said, "use the largest format you can carry".

-- chuck k (kleesattel@webtv.com), July 16, 1999.

You don't have to worry that you won't see a difference between 35 and 645. I often crop 6x6 to 6x4,5 (actually to 54 mm times 42 mm) and frequently to even smaller sizes. The image quality can still be stunning. Try a film like Fuji Neopan 400 in medium format for example.

The difference between 645 and 6x7 is more difficult to see than the one between 35 and 645 (especially if you crop the 35 to the same aspect ratios as the 645). Take also into consideration that with 645 you can shoot with one stop larger aperture (comparing normal lenses for both systems) than with 6x7 for the same depth of field, this gives you better shutter speed and therefore better chance of good sharpness. The smaller mirror in 645 also produces less vibrations than the larger mirror in 6x7 (same goes for shutters) and this will also benefit sharpness. The Mamiya will also let you have two or more interchangable film-magaizines, which helps tremendeously if you photograph using the zone-system (i.e. avoids to have high contrast pictures on the same roll as low-contrast pictures). In 6x7 you need the huge Mamiya 6x7's or the pretty big Bronica GS-1 for interchangable film magazines and in 35 mm you can forget about it (unless you can get your hands on one of those 1980's 35 mm Rolleis with interchangable film magazines).

Mamiya 645 reputedly has some very good lenses too. For instance the "new version" of 150/2,8 tested with super results in a Swedish photo-magazine, significantly better than the 150/3,5. With a lens like that, a tripod and mirror lock up you can crop to 35 mm dimensions and still get very good quality (but why crop and lose that great 645 tonality :-)

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), July 19, 1999.

No doubt about it--go with the 645 format. The extra money you pay will be worth every penny when you see the results.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@earthlink.net), July 19, 1999.

Your math is basically correct, but I think you may be underestimating the importance fo the size difference in the final prints. I don't usually like to enlarge anything more than 4x. This means that for my 6x6 negatives I can get nice 10x10 prints; for 645 negs you would get 8x10s. With 35mm you could get only useless (for me anyway) 4x6s.

-- Chris Patti (cmpatti@aol.com), July 19, 1999.

I'm with chris and chuck...the m645 isn't much smaller than the fuji rangefinders and a helluva lot more heavy so you really need to assess your style of shooting do you hand hold your 35 mostly or are you dedicated to tripod landscapes. Medium format Slrs are huge and heavy and every bit the undertaking if not more than a 4x view camera. Contax is very expensive and the lenses may break you...a mamiya tlr would be a nice cheap alternative to guage what you require from the camera in more specific terms...so here's the good advice...try them out...rent or test drive ...lift them to your eye...are you gonna be packing it around or leave it in the studio? how portable does it have to be? I shoot a Fuji gsw690 and two c330's plus 3 4x5 view cams... when I shopped for a new mf I knew ....I wanted more neg...I love wide lenses, i wanted something small and light and handholdable and most importantly I couldn't afford the Mamiya 7! you should make a list of requirements and concessions to help in your purchase...good luck and let us know what you decided upon!

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), August 11, 1999.

Good question. I've used both 6X6 and 35mm. An important factor is your subject and setting. If you're into portraits or landscapes (anything tripod-based), medium format is higher quality, hands down.
If you're into anything hand-held, there's not much point using a format larger than 35mm, especially considering the quality of films these days compared to what was available just 10 years ago.
Another thing to consider is the quality of your enlarger lens. There's no point dishing out bucks for sharpness if your printing through a mediocre lens.....

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), August 26, 1999.

I disagree with Asher's point on hand-held. The larger the format, the better the quality, whether hand-held or on tripod. I often use hand-held 5x4. Of course, there are other trade-offs, such as slower lenses, greater weight, and less depth of field, which might make the larger format less suitable.

In one sense, the difference in quality between formats is less important on a tripod, because you can then use slower films, but 'casual' photographs with ISO 400 film really benefits from larger formts.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), August 27, 1999.

I'm not with chris and chuck and trib, because I just do not believe in the 120 roll film system, because of the curling of film in the cassette and the chance of movement-unsharpness being bigger. Jump from 35mm to 4*5 right AT THE MOMENT YOU'RE USING A TRIPOD and skip MF because of movement-unsharpness being more likely.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), August 27, 1999.

BTW, Mamiya 67 II, a rangefinder, is another thing: no mirror-swing, no back-turning of the film in the camera-house.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), August 27, 1999.

On Mamiya 645 I've seen it from experience: a band of sharpness over the middle of the image, and at the sides unsharp.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), August 27, 1999.

In several of these answers there is a reference to MF having less depth of field than 35 mm. I did not know this. One more example of learning from this forum.

