Help deciding between 6x9 or 4x5 camera.

[Ian Grant]

One of the horseman rangefinders sounds promising then. A bit more movement than the press cameras. Anyone have some recommendations on which camera and lenses? I read they had some series with different coverage? I shoot mainly with my 50mm 1.2 (35mm format) and then a 100mm

Lenses - just go for a 150mm f5.6 Symmar S or Sironar N, or a Japanese equivalent they are plentiful in Europe, good image circles (coverage) for movements. I'd suggest a 210mm or 24omm as a 300mm (equivalent to a 100mm on 35mm) needs almost all the bellows extension on most cameras and is unwieldy, alternately get a telephoto, a Tele-Arton or Tele-Xenar.

Ian

 

[crumpet8]

Great thanks! I wonder if they will fit in the camera when closed?

 

[Ian Grant]

Great thanks! I wonder if they will fit in the camera when closed?

A 150mm should.

I think something never discussed is how much more versatility you get with some movements. I was shooting with a Mamiya 645 and 45mm lens and even stopped right down couldn't get the fore ground and distant sharpness I needed, with movements it's it's easy and you don't need to be at f32, and that's when I switched.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Great thanks! I wonder if they will fit in the camera when closed?

Don't pile on silly constraints.

With respect to short lenses for 2x3 Cameras, the shortest lens I'm aware of that covers the format is the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. Next up, 47/5.6 and 47/8 Super Angulon and the very uncommon 47/8 Ilex. Longer than that, many alternatives. I haven't paid attention to modern "digital" lenses around these focal lengths, too expensive for me. But I do have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandy and a 47/5.6 SA and can confirm that both focus to infinity on my humble Century Graphic. I have a 38/4.5 Biogon as well, lovely lens that makes infinity on my Century and absolutely positively won't cover, let alone illuminate, 2x3.

I insist that my Century has only one generally usable movement, ~ 19 mm of front rise, somewhat less when the front standard is inside the box.

 

[Ian Grant]

The OP asks about visual differences between formats.

I had a visitor a couple of weeks ago an LF photographer wanting help using a Dagor, actually pre Goerz using the name so a Doppel Anastigmat Goerz, With a number of exhibition prints on the wall I said tell me which was shot with a Dagor. She chose a 6x6 image with shallow DOF made with a Yashica 124.

Now one would ask why, the assumption is the 100+ year old Dagor's image quality is lower, but in fact this was due to it being MF rather than LF and it's subtle rather than glaringly noticeable with images only slightly larger than 10x8 inches.

Dan opened my eyes to older lenses, I was "it has to be modern and Multi Coated" after fery bad experiences with Sigma and particularly Hoy lenses for 35mmcaameras, but then they were supposedly MC but not all elements it turned out and a lot of flare. Hoya scrapped their entire lens range and used their Tokina brand name for a completely redesigned range of lenses.

Luckily LF lenses have been well coated by all manufacturers since the late 1940's, if you shoot colour go for 1970's and onwards, earlier LF lens coatings give colour shifts and need the appropriate filters to compensate - it's not just an LF issue all lenses of that era, it's why manufacturers introduced newer versions for colour, CZJ the Pancolor, the Colour Skopar etc.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

Cheers Paul I'm liking the 6x9 more and more as I would like to stick with shooting colour. Do you easily see differences between the formats? If so at what print sizes etc.

I have not done much color in past several years, but up to 11X14 inches, using Porta 160 or Extra 100 can't really tell the difference, at 16X20 the 4X5 is sharper with much better resolution, at least in my view. Graflex made a 2X3 or 6X9 or baby speed, as far I know none with user interchangeable cams, Lindhoff or Horseman comes with cams for a range of lens and has good front rise, tilt and swing. You can also use a 6X9 sheet film back, Foma still makes 6X9 B&W sheet film. Either could replace my Crown, Speed and Mamiya Universal and just keep my by old Brand New View for large format.

 

[crumpet8]

Great tips Ian, will be a bit picky about lenses then

I have not done much color in past several years, but up to 11X14 inches, using Porta 160 or Extra 100 can't really tell the difference, at 16X20 the 4X5 is sharper with much better resolution, at least in my view. Graflex made a 2X3 or 6X9 or baby speed, as far I know none with user interchangeable cams, Lindhoff or Horseman comes with cams for a range of lens and has good front rise, tilt and swing. You can also use a 6X9 sheet film back, Foma still makes 6X9 B&W sheet film. Either could replace my Crown, Speed and Mamiya Universal and just keep my by old Brand New View for large format.

Paul, what are the pros and cons of using 6x9 sheet instead of roll film?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Luckily LF lenses have been well coated by all manufacturers since the late 1940's, if you shoot colour go for 1970's and onwards, earlier LF lens coatings give colour shifts and need the appropriate filters to compensate - it's not just an LF issue all lenses of that era, it's why manufacturers introduced newer versions for colour, CZJ the Pancolor, the Colour Skopar etc.

Ian

Ian, to to quarrel with you but I don't agree with you about coatings giving color shifts or the reason for the CZJ Pancolar (sorry, you spelled it incorrectly) and the Color Skopar names. In particular, Voightlaender's Color x renames were all marketing fluff.

I also don't completely agree with you about the need for coating. Four or more groups, absolutely, yes, coating makes a difference and the more layers the better even though I wonder why Hollywood took so strongly to TTH's various 6/4 double Gauss types in the 1930s while still photographers didn't. I mean, Hollywood had stronger financial incentives to do things as well as possible. Three groups or fewer, coating's benefits are much less clear.

Crumpet, about being picky about lenses, read this http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html There are many people out there who want "the best gear." Having the best gear, as opposed to merely ok gear, has very little effect on the final prints.

About why I believe this strongly. Read my lens diary, you can download it from http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

I don't think I mentioned it in the diary, I've conducted blind testing with people who professed to be and were regarded as lens connoisseurs. They couldn't match color transparency with the lens used to shoot it. Failed miserably. So much for connoisseurship and claims that there are recognizable "lens signatures."

Don't worry so much. Buy decent kit, run it through acceptance testing and if it passes enjoy using it.

 

[Paul Howell]

Great tips Ian, will be a bit picky about lenses then




Paul, what are the pros and cons of using 6x9 sheet instead of roll film?

If you shoot using the Zone or Beyond the Zone system you can adjust the development times for each sheet of film, you can shoot just one or two negatives, with the ground glass back you can use the camera like a view camera rather then use the rangefinder which is useful when using front adjustments.

 

[Bill Burk]

I disagree that they have everything you need because they have no movements.

Haaa I agree they have no movements and you might need that.

Long time ago I was torn between formats and I concluded for my own purposes, that movements were not used for "so much" photography, that I could probably get away without it.

But what I literally meant was that the camera, meter and film can fit in a small kit bag.

 

[crumpet8]

Hey Dan, I'm also Dan I agree, I end up using lenses that have a character I like.

If you shoot using the Zone or Beyond the Zone system you can adjust the development times for each sheet of film, you can shoot just one or two negatives, with the ground glass back you can use the camera like a view camera rather then use the rangefinder which is useful when using front adjustments.

Yep, I was really looking forward to having single sheets instead of a whole roll!

 

[John Koehrer]

As I recall there's NOT MUCH* in the way of sheet film in 6X9.That, and having it processed may be a MAJOR PITA.
*especially color.
Roll doesn't give the freedom to use the Zone system so if you want to go that route go with the 4X5.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hey Dan, I'm also Dan I agree, I end up using lenses that have a character I like.

Crumpet, I'm all for solidarity among Dans, but I have to disagree with you. The idea that lenses have characters that can be discerned in the final print is largely wishful thinking. If lenses had discernable characters people skilled in the art would be able to match up lenses with prints better than randomly. They can't.

 

[crumpet8]

Maybe it's a 35mm format lens thing then because my Nikon 50mm 1.2 has a nice glow under f/2 in stronger light. All of those lenses do it, but that's what I meant by character.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I recall there's NOT MUCH* in the way of sheet film in 6X9.That, and having it processed may be a MAJOR PITA.
*especially color.
Roll doesn't give the freedom to use the Zone system so if you want to go that route go with the 4X5.

As far as I know Ilford special order and Foma for black and white, none for color. I agree with roll film and zone, you can meter for the shadows, but the highlights will fall where they may, or meter for the highlight at selected zone and let the shadows fall where they may, for color, I bracket. I also dont think that a 6X9 replaces a 4X5 view, not even a Lindhoff or Horseman, there are times back and front movement are needed as is a large negative.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, to to quarrel with you but I don't agree with you about coatings giving color shifts or the reason for the CZJ Pancolar (sorry, you spelled it incorrectly) and the Color Skopar names. In particular, Voightlaender's Color x renames were all marketing fluff.

I also don't completely agree with you about the need for coating. Four or more groups, absolutely, yes, coating makes a difference and the more layers the better even though I wonder why Hollywood took so strongly to TTH's various 6/4 double Gauss types in the 1930s while still photographers didn't. I mean, Hollywood had stronger financial incentives to do things as well as possible. Three groups or fewer, coating's benefits are much less clear.

We'll have to disagree about the colour shifts caused by some early coatings Dan, apart from having two lenses that show significant shifts a 150mm T coated CZJ Tessar and an early Schneider 65mm f8 Super Angulon, it's something that's been plenty written over the years in books and magazines and there's no doubt that manufacturers significantly improved their coatings long before Multi-coating.

As to coated versus uncoated lenses having used an un-coated CZJ Tessar and then a T coated Tessar and also a late production Xenar there's a noticeable improvement in contrast between the coated lenses and the uncoated lenses. We agree about the number of groupings and air/glass surfaces and that was quite obvious in the tests I posted earlier this year comparing a Dagor, Tessar and Dialyte - all uncoated.

Really this should be a separate discussion but your mention of Cine lenses brings up the quite different lens hoods used, often quite deep and shielding all extraneous non image forming light form the lens. In comparison many shoot LF without a lens hood at all, a compendium hood might make a significant difference with some uncoated lenses.

Ian

 

[CropDusterMan]

No worries how often did you use the 6x9 back? Not so much seeing you sold it?

You know Dan, I never used it...probably silly of me, but I only used my Fuji 6x9 for that format. I have had a Fuji
for many years and love it., and honestly have never had a reason to try any other camera in that format.
I sold the Linhof Technica (Schneider) 100/2.8 and two 6x9 backs to a collector to finance some of a Leica purchase.
I will say this though...the Linhof Technica Color is a wonderful 4x5 camera, and I use it a lot...they pop up here
in the U.S on ebay from time to time...they have some limitations perhaps, but it's such a classy little camera
and serves me well. Mine is in absolutely beautiful condition.

 

[crumpet8]

Yeah thats a beauty I have heard good things about the fuji cameras, shame they dont suit my needs though as theres a couple available locally in good coniditon and not too horrible a price

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How's would you compare quality difference between the two formats? Most interested in large prints and 3D feel/falloff

I never print anything larger than 8x10. Looks about the same. To get 3D feel/fall off I have to use RF on both and large apertures. Focusing on the ground glass, upside down was most annoying, slowest and inaccurate to me.

 

[crumpet8]

We'll have to disagree about the colour shifts caused by some early coatings Dan, apart from having two lenses that show significant shifts a 150mm T coated CZJ Tessar and an early Schneider 65mm f8 Super Angulon, it's something that's been plenty written over the years in books and magazin...

Ian

Hey Ian, I've been hearing people complain about focusing on gg on 6x9. Do you have any knowledge on the matter?

 

[Ian Grant]

Hey Ian, I've been hearing people complain about focusing on gg on 6x9. Do you have any knowledge on the matter?

I do find 5x4 much easier to ficus compared to 6x9 or 6x7 using GG screens. I added a cheap fresnel to my home-build 6x7 camera and that helps significantly, but in general the larger the format the easier to focus. I have a Ross 141mm f16 EWA (extreme wide angle) that I use occasionally with a 10x8 camera and surprisingly it's quite easy to focus.

With 6x9 or 5x4 the screen and whether it has a fresnel makes a very significant difference to focussing. My Wista 45DX has a combination screen with a built in fresnel it's the brightest 5x4 screen I have. My Super Graphic has a GG screen and a fresnel and is not quite a s bright but still easy to use, I did replace the dim original GG screen. My Crown Graphic came with a similar dim screen, I added a new screen (I make over a hundred every year) and a fresnel and now it's so much brighter.

So when people comment on dim screens and being difficult to focus it really depends what they have fitted.

There were some specialist focus screens Beattie, Maxwell etc, sold for MF and LF cameras, they are significantly brighter but quite expensive. One of my 10x8 Agfa Ansco cameras, a Commercial View came with one new in it's box when I bought it - so I fitted it, it's much brighter than my second Agfa Ansco 10x8 with its plain GG screen, I don't really need to use a focus dark cloth with it.

Ian

 

[crumpet8]

Thanks There was a very poor selection on ebay, any recommendations on where to pick up a fresnel or new GG for horseman cameras?

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks There was a very poor selection on ebay, any recommendations on where to pick up a fresnel or new GG for horseman cameras?

Most modern LF cameras have good screens so when you ask about a specific make like Horseman the original screen is probably fine. It's a few years (mid 1980's) since I used a Horseman but the screen was good a lot brighter than my De Vere.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

With a decent field 4x5 you can do both if you wish. Full sized 4x5 film or roll-film holders, plus the significant advantages of view camera movements for perspective and focal plane, and compact lightweight lenses. But it's a slower, more methodical way of doing things. There are real
advantages to being slowed down. It makes you think about what you are doing. But once it starts raining cats n' dogs, or the wind wants to turn
your bellows into a kite, well, then there is an argument for a conventional MF camera.