6x7 compared to 645?

Tony-S · Nov 27, 2009

Here's a quick comparison of the relative sizes of 6x4.5 (55.6mm x 41.7mm), 6x7 (69mm x 55.6mm) and 6x6 (55.6mm x 55.6mm).

Mike1234 · Nov 28, 2009

I always liked my RB67 but I think it's too bad the major camera makers opted out of 6x9. The cameras wouldn't have been that much bigger but would have been more versatile. The 6x8 varieties are a bit better in that regard.

youngrichard · Nov 28, 2009

When I decided to add MF to my usual 35mm a couple of years ago, the main reason for choosing 6x7 over 6x4.5 was that landscape format in 6x7 gives an unrotated, right way up image as the film traverses the enlarger (like 35mm), whereas 6x4.5 film gives a sideways view that requires cricking the neck whilst composing picture on baseboard, burning, dodging etc. This I had discovered years before when experimenting with a 6x6 camera; I think it was the reason I gave up using it then. So if darkroom work is important, and you like to print landscape rather than portrait framing, 6x7 is for you.

Q.G. · Nov 28, 2009

What an unexpected and truly unique reason to prefer one format over another!
Thanks for that!

sanking · Nov 28, 2009

Mike1234 said:
I always liked my RB67 but I think it's too bad the major camera makers opted out of 6x9. The cameras wouldn't have been that much bigger but would have been more versatile. The 6x8 varieties are a bit better in that regard.

The reason the 6X7 won out over the 6X9 is that the largest market for MF cameeras was portrait photography. I love the 6X9 format for landscape work but there has never been a moderately sized system camera like the Mamiya 7 that uses this format.

The Fuji GW and GSW690 cameras make great negatives but are very large and leave a lot to be desired in terms of features, like a decent B setting and exposure meter.

Sandy King

MattKing · Nov 28, 2009

youngrichard said:
When I decided to add MF to my usual 35mm a couple of years ago, the main reason for choosing 6x7 over 6x4.5 was that landscape format in 6x7 gives an unrotated, right way up image as the film traverses the enlarger (like 35mm), whereas 6x4.5 film gives a sideways view that requires cricking the neck whilst composing picture on baseboard, burning, dodging etc. This I had discovered years before when experimenting with a 6x6 camera; I think it was the reason I gave up using it then. So if darkroom work is important, and you like to print landscape rather than portrait framing, 6x7 is for you.

If you have the masking carrier frame, the carriers for many of (possibly all of) the Omega D series enlargers can be rotated to solve this problem .

Matt

youngrichard · Nov 28, 2009

MattKing said:
If you have the masking carrier frame, the carriers for many of (possibly all of) the Omega D series enlargers can be rotated to solve this problem .

Matt

Didn't know that. I have Focomat V35, Focomat 11c and Durst DA900 enlargers; it's not possible on any of them, and too late for me to change. No room for any more enlargers!

6x7 compared to 645?

Tony-S

Attachments

Mike1234

youngrichard

Q.G.

sanking

MattKing

Moderator

youngrichard

6x7 compared to 645?

Tony-S

Attachments

Mike1234

youngrichard

Q.G.

sanking

MattKing

Moderator

youngrichard

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency