4x5 cameras small as 9x12

[Algo después]

I would never use my 9X12cm cameras if I had to chop film to use them, but I do use them often with bought Foma and Ilford films in 9X12cm. It's just as easy as shooting 4X5 that way. Plus, it gives you the feeling of really stepping back into the past.

yikes! I suppose it wouldn´t cut a standard 4x5 film either, even worse with the price it sells these days. That is precisely why working with xray film it seems (at least for me as a newbie) the most viable way to shoot with such cameras; deal with the margin of error before jumping to "real" film, with no holes in my pockets.

BTW I love the spirit of the Foma guys, triple like for them. Absolutely romantic (in a good sense) keeping the 9x12 format alive in affordable prices. I just wish someone to dare to produce it with color film, although we already know that this is a utopia

 

[xya]

I have a patent etui and I use it with 9x12 film https://www.oddcameras.com/kw_patent_etui_9x12.htm . on the site are some more 9x12 cameras. as I'm in germany, film is not a problem.

I have thought about converting a 9x12 to 4x5. I think I will try with my linhof standard. that's bigger, but still considerably less than my graflexes. the linhof can change lenses and the back rotates.

 

[Donald Qualls]

These days, we once again also have the option to use our 9x12 cameras with glass plates. Advantages: no search for film sheaths if yours didn't come with them, even more of the "back in time" experience, can develop by inspection under red safelight. Disadvantages: relatively slow, and effective speed change through the day (due to light color change with ortho or blue-sensitive emulsion). In the USA, J. Lane (@Nodda Duma here) sells these in blue-sensitive 1870 style, or in ortho "speed plate" a la 1890s; in Europe, you'll save a lot of shipping by buying Zebra Plates from a guy in (IIRC) Serbia, but they're blue-sensitive and slow only, he doesn't offer ortho and ISO 25.

Yes, part of the reason the Patent Etui (or even more conventional, box-shaped 9x12 plate cameras) can be so much smaller than the smallest 4x5 is that the plate holder has very little extra structure -- either in thickness (one plate and just enough metal to hold it) or on the edges (still just enough metal to hold and mate with the camera mount. Most of these cameras did originally have ground glass backs, but many of these have been lost or discarded by the ignorant in the 80+ to 120 years since the cameras were made (as is the case with detachable accessories of any sort for any camera). This is the same reason it's so much "fun" to find film sheaths, but at least those aren't brand dependent; any 9x12 sheath will fit any 9x12 plate holder.

@Bill Burk I think what you're after is called a "sandbag."

 

[John Wiegerink]

These days, we once again also have the option to use our 9x12 cameras with glass plates. Advantages: no search for film sheaths if yours didn't come with them, even more of the "back in time" experience, can develop by inspection under red safelight. Disadvantages: relatively slow, and effective speed change through the day (due to light color change with ortho or blue-sensitive emulsion). In the USA, J. Lane (@Nodda Duma here) sells these in blue-sensitive 1870 style, or in ortho "speed plate" a la 1890s; in Europe, you'll save a lot of shipping by buying Zebra Plates from a guy in (IIRC) Serbia, but they're blue-sensitive and slow only, he doesn't offer ortho and ISO 25.

Yes, part of the reason the Patent Etui (or even more conventional, box-shaped 9x12 plate cameras) can be so much smaller than the smallest 4x5 is that the plate holder has very little extra structure -- either in thickness (one plate and just enough metal to hold it) or on the edges (still just enough metal to hold and mate with the camera mount. Most of these cameras did originally have ground glass backs, but many of these have been lost or discarded by the ignorant in the 80+ to 120 years since the cameras were made (as is the case with detachable accessories of any sort for any camera). This is the same reason it's so much "fun" to find film sheaths, but at least those aren't brand dependent; any 9x12 sheath will fit any 9x12 plate holder.

@Bill Burk I think what you're after is called a "sandbag."

Don,
I agree with all you said above and will someday try my hand at coating glass plates. I still scratch my head a little when it comes to the subject of 9x12cm cameras and film. There are so many beautiful 9x12cm cameras out there and at least some film for them, that I’m puzzled why more folks aren’t using them or have little interest in them. I find them very interesting, very well made(most), and very capable. I really think if folks tried these 9x12 cameras out they might just like them. I’m working on a 9x12cm project right now. I have an extra camera that I’m going to rig with an interchangeable lens Mount so I can use a standard, wide and slight tele lens. I’ll have it done by Spring if I make it to Spring. Ha-ha! JohnW

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are so many beautiful 9x12cm cameras out there and at least some film for them, that I’m puzzled why more folks aren’t using them or have little interest in them.

I find them interesting, but I don't use mine much because there's so much more to keep a watch on with a 90-100 year old camera even vs. my 80 year old Anniversary Speed Graphic. Instead of being built to stand up to decades of press use, the plate cameras were built to be compact, lightweight, and elegant -- and they tend to have corrosion in critical friction points (where the plate holders slide or latch in). I can use my Annie with film holder that were new as recently as five or ten years ago, made of plastic (no corrosion), instead of being stuck with plate holders that don't always come with film sheaths (took me more than a year to find enough film sheaths for the plate holders that came with my Zeiss Ideal) and were made in the 1920s.

