MF 6X9 cameras with wide angle lens?

jmccl@yahoo.com · May 27, 2013

Hello.

I have read about the Fuji 690 variations. Are there any other brands that have wide angle lens? The Fuji with a 65mm lens seems common enough. For reference, what would a 65mm on a 6X9 equate to in a 35mm camera field of view? I have a Zeiss Ikonta 6X9 with 105mm lens and that seems to have a similar field of view as my 45mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I like the "perfect rectangle" look of the 3:2 aspect ratio, so that's what attracts me to the 6X9 format. My ultimate use would be capturing Western US landscapes.

All input is greatfully appreciated.

Thanks

Jim

Dan Fromm · May 27, 2013

A lens with focal length f sees the same view on 6x9 (lousy metric approximation to the real format, 2.25" x 3.25", 2x3 for short) as a lens with focal length .43*f sees on 35 mm still. A 65 mm lens on 2x3 sees what a .43 * 65 = 28 mm lens sees on 24 x 36.

If you're willing to use an interchangeable lens camera, you might look into 2x3 press and view cameras. I've happily shot 2x3 Graphics for decades with lenses that cover 2x3 as short as 35 mm. The shortest lens that covers 2x3 and can be used on a 2x3 Speed Graphic is probably the 58/5.6 Grandagon; shorter lenses need a shorter camera such as the Crown Graphic or 2x3 Century Graphic. 2x3 view cameras are much harder to find than 2x3 press cameras.

I'm partial to my Graphics, but you shouldn't overlook the Mamiya Press system. Its shortest two lenses are 50 and 65 mm, both rangefinder coupled.

jmccl@yahoo.com · May 27, 2013

Thanks Dan

Dan Fromm said:
A lens with focal length f sees the same view on 6x9 (lousy metric approximation to the real format, 2.25" x 3.25", 2x3 for short) as a lens with focal length .43*f sees on 35 mm still. A 65 mm lens on 2x3 sees what a .43 * 65 = 28 mm lens sees on 24 x 36.

If you're willing to use an interchangeable lens camera, you might look into 2x3 press and view cameras. I've happily shot 2x3 Graphics for decades with lenses that cover 2x3 as short as 35 mm. The shortest lens that covers 2x3 and can be used on a 2x3 Speed Graphic is probably the 58/5.6 Grandagon; shorter lenses need a shorter camera such as the Crown Graphic or 2x3 Century Graphic. 2x3 view cameras are much harder to find than 2x3 press cameras.

I'm partial to my Graphics, but you shouldn't overlook the Mamiya Press system. Its shortest two lenses are 50 and 65 mm, both rangefinder coupled.

I was unaware of the .43 equation and was just guessing that the 105mm on a 6X9 was equivalent to 45mm on a 2.4X3.6. I was really only aware of the 4"X5" format on the Graflex. Guess I need to look into the 2.25"X3.25" formats. Also on the Mamiyas.

Thanks again for the education.

Jim

Pioneer · May 27, 2013

I shoot my 2.25x3.25 Graflex for old times sake more then anything. But my Fuji G690BL gets a whole lot more use. For one, my Fuji is a lot easier to focus, though that may only be because of my Graflex. About the only time I work with the Graflex is when I am shooting portraits and want to be able to develop each sheet a bit differently. I am not sure how used camera prices work out but the Fuji Wide is easier to handle IMHO.

revdocjim · May 28, 2013

Good grief! What's all this "inches nonsense" when talking about film formats? As long as we are in agreement about using metric for our focal lengths, how about doing the same for our frame dimensions? After all, when is the last time a camera manufacturer released a camera and talked about the frame dimension in inches? (Actually I can think of one modern example but will keep quiet about that for now)

edcculus · May 28, 2013

Since I'm new to MF and LF photography, is there any advantage of a 2X3 (inch) press camera over a 4X5? Size maybe? Seems like there is a lot of talk about 6X7 cm SLRs (RB/RZ 67 etc), 6X6 (Hasselblad, multiple TLRs), and some in the 6X4.5 range too. Kind of seems to me that once you factor in the hassle of loading sheets, the size/weight etc, of that type of camera, you might as well spring for the 4X5 and have a much larger negative to boot? Am I missing something?

BTW, feel free to rip me a new one ;-) I pretty much only know enough to be dangerous!

Paul Howell · May 28, 2013

I have a Mamyia Universal with both 65 and 50mm lens. Overall the Fuji is newer, the Mamyia requires the use of vewfinder for wide angle, and the Fuji has a intergrated light meter, the Mamyia interchangeable backs. I would judge the Fuji to have an edge in lens quaility.

PaulMD · May 28, 2013

revdocjim said:
After all, when is the last time a camera manufacturer released a camera and talked about the frame dimension in inches? (Actually I can think of one modern example but will keep quiet about that for now)

Travelwide 4x5, released like, this year. Truly ancient.

elekm · May 28, 2013

In 6x10, there is the Brooks Veriwide with a 47mm Schneider lens. It's somewhat expensive - probably more than most people are willing to pay.

revdocjim · May 28, 2013

PaulMD said:
Travelwide 4x5, released like, this year. Truly ancient.

Oh yes... I guess I completely forgot about large format, which seems to always be in inches.

Newt_on_Swings · May 28, 2013

Once you start going to larger formats, going wide gets pricey fast. I think the fuji gsw690 models start at like $500. Press cameras are cheaper, but very wide lenses are expensive. To go faster, you can also spring for a roll film back. And your final option is to go pinhole. The cheapest if you build it yourself, and order a nice laser cut pinhole. You can use sheet film, paper, or roll film depending on how you design it, and while designing it you can create one to go as wide as you want.

LiamG · May 29, 2013

Newt_on_Swings said:
Once you start going to larger formats, going wide gets pricey fast. I think the fuji gsw690 models start at like $500. Press cameras are cheaper, but very wide lenses are expensive.

I think wide is really expensive on all formats- if you go to the extreme: for 6x9- the 35mm Rodenstock, it really isn't much more than any other super wide; if you needed that coverage on 35mm, consider that a comparable lens would be the nikon 13mm.

Pioneer · May 29, 2013

revdocjim said:
Oh yes... I guess I completely forgot about large format, which seems to always be in inches.

And all my sheet film (even the new film being sold in Ilford's most recent annual sale) is dimension in inches. It is very, very close to 6x9 roll film but it is referred to as 2.25 x 3.25 inches. I guess it is just following the general large format trend.

Newt_on_Swings · May 29, 2013

LiamG said:
I think wide is really expensive on all formats- if you go to the extreme: for 6x9- the 35mm Rodenstock, it really isn't much more than any other super wide; if you needed that coverage on 35mm, consider that a comparable lens would be the nikon 13mm.

I think 35mm is the cheapest out of all the ultra wides. I have a Sigma 14mm 3.5 AF lens in Nikon mount, its probably one of the most affordable. Looking at completed ebay listings, this lens ranges from $70-$350, with the majority of them ending around between $150-$200. That is pretty cheap to get into the super wide spectrum with a rectilinear lens.

sbjornda · May 30, 2013

edcculus said:
Since I'm new to MF and LF photography, is there any advantage of a 2X3 (inch) press camera over a 4X5? ... Kind of seems to me that once you factor in the hassle of loading sheets, the size/weight etc, of that type of camera, you might as well spring for the 4X5 and have a much larger negative to boot?

If you're using it as a hand-held press camera, e.g., focusing via a rangefinder or even estimating the focus, you can keep a 120 film back attached and avoid the hassle of loading sheets and you have a much smaller kit to carry. 120 film is pretty convenient to use, compared to sheets. If on the other hand you're always using it like a field or view camera, e.g. on a tripod and focusing via the ground glass, then you may as well use the larger camera.

Dan Fromm · May 30, 2013

revdocjim said:
Good grief! What's all this "inches nonsense" when talking about film formats? As long as we are in agreement about using metric for our focal lengths, how about doing the same for our frame dimensions? After all, when is the last time a camera manufacturer released a camera and talked about the frame dimension in inches? (Actually I can think of one modern example but will keep quiet about that for now)

Well, there's reality and then there are poor approximations to reality. The poor approximations sometimes lead innocents astray.

Dan Fromm · May 30, 2013

Newt_on_Swings said:
I think 35mm is the cheapest out of all the ultra wides. I have a Sigma 14mm 3.5 AF lens in Nikon mount, its probably one of the most affordable. Looking at completed ebay listings, this lens ranges from $70-$350, with the majority of them ending around between $150-$200. That is pretty cheap to get into the super wide spectrum with a rectilinear lens.

For the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon's price, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ock_160300_35mm_f_4_5_Apo_Grandagon_Lens.html

I usually shoot mine on 2x3 without a center filter, but on 6x12 (actual size 56 x 112), it needs one. For price, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/399914-REG/Rodenstock_170005_67mm_Center_Filter.html

The lenses you're thinking of barely cover 24 x 36.

Dan Fromm · May 30, 2013

sbjornda said:
If you're using it as a hand-held press camera, e.g., focusing via a rangefinder or even estimating the focus, you can keep a 120 film back attached and avoid the hassle of loading sheets and you have a much smaller kit to carry. 120 film is pretty convenient to use, compared to sheets. If on the other hand you're always using it like a field or view camera, e.g. on a tripod and focusing via the ground glass, then you may as well use the larger camera.

I dunno. As I said, I've used 2x3 Graphics for decades. I've had a 2x3 Cambo SC for a while, recently got a 4x5 Cambo SC to shoot 6x12. A 2x3 Graphic is smaller and lighter than a 2x3 Cambo, which is smaller and lighter than a hybrid Cambo (2x3 front standard, 4x5 rear) for shooting 6x12, which is smaller and lighter than a 4x5 Cambo.

People don't talk much about viewers, but the Cambo SF-320 in-line viewing hood fits a 2x3 Graphic Graflok back and makes the camera much easier to use on tripod.

Newt_on_Swings · May 30, 2013

Dan Fromm said:
For the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon's price, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ock_160300_35mm_f_4_5_Apo_Grandagon_Lens.html

I usually shoot mine on 2x3 without a center filter, but on 6x12 (actual size 56 x 112), it needs one. For price, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/399914-REG/Rodenstock_170005_67mm_Center_Filter.html

The lenses you're thinking of barely cover 24 x 36.

Yea that's what I was saying in my earlier post, as you go to a larger format and get more coverage, the prices go way way up. Your lenses are 10x or more than the price the 35mm equivalent.

culturesponge · Jun 22, 2013

PDH said:
I have a Mamyia Universal with both 65 and 50mm lens. Overall the Fuji is newer, the Mamyia requires the use of vewfinder for wide angle, and the Fuji has a intergrated light meter, the Mamyia interchangeable backs. I would judge the Fuji to have an edge in lens quaility.

we are lucky enough to have a Super 23 & Universal outift with 50mm, 75mm & f2.8 100mm lenses + also more recently a Fuji GSW690 III (65mm) & GW690 III (90mm) - the Fuji beats the Mamiya Press outfit hands down - it's so much more fluid to use on location & optically superior. but will keep the Mamiya breezeblock camera for tiltshifts & fuji polaroids.

best
alex

Trond · Jun 22, 2013

I have a Mamiya Universal system with lenses from 50mm - 150mm. All the lenses that I have are excellent performers, and in terms of sharpness, I can't imagine anything being sharper than the 75mm and 100mm 2.8 (but I don't have a another 6x9 system to compare it with). The 50mm is an excellent and sharp super wide lens. The 65mm is also good, not as sharp as the other lenses, but the images I take with it look good and it's very compact.

The Mamiya Universal is part of a quite large camera system. The backs are very nice, and there is also a Polaroid back available. It is heavy and bulky, and the lack of any interlocks can be frustrating at first (resulting of lots of blank frames, double exposures, etc), but with a little experience it's actually quite nice to use.

Trond

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 22, 2013

I have a Linhof Technika V 23b, which is another option--mainly for those times when I would really rather be using a larger camera, but can't for practical reasons. If you're looking to shoot landscapes, a camera with movements is a big advantage, because it allows you to control the position of the horizon while keeping the trees straight. Of course you can also control the plane of focus and do other things with a view camera, but just controlling the horizon and keeping the lines straight are basic to landscape photography.

I also think it pays to move up in format when you want to go wide, because a small format won't be as good at rendering all the information that a wide lens can take in when you're going for the big landscape.

toyotadesigner · Aug 6, 2013

Nobody mentioned the Plaubel 69W proshift superwide. It's a 6x9 with rise and shift, a Mamiya Press roll film back (excellent film flatness) and a Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm which needs a center filter. Incredible camera with incredible results if you want to go wider than a Fuji GSW 690 III.

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 6, 2013

I have a Fuji GSW 690. I think it's a perfect landscape camera. It has a wide sharp lens and the camera is relatively light. The disadvantage is the lens is not interchangeable.

Barry S · Aug 6, 2013

The Fuji GSW690 II/III is a wonderful camera if you like the 6x9 format and can live with a fixed 65mm lens. I love the camera and appreciate the simplicity. The Mamiya Press cameras are part of a system with lots of lenses, backs, and accessories. If you're planning on building a system the Mamiya would be great, but if you just want 6x9 with a wide angle, the Fuji makes way more sense--being a lot more compact and lighter.

MF 6X9 cameras with wide angle lens?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency