6x9 cameras

[flavio81]

I have a Medalist II. I find the Film Project 620 plastic spools to work, even if they are a bit tight, but they don't bind. The camera is awesome, even if it is heavy enough to use as a weapon in self defense if necessary. 120 spools just will not fit, you need the 620. After a bit of practice, it takes only a few minutes to hand wind the 120 onto the 620 rolls. I'm waiting for some film to come back from the lab, should get it this afternoon (10/06/2016) and scan it this evening. two rolls of Ektar100 and one roll of Portra 400.

m

Well, the Medalist II is a different animal. A fantastic machine which I would love to have.

 

[anthonylg]

Thanks Flavio, Dave and Derelict for the informations and the advices!

I landed with certain inevitable compromises. I really like the 6x9 ratio, but in order to factor serious lens selection and control, just use 6x9 roll film backs on my 4x5. A dedicated 6x9 technical camera isn't going to improve that scenario; and I still have a full 4x5 option to boot, with the same gear. So that works superbly ala tripod-mandatory slow style. For spontaneous work, there is really nothing modern equivalent to the M7 system, which costs like crazy and is only 6x7. So I've gotten accustomed to the comparatively affordable Fuji GW690II rangefinder. Limited to a fixed lens, but it's a damn good lens, and a very light quick machine to operate, even handheld. Should have bought the newer III version perhaps, but it's hard to justify the extra expense for the same actual functionality. At least the one I bought came with a filter which had apparently been over the lens forever, so was itself mauled, while the actual taking lens remained immaculate. The inside was very clean too. A few scuffs on the body don't mean much.

That's exactly the questions I'm asking myself at the moment Drew.... Really like this ratio but also want to have great lenses that I like and not to be limited with a fixed lens.
The GW690 seems great and the lens beautiful. I generally only use 2 lenses, for example on my RB67 a 65 and a 127mm. Just a version with a longer lens on the fuji would have been perfection. I'm also wondering about a 4x5 camera...

I have seen many pictures the last days, and if there is a camera close to that format that I really liked, it was the GX680. I've kind of fallen in love with everything I have seen from it, its lenses seem stunning.
And maybe an Ercona or an Ikonta when I want something light...

 

[DREW WILEY]

The GX680 is very much a studio camera, a nice one, but with proprietary lenses, and bulkier and heavier than most field 4x5's. The nice thing about
view camera lenses is that you can use them on different formats. Some of the same lenses I use for 6x9 also serve as 4x5 and even 8x10 lenses,
provided the coverage is sufficient. The bellows acts as the focal extender rather than a metal barrel, so all these are also very compact and lightweight. Another option would be something like a Horseman technical camera having both groundglass focus, tilts, and swings like a view camera, but also rangefinder compatible for quickie work. These are beautifully made, and lighter and less expensive than 6x9 "Baby"Technikas,
lacking the full range of lens options of the latter. Horseman folders are best in the normal to normal-wide focal lengths, rather than very wide or
long. I'm generally a long lens addict, so it's not a good system for me personally. The GW690 is really a different niche in terms of my personal
work. Nice under a parka on a rainy day, just as convenient as a Nikon, but offering a more serious negative. It might also do nicely during old age
backpacking. In the meantime, I still do that with kind of thing with a view camera, and in fact just returned from a two week backpack in the high
Sierra using an Ebony 4x5 folder and 6x9 roll film backs, one for ACROS, the other for Ektar.

 

[Paul Howell]

My on concern is the Fuji GW 690 is much more complicated than a Mamiya Press or Konica Rapid, the last pro model shutters are battery dependent with only one working shutter speed if the battery or lens fails. Saying that, the Fuji's are much faster than either the Mamiya or Konica and Fuji glass is excellent. Is there anyone in your neck of woods who repairs a GW 690? At least in Phoenix there are couple of shops that will work on Mamiya lens.

 

[ic-racer]

The system seems really nice, and also affordable... what do you think of the lenses?

The Horseman 6x9 Lenses are fantastic. A real system of dedicated 6x9 lenses, all with cams for the rangefinder. They are not any bigger physically or in image circle than they need to be for the movements possible with the camera body.

 

[Paul Howell]

Horseman is a good camera, sometimes you find a complete system otherwise you will to to spend time building out a system, lens, cams and backs. Has advantage over most press cameras with good front movements. Also somewhat rugged, some of later models will take RB backs.

 

[anthonylg]

The GX680 is very much a studio camera, a nice one, but with proprietary lenses, and bulkier and heavier than most field 4x5's.