Not to mention I can only readily buy one emulsion in 9x12 (Foma 100) -- it's good enough film, but I don't have a choice of faster or slower, conventional or tabular grain, and so on. And have you looked for a 9x12 negative holder (for either enlarger or scanner) recently?

I still have my two Ideals (one with 135 mm, the other with 150 mm), but I don't use them much because with only one film readily available, it's not really worth it to me to spend dozens of hours (that I really don't have to spare) restoring the leather and cleaning up rust and recoating the plate holders.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I find them interesting, but I don't use mine much because there's so much more to keep a watch on with a 90-100 year old camera even vs. my 80 year old Anniversary Speed Graphic. Instead of being built to stand up to decades of press use, the plate cameras were built to be compact, lightweight, and elegant -- and they tend to have corrosion in critical friction points (where the plate holders slide or latch in). I can use my Annie with film holder that were new as recently as five or ten years ago, made of plastic (no corrosion), instead of being stuck with plate holders that don't always come with film sheaths (took me more than a year to find enough film sheaths for the plate holders that came with my Zeiss Ideal) and were made in the 1920s.

Not to mention I can only readily buy one emulsion in 9x12 (Foma 100) -- it's good enough film, but I don't have a choice of faster or slower, conventional or tabular grain, and so on. And have you looked for a 9x12 negative holder (for either enlarger or scanner) recently?

I still have my two Ideals (one with 135 mm, the other with 150 mm), but I don't use them much because with only one film readily available, it's not really worth it to me to spend dozens of hours (that I really don't have to spare) restoring the leather and cleaning up rust and recoating the plate holders.

I agree about the film dilemma and would love to see TMY or Delta 400 in 9x12. Maybe Shanghai will come to the rescue with its 100 and 400 in 9x12cm? JohnW

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe Shanghai will come to the rescue with its 100 and 400 in 9x12cm? JohnW

And a reliable US distributor of the formats they already offer? They have 127 and 620 from the factory, but as far as I can see the only way to buy them is from their outlet in (maybe) Hong Kong. Same likely true for 9x12; when I've searched specifically for 9x12 at my usual online vendors, I get Foma and sometimes .EDU Ultra (rebranded Foma).

 

[xya]

Don,
I agree with all you said above and will someday try my hand at coating glass plates. I still scratch my head a little when it comes to the subject of 9x12cm cameras and film. There are so many beautiful 9x12cm cameras out there and at least some film for them, that I’m puzzled why more folks aren’t using them or have little interest in them. I find them very interesting, very well made(most), and very capable. I really think if folks tried these 9x12 cameras out they might just like them. I’m working on a 9x12cm project right now. I have an extra camera that I’m going to rig with an interchangeable lens Mount so I can use a standard, wide and slight tele lens. I’ll have it done by Spring if I make it to Spring. Ha-ha! JohnW

there are several 9x12 cameras which have already interchangeable mounts. the cheapest are the ICA like https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_ideal_246.htm or https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_icar_180.htm or https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_toska_215.htm . they usually don't come with a second lens, but as they are dirt cheap, just buy 2 or 3 of them, you have your mounts and you have spare parts. try to stick to one model, between the different models the mounts differ slightly.

the later certotrop also have interchangeable mounts, but they are more expensive. and yes, there are voigtländers as well, but these are quite expensive...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got a pair of Ideals -- one Ica, one Zeiss -- with bayonet mounts. Unfortunately, they're different diameter mounts; the 150/4.5 is in a larger shutter than the 135/4.5. The actual mount hardware seems the same, though (just mounted at a different radius), so getting multiples shouldn't be a problem as long as they're all the same brand. Drilling and tapping the shutter case for the bayonet seems nerve-wracking, but I guess you'd remove all the moving parts before doing so...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've got a pair of Ideals -- one Ica, one Zeiss -- with bayonet mounts. Unfortunately, they're different diameter mounts; the 150/4.5 is in a larger shutter than the 135/4.5. The actual mount hardware seems the same, though (just mounted at a different radius), so getting multiples shouldn't be a problem as long as they're all the same brand. Drilling and tapping the shutter case for the bayonet seems nerve-wracking, but I guess you'd remove all the moving parts before doing so...

My thought was along the lines of using something like the Pentax Screwmount/m42. I plan on taking the base mount for the camera from an old Zenit camera I have or from and old junk Pentax spotty camera. For the lens side I have plenty of old junk lenses to steal a mount from. As for attaching the mount to the face of the 9x12 camera I’d use screws. To attach the mount to the lens itself I’ll use JB Weld, but this is just for a prototype to see how things work. If things work the way I want them to then I’ll connect the m42 mount to the lenses original retaining ring. I’ll be going at this right after Christmas and might just doa series of posts with pictures if anyone is interested. I actually think this will work pretty good. Of course I’ll be stuck with lenses and shutters on the small side, but they are out there. Small Schneider Angulons for the wide end and something like the Kodak Anastigmat 170mm f7.7, along with the cameras normal lens should be a good setup.

