35mm vs. 645 help
James Yeatman
between 35mm and 645, if good equipment is used, for making 8x10 or 11x14/16
prints? I had a Fuji 645 G at one time, but had trouble getting film
developed/printed where I live and when I did not see that much difference
between the two. Now with film scanners and good printers, I'm wondering if
I should give it another try. You can buy a Mamiya 645e, right now, at a
great price, but why if there is really not that great a difference.
Thanks, Jim
Kevin Neilson
MF vs. 35mm Slamfest!
-Kevin
"James Yeatman" <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Maimya
can't. I don't know why.
Regarding that scanner: If you want digital images, get a digital SLR.
Scanned negs and slides lose a lot in the translation, unless you use the
high-end drum scanners. Then they only lose a little. Either way, scanning
is a pain, and doesn't take full advantage of the slied or neg. If you want
the best prints, shoot neg film and print using traditional methods.
"James Yeatman" <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Jeffery S. Harrison
with the difference visible even in 4x5 prints. There should be a similar
difference between 35mm and 645 (of course this assumes you're using lenses
of similar quality and the same film emulsion for the comparison). You
should be able to get good 120/220 processing by mail if it isn't available
locally -- you don't have to have everything processed in 1 hour and the
quality is worth the wait.
Jeffery S. Harrison
Frank Pittel
: It depends on who you ask. I can see a difference from 8 x 10 and up. Others
: can't. I don't know why.
: Regarding that scanner: If you want digital images, get a digital SLR.
: Scanned negs and slides lose a lot in the translation, unless you use the
: high-end drum scanners. Then they only lose a little. Either way, scanning
: is a pain, and doesn't take full advantage of the slied or neg. If you want
: the best prints, shoot neg film and print using traditional methods.
Yes but most people never get prints larger then 4x6 so what difference does it
make. I think 35mm is good enough. ( this should push the troll over the edge )
: "James Yeatman" <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
: news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
:> What is the opinion of this group about the difference in print quality
:> between 35mm and 645, if good equipment is used, for making 8x10 or
: 11x14/16
:> prints? I had a Fuji 645 G at one time, but had trouble getting film
:> developed/printed where I live and when I did not see that much difference
:> between the two. Now with film scanners and good printers, I'm wondering
: if
:> I should give it another try. You can buy a Mamiya 645e, right now, at a
:> great price, but why if there is really not that great a difference.
:> Thanks, Jim
:>
:>
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Bill Hilton
>What is the opinion of this group about the difference in print quality
>between 35mm and 645, if good equipment is used, for making 8x10 or 11x14/16
>prints?
I shoot a lot of 35 mm (usually wildlife with long lenses) and a lot of 645 and
6x7 cm medium format, usually landscapes. For 8x10" prints it's hard to see
much difference in print quality (I know some people will strongly disagree
with this, but that's what it looks like to me). Wife and I recently had an
exhibition of 16 prints, half 35 mm and half MF, all printed at 11x14", and I
feel the 35's still looked very similar to the MF images even at this
magnification. For my eyes the real turning point is 16x20", where the MF is a
clear winner.
These prints were from fine grained films (Velvia or Provia 100F or Tmax 100)
scanned with a 4000 dpi film scanner. Grainier films look worse at these
magnifications so a lot depends on the film choice too.
Unfortunately this topic brings out the zealots on both sides of the issue, as
some will claim you get great prints from 35 mm out to 20x30" and others claim
you can't get a good 4x6" print from 35 mm. Maybe the best way to judge is to
have a quality print from each format and decide for yourself :)
Bill
Jeffery Harrison
things like tonality and for any given emulsion smaller visible grain fromt
he larger negative (when the grain is visible anyway). My 6x7 negative
definitely look better at all sizes though the "better" in the small 4x5 --
8x10 range is more of a feel than something you would necessarrily be able
to put a finger on as soon as you see it. Likewise, I have gotten good
20x30's from my 35mm too (I wouldn't call them great but they're certainly
better than just passable).
For what little it's worth I typically shoot Provia 100F, Ektachrome E100S
and E100SW or the various Portra print films in both formats. RZ67 Pro II
and Mamiya 7 II for medium format and various Nikon bodies (F5, F100, F4s,
F3HP and FM2n) with top-end Nikon glass on them for the hardware.
Jeffery S. Harrison
Mark Morgan
"James Yeatman" <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Here's a link that shows direct comparisons between not only 35mm and MF,
but also digital camera images.
It is very interesting and intelligent.
Check at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#introduction
It's one big long page, but the index at the top will shoot you to the
portion of the page you wish to read.
There are a great number of side-by-side comparisons.
Excellent, informative.
-mm
Tony Spadaro
needed to do 35mm and those needed for 645. My top of the line 35mm scanner
is about half the price of the model that will do med format -- and that's
about a 1500 dollar difference.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"James Yeatman" <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
jriegle
64) you can get decent 8x10s and okay 11x14s. 11x14 is the limit of 35mm for
me. My personal rule for enlarging film is not to enlarge beyond 10x. For
35mm the 11x14 size is the closest common size. The 6x4.5 format is good for
enlargements up to 24x18 given the same lens and film conditions.
I love 35mm for it's convenience. I can get fine enlargements using better
film and lenses but I've shot 6x6 as well and there is no doubt to its
superiority in enlargability.
John
James Yeatman <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Nick Zentena
If you can't get the film processed it's not worth much but if you can
handle that then IMHO any MF [even 6x4.5] gives a better print. You can see
it in a contact print.
OTOH if you take a good picture with 35mm and print it well then at small
sizes like 8x10 the difference won't be huge.
While the 645e is almost damn cheap you can get things like old TLRs and
folders for a fraction of the price. Why don't you try and find something
like that? You'll get to judge for yourself and that's with equipment that's
hardly state of the art. Folders are also fun to carry around. My 6x9 folder
is smaller then many paperback books.
Nick
Maimya
800. But if you want bigger prints, then the bigger the neg, the better the
prints.
"Frank Pittel" <f...@wizard.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:WI-dnXla0OZ...@giganews.com...
Gordon Moat
place making those prints can erase some of the quality of the medium format.
If you are shooting transparency film, the difference in colour quality should
be apparent on a light table, when compared to 35 mm.
Other than the film, the difference in camera sizes and shapes, range of
available lenses, and film loading are the biggest differences. Many 645
cameras are box design, and not quite as ergonomic as 35 mm when hand held. 35
mm cameras offer convenience, automation, availability of long telephoto
lenses, and ultra wide angle lenses. A few 645 format cameras are small, and
somewhat easy to use, like the Fuji choices, and the Bronica RF645. There are
also old folders in 645, but they are not very easy to use, despite their
simplicity.
If you are considering a Mamiya 645E, I suggest you try one out first. If you
can rent it, that would be the best idea. If you can only handle one at a
store, try holding it to frame landscape and portrait oriented shots, and see
if you like using it hand held. While this model is somewhat light, the square
shape is much bulkier than 35 mm bodies. Try to compare this with some other
645 choices, like the Bronica ETRSi, the more expensive Mamiya 645s, Pentax
645, and the Contax 645.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Mike Lipphardt
> Here's a link that shows direct comparisons between not only 35mm and MF,
> but also digital camera images.
> It is very interesting and intelligent.
>
> Check at:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#introduction
>
> It's one big long page, but the index at the top will shoot you to the
> portion of the page you wish to read.
> There are a great number of side-by-side comparisons.
>
> Excellent, informative.
> -mm
Thanks for this link! Very informative, and well done comparison of large
format vs 35mm, and a great discussion of digital resolution to match film.
With example pics and data. Unfortunate that it doesn't speak to the
comparison between 35mm and 645 (just 35mm vs 4x5), but it should settle a
lot of arguments, sicne there is a good 35mm vs digital comparison there.
Not to mention a discussion of what resolution makes for a sharp print.
Highly recommended. Go read it.
Mike
John
>No troll here. If all you need is 4x6 prints, 35mm is plenty. Even at ISO
>800. But if you want bigger prints, then the bigger the neg, the better the
>prints.
Exactly. My 5X7 Kodak makes really good 5X7's !
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
John Halliwell
Yeatman <jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com> writes
Print quality depends a lot on the... erm, well 'quality of the
printing' and as such isn't nailed down to a particular format, but
assuming everything else equal (seldom happens):
A medium format print will look better (all sizes although there is a
threshold where the difference is hard to spot). The tonal graduation is
much smoother and probably the most noticeable difference (unless really
big prints). Roll film processing is done by fewer labs and more likely
to be good compared to general 35mm processing (but again not guaranteed
to be).
