6x7 vs 6x9

[GLS]

Sounds like you are referring to the sheets - 120-4B - that will hold four lines of three 6 x 6 (not 6 x 7) negatives. If you try to put 6x7 negatives in them, they hang out the end.
Alternatively, you may be referring to the over-sized sheets - 120-4UB - which only fit in the over-sized binders - not the standard office size binders that take 8.5" x 11" pages.
Those over-sized sheets also don't contact print on to 8" x 10" photo paper.

The clear holders I use will fit 3 6x7 negatives in a row. It's tight, but they do not hang out of the ends.

This way I can have 2 x 3 + 2 x 2 negatives on one page.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are tons of 4x5” enlargers out there, too. It’s arguable that, if one has the space for it, one might want a 4x5” enlarger anyway for all formats 4x5” and smaller, because they’re more solid than smaller enlargers, have tons of accessories available, usually have longer columns for bigger enlargements, etc., plus you’ve got it in case you ever decide to try 4x5”.

 

[bunip]

I would like to find an affordable way to shoot 120 film in panorama. The cost of roll film backs for 4x5 surprises me.

In my personal experience the Mamiya Universal with its 50mm could bring you near to your desired panorama aspect ratio. I printed in the 6x9 cropped panorama format up to 50x100cm and image quality was surprisingly good. I like very much 6x9 format with 50mm lens in landscape and family scenes; family groups, group portraits, or candids are spectacular (you have almost the 90° angle you have with a 20mm wideangle in 35mm format).
I found my camera with 100mm, mamiya hardcase, lots of filters, shades, the grip, and accessories for 200 euros and the 50mm mamiya sekor for another 200 euros.
I really was impressed by lens quality. And you still can have 6x4,5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 rollfilm holders for 30-50$ each.

 

[guangong]

I don’t see the “vs”. I have 66, 67, and 69. All have their uses. The one best suited for general application is 66. 67 is a compromise between 66 and 69. 69 excells at landscape, such as my Medalist (designed to photograph shore defenses from battleship). Shoot whatever gives enjoyment.

 

[markbau]

There are tons of 4x5” enlargers out there, too. It’s arguable that, if one has the space for it, one might want a 4x5” enlarger anyway for all formats 4x5” and smaller, because they’re more solid than smaller enlargers, have tons of accessories available, usually have longer columns for bigger enlargements, etc., plus you’ve got it in case you ever decide to try 4x5”.

A quick search on ebay shows quite a few 6x7 enlargers but very few 4x5 enlargers. In the dying days of film the LPL 67 enlarger sold massively.

 

[Dan Daniel]

A quick search on ebay shows quite a few 6x7 enlargers but very few 4x5 enlargers. In the dying days of film the LPL 67 enlarger sold massively.

The cost of shipping a 4x5 enlarger is going to kill a lot of sellers' desire to post them. Local lists (such as craigslist in the US) are much better places to look. And to ask, since people may have one and never think about it putting it up ofr sale, but a little nudge can knock it loose.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think they're both nice formats. 6x7 fits better within an 8x10 aspect ratio. What is a bigger deal whether it's an SLR or a range finder. Depending what you're shooting. Studio work is better with an SLR. When I travel, I like the lighter range finders. No right or wrong here.

 

[Paul Howell]

Depending you where you live you can find Bessler 23C and Omega B 22 with 6X9 heads. If 6X9 is your only formate on the real cheap a Federal 6X9, just need to upgrade the lens. I have 6X7 and 6X9 backs for my Mamiya Universal, 90% of the time I shoot 6X9 thinking that I will likely crop.

 

[John Koehrer]

The B22 is a 6X6 enlarger^^^^^

 

[Paul Howell]

Your right B8.

 

[GLS]

Generally I much prefer the 6:7 ratio to the 2:3 ratio myself.

Having said that, I do sometimes find myself musing over getting a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder...

 

[alanrockwood]

If you are interested in 8x10 prints then there is almost no benefit in using 6x9 as far as image quality is concerned. Why? because 6x7 is almost a perfect fit to enlarge to 8x10, but 6x9 is a poor fit to 8x10. This means that you end up wasting a lot of film for 6x9 without much quality improvement compared to 6x6 format.


Here's a table that might be of interest:

format (nominal) actual format cropped for 8x10 area (square cm)
4.5x6 4.2x5.6 4.2x5.25 22.05
6x6 5.6x5.6 4.48x5.6 25.09
6x7 5.6x6.7 5.36x6.7 35.91
6x8 5.6x7.5 5.6x7 39.20
6x9 5.6x8.5 5.6x7 39.20

I got the actual format dimensions from http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html, except for 6x9, which I guessed at.

For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.

An interesting comparison is 4.5x6 vs. 6x7. The 6x7 has a potential quality advantage of 63% (based on area ratios), but 4.5x6 gives 60% more shots on a roll (16 vs. 10 shots per roll), so there is almost a perfect quality/cost tradeoff between those two formats.

One advantage in using 6x9 for 8x10 enlargements is that it gives you a little more flexibility for cropping in the long direction, in case that is important.

Of course, if the preferred format is something different from 8x10 then the comparison will be different.

I apologize for the formatting of the table. I laid it out well in my text, but the formatting got mangled in the process of translating what I wrote into what is displayed. Hopefully the mangled form displayed in the post will be understandable with a little effort.

