Is 645 medium format film that much better than 35mm?

I for myself dont see difference between 35 mm and 645. I get the MF feeling only beginning with 6x6 and above.

i really hate 6x7 and 6x6 aspect ratio... 6x8 is okay but 6x9 and 645 just makes me the most comfortable the resolution difference between the negatives really isn't that big except if you look at the extremes

Ive just bought a 645 back for my Bronica SQA
In portrait mode the image is back to front and upside down 🥹 what the actual 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫.

My God. Looks amazing!

A 35mm camera is a couple of stops faster in practice than a 645 or 6x6. I.e. where you’d get away with 100 iso in a 35mm, you’d probably opt for 400 iso film in a 645. This is something you seem to have overlooked in your comparison. A 645 with 400 iso film will still give better definition than a 35mm with 100 iso film. But it’s not the drastic (and unfair to 35mm format really) difference your video, where you compare using 400 iso film in both formats, indicates. Of course, it is also true that one can shoot 100 iso film in a 645! And there is no way 35mm can get close to that level of definition. In real-world hand-held photography though, a fairer comparison would have been between a 100iso film in 35mm format and a 400 iso film in 645 format.
Personally, I have made darkroom prints (no scanner in my workflow!) from 100 iso t-grain b&w 35mm negs that you would intuitively guess were taken with a larger format like 645.
Again, you are introducing an unfair test of 35mm by introducing scanning into the equation.
But fair enough, if your experiment is to compare scans of 400iso film in 35mm with that of scans of 400iso film in 645mm, the 645 scans will reign supreme, and the difference will be quite apparent and obvious.
However, using film speeds that are more appropriate to each format, and doing analogue printing (how film was designed to be used, don’t forget), the difference in definition is not that mind blowing.

And add to that the obvious practical advantages of 35mm - easier to handle, to process, the better handling of the cameras (generally), hugely vaster lens choices, faster lenses (translates to brighter viewfinder images) and smaller, cheaper camera bodies, the ‘pro level’ versions of which are still viable and as durable as MF bodies.

Music at the begining, who is the artist?

Everything is good, nothing is good.

Great video. Would appreciate some composition tips.

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

Dang the colours are really nice, might be the best alternative for a frontier or noritsu

Yes it absolutely is

My first non-instax medium format may be a gx617....

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.

Which film did you use here?

One issue no one talks about is vibration from SLR mirror slap. Has anyone done a study comparing different cameras. My guess is that larger mirrors like Pentax 6x7 & RB67 are worse.

You should drop a download for the .tiff files so we can see the photos in full.

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.

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.

Hi! It would be really interesting if you scanned both negative sizes to be the same file size. That would show the real limits of them. You might be able to get similar detail out of a 35mm negative with a better scanning method as you did out of 645 via this method. With a high enough resolution, you could see where the 35 really starts lacking detail and the 645 keeps on giving.

cool vid, thank you.

the gas station almost looks like my motorcycle club in GTA V online

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.

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.

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.

When people want to know if they should go with 6x4.5 or 6x7 just say yes. :)

This is a 'semi digital' video..... If you are going to shoot film and develop the negative, why scan or DSLR scan the negative and then process it on photoshop etc? You might as well get a digital medium format camera and work straight through.. I love film and the traditional way of enlargement / printing

Technically the 120 film are not better than the 135 film, but the area of film inside a medium Camera are so large that you get a much better result when you enlarge the image !

Your images are all washed out exposure is an issue why look at your blacks and shadows they are way too washed out not separation in the blacks and the highlights are blown out all to do with bad exposure

645 vs 35 is about a 35 megapixel difference........54 vs 19

The difference between the two on my screen isnt that big. If you print on the dark room big big images im sure it's a difference. But for smaller prints is it really better ? Im gonna wait a bit more before to get my 645. Hahahaha ill have some time to put money aside as well xD

Grear video by the way. Really good quality content.

I like having my little Rollei 35 in my pocket with me to shoot decent quality "full frame". But I just LOVE shooting 645 (with my very portable Fuji GA 645 Zi. Certainly worth it, because I get a lot more keepers than with 35mm. 6x6 medium format gives you also great picture quality, but I find more often than not my scenes simply are not square. Certainly not landscapes!

I’ve been shooting a Pentax 645 since 1995 and it absolutely does a great job of capturing excellent detail in my landscape images!
Great video..

Hi Kyle , were these shot on mamiya 645 1000s? how to you find the sharpness on the 80mm 2.8 ? i have the same. sharpness seems to suffer compared to my standard dslr nikon lenses

I love the 35mm look and grain.

And here I am looking at a tiny Minox 35 GT :)

Very helpful video, thanks for your work on it.

No doubt 35mm is an easier and cheaper way to get into film. But when developing, scanning, and printing at home, 35mm simply doesn't give you the same bang for the effort as does 645. I love my Mamiya 645 AFD-III. It's got relatively modern Schneider glass and the MF look is definitely there over 35mm.

Beautiful camera and some stunning images too!

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!

It depends on what you want, like you said. For me 35mm is the best for portability.
But I only shoot for my own pleasure and no big prints.
If if were for work or a project, medium format gives you a bigger flexibility. Great video showing the difference.

He concludes that scans of 35mm do not have the detail and overall image quality of a similar scan of a 645 format image. No surprise there. However, were you to actually print those negatives in a darkroom, the differences between the two formats would slap you in the face. Those who suggest otherwise are usually those folks who do have an end-goal of posting their images on websites or social media. That goal requires almost no image quality and can be as easily achieved with my 10+ year old, 8-meg Canon digital point-n-shoot.

In my opinion, the advantages of medium format film are its depth of field and the field of view for the same size object on film

Now that’s a lot of hair.
I’m always vexed that in tests like this, that people don’t zoom in properly to detail so you can really see the detail.
I mean pixel level detail.
Why not‽
That’s the only way you are going to see a significant difference on a screen.

A bigger sensor size allows for a shallower depth of field, so it's easier to get nice bokeh behind subjects without being right up next to them.

The thing is I'll look for videos about different film stocks and I'd be looking for videos for the 35mm ones but frustratingly, it seems like the vast majority are for medium format and I'm just thinking "come on, not everyone can afford that shet" "is this my queue to start saving up?" - anyone able to relate? lol

After shooting with the RB67 for a little over a year, I’ve found myself struggling with the size. I’m thinking of taking a step back and trying out the 645. I find myself shooting more when I have smaller kits. Will I notice much of a difference going from 67 to 645?