More importantly, it depends how you work and what you're shooting. You
can shoot anything with medium format and get excellent results, but in
some cases 35mm might be a better choice (obvious ones are sports, press
and wildlife). Likewise any landscape worker who sets their gear up on a
tripod, should be able to shoot medium format without any problems
(except possibly heavier weight to lug around), setting up and shooting
35mm doesn't make sense to me.
35mm is easier to carry around, get out of the bag and shoot quickly,
which can be very important if your day isn't based around photography.
If scanning is important, medium format scanners are generally fewer in
number and more expensive. Lab based scanning can be extremely
expensive.
The Mamiya 645e is an excellent introduction to medium format, but make
sure it's what you're looking for (medium format systems come in many
different shapes and sizes - research the options fully before spending
a lot of cash). Cheap cameras are reasonably plentiful and offer ideal
introductions (I went Lubitel 166U, Mamiya C330F and Mamiya 645 Pro).
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Lewis Lang
>Subject: 35mm vs. 645 help
>From: "James Yeatman" jyeatman@NO*SPAM!houston.rr.com
>Date: Fri, Oct 25, 2002 11:23 PM
>Message-id: <1oku9.196298$8o3.5...@twister.austin.rr.com>
The questions are what kind of work do you shoot and why does the quality
difference matter to you. Years ago I did a comparison between Leica R and
Pentax 645. There was a definite difference in subtle detail and tonality and
less grain and more three dimensional presence with the 645 vs. the 35mm prints
(from the old Reala?).The 35mm looked excellent until you compared it to the
645 print results. But that was more? than a decade ago. 35mm films have way
improved since then (and so obviously have medium format films too :-)).
Talking from a decade ago's past experience/testing (but which I believe holds
true both in fact and principle today), 35mm is capable of really excellent
results at 8x10" w/ a moderate speed film, but even there, there will be a
discernible difference in tonality/detail/presence if not grain at that size.
At larger sizes the differences between it and 645 should become more and more
apparent - but even then, format is not the only factor, and if you use fine
grained films like Konica Impresa, Provia F100 and Velvia you shouldn't do too
shabilly w/ 35mm at 11x14" - even the old Fujichrome 50 (now sadly
discontinued) looked great in terms of grain and sharpness at 11x14" and still
quite decent at 16x20", today's higher speed 100 speed films should be able to
exceed the Fujichrome 50's and most likely the Kodachrome 64's quality in terms
of at least grain size and color saturation.
What do you want out of it and why? Are you doing landscapes where you want to
be able to see every stick and stone? Then you are probably better shooting
medium format or even 4x5" film. With people shots it would be more of a toss
up - for moving subjects I would choose 35mm and the highes speed film that
would still give me decently fine grain. For more studio controlled slower
paced people shots (portraiture and fashion) I would probably go for the medium
format if I could afford it (or stick w/ 35mm if I couldn't afford it.
In the end it would be better to do your own comparison tests and see whether
the cost vs. the quality of the results justifies going w/ 645 or not.
Equipment format choice (like film choice and other photographic technical and
artistic choices) is a very personal thing indeed. I like coffe ice cream and
you may like Rocky Road, its that selectively a matter of taste/preference
(P.S. - I believe I like Rocky Road too ;-)).
Even though I aim for (and achieve) good to excellent 16x20" quality prints
from 35mm, my technique is usually pretty impeccable and I'll tend to use a
tripod, or if I'm moving around, a flash for added sharpness ("flash is the
poor man's tripod" my quote). But I am doing mainly people work, PJ and surreal
conceptual narrative people and still life work (as well as in the past,
fashion photography). It wouldn't make much sense to flash an entire landscape
if that's the kind of photographer you are.
But I am not you. What I may find poor quality you might find excellent or vice
versa. So its something you really can't just accept others opinions on (even
if those opinions turn out to match both the facts and your quality/needs
preferences), its something you'll just have to find out by testing for
yourself (rent or borrow the extra equipment from a pro shop's rental
department, or better yet, a friend, if you can to do the test). Sorry, I'm not
trying to blow your question off but that's what it boils down to - you really
and literally need to see the results for yourself and how/whether you prefer
645 for its quality advantages or whether 35mm quality at those two sizes is
enough (or more or less than enough) for you.
In the end it boils down to what you can afford and what quality level(s) you
are satisfied with at which print sizes.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":