 

[nosmok]

Just shot my first 9x12 shots recently: was testing for sale an old Ica Nixe 118 rollfilm/plate camera that I decided I had to keep-- I began to love it , and there were too many things to explain in an ad. It's a great format, but it's NOT 'just like 4x5'. It IS pretty much 3-1/4" x 4-1/4", which is 33% smaller than 4x5. A 3A/122 roll/plate camera would be much closer at 3-1/4" x 5-1/2", but those holders are even harder to find and fill. It seems to me there were not many European 3A size plate cameras made, but I'm on the wrong continent for a really knowledgable answer. A 3A plate camera would be a much better bet for a 4x5 conversion.

 

[vjuliano]

I love my 9x12, its mostly film availability that pushes me towards 4x5. I have enough cameras I have to re-roll or cut film for already. I ended up getting a Kodak Premo which is much more compact and light. It does not have the universal back, but I have the Speed Graphic for when I need that.

 

[AgX]

BTW I love the spirit of the Foma guys, triple like for them. Absolutely romantic (in a good sense) keeping the 9x12 format alive in affordable prices. I just wish someone to dare to produce it with color film, although we already know that this is a utopia

Nothing romantic at all. Metrical film sizes were the standard for modern LF cameras in continental Europe.
Only in the end thus did change in western Europe.

 

[JPD]

Fotoimpex have Adox CHS II 100, Foma 100, 200 and 400, Ilford FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 100 in 9x12, from good price to highest quality. That's all you need to try out a 9x12 camera and for getting serious with the format.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Fotoimpex have Adox CHS II 100, Foma 100, 200 and 400, Ilford FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 100 in 9x12, from good price to highest quality. That's all you need to try out a 9x12 camera and for getting serious with the format.

I will be ordering some Foma 200 when it comes in stock. Should be a good film for day to day shooting with my 9X12cm cameras. JohnW

 

[vjuliano]

I believe B&H usually has it as well

 

[vjuliano]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/792411-REG/Foma_42019150_Fomapan_100_Classic_B_W.html
And its in stock

 

[vjuliano]

Sorry realized its 100, not 200

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sorry realized its 100, not 200

That's OK. Seems like 9x12cm Foma 200 might be becoming popular and maybe why it's not in stock anywhere???? I'm pretty well set with other emulsions in 9X12, but would really like to get some Foma 200. Patience I have plenty of. JohnW

 

[vjuliano]

Ive only used Foma 400 before, and it seemed like it was really a 200 speed emulsion. I wonder if the 200 is really 100 speed. I have 100 as well, but havent used enough yet to get a feel for how it behaves.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Ive only used Foma 400 before, and it seemed like it was really a 200 speed emulsion. I wonder if the 200 is really 100 speed. I have 100 as well, but havent used enough yet to get a feel for how it behaves.

Your assumption about the actual speed of Foma 400 is pretty much in agreement with many others. I've used Foma 200 in 35mm and it seemed to be close to box speed, but still a little under. I like the tonality and grain look of the 200, but Foma 100 has a very nice look to it too. For me, I'd rather use HP5+ or even Ultrafine Extreme 400 over Foma 400. That's just me of course. JohnW

 

[JPD]

I have never tried the Foma films, but they are popular. The Adox CHS II 100 is very nice, and the grain improved compared to the old Efke PL100, so it's more like Efke PL50.

 

[vjuliano]

For me, I'd rather use HP5+ or even Ultrafine Extreme 400 over Foma 400. That's just me of course. JohnW

I just went through a 100ft roll of Ultrafine Finesse 400 35mm and I was pretty impressed with it. I liked it a lot more than the other $50/100ft usual suspects

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have never tried the Foma films, but they are popular. The Adox CHS II 100 is very nice, and the grain improved compared to the old Efke PL100, so it's more like Efke PL50.

I have only tried Adox CMS20II in 35mm, but the CHS100 might be worth a try also. JohnW

 

[Donald Qualls]

My experience was that .EDU Ultra 100 (= Foma 100) developed with Foma 400 time/temp is virtually the same as .EDU Ultra 400 (= Foma 400) at the same time/temp. There's a very small difference in shadow detail, but certainly not two stops worth. The grain is very similar done this way. The 100 is a little crisper, probably how my eye interprets higher contrast, but it's not enough higher for me to see it as actual contrast.

If Foma 100 were significantly cheaper than Foma 400, I'd probably exclusively shoot the 100 at EI from 50 up to 400 and be very happy with it (or if I only had a single bulk loader). The beauty of doing it this way is you can load a bunch of cassettes and decide in the field what EI you need, without that "Oh, I didn't load enough 400/100" moment. Then just drop the exposed cassettes into different bags and/or mark them appropriately as you load/unload.