35mm in a Mamiya 645?

cardiff_gareth

cardiff_gareth

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,734
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all,

I was wondering if anyone here was using 35mm in their Mamiya 645, the version without the interchangable backs? Been looking online at there seems to be a simular theme about using spacers you can buy online from eBay etc but some say to use a 120 insert with a waste 35mm long film leader, and others say to use the 220 insert instead as 220 doesn't have the backing paper and thus doesn't need the long leader. The only thing that I was unsure about was one person mentioned having to build up the take up spool on the one end to make it thicker so it fools the film counter so the camera knows there is a film in it so it winds on properly?

So, does anyone use 35mm in their Mamiya and is the above right?!

Thanks
 
erm you lose all the advantages of MF why not just use a 35mm camera......well assuming you have one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Perhaps because the frame is longer than 35mm? Cheaper X-Pan...
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Exactly this. The frame is 6cm long so nearly twice as long as a normal 35mm so it'd replicate nearly what an Xpan would give me for not a lot of money!
Click to expand...
Ah well just me thinking different to you and not seeing your point of view :rolleyes: in that for my Etrsi I want the advantages for MF and with a 35mm camera have plenty of primes and zooms to use and can do panos.
 
There are some disadvantages to this.

The first is that the film will present in portrait (as per the second video), if you require landscape the camera need to be turn 90 degrees not comfortable with a WLF, you would need a prism finder. sorry may have this wrong I now think that it would present in landscape.

The second is that the film cannot be rewound in camera, so you would have to rewind in a changing bag or darkroom.
 
Last edited:
I've done this with a Pentax 645 and spacers (mine were from Analogue Wonderland). I tested it with a short roll and it was fine. Never did more than that as I got a Sprocket Rocket and a 6x17 which ticked the boxes for my pano needs.
 
I just had a really quick look and I'm not seeing a massive price difference between 35mm and 120. Am I missing something?
 
I take the point about the rewinding, but wouldn't it be possible to wind into another cassette? I realise that this may not be as easy as it used to be now that 35mm film comes in cassettes that you have to destroy (almost) to extract the film, but reloadable cassettes do appear sometimes (I have a Pentax one).
 
Come to think of it if you want a MF pano why not take two shots and stitch them together....some members have done this with TLRs.
 
Thanks all for the replies.

swanseamale47 said:
I just had a really quick look and I'm not seeing a massive price difference between 35mm and 120. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Running a 35mm film through the Mamiya and shooting a 6cm long 35mm neg is about £40 for the 220 insert and the adaptors for the film to fit in the insert.
Xpan is circa £4000!

excalibur2 said:
Come to think of it if you want a MF pano why not take two shots and stitch them together....some members have done this with TLRs.
Click to expand...

I have done this before and it was successful but wanted to see what it'd be like to have just a larger neg to use instead. Maybe I'm being lazy or just want the thrill of having a longer negative as they look 'cool'! Jokes aside, there's something about that image aspect ratio that I really like. Ever since seeing Josef Koudelka's images in his book Reconnaissance Wales I've really digged that ratio and how he represented Wales with his processing also and would like to shoot here in almost a homage to his work using a similar image size,

StephenM said:
I take the point about the rewinding, but wouldn't it be possible to wind into another cassette? I realise that this may not be as easy as it used to be now that 35mm film comes in cassettes that you have to destroy (almost) to extract the film, but reloadable cassettes do appear sometimes (I have a Pentax one).
Click to expand...

Like a bulk loader reusable cassette?

Harlequin565 said:
I've done this with a Pentax 645 and spacers (mine were from Analogue Wonderland). I tested it with a short roll and it was fine. Never did more than that as I got a Sprocket Rocket and a 6x17 which ticked the boxes for my pano needs.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the Sprocket Rocket but the reviews I saw of them weren't great and the focus seemed a little hit and miss. They look fun but not something that you can use seriously. A 6x17 camera I would really like but they're again serious money! Bit of a ying and yang in terms of costs between the two!

How were the images from the Pentax 645 using the 35mm film?

medwaygreen said:
There are some disadvantages to this.

The first is that the film will present in portrait (as per the second video), if you require landscape the camera need to be turn 90 degrees not comfortable with a WLF, you would need a prism finder. sorry may have this wrong I now think that it would present in landscape.

The second is that the film cannot be rewound in camera, so you would have to rewind in a changing bag or darkroom.
Click to expand...

Yes, saw the issue with loading and unloading! Note to self, take the changing bag out with me if I do try it out! I have a WLF and would need a prism finder to make landscape orientation images easier as with a WLF I can imagine that being a difficult juggling act.
 
Use 2 sets of spacers and an empty 35mm canister for take up, apart from the last couple of exposures, all your shots will be light safe when you open the back.

Using a 645 you will only get 45mm, not 60mm. To really push the boundaries try it in a 6x9
 
I've tried it in an RB67 to get negs 24mmx70mm. Worked OK and with the RB you can run portrait or landscape. I don't know about the Mamiya 645 but if I tried it in the 645 back for my Bronnie SQ-A, because the film runs top to bottom the longest side of the neg would be 45mm not 60mm.
 
cardiff_gareth said:
How were the images from the Pentax 645 using the 35mm film?
Click to expand...
Absolutely fine. As you'd expect from good glass in front of it. I went to dig out some images for you, and discovered though, that they were taken in my RB67 - so not an auto-camera. Please disregard my post, but if it will work in your camera, the results are great. Esp when you can crack out some MF DoF goodness.

2019-06-23-Foma100-RB67-08.jpg


The Sprocket is very imperfect as you say, but I quite like it. After trying this in the RB, I just wanted some proper MF panoramas and yes - the 6x17 is heavy, difficult to use, and 4 shots per roll is expensive. The results though surpass 35mm. It depends what you're doing. I like to print my panos quite big, and 35mm doesn't give me the same quality. If it's for internet use (or iphone wallpapers) though, it'll be fine. (Don't know if you have 5x4, but you can get a 6x17 back for it I think. Not sure on price though...)
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Ah! Why did I have it on my mind the film ran the other way in the camera. That changes everything with using this camera. 6x9 with 35mm, that sounds interesting!
Click to expand...
Quite a few cheap folding cameras out there to choose from.

The likes of the Fuji GW690, GSW690 or 680/670 tend to demand good money. That said I absolutely love the simplicity of my Mk 1 GSW690
 
Harlequin565 said:
. (Don't know if you have 5x4, but you can get a 6x17 back for it I think. Not sure on price though...)
Click to expand...

Pano on LF doesn’t require a specific back nor does it need roll film.

Intrepid has recently listed a pano device at an elevated price , a device that has not only been around for yonks , but one that can be obtained easily and with a bit of diy, adapted to serve its purpose as a ‘pano back’

I actually posted on here quite some time ago the process of cutting a darkslide.
I sorted my own for 10x8, this offering 4x10 inch panos .

@stevelmx5 helped produce a version for 5x7 with his plastic fantastic printing machine.

Splitting 5x4 format doesn’t interest me personally as I have the other larger sizes but of course it’s entirely possible.

The likelyhood is that with a mf camera and necessary rollback etc , the weight of kit exceeds that of LF ( 5x4 at least).
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
@stevelmx5 helped produce a version for 5x7 with his plastic fantastic printing machine.
Click to expand...

I have a 6x17 back for a 5x7, waiting on a 5x7 back for the Croma Carbon Adventurer.

One drawback with putting a 6x17 on a 4x5 is that it needs a spacer, about 20mm, to allow light to spread to 17cm and that makes it difficult to use wider angle lenses
 
cardiff_gareth said:
Thanks all for the replies.



Running a 35mm film through the Mamiya and shooting a 6cm long 35mm neg is about £40 for the 220 insert and the adaptors for the film to fit in the insert.
Xpan is circa £4000!



I have done this before and it was successful but wanted to see what it'd be like to have just a larger neg to use instead. Maybe I'm being lazy or just want the thrill of having a longer negative as they look 'cool'! Jokes aside, there's something about that image aspect ratio that I really like. Ever since seeing Josef Koudelka's images in his book Reconnaissance Wales I've really digged that ratio and how he represented Wales with his processing also and would like to shoot here in almost a homage to his work using a similar image size,



Like a bulk loader reusable cassette?



I was looking at the Sprocket Rocket but the reviews I saw of them weren't great and the focus seemed a little hit and miss. They look fun but not something that you can use seriously. A 6x17 camera I would really like but they're again serious money! Bit of a ying and yang in terms of costs between the two!

How were the images from the Pentax 645 using the 35mm film?



Yes, saw the issue with loading and unloading! Note to self, take the changing bag out with me if I do try it out! I have a WLF and would need a prism finder to make landscape orientation images easier as with a WLF I can imagine that being a difficult juggling act.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean the difference between the film and camera, I meant just use 120 and cut it down rather than 35mm
 
I guess it partly depends what ratio you want from a panoramic shot. The Bronica 35mm wide backs give a frame size of 24mm x 54 mm which I find wide enough, but the backs themselves are quite rare and expensive compared to trying an adapter in a cheap-ish MF folder if that would work? The photo below is from the Bronica 135W back taken on Ilford Delta 100 as an example of what that frame size looks like.

Passing place, Drynachan by Northsnapper, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top