Is there a difference 6x6 ->6x9 cm?

Good morning everyone, as it rains here in Chicago I'm wrestling with a question of medium format film sizing - namely, do people have an opinion about the appreciable difference in photo "crispness" and resolution going from 6x6 -> 6x7 or 6x9?

I currently have used a 6x45, and found it not quite the resolution I was hoping for, so went to a 6x6 TLR, which while quirky I enjoy (except the difficulty focusing on the ground glass in low light with a F3.5) - so I'm thinking of heading into a 6x7 SLR, like the RB, or a rangefinder like the Fuji GW690 (not similar cameras at all).

I know the size differences for sure, but am looking for input from the forum about what appreciable difference you've had experience with using 6x7, or if the difference is not worth the switch, and I should jump to 6x9.

Thanks in advance!

-Rick

You are already seeing the resolution in the '6' direction in all of these formats. You can extrapolate what will happen adding more to the 'x6' direction. It really depends on the final format of your prints. If you crop 6x6 to 6x9, or 6x9 to 6x7, etc.

The other issue is that you are talking three very different types of cameras- TLR, 6x7 SLR, 6x9 rangefinder. Which style works best for your shooting?

A tripod is also critical for the best resolution.

If resolution is the real goal, skip them all and go to 4x5. Stop mucking around and do it right!

I think the aspect ratio and camera size is the biggest difference between these formats. 6x6 will have the smallest cameras and 6x9 will have the biggest cameras. I like 6x7 and rangefinders, but didn't have the money to get a 6x7 rangefinder. So I ended up with a Fuji GW690ii (6x9) and I love it.

It's only a subject/format issue. I sometimes wished I had 6x9 when I had 6x6 in some landscape situations. Crispness isn't going to be affected by such small changes in format, rather by the operator and equipment.

@sixby45 Do you really mean "resolution" though? Or do you mean sharpness/crispness in the photo? One can have a huge negative that has a muddy dull image. I have a 4x5 pinhole camera that can't produce an image as 'crisp" as my pentax 110 camera can. If it's "crispness" that you're after, look more at your lens quality, your focusing skill, the aperture selected and film speed. Also, the use of a tripod as another member suggested is a great help.

Given similar lens quality, a larger negative will always win for resolution. But there are definitely multiple factors, and a Hasselblad 6x6 or Mamiya 6x7 with top glass will likely out resolve many 6x9 set-ups.

A lot also depends on what format you are printing your negatives. Unless your final format is square, 6x6 doesn't offer many advantages over 6x4.5.

Large jumps in format will outweigh lens quality - an 'ok' MF set-up will out-resolve the best 35mm camera+lens combo's (For instance, a Yashica TLR for a couple hundred bucks can mop the floor with a $10k+ Leica system, in terms of total resolution). For this reason, moving to LF can be very attractive - a cheap-o 4x5 with a simple lens will out-resolve the most expensive MF or 35mm system money can buy.

That being said, there is a lot more to photography than resolution, and the usability for many subjects drops dramatically with the move to large format. Unless you are contact printing or making giant prints, I find 6x6 (if you print square) and 6x7 (if you print in other types of rectangles) are the sweet spot between price, resolution, usability and available film stocks.

I will also add: if you are feeling that 6x4.5 is constraining you, are you making huge prints? Because you can go quite large with a 6x4.5 system (honestly, moving to 6x6 or 6x7 is probably of little use for most photographers, myself included. I could be very happy with a Mamiya 645 or Pentax 645 set-up and nothing else). Pretty much everything is 'affordable' these days, so I would recommend trying a few systems and finding one that feels good in your hands, then selling off the excess for around what you paid for it.

Lots of good advice here. As already mentioned, these are all IMO very different formats in that one typically composes differently in a square vs the more 35mm rectangle of the 6x9 format. I think of 6x7 as kind of a compromise between the two when it comes to composition. I own and use all three of these formats, btw. Resolution in the print between these formats is highly dependent on shooting style (handheld vs tripod), type of film used, processing, etc; that is, many, many variables. I shoot mainly B&W. I would argue that a good 100 speed film like Delta 100, for example, processed in a quality developer (Clayton F76+, in my case) would match and/or exceed the print resolution of a 400 speed film in 6x9. This would all depend on final print size, too. I've never done a side-by-side in this example, but I'd be willing to bet that anything up to about 10x13" you would hardly notice a difference, if any. Then, there is the equipment used. Is a non-coated pre-war lens on a 6x9 folder capable of drawing the same image on the negative as Zeiss glass on a Hasselblad? Don't know, but I suspect not. Again, lots and lots of variables...

If you like the 6x6 format, buy a 6x6 SLR. Kowa, Bronica, Hassy, etc.. all stellar performers.

I shoot 645 and 6x6, also a little 6x7 and 6x9. The quality difference between the extremes there 6x4.5 and 6x9 is not that significant as long as you're using decent lenses.

When I shot more 6x9 it was with a roll film back on my Wista 45DX and I always used Agfa AP25 then APX 25 and the films were superb, very high definition and very fine grain, Pan F is the only alternative now and friend shoots it and develops in Perceptol with outstanding results usually 6x6 or 6x7.

If you want that step change from a 645 you really need to move to LF and a 5x4 (or larger) camera, the alternative is that slow film like Pan F, a good tripod always using the mirror lock on a MF SLR which makes a huge difference when using a tripod. It might also be just about tightening up on craft to get increased quality.

I went to 5x4 for most of my personal over 30 years ago for similar reasons, I'd experience of the Mamiya Rb67 and it wasn't significant in terms of increased image quality, I'd used LF for work sodidn't need convincing. I returned to using TLRs alongside my 5x4 cameras about 10 years ago. These days I often shoot LF hand held which is fun, a slight learning curve but I get excellent results and that's what counts.

Ian

Since 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9, are basically just different formats, the only real difference you'll see is printing 6x7 is a bit closer to ideal, you won't have to crop as much to print it. Likewise, when you crop 6x9 to print it, you'll still have more negative left over than when you crop to print 6x6. So there will be some gain in resolution there. What film are you using? Sometimes the sharpness gets lost in the grain. Also are you using modern lenses (after 1980s)? The higher acutance of modern lenses will give you more perceived sharpness. Also, there's quite a bit of information on this site about high acutance developers and stand development. Moving up to 4x5 is a good option, too, but I don't know if it's enough. Can you post examples of the images, or at least a crop to give us an idea of what you're seeing?

There are so many “it depends” to this question that a satisfactory answer is impossible. What is the subject matter? Canvas dimensions of printed picture? What kind of camera feels comfortable? Where are photographs being taken? Since camera stores are a thing of the past jspillane probably presents the best approach.

If you are used to 6x4.5 then the change to 6x9 may yield a significant quality improvement given equal quality optics in the two cameras and identical shooting conditions. I would expect differences with 6x6 and 6x7 to be proportionately less. However my personal opinion is the difference would not be enough to persuade me to change my camera, lenses and enlarger.

tedr1 said:

If you are used to 6x4.5 then the change to 6x9 may yield a significant quality improvement given equal quality optics in the two cameras and identical shooting conditions. I would expect differences with 6x6 and 6x7 to be proportionately less. However my personal opinion is the difference would not be enough to persuade me to change my camera, lenses and enlarger.

Click to expand...

Have to disagree it's not a significant difference it's barely noticeable using the same film/developer combination.

Ian

Unless you frame square, 6x4.5 and 6x6 are pretty close when printed. I use a 645 rangefinder for travel when I need light and compact. My next step up is 6x6 for versatility (ground glass focusing, lens options). My only 6x9 options are a roll film back on a view camera or my Zero Image. Then I am into sheet film territory.

I pick the format according to circumstances and function. If I do the right things (good exposure, adequate camera support), I get the best I can from the camera, and work with the limits.

It's an interesting question, but I would ask what you like to print to, both in size and aspect ratio. I have an RB67, an amazing, versatile (but heavy) camera, but I've never really liked the 6x7 aspect ratio. Yes it prints nicely onto 10"x8" paper but for me it is neither square nor elongated so I always end up cropping. I like the aspect ratio of 35mm which in MF is much more like 6x9. Since starting to use a TLR I've gotten to really love square prints. If you only print to 10"x8" then any format (even 35mm when carefully done) will be 'good'. 6x7 is a good compromise in terms of versatility (including printing on many enlargers without the jump to 5"x4" enlargers) though prepare for the weight! I've gradually compromised mass for quality, a lower quality can be acceptable if it means you carry the camera rather than leave it at home, and don't forget that many iconic images have been done on 6x6. The best camera is the one you have with you at the time.

sixby45 said:

Good morning everyone, as it rains here in Chicago I'm wrestling with a question of medium format film sizing - namely, do people have an opinion about the appreciable difference in photo "crispness" and resolution going from 6x6 -> 6x7 or 6x9?

I currently have used a 6x45, and found it not quite the resolution I was hoping for, so went to a 6x6 TLR, which while quirky I enjoy (except the difficulty focusing on the ground glass in low light with a F3.5) - so I'm thinking of heading into a 6x7 SLR, like the RB, or a rangefinder like the Fuji GW690 (not similar cameras at all).

I know the size differences for sure, but am looking for input from the forum about what appreciable difference you've had experience with using 6x7, or if the difference is not worth the switch, and I should jump to 6x9.

Thanks in advance!

-Rick

Click to expand...

Focusing is not a function of format. Get another 6x6 camera that you can focus and see what the format can do for you. I never cared for 645 because it was too much like 35mm.

Look at a square 6x6 enlargement, and then imagine that the picture continues on the sides so it makes a rectangle, with the same grain and sharpness. That's how it would look with a larger neg size with the same film and equally good lens.

There actually is a difference in negative sizes in different brands of 6x6 camera's. A Hasselblad will only produce negatives of 5,5 x 5,5cm, while a Rollei will illuminate a area of 5,8 x 5,8 cm. Other brands may vary too.

My Mamiya C220 gives 56x56 negs.

What is your preferred ratio for the final print? If you like the 6x6 square, then 6x7, 6x8, or 6x9 won't help you.

I tend to like the 6x7 and 6x9 aspect ratios. So in cases where I'm using 6x6, I have to frame a scene with a wider lens or further back than I'd like (in order to fit the longer dimension), then crop to get the image I want.

xtolsniffer said:

My Mamiya C220 gives 56x56 negs.

Click to expand...

And the Hasselblad takes 58x58 negatives but both are called 6x6 because of the negative size not the image size.

Having fallen in love with other people's medium format photos, I embarked on the same journey as you. I started with a 6X6 TLR, and a 645 SLR, and a 645 rangefinder. The 645 SLR with a leaf shutter (Bronica) gave me some fantastic images. I have a 20x30 print on my wall that is breathtaking, even up close. If 645 was that good, I assumed bigger would be even better. So I graduated to a 6x7 SLR, and 6x9 rangefinder. Now I've settled on one camera and format, a 6x6 SLR.

Here's what I learned:
1) If all things were equal, the bigger negative would win out. Yes, that 6x9 piece of film holds an impressive amount of resolution and is capable of beautiful tonality. Unfortunately not everything is equal.

2) The look I wanted was most influenced by two things -- the maker of the lenses, and the use of a leaf shutter.

The Fuji 6x9 (rangefinder with leaf shutter and fixed Fuji lens) gave me very sharp results on a huge piece of film, but I didn't like them subjectively. I found the negatives to have too much contrast - something I don't control myself in developing as I prefer to develop with Diafine or use C41 labs. Also, shooting 6x9 gives you very few exposures per roll, and you have to reload the big Fuji constantly. (It also doesn't have magazines for quick-changing film.)

A nice Pentax 67II promised to give me the convenience of SLR use, with lenses from a maker I like (I'm a Pentax fan.) But nothing I ever shot with the Pentax matched the sharpness of the leaf shutter exposures. The negs were never UN-sharp... everything was right... but still not breathtaking like from either the Bronica or the big Fuji.

So I have compromised with a Bronica SQ-A (6x6 SLR with leaf shutters.) I like how the Bronica lenses render, they preserve microcontrast but don't create excessive contrast overall. There is no softness on the neg. The slightly larger mirror (compared to a Bronica ETR) seems to be well controlled, and the leaf shutter continues to do it's job without jiggling the whole works.

One more thing in favour of the 6x6 over 645. At first I thought I would never need 6x6 because I like to print rectangular (8x10.) So often times the 6x6 negative will be cropped to 645 anyway. But as I warmed up to the square image, shooting 645 is restrictive. Cropping 645 to square throws away so much film area as to be getting closer to the miniature formats. Having a 6x6 camera means no cropping when I want a square, and having a rectangular crop to 645 (that I already proved to myself was adequate for really good large prints.)

There are multiple considerations:

1) do you want to produce square, slightly rectangular or more rectangular images?

2) are you shooting handheld or tripod only?

3) how large will you reproduce the images

4) how much gear can you carry?

5) what can you afford?

If you plan on producing square negatives then a 6x6 makes the most sense. But then you have to ask yourself if you're going to shoot handheld often because if you plan to you might get better results using a TLR or rangefinder instead of an SLR. The TLR or rangefinder will allow slower shutter speeds with less vibrations causing loss of resolution. The downside of a TLR is usually lack of interchangeable lenses unless you use a Mamiya 220 or 330 series camera. The issue with a rangefinder camera is that the framing is not as exact as with an SLR or a TLR.

A 6x7 rangefinder like the Mamiya 7 will produce negatives of extremely high resolution. Their lenses are the best. The entry price point for the mamiya 7 will be high.

A 6x9 rangefinder will work if you are looking for that image ratio. However their lenses are not quite as good as the more modern ones like the Mamiya 7, Hasselblad or Rolleis. The Fuji 690 series tends to fall off on edge focus much more noticeably than with a Mamiya 7. However if you are not making huge prints this might not be noticeable and the plus side of using a bigger piece of film is less grain and smoother gradations. On the downside carrying one of these and few lenses starts to add up a bit.

I shoot three of the 6xX formats, and all are horses for courses. I use my Mamiya 645 Pro TL a lot since I have a battery of lenses ranging from 35mm to 500mm. Lots of choices. In the middle I have three 6x6 cameras; a Hasselblad 500 C/M and a Bronica SQ-A; they both have 80mm and 150mm lenses (I'm currently testing them side-by-side). I have a Mamiya RZ67 with 50mm, 90mm, 250mm, and a 100-200mm zoom. And just to through in a bit of variety, I also shoot a Mamiya C330s with 55mm, 80mm, 135mm, and 180mm lenses. A lot of my shooting is done "just because I'm in that mood" on a given day. They all bring excellent results.

Oh, and B-T-W, I also shoot 6x7 on my Cambo 4x5, using a Graflex back.


I've had to rethink my former aversion to 6x6. For a long time my mind suffered from "rectangular format lock". The 6x6's have opened up a huge window.

Early Riser said:

If you plan on producing square negatives then a 6x6 makes the most sense. But then you have to ask yourself if you're going to shoot handheld often because if you plan to you might get better results using a TLR or rangefinder instead of an SLR. The TLR or rangefinder will allow slower shutter speeds with less vibrations causing loss of resolution. The downside of a TLR is usually lack of interchangeable lenses unless you use a Mamiya 220 or 330 series camera. The issue with a rangefinder camera is that the framing is not as exact as with an SLR or a TLR.

Click to expand...

I never realized that a 6x6 Hasselblad was a lousy camera and that no photographer professional or amateur has ever been able to hold the camera stable. What load of horse manure did you dig up that little gem from???