Any 6X9 SLRs?

[Dan Quan]

But you can have most of it with a Mamyia Universal and a mutiback 6 X 4.5, 6 X7 and 6X6, add a 6X9 back and you have 2 backs with 4 formats. The Mamyia press has a nice selection of lens, a ground glass focusing back as well, extension tubes for macro.

Like the OP I too prefer an SLR. I REALLY like to see as closely as possible what I will actually get. For me personally TTL focus and composition take priority over dimensions because depth of focus and subject focus and isolation is sooo important. Also, if the subject moves a little or a lot I can reframe and refocus more quickly and smoothly.

Lighting and it's effect is also easier for me to see TTL.

 

[Paul Howell]

Like the OP I too prefer an SLR. I REALLY like to see as closely as possible what I will actually get. For me personally TTL framing and composition take priority over dimensions because depth of focus and subject focus and isolation is sooo important. Also, if the subject moves a little or a lot I can reframe and refocus more quickly and smoothly.

I understand wanting an SLR over a rangefinder, I use both systems. Hassy and Bronica you can get at least get 6.45 backs, I don't recall if Mamyia 67 has a 6x6 or 6X .45 back, if so you can at least 2 formats with one body. The Fuji system has a verity of backs, 6x6 and 6x8, don't know if Fuji made a 6 X 10 or not. I have only held a Fuji, did not shoot with it, it is a heavy camera intended for studio work.

 

[Dan Quan]

I understand wanting an SLR over a rangefinder, I use both systems. Hassy and Bronica you can get at least get 6.45 backs, I don't recall if Mamyia 67 has a 6x6 or 6X .45 back, if so you can at least 2 formats with one body. The Fuji system has a verity of backs, 6x6 and 6x8, don't know if Fuji made a 6 X 10 or not. I have only held a Fuji, did not shoot with it, it is a heavy camera intended for studio work.

I hope I have not drawn this thread off topic. I have chosen to invest in several P67 bodies and am working on incorporating a system around these. The 6x10 ish camera I'll be using is an old Kodak Vigilant Six-16 I hope to retro fit with a 12cm ƒ4.5 Heliar and shoot 120 film. I don't want my choices to become the topic and highjack f/16's thread. I just meant to offer additional reasons for choice of format dimension beyond simple resolution.

 

[1920]

If you were considering rangefinders, the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Kodak Medalist cameras give you a negative of essentially the same size - on 620 film.

+1,000000………..The Kodak Medalist

best.camera.ever

Buy it. Send it to Ken Ruth for CLA and conversion to 120 feed side.

Use it. Feel the weight of 1940's American know-how. Easiest focusing rangefinder and builds arm muscles.

Fact- the Kodak Medalist cures fatigue, depression, baldness, scurvy, diabetes, hipsterism and general malaise.

Fact- using the Kodak Medalist actually makes your negatives, and your balls, grow bigger.

Bow down before its glory! Are you worthy of the Medalist?

Dead Link Removed

 

[gone]

6x9 is the same format as 35mm (smaller, but the same ratio). Just buy a Nikon camera, get a Leica R lens w/ an adapter, and use some fine grained film that is developed and printed optimally. I guarantee you won't see a nickel's worth of difference compared to 6x9 unless you want to print really, really big. And if you do want huge prints, you're probably better off using 4x5 and cropping.

I went w/ the Lei-kon combo for years. The Leica Elmarit lens that I owned had very similar IQ to my old Bessa II w/ a Heliar, and looking at prints, it wasn't always that easy to see which one came from which camera. Except that the 35mm camera got shots that I was always missing w/ the red window folder. There is a little difference in neg scans. It's hard to beat bigger real estate for smoothness. But exposure, film selection, and development play such a large role in the final print's appearance, it's essentially a wash.