Me clicking on the video: "please say I don't need to shoot 120 and 35mm is good enough" Kyle, 30 seconds in: "I'll tell you why you should shoot 120" 😖
I shoot 645 for travel, portraits and weddings and it works perfectly for me. It's great to get 16 frames on a roll making it far more economical than shooting 6x7 where you only get 10 frames. The quality for 645 is great and it works well for magazine features too. The Contax 645 is a camera I can sling over my shoulder and it's not too heavy, has great ergonomics, easy to focus manually and auto wind on is a winner. I freaking love that camera!!
Without even finishing the video I can firmly say from my experience yes, absolutely. I think 645 is the best balance between resolution, size of cameras and frame count compared to 35mm. I see a MASSIVE IQ increase compared to 35mm, and you still get that "medium format pop." Overall, I seriously can't recommend it enough.
Great video, thanks for clearing up the myth of 645. I don’t know why people say it’s not worth using 645. I feel people who claim it’s not worth it, are probably the kind who obsess over their gear
Yes it is. Added Mamiya 645 Pro with speed grip and metered viewfinder 17 years ago. Several lenses including the widest (35mm Sekor) practically lives on it.
Thank you for avoiding the hypes. I have 135, 645, 6x6, and (folding) 6x9. The 6x6, and certainly the 6x9 are used for special purposes. On vacations, I take along 35 for general purpose, because it is light and small. Easy in cities, walking around. Outside cities, I prefer 645, still not too cumbersome, for more details. Especially with slide film. This has suited me for decades. I don’t understand the fuss. The bigger the negative, the more details, but also more bulk to carry around. For quick spontaneous shots, 35 is ideal. Lightweight and much more leeway with focussing because of the large depth of field. Quick and easy, but, as with everything in life, you pay a price. I admit that it happened that I was sorry that with shots of intricate details, I did not not have my 645. But you can’t have it all, unless you accept to carry more big burdens.
@@aight365 I'm a sucker for square (6x6) but most economical would be 6x4.5 (16 exposures). Perkeo, Welta, Ikonta, Agfa Isolette, Mamiya 6 etc. As I said there's unfound gems.
645 is incredible! While I do love 35mm, I feel like the format is just too long for my liking and I'm always cropping it out. Personally, the most attractive thing to me is how portable 645 bodies are. Since I've got my Mamiya 645 it goes everywhere with me when I go to shoot, I can't say the same for any of the 6x7 cameras I've had (Pentax 67 & RB67). Great for casually shooting, serious work, traveling, you name it.
@@TimGreigPhotography Hey Tim, they are pretty close, I think it's probably mostly how careful you are about leaving breathing room for cropping (I'm not) when shooting 35mm and cropping down to 4:5 (in my case) for printing! 35mm's 3:2 aspect ratio creates a photo with a width 1.5 larger than the height, and the 645 4:3 aspect ratio creates a photo with a width 1.33 larger than the height. I have previously found that that small .18 of difference really made a difference.
Great video! If I were to move up to medium format, I would want a 645 camera because 15-16 shots per roll seems like the perfect amount of shots when I’m out doing a slow photography session like shooting night photos and stuff like that.
Loved this video! I’ve been shooting 35mm for a while now, and a ‘resolution’ I made for 2021 was to make a jump into medium format and this inspired me a lot, thank you :))
I stumbled upon medium format...I found a mamiya 645 in the basement and luckily I was able to repair it:) at first I was a little bit overwhelmed by the complexity of the cam but after a certain time researching and some mistakes I made I got really into it and when I got my first role back from the lab I was infected and I can say its totally worth it:) Great video Kyle keep it up!!!
Holy Cow the Marie Motel at 2:50! I've never seen someplace I know on a YT video! The red brick building in the background is the AT&T central office and the ladder on the right is at Mike my mechanics shop. This is awesome.
