How come 6x7 TLR never took off
-
A
- Thread starter Wayne
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
MattKing
Moderator
Size.
Plus TLRs aren't easy to use if you have to rotate them 90 degrees to switch from landscape to portrait orientation.
Plus TLRs aren't easy to use if you have to rotate them 90 degrees to switch from landscape to portrait orientation.
Who needs landscape? You dont get landscape with a square either!
MattKing
Moderator
No - with square you get both landscape and portrait orientation at the same time.
6x7 is a relatively recent creation and was always targeted at portrait, wedding and group photographers. It would have been very surprising to see one marketed that would be great for portraits but lousy for wedding groups or family portraits.
I could see a special purpose 6x7 TLR for something like school portraits (using 70mm long rolls), but not much else.
Cut it off to 5,14x6 then.
I'm being sarcastic of course, because you don't get portrait in a square either unless you crop (unless Matt knows something I don't). But technically you can crop 6x7 to landscape too, if you're truly desperate for landscape and don't mind wasting negative space. I don't know the exact percentage but I would guess that well over 90% of my rectangular photographs are in portrait view, so I wouldn't miss landscape that much in a TLR.
I can see where it might be a niche market but come on..other than the K-O, are there any 6x7 solid body TLRs at all? I don't think they would be that small of a niche
There's lots of 6x9 SLR's like the old graflex and soho cameras.
Historically speaking, I think the 6x7 format simply became popular after TLRs had become a bit outdated. I know the Rolleiflexes and Mamiya Cs were made until quite late, but SLRs had taken over most of professional photography (where/when 6x7 became popular).
Because of the rotating back of the Mamiya RB67 SLR that shoots 6x7, the lens is sized for 7x7. Another reason why it's so big and heavy. 6x6's in both SLR and TLR are so much lighter and easier to carry and handle.
Then again, the RB67 lets me shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 on the same body (not counting 35mm sprocket panoramic), with choice of waist level, chimney, or prism finder and lenses from 30mm fisheye through 500mm. If I had choices of film, I could also mount a 2x3 Grafmatic and shoot sheet film...
Donald, I'm not knocking the RB67. I have one and have used it for thirty years including four lenses as well as a sports finder in addition to the other three finders you have. I just wanted to mention the weight and the reason for its large size due to the 7x7 lens.
The 2x3 Grafmatic sheet film holder - what is the final size of the picture expose on it? Is film available for it?
Last I heard, there's one emulsion still available in 2x3, but it might be two (both ISO 100 B&W). A 2x3 Grafmatic uses 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film, same size (approximately) image as a 6x9, so you'll obviously only get 6x7 to 6x8 on the film, depending on which model/generation of RB67 you have. Like I said, I'd only be interested in that if there were multiple emulsion choices. One could cut down x-ray film to fit, though, or shoot ortho lith and process it in print developer like Dektol, to get a different look from anything available in 120.
How about a 6x9 rotating back TLR?
Welta Superfekta 6x9. I have wanted one for a long time but they are quite pricey...
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Superfekta
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 were two 6x9 TLRs the Superflex (above) and the French Ontoflex.
Ian
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,619
- Format
- Large Format
Five, as of right now - ISO 100, 125 and 400:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?attr[]=1-50
I now have a 4x5 that I began shooting last year. I understand they will accept things like 6x12 roll film holder, maybe other sizes all from 120 roll film. I think with an adapter, even 6x17. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to learn just my 4x5 film sheet view camera which is problematic enough.
Your 4x5 won't shoot 6x17 -- the frame opening is only just over 12 cm across. It will accept 6x12, 6x9, and 6x6 roll backs (I think I've even seen 6x4.5 backs that fit 4x5 cameras) -- some Graflok, and some that will fit under a spring back. There are also adapters that will accept smaller sheet film holders. The beauty is, once you've learned to operate the camera (setup, "the dance" as Matt Marrash calls the process of actually making the exposure, movements, and so forth) that all works just the same with a roll back installed. I've got an Adapt-A-Roll Six-20 that fits under the spring backs on my Speed Graphic and Graphic View -- it feeds from trimmed 120 spools, but needs a 620 on takeup. Haven't used it since I started shooting again last year.
The lens has to cover 7x7 whether you rotate the back or not, so that shouldn't require the lens to be any larger. There's a huge jump between a 6x6 TLR lens and the smallest RB lens. Koni-Omega proved they don't have to be that huge.
6x12, 6x9 and 6x7 holders exist-- Dayi makes one that does all three. There are older 120 film holders as well in various formats. I picked up a relatively cheap 6x9 Horseman back for my 4x5, and look forward to testing it out.
6x17 on 4x5 is problematic. 4x5 is 102x127 in mm, so a 170mm film window can only exist if you extend it about 30mm from the usual plane-of-focus. This usually means composing with a different ground glass (usually supplied with the 6x17 holder). It also limits your choices for lenses at both the wide and long ends of the scale.
RB67 lenses are fairly large--imagine 2 of them top and bottom. The camera gets to be huge and heavy. It's easier just to use a 4x5.
One of the advantages of the TLR was quick handling--a 6x7 would not be very quick. For vertical shots, you turn the camera on side and get an upside down viewfinder--that works fine on a tripod, but is quite awkward when holding the camera by hand (if you could even do it without being a strongman.
And, the 6x7 format came into being about the time 6x7 SLRs were being developed, and the SLRs just have some advantages over the TLR design and nor really many disadvantages.
One of the advantages of the TLR was quick handling--a 6x7 would not be very quick. For vertical shots, you turn the camera on side and get an upside down viewfinder--that works fine on a tripod, but is quite awkward when holding the camera by hand (if you could even do it without being a strongman.
And, the 6x7 format came into being about the time 6x7 SLRs were being developed, and the SLRs just have some advantages over the TLR design and nor really many disadvantages.
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.
Aren't there waist-level adapters for 6x7 SLR's?
It wouldn't have been that difficult for someone like Mamiya. SLRs became dominant, then digital came along. Also, when tabular grain films came in cropping a Hassleblad negative provided great results.
I had a Bronica ETRSi, I had to turn it sideways for portrait, with a grip not that difficult. Not as easy with a TLR.
Look for a Gowlandflex 5x7 TLR
I had a Bronica ETRSi, I had to turn it sideways for portrait, with a grip not that difficult. Not as easy with a TLR.
Look for a Gowlandflex 5x7 TLR
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |