6x12 Film Backs

[wjlapier]

Anyone care to comment on the various film backs for 6x12? How about the DaYi or ShenHao since they are the cheaper of the backs out there. I'm aware of the Horseman one but at $400+ I'm a bit apprehensive after I had a 6x7 back seize on me and I couldn't find a way to fix it.

Thanks.

 

[Bob S]

612 isn’t always 6x12. The Linhof 612 back has an image area of 56x120mm. Most, if not all, of the others give a smaller, to much smaller image area.
There is also the matter of film flatness in many of these backs.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Don't forget Sinar (Panorama, fixed 6x12; Vario, Zoom, adjustable up to 6x12) and the Linhof Techno Rollex (fixed 6x12). I like my Panorama.

 

[Oren Grad]

I had a Sinar Vario for a while. Advantage: by a fair measure, the flattest pre-exposure film path of any of the rollholders. Drawbacks: Big. Heavy. Tends to be expensive compared to all other brands except Linhof. Tricky film loading, using a separate film cassette (make sure it's not missing!) and a very long distance over which the film needs to be threaded. In part because of the cassette-plus-long-path system, a bit difficult to keep dust-free. Finally: I think Sinar is no longer repairing these, though you can check that. That would be a bigger concern for the Vario and Zoom holders with their more complex multi-format mechanisms, than for the simpler 6x12-only Panorama.

 

[Bob S]

Don't forget Sinar (Panorama, fixed 6x12; Vario, Zoom, adjustable up to 6x12) and the Linhof Techno Rollex (fixed 6x12). I like my Panorama.

The Sinar exposure area was almost a cm shorter then Linhofs.

 

[Oren Grad]

The Linhof 612 back has an image area of 56x120mm. Most, if not all, of the others give a smaller, to much smaller image area.

For users who like to print the full negative with border this can be a drawback, not an advantage, as many 4x5 enlargers will not allow printing of the full 120mm long dimension from the Linhof holder, whereas the more common 112mm is always safe.

 

[Bob S]

For users who like to print the full negative with border this can be a drawback, not an advantage, as many 4x5 enlargers will not allow printing of the full 120mm long dimension from the Linhof holder, whereas the more common 112mm is always safe.

The other way to look at it is the full size results in scenes that include what would be necessary with smaller sizes with the next wider lens.
But there is no problem printing with 45 enlargers. The Linhof Technoramas that shot 612 as well as the 612 Techno Rollex backs have been sold for decades and never once did a user or a dealer ever report to us that the full frame could not be printed. And that included many high end pros like Peter B Caplan!

 

[voceumana]

I have a Shen Hao--it is a simple device but reasonably well built. I bought it back when they cost about half what they do today. The ruby window is so dark, I need a flashlight to read the frame numbers, and I haven't really used it.

Note the Shen Hao and similar backs require a Graflok type back.

Unless you're trying to save money by using a LOT of roll film, I suggest just shooting 4x5 film and crop. You can make a viewing mask for your camera's back, and save quite a bit of money to spend on film.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I have the Horseman 6-exposure back. Works fine - never a problem with film flatness; just have to be careful that the dark slide stays fully seated or there will be a light leak right at the end. Opening is 56x112mm (exactly a 2:1 ratio).

 

[mshchem]

I had a Horseman, worked fine. I sold it and ended up with a Fujica G617. I got a deal on a 5x7 enlarger. I had a Fotoman 6x12 camera for a while, foolproof, as long as you can see the numbers

 

[EdSawyer]

I have the horseman and like it a lot, it's been reliable for me.

 

[Alex Varas]

I have a soviet 6x12 film back for 10x15 plate cameras, film plate 4mm back than the ground glass so I need to keep in mind it between focusing and shooting
I should use it more often...

 

[Lars Bunch]

I have both a DaYi and a Horseman 6x12 back. I haven’t had a problem with flatness on either one, but I will say loading and unloading the DaYi was so irritating that I felt the $400 price of the Horseman was worth it.

The problem I have had with the DaYi is that there is a bit too much space where the film spools drop it so that they are hard to get into the right position to set the pins that hold them in. But not enough space that I can get my fingers in there to move the spool around. There have been times I have spend 5 to 10 minutes trying to get one spool out and another one loaded. Meanwhile the backing paper starts to unwind potentially creating light leaks. The thing is built like a tank and if that’s important to you, it’s something to consider.

The Horseman, on the other hand, is very easy to load and well made. I have both the 6x12 and the 6x7 ones and they are both easy to load and use.

 

[xya]

I have te sinar "zoom" and I only use it for 6x12. the results are fine, handling is easy, logic and safe once you get used to it. it's easy to put it under a ground glass back. automatic advance is the biggest feature for me. no red window peeping, just the advance lever und there you are. the dark slide is integrated, a kind of a roller shutter, nothing to pull and put somewhere.

I have a simple chinese one with a red window. it wouldn't go under the ground glass, so it's taking off the ground glass, put the back, pull te dark slide and put it somewhere, take your photo, put back the slide, peep into the red window, remember the number you have to advance to, take the back off, and re-install the ground glass.

so I my choice is sinar and I love it.

