![contax 645 negative contax 645 negative](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5852290a15d5db7317b3febd/1563147416958-1Y7S8HRAZSN4S1LEMO5Q/Contax645_3.jpg)
And better tonal gradation due to 1.8x as much film grains in the neg (in each direction) to portray the same subject.Ī Bronica ETR series camera with the speed winder and 90 degree prism is relatively small and handles like a 35mm SLR. And then there was the fact that the same film used in both cameras had 55% of the grain size in the same 8" print due to the lower enlargement factor with the MF neg. So MF lens to be 'excelleint' might need to deliver only 44 line-pairs per millimeter (80 * 0.55) that was not difficult to achieve, and on-film tests would typically reveal more detail in the MF print. A middle-of-road 135 format lens might fall into the 'Good' 64 line-pairs per millimeter range, an 'Excellent' lens fall into 80 line-pairs per millimeter, the rare 'Exceptional' lens might have 120 line-pairs per millimeter. Unfortunately, while we can find historically the lens resolution and contrast from many 135 format lenses, via lens tests by Modern Photography or Popular Photography, we see few equivalent tests for larger formats, so it is difficult to get objective comparisons. So 645 can provide 55% of the lens resolution and still equal the detail delivered to film for a given subject. 645 format is 24mm:43mm using the short dimension of the frame.
![contax 645 negative contax 645 negative](https://emulsive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Gear-Comparison-Another-view-of-the-Contax-645-and-Pentax-645NII-cameras-1024x768.jpg)
My shooting style, even when doing street, is pretty slow and intentional so I'm not hugely fussed by the cost difference in film, it'd still take me a while to get through a roll of 16 on 645.Ĭomparing 135 format vs. Would the resolution difference of 645 still be a big deal then? Alternatively I could invest more heavily in 35mm, maybe jumping ship to Contax to get my hands on a Planar, or really saving up and getting a Leica M2 and some modern Voigtlander glass. I know the "645 is no better than 35mm" thing is mostly rubbish, it's still a huge jump in format, but what about when you bring different quality optics into it? The Pearl has a decent Tessar, and apparently for a folder it's pretty good, but it's still an old folder. If the RF645 wasn't destined to be an electronically dead brick one day I'd seriously consider selling everything and just getting one. Currently that's 35mm (Canon 7 & Olympus OM1), but I'm thinking of getting a compact 645 setup instead, namely a Konica Pearl folder because there's no way I can afford the Bronica RF645 I actually want, and I had the Fuji GS645S but didn't love the handling or fragility. I'm looking for a walk around camera to supplement my more 'serious' medium format gear (Rolleiflex & Bronica SQ) for some intentional street photography.