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

wiltw · Jan 29, 2019

It should be kept in mind that for any camera its ultimate resolution performance is combination of the film resolution plus the lens resolution. Lenses for larger formats do not have to deliver as many lines of resolution per millimeter of film has the smaller formats. If you had a truly Superior lens for the 135 format which could deliver 100 lines per millimeter of film The 645 camera would only need a lens that could deliver 57 lines per millimeter and the 6 by 9 mm camera lens would only need to deliver 43 lines per millimeter and if that was the case all three cameras would present identical resolution to the same final print size. Then you have to factor in the film grain size and the acutance of the film itself. So the true answer is 'it depends'... upon the lens performance available for a specific camera under test -- so brand matters.

Marco Gilardetti · Jan 30, 2019

Dan Daniel said:
"downgraded" to a Rollei with a Planar? That's like 'downgrading' from a Chevy Tahoe with truck tires to a BMW 2002 tii.

Come on, that's ridiculous. The Mamiya RB67 is one of the finest professional cameras ever made. By reverting back to a Rollei he has lost:
- interchangeable lenses
- interchangeable backs
- larger frame format
- rotary back
- SLR framing with no parallax
Is that an "upgrade" perhaps?

JPD · Jan 30, 2019

Marco Gilardetti said:
Come on, that's ridiculous. The Mamiya RB67 is one of the finest professional cameras ever made. By reverting back to a Rollei he has lost:
- interchangeable lenses
- interchangeable backs
- larger frame format
- rotary back
- SLR framing with no parallax
Is that an "upgrade" perhaps?

But now he can claim "german quality" and throw in the name "Zeiss" when discussing the camera.
Now he has to relearn the art to zoom with his feet. And possibly buy a tall pair of boots to get closer to the loving swan couples in lakes, for those heart-neck photos.
He needs to carefully plan beforehand what type of film he wants to use.
No need to rotate a back on a 6x6 camera.
There is no big parallax problem with a Rolleiflex. It's compensated for in the finder, and with the Rolleinar Heidosmat attachments.
A Rolleiflex is simpler and quicker to use.

Dan Daniel · Jan 30, 2019

Marco Gilardetti said:
Come on, that's ridiculous. The Mamiya RB67 is one of the finest professional cameras ever made. By reverting back to a Rollei he has lost:
- interchangeable lenses
- interchangeable backs
- larger frame format
- rotary back
- SLR framing with no parallax
Is that an "upgrade" perhaps?

It's different. Up or down grading isn't how I would think about it. Horses for courses.
Mamiya monster truck for some...
Rolleiflex small sports sedan for others...

abruzzi · Jan 31, 2019

wyofilm said:
A benefit of shooting larger MF formats is that you get fewer shots per roll! I get impatient waiting to finish a roll of film.

I find that a huge benefit of MF over 35mm, but 8 shots vs 12 shots isn’t that much. Actually, my 15 shot 6x4.5 is perfect. I almost never fail to finish a roll in an outing.

Dan Fromm · Jan 31, 2019

abruzzi said:
I find that a huge benefit of MF over 35mm, but 8 shots vs 12 shots isn’t that much. Actually, my 15 shot 6x4.5 is perfect. I almost never fail to finish a roll in an outing.

Ages ago a friend who had and was very proud of his Pentax 645 and the outstanding lenses he'd bought for it came by. I showed him some 2x3 Ektachromes I'd taken with my humble 2x3 Graphics and antique lenses. He remarked that next to my 2x3s, his 645s looked pretty punk. 645 is half frame 2x3. I didn't tell him but knew very well that my 2x3 Ektas look pretty punk next to 4x5s. Bigger is better.

sixby45 · Feb 4, 2019

Ha! This makes me so happy and yes it does feel a little like this

sixby45 · Feb 4, 2019

Or at least referring to the monster truck YouTube post - that's a RB67 all the way. Rather like it's "spirit animal".

