6x9 monorail

[abruzzi]

Is this idea completely daft? I’ve been going back and forth on the idea.

Pros:

• potentially smaller and lighter than the 4x5 field monorail I have now
• Lighter supporting parts like tripods, etc.
• Shooting medium format, but with the workflow I’ve come to love for LF
• Roll film availability is better than any size sheet film.

Cons:

• well hell, I can just buy a horseman 6x9 roll back for 4x5 for $150
• 6x9 monorails is smaller and lighter but not hugely so, maybe 15-25% reduction over 4x5
• Minimal sheet film availability, in the US? Foma (though I do love Foma 100.)
• The roll film workflow on 6x9 (and 4x5!) isn’t as simple as the sheet workflow (i.e removing the GG and stowing it somewhere while you attach the holder.)unless you get one of those sliding things that seem to defeat the size benefits

Right now I’m leaning towards the “no” side but for some of my photography it would be nice to have the LF workflow in a more portable package. Has anyone tried this? What have been your feelings on doing it?

(Note, I actually have a baby Technika, so I have some lenses and sheet holders to reduce the startup cost on getting a monorail, but I haven’t really gelled with the baby Tech because I’ve tried to use it as a rangefinder/handheld camera and it has certain limitations when doing that.)

 

[Dennis-B]

I turned over this thought a number of times, and always defaulted to my 4x5 Cambo, Meridian, Super Graphic, Busch Pressman, etc., instead. The price for 6x9 view cameras is really steep compared to a nice 4x5. There are any number of 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 film back solutions, so another "body" never really appealed to me. I've used the Graflok roll film backs, as well as the Calumet roll film back, and I've always gotten great results. The 150mm "normal" lens on a 4x5, means a short telephoto, or long lens on 6x7/9. You're shooting through the sweet spots on 4x5 lenses. One of the things I've done with all my 4x5's, is to mark 6x7 and 6x9 frames on the ground glass using chart pack tape. I've read a number of posts variously, which stated concern about film flatness in some of the adapter backs, but I've never had a problem with this.

The 6x9/7 and 6x6 solutions are especially attractive with the advent of film scanners and "Photoshop".

I do own a Century Speed Graphic which has roll film capabilities, but the bugaboo is loss of meaningful camera movements.

 

[Nokton48]

Consider the Plaubel Peco Junior. A finely made lightweight monorail

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

Sheet film I buy from European shops on the internet

 

[randyB]

Your 2x3 Technika should do just about everything that a monorail would do in the field. You just need to add a roll film back or 2, they can be pricey but worth it. I, personally have gone from Speed Graphic to Cambo monorail to Toyo field in 4x5 with sheet and roll film holders. I love the Toyo. In the last few years I have been playing with 2x3 Graphics and a Horseman 2x3, so far I like the Horseman with the roll film back, all on a tripod. I get 6x9 negs all in a package that fits in a "normal" camera bag. Don't skimp on the tripod, the bigger the better.

 

[abruzzi]

Your 2x3 Technika should do just about everything that a monorail would do in the field. You just need to add a roll film back or 2, they can be pricey but worth it.

I actually have a 6x7 Super Rollex back for it. The roll back _sucks_ if your goal is to use the rangfinder and handhold, because it makes it impossible for me to get my eye close enough to viewfinder. Otherwise its a decent camera but without the flexibility of a monorail.

Part of what has made me think about this is Linhof made a 45 and 23 version of the Technikardan. I have the 45, and it is easily my favorite large format camera, maybe my favorite camera period. The way it works just jibs with my brain. I never really went looking for the 23, but recently I noticed that there is one on the bay that, while still a little overpriced for my nature, as are most Linhof cameras, is within striking distance pricewise (if anyone wants to buy it so I don't have to talk myself out of it, please do so.) I wish it was smaller and I wish it was lighter, but the short answer is it would be immediately familiar as a small version of my favorite camera.

But you are probably on the right track in that I should spend some time with the baby Technika, without handholding, and without rangefinder focusing, to see if I find the effort of LF style shooting for a smaller negative makes me happy.

@Nokton48 - that Plaubel looks very cute. I've stumbled across other Palubel camera, and I've always had a hard time finding the kind of information I'd want on their stuff, though they always seem to be excellent cameras. The trick for me is that the only way to make this even remotely worthwhile for me is the ability to mount a roll back, preferably with a 6x9 aspect, simply beause I don't want to cut my own film (tried that wen my baby Technika came with 6.5x9 holder and I had to cut 5x7 down) and I don't see the availability of 2.25x3.25 film increasing anytime soon.

@Dennis-B - yours is the practical response, and thats the whisperer I should be listening to. As I mentioned, in my original post, a horseman roll holder to $150 is a heck of a lot cheaper. Since my primary goal with the smaller monorail is a more portable setup, I've been adding a few 4x5 lenses that are much smaller and lighter than the usual plasmats--my lightweight 4x5 trio is currently a 90mm Angulon (but would like to replace with a 100mm WF Ektar), a 150mm G-Claron, and a 210mm Xenar. I also last night noticed that the 65mm ƒ8 Super Angulon I have on the baby Technika will cover 4x5, so I've temporarily moved it to a grown-up technika lens board. But its on a 00 copal, with no T or preview, which always annoys me.

 

[Bob S]

Is this idea completely daft? I’ve been going back and forth on the idea.

Pros:

• potentially smaller and lighter than the 4x5 field monorail I have now
• Lighter supporting parts like tripods, etc.
• Shooting medium format, but with the workflow I’ve come to love for LF
• Roll film availability is better than any size sheet film.

Cons:

• well hell, I can just buy a horseman 6x9 roll back for 4x5 for $150
• 6x9 monorails is smaller and lighter but not hugely so, maybe 15-25% reduction over 4x5
• Minimal sheet film availability, in the US? Foma (though I do love Foma 100.)
• The roll film workflow on 6x9 (and 4x5!) isn’t as simple as the sheet workflow (i.e removing the GG and stowing it somewhere while you attach the holder.)unless you get one of those sliding things that seem to defeat the size benefits

Right now I’m leaning towards the “no” side but for some of my photography it would be nice to have the LF workflow in a more portable package. Has anyone tried this? What have been your feelings on doing it?

(Note, I actually have a baby Technika, so I have some lenses and sheet holders to reduce the startup cost on getting a monorail, but I haven’t really gelled with the baby Tech because I’ve tried to use it as a rangefinder/handheld camera and it has certain limitations when doing that.)

Or you can use a slide-in roll film holder like the LInhof Rapid Rollex 6x7 back. That eliminates removing the gg to shoot roll film. It just slides under the gg after you have composed and focused.

 

[abruzzi]

Or you can use a slide-in roll film holder like the LInhof Rapid Rollex 6x7 back. That eliminates removing the gg to shoot roll film. It just slides under the gg after you have composed and focused.

Thats true, though they don't come up used very often, and I don't think I've ever seen a used 23 version of the RR. Are they still in production?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thats true, though they don't come up used very often, and I don't think I've ever seen a used 23 version of the RR. Are they still in production?

The RR is 6x7 only.

If you want to stick with a 4x5 camera and shoot 2x3, there are other insertion type roll holders. Cambo and Sinar, for example. There are also insertion type roll holders for 2x3 cameras. I use the despised Adapt-A-Roll 620 with my 2x3 Graphics. This holder won't attach to any of the versions of Cambo's 2x3 international back. Come to think of if, there's a version of the AAR 620 that fits 4x5 cameras.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't think you'll save much weight, maybe a little bulk. I don't like the idea of potentially thinner rails or standards if that's involved; roll film backs need a fair amount of rigid support or they can tug at the film plane and spoil acute focus. There is an expensive Techni-Kardan 6X9 option, and a pricey Arca one. Technikas, whether full sized or 2X3 "Baby" do not have the flexibility or monorails, which can generally accept additional rail sections or optional bellows way out there if needed. I'm a long lens addict, so that is a big deal to me. The biggest problems with scaled-down monorails, however, is that they tend to be way more expensive than the full-sized 4X5 versions, probably because so few were made.

With a full 4x5 camera, you have the options of using either full sized filmholders or rollfilm backs, even on the same outing.
Many view cameras including some monorails simply won't accept slide-in backs. Nearly all accept the Graflok style roll-film holders. I use Horseman 6X9 roll holders.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Buschman and a Graphic 2X3 that I use with sheet film so I can shoot zone. Not as much movement as with a view camera, and the lens do not cover the movement they do have. I bought them as an alternative to my Mamiya Universal, much lighter when hiking. In the field they work petty well, I use a monopod or light tripod, or in good light can handhold with the rangefinder. Still a view camera has it's appeal, sometimes I really miss having the movements.

 

[choiliefan]

The Galvin 23 is a simple monorail camera but I don't believe it has a Graflok back.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/toyo/toyo-galvin-2x3.html

 

[abruzzi]

The RR is 6x7 only.

If you want to stick with a 4x5 camera and shoot 2x3, there are other insertion type roll holders. Cambo and Sinar, for example. There are also insertion type roll holders for 2x3 cameras. I use the despised Adapt-A-Roll 620 with my 2x3 Graphics. This holder won't attach to any of the versions of Cambo's 2x3 international back. Come to think of if, there's a version of the AAR 620 that fits 4x5 cameras.

thanks. How well do these slide in things work? That’s a really sharp turn the film makes at the end. I did a little looking and it seems Calumet made a similar style roll holder, but I can’t find any info on whether they made a 2x3 vwesion. There is a bunch of the Calumet on eBay, and the AAR doesn’t seem to be as unobtanium as the Linhof. I’m curious if you’ve come across other brands that made a 2x3 camera variant.

 

[Nokton48]

Sinar makes excellent Vario roll holders, even variable format mid-roll models. Flatness is exceptional. Put that in your 4x5 Technikardan

 

[Dan Fromm]

thanks. How well do these slide in things work? That’s a really sharp turn the film makes at the end. I did a little looking and it seems Calumet made a similar style roll holder, but I can’t find any info on whether they made a 2x3 vwesion. There is a bunch of the Calumet on eBay, and the AAR doesn’t seem to be as unobtanium as the Linhof. I’m curious if you’ve come across other brands that made a 2x3 camera variant.

You're right about the sharp bend at the insertion end of an AAR 620. All but one of mine have worked very well. The exception had been modified to take the film up paper out, as is usual in typical roll film cameras and roll holders. The normal AAR 620 takes film up film out, the film goes straight across the gate to the take up spool. In my modified AAR 620, the film bends down and around the take up spool at the take up end. This causes a buckle at the take up end of the gate.

Toyo makes relatively flat roll holders that fit 6x9 and 4x5 Graflok backs. They're too thick to slip in like a sheet film holder, but they're thinner than Graflex Inc. or Horseman roll holders.

 

[btaylor]

I had a Galvin 2x3 view camera for years and hardly used it. As noted a 4x5 is not a lot larger and roll film adapters are plentiful and cheap.

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone else find a 6x9 ground glass just a bit too small to see well enough what one wants to see?

 

[Paul Howell]

Yep, one of the down side of my press 6X7 or 2 1/4 by 3 1/4, dim, not back in good light, at dusk and dawn an issue. On my list to upgrade the glass back with brighter ground glass.

 

[Bob S]

thanks. How well do these slide in things work? That’s a really sharp turn the film makes at the end. I did a little looking and it seems Calumet made a similar style roll holder, but I can’t find any info on whether they made a 2x3 vwesion. There is a bunch of the Calumet on eBay, and the AAR doesn’t seem to be as unobtanium as the Linhof. I’m curious if you’ve come across other brands that made a 2x3 camera variant.

The Rapid Rollex held film very flat and worked fine.

 

[abruzzi]

I don't think you'll save much weight, maybe a little bulk..

this is, I think, the crux of it. I’m a little less worried about weight as I am about bulk, but I need to look long and hard at the numbers. Maybe build a cardboard box the size to the TK23 and lay it next to my TK45. But in the end, how much space and weight do I save over my existing 4x5 setup is probably what’s going to make it worthwhile or not.

 

[Bob S]

this is, I think, the crux of it. I’m a little less worried about weight as I am about bulk, but I need to look long and hard at the numbers. Maybe build a cardboard box the size to the TK23 and lay it next to my TK45. But in the end, how much space and weight do I save over my existing 4x5 setup is probably what’s going to make it worthwhile or not.

The 23 TK models are 1 pound lighter then the 45 models. They are about 4 sq in smaller then the 45 versions.

 

[bdial]

Does anyone else find a 6x9 ground glass just a bit too small to see well enough what one wants to see?

Yes, if you want to use movements, the bigger the film, the easier they are to use. Leastwise that's been my experience.
Long ago I had a baby Technica which I used for quite a lot of view camera type work, mostly using sheet film. Aside from the available movements being pretty limited on that camera, a 4x5 gives you a lot more control. But there are some very nice 6x9 monorails around, though a lot of them are pretty dear compared to what you can find in 4x5 or bigger.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Using a 6X9 GG effectively takes a little while to get used to. Equal perspectives to 4x5 use shorter lenses, so there's less room for error in focus. And you have to be especially conscious about roll film backs potentially tugging at the rear standard of a lightweight field camera, or the orientation of the camera getting leveraged out of position when installing the holder. Settings need to be especially well locked down. Practice makes perfect. But working with full sized 4x5 sheet holders is certainly easier.

Monorails tend to be much easier to balance lengthwise atop a tripod than a drop-bed technical camera. So factor that into the OVERALL weight equation. But going 6x7 versus 4X5 certainly doesn't mean you can scrimp on tripod quality or rigidity, due to the reason I explained in the top paragraph. And as usual, ballheads are the root of all evil when it comes to stability.

 

[ozphoto]

Your dilemma sounds similar to what I had a couple of years ago, however, I don't own a Baby T, so I was entering the LF area as a newbie with regard to camera kit ownership.

I had actually contemplated buying a 4x5 for many years, but my situation changed and I found I wasn't leaning towards shooting sheet film as much as I had hoped. Additionally, purchasing a 5x4 enlarger here in Australia (when I finally moved back), was going to cost big $$$ that I simply couldn't justify and would probably never actually use the darn thing to its full potential anyway.

In the end, after chatting here and on the LF Forum, I settled on an older Arca Swiss 6x9 monorail (I would have loved a Technika 6x9, but they were out of my price range). It doesn't have all the movements of the 5x4 version, but, for me, it's quite simply the perfect solution and roll-film is a much better medium for me to deal with. Sure, quite a few advised me to go bigger, but for me, it was going to be overkill and seemed a pointless exercise, therefore, bigger ≠ better.

On the LF Forum, a number of years back, a similar discussion provided some interesting answers. A couple of users had a 6x9 as well as a 4x5, to use in those instances when the latter would be too heavy or cumbersome. In such cases, they happily took the 6x9 out to achieve their goals.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Is this idea completely daft? I’ve been going back and forth on the idea.

Pros:

• potentially smaller and lighter than the 4x5 field monorail I have now
• Lighter supporting parts like tripods, etc.
• Shooting medium format, but with the workflow I’ve come to love for LF
• Roll film availability is better than any size sheet film.

Cons:

• well hell, I can just buy a horseman 6x9 roll back for 4x5 for $150
• 6x9 monorails is smaller and lighter but not hugely so, maybe 15-25% reduction over 4x5
• Minimal sheet film availability, in the US? Foma (though I do love Foma 100.)
• The roll film workflow on 6x9 (and 4x5!) isn’t as simple as the sheet workflow (i.e removing the GG and stowing it somewhere while you attach the holder.)unless you get one of those sliding things that seem to defeat the size benefits

Right now I’m leaning towards the “no” side but for some of my photography it would be nice to have the LF workflow in a more portable package. Has anyone tried this? What have been your feelings on doing it?

(Note, I actually have a baby Technika, so I have some lenses and sheet holders to reduce the startup cost on getting a monorail, but I haven’t really gelled with the baby Tech because I’ve tried to use it as a rangefinder/handheld camera and it has certain limitations when doing that.)

I've used a 6x9 rollfilm holder on my 4x5 and it works well;t he biggest issue is to find a 6x9 enlarger and by the time you have to use a 4x5 enlarger,you might as well shoot 4x5.

 

[Bob S]

Why is finding a 69 enlarger difficult? Just look for a used Beseler 23c. Common as dirt.