 

[Scott J.]

Don't forget Sinar (Panorama, fixed 6x12; Vario, Zoom, adjustable up to 6x12) and the Linhof Techno Rollex (fixed 6x12). I like my Panorama.

Reviving this thread to ask a quick question of anyone with the Sinar Panorama... The 56 x 112mm film aperture on the camera-facing side of the Panorama holder (i.e., where the dark slide sits and through which the film is exposed during a photograph) has two rectangular cutouts midway across the opening, one on the top and one on the bottom. To illustrate what I'm referring to, similar cutouts can be seen in a Sinar Zoom (gen. 1) that's reviewed here (scroll about halfway down the page). The author of that review describes how inside the Zoom holder there are small "windows" along the edges of the film gate that can be fitted with specialty imprinting inserts to expose a copyright notice or other information in the film rebate. These imprinting inserts are also discussed in the manual for the Panorama/Zoom/69/67 holders (pages 9-10; see here). An example of what this imprinting looks like in practice can be seen here.

I'm interested in buying a Panorama but would prefer that the rebate on my film strips not be mucked up with these imprints (I often scan and print the film rebate). The manual linked to above mentions that the Zoom has these imprinting windows but doesn't specify if the other holders do as well. Given that the Panorama has the same external cutouts in the film aperture, I'm wondering if it has the same feature. Can anyone confirm if that's true? Or, provided the Panorama does indeed have the same imprinting windows, is it possible to block them off (e.g., with electrical tape or something similar) to prevent imprinting in the film rebate? Many thanks.

 

[Jim Andrada]

I can confirm that both my "Vario" backs do have a cutout (more of a 1 - 2 mm deep indentation) dead center in the long dimension on both sides.

I'll check my "Panorama" back a little later and see whether it does or not - I suspect it does.

These are great backs at least for me since I always crop a bit.

 

[Dan Fromm]

My 6x12 Panorama has the indentations. Great roll holder but as far as I know no longer supported by Sinar, i.e., no more parts available. If I had it to do again I'd probably buy a Horseman 612 roll holder.

 

[Scott J.]

My 6x12 Panorama has the indentations. Great roll holder but as far as I know no longer supported by Sinar, i.e., no more parts available. If I had it to do again I'd probably buy a Horseman 612 roll holder.

Thanks, Jim and Dan. Just to clarify: the Panorama imprints a copyright notice (or other information) in the film rebate similar to the Flickr image I linked to above?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I've never understood why people see the need for a dedicated 6x12 back. Cropping a 4x5 negative gives you almost as much film area and is so much more flexible. I can pack lighter and shoot any aspect ratio I like. Plus, I can buy a whole lot of 4x5 film for the price of a 6x12 back. And, 120 film isn't free either. Unless you're planning on working exclusively with the panorama format, it's really not that much more economical to use the roll film.

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I have shot both, 4x5 and 120 film for 6x12 pano creation.
The last time I calculated my costs, it was 5x more to shoot 4x5 than 120.
If you like to use a filter or two (orange, yellow, neutral density, etc.) on the same composition, 120 is handy and cheaper.
Having the choice is priceless.

I see your point. I just checked 4x5 vs. 120 prices at B&H. Average TMax price per shot for 120 was about $1.70 whereas for 4x5 it was closer to $3.00. That's a bit less than 2x the price for a 4x5 sheet compared to 120.

So, it would really depend on how often you use the pano format and how much extra bulk a 6x12 back and extra film adds to your kit. That's assuming that you wanted to work with both 4x5 and 120 film formats - one could just go completely pano and 120.

In my starting-out days with LF, I didn't have a LF enlarger, so just shot with a 6x9 back. Lots of good negatives from that time, but I really hated all the developing problems associated with 120 film.

Best,

Doremus

 

[RJ-]

My 6x12 Panorama has the indentations. Great roll holder but as far as I kno612orseman 612 roll holder.

Hi Dan,

Hope you are keeping well!

I use the Horseman 612 roll holder. It's alright - could be better compared to other roll film back designs.

There is no dark slide locking tab to prevent accidental exposure in the Horseman design when carried - discovering sometimes the dark slide frees itself if it taped down during transport!

Kind regards

RJ

 

[xya]

6x12 on roll film is not only cheaper, for me it's so much easier. A roll gives 6 shots. Loading a roll is a question of 2 minutes in daylight. Transfering the roll into a tank (Jobo in my case) is not more than 2 minutes in sleeve. Developing done, you need just one clamp and a counterweight to let it dry.

Loading a 4x5 Grafmatic or 3 double sided holders is already quite some time and fumbling is a sleeve. Transfering 6 sheets into the holder of a tank takes much longer again. And then you need more chemicals, more clamps and more room to let it dry...

 

[ronw]

Glad to see the 612 info. would love that option when Overlanding and loading sheet film is not convenient.
Thanks