Can anyone put a sharper point on this depth-of-field issue? For instance, is the difference significant or minor? I suppose I could go to my MF and 35 lenses and check the depth of field scales, but there is inherent inaccuracy in the interpolation required. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

-- Paul Arnold (osprey@bmt.net), August 30, 1999.

Paul:

The MF and LF cameras have "less" depth of field (DOF) because of the longer focal lengths required. The DOF remains the same for the lens length, as optics are optics. What changes is the field of view.

For instance, a 35mm camera uses a 50mm lens for its "normal" view. My 6x7 uses a 105mm for its "normal" view. My Graphlex Super Graphic (view camera) came with a "slightly wide" 135mm lens (I think 150mm- 200mm is "normal").

The magnification and depth of field from a given lens remains constant. Since the lens coverage for the format changes, the "normal" lens length changes. Since the length changes, so does the DOF. Thus, there is "less" DOF for larger formats.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), August 30, 1999.

I think 645 is a waste for a great many reasons but Lot...All mf is not susceptible to the degradation you speak of.....my gsw 690111 fer instance. It has a copal shutter just like a view camera...it rangefinds and has no mirror to slap ......the lenses are as sharp or sharper than any lens I own in large format all the way to the edges and the camera is light and small about the size of a 35 manual focus with a motordrive or a new AF 35...and because of that camera I've not picked up a 35mm in a long long time...not because of the larger format but due to the quantum leap in image quality. As for Asher's point about 35 and portability...unless you are severely disabled you would be better with a M7 or fuji 67 or 69 than even the leica m6 0.85 with a summilux. And if you aren't a senior citizen or have noodle arms you can easily hand hold a 4x5 and beleive me the pics will be even better.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

oh and lot...i can tell you after 12 years printing for pro-labs that 35mm has much more curl (the edges are closer together) than 120. The bigger neg is much easier to flatten in a sandwich style carrier and stays flat longer!

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

I agree with the longest of your last two posts. In daylight. I believe more in rangefinder MF, because the system does not stress the film as in a cassette like in the Mamiya645. The new Contax with the vacuum-sucker could be an option in the 645 range, but it still has got the mirror-swing. The chance on movement-unsharpness remains greater on MF than on 35mm, which is diminished again in the range-finder version, just like a 35mm rangefinder is better in this respect as a reflex. Speaking of bulkiness I think I could trade my leica m4 for a Mamiya M7, that would not be such a big difference. But then I'm left with less possibility for available light given the fact that most Leica Summicrons (not the Summiluxes) have very good contrast at wide apertures and the M7-lenses start at F4, which you'll have to stop down to 5.6 at least I suspect. The rest of my preference for summicrons over sekor's is personal and prejudice: I like the bite in images shot on good old tri-x in hc110 shot at f2/2.8 by 1/50 and I did not yet succeed to get this character of image even with Zeiss on 120-film, so why would I succeed in this with a Sekor? In the end the character of lenses determine my choice, not the format; I'm just addicted to Leica and Schneider. (I do not know what you mean with gsw 69... - if that's fuji, it does not seem sturdy to me with that plastic bellows-construction).

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), August 31, 1999.

Oh.. and I do believe in Alan Gibson's street photography on 5*4 (as he systematically calls it) with his self-built camera.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), August 31, 1999.

FWIW, here is my $.02 worth. In all of your "ranting" (nothing personal), you do not say what your end use is going to be. I know a fashion photographer (works all over the country but lives in Florida) who uses both 35mm and MF. He has images in his gallery that are from both formats and are fantastic! BUT it depends on your end usage or how large you want to go with your prints. A lot of the fashion photog's prints are no larger than 8x10s and a lot are in the 5x7 range or custom cropped to fit his vision. Think about how large or small you want to go with your prints, then decide whether you want the ease, availability, and cost of 35mm vs. MF ease, availability, and cost. Once again, this is my $.02 worth.

-- Richard Owen (seagrove@digitalexp.com), September 23, 1999.

I'm not a big fan of 120 film, I see it as a poor compromise between 35mm and 5x4. When I'm using 120, I like 6x9 negatives. Doubtless there are many fine cameras that use 120, and of course many people do love 120.

[I call it 5x4, 'cos that's what we Brits call it. Yes, I know that people on the other side of the Atlantic call it 4x5. I don't know what Dutch people call it.]

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), September 24, 1999.

If I were a fashion photographer I would definitely buy a Mamiya 7 II. But John already decided I'm afraid. BTW, Dutch people call it '4*5 inch' or '4*5', which is odd because we never talk in inches actually.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), September 25, 1999.