6x9 Crop Factor?

duparis00

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
150
Location
Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Hey All,

So I'm getting a Rollex 6x9 back for my Linhof, so I can use 120/220 film on the 4x5. I'm just trying to figure out what angle of view I'd be getting in 35mm terms, if I put on say a 90mm lens? On the 4x5 that's a good wide angle, on a 645 it's like a 50mm equivalent, but what does it translate on a 6x9 frame? Likewise I have a 180mm and wondering how I should calculate that as well.
 

elekm

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,055
Location
New Jersey (
Format
35mm RF
The "normal" lens on 6x9 is in the 100mm-110mm range.

Because of the 6x9 format, you capture a lot of a scene within that frame.

I guess the best way would be to compare photos taken with a 35mm, 6x6 and 6x9.

I feel comfortable saying that 6x9 provides a much wider view than 35mm. The field of view feels like 28mm but without getting that wide-angle "feel" from your photos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,829
Format
Multi Format

Nominal 6x9's (2.25" x 3.25", 6x9 is a lousy metric approximation) normal focal length (diagonal of the frame) is 100 mm. 24x36's normal focal length is 43 mm. A 90 mm lens on 2x3 (short way of referring to 2 1/4 x 3 1/4) sees what a 39 mm lens would see on 24x36. Shortish normal lens, really. Do the arithmetic yourself for y'r 180 (hint, 180 = 2 * 90).
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Calculating "normal" FL (traditional) formula: square root of image length squared plus image width squared...

(6x9cm)
56^2 + 84^2 = 10192
sqrt of 10192 = 101mm (normal for 6x9cm according this old formula)

90(your lens' FL) / 101(normal lens' FL) = .89

normal FL for 135 format is 43mm
.89 x 43 = 38mm equivalent on a 135 format camera... just shy of normal

Many consider the old traditional formula flawed preferring to use the long edge of the image area for calculation but I don't know a formula for that. I'd "guess" multiplying the long edge by 1.2x is pretty close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,829
Format
Multi Format
Um, er, ah, 2x3 and 24x36 have the same aspect ratio so comparing the formats' long, or for that matter their short, side as a basis of comparison is equivalent to using the diagonal. The diagonal is the conventional basis but as we've seen some people don't follow the convention.

O-N-F, all dimensions of 2x3 are approximately 2 1/3 times the equivalent dimensions of 24x36. I don't know where you got your 1.2 times.
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,947
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
Ascertaining the aspect ratio and the 35mm equivalent in lens is all fine and dandy, but you need to bear in mind when you compose on that large 4x5 ground glass that you are not using the entire image. You are already cropping down to 6x9cm, and it makes zero difference what ever lens you decide on for standard, the image you capture is pre-cropped. to fit the back. I hope you have some guide lines to figure where the 6x9 is going to be when you trip the shutter. Honestly, I seriously considered a 6x9 back for my 4x5, but came to the realization that is was a waste of time and film. If you really want that size negative, get a dedicated camera for it. Now, if you were talking 6x12, that might be another story.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format

Of course that's true, Dan. You're correct as usual. I just added that tidbit of information in case the OP ever decided to shoot 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 6x12cm. I "guessed" at the 1.2x factor for choosing a normal lens based on long edge...

6x6cm..... 56 x 1.2 = 67mm

6x7cm..... 70 x 1.2 = 84mm

6x9cm..... 84 x 1.2 = 101mm

6x12cm... 112 x 1.2 = 134mm

I'd "guess" that's fairly close although 1.22x or 1.25x might be closer. However, I'm sure there are better calculations. I just don't know of any.

Using 1.25x instead...

6x6cm..... 70mm

6x7cm..... 88mm

6x9cm..... 105mm

6x12cm... 140mm

Yeah, those seem more reasonable. So my NEW "guess" is 1.25x to calculate normal FL based on the long edge of the image.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,829
Format
Multi Format
O-N-F, what does your 1.2 or 1.22 or 1.25 have to do with the OP's question? You've lost me completely.

Rick, I use a 4x5 standard and focusing panel to shoot 6x12, have reluctantly decided to park my 2x3 gear and use my 6x12 rig for that format with, of course, a 2x3 roll holder that fits it. By an odd coincidence the 4x5 focusing panel is marked for smaller formats so framing for them with it isn't much of a problem. I just have to pay attention to the frame lines. As it happens, the 2x3 roll holder I got to use with my 6x12 rig has a gate that's offset from the camera's optical axis. Putting additional marks for framing with it wasn't hard.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Dan... where did you miss the OP's reference to 6x4.5cm? That's closer to 4x5" or 6x7cm ratio than 6x9cm. What does 1.2, 1.22 or 1.25 have to do with the OP's question? Plenty, because many people prefer to select normal FL base on the longest image side vs. the diagonal and there's some merit in that.
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,829
Format
Multi Format

Revisit the original post. 645 was an aside. The OP's question was about 6x9.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,455
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
Forget 'normal' on 35mm...the 50mm usual number is longer that the diagonal of 24x36mm frame dimension. 'Normal' is much too variable, as I have seen manufacturers of 135 format cameras with 45mm, 50mm. 52mm, 55mm and 58mm lens FL, all called 'normal'! Forget that the "normal" lens on 6x9 is in the 100mm-110mm, too.

Instead, relate FL to the frame short dimension, for a precise geometric equivalence!
  1. With 55mm (or 56mm) frame height limited by film width of 120/220, the 90mm lens is 1.64x the 6x9 format frame height.
  2. 1.64x the 24mm frame height of 135 format yields 39mm, so 90mm on 6x9 format would be about the same Angle of View as using 39mm lens on 135 format camera in terms of Angle of View captured within the frame.
  3. Using 180mm on 6x9 (3.27x the frame height) would be like using 79mm on 135 format.

Using the short dimension of the frame completely allows you to compare any format, in spite of the fact that the aspect ratio is 1:1, 1:1.2, 1:1.25, 1:3, 1:5 depending upon the camera model you pick up!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

duparis00

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
150
Location
Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Yeah the ground glass on my Linhof has 4x5 and 6x9 frame lines. I wanted the option to use movements like swing, tilt, rise/fall etc. along with the option of not having to shoot on 4x5 sheet film.

 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,556
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I'm just trying to figure out what angle of view
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a 'crop factor' is but Chapter 14 of the Horseman VHR manual (available on the Butkus site) lists the angle view of a number of popular focal lengths for both 6x9 and 6x7 format Horseman rollfilm backs.
 

John Koehrer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,277
Location
Aurora, Il
Format
Multi Format
I like ONF's multiplying the long dimension X 1.25. Simple for the likes of me.
It's just an approximation and there's no life threatening consequences involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…