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 7, 2019

Bigger is always better ... or not so much and certainly not every time. Lots of variables in comparing all of the options discussed thus far. While no doubt going from 645 to 69 is doubling real estate of the negative, and call the 66 meet me in middle in that respect, each one means different framing "restrictor". While aspect ratio of 645 and 69 is the same (implying same compositional view), for whatever reason I don't see it that way going from Pentax 645 to Fujica GW690II. I suppose it must be in my had I am with a different camera, different operation, lens options vs. none etc. So while it may seem like I'm making smoke from a non existent fire, I see evidence (in my case) of gear bias when choosing negative size. As for the final quality of image? Unless print size goes into very large, there is a little chance of noticing any difference between 645 and 69.

narsuitus · Feb 7, 2019

Witold said:
As for the final quality of image? Unless print size goes into very large, there is a little chance of noticing any difference between 645 and 69.

The aspect ratio of 645, 69, and 35mm is the same.

Do you notice any difference in the final quality of the image when comparing the three sizes?

Edward Romero · Feb 7, 2019

I have all three formats and still use the darkroom. I have a Mamiya 330, a Bronica SQA, a Mamiya RB 67 and a Moskva 5 and Kodak Tourist. But If you want to print a 8x10 you will lose negative on a 6x6 or the 6x9. The 6x7 you virtually lose nothing. The Mamiya RB is very sharp. I won at the Santa Clara County Fair with a 16x20 print of Half Dome. Like one said use a tripod and mirror lock up and a cable release. The square negative I’m not that crazy about it. The 6x9 is a delight but you lose negative on a 8x10. The Mamiya TLR is cool that it is quiet and you don’t focus looking thru a filter. The Moskva 5 is a Soviet folder shoots a 6x9 with 120 film. Pretty sharp prints for a 1960 camera.
If I had to choose one the Mamiya RB67 hands down.

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 8, 2019

narsuitus said:
The aspect ratio of 645, 69, and 35mm is the same.

Do you notice any difference in the final quality of the image when comparing the three sizes?

The 35 is a different story. And if we take the film into scanning/digital and ultimately pixel peeping region, then we will always find some differences. I think the problem here is what final size we expand the negative to. If we use same emulsion / developing method then there should not be much difference from 645 to 69. A 35 makes detail far more compressed and requiring far better scanning quality to bring it within shooting range to even 645 (and if the latter is processed with sam attention to detail, it runs away regardless), so that is why 35 falls out of it rather quickly, while still being capable of great quality).

Using same analogy ,645 compresses detail more than 69, but it is already a rather large negative. Deep inside there is going to be differences, but I doubt any are consequential unless much larger print sizes are considered.

My jab at gear bias (as I see in my own interpretations) is more of a mind set than based on factual reasoning. Bigger is better is a know phenomenon, even if not everyone agrees. So our minds usually quickly assume better outcome when theoretically better is used (just ask a Hassy shooter how his images are better). So taking a 69 gear ought to make it better than a 645, and we immediately view results with that mind set. Surely not all do it that way, I just wanted to throw this into the discussion as a possible level of subjectivity in evaluating what we see. And are we further biased because of vast differences in operating a gear as it goes up the negative size? We frequently touch upon taking an LF out because of all the dancing one needs to perform around it for every shot and it is such a big relief ... sometimes.

And it's important to consider our digital times and how we often evaluate our film shots on a monitor. It is NOT how a print would be ultimately viewed and I fail to see objectivity in comparing an analog image / print on a computer screen for quality (not suggesting this was the approach by the original poster). It's great we have the tools to do it, but are they meant to switch negative size because we dislike what's projected on the screen?

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 8, 2019

Edward Romero said:
... But If you want to print a 8x10 you will lose negative on a 6x6 or the 6x9. The 6x7 you virtually lose nothing. ...

This is a great point to consider too. Aspect ratio of negative vs. final print. You gain some by going 69 only if you compose for full frame and print that way. I like all aspect ratios and tend to use the whole frame every time with same for final output (with just minor margins for final cropping options), and that is also one reason I "hate" Mamiya for not giving us 66 back for the RB.

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 8, 2019

MattKing said:
The RB vs RZ sharpness discussion may elicit a spirited response!
What is true is that the RZ and KL lenses are the newest, and in some cases there were improvements over the decades that the RB was in production.
With the exception of a couple of very specialized lenses (the 75mm shift lens comes to mind), all of the K/L lenses are usable on all versions of the RB. The lenses came with an adapter that one uses with the SD model and removes with the older models.

