Advantage of 6x8 over 6x7?

[MattKing]

Nine 6x8 negatives will fit in a single, standard size Printfile negative holder page.
Ten 6x7 negatives will not fit in a single, standard size Printfile negative holder page.

 

[wiltw]

Would you like 56mm x 76mm (1.36:1 ) any more than 56mm x 65.5mm (1.24:1), when you have to crop to fit the following standard print sizes?

4 x 5 aspect ratio = 1.25
5 x 7 aspect ratio = 1.4
11 x 14 aspect ratio = 1.27
13 x 19 aspect ratio = 1.46
8 x 10 aspect ratio = 1.25
14 x 17 aspect ratio = 1.21

 

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, dear, nominal vs. actual formats. Oh, dear. wiltw, I've always understood that nominal 6x7 is actually 56x68, aspect ratio 1.21. Whose definition are you using?

 

[RichardJack]

A larger negative is always better and a 6x8's proportion will make more attractive landscapes but I don't know of any 6x8 lenses that are as good as Pentax, Mamiya, or Bronica 6x7 lenses. it's a trade off.

 

[destroya]

cmon guys, any women will tell you size doesn't matter, its how you use it.

i have a pentax 6x7 and a fuji gsw6x8 and I actually do use them differently for some reason I have yet to figure out. but as far as enlarging, they are used exactly the same, crop as needed regardless of the neg size

 

[wiltw]

Oh, dear, nominal vs. actual formats. Oh, dear. wiltw, I've always understood that nominal 6x7 is actually 56x68, aspect ratio 1.21. Whose definition are you using?

What I understand to be the frame dimensions of the Fuji GX680, 6x8cm (56x76mm),
specifications as taken from the Fuji GX680 specifications page on the owner manual.
Similarly the 6x7 specs I used are from the RZ67 owner manual specifications page.

Where do your stated specs come from??? In view of the fact that three 645 format cameras (Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax) do not match in frame dimension, it is not surprising your numbers differ from the ones I used....the key point is the film format does not match the print sizes, regarless of which camera frame dimensions you use!

 

[tomfrh]

cmon guys, any women will tell you size doesn't matter, its how you use it.

haha, believe that and you'll believe anything...

 

[Dan Fromm]

wiltw, thanks for the reply. I agree with you that roll film gate sizes aren't perfectly standardized. As I said, I've always believed that 6x7 meant 56x68. I just looked at the GX680 manual, which says that it means 57x69. Just checked the Pentax 67 manual, 55x70. This Mamiya manual http://www.cameramanuals.org/mamiya_pdf/mamiya_rb67_pro-s.pdf says 56x68.4. You can't trust anyone.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[E. von Hoegh]

wiltw, thanks for the reply. I agree with you that roll film gate sizes aren't perfectly standardized. As I said, I've always believed that 6x7 meant 56x68. I just looked at the GX680 manual, which says that it means 57x69. Just checked the Pentax 67 manual, 55x70. This Mamiya manual http://www.cameramanuals.org/mamiya_pdf/mamiya_rb67_pro-s.pdf says 56x68.4. You can't trust anyone.

Cheers,

Dan

Don't forget Linhof's "Ideal Format", 56x72.

 

[darkroommike]

The Mamiya 6x8 was introduced to keep folks with RB's from switching to the Fujica 680 systems, nothing more, nothing less. However 6x7 is my least favorite format on 120/220/620 film, the tenth negative and where/how to file it has always been a pain for me. I shoot black and white and file in Printfile pages, contact print on 8x10 or 8.5x11. Back in the day, studios shooting color did not have this issue since their negs were returned in individual sleeves or pockets and then were usually taped to crop/aperture cards for printing by commercial labs.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Don't forget Linhof's "Ideal Format", 56x72.

Bill, thanks for the reminder.

I don't know who to believe about this. Many web sites assert that Linhof's 6x7 roll holders' gates are 56x72. Emmanuel Bigler, who I salute in passing, shows a brown Super Rollex marked "56 x 72." But I can't find anything straight from Linhof about gate sizes and there are many Linfhof roll holders around marked "6x7 2 1/4 x 2 3/4". Its hard to believe that Linhof would change gate size during a model's production run.

FWIW my late (black) 6x9 Super Rollex is also marked 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I measured its gate's length. 84 mm.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[chassis]

Regarding storage, I file negatives in Print File sleeve material that comes on a roll. It therefore accommodates one image or a complete roll of 220 if desired. Simply cut to length and store in a plastic box, file folder or rolled into a cardboard tube.

ps I shoot 6x7 and use the above mentioned storage.

 

[trendland]

What is the main advantage if any of a 6x8 negative over a 6x7 negative?
I am thinking about getting a 6x8 powerback for my RB67 and was wondering what benefit I will gain??

You should ask what the benefit compared with 6x9 is !
There is one like the statements of some with 6x8 mentioned before.
A little more resolution one should Not forget.
The ideal format is 6x9 with 120 film.
Thats fine - But what camera is the next
question?
And thats the problem - what camera ?
I personally just know the Fuji GSW 690.
And GW 690 but that should be all ..
The rest is manufactured in the 20th and
30th.
Fuji has not a system to change the lenses with GW/GSW cameras.
And that is the rule of 6x8 today because
there are no modern cameras to 6x9.
Come and have a look from his point
to 6x8.
There are not many options with cameras
to 6x8 exept Fuji and Mamija.
But there are some - that is the advantage of 6x8 : 6x9 = NO options.
I decided to 6x7 because Pentax has a very great system.
But 6x7 is sometimes a problem.....
4,5 x 6 is also ideal from my point of view but it is to smal - at the end you are standing still with 135 films.
That is indeed a positive alternate ..
Have a right choice with the right Format to you.
In case of 4x5 inch it is the same as 6x7.
But here with 4x5 inch it is not a question
to format - you never care about - it is just the (sometimes) unreachable quality of 4x5 films.
More quality you will (often) see with 5x7 and with 8x10.
At the very end some Apug members swear on 16 x 20 films ...?
I want to ask what kind of pickup is the
right car to this equipment.
But before lets talk about 6x8 here.....
A realy nice discussion - I like it..
Never the less it is from 2010...

with regards

 

[Dan Fromm]

And that is the rule of 6x8 today because
there are no modern cameras to 6x9.

No recent SLRs or range finder cameras, certainly, but unless I'm misinformed there are still 2x3 view cameras in production. I suppose that for some prospective users they're not really cameras ...

 

[ntenny]

No recent SLRs or range finder cameras, certainly, but unless I'm misinformed there are still 2x3 view cameras in production. I suppose that for some prospective users they're not really cameras ...

Well, they're cameras, but of course they require a whole different way of working. It's hard for me to imagine a 6x9 view camera as a walking-around camera, where a Fuji 6x9 would be quite well suited.

-NT

 

[Prest_400]

The ideal format is 6x9 with 120 film.

The rest is manufactured in the 20th and
30th.

But there are some - that is the advantage of 6x8 : 6x9 = NO options.
I decided to 6x7 because Pentax has a very great system.
But 6x7 is sometimes a problem.....
4,5 x 6 is also ideal from my point of view but it is to smal - at the end you are standing still with 135 films.
That is indeed a positive alternate ..

Fuji did indeed run an interesting line up that complemented well:
Fuji GW680 and GW690, then the P&S "half frame" GA645's. I have a GW and it is infact quite a nice implementation of 6x9 for a handholdable machine, and infact seems rather lighter than some basic 645 SLR kits. The 6x9 "brownie" format as you mention was much more popular early 20th century and not so much later on, curiously sharing the ubiquitous 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm.

As perfect format perhaps I'd name 6x6, because of mathematical optimization "square as an optimum" and a good ratio of shots/roll in 120.

Well, they're cameras, but of course they require a whole different way of working. It's hard for me to imagine a 6x9 view camera as a walking-around camera, where a Fuji 6x9 would be quite well suited.
-NT

To note 6x9 is half of 4x5 but the rationale of working with roll film is totally different, as well as the (lower) costs. The Fuji GW series were discontinued in mid 2000s and still plenty available. Infact, I chose one because it was modern (in the sense of being 20 year old or so). Strangely, it is one of the largest medium formats but due to lack of model cult it is rather cheap and available. One caveat of this camera is that its 35mm factor is rather manageable and swift to use, sometimes making 8 exposures too few. Sadly 220 is no more.

 

[Dan Fromm]

6x9 is half of 4x5

Why do you believe this?

 

[Maris]

Nine 6x8 negatives will fit in a single, standard size Printfile negative holder page.
Ten 6x7 negatives will not fit in a single, standard size Printfile negative holder page.

Filing those 6x8 negatives is a real problem.

My PrintFile 120-4B archival negative preservers will hold 12 6x6 negatives but only 8 6x8 negatives. This is dismaying because my Fiji GSW680 camera delivers 9 negatives on a 120 roll.

My PrintFile 120-4UB archival negative preservers are slightly bigger and will hold all 10 of the 6x7 negatives from my Mamiya RB67 camera but again only 8 6x8 negatives will fit. So where does the extra neg go? It goes into the next neg preserver page with annotations cross-referenced both ways to keep track of it; more work! And handling a single roll film negative rather than a strip of two or three is much more finnicky in the darkroom.

 

[wiltw]

4,5 x 6 is also ideal from my point of view but it is to smal - at the end you are standing still with 135 films.

• 135 is 24mm tall, going to 645 is going to about 42-43mm tall... 1.79X linear
• 6x7 is 56mm tall, going to 4x5 is going to 92mm tall... 1.64X linear

So if going from 135 to 645 is 'not worth it', then going from 6x7 to 4x5 must be 'not worth it, even worse than 135-to-645 transition is not worth it'...as it is 10% less of an benefit linearly?!

 

[Jeff Bradford]

With 6x8, you get ten frames per roll. Ten is a nice, round number.

 

[itsdoable]

Filing those 6x8 negatives is a real problem.... <snip>

Printfile 120-3HB will hold 3 strips of 3x 6x8 negatives (or 3 strips of 4x 6x6 frames)

 

[Roger Thoms]

Filing those 6x8 negatives is a real problem.

My PrintFile 120-4B archival negative preservers will hold 12 6x6 negatives but only 8 6x8 negatives. This is dismaying because my Fiji GSW680 camera delivers 9 negatives on a 120 roll.

My PrintFile 120-4UB archival negative preservers are slightly bigger and will hold all 10 of the 6x7 negatives from my Mamiya RB67 camera but again only 8 6x8 negatives will fit. So where does the extra neg go? It goes into the next neg preserver page with annotations cross-referenced both ways to keep track of it; more work! And handling a single roll film negative rather than a strip of two or three is much more finnicky in the darkroom.

Maris, the 6x8 negatives fit in PrintFile 120-3HB negative preservers and will contact print on 8x10 paper.

Roger

 

[Roger Thoms]

With 6x8, you get ten frames per roll. Ten is a nice, round number.

I'm only getting 9 frames with my Fuji GW680III.

Roger

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Bill, thanks for the reminder.

I don't know who to believe about this. Many web sites assert that Linhof's 6x7 roll holders' gates are 56x72. Emmanuel Bigler, who I salute in passing, shows a brown Super Rollex marked "56 x 72." But I can't find anything straight from Linhof about gate sizes and there are many Linfhof roll holders around marked "6x7 2 1/4 x 2 3/4". Its hard to believe that Linhof would change gate size during a model's production run.

FWIW my late (black) 6x9 Super Rollex is also marked 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. I measured its gate's length. 84 mm.

Cheers,

Dan

My tan/light brown Super Rollex ca. 1959 is marked "56x72". I'll measure it. The mask for the optical finder is also marked thus. I believe the literature which came with the camera speaks of 56x72, as though it is something new and remarkable.

 

[Prest_400]

Why do you believe this?

Pardon, I mixed up some digital format/aspect ratio where a 4:3 frame can be split in two 2:3 rectangles. Also, adding up some anectodical discussion on carrying 6x9 MF vs 4x5 saying the former is approaching half of the latter in neg size.
Took a look at 6x9 vs 4x5 and 6x9 is not 4x5 sliced by half.

Then, technically some 6x9 is closer to the "nominal" 6x8. 56x82mm IIRC.