Any 6X9 SLRs?

[DREW WILEY]

My Norma is one of my favorite cameras, but isn't exactly the kind of thing I'm going to pull out of a little shoulder bag when taking a beach
walk with my wife!

 

[f/16]

Well, it looks like there's not a 6X9 that's quite to my liking. The Fuji RFs are nice, but how do you use them with a polarizer? What do you do-take the pol off, rotate it while looking through it, then mount it back on the lens in the same orientation for each shot? I love what polarizers do to classic cars and always use them at car shows. About film I don't develop my own. I always send B&W to DR5 for positives. And with color I always shoot E6. I don't like negs.

 

[marton]

Why not just buy a Mamiya 7 and be done with it.

 

[MattKing]

Well, it looks like there's not a 6X9 that's quite to my liking. The Fuji RFs are nice, but how do you use them with a polarizer? What do you do-take the pol off, rotate it while looking through it, then mount it back on the lens in the same orientation for each shot? I love what polarizers do to classic cars and always use them at car shows. About film I don't develop my own. I always send B&W to DR5 for positives. And with color I always shoot E6. I don't like negs.

You can use the polarizer that way, or you can buy two, and use one to view, and leave the second on the camera, adjusting it to match the orientation of your viewing polarizer before exposure.

Do you project your slides? If not, 6x7 cropped may be your best option.

 

[f/16]

You can use the polarizer that way, or you can buy two, and use one to view, and leave the second on the camera, adjusting it to match the orientation of your viewing polarizer before exposure.

Do you project your slides? If not, 6x7 cropped may be your best option.

Using 2 polarizers-I didn't think of that. No I don't project my slides. I look at them on a light table with a loupe. Yes I thought about 6X7. Sure wish I would have kept my Pentax 6X7. I could have just sold one of the telephotos and got a wide angle for it. But I'm liking the Fuji GW690II more and more.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Here is my Plaubel Makiflex Standard with 45 Degree Viewfinder.
I have lenses from 120mm to 360mm that fit it.

Thanks for the information. But I wrote 'except the Plaubel...' Anyway, I've learned something new to me. Do you know of any other 6x9 system with a pentaprism finder?

 

[TheToadMen]

How about a nice pinhole camera?
I have a wooden Natasha that can shoot up to 6x18.
https://www.facebook.com/NatashaPinholeCamera

 

[Dan Fromm]

Well, it looks like there's not a 6X9 that's quite to my liking. The Fuji RFs are nice, but how do you use them with a polarizer? What do you do-take the pol off, rotate it while looking through it, then mount it back on the lens in the same orientation for each shot? I love what polarizers do to classic cars and always use them at car shows. About film I don't develop my own. I always send B&W to DR5 for positives. And with color I always shoot E6. I don't like negs.

Well, if you want to focus and compose through the lens there are many 2x3 press, technical and view cameras that will do for you.

I started with 2x3 Graphics (read about my lens adventures here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf), tried to make a 2x3 SLR for long lenses (read about that fiasco here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/baby-bertha-6x9-en.html) and now have a couple of 2x3 Cambo view cameras to supplement the Graphics. I've set up one of the Cambos to shoot nominal 6x9 (56 x 84 with a Linhof Super Rollex roll holder) and 6x12 (56 x 112).

If you want a fast-working 6x9 camera you're limited to rangefinder system cameras and fixed lens folders.

Welcome to reality.

 

[jose angel]

Sincerely, I don`t see the point of using 6x9 at all. The real difference with other medium formats is inexistent or marginal.
Usually, 6x9 sounds big so certain people think it makes a difference. Some even get mad looking for things like the nonsensed 6x8 accessories on the RBs, or carrying with 6x8 Fujis or even with roll film backs on monorails, just because the extra millimeters. Or to give up using a RF (assuming that is not their best option). It is not a quality issue, it is just a ratio thing.
Personally, this ratio thing is not worth some limitations. At least in many cases. For sure others will have a different approach.

 

[Dan Fromm]

jose angel, 645 is half frame 6x9. There's a considerable difference between the two. Between 6x9 and 6x7, not that much, 5-6 mm at each end of the frame.

 

[Nokton48]

Anyway, I've learned something new to me. Do you know of any other 6x9 system with a pentaprism finder?

I believe Arca Swiss also made a 6x9cm reflex camera, but I am not familar with it.
And I have been told it is a much more simple design than the Makiflex.
And I don't believe it will take all the accessories that the Makiflex will.

My Makiflex thread is here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[jose angel]

Dan, resolution wise, even half the frame means very little. In certain situations, almost nothing. Think that to double resolution we need at best four times the format area.
The difference between 6x6 and 6x9 is simply nonexistent, here it is just a ratio preference.

 

[Moopheus]

Sincerely, I don`t see the point of using 6x9 at all.

Because there are cameras like the Agfa Clack and the Fuji GW690 that are fun to use and take good pictures and happen to be 6x9.

 

[Nokton48]

Sincerely, I don`t see the point of using 6x9 at all.

Well with my Makiflexes, I can shoot 6x9 roll or cut film (I like both), as well as 6x6 roll film.
Also I can shoot full film gate (approx 3 5/16"x3 9/16") onto a sheet of 4x5" or 9x12cm film.
I think that this stuff is pretty cool, and it just happens to be 6x9". I like the proportions of the frame.

I've owned multiple RB's (still own a humungeous Hasselblad collection) but I prefer the Makiflexes.
They are just a hoot to shoot with! Like a European Auto Graflex, with more refinements.

 

[jose angel]

Well, some like to jump from bridges or cranes just for fun... so I understand there should be a reason to use an Agfa Clack... (no pun intended).
Now more seriously, my point is that other than fun (?), there is not an image quality reason to choose a 6x9 instead of e.g. a 6x6 (generally speaking), in the same way some say 4x5" is not worth it because their 6x9 are capable of the same quality (and their 6x6 are not... ?). Some ideas are wrong from start. I understand the OP`s want the largest format on roll film but are not fond of the somewhat limited choice of 6x9 cameras.
Ok, in this times where film is pricey, give me a boring RZ or a Hassel, and have fun with your "cool" toys...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jose Angel, I have a 38/4.5 Biogon in Copal #0 that I use on my humble Century Graphic. The lens actually covers 84 mm with good illumination and sharpness. The image it puts on 2x3 can be cropped to 24 mm x 81 mm. That's usefully larger than the equivalent 16.5 x 56 crop from nominal 6x6. Who needs a Widepan or, for that matter, an SWC?

 

[jose angel]

I`m not sure to get your point (my excuses, my english is not good).

The difference between the formats you mention with the Biogon is actually larger because you are cropping (say, a middle point between formats). We should expect an improvement (not huge) from the larger format on a given print size.

The resolution difference between the SWC and the Widepan is zero (manufacturing quality aside), so the 6x12 (or 6x17) will be the choice for those who look for that image ratio.
Obviously, if you crop the SWC shot to have the same ratio than the 6x12 , you`ll need to double the enlargement factor for a given print size, so the image quality will be affected.

As I stated earlier, I understand the OP is asking for the *largest* format using roll film but he find some drawbacks in the 6x9 options; my point is there are zero differences in image quality between the "medium formats", and only a slight difference between the ratios (panoramics aside... ). Maybe to settle on 6x9 only choices is not a wise decission; if anytime he needs, e.g., to crop a 6x7 frame to get the 6x9 ratio, the loss will be so small, negligible in "normal" sized prints.

And as mentioned, there are other valuable considerations, which I`m not getting into.

Personally, I have 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 cameras, and by far, the more usable are the smallish 6x6 ones, and the 6x7 for a more paced tripod shooting. I use to prefer the 6x7 ratio, but for practical reasons I use more often the 6x6. I rarely shoot 6x9 these days.

 

[jose angel]

To sum up: There are not practical differences between the "medium formats"; there is an image ratio difference between them, but the image quality remains the same (let`s place the 6x12 and 6x17 panoramic formats in another group). Funky reasons aside, I assume most people shoot 120 film for image quality into a reasonable package.
So, at the end, it doesn`t matter at all to shoot 6x7 or 6x9, because the differences on the final print (if any), are negligible. The choice should be based on the needed ratio (it may not make sense to shoot square if you are specialized on magazine portraits), or in other factors (gear weight, speed, special features, etc.).