Totally agree, I have the same 645 camera and man some of my images look straight digital. Also those lenses in my opinion were perfected to a level that they could be a put head-to-head with a modern lens and folks wont know the difference
Don't get me wrong, but what's the purpose of having the 645 film camera photos look like they have been shot with a modern digital camera? Why shoot film at all, if this is the desired result? I started shooting 35mm because I do not like the over-sharpened photos from modern cameras . In my opinion the film look has more character to its looks. Would you therefore say I shouldn't go for the medium format then?
Same here. I like 35mm black & white film because it sits in that nostalgic definitely not digital camp. If I want tighter definition I use a t-grain 100 iso film with a good lens, which probably equates to what you’d expect from a 645 loaded with something like TriX. Admittedly a 645 loaded with such a t-grain 100 iso film can produce large prints that Ansel Adams would be proud of! No, I played with the idea of getting a 645 but I prefer the ‘definitely not digital’ vibe of 35mm, where the IQ is still most assuredly ‘good enough’ to convey a photograph.
I shoot a lot of 6x7 and honestly I think 35mm is underestimated a lot of times. I did not take as much care shooting 35 as i did 6x6 or 6x7 and I blamed the format for my results but lately I've been taking much more care shooting every frame and rarely need to shoot 6x7. I simply love the process of shooting the RB though and will continue. The effort put into the photograph will always be more important that the medium. Lovely video Kyle!
I mainly shoot with a 6x9 but recently picked up the 645 as a backup but honestly IMHO I love the extra frame count resolution balance ratio :D not to mention it is freaking lightweight?! sooo many bonuses where to start...great video. cheers from Tokyo~~
I personally made the jump from 35MM -> 6x9 and ran four rolls through my old Fuji GW690II and sold it right afterwards. I was not a fan of the rangefinder, fixed lens, and only eight shots per roll. Ended up ordering a Pentax 67, so we will see how that goes. Thanks for the fresh video Kyle!
As someone who shoots everything from 110 to 4x5, I love 645, and it's what I shoot the most of. I shoot a Pentax 645, and it's my most feature-dense camera, and about as big as you can go while still being maneuverable. I scan with a V700, and I agree that the quality jump is huge here.
Great commentary. Cameras a tools and different tools for different tasks. I shot with Pentax 67 and Pentax 645 for years. And really loved them. The Pentax 645 was the first built in motor drive camera I used and it is really wonderful for action and portraits. Another advantage of medium format is simply looking at the negs snd chromes. 120 film really shines compared to 35 for just evaluating the image of contact sheets. Scanning and Lightroom had eliminated some of that advantage but it is still there. In terms to size weight and quality ratio 645 is hard to beat.
As always, well thought out and well presented material. One other big reason for 645 for me is its verticals are just right whereas 35mm can often look ungainly and too tall. For machines, I love my Contax 645; great glass and so smooth I can often handhold it to 1/10th and get acceptably sharp photos. And if you have AF off, as I do, batteries last a fair bit.
Yes. Especially if you want to print and keep it on the wall. But, I have to edit. Lee Friedlander and friends mostly shot 35mm Leica. I’m speaking about “spatial staging”-the bigger the negative the more it feels like entering a huge room.
Wow, what a flashback man!!! We used to have these exact same debates 35 years ago! My solution was to buy 35mm, 645 and 6x7 cameras... and then the 4x5 crowd would make fun of us! "Back in the day", what I noticed was that Extar 25, Kodachrome 25 and Velvia would give us the fine grain of 645, but the sharpness and tonal range was rarely there. I chalk this up to the lenses we used. A few gem lenses would get you close in 35mm, but they were truly rare, magical lenses. Having worked professionally through that film era, with all of the available formats (view cameras included), right up to this present day, I would not trade my D850s for any of them. That said, I understand the appeal of connecting with those old formats, especially for those "young people" who never got to experience it the first time around. Cheers!
