Is there a logical replacement for the Bronica RF645?

[mathomas]

I'll second (third?) the recommendation of the GA645Zi. Great camera. I have more prints on the wall from that camera than any other I own.

[rbelyell]

just a tad OT, but i am curious as to the relative quality of smaller frame 645 vs 35mm vs other larger MF formats, eg 6x6&6x9? ive read, perhaps incorrectly, that one does not receive the kind of qualitative benefit over 35mm from 645 as one gets from 6x6 or 6x9... true/not true?
tony

[Abbazz]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

just a tad OT, but i am curious as to the relative quality of smaller frame 645 vs 35mm vs other larger MF formats, eg 6x6&6x9? ive read, perhaps incorrectly, that one does not receive the kind of qualitative benefit over 35mm from 645 as one gets from 6x6 or 6x9... true/not true?
tony

645 is roughly 2.5 times the size of 35mm, and the qualitative benefit is definitely there!

If you don't print square, then 6x6 is in fact the same size as 645.

6x9 is two times the size of 645, so another qualitative jump here, although not as big as from 35mm to 645.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[rbelyell]

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?
tony

[Matus]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?
tony

Sounds a bit off-topic here, but xpan is just 'stretched' (or imagine stitched 2 frames) of 35mm format.

[brian steinberger]

Originally Posted by ChrisN

Keith, I recall you made some good portraits with the Hasselblad and the 150 Sonar lens. Square is really the best option for portraits anyway!

My suggestion would be to put the $$ you were considering spending into more film, and just accept the 12 exposures per roll, and the superb performance of the Hasselblad kit.

I cannot argue with this logic. I recently bought a Hasselblad to do some portraiture and still lifes, things I couldn't with my RF's. And although rangefinders are absolutely my thing, when my Mamiya 6's and RF645's die, I know I will always be able to count on that Hassy until the day I die. I will continue to build that kit up over the years.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

thank you abbazz! would this 'quality' jump over standard 35mm also apply to say pano mode of the xpan?

It doesn't really make sense to compare a panoramic negative to a normal one because of the wildly different formats of the print. But if you compare, say, an Xpan panoramic negative to a crop of the same format from a normal 35mm negative, the quality difference is there.

[ath]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

just a tad OT, but i am curious as to the relative quality of smaller frame 645 vs 35mm vs other larger MF formats, eg 6x6&6x9? ive read, perhaps incorrectly, that one does not receive the kind of qualitative benefit over 35mm from 645 as one gets from 6x6 or 6x9... true/not true?
tony

I always look at this this way:
A 42*58cm print from 645 will be as grainfree / have the same tonality / sharpness as a 24*36cm print from 35mm or a 58*58cm print from 6x6 and so on.
Since I like to crop to 4:3 I get the same quality from a 42*56cm print as I get from a 24*32cm print from 35mm.

Obviously this does not include other parameters like lens and technique.