Actual frame size of Fujica GW690

[Stolk]

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]

The 680 iii I have is 54 x 75mm

 

[blee1996]

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

 

[djdister]

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

 

[mshchem]

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]

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

 

[reddesert]

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]

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

 

[mrosenlof]

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

 

[Stolk]

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]

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]

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.