 

[Moopheus]

If I make a pan of brownies, I can make it in a square pan or a rectangular pan. By one measure, it doesn't effect the quality of the brownies--the density of chocolate per sq. inch is the same. But if I make the rectangular pan, I have more brownies.

 

[macfred]

If I make a pan of brownies, I can make it in a square pan or a rectangular pan. By one measure, it doesn't effect the quality of the brownies--the density of chocolate per sq. inch is the same. But if I make the rectangular pan, I have more brownies.

+1 - I could not put it better !!

 

[jose angel]

Obvious, but it`s not about brownies, it`s about photographic prints and camera choices...

 

[Argenticien]

[...] I want something that [...] allow me to get several shots without having to change film. [...]

I'm surprised no-one seems to have commented on this aspect of the OP's requirements. Compared to LF and its sheet films, I suppose any MF roll constitutes "several" shots, but among MF formats, 6x9 on 120 with its 8 frames is not what I consider "several" shots per roll. This too would seem to argue in favor of the Fuji rangefinders, because they at least allow 220 film (16 frames), for as long as 220 (now in color emulsions only) survives. Things like Ian's Ensign and the Makiflex Standard, which I believe predate 220, presumably cannot operate with it.

--Dave

 

[Dan Quan]

I have only attended a few semesters of photography and a semester of art in college, so most of what I have learned has come from scouring the interwebs and forums, watching Dean Collins videos, reading textbooks and looking at pretty pictures in magazines. But I have been able to cobble together a rudimentary understanding of photography and start to get a handle on what I like and why.

For my personal goals I see a great many pro’s and cons of the varying dimensions of capture size on 120 roll film.

One advantage of 6x6 is the option of cropping to vertical or horizontal after capture. However for me this is outweighed by the fact one is throwing away a large amount of data that one can keep by originally recording in the desired field of view, as well as the subsequent waste of film and chemistry and money.

Also, having been initiated into photography through 35mm I have grown to prefer rectangular formats.

The 6x4.5 format is apparently great for weddings. I don’t like to shoot weddings; they freak me out. I never found much use for this format.

The 6x7 format enlarges without crop to 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. This seems very useful when selecting ready-made frames.

The 6x8 format more closely fits 8.5x11 & 10x13 magazine and annual report full-page images with little cropping. I have never used this format and the little magazine work and AR work I did was primarily with 4x5, 6x6, 35mm and APSC digital. Bummer.

The 6x9 format mimics 35mm and felt very comfortable to me on the handful of occasions I’ve had to use it.

The 6x10 format, I think, might work well for landscape work here in the American west but I have not tried it yet, hopefully in another month or so.

The 6x12 format is, I’ve heard, well suited for a combination of shooting ease, resolution and fairly substantial panoramic printing size; far more beneficial than extracting similar ratios from lesser dimensions.


For me a greater point beyond pure resolution has become the overall “feel” of an image and an important aspect of this is depth of focus falloff; I have always really liked the subject separation one gets with a larger sensor or film size at any given aperture.

I remember what a revelation it was when I read that depth of focus is consistent across focal lengths when keeping the subject proportions consistent. That never occurred to me because I had only seen the results of NOT keeping the subject proportions consistent.

This is explained really well on the web so I will not try to regurgitate the facts. The bottom line is one needs a much greater aperture to achieve similar depth of focus falloff on a smaller format and these ratios can be found on the internets as well.

But since all things are NEVER equal in my world I have learned that I like a greater dimensional format on roll film than a smaller and here is why:

I can get closer with a larger format and get greater depth of focus falloff with a smaller aperture lens of lower cost than with a smaller format and the same lens.

With a larger format I have greater room for lens plane and film plane movement at any given subject distance.

As I continue to learn I may find additional reasons to prefer a larger format. However, I can imagine these factors may inversely and negatively impact someone shooting macro photos, but I have no real world experience with that and can only imagine.

I just remembered when I was shooting jewelry, that's like macro, sort of. I used Rodenstock Makro lenses all the time with movements on 4x5. But only the rings and watches were sort of like macro, and not really tiny macro and I am tired of typing.

edit: A roll film back would have probably have been a very good choice for some of that now that I think about it.

If someone sees I have made an error please correct me as soon as possible.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have only attended a few semesters of photography and a semester of art in college, so most of what I have learned has come from scouring the interwebs and forums, watching Dean Collins videos, reading textbooks and looking at pretty pictures in magazines. But I have been able to cobble together a rudimentary understanding of photography and start to get a handle on what I like and why.

For my personal goals I see a great many pro’s and cons of the varying dimensions of capture size on 120 roll film.

One advantage of 6x6 is the option of cropping to vertical or horizontal after capture. However for me this is outweighed by the fact one is throwing away a large amount of data that one can keep by originally recording in the desired field of view, as well as the subsequent waste of film and chemistry and money.

Also, having been initiated into photography through 35mm I have grown to prefer rectangular formats.

The 6x4.5 format is apparently great for weddings. I don’t like to shoot weddings; they freak me out. I never found much use for this format.

The 6x7 format enlarges without crop to 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. This seems very useful when selecting ready-made frames.

The 6x8 format more closely fits 8.5x11 & 10x13 magazine and annual report full-page images with little cropping. I have never used this format and the little magazine work and AR work I did was primarily with 4x5, 6x6, 35mm and APSC digital. Bummer.

The 6x9 format mimics 35mm and felt very comfortable to me on the handful of occasions I’ve had to use it.

The 6x10 format, I think, might work well for landscape work here in the American west but I have not tried it yet, hopefully in another month or so.

The 6x12 format is, I’ve heard, well suited for a combination of shooting ease, resolution and fairly substantial panoramic printing size; far more beneficial than extracting similar ratios from lesser dimensions.


For me a greater point beyond pure resolution has become the overall “feel” of an image and an important aspect of this is depth of focus falloff; I have always really liked the subject separation one gets with a larger sensor or film size at any given aperture.

I remember what a revelation it was when I read that depth of focus is consistent across focal lengths when keeping the subject proportions consistent. That never occurred to me because I had only seen the results of NOT keeping the subject proportions consistent.

This is explained really well on the web so I will not try to regurgitate the facts. The bottom line is one needs a much greater aperture to achieve similar depth of focus falloff on a smaller format and these ratios can be found on the internets as well.

But since all things are NEVER equal in my world I have learned that I like a greater dimensional format on roll film than a smaller and here is why:

I can get closer with a larger format and get greater depth of focus falloff with a smaller aperture lens of lower cost than with a smaller format and the same lens.

With a larger format I have greater room for lens plane and film plane movement at any given subject distance.

As I continue to learn I may find additional reasons to prefer a larger format. However, I can imagine these factors may inversely and negatively impact someone shooting macro photos, but I have no real world experience with that and can only imagine.

I just remembered when I was shooting jewelry, that's like macro, sort of. I used Rodenstock Makro lenses all the time with movements on 4x5. But only the rings and watches were sort of like macro, and not really tiny macro and I am tired of typing.

edit: A roll film back would have probably have been a very good choice for some of that now that I think about it.

If someone sees I have made an error please correct me as soon as possible.

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.

 

[Nokton48]

Ok, in this times where film is pricey, give me a boring RZ or a Hassel, and have fun with your "cool" toys...

Well Thanks I will

Sure there is an image quality reason I prefer 6x9, but it has nothing to do with resolution. Actually the thing I like about 6x9 is that the proportions of the frame are more pleasing to my eye. I also have a humungeous Hasselblad aresenal at my disposal, too. Sometimes it is best for the particular project I am working on. Other times perhaps a Sinar Norma with roll back of whatever format achieves the objective. For ultimate groundglass viewing at taking aperture the view camera is sometimes the only real possibility, especially depending on the required lens. My choice of format has -zero- to do with system resolution, that's just not it at all. Frankly could care less about the slight differences.