Affordable Compact 6x9 Not A Folder

[John Wiegerink]

Other than my infrequent use of a 35mm Nikon, my Fuji GW690ii is the smallest camera I own. It's easily han-holdable if necessary, and compact enough to fit in a relatively small shoulder bag. It's also got very crisp modern optics. What on earth do you expect if you want 6x9 capacity? It's like whining that you need to carry a canteen, and wishing that someone made freeze-dried water instead!

"Freeze dried" water is a good one Drew. I like freeze dried wine or beer a little better. Oh, back on the topic..................I've owned three of those Fuji's and if you are serious as to the most professional and best available "NON" folding 6x9 camera????? Look no further than a Fuji 6x9. That said, I don't possess one at the moment, but I do have three Kodak Medalist staring at me as I hit these keys. I also think that the Medalist is not for folks who are not a little mechanically adept. What I mean is that while the Medalist is a truly great landmark camera with one of the best lenses I have ever used, it is certainly not meant to be a point and shoot camera. It takes a little education to operate it and keep it operating. Is the 100mm f3.5 as good as the Fuji's 90mm? From my experience the Ektar is just as sharp, but lacks the contrast/micro-contrast of the Fujinon. I know this is about non-folding 6x9 cameras, but I must admit that when I go out with my non-film camera I also pack a 6x9 folder loaded with HP5+. My favorite is the Kodak Monitor 6x9 with the red lettered "Special" lens. Yes, the lens is a little slow at f4.5, but at f8 or f11 the negatives will blow you away. The Monitor is also built like a tank and slightly heavy compared to other folders. It also has a real design flaw and that is the bellows. Kodak used a material that self-destructs over time. That makes it very, very hard to find one without pinholes. Luckily I have a few spare bellows and just enough savvy to replace the bad bellows. I also have a late model Zeiss Super Ikonta C with coated "T" Opton Tessar in near mint condition and I truly like the pictures I get from the Monitor better. That's just me of course. Well, enough of me and my likes. My vote for non-folder 6x9 of the year is!!!! Fuji 6x9 with the Medalist close in the running. My vote for folder of the year is!!! Well, you already know. Well, back to drinking my freeze dried coffee, which I've already had way to much of this morning. JohnW

 

[norm123]

Fuji GW690 and GSW690 are fixed lens and are very sharp. Easy use. A bit noisy....but I don't care. Impressive negatives!

Norm

 

[abruzzi]

I only have one 6x9 (an old Bessa) but it seems to me that "6x9" and "compact" don't fit in the same sentence unless "folder" is in there too. The Fujis seem to be as close as you can get, though their price is creeping up.

 

[Dan Daniel]

View attachment 214621

Love this! Great idea, using a folder as the starting point. I have a junky Moskva 5; maybe with the front folded down it would a good starting point for mounting the 47mm. Although the automatic frame spacing of the Graflex backs is nice. Maybe the mechanism could be ripped apart and scabbed onto a folder.

 

[narsuitus]

Have you considered a 6x9 box camera?

 

[MattKing]

My Kodak Tourist is affordable and compact and it is capable of taking great photos.
Unfortunately for the OP, it folds.
It has some quirks as well - 620 film size being one of them, and in my copy, a fairly small maximum aperture.
But for $25.00 CDN, I think it was money well spent:

 

[Pioneer]

Wanderlust Travelwide and a 23 Graphic. Very handy...for 6x9 that is.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My Kodak Tourist is affordable and compact and it is capable of taking great photos.
Unfortunately for the OP, it folds.
It has some quirks as well - 620 film size being one of them, and in my copy, a fairly small maximum aperture.
But for $25.00 CDN, I think it was money well spent: View attachment 214635

Your picture shows just how bad a Kodak Tourist is as a picture taker. Ha-ha! I have one with the 103mm f4.5 Kodak Anaston that takes shots just like yours. Matt, yours must be either the Tourist with the Kodet f12.5 lens or the Tourist II with the 105mm f6.3 Anaston since you refer to "fairly small" aperture. Of course I'm talking about f8 to f16 for top-notch. Kodak knew how to put good glass on cheap cameras. Of course they had much cheaper cameras also, but their lenses were still pretty good. Oh, that's a very nice shot and seems plenty sharp to me. I love old Kodaks! Heck, I love old camera period. JohnW

 

[mgb74]

My Kodak Tourist is affordable and compact and it is capable of taking great photos.
Unfortunately for the OP, it folds.
It has some quirks as well - 620 film size being one of them, and in my copy, a fairly small maximum aperture.
But for $25.00 CDN, I think it was money well spent: View attachment 214635

But those Kodak Tourists are big - at least compared to a Zeiss Netter or even a Bessa 6x9 folder.

 

[John Wiegerink]

But those Kodak Tourists are big - at least compared to a Zeiss Netter or even a Bessa 6x9 folder.

The Kodak and the Zeiss Netter are not that far apart in size. The weight of the tourist is more and it's height is a little more due to the much larger viewfinder, but the rest of the dimensions are very close. The difference in size between the three mentioned cameras wouldn't make me choose one over the other. Now lens sharpness, film flatness would make me choose one over the other, but the mention three are all close in that area also. JohnW

 

[jtk]

My Graphic 23 is a box cameras with my 47/8 Super Angulon. Just pop it open, drop the bed..it's in focus.

6X6, 6X7, or 6X9 with Graflex roll backs.

Admittedly the baby Graphic is also amusing with its non-box 80/2.8 and its 150 and its 240...

 

[MattKing]

Your picture shows just how bad a Kodak Tourist is as a picture taker. Ha-ha! I have one with the 103mm f4.5 Kodak Anaston that takes shots just like yours. Matt, yours must be either the Tourist with the Kodet f12.5 lens or the Tourist II with the 105mm f6.3 Anaston since you refer to "fairly small" aperture. Of course I'm talking about f8 to f16 for top-notch. Kodak knew how to put good glass on cheap cameras. Of course they had much cheaper cameras also, but their lenses were still pretty good. Oh, that's a very nice shot and seems plenty sharp to me. I love old Kodaks! Heck, I love old camera period. JohnW

In my case, the camera has a 100mm f/8.8 Anaston lens. Tourists came in all sorts of flavours.
The Kodak Flash Diomatic shutter is another quirk - just T, B, 1/25, 1/50 and 1/100 speeds. I would really like at least one faster speed.
As far as size is concerned, when closed the Tourist is basically the 6x9 frame with film feed and take-up spaces on either side, plus a bump on the top for the viewfinder. The depth is about twice the depth of a roll of film. To be any smaller, you either need a non-straight film path, a much less usable viewfinder, or a much less robust form of construction - the Tourist feels like it is supposed to last.
I see cel phones that are bigger (length and width at least) than my Tourist
I actually found a fitted case for my Tourist recently. It needs to have the stitching repaired, but it gives the option of moving the strap off the top lugs to the case - a much better choice I think.
For fun, here is another shot from it. I've left it turned on its side, because vertical images don't display as well here:

 

[moto-uno]

So "Dan" how did you know the Frankencamera was originally a Mockba-5 ? Peter
Some lovely pics from the age of dinosaur cameras .

 

[Dan Daniel]

So "Dan" how did you know the Frankencamera was originally a Mockba-5 ? Peter
Some lovely pics from the age of dinosaur cameras .

I didn't know it was a Mockba-5! Since you got me thinking about using a folder as a skeleton, I remembered that I have a Mockba-5 here. I hauled it out and it looks as if the front panel of the camera when folded is about the right distance for my 47mm lens. I could gut it, seal up the folding front, machine an opening, mount a plate and helical, etc., etc....

Looking at your camera photo, I now notice the viewfinder on the far left end. And I would hope that you didn't use a Bessa II for your skeleton! My Mockba has some alignment issues and was cheap, so it wouldn't upset me to have one less Mockba-5 in the world.

 

[John Wiegerink]

In my case, the camera has a 100mm f/8.8 Anaston lens. Tourists came in all sorts of flavours.
The Kodak Flash Diomatic shutter is another quirk - just T, B, 1/25, 1/50 and 1/100 speeds. I would really like at least one faster speed.
As far as size is concerned, when closed the Tourist is basically the 6x9 frame with film feed and take-up spaces on either side, plus a bump on the top for the viewfinder. The depth is about twice the depth of a roll of film. To be any smaller, you either need a non-straight film path, a much less usable viewfinder, or a much less robust form of construction - the Tourist feels like it is supposed to last.
I see cel phones that are bigger (length and width at least) than my Tourist
I actually found a fitted case for my Tourist recently. It needs to have the stitching repaired, but it gives the option of moving the strap off the top lugs to the case - a much better choice I think.
For fun, here is another shot from it. I've left it turned on its side, because vertical images don't display as well here: View attachment 214659

OMG Matt, that poor fellow fishing is going to fall in the water if you don't straighten him out. Ha-ha! Yes, I forgot about the 100mm F8.8 Anaston flavored tourist. Just goes to show one doesn't always need want the absolute best and sharpest out there. I always feel it's a little bit more of an accomplishment when I can make a camera as old or older than me sing. Just a lot more fun for me anyway. JohnW

 

[Dan Fromm]

Well, if you want affordable, pocketable, 2x3 and not folding and can live with 620 film (respool 120) and mediocre lenses at best, take yourself to ebay.fr and buy a Photax.

 

[mshchem]

Try a Mamiya RZ67 with a meter prism and you will find Fuji 6x9 rangefinders very compact and convenient .

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, if you want affordable, pocketable, 2x3 and not folding and can live with 620 film (respool 120) and mediocre lenses at best, take yourself to ebay.fr and buy a Photax.

I like the square look of the Ultra-flex better. That's just me of course. JohnW

 

[Digger Odell]

Here you could "roll your own" but i would think that back focal plane (rear of lens to film) distance would be the limiting factor to small size.
http://mercurycamera.com/