I really don't mind if it's heavy or big, I have to take a tripod a take my time to compose anyway...
As for the lenses, proprietary lenses is fine as well if I really like them.

My on concern is the Fuji GW 690 is much more complicated than a Mamiya Press or Konica Rapid, the last pro model shutters are battery dependent with only one working shutter speed if the battery or lens fails. Saying that, the Fuji's are much faster than either the Mamiya or Konica and Fuji glass is excellent. Is there anyone in your neck of woods who repairs a GW 690? At least in Phoenix there are couple of shops that will work on Mamiya lens.

I guess I would have to go to Paris if I had in issue with this kind of camera. And it wouldn't be cheap...

That's maybe my only concern with the GX680 as well, I love when it's all mechanical and reliable. When you have to repair electronic elements...

 

[Paul Howell]

The Horseman is all mechanical as well. It is just hard to say how 40 year old electronics will hold up, but if there is a problem unlikely to find replacement parts, you may want to buy 2 bodies one for future parts. On the other hand I have a couple of Minolta 900s and a 700 that are 30 years old and no issues at all.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Brownie No.2

Works for me, kind of fun to use. I'm waiting for Shanghai to come on back so I can justify using it again.

I'm waiting too! GP3 was one film that I just got to know well and really, really liked. Then presto, disappeared.

 

[02Pilot]

I have and regularly use a pre-war Super Ikonta C (530/2) w/ uncoated Tessar and a post-war Bessa II w/ Color Skopar. Both are quite capable, but have their quirks. The Zeiss is simpler and more solidly built, where the Voigtländer is a more integrated and elegant design. On balance I prefer the Super Ikonta, in part because it is a bit smaller and lighter, and in part because I have a thing for uncoated lenses. Hard to go wrong with a decent example of either, though.

A couple samples - first the Zeiss, then the Voigtländer. Note that the negatives and prints are exceptionally sharp; JPG compression does them no favors.

 

[anthonylg]

I have and regularly use a pre-war Super Ikonta C (530/2) w/ uncoated Tessar and a post-war Bessa II w/ Color Skopar. Both are quite capable, but have their quirks. The Zeiss is simpler and more solidly built, where the Voigtländer is a more integrated and elegant design. On balance I prefer the Super Ikonta, in part because it is a bit smaller and lighter, and in part because I have a thing for uncoated lenses. Hard to go wrong with a decent example of either, though.

A couple samples - first the Zeiss, then the Voigtländer. Note that the negatives and prints are exceptionally sharp; JPG compression does them no favors.

View attachment 164910 View attachment 164911

It looks beautiful. Whatever my new system is, i'm quite sure I'll try to find one of these cameras anyway

 

[derelict]

It is all in film choice really. With the older folding cameras, like mine, you have to choose your film wisely. I like Portra for color since it allows me a decent amount of latitude. I just picked up some XP2 and will start using it instead of TMax as it is like the B&W equiv to Portra. I love XP2 in my Bronica so it will be nice in the Ercona. Only being able to go up to 1/250 is pretty limiting.

 

[anthonylg]

It is all in film choice really. With the older folding cameras, like mine, you have to choose your film wisely. I like Portra for color since it allows me a decent amount of latitude. I just picked up some XP2 and will start using it instead of TMax as it is like the B&W equiv to Portra. I love XP2 in my Bronica so it will be nice in the Ercona. Only being able to go up to 1/250 is pretty limiting.

I'd love to try Provia with this kind of camera, with a soft light.

Also 02Pilot, it seems the the Bessa II is more difficult to find and a bit more expensive now that the super Ikonta. From what I have seen the first Bessa with Vaskar seems really nice as well

 

[02Pilot]

Also 02Pilot, it seems the the Bessa II is more difficult to find and a bit more expensive now that the super Ikonta. From what I have seen the first Bessa with Vaskar seems really nice as well

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect that the numbers of Super Ikontas produced dramatically exceeds the number of Bessas, given both the length of their production and the size of the companies. Prices for the Bessa II are high, even with the Color Skopar (cameras with the Heliar are up into the pricing stratosphere); the Bessa I is more reasonable but seemingly rarer as well. I have no personal experience with the Vaskar, but as a good quality triplet I'm sure it would be very good at middle to smaller apertures, especially if you stop way down and shoot from a tripod.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm waiting too! GP3 was one film that I just got to know well and really, really liked. Then presto, disappeared.

I hear it's coming back, people on the Large Format Forum are already buying sheet film and claim that 120 and 220 are next.

 

[anthonylg]

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect that the numbers of Super Ikontas produced dramatically exceeds the number of Bessas, given both the length of their production and the size of the companies. Prices for the Bessa II are high, even with the Color Skopar (cameras with the Heliar are up into the pricing stratosphere); the Bessa I is more reasonable but seemingly rarer as well. I have no personal experience with the Vaskar, but as a good quality triplet I'm sure it would be very good at middle to smaller apertures, especially if you stop way down and shoot from a tripod.

I've found a couple of Bessa I on ebay in Europe that seem in a good shape. But Erconas, Super Ikontas, Bessas... They would all be really nice I think, I'll just wait to see if I find a good deal.

Also I'm not very familiar with these lenses, why do you say they would be good especially stopped way down? Wouldn't you have some diffraction at some point?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Anthony, Skopar and Color Skopar lenses are Voigtlaender's Tessars, the Vaskar is a triplet. All lenses are subject to diffraction, the rule is that for white light diffraction limits resolution to approximately 1500/(the effective f/ number).

FWIW, my cute little Perkeo II has a Color Skopar. I've never taken a satisfactorily sharp picture with that camera. My late friend Charlie Barringer (google him) had one, had the same experience. Further on this point, my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) tells me that Skopars and Color Skopars aren't particularly good. You might ask him to confirm this.

 

[02Pilot]

As I understand it (and it is an incomplete understanding), diffraction is a function of negative size as well as aperture. With the size of the 6x9 negative, going down to f/16 or even smaller should not impose significant diffraction. In my own experience, I have often stopped the Tessar on the Super Ikonta down to f/32 and not seen significant degradation; the Color Skopar on the Bessa II only goes down to f/22, but again, I have not seen any problems going down that far.

 

[02Pilot]

Anthony, Skopar and Color Skopar lenses are Voigtlaender's Tessars, the Vaskar is a triplet. All lenses are subject to diffraction, the rule is that for white light diffraction limits resolution to approximately 1500/(the effective f/ number).

FWIW, my cute little Perkeo II has a Color Skopar. I've never taken a satisfactorily sharp picture with that camera. My late friend Charlie Barringer (google him) had one, had the same experience. Further on this point, my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) tells me that Skopars and Color Skopars aren't particularly good. You might ask him to confirm this.

I have not had the same experience with the Voigtländer lenses. On a Vito, a Perkeo II, and the aforementioned Bessa II, I have had no issues with sharpness. On the latter two cameras, however, I have had to adjust the front standard to make the lens truly square with the film plane. This is definitely a common issue with MF Voigtländers; perhaps it is in part responsible for the results you cite.

 

[mnemosyne]

Anthony, Skopar and Color Skopar lenses are Voigtlaender's Tessars, the Vaskar is a triplet. All lenses are subject to diffraction, the rule is that for white light diffraction limits resolution to approximately 1500/(the effective f/ number).

FWIW, my cute little Perkeo II has a Color Skopar. I've never taken a satisfactorily sharp picture with that camera. My late friend Charlie Barringer (google him) had one, had the same experience. Further on this point, my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) tells me that Skopars and Color Skopars aren't particularly good. You might ask him to confirm this.

Well, you can add me to the list! I have never found the Color-Skopars particularly sharp on any of may Voigt folders, and I had several of them (Vito, Perkeo, Bessa I, Bessa II ...), rather disappointing compared to the Agfa Solinars I have had and still have (again from 35mm all the way to 6x9). And, despite what some people say, of course both of them are not even in the same league as the results you would get from a modern camera/lens like the mentioned Horseman field cameras or the Fuji MF rangefinders.

IMO, a 6x9 folder ist more or less a "one trick pony", you get pocketability and pay in the form of a endless list of trade-offs. And one has to realize that for the money some people pay for a Bessa II or a Zeiss folder, they could easily get a Fuji 690 rangefinder, OR even a complete set of Horseman VH field camera with lense(s) and back(s), which of course is a much more capable and far more versatile tool and is at the same time neither heavier nor more bulky than a RB67.

To the OP, he should make up his mind what kind of photography he is after. If he is after a relatively light, quick to use camera for hand held casual street shooting or hand held shooting of landscapes, a modern RF (Fuji 690 type) will serve him best. If he wants to work from a tripod for landscapes, cityscapes, table top, portrait ... and enjoy the benefit of camera movements ... a versatile field camera like the mentioned Horseman or a Linhof baby Technika are the preferrable tools.