For clarification, KL lenses were factory supplied with the ring to fit KLs on SD body, but it must be said they are not absolutely necessary, although I dislike trying to mount one without it (it aids in centering the lens in its mount and improves load distribution once mounted). When shopping for RB lenses keep in mind the ring, it is easy to see in any pic of the rear end. At least some point for bargaining, if a KL lens is being sold without it. If it is a dealer selling it, it is likely ring was removed and sold separately as they easily fetch $30. Of course you can just have one of them and keep moving it from lens to lens as it is just a somewhat tight slip-on black metal ring. And some sellers will take a fifth when asked about it.

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 8, 2019

Rear of KL lens with adapter ring in place. Without it all you can see is the thin inner ring.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 8, 2019

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

I saw an insignificant difference quality increase from 6x6 to 6x9 but 6x9 to me is almost as good as4x5 and a lot easier to carry and handle. Being head and shoulders above 35mm, it might be the ideal film format.

Edward Romero · Feb 8, 2019

Witold said:
The 35 is a different story. And if we take the film into scanning/digital and ultimately pixel peeping region, then we will always find some differences. I think the problem here is what final size we expand the negative to. If we use same emulsion / developing method then there should not be much difference from 645 to 69. A 35 makes detail far more compressed and requiring far better scanning quality to bring it within shooting range to even 645 (and if the latter is processed with sam attention to detail, it runs away regardless), so that is why 35 falls out of it rather quickly, while still being capable of great quality).

Using same analogy ,645 compresses detail more than 69, but it is already a rather large negative. Deep inside there is going to be differences, but I doubt any are consequential unless much larger print sizes are considered.

My jab at gear bias (as I see in my own interpretations) is more of a mind set than based on factual reasoning. Bigger is better is a know phenomenon, even if not everyone agrees. So our minds usually quickly assume better outcome when theoretically better is used (just ask a Hassy shooter how his images are better). So taking a 69 gear ought to make it better than a 645, and we immediately view results with that mind set. Surely not all do it that way, I just wanted to throw this into the discussion as a possible level of subjectivity in evaluating what we see. And are we further biased because of vast differences in operating a gear as it goes up the negative size? We frequently touch upon taking an LF out because of all the dancing one needs to perform around it for every shot and it is such a big relief ... sometimes.

And it's important to consider our digital times and how we often evaluate our film shots on a monitor. It is NOT how a print would be ultimately viewed and I fail to see objectivity in comparing an analog image / print on a computer screen for quality (not suggesting this was the approach by the original poster). It's great we have the tools to do it, but are they meant to switch negative size because we dislike what's projected on the screen?

Edward Romero · Feb 8, 2019

On my enlarger a Bessler 23Cll with a 90mm lens I can get a 16x20 print and still sharp with the Mamiya RB.
The 6x6 I cannot get it that big unless I project it on a wall. Problem is the wall better be perfectly straight. I can get a 16x16 print from it. I guess I could buy by another lens for it but if I’m going to print a 16x20 I would always use the 6x7. I hear the Hasselblad is a fantastic camera but if your going to print a big print like a 16x20 you would have to blow it up that much more and then your advantage with a super sharp lens would be nullified. But I have no doubt the Hassey could make a nice print that size. As far as the Mamiya 330 Pro S and

Edward Romero · Feb 8, 2019

If your using a enlarger the 6x7 negative is the way to go. The 6x9 would be just as good except they’re on older camera as far as I know. I only shot one roll with my Soviet made Moskva 5 folder but first results were impressive.
My Bronica SQ-A and the Mamiya 330Pro S both shoot excellent pictures but if you want to print big like a 16x20 you have to blow them up that much more and then you lose a little sharpness and increase the grain size.

guangong · Feb 8, 2019

While size does matter with regard to negative, size of camera is determined by why and how of use. I have a Fuji 67 folder because I often find folders convenient and insurance for my Super Ikonta B, but really don’t see much of a difference compared to 66. On the other hand, I have pictures taken with my tiny Minox 8x11 that wouldn’t exist otherwise. That said, I do enjoy my Medalist 69, especially for landscapes (for which it was designed if you consider shore batteries and defenses as landscapes).