OK, I am uploading an image of the table above, nicely formated:

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You ought to try to handle each of the different format cameras to see what is more comfortable for you. The format won;t matter if you don;t enjoy shooting. A 6x9 rangefinder is much more different than a 6x7 RB67 SLR. I only own a RB67. But I always use it on a tripod for landscapes. Holding it in my hand is just too heavy and unsteady. Although I hardly use them any more, operating a 35mm SLR or rangefinder 2:3 is so much more quicker, perfect for traveling and off the cuff shots. A 6x9 rangefinder would be similar. Try them out to see what you like.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

I mainly use 6x7 when I travel, but will instead carry either a 6x6 or 6x9 folder when light weight and minimal bulk are important (like skiing, for which I use a small chest pack). While 6x7 enlarges well into 8x10, not every subject I photograph fits nicely into the frame and I'm not afraid to change the enlarger head height or move the blades on my easel (4-blade easels are great for this) to get the image I want, not the image the paper wants. That's what it's all about for me.

 

[Ariston]

I am taking the Autocord out today because I don’t want to haul out the RB (even though I love it). The waist level finder and square format are not ideal for my uses today, though. I think a rangefinder would be better suited, but I hardly need it for a once or twice a year use scenario.

I am curious, is the Fuji parallax corrected?

 

[Karte]

One thing to mention is the Fuji 6x9 film size is not exactly 90mm, its more like 58x84mm. So the difference in neg length size is about 14mm compared to my Pentax 6x7. Its not as big a difference as it seems, but quite apparent on a light table.

The Fuji is an amazing, light weight, all mechanical camera but not as versatile - lacking ttl view and B mode, with fixed focal length lens. The rangefinder is parallex corrected. Its awesome for walk-around carry, if any other required focal lengths are covered in another system.

 

[destroya]

I shoot most of the medium format sizes. like mentioned above, I dont compose my shot to fit the paper, i compose to fit the scene Im looking at. I use my pentax 67 as a tripod only camera, so I can take my time with the composition. I can then use different lenses to adjust the scene. I love the way the negs print. I also have a fuji gw690 and fuji gsw 680. I use those as walk around cameras, mainly back country hiking in Yosemite or tahoe and the like. as I use them mostly handheld, I like have the extra real estate in the neg, which gives me flexibility for framing and cropping the end print. I prefer the fuji gsw680 the best of all my MF cameras. It gives me just enough play in the neg for cropping, very portable and reliable. but the pentax 67 has been my primary camera. just love its functionality and flexibility.

They are all great. I view them as tools to get the job done. Give me any of them and I'll do my best with what I have to get the end print I want. life without a few choices would be boring.

 

[tomkatf]

Brought up on 35mm 2:3 format, so I love the nice and wide 6x9... This was taken with a second series Brooks Veriwide, not quite 6x9...

 

[John Koehrer]

Really? There's a coverage difference but where's the quality difference?

For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.

 

[Ariston]

Tha

Brought up on 35mm 2:3 format, so I love the nice and wide 6x9... This was taken with a second series Brooks Veriwide, not quite 6x9...
View attachment 229011

That's a cool photo. Well done.

 

[alanrockwood]

Really? There's a coverage difference but where's the quality difference?

For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.

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.

 

[mshchem]

Really? There's a coverage difference but where's the quality difference?

For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.

I rarely shoot 35mm because the negatives are so tiny. I've shot a lot of 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. The SLR advantages are obvious, but the cameras are huge. My default walk out the door with a few rolls of TMY2 is a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. However I love shooting my Hasselblad too. I frame square when shooting the Hasselblad and print square.

For people on a budget the Fujis are an all in one, huge negative, view camera lens on a rangefinder body. My biggest complaint is the loud snap of the mechanism when snapped.

 

[mshchem]

If you are interested in 8x10 prints then there is almost no benefit in using 6x9 as far as image quality is concerned. Why? because 6x7 is almost a perfect fit to enlarge to 8x10, but 6x9 is a poor fit to 8x10. This means that you end up wasting a lot of film for 6x9 without much quality improvement compared to 6x6 format.


Here's a table that might be of interest:

format (nominal) actual format cropped for 8x10 area (square cm)
4.5x6 4.2x5.6 4.2x5.25 22.05
6x6 5.6x5.6 4.48x5.6 25.09
6x7 5.6x6.7 5.36x6.7 35.91
6x8 5.6x7.5 5.6x7 39.20
6x9 5.6x8.5 5.6x7 39.20

I got the actual format dimensions from http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html, except for 6x9, which I guessed at.

For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.

An interesting comparison is 4.5x6 vs. 6x7. The 6x7 has a potential quality advantage of 63% (based on area ratios), but 4.5x6 gives 60% more shots on a roll (16 vs. 10 shots per roll), so there is almost a perfect quality/cost tradeoff between those two formats.

One advantage in using 6x9 for 8x10 enlargements is that it gives you a little more flexibility for cropping in the long direction, in case that is important.

Of course, if the preferred format is something different from 8x10 then the comparison will be different.

I apologize for the formatting of the table. I laid it out well in my text, but the formatting got mangled in the process of translating what I wrote into what is displayed. Hopefully the mangled form displayed in the post will be understandable with a little effort.

OK, I am uploading an image of the table above, nicely formated:
View attachment 229033

I crop, huge advantage. This is why press guys shot 127mm lenses with 4x5 press cameras, shoot wide and pick out the part of the negative that gives the right print. I rarely print a straight 8x10 print, I like wider margins, different aspect ratios.

 

[wiltw]

If we take into consideration that our fim area must be cropped along one dimension, in order to make an 8"x10", the perceived advantage of one format vs. the other are diminished!

 

[moto-uno]

Not too sure if it's relevant , but it appears the 6x7 and 6x9 horizontal and vertical are reversed . Peter