 

[derelict]

I hear it's coming back, people on the Large Format Forum are already buying sheet film and claim that 120 and 220 are next.

Hold on, 220 film is coming back?

I'd love to try Provia with this kind of camera, with a soft light.

I do not have Provia but I do have Velvia. I have not shot it as I do not have anyone locally who can develop it. I know I can send it out but right now, I have more C41 and B/W options in my fridge to use first.



I have both a folder (mine was CLA'd and perfectly working for $150) and a Bronica ETR. Sometimes, I want the folder because it will easily drop in my pocket. Grab it and my phone so I can run the DoF table really quickly. I use my Sekonic for a one time reading and then do not use it from there. Adjustments can be easily done and then let the film eat the lack of speeds. Sometimes, I leave it behind and go with the Bronica which is more exact. It is nice to have choices.

 

[flavio81]

I don't want to be offensive, but for the secondhand prices i've seen the Bessa II cameras command, the design is really POOR with regards of reliability of the alignment of the front standard and the flatness of film plane.

The Zeiss folders -ALL models with coupled rangefinder- are much better in this regard.

 

[flavio81]

Well, you can add me to the list! I have never found the Color-Skopars particularly sharp on any of may Voigt folders, and I had several of them (Vito, Perkeo, Bessa I, Bessa II ...), rather disappointing compared to the Agfa Solinars I have had and still have (again from 35mm all the way to 6x9). And, despite what some people say, of course both of them are not even in the same league as the results you would get from a modern camera/lens like the mentioned Horseman field cameras or the Fuji MF rangefinders.

IMO, a 6x9 folder ist more or less a "one trick pony", you get pocketability and pay in the form of a endless list of trade-offs. And one has to realize that for the money some people pay for a Bessa II or a Zeiss folder, they could easily get a Fuji 690 rangefinder, OR even a complete set of Horseman VH field camera with lense(s) and back(s), which of course is a much more capable and far more versatile tool and is at the same time neither heavier nor more bulky than a RB67.

To the OP, he should make up his mind what kind of photography he is after. If he is after a relatively light, quick to use camera for hand held casual street shooting or hand held shooting of landscapes, a modern RF (Fuji 690 type) will serve him best. If he wants to work from a tripod for landscapes, cityscapes, table top, portrait ... and enjoy the benefit of camera movements ... a versatile field camera like the mentioned Horseman or a Linhof baby Technika are the preferrable tools.

+1

Exactly my view. I bought many folders, tried to align them... i never got results that were good enough for me to justify using MF (versus using fine grained film on 35mm). Except for my Zenobia 6x4.5 folder which indeed is as sharp as you want.

 

[anthonylg]

I have not had the same experience with the Voigtländer lenses. On a Vito, a Perkeo II, and the aforementioned Bessa II, I have had no issues with sharpness. On the latter two cameras, however, I have had to adjust the front standard to make the lens truly square with the film plane. This is definitely a common issue with MF Voigtländers; perhaps it is in part responsible for the results you cite.

Hmm, it's interesting to see you didn't have the same experience with the Skopar. I always thought these Bessas where as good as the Super Ikontas but that makes me doubt...

To the OP, he should make up his mind what kind of photography he is after. If he is after a relatively light, quick to use camera for hand held casual street shooting or hand held shooting of landscapes, a modern RF (Fuji 690 type) will serve him best. If he wants to work from a tripod for landscapes, cityscapes, table top, portrait ... and enjoy the benefit of camera movements ... a versatile field camera like the mentioned Horseman or a Linhof baby Technika are the preferrable tools.

Well, I'll work mostly from a tripod, that's why I said i didn't mind having a heavy camera. For now I still have a slight preference for the Fuji FX680 over the Horsemans. Especially because of its lenses.
But I'm also looking for a small camera to make shots that are more instinctive, and I've always like the old Super Ikontas...
BTW, is your pseudo linked to Bill Henson's work?

 

[Paul Howell]

With a Horseman you can use most any medium format lens that will fit the lens board and is not too long for the bellows and you get front movement. I dont use a lot of movement, but there are times when shooting 6X9 I wish I had some movement. As I recall the later model Horsemans will take a RB back. The other option for a lot less money is a baby Speed for Grown Grafic with 6X9 back and as sheet film is available in 6X7 a ground glass back for a holder. A speed with a focal plan shutter will allow you to shoot with barrel lens. Then on the higher end a 6x9 view camera, if you shoot on a tirpod why not?