Edward Romero · Feb 8, 2019

Sorry folks messed up on sending my reply

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2019

Hi OP
Good luck figuring out which camera format will work best for you, often times its just what feels better in your hands and it has nothing to do with anything else. It could be what some label a piece of garbage, or a highflyer, or it could be a mini format, cause s Bill B showed 35mm can easily be enlarged to 11x14 and fares well with MF film ( especially with modern film ).
As you can see from some of the responses from your original post it is easy to sink a small fortune in top end gear, pay through the nose for nice lenses and bodies, or get stuff on the cheap on the bit 4 letter panglobal garage sale, you know "old professional camera worth thousands, needs a little work" and you can become a fanboy too. If it matters ( I suspect it won't ) I have never noticed any difference between 35mm film and MF film, I have never noticed any sort of sharpness differences between 6x6 and 2x3. I have enlarged them with an enlarger to about 11x14 like Bill B did, no difference. There is a difference I suppose when you go up to LF but that probably has to do with the fact that most LF cameras you won't be using handheld, and they are always on a tripod, unless you are using a press camera ( or Graflex SLR, Gowland TLR, HOBO, Frankencamera et al. ) and are versed in the art of yoga, being rigid, leaning against a post or tree, shooting at high shutter speeds &c &c &c, in the end sharpness is over rated, and becomeing one with your gear is not.

If you haven't thought about it, you might look into a Graflex 3x4 or 2x3 and see if you can: extremely versatile MF camera that gives you an awful lot of options for lenses, sharp as nails or juntiques. Like their bigger cousins, ( 4x5 and 5x7 ) Graflex SLRs are are perfectly weighted and a dream to use, and you could easily buy a user, a cla, a couple of film backs, an armada of lenses and 4 months of film for the price of a 'Blad or excessive formerly Professional, Top-end or excessive equipment sold on the 'Bay.

Best of luck with your fun!

jtk · Feb 8, 2019

Any smaller, relatively recent DSLR, not to mention its superior mirrorless offspring, will handily out-resolve any medium format film camera at virtually any size, suffering no "grain" or digital noise. Some offer or adapt Planar etc, if that floats yer boat...but the kit lenses are astounding.

Notice that that professionals, both the commercial and artiste variety, have largely abandoned film.

Dan Fromm · Feb 8, 2019

jnantz said:
If you haven't thought about it, you might look into a Graflex 3x4 or 2x3 and see if you can: extremely versatile MF camera that gives you an awful lot of options for lenses, sharp as nails or juntiques. Like their bigger cousins, ( 4x5 and 5x7 ) Graflex SLRs are are perfectly weighted and a dream to use, and you could easily buy a user, a cla, a couple of film backs, an armada of lenses and 4 months of film for the price of a 'Blad or excessive formerly Professional, Top-end or excessive equipment sold on the 'Bay.

I'm an enthusiastic user of 2x3 Graphics (folding press cameras), have an unlikely set of lenses for them. So I agree completely with your recommendation.

But I think your recommendation of Graphic SLRs is, um, mischievous. Practically speaking 2x3 Graphics -- I have a 2x3 RB Ser. B -- are one lens cameras. And that one lens is a normal lens for 3x4. There are no shorter retrofocus lenses that will work on the bodies, so no true normal for the format, let alone wide angle. And focusing travel is limited so focal lengths much longer than the standard lens are unavailable too. I built a Baby Bertha around my RB Ser. B, was horrified to find that with interestingly long lenses -- IIRC the limit is around 300 mm -- the mirror box causes vignetting in portrait orientation. In landscape the limit is around 500 mm. Berthas, my Baby included, are much harder to use than an, um, naked Graphic SLR.

Deleted member 88956 · Feb 8, 2019

jtk said:
Any smaller, relatively recent DSLR, not to mention its superior mirrorless offspring, will handily out-resolve any medium format film camera at virtually any size, suffering no "grain" or digital noise. Some offer or adapt Planar etc, if that floats yer boat...but the kit lenses are astounding.

Notice that that professionals, both the commercial and artiste variety, have largely abandoned film.

And the joke keeps on going, where did this thread mention digital for comparison. Never mind that well scanned MF is still ahead of most DSLRs. But I really can't get into this. We're discussing film shooting ... period.

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

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency