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

[trendland]

I use 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 4x5 inch.

To me, their difference in image quality is insignificant compared to their difference in ergonomics.

When compared to 35mm, their difference in image quality was so significant that I no longer shoot 35mm black & white.

My favorite for landscape is 6x9.

My personal favorite is 6x6 because I do not have to worry about portrait vs. landscape orientation while shooting.

Even though I have never used it, if I had to use only one medium format aspect ratio for the rest of my life, I would be 6x8.

My favorite for architecture is 4x5 because I can shift/tilt/swing the lens and/or back when needed.

I have never used 6x4.5cm. However, based on the Alaskan landscape images I have seen from a photographer who uses a pair of Pentax 645 cameras, I would not hesitate using 645.

What you found out is in regard of the negative area with medium format.So it is quite logical that 35mm can't hold the promise of excellent characteristic - if compared with 120 film/format.Because 4,5 x 6 has around 2,8xxxx X the negative space of 35mm.That means 6 x 9 has (quite around) 6 times the negative space of 35mm systems.
(not exactly but lets don't care about here).The difference between 4,5 x 6 and 6 x 9 isn't soo much as we realized when we looked on 35mm vs 4,5 x 6.
It is just the double negative space (4,5 x 6 vs 6 x 9) - here we might be allowed to state : The exact double - some may care about 0,16 mm negative size on one side I do not so.
To me (I mentioned it before) the comparison between 4,5 x 6 vs 6 x 6 is in most cases the comparison of a croped 6 x 6 and that is the same (from resolution).Other may have the advantage with 6 x 6 due to this special format (squere).But if we want to talk about resolution we may focus the quality of lenses, the speed/coating, our spezialized workflow (tripot) and quite right what some stated here : The shutter vibration is indeed allways a problem (there isn't an exeption on a tripot also on a good tripot).To cover out - we may think on eastern cameras like Exata 66 for example.

Here you may have no chance to real "exessive highest resolution photography" because of the massive mirror.
But don't be afraid - I will not say Exakta 66 give you no chance to excellent enlargements.
But the last remaining 6% resolution you easily might have with a smooth Hassi shutter you definitifly will louse (even no chance with a massive tripot).
But that is also relative to the shutter speed AND the focal lenght.
Nice discussion. ....
with regards

 

[Alan Gales]

Thank you for this great perspective - much appreciated! I'm leaning towards a RB - die to cost per lens and equipment factor as well.

From what I have read, the RZ lenses are sharper than the RB lenses except for the latest KL lenses which are just as sharp. I believe that the KL lenses only fit the RB67 Pro SD model which was the last version made. Since you have mentioned sharpness you need to research this. Like I said earlier, I've never shot the RB so I'm just telling you what I have read.

My favorite lens for my RZ was the 110mm. It is the smallest and lightest lens made for the RZ and very sharp. It was a joy to shoot! Some feel that this lens alone is worth buying the RZ. Unfortunately, there is no RB version of this lens.

For Boudoir photography or just soft focus portraits, there was a 150mm SF lens for the RB and a 180mm SF for the RZ. If you are interested in one of these lenses then make sure you get all three soft focus discs with it. I doubt you can find the discs separately. Of course you can use the 150 SF lens on the RZ just like any RB lens. You will have to manually cock the shutter.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Ergonomics as well as negative size are a consideration. On the left Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens weighing in at 1.6 kg. On the right, Mamiya RB67 with 90mm lens at 2.6 kg, that's an extra kilo for 1 cm more negative... of course you get interchangeable backs, slr vs tlr, bigger system etc etc (Beans are for scale!)

 

[narsuitus]

(Beans are for scale!)

Beans are for G.A.S.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Beans are for G.A.S.

Oh jolly good....

 

[warden]

I'll just echo those talking about ergonomics when it comes to hand holding cameras with the desire for sharp images. The camera design matters, at least for me. I use 6x6 (TLR and a Hassy) and 6x7 rangefinders. For me the rangefinder wins hands down for hand holding followed by the TLR, and then the Hassy.

But the Hassy can be improved by using the 45 degree viewfinder (it adds bulk and you can lean it against your nose for another point of contact and stability). That sounds weird and might be hard to visualize but it works, and for those that don't like the reversed image of the standard viewfinder this removes that issue as well.

 

[sepiareverb]

Eighteen.

 

[MattKing]

From what I have read, the RZ lenses are sharper than the RB lenses except for the latest KL lenses which are just as sharp. I believe that the KL lenses only fit the RB67 Pro SD model which was the last version made. Since you have mentioned sharpness you need to research this. Like I said earlier, I've never shot the RB so I'm just telling you what I have read.

My favorite lens for my RZ was the 110mm. It is the smallest and lightest lens made for the RZ and very sharp. It was a joy to shoot! Some feel that this lens alone is worth buying the RZ. Unfortunately, there is no RB version of this lens.

For Boudoir photography or just soft focus portraits, there was a 150mm SF lens for the RB and a 180mm SF for the RZ. If you are interested in one of these lenses then make sure you get all three soft focus discs with it. I doubt you can find the discs separately. Of course you can use the 150 SF lens on the RZ just like any RB lens. You will have to manually cock the shutter.

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.

 

[film_man]

Good lord Sirius do you have to come up with font size a million every time somebody even hints that a Hasselblad is not the perfect camera?

Anyway, the aspect ratio is the main issue here, you can only really compare similar aspect ratios otherwise the whole comparison is irrelevant (or subjective to the point of being irrelevant).

 

[abruzzi]

Anyway, the aspect ratio is the main issue here, you can only really compare similar aspect ratios otherwise the whole comparison is irrelevant (or subjective to the point of being irrelevant).

Well, if you want to compare like to like you could crop 6x9 to 6x6 in which case they're identical, or 6x6 down to a 2:3 ratio like 6x9, in which case you would have 4x6 (24 sq cm) which is less than half the surface area of 6x9 (54 sq cm).*

If your intended target is something other than 1:1 or 2:3 then you need to do the necessary math to see how much difference you will have.

*(obviously I'm using the larger more approximate size rather then the actual millimeter exact size.)

 

[Alan Gales]

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.

Hi, Matt!

Thanks so much for clarifying the K/L lens mounting on SD models and earlier models. I knew that the lens mount was different but I didn't really know anything about it.

I've read that earlier lenses are not as sharp as later models on the RB. I've also read that specifically on the RZ 180 lens that the later version lens was a bit sharper than the original 180 RZ lens. I don't know if people are splitting hairs or what. I had the older version because I found it dirt cheap. I thought it was a great lens.

Besides the RZ I also owned a Pentax 645Nll. My 11x14 enlargements from that camera were plenty sharp for me for portraits. Of course I don't shoot young models and I don't know how large the OP prints. He said 645 was not good enough and is thinking about an RB67. I was just telling him to do his research on lenses before he buys if he wants ultimate sharpness.

Alan

 

[MattKing]

Thanks so much for clarifying the K/L lens mounting on SD models and earlier models. I knew that the lens mount was different but I didn't really know anything about it.

In the interest of splitting hairs , the lens mount is actually the same. What does differ is that the RB67 SD and RZ models have a different "throat" outside the mount, which permits using a couple of special purpose lenses that would otherwise be physically constrained from full use on the earlier models. In addition, of course, the RZ mount has the electronic contacts on both the body and lens which allow control of the shutter speed from the camera.
The RB lenses work on the RZ bodies, but the RZ lenses won't fit on the RB bodies.

 

[Alan Gales]

In the interest of splitting hairs , the lens mount is actually the same. What does differ is that the RB67 SD and RZ models have a different "throat" outside the mount, which permits using a couple of special purpose lenses that would otherwise be physically constrained from full use on the earlier models. In addition, of course, the RZ mount has the electronic contacts on both the body and lens which allow control of the shutter speed from the camera.
The RB lenses work on the RZ bodies, but the RZ lenses won't fit on the RB bodies.

I really liked the RZ I had. The lenses were great. I had the 110, 180 and the 50mm ULD. I'd still have it if I hadn't gotten the itch to move up to large format and sold it. The camera was big and heavy but a joy to shoot. It just really clicked with me.

I've owned a Hasselblad 500c/m, Bronica EC's and S2a, Mamiya C220, Pentax 645, 645n, 645nll, and Bronica ETRsi. I used to sell a lot on Ebay so I had the opportunity to try a lot of different cameras. I have no idea how many Pentax 645 cameras I sold! Just happened that way.

I do own a Mamiya C220f now but I have to say that the RZ was my favorite medium format camera. Hey, they're all good. Shoot what you like!

 

[sixby45]

Good morning everyone - thanks so much for all your input - I really enjoy the community, and appreciate the insights offered, and the general love of all things photographic. Thanks, and happy to read replies - enjoy!

All the best - Rich

 

[spijker]

Rick (sixby45), it would be interesting to see where you're coming from. What 645 camera/lenses are you currently using. Do you print with an enlarger (how large) or only scan? What do compare your images to when you say that you're disappointed by the resolution? It's easy to think that "bigger is better" but there may be a completely different reason why you're disappointed. If the TLR gives you better results, then mirror slap or focal plane shutter slap may be the issue, not the 645 format.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unless you are making relatively small prints or are OK with square ones, it can make a huge difference. 6x9 has twice the area as 645, while 6x7 has about 50% more. I sometimes mix med format images with large format ones in the same portfolio. Since these are typically 16x20 prints, anything shot with less than 6x7 would stand out like a thumb hit with a hammer. If the prints were 11x14, I probably could get away with 645 or 6x6 cropped rectangular. So a lot depends on your intended application.

 

[sixby45]

Hi All,

So some background on this older thread which has garnered many great and thoughtful responses.

I came from a mamiya and bronica 645 series of cameras and typically scan with a mid ramge flatbed with good holders.

I was getting decent scans from the 645s I was working with but then had the chance to use a Fuji 6x8 rig and the tonality was way different with my good old scanner (not having to work so hard).

Eventually I tried a 6x7 RB set on loan and found the negatives lovely but the system was a bit hard to walk around and work with.

I had the opportunity next to work with a mamiya c330 in 6x6 and some of the portraits on my site http://mylenslife.com are taken with this setup.

Lastly I've come into a Rolleiflex 3.5 planar and this gives me a lovely 3d rendering that I see some of in the RB lenses but is easy to hold and carry

That's where Im happily at these days and someday would love a hasselblad or a cheap 4x5 but for now .Enjoying the light and fun setup.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Well, if you thought that the RB67 was "hard to walk around and work with" to the point that you downgraded to a Rolleiflex, I think you should definitely stay away from 4x5'' cameras.

 

[sixby45]

Thanks Marco it's the desire to shoot a crown graphic that tempts me - but definitely not a compact or easier to use system compared to the speedier RB.

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks Marco it's the desire to shoot a crown graphic that tempts me - but definitely not a compact or easier to use system compared to the speedier RB.

Crowns are cheap. You ought to try one out. You can always sell it for close to what you paid if you don't like it.

One thing about the Crown compared to the RB is that the lenses are lighter if you want to carry several lenses. You can even have one folded up in the camera. On the other hand a couple loaded 6x7 film backs take up a lot less space in your bag than a bunch of 4x5 film holders. You only get two shots per 4x5 film holder!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Well, if you thought that the RB67 was "hard to walk around and work with" to the point that you downgraded to a Rolleiflex, I think you should definitely stay away from 4x5'' cameras.

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

 

[warden]

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

I was waiting for someone to shine that light.

 

[sixby45]

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

Thanks Dan this one made me smile! It's frigid here in Chicago but hope I can shoot with my tlr soon.

 

[tomkatf]

I was raised on 35mm, so I love the 6x9 aspect ratio. I personally dislike the 6x7 format. But for some reason feel comfortable with 6x6... go figure...

 

[wyofilm]

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.