Actual frame size of Fujica GW690

Stolk · 2026-02-13T22:41:55-0500

I have a Fujica GW690 6x9 Professional.

I assumed that the frame size would be 6x9 cm, but it is much narrower: 54.5 x 80 mm instead.

Do I have a GW690 branded camera with GW680 innards?

(My Voigtlaender Bessa II, on the other hand, is much closer to 9cm, at 88mm wide. It seems more worthy of the Texas Leica moniker than the Fujica?)

mshchem · 2026-02-13T22:50:55-0500

The 680 iii I have is 54 x 75mm

blee1996 · 2026-02-13T22:51:09-0500

My older model, Fujica G690, has inner film gate width of about 83mm

djdister · 2026-02-13T22:53:44-0500

Measuring the negs from my Fuji GSW690III, I get 56 x 83 mm frames.

mshchem · 2026-02-13T22:55:49-0500

Stolk said:
I have a Fujica GW690 6x9 Professional.

I assumed that the frame size would be 6x9 cm, but it is much narrower: 54.5 x 80 mm instead.

Do I have a GW690 branded camera with GW680 innards?

(My Voigtlaender Bessa II, on the other hand, is much closer to 9cm, at 88mm wide. It seems more worthy of the Texas Leica moniker than the Fujica?)

View attachment 417984

View attachment 417985

My GW690III looks to be identical to what you're measuring

MattKing · 2026-02-13T23:04:50-0500

Even 4x5 isn't 4x5 .
Your Bessa II is actually unusual.

reddesert · 2026-02-13T23:43:24-0500

It is perhaps easier to think of medium format frame sizes in English units:
2-1/4" x 1-3/4", 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" square, 2-1/4" x 2-3/4", 2-1/4" x 3-1/4".

These convert to metric units:
57x44mm, 57x57mm, 57x70mm, 57x83mm.

It's not exact because many cameras (especially newer ones IMO) will have slightly smaller actual frame sizes. For example, a lot of 2-1/4" square cameras are actually about 56x56mm, 6x7 cameras are about 56x68mm, 6x9 cameras about 56x82mm. But they are usually closer to the quarter inch sizes than to "6x4.5, 6x5, 6x7, 6x9", which are basically convenience names.

250swb · 2026-02-14T03:18:19-0500

My GW670 is 56 x 67.5 which is fine because it allows for a black border in a 6x7 negative carrier.

mrosenlof · 2026-02-14T12:52:07-0500

The "normal" size for 6x9 is 56x84mm.

Stolk · 2026-02-14T14:27:53-0500

reddesert said:
It is perhaps easier to think of medium format frame sizes in English units:
2-1/4" x 1-3/4", 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" square, 2-1/4" x 2-3/4", 2-1/4" x 3-1/4".

These convert to metric units:
57x44mm, 57x57mm, 57x70mm, 57x83mm.

It's not exact because many cameras (especially newer ones IMO) will have slightly smaller actual frame sizes. For example, a lot of 2-1/4" square cameras are actually about 56x56mm, 6x7 cameras are about 56x68mm, 6x9 cameras about 56x82mm. But they are usually closer to the quarter inch sizes than to "6x4.5, 6x5, 6x7, 6x9", which are basically convenience names.

Thanks.

This makes me wonder what the frame spacing is on Kodak’s backing paper on the film, with the printed numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

Probably 90mm?

GregY · 2026-02-14T16:41:21-0500

reddesert said:
It is perhaps easier to think of medium format frame sizes in English units:
2-1/4" x 1-3/4", 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" square, 2-1/4" x 2-3/4", 2-1/4" x 3-1/4".

These convert to metric units:
57x44mm, 57x57mm, 57x70mm, 57x83mm.

It's not exact because many cameras (especially newer ones IMO) will have slightly smaller actual frame sizes. For example, a lot of 2-1/4" square cameras are actually about 56x56mm, 6x7 cameras are about 56x68mm, 6x9 cameras about 56x82mm. But they are usually closer to the quarter inch sizes than to "6x4.5, 6x5, 6x7, 6x9", which are basically convenience names.

Not really. All numeric sizes in my experience are approximate & at the mercy of manufacturers/engineers.... designs & builds. It makes no difference to me....if 6x6 is too small then go to 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12....

OAPOli · 2026-02-14T16:52:21-0500

Yes that's the proper size. The 6x7 and 6x8 versions have masks glued onto the reliefs on the left and right of the film aperture. The size on the negative will be a bit larger than 80mm because of the offset of the reliefs.

reddesert · 2026-02-14T18:32:23-0500

Stolk said:
Thanks.

This makes me wonder what the frame spacing is on Kodak’s backing paper on the film, with the printed numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

Probably 90mm?

I have some backing paper at hand (it's Ilford), with these spacings:
6x4.5: 1-7/8", 47.5mm
6x6: 2-1/2", 63.5mm
6x9: 3-11/16", 93.5mm

Most of the rollfilm sizes showed up very early when consumer photos were generally contact-printed (an exception is 6x7 which appeared much later).

loccdor · 2026-02-14T18:54:27-0500

Yeah, my 1930's Bessas are also both unusually large, around 88mm if I recall. Horseman 970 and most others are 82mm. 54:82 is closest to true 2:3.

DREW WILEY · 2026-02-14T19:26:01-0500

I'd be concerned if the image height was too much; there would be more risk of edge fogging or uneven development. Actual width would be determined by the mechanics of the winding mechanism, and how easy it would be to set this during mfg depending on whether 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, or 6x9 were in mind, using similar interchangeable components.

I don't have a GW 6x9, but a GWii and GWiii, which have exactly the same image size, and probably the same mechanical innards too. I've only gotten into and myself serviced the older model in that respect; but the repair manual shows nearly all the same hidden interior parts for both.

wiltw · 2026-02-14T20:04:16-0500

max frame width on 120 is typically 56mm...so called 6x6 and 6x7 and 6x9 is not that wide
645 is typically only 42-43mm not 45, with 55-56mm across the film width.

Actual frame size of Fujica GW690

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency