Options for 6X9

[FL Guy]

Multiple Lens kit or "Standard" focal length?

From these comments, I would guess that lens interchangeability is not important, if it is important that drives the entire conversation. I don't believe you have mentioned what type of work you intend to do in 6X9, landscapes, general photography or areas where control or precise focus is required.

About 6 months ago I was fortunate to win the bid on a Fuji GW670II, which is not the GW690 you had a chance to use except the difference in format. I have been very impressed with this camera, the format and the results. There are still people out there that can service these, and I would agree it is a bit big (Texas Leica is a great name) it may weigh in at about the same as my Nikon F3 with Motor Drive attached. And I would have no problem using it as I would a 35MM like the Nikon. If you are patient on Ebay or resourceful with Goodwill.com sites, etc. I think you can avoid overpaying for a Fuji.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, Fuji also manufactured a folder during the same time span, but in 6X9 format I don't know. Hope this helps.

FL Guy

Thank you for all of your advice. I expected it would be diverse, and it is. Since my earlier post I have done some more research, and it has allowed me to rule out some of the lower spec folders because I want a shutter that has at least a nominal speed above 1/200 (and I do know that leaf shutters on those cameras often are slower than promised). And I did look at Mamiya Universal Press cameras because I remembered they shot 6X9. I will investigate Baby Graphics, as I am intrigued by the possibilities of trying different lenses and having some perspective controls. But size-wise, these are my finalists right now: Mess Ikonta C, early Fuji 6X9 rangefinder or a Medalist II if I can find one that is fully functional at a comparable price. You've convinced me to stop worrying about film flatness. I had figured that if any roll-film format would be problematic in that area, it would be 6X9.

 

[RattyMouse]

From these comments, I would guess that lens interchangeability is not important, if it is important that drives the entire conversation. I don't believe you have mentioned what type of work you intend to do in 6X9, landscapes, general photography or areas where control or precise focus is required.

About 6 months ago I was fortunate to win the bid on a Fuji GW670II, which is not the GW690 you had a chance to use except the difference in format. I have been very impressed with this camera, the format and the results. There are still people out there that can service these, and I would agree it is a bit big (Texas Leica is a great name) it may weigh in at about the same as my Nikon F3 with Motor Drive attached. And I would have no problem using it as I would a 35MM like the Nikon. If you are patient on Ebay or resourceful with Goodwill.com sites, etc. I think you can avoid overpaying for a Fuji.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, Fuji also manufactured a folder during the same time span, but in 6X9 format I don't know. Hope this helps.

FL Guy

Fujifilm never made a 6 x 9 folder. They did make an interchangeable lens 6 X 9 camera however. Currently Fujifilm is selling a 6 x 7 folder (GF670).

 

[Pioneer]

Also, if memory serves me correctly, Fuji also manufactured a folder during the same time span, but in 6X9 format I don't know. Hope this helps.

FL Guy

The Fuji GF670 is a modern folder and takes terrific pictures. However, it takes 6x6 or 6x7 pictures, not 6x9. I love it but it is bulkier, and certainly quite a bit more expensive, then the 6x9 folders made back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

The little Graflex 2x3 SLR cameras are also a great option. Since they have a focal plane shutter you can use barrel lenses. Film for it can be a bit tricky to find but if you buy in bulk from Ilford every year when they do their special film sale you can use them with no problem.

Dan

 

[erikg]

The Fuji GF670 is a modern folder and takes terrific pictures. However, it takes 6x6 or 6x7 pictures, not 6x9. I love it but it is bulkier, and certainly quite a bit more expensive, then the 6x9 folders made back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

The little Graflex 2x3 SLR cameras are also a great option. Since they have a focal plane shutter you can use barrel lenses. Film for it can be a bit tricky to find but if you buy in bulk from Ilford every year when they do their special film sale you can use them with no problem.

Dan

A roll film back for the Graflex would be the way to go. For me anyway.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The little Graflex 2x3 SLR cameras are also a great option. Since they have a focal plane shutter you can use barrel lenses. Film for it can be a bit tricky to find but if you buy in bulk from Ilford every year when they do their special film sale you