6x9 Monorail - Lens Recommendations

[DREW WILEY]

Oren, my Horseman holders hold the roll film very tight and flat, better than some dedicated 120 SLR backs. Some of the older style Calumet roll film holders were miserable, and the slide-in style holders are awfully heavy, and simply won't fit in
many cameras. But one does have to been conscious of overall deflection due to added back weight. It takes a good rear standard. That's why something like a Gowland or Toho seems unthinkable for highly accurate work. That center rail is tiny, and the entire system prone to vibration. I use my Sinars, or on long backpacking trips, a nice light Ebony folder with Horseman backs, now that Quickload and Readyload holders are gone. With tiny but very high quality Nikkor M and Fujinon A lenses, it's easy to have a very light kit.

 

[Oren Grad]

Oren, my Horseman holders hold the roll film very tight and flat...

My Horseman holders (all of them late-model 2x3/6x9) don't. And the design of the holders - size of the rollers, position relative to the exposure gate - means that the bump imparted by the rollers ends up sitting right in the middle of the next exposure.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...The only way I found to completely overcome what is essentially a holder-film system design defect was sacrificing half the frames on each roll. Load and advance to frame one. After exposing it, quickly advance to frame three, thereby skipping the deformation a feed roller had imposed on frame two. Etc.

...my Horseman holders hold the roll film very tight and flat, better than some dedicated 120 SLR backs...

It was my three (purchased brand new) Horseman holders that I tested extensively decades ago which revealed the reverse-curl bulge problem. They do not and cannot exert enough tension on the film to overcome it. Those are the holders I skipped frames with to ensure flat film.

For flat 120 film, nothing beats a Mamiya 7/7II. The Pentax 67 is excellent too. It's unfortunate that neither Horseman nor Mamiya ever configured an interchangeable holder so the bulge fell between frames. This could have been accomplished by means of a 6x8 image size and careful attention to geometry. I'd coordinated with the folks at Alpa to modify Mamiya holders toward that end, but the cost/difficulty of accomplishing it and rise of digital ended the effort.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry Sal and Oren, not mine. I can hold em up to a shiny light and tell that - no reverse curl symptoms at all. No malfunctioning. Nor would most users of Horseman holders agree with your assessment. I have a P67 system and a 6x9 Fuji RF - very sharp lenses, and both with positive roll feed. But I get even better results with Nikkor M and Fuji A lenses with the Horseman holders. I am currently drymounting a lot of em - mostly 16X20's. I've done 20x24 color prints from Ektar, and if anyone knows me at all, they know I make very crisp prints. I suspect the problems you had are due to a different reason entirely, but will reserve that discussion for another day, another thread... eating lunch at the moment, and then back to the darkroom. Perhaps your holders were purchased just too many decades ago. Even Hassies had a big problem with reverse curl at one time. Bugs get worked out.

 

[ozphoto]

The following list of lens focal length conversions are approximate, depending on actual image size and crop factor.
The first FL is 135 format, followed by 6x9cm...

17mm = ~38mm
24mm = ~ 58mm
28mm = ~ 65mm
50mm = ~ 115mm
80mm = ~ 180mm
* I would suggest an intermediate FL between 80 and 180 such as 110/115/120/125/127/135
* (~ 240-300mm equivalent FL)
180mm = ~ 420mm
200mm = ~ 465mm

If one is on a tight budget, the most affordable relatively modern lenses are 65, 120/125/127/135, 203/210/240 for a three lens kit for either format. If you have a large budget then 38, 58, 90, 135, 203/210, 300 would make a fantastic six lens kit for 6x9cm and you could add a 355/360/420/450 for use mostly with 4x5. If you want all lenses to cover 4x5 and have a large budget then 47, 72, 110/115/120/125/135, 180/203/210, 240/270, 300/355/360 would be a phenomenal five or six lens kit. I know of no fairly modern lenses shorter than 47mm that cover 4x5.

Thank you O&F - some more food for thought.

 

[Besk]

This has been mentioned before: The worst problem you will run into with a 6X9 monorail style camera is being able to use wide angle lenses. Check for minimum bellows draw before purchasing your camera.
If a bag bellows is available for the camera - the problem is probably solved.

 

[ozphoto]

This has been mentioned before: The worst problem you will run into with a 6X9 monorail style camera is being able to use wide angle lenses. Check for minimum bellows draw before purchasing your camera.
If a bag bellows is available for the camera - the problem is probably solved.

Thanks, Bob - bag bellows are definitely on my "Must Have/Must Buy" list.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back to the disputed point (now that I'm done drymounting for the day)... I get nothing even remotely resembling a "bump" within the image area of my 6x9 holders. These are the Horseman version on a 4x5 plate, not the ones dedicated to only 6x9 cameras. If the rolls of film are correctly advanced at the beginning, there is sufficient tension to keep everything taut due to the little subsidiary tensioning roller. But I have no idea what the insides of Sal's or Oren's own holders look like.

 

[ozphoto]

In the 3 years I used a 5x4 at college, I never experienced a „bump“ either; from memory we used Horseman 6x7 backs, so not 6x9, but i did always check tension when first loading.

I even check with my little 6x9 folder, as i got caught out the first time. I’m sure there‘s always the possibility of it happening - just like loading 5x4 the wrong way.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There are quite a few discussions on the subject of reverse-curl roll film holders' feed rollers causing bulges within subsequent frames. Those discussions also addressed the conditions under which said bulges cause stripes of unsharpness in images. They're in multiple forums at multiple photography Web sites. Anyone interested is encouraged to use a search engine and find them. Include my name, Oren's name and Paul Roark's name in your search terms. Paul independently concluded he had to skip frames with his Rollei SL66 system. I'm not going to repeat everything; this situation has been discussed for decades. Zeiss even published papers on it, concluding that 220 suffered a bit less than 120 from the design flaw.

Two final points. First, Horseman's roll film holders for its medium format cameras are identical to those for 4x5 cameras. The latter are simply mounted on a large plate. Second, among the most difficult challenges presented by Internet forums is figuring out who knows what they're talking about. In my experience, those who claim to or present like they know everything usually don't.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

For my Horseman 6x9, for normal I use a Schneider 100mm APO Symmar, long a Nikkor W 180mm (which also covers 4x5 and 5x7), and for short a Horseman Super ER 65mm on a recessed board. All fantastic lenses for 6x9.

 

[ozphoto]

For my Horseman 6x9, for normal I use a Schneider 100mm APO Symmar, long a Nikkor W 180mm (which also covers 4x5 and 5x7), and for short a Horseman Super ER 65mm on a recessed board. All fantastic lenses for 6x9.

Thanks - great to hear what others are using, to help me make some decisions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I prefer longer lenses, yet lightwt and very precise ones, so either take 100, 200, and 300 Nikkor M lenses, or else 125 Fuji W along with 180, 250, and 360 Fuji A's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think you're full of beans, Sal. Vertical stripes? Sounds more like a loose roll of film. I know about the SL66 back problems because my brother sold em. But even that problem must have been rare because I inherited hundreds of his negatives taken with SL66's and they look crisp overall. I've never seen anything like that with my holders; and I sure as heck have had them in some extreme situations in terms of humidity and temperature shifts. I've taken rolls of film and wasted em by watching what happened by advancing the film with the darkslide removed. Other than a brief learning curve, a non-issue. But I'll do it again in deference to your comment. I've been wrong before. Better safe than sorry.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I have researched that 120 vs 220 film flatness question before. Of course you can hypothetically get flatter film without the paper backing. There is even a vacuum-back version of the P67 with 220 film made for wide-field astrophotographers, since they covet the 300 and 400 EDIF Pentax M telephoto lenses. But for general photo usage rather than long clock-drive astro work, it would take a significant "bulge" as you call it at typical working apertures. At Pt Reyes Station nearby,
Marty Knapp has spent his entire career with a Horseman tech camera and 6x9 backs. He enlarges those things to a considerable degree and swears by his gear. He has to; he makes his living with it. The only problem I ever had was one evening in the Wind Rivers when a moose cow and calf suddenly came out of the willows and my Ebony 4x5 was smack in the middle of their favorite path. The camera was knocked over but had a soft landing in the grass. The rear swing was jarred a bit; and because the light was rapidly failing, I had to guess the zero reset (there's no detent). Got some great shots, but a tad out of ideal focus one edge. Under full sunlight the next day, I corrected the swing better and that was the end of the minor problem, so it can't be blamed on some intermittent "bulge". I remain highly skeptical that it's a routine problem since MOST MF systems use reverse curl backs, and they can't all be wrong.

 

[ozphoto]

I prefer longer lenses, yet lightwt and very precise ones, so either take 100, 200, and 300 Nikkor M lenses, or else 125 Fuji W along with 180, 250, and 360 Fuji A's.

Thanks Drew. Appreciate your insights.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Sal, I just wasted another roll, and all I discovered is the same thing as time and time before. The film in the Horseman holder is consistently taut and stays distinctly FLATTER than film in any ordinary sheet film holder, and way better than film in a Quickload or Readyload or 545 holder. No bulges, wrinkles, or whatever, exactly like my many enlargements prove as well. I thoroughly tested my other 6x9 holder in advance too. So I have no idea what you are complaining about. Sorry such holders have not pleased you. I'm delighted with my results. And I find it impossible to believe that manufacturers of serious pro MF equipment have not thoroughly addressed this issue by now themselves.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is a distinct technique to advancing film frames in the Horseman holder. It is simple and predictable. You need to fully retract the little release button each time; and in the case of the 6x9 holder, make the two positive lever strokes (the second is shorter). This needs to be practiced a bit until it's spontaneous. Not tricky at all. But if one is in a hurry and just sorta bumps that little button and doesn't bring each lever stroke to its set limit, it is possible to build reverse tension on the roll and
cause either a minor buckle or unacceptable spacing between frames, even a bit of overlap. That is the only thing I can think of that would equate to Sal's complaint, and it is easy to avoid. If someone is buying a used holder without the original packaging, it is worthwhile to download a copy of the instructions. If there were an issue due to reverse film curl, it would
logically be symptomized by either concave or convex bowing down the LENGTH of the roll or frame. But vertical buckling
means that the film was not correctly advanced, and that retracting the lever at this incorrect point applied counter-pressure on the roll. Therefore, more likely operator error than any fault of the equipment.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

In regards to roll film holders, don't leave film in one for an extended period. If you do, the film for the next frame may take on a curl from the rollers which won't flatten completely when advanced to take the next photo. Also, I've found that the Mamiya RB67 holders work well on 6x9 view cameras; the only issue being that the dark slide handle is square and may interfere with the holder staying perfectly flat to the camera back when inserted. Just be sure to press the holder against the rear standard when removing the slide.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It was my three (purchased brand new) Horseman holders that I tested extensively decades ago which revealed the reverse-curl bulge problem...

There are quite a few discussions on the subject of reverse-curl roll film holders' feed rollers causing bulges within subsequent frames. Those discussions also addressed the conditions under which said bulges cause stripes of unsharpness in images. They're in multiple forums at multiple photography Web sites. Anyone interested is encouraged to use a search engine and find them. Include my name, Oren's name and Paul Roark's name in your search terms. Paul independently concluded he had to skip frames with his Rollei SL66 system. I'm not going to repeat everything; this situation has been discussed for decades...

I'm still not going to repeat everything or rebut nonsense. Insinuations of operator error are insulting. Readers are free to perform their own research, conduct their own experiments and reach whatever conclusions they wish.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thousands have tested em, Sal, and routinely used em. Horseman holders and the nearly identical Wista ones were an industry standard for several decades, at least for something reasonably portable and affordable. Horseman's casting and machining tended to be excellent in general. I'm sure they knew what a micrometer is. Sorry if you're offended; but certain things are obvious this round. No different than learning how to drive a stick shift; if the gears are grinding, maybe the manufacturer truly is at fault, but probably not.

 

[ozphoto]

In regards to roll film holders, don't leave film in one for an extended period. If you do, the film for the next frame may take on a curl from the rollers which won't flatten completely when advanced to take the next photo. Also, I've found that the Mamiya RB67 holders work well on 6x9 view cameras; the only issue being that the dark slide handle is square and may interfere with the holder staying perfectly flat to the camera back when inserted. Just be sure to press the holder against the rear standard when removing the slide.

Thanks for that tip.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The stiffness or squirreliness of 120 seems to be largely related to humidity, but can also differ a bit between film types, or be a greater problem with outdated film. This can be noted even when attempting to spool film on a developing reel. I really wouldn't worry much about film loaded in advance for a trip and held in the roll-film holder for two or three months under reasonable climatic conditions. Too humid and you might get mildew, too dry and you might get film stiffness, with perhaps resistance or buckle in certain holders, though I've never experienced it myself. But I don't gamble on especially old roll film.

 

[ozphoto]

So since my initial post I've ended up purchasing an Arca Swiss 6x9 and Santa delivered it today from Switzerland in wonderful condition. I can get out and start shooting right away, as it came with 2 Graflex backs and a 135mm lens. Also has a bellows bag and compendium, all in its original blue suitcase.

Next job - choose a wide angle lens. Seen a few on eB*** that appear to be well suited to my needs, plus I'm keeping my eyes on the Photrio classifieds and several camera stores that have listed online too. Biggest decision is probably how fast I need it to be - buildings don't move too much,nor do landscapes. Seen Nikons, Fujis, Schneiders and a couple of Wollensakes and Horsemans: so many on offer, I'm like a kid in a candy store.

Looking forward to choosing one that ticks the boxes for me - thanks to veryone here, I have got some great suggestions to work with!

 

[Ian Grant]

Wanted adverts work well here Nanette, might be worth a try

Ian