6x7 vs 6x9

[Ariston]

What if you want a 2:1 panorama? Then the film area becomes 24.5 to 40.5 for 6x7 vs 6x9. That's a big difference.

 

[mshchem]

What if you want a 2:1 panorama? Then the film area becomes 24.5 to 40.5 for 6x7 vs 6x9. That's a big difference.

Bingo!

 

[Bill Burk]

I love 6x9 but wish I didn’t get so many pinholes in my bellies and dust on the film.

 

[mshchem]

Start with the 6x9, then get one of these. I got one from a guy in Japan, got a deal. Film spacing was a bit unpredictable, I adjusted a tension roller, read, bent spring. Same internals as a GW690II. Most fun you can have with a camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...ra-review-fujifilm-panorama-g617-professional

 

[alanrockwood]

Start with the 6x9, then get one of these. I got one from a guy in Japan, got a deal. Film spacing was a bit unpredictable, I adjusted a tension roller, read, bent spring. Same internals as a GW690II. Most fun you can have with a camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...ra-review-fujifilm-panorama-g617-professional

What a neat camera! It looks like there are a few of these listed on ebay, in case anyone as an extra $2 or $3 grand in the piggybank.

 

[John Koehrer]

The different formats use differing amounts of effective negative area to get an 8x10 print. A larger effective negative area translates to finer grain in the print and higher resolution. The "higher resolution" comment assumes that different lenses are matched to different formats so as to give an equal angle of view and also that the lenses are of comparable quality.

It's the same thing as the quality difference between 35mm and 4x5, just to a less extreme degree.

Please, if the magnification is the same, the grain will be the same. The difference will be in the width of the negative, so assuming you crop the larger negative to the same size, it has to be the same.

 

[Ariston]

Start with the 6x9, then get one of these. I got one from a guy in Japan, got a deal. Film spacing was a bit unpredictable, I adjusted a tension roller, read, bent spring. Same internals as a GW690II. Most fun you can have with a camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...ra-review-fujifilm-panorama-g617-professional

That looks amazing... and expensive!

 

[mshchem]

That looks amazing... and expensive!

I paid 1300 USD for mine. Mine is the 1st generation fixed 105mm lens. The interchangeable lens version is very expensive and has electronics, LCD film counter, all stuff to go wrong. Mine is like a glorified roll film holder with a lens. You advance the film in ordinary fashion, then you need to remember to cock the shutter. The first time I shot it I managed a blank frame, as I forgot to cock the shutter. The film advance mechanism fires regardless of whether the shutter is cocked. This can fool you as usually the film advance fires before the shutter, you need to remember to keep pushing until you hear the leaf shutter fire.
I managed to come by an incredible deal on a 5x7 enlarger with a VC head. Color is limited to making contact prints with another enlarger. Or some crazy neat Fujichrome for the light table.
It's probably just me but I find the ordinary quite extraordinary in such a wide field view.
I can't find any narrow rolls of black and white paper in less than case quantities, but it's no big deal to cut down 20x24.

 

[alanrockwood]

Please, if the magnification is the same, the grain will be the same. The difference will be in the width of the negative, so assuming you crop the larger negative to the same size, it has to be the same.

I fear we are not communicating very well, so let me explain it again. For starters, just mentally think of the difference between a small film area (e.g. 35mm) and large film area (4x5). Now, assume you have the lens on the 35mm to give a certain angle of view and the lens selected for the 4x5 to give the same angle of view. Note: when I say "angle of view" I mean an angle of view that will cover a relative format of 0.8x1.0, i.e. will enlarge to a 8x10 print with minimal waste of negative area. For example, on a 35mm format that would be a film area of 2.4cm by 3.0cm. For 4x5 that would be about 10.2cm by 12.7cm. (For simplicity, for the 4x5 I am assuming there is no border on the negative.) You could also enlarge to something else with the same relative dimension, such as 16x20, but lets just stick with 8x10 for sake of discussion.

OK, so you are set up with two cameras, a 35mm camera with, let us say a 50mm lens, and a the other is a 4x5 camera with a lens giving the same angle of view as the 35mm camera. Assume you are using the best lens available for the 35mm camera, and also a high quality lens for the 4x5. Use the same film in each camera. Now, snap a picture of the same scene with each camera. Develop the film and make the prints. I assert that the grain will be finer in the print from the 4x5 negative and the print will also be sharper with the 4x5 camera. I have not done the experiment myself, but others have, and it is universally accepted that the 4x5 print gives finer grain and sharper details than 35mm.

This is exactly the same principle I am applying to the variations of format in medium format, differing only in scale, i.e. the fact that the differences would be less extreme in the medium format comparison than in the 35mm vs. 4x5 comparison. So a photo taken using a 6x7 camera has the potential to be sharper and have finer grain than a photo taken with a 4.5x6 camera. Alternatively, the photo taken with the 6x7 camera has the potential to undergo more enlargement before quality begins to suffer.

There is actually nothing very exotic in all of this. I simply put some numbers to it to give a quantitative comparison.

 

[wiltw]

This is exactly the same principle I am applying to the variations of format in medium format, differing only in scale, i.e. the fact that the differences would be less extreme in the medium format comparison than in the 35mm vs. 4x5 comparison. So a photo taken using a 6x7 camera has the potential to be sharper and have finer grain than a photo taken with a 4.5x6 camera. Alternatively, the photo taken with the 6x7 camera has the potential to undergo more enlargement before quality begins to suffer..

^^^
One merely needs to view Column H of the spreadsheet listed in my Post 49, to see the relative graininess (or lack of grain) inherent to the format, all using the same emulsion.

 

[mshchem]

Guard: Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
Guard: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Guard: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Guard: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
King Arthur: Please!
Guard: Am I right?
King Arthur: I'm not not interested!

 

[markbau]

Guard: Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
Guard: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Guard: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Guard: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
King Arthur: Please!
Guard: Am I right?
King Arthur: I'm not not interested!

Nice one Centurion!

 

[alanrockwood]

^^^
One merely needs to view Column H of the spreadsheet listed in my Post 49, to see the relative graininess (or lack of grain) inherent to the format, all using the same emulsion.

Yes, it is probably better to look at the linear scaling rather than scaling by area, though the same basic principles apply, i.e. which formats are most favorable in terms of sharpness and grain and also with respect to the the related fact that more film is wasted with some formats than others.

 

[Bill Burk]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...gger-format-thing.123922/page-19#post-1637931

In this thread I proved that a 110 Pocket Instamatic can beat a 4x5. The dirty trick was that I made some mistake like lens not locked in place or camera shake on the 4x5 while the 110 shot was properly taken.

I made the outrageous claim that a Minox shot can show more detail than 4x5. But the dirty trick is the 4x5 shot was taken at a distance and the Minox shot was up close.

I had a lot of fun. But if you have trouble handling a camera or it has faults, even if it has more film square inches... A smaller format, more expertly handled, can beat it.