How come 6x7 TLR never took off

[Sirius Glass]

Why? Too bulky, rotation for landscape, the advent of slrs, and frankly by using a 6x6 slr one gets the negative size and there is no need to rotate the camera so go Bronica Squares, Rollei SLR and Hasselblad! We all know that square is the prefect format. Again you rock!

 

[Wayne]

Aren't there waist-level adapters for 6x7 SLR's?

I don't know of any affordable (which to me means very inexpensive) 6x7 SLRs that are comfortably handheld, although I know people do it anyway.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Aren't there waist-level adapters for 6x7 SLR's?

Waist level finder is the default for an RB67 or RZ67. Adding a prism or chimney adds weight and increases cost.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I don't know of any affordable (which to me means very inexpensive) 6x7 SLRs that are comfortably handheld, although I know people do it anyway.

I guess it depends how much time you spend in the gym. I can hand hold my RB67, assisted by the strap; it'll be even better when I get my left hand grip mounted. It's no Leica, but it's possible -- but it would have been easier if I'd been twenty or thirty years younger when I got the camera... They're about as affordable as a 6x7 SLR is going to get. I still see them on eBay for around $500 with waist level finder, one lens (usually 90mm or 127mm) and one back.

If your budget won't go there, I'm afraid 6x7 SLR is out of your price range, whether you can lift it or not.

 

[Wayne]

I have an RB but aint gonna haul it around by hand except on special occasions when I want to punish myself.

 

[MattKing]

The Bronica GS-1 is reasonably portable.
I used to hand-hold my RB67 regularly.
The RB67 is actually a 7.5x8 camera, not 7x7, because it is designed to work with the 6x8 back in portrait mode. It works with that back in landscape mode as well, if you can put up with a small amount of vignetting at the corners.
In order to work with a rotating 6x8 back, lenses have to cover a diagonal that is a lot bigger than the diagonal of a 6x6 back.

 

[narsuitus]

The lens has to cover 7x7 whether you rotate the back or not, so that shouldn't require the lens to be any larger.

That is not correct.

A 6x7cm camera only needs a lens with an image circle that covers the 9.22cm diagonal of a 6x7cm rectangle.

A 7x7cm camera needs a lens with an image circle that covers the 9.9cm diagonal of a 7x7cm square.

 

[Wayne]

That is not correct.

A 6x7cm camera only needs a lens with an image circle that covers the 9.22cm diagonal of a 6x7cm rectangle.

A 7x7cm camera needs a lens with an image circle that covers the 9.9cm diagonal of a 7x7cm square.

You're right, good point. But it still doesn't have to be RB size to cover that extra .7cm.
Well maybe it does. I checked the size of the Koni-Omega and its pretty huge.

 

[Wayne]

The Bronica GS-1 is reasonably portable.

But not cheap

I used to hand-hold my RB67 regularly.

Yup that's the one I was thinking of when I said "but some crazy people do it anyway..."

But I'm not going to. Maybe I'll try a cheap 6 x 4.5 and see if that format floats my boat or not. Never tried that one.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe I'll try a cheap 6 x 4.5 and see if that format floats my boat or not. Never tried that one.

Well, there are cheap 645 cameras...

Film Photography Project offers the Debonair, "Plastic Filmtastic" -- it's essentially a 6x4.5 clone of a Holga (shutter speed changes for exposure, rather than aperture). I have one, it's a good way to check if you like the format, and it's only about $20 plus shipping, plus it's really light (hollow plastic).

Otherwise, there are a bunch of decent folders to be had for less than $100 to just over $100 in 6x4.5. Konica Pearl, Daiichi Zenobia, Zeiss had a couple (even a Super Ikonta). Lots of choices you wouldn't be embarrassed to haul out...

 

[Paul Howell]

I had the Konica Omega Flex, my parents gave it to me when I graduated college. It's not really a TLR, rather direct view unless the user had the 45degree reflex finder. No waist level viewing, and while good in portrait mode, using it in landscape mode was a trick that I never got use to. Sold a year or later and got a Mamiya C33, which I later sold as it just too heavy.

 

[Archlich]

The Koni-Omegaflex M mentioned above is a 6x7 TLR introdued in 1968 the same year as the Pentax 6x7. I'm not sure there were any earlier 6x7 cameras.

There were two 6x9 TLRs the Superflex (above) and the French Ontoflex.

Ian

There was a pre-war model that shoots 6x7 plates. Not related to later developments.

The Koni-Omega cameras were derived from the Simmons Omega 120 of early 1950s - the same maker marketed Omega enlargers that we're familiar with. Kinda explains why the 6x7 is touted as the ideal aspect ratio for enlarging.

The format did take off IMO only with the Koni-Omega and Pentax 67 in the 1960s, by which TLRs are fading from professional use.

 

[hsandler]

yeah I know there are non-square folders but they don't give me the same thrill as a solid body TLR. Other types of handheld 6x7 are pricey. An affordable 6x7 or even 6x9 solid body TLR would be the bees knees.

Koni-Omega Rapid cameras (but not the Koni-Omegaflex) are very out of favour and inexpensive these days. They are on the heavy side, but not huge. The lenses and the big viewfinder/rangefinder are great.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Air Force replaced the Graphic XL which were unreliable with Konica Rapid, I used them on occasion. In my view the weakness was the ratchet film advance, prone to all sorts of abuse by 19 year old Airmen. As I recall Graphic sold the XL to Combo where it remained in production until the 80s.

 

[Wayne]

Well, there are cheap 645 cameras...

Film Photography Project offers the Debonair, "Plastic Filmtastic" -- it's essentially a 6x4.5 clone of a Holga (shutter speed changes for exposure, rather than aperture). I have one, it's a good way to check if you like the format, and it's only about $20 plus shipping, plus it's really light (hollow plastic).

Otherwise, there are a bunch of decent folders to be had for less than $100 to just over $100 in 6x4.5. Konica Pearl, Daiichi Zenobia, Zeiss had a couple (even a Super Ikonta). Lots of choices you wouldn't be embarrassed to haul out...

I already know what I want, but I'm not going to mention it so they don't get GameStopped before I get mine.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I already know what I want, but I'm not going to mention it so they don't get GameStopped before I get mine.

Well then, "Welcome to Hasselblad!"

 

[Wayne]

Well then, "Welcome to Hasselblad!"

They are cheap, right?

 

[Sirius Glass]

They are cheap, right?

Much cheaper now than later.

 

[voceumana]

When you get to the size and weight of a 6x7 TLR, you might as well get a 2-1/2 x 3-1/2 press camera or view camera (or 4x5, for that matter). The press/view will be lighter and easier to use, and less expensive as you don't have to pay for 2 lenses for each focal length.

 

[grat]

I think the answer is a lack of aerodynamic lift.

 

[Wayne]

I think the answer is a lack of aerodynamic lift.

And we have a winner.

 

[Wayne]

When you get to the size and weight of a 6x7 TLR, you might as well get a 2-1/2 x 3-1/2 press camera or view camera (or 4x5, for that matter). The press/view will be lighter and easier to use, and less expensive as you don't have to pay for 2 lenses for each focal length.

I have 4x5's (and 5x7...and 8x10) but part of what I'm looking for is mojo. Press cameras aint got the mojo (got one of those too, but its 4x5, but I've been too lazy to replace the rangefinder I lost)

Don't ask me what does have the mojo.. some TLRs have it...a lightweight 6x7 TLR would have it, if one existed...whatever I end up with will have it.

 

[hsandler]

I have 4x5's (and 5x7...and 8x10) but part of what I'm looking for is mojo. Press cameras aint got the mojo (got one of those too, but its 4x5, but I've been too lazy to replace the rangefinder I lost)

Don't ask me what does have the mojo.. some TLRs have it...a lightweight 6x7 TLR would have it, if one existed...whatever I end up with will have it.

We got yer mojo right here...
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2017/08/vertical-cameras.html

 

[Wayne]

Oh nooooo....I hope you didn't mean this! Didn't this star on an episode of Lost in Space?

 

[Paul Howell]

You want mojo, here's mojo 4X5