2:1, using 6x9 cropped or 35mm in 6x6. which is better

[blade_o]

Hello, so I want a camera with a 2:1 aspect ratio and 6x12 cameras are out of my price range. I'm looking at 2 options getting a older 6x9 folder (open to suggestions on models) , and just cropping when I print, or running 35mm film threw a 6x6 camera (probably a kiev 88) but here is my quandary, Im wondering which option would produce sharper results, on one hand a 6x9 will give me 90x45mm (vs 48x24mm) negatives, but will have an older and probably inferior lens to the whats available for the kiev. so what do people think will produce sharper results negative size or better glass. I'm also worried about film flatness in the kiev

additional info:
I know the Kiev will be more precise in its focus, and has interchangeable lenses, finders, ect
my budget is under $300 but even cheaper is better
I want to print mostly 10x20s and maybe some 15x30s

 

[ic-racer]

I was in that position a few years ago. I got a 6x9cm camera and also experimented using the Rolleiflex panorama attachment and gluing two 6x6 prints together. To continue the story, I then wound up with a 4x5" camera because it took the same lensboards as the 6x9cm camera and it was a fraction of the cost of a 6x12cm camera.

 

[darkosaric]

Consider also printing: If you use 35mm option - you can print those negatives in 6x6 enlarger.

 

[Kirks518]

I doubt you'd see any benefit to the 35mm when enlarged to 20" and 30". I'd always go for the larger negative. The bigger starting point gives a bigger end point.

 

[jeffreythree]

This is a topic I have dealt with a bit the last few months. First, 6x9 does not need to be an old folder. My Fuji GL 690 was less than your budget has a great lens. Crop to panoramic to your heart's content. 35mm may not run very well through mf cameras since there is nothing to hold it flat or straight. A third option could be a Horizont panoramic camera. They are in your budget as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It could be decided on technical quality such as negative size, but in your case and most cases, it is decided by what one can afford or by what one must give or of forego to take the panoramic photograph.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hello, so I want a camera with a 2:1 aspect ratio and 6x12 cameras are out of my price range. I'm looking at 2 options getting a older 6x9 folder (open to suggestions on models) , and just cropping when I print, or running 35mm film threw a 6x6 camera (probably a kiev 88) but here is my quandary, Im wondering which option would produce sharper results, on one hand a 6x9 will give me 90x45mm (vs 48x24mm) negatives, but will have an older and probably inferior lens to the whats available for the kiev. so what do people think will produce sharper results negative size or better glass. I'm also worried about film flatness in the kiev

Um, er, ah, the exact frame size depends on the camera but most 2x3 (6x9 in metric) cameras and roll holders have gates that are 56 mm high by 78 to 82 mm long. Nominal 6x6 cameras have gates that are 56 mm square. 41 mm won't blow up satisfactorily to 15". 24 mm? 15x? Not a chance.

If you must use an unreliable Kiev, why not shoot 120 film and crop? This will save you the bother of making the Kiev handle 35 mm film. If you don't want to use an unreliable Kiev, there are many fine fixed lens 6x6 TLRs around.

About crappy old lenses. Yes indeed, some old lenses on folders are crappy. But the way you're going to crop image quality in the corners of the frame is of no concern. Go for a folder with a Tessar type lens.

6x12 camera? Why, when there are 6x12 roll holders that will fit 4x5 cameras with Graflok/International backs? If you're patient you can find a used Cambo SC-2 for under $150 delivered and a DaYi (or the like) 6x12 roll holder for not much more than that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot has to do with how consistently that film is being held to begin with. If your gear is in proper order, and you know how to properly focus it, 6x9
will enlarge far better than 35mm simply due to its significantly bigger area. But there are a lot of horribly rickety roll film backs out there; and
not all field cameras have strong enough construction to hold the focus plane of a supplemental back reliably.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, its worse than you think. The OP was wondering whether to get a rickety 2x3 folder or an unreliable 6x6 Kiev.

 

[MattKing]

I would put a homemade mask into the viewfinder of my RB67 and crop in the darkroom.

 

[Rick A]

For a cheap 6x9 folder($20-$50)Kodak Tourist with a 4.5/105 Anaston in a Flash Kodamatic shutter is pretty sharp. Always been one of my favorites. You do need to rewpool film to fit the 620, or modify it to accept 120(easier than you think, I've done several).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-Touri...277629?hash=item1a111d397d:g:PnwAAOSwJQdXABct

 

[bsdunek]

I would put a homemade mask into the viewfinder of my RB67 and crop in the darkroom.

Right. Assuming the same film, a 24 X 36 mm section is exactly the same wether it's from a 35mm roll or cropped out of a 60mm roll. I do load 35mm film in my Mamiya Super 23, but that's because I want the sprocket holes in the print.

 

[flatulent1]

My Holga 120 Pano is 6x12. But you want sharp... Sorry, can't help.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello, so I want a camera with a 2:1 aspect ratio and 6x12 cameras are out of my price range. I'm looking at 2 options getting a older 6x9 folder (open to suggestions on models) , and just cropping when I print, or running 35mm film threw a 6x6 camera (probably a kiev 88) but here is my quandary, Im wondering which option would produce sharper results, on one hand a 6x9 will give me 90x45mm (vs 48x24mm) negatives, but will have an older and probably inferior lens to the whats available for the kiev. so what do people think will produce sharper results negative size or better glass. I'm also worried about film flatness in the kiev

additional info:
I know the Kiev will be more precise in its focus, and has interchangeable lenses, finders, ect
my budget is under $300 but even cheaper is better
I want to print mostly 10x20s and maybe some 15x30s

You will also print with different enlarging lenses;too many variables too predict;just try it out; a 6x9 folder won't break the bank.

 

[wiltw]

A. 135 in Med Format camera...frame area 24mm x 48mm image area, B. shoot 6x9 and crop to 2:1, image area (about) 40mm x 80mm
Enlarge both to 20" x 40" and you are employing 21X magnification of the 135 image to make the print and just under 13X magnification of the medium format image. At 21X you will be seeing quite apparent grain in the enlargment, while at 13X the grain will not be very apparent.

While quality of the enlarging lens does enter the gestalt of the photo, I would say differences arising from enlarging lens choice -- when a comparable quality enlarging lens is used regardless of format (e.g. both Schneider Componon) -- would not make a significant enough difference to define your choice.

You need to weigh in your mind A. how objectionable would grain be vs B. any apparent difference in detail resolution or contrast between a 35mm format lens vs. a medium format lens for the chosen alternative bodies. Even without comparing lens performance, my own bias would be to find the grain pattern the limiting factor -- unless the medium format lens was truly attrocious!

 

[darinwc]

More to consider.. 6x9s, even folders, are quite large. And you really need a tripod to keep it stable.
-At that point, there is not much to stop you from just going to 4x5.

 

[narsuitus]

2:1, using 6x9 cropped or 35mm in 6x6. which is better

I think the 6x9 is the better method.

However, I would prefer a cropped image from 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film in a do-it-yourself pinhole camera.