6x9 monorail

I find 6x9cm and 2.25"x3.25" more difficult to view, the importance to me becomes ease of viewing mainly. I attach a bag bellows to the rear of each rear standard, Old old Plaubel Peco Profia, and Sinar Norma both make excellent loupes for monocular viewing. I'm sure Linhof does, too. This hugely helps me in composing as I tend to start at the edges and corners and work the composition inwards. With a proper monocular viewer, and getting used to it, this works really well for me. This is a highly underrated compositional tool.

Try it, you will like it!

Dan, thanks for mentioning monocular viewers. Horseman makes a monocular viewer that fits 2x3 Graflok backs. I have one and dislike it. Too dim. Perhaps with a different ground glass?

No one has mentioned it, but I once got to play with a 6x9 ArcaSwiss monorail that had the AS 6x9 binocular viewer. The view was amazingly bright, but to be fair the 100/2.8 Planar on the camera's front standard probably had something to do with that. I liked it so much that I bought a Cambo binocular viewer for my 4x5 Cambo.

OP, here's https://www.largeformatphotography.info/roundup2x3.html a somewhat dated report on 2x3 cameras that you might find helpful.

Per LInhof, you need to use the fresnel with the reflex viewer.

I have a removable fresnel on all my cameras. Sometimes I prefer them sometimes not. Depends on what I am doing

Reflex and binocular viewing attachments pretty much defeat the whole purpose of downsizing to 6x9 for sake of greater portability and lesser weight.

DREW WILEY said:

Reflex and binocular viewing attachments pretty much defeat the whole purpose of downsizing to 6x9 for sake of greater portability and lesser weight.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if they are built like bag bellows, (obviously not reflex) they can fold up pretty small, and if it allows you to leave the dark cloth at home, it might be a small space savings. But the rigid reflex viewers seems pretty bulky.

I have two of the Norma Reflex Magnifiers, they work in a few applications. But not some also.

With a bag bellows and monocular, very little bulk and weight. Seriously, What weight? The POINT is that you can move your head around and find the bright spots in each corner or wherever, with or with out a fresnel And SEE and SCRUTINIZE the image sometimes even stopped down. Much harder to do that with Reflex IMO. Sure you can move the mirror around but I prefer to move my head around with the bag and monocular. Even moreso with camera movements.

Moving your head around to see bright spots on a tiny 6X9 ground glass image?? Don't get it. What weight and bulk??? Try ten days of climbing up glaciers and high ridges, and wishing you had brought along another day of food in that damn 85 lb pack instead of a bag bellows, which dassn't taste too good even if it is leather, boiled n' salted. If minimizing weight and bulk weren't a priority, why are we even discussing roll film backs?

You have a baby Technika, so that might be enough to satisfy your MF needs. I had a nice Technika IV 6x9, and I sold it primarily because it was not a good setup for wide angle lenses. It could barely handle movements for a 65mm that I had for it; it couldn't effectively handle anything smaller. I transitioned to 4x5 photography, and I also have an 8x10 kit. Though, I'm most comfortable with 4x5.

But, I never lost my attraction to medium format. There's something about MF view camera photography that appeals quite a lot to me . . .

>> It's a smaller kit with a smaller camera and smaller lenses. Lenses are less expensive, and one doesn't need a beefy tripod, like with 4x5.

>> I like the idea of multiple film holders, either color or black and white. Multiple black and white film holder facilitates convenient zone system photography, where one can have a separate film holder for each development, N, N-1, N+2, etc.

>> It's convenient for travel. Already mentioned, everything is smaller. Most people are familiar with film spools; not so many with sheet film holders. This makes airport inspections easier, and one can hopefully avoid sending MF film through high intensity, x-ray scanners.

>> Not true of sheet film cameras, film can be easily loaded in daylight. MF exposed film is easy to store; not so for sheet film.

>> An MF darkroom is more convenient. Enlargers are smaller, enlarging lenses less expensive, film can be more easily developed, etc. Setting up a temporary darkroom, like in a bathroom, is feasible for MF, versus larger cameras. MF black and white photography works for me, because I tend to print on 8x10 paper.

>> I also have a Mamiya Press 6x9 kit that shares all the same, RB67 film holders with my MF view camera.

>> Etc.

I've had a few medium format view cameras. Except for the Teck IV, all have been monorail, which I much prefer. I think I had a Toyo 6x9, which was a bit bulky and heavy. I've had two, nice Cambo 6x9 cameras at separate times, each with a wide-angle bellows, which for me, is essential. The downfall of a Cambo MF view camera was that, it's clumsy to stow in a backpack. I had an old-style Arca Swiss, 6x9 view camera (with bag bellows) that was very usable, and easily stowed in a backpack. I sold that for a more recent, Classic F 6x9 Classic F that works very well as an MF view camera.

Kirk Gittings, a well known SW architectural photographer had a quite reasonably priced, Calumet Wide Angle 4x5 camera that he used for years exclusively (or almost exclusively?) for medium format, view camera photography. He scanned his color MF negatives and digitally printed them on Epson printers. He sold that camera when the economics (as I understand it) pulled him into digital, architectural photography using a variety of perspective control lenses with a Canon, EOS mount.

My current 6x9 view camera is an Arca Swiss Metric that I purchased for a very low price from KEH. But as I say, an Arca Swiss 6x9, Classic F makes a very nice, convenient, compact view camera that can accomplish anything that one might want. And keeping an eye peeled, they can be found for reasonable prices. Accessories are readily available, if not of Arca Swiss manufacture, then of foreign manufacture.

Having an Arca Swiss Classic F makes it feasible to, some day, finding a used digital back. In my view, digital for color and film for black and white photography makes for a very nice combination.

6x9 Rollex Restored Compendium Russian Filter 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is basically a Plaubel Peco Junior front section, with the Plaubel Makiflex Adapter on the Automatic Makiflex. I made the custom bag bellows from a Plaubel Bag Bellows found cheaply and completely built, took about thirty-two small brass hobby screws to hold it together. Then glued together and painted flat black.

Easy pretty drastic moves are now possible. I agree with Glenn Evans, that the Peco Junior is certainly one of the most finely made 6x9 monorails. Actually it would be ideal for a digital platform. This is the best way to get reflex imo. Shown with the chrome Schneider 240 Xenar barrel lens. I made the swing out filter holder with Russina YG filter from a pile of parts I had in a junk box

This Peco Junior is cool:

Plaubel Peco Junior 6x9 Large Screen Camera Compartment Camera Large format Studio Camera | eBay

I have had several Plaubel Peco Junior 6x9 cameras over the years and still have one. They are indeed very small precision cameras and easy to take in to the field. They are way smaller than a Cambo 6x9 and smaller than a Linhof and Arca Swiss. With the appropriate back they can shoot Plaubel 6.5x9 sheet film holders, 6x9cm and smaller roll film in Plaubel holders, and 6x9cm in Graphic film holders. They are fairly easy to adapt to other brands of backs/holders.
The one for sale in the link above in not wearing the original Plaubel bellows. This one looks to be an Arca Swiss bellows to me. The original Plaubel bellows are tapered and reduce the size of the camera even more than pictured in that link above.
Robert

Also if you like Plaubel Makina rangefinder cameras, the film backs are interchangeable.


Hi Again Robert,
Hope all ia good and well.
-Dan

The view camera front end that Nokton48 attached to the front of his Makiflex is from the 9x12/4x5 Plaubel Peco Junior, you can tell because his picture shows tilts on the front standard. The 6x9 camera has tilts and swing on the rear standard with rise/fall and shift on the front.
I'm doing ok for an old guy.
thanks,
Robert

While I’m still considering a TK23, I have decided to take my own advice, and I bought a Galvin 6x9 that was recently listed on LFF. It should be here Tuesday, so it will be fun to try out. The Plaubel really tempted me, but there were certain aspects that turned me off a bit. First, with the design itself, there if no front tilt or swing, which I do use (I know all font movements can be simulated with rear movements and a tripod adjustment, but it is still a negative.). The bigger issue was the cost—while it’s not expensive, it would be once I add in the pieces to make it what I want. The Galvin is cheap, I can add a couple cheap Horseman backs from a VH, and I found a lens board adapter I should be able to cut down to Galvin size, to allow me to use the lenses I already have. All in I’ll be at about $400 with two roll holders, a replacement GG back (the camera has a non-original back from something else, but glennview.com has the original back), and the lens board adapter.

I know the Galvin isn’t remotely the quality or flexibility of the camera I think I want, but this seems like a better way to try the idea out.

abruzzi said:

...I bought a Galvin 6x9 that was recently listed on LFF. It should be here Tuesday...

Click to expand...

As someone who purchased one of those cameras brand new directly from Jim Galvin, I offer the following suggestion.

In order to lock movements, it's necessary that knobs be made very tight. The knurling on those knobs can chew up one's fingers when achieving the requisite level of tightness. Get yourself some shrink tubing in appropriate size(s), cut to length, place over the knobs and heat it up to provide a more comfortable way of operating those locks.

Yeah, I like knobs the big teeth your fingers can grab, so I can see how that camera could chew up your fingers.

The Galvin line started out as a self-use prototype for sake of a very lightweight option. Jim Galvin was a great guy, and knew how to get good shots with his own equipment. Gowland was another ultralight monorail. Later, the more expensive Toho brand came in as a pencil-thin rail option. I'd be worried about wind and vibration with any of them; but they all had grateful users, including climbers and cyclists. Finding Galvin models still in good condition, especially with respect to the bellows, might be a challenge.

I don’t really see the Galvin as the end state here, but really as a way to test a proposition. If I find myself always grabbing my 4x5, even when I want to shoot roll film, then it will have proven that sticking with my 4x5 is the better option. As a test, it’s about 1/10 the price of the absolute cheapest TK23 or AS 6x9, so I feel better about trying it out.

abruzzi said:

Yeah, I like knobs the big teeth your fingers can grab, so I can see how that camera could chew up your fingers.

Click to expand...

That was one of my biggest annoyances- those fricken flesh chewing knobs. I don’t know why I didn’t try heat shrink or plastidip. Looks like you got an amazing deal to try the 2x3 view camera concept. The bail back is great, it accepted my fat Graflex roll film back on mine with no problems.

btaylor said:

That was one of my biggest annoyances- those fricken flesh chewing knobs. I don’t know why I didn’t try heat shrink or plastidip. Looks like you got an amazing deal to try the 2x3 view camera concept. The bail back is great, it accepted my fat Graflex roll film back on mine with no problems.

Click to expand...

unfortunately, the one I got has a different back on it--probabyl from a 2x3 Graphic, so it doesn't have the cool GG that gets far out of the way. Fortunately glennview.com has one, so instead of $120, I'll be in this for $200, which is still pretty cheap (or I could have been happy with the Graphic back.)

well, its super light, and pretty small as well. I expect this is MUCH lighter than my pentax 67, and while I've never picked up a RB67, I expect this weighs less than an average RB67 lens. The (non standard) back is a litlle bit of a problem. I have to loosen the sliding locks that hold it in place in order to fit a standard plastic Lisco 2.25x3.25 film holder. I'm glad I'm buying a standard back from Glennview to replace this back. the camera only has one rail segment, so its pretty limited at the long end, but I have a tele-Arton 180mm that should work just fine. If anyone knows a source for additional rail segments, let me know, but I'm going to look to see if I can build an extension. If the tube diameter is standard, it might be pretty easy, though adding teeth for focusing wont happen, I'll just have to make sure that the rear standard is on the piece with the teeth, and the front standard can be anywhere.

The (hard to find) lens board is simple--a 5 inch square with small notches at the bottom corners. Fortunately it is a) big enough to hold an adapter to a technika board, and b) simple enough to cut down an existing larger board. The Horseman roll holder should arrive friday, so I'm looking forward to testing that. I'll run some tests on some 2.25x3.25 sheets of Fomapan 100 tomorrow. the lens that came with is is a an Astragon 90/6.8. The only discussion about it I could find thinks its a Yamasaki/Congo lens, but is it an Angulon clone? Or maybe another formula? The shutter is a bit flaky though, so I may remount my SA 65/8 for testing. Since the camera doesn't have interchangable bellows, its going to be somewhat limited on the wide end.

According to https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?165616-Congo-Lenses the 90/6.8 Yamasaki lens is a 4/4 double Gauss type. Most but probably not all lenses of this type have to be stopped down at least 2 - 3 stops to get decent image quality over 4x5 but it should do well on 2x3. On 2x3 it is really a slightly wide normal lens.

Dan Fromm said:

According to https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?165616-Congo-Lenses the 90/6.8 Yamasaki lens is a 4/4 double Gauss type. Most but probably not all lenses of this type have to be stopped down at least 2 - 3 stops to get decent image quality over 4x5 but it should do well on 2x3. On 2x3 it is really a slightly wide normal lens.

Click to expand...

interesting, thanks for that link. Unfortunately the shutter is acting up a bit, so I probably won’t test much with that lens until I can get it sorted. I love my 100mm WF Ektar, maybe this is in the same ballpark.

abruzzi said:

I love my 100mm WF Ektar, maybe this is in the same ballpark.

Click to expand...

You'll have to try it to find out. IMO, WF Etkars, which are restricted to around 80 degrees, are the class of that class. Most 4/4 double Gauss lenses are claimed to cover ~ 100 degrees. I've never had a Congo w/a, have had a 4/4 double Gauss 65/6.8 Optar and a 100/6.3 Weitwinkel Aristostigmat. Hated the Wolly, never got a really satisfactory shot with it and didn't love the Aristostigmat. But I love my 80 WF Ektar.

I’m thinking this camera is borderline too light. With everything locked and ready to shoot, the spring on the back is strong enough to lift and/or dislodge the camera and tripod. I think I need a heavier tripod, or one of the ones I can hang a bag of rocks from to hold it in place.