As someone who shoots film professionally (fashion photography) I can absolutely say yes. I’ve shot basically every camera worth having and have sold it all to just keep working with 645. The quality is incredible and with the more modern 645 cameras and I get sharper images than I did with Pentax 67’s and RZ67 due to updated optics and the perfect amount of DOF
I definitely notice the increase in graininess in 35mm but I love shooting both 35mm and 645. Two totally different experiences and for 2 different uses (for me, at least). I personally don't develop/scan myself so I don't see the difference in that process, but for sure I could never give up either film format. Loved this video!
Coolscan 8000 user here. Pretty much agree with what you said. The difference is there, and is large in my opinion (especially in terms of tonality). Unless you are printing large or doing paid work that requires the extra push, 35mm is enough though. Especially when using something like a canon elan with modern lenses, the tonality and details are there when using coolscan - at least for social/web use. 645 doesn't have that 6x7 feel, but the extra shots really add up. I usually shoot at least 2 boxes of 120 on paid gigs and 645 give me an extra 50 shots.
Initial heads up if you move to medium format: Remember the shallower depth of field at equivalent aperture values. Especially if you shoot with a rangefinder type as you will not see the effect in the viewfinder. This is due to the larger lens sizes. And is a good reason to start with 6x4.5 as the effect is less than with 6x7 - 6x9 lenses which are bigger. I miss 220 film. Thank you.
I had similar issues with flatbed scanning. Instead of shooting with 120 film and scanning it on flatbed I already had I went within Reflecta RPS10M scanner for getting everything from 35mm. I'm supper happy. My scans from 35 look better than 120 from flatbed :)
For sure. The scanner you use is really important, and you can get good options for 35 that are affordable, like the Opticfilm. Great 120 scanners are quite a bit more expensive.
Thats an important point. Had a Plustek scanner who I s broken now, who scanned with great result incl IR. My 35mm cameras is also malfunction so I have long thoughts to go medium. But that will be with a flatbed otherwise is got to expensive.
@@kenneth61 big time. Medium format film is more expensive to shoot as from the same price per roll you have mostly 16, more real 12 frames and they will be more expensive to scan with the same technology than 35mm. I decided to go all in 35 with the best lenses (Leica M2 body) and the best scanner. I bought new Reflecta as it performs wonderful and takes film automatically. No regrets :)
@@matthewb21 My OM-4 who I bought new 1983 has served me well, but there is a end for everything. Leica M-A has tickled me for a long time, and that Reflecta is in my radar to. I do process my film (Portra 400) in C-41 at home. And that's a moment I really enjoy. So there is a moment to think about it.
Id personally say it's harder to find interesting subjects with medium format because it's so slow. With 35mm you can quickly capture anything interesting that happens around you
I was shooting a lot of 4x5" for a while and loved the resolution and the process, but not the film & dev cost. I thought I wanted a 6x7 camera as a happy medium but came across a good deal on a Bronica ETRS which shoots 645, and I've actually been really happy with the quality of the images that I can make with it.
Been shooting on my Mamiya M645 for a few months now and I don't think I even want to "upgrade" to 6x7 because I enjoy the process so much. More images per roll, better portability, amazing image quality by any standard. It just fits my current needs and budget so much better than 6x7 and I actually like the slightly more rectangular crop than the almost square 6x7. I think a lot of 6x7 users are too quick to discount the benefit of shooting 645 and assume a technically higher resolution on paper means better camera. It's more about what best matches your priorities with photography for me.
The Mamiya 645 Pro TL was the gateway medium format drug for me and my first foray into the wonderful world of medim format. The 7II followed and numerous others. Can't disagree with anything in the video - all on point - especially the scanning comments - a decent scanner can reveal wonders. Drum scanners can do even better but I think there is more than enough for most with a flatbed/Coolscan.
645 is one of my favorite formats. It's always fun to get super sharp medium and large formats that zoom in super close, but between the larger frame count and retaining the film look from not being too high res, it's a great looking and versatile format
Great video. I’ve recently set aside my Pentax K1 dslr and started reacquainting myself with my Pentax 645Nii and adapting my 6x7 lenses to it. Really been having fun using both the 105mm f/2.4 and 165mm f/2.8. Slightly less weight than using either the 45-85mm and 80-160mm zooms but with the option shallower depth of field (I shoot mostly portraits and art nudes). I’ve just never found 35mm that compelling.
I’m a die hard 645 user. 6x6 can be fun but I always find myself going back to 645. I think for myself, it comes down to the leisure of being able to do landscapes and take portraits without having to switch out lenses. :D
Hey Kyle I couldn’t agree more. Although I’m primarily a 135 shooter and totally love that format I’ve purchased a Mamiya 645 Pro TL not too long ago and it’s a great step up in resolution/detail. Does it make you a better photographer? Of course not but in those instances where you’d need a bit more detail in your shots, 645 is highly capable of doing that. Of course with stocks like Kodak Portra 160, Kodak Vision 3 250D and certainly Velvia 50 and Provia 100F one can get incredibly detailed images in 135 when scanned properly but those who say going to 645 from 135 is not worth it aren’t being objectively fair to 645. In fact, 645 is all I’ll need in medium format. To each their own, if you need 6x7 or 6x9, go for it if that’s your thing. Great video Kyle!
Needed this, as I mainly shoot 645 right now but want to upgrade to 6x7 just because that's what I see everyone else shoot. But I'm happy with the 645 and will stick with it
Awesome video once again, Kyle! Just entering the medium format with a 6x9 camera though. Can't wait to see the first rolls coming through. (Also, Olympus XA spotted on the desk. 👀 I just shot for 2 weeks with it. Crazy how compact and good it feels to shoot candid photos with this fun camera!)
I just became the proud owner of a Pentax 645 with a 75mm and 45mm. Waiting for my Ilford film to arrive, then I’ll develop and scan the negs myself. Later, I’ll shoot some chrome & color negative too 👍
Smoother tones also comes down to the scanner. Yea there is some improvement but I’d say it’s still the same look between 35mm and 645. Lenses also play a huge part in that. Use a nice Zeiss Panar on a 35mm and it’ll look very comparable to 645. And the gain in resolution is obviously only something needed for printing. And you’d have to print pretty large with the intention of having the frame be hanging somewhere where it can be closely inspected. Then it’s really spectacular. For anything day to day 35mm will give you usually better low light capability and a shallower depth of field unless you’re using one of the 80mm f2 lenses.
I really like the results from my bronica ETRS 645, but i prefer to use my “Texas” rangefinder, the Fuji GL690. I dont shoot that many film and buy mostly cheap expired film, so cost is not that much of an issue to me. By the way I also do panoramas on that camera by using 35mm film - with some amazing results.
Awesome video and keep up the great work! To be honest, I love 35mm and I am glad I didn't jump to a medium format size because of the hassle of developing and scanning. I can barely find places to develop my film around Boston...
Tremendously helpful video Kyle. Thank you. I am looking into this as I am getting back into photography after several decades and would like to add larger format to my X570 35mm SLR for various reasons including eyesight. :D I have a DuoFlex (essentially a box camera) that I intend to play with but I hope to eventually get something a bit more "serious". As I am looking at it I think that as you say there is a lot to recommend the little brother format. It is a clear upgrade from the 35. As I see it a lot of the question relates to aspect ratio. In my mind 1.25:1 is the ideal ratio (8x10) unless you plan to print a lot of 8x12. Both 35mm and 6x9 are kind of wasteful in that regard as their 1.5 ratio loses a lot of the length in printing. 6x7 and 6x4.5 are both more efficient with 6x4.5 being slightly long and 6x7 being slightly tall but having some resolution advantage. Another I think reasonable approach which can minimize waste while adding flexibility is to go with 6x6 and make a 6x4.8 mask for your waist level finder. You can easily shoot square where desired and print 8x8 on matte board or crop to match the mask for standard 8x10 prints. One downside I see to the 6x4.5 is that there don't seem to be a lot of purely mechanical cameras to choose from. On trick I intend to try for the transition is to try shooting lower speed 35mm print film such as 50 or 25 ASA in my Minolta as it should give a similar depth of field v.s. shutter speed to standard speeds in MF. I think that would help me to learn the feel of shooting MF even though I don't get the same high res results.
645 is a great format! A good step up from 35mm without going super big with a 6x7 or the cost of a Hasselblad/Rolleiflex to get 6x6. Plus I love working with my Mamiya m645.
Nice video! Thank you! I love the 645 Pentax just because it is so much lighter the carry around then my 67 Pentax. And those images from the 645 are nice. But when it comes to doing something that is planed the 67 is always the camera. It's just an amazing camera and great size. But most important is to get started! )))
Thank you for sharing - in film days I shot withe a Yashica 6x6 TLR camera beside my 35 mm Pentax - and when I returned shooting film 2009 I started with a Pentax 645 and several lens... but I was always anoyed by the battery driven film advance. Meanwhile I changed to Pentax 6x7 and love the style of shooting - and als long as I use a flat bed scanner the 6x7 gives me a significant further advantage in scanning quality.
The 645 stands on its own , not as beginners only , it’s my walk around most preferred camera , equipped with the dark knight 80mm F1.9 its an amazing unique tool .
645 has a sort of 35mm ease, especially with the 645n, with some of the medium format pop. At the same time, back when 6x9 was the smallest medium format size (when 116, 122, 118, 616, were also around)... 645 was considered half frame (ie: kodak duex). I like 645, but most of the time if I'm gonna want a fully automatic experience, I'll shoot 35, and use 6x9 when I want medium format pop.
I went from 645 to 6x7 and it was pretty nice but I was probably not ready for that jump. Kept going back and forth. However I got a Bronica Sq and now I can't get enough of 6x6 It is so fun to shoot this format my creativity for some reason is just better with that format.
I couldn't tell you how many times I gave people 8×10 enlargements from preview photos,and heard them say WOW.The 645 is easier to hand hold than bulky 6x6 slrs,without compromising quality.
645 is a budget friendly format and a good upgrade from 35mm. I sometimes use 645 back on Hassleblad. Just remember that eliminates the option for a vertical framed picture. The 6X6 however, conveniently works both ways.
Hi Kyle, I don't know if you read this comment but I have one question and one tip for you. The question - are you applying a lot of sharpening to your files? The grain, especially in the 645 files is very prominent and it looks oversharpened, at least in youtube. The Tip - I also use an Nikon 9000 and I only can recommend getting Nikon Scan to work. I tried Vuescan, Silverfast, Negative Lab pro, Negmaster (which is way better than Negative Lab pro by the way), ColorNeg and I was never pleased with colors, and they were never consistent. Nikon Scan is very easy to use once you figured it out and is the first solution which gives me perfect conversion with every film stock right out of the box, even with Ektar. It was like a revelation after fiddling around so much. Greetings from Germany Christian
It depends also on the quality of the glass. For 35mm there are many more (good) lenses available. In the end, it comes down to pixel peeping only. I sold my medium format stuff and returned to 35mm. These cameras are much better. versatile and even cheaper.
Guys who say 645 is a poor format are just talking without experience usually. I have a Bronica ETRSi that I shoot and I love it. I have a GS-1 too, and that's great. I also have a Horseman VH-R 6x9, and that does things and catches shots the other medium formats simply won't. Point being? Different tools for different tasks. 645 is absolutely a capable format, with a GREAT quality in the negatives combined with transportability.
I only jumped into film on the past 12 months but can honestly say that the amount of negativity I hear when I say I purchased or use a 645 really surprised me. Doesn’t fit with the narrative about the film community. Great vid Kyle!
Great Ideas you pointed out. I never tried any medium format. I jump between 35mm to 8X10 View Camera. The closest I can do at this very moment. Is a old Kodak 616 Box Camera. Not even in the same league and generations apart. But it does work.
I think it's nuts when people talk trash on 645. I've spent years on a Hasselblad (film AND digital), Mamiya Rz/RB/7 and with 4x5 and even a little 8x10 ... and 645 still strikes such a perfect balance of resolution and space with not feeling so constrained by frame count. I think the way people treat it like an inferior format is ignorance and/or gatekeeping. Great overview.
@@JamieMPhoto I have a speed graphic and shoot 4x5 very sparingly due to the insane costs lol. But those images are unreal a 4x5 velvia slide is just mind-blowing.
35 to 645 is a HUGE step up,and the mamiya is a great choice,affordable and a lot of sharp lenses available.the draw back being the next logical step is 4x5...which leaves them both in the dust...it's only money. good video.
The Mamiya 645 is a great entry level or continuing MF camera. The gear is very affordable. There is an assortment of Mamiya bodies (m645) to grow into, once you determine if it's for you or not, the lenses are interchangeable between all of them. There are also lens adapters to mount your Mamiya lenses on your DSLR (I have 2 from FotoDiox (one with and one without the ND throttle).
Still at the beginning of the video but I have an ETRSI and in my experience there’s certainly more resolution, less obvious grain, the depth of field at the same focal length and aperture is perceived as “less” than 35mm. But I don’t find any of the ETRSI Lenses I have (I’ve only tried three) really blow me away in the way that my hasselblad lenses sometimes do. Also for beginners you have to remember that most 645 cameras top out at 1/500th or 1/1000th. So you arent shooting anywhere close to wide open with say portra 400 In daylight without ND filters (which adds focusing difficulty if you’re shooting run and gun on an SLR, I’d don’t find my metered prism to be very bright).
I tried the Bronica ETRSi once for a few months, when it was current. The results were underwhelming. The lenses were contrasty but lacking in detail and tonal discrimination. I was shooting Pentax MX and dabbling with old Spotmatics and SVs. The Pentax lenses and bodies left the Bronica images way behind. Tonality, detail, plasticity colour were inferior to Pentax glass. 35mm beat 645 in that case in all but frame area. The Mamiya 645 was excellent and inexpensive and has spectacular glass. The Pentax 645 system has glass that is very special. The Fuji 645 systems have brilliance. In professional circles there was snobbery aimed at 645. The most revered formats were 66, 67, 69. I used RB67 and it was spectacular. The Pentax 67 glass was mind blowing. Mamiya’s 67 rangefinder is considered gold-standard. The ergonomics of medium format are important. Some cameras demand that you are very deliberate and slow and pay attention to very fine adjustment. RB67 can be that sort of experience. Pentax 67 is more of a field camera and you can work faster and more intuitively. Pentax 645 is the same and can carry a good degree of automation. The Fujifilm Rangefinder 645 bodies really appeal to me as field cameras, yet again capable of great automation if you want it. The Mamiya 645 felt modern and Japanese against the European 6x6 Hasselblads in the field. The 6x6 format meant you could decide about landscape/portrait/square and never need to turn the camera body on its side or fix a pentaprism. A picture editor could take your 6x6 images and land it on a magazine page cropped to a T. Few people shot 645 because most work was editorial and the snobbery arose from the picture editors. Good 645 is as punchy as good 35mm, as detailed as good 6x6 as tonal as medium format is famed for but picture editors hated not cropping from a square.
In terms of a beginner jump into medium format, 645 is also easier to DSLR scan than something like 6x6. I shot a TLR for the past year and eventually switched to a Pentax 645n just because I didn’t feel like I was getting all I could out of my scans.
I tried 645 out for a few months and couldn't gel with it. Preferred my 35mm rangefinder instead. I love the 6x6 format though and prefer that over 645/6x7
I would like to mention that I have several SLR cameras from the late 70's and early 80's, many of them with 50mm prime lenses, after testing them on my DLSRs (With adapters) I am surprised of how soft many of these lenses are. If you have access to Canon glas and lenses like Sigma ART or L lenses and can put that on a EOS film SLR the difference is very noticeable. So the sharpness differencess isn't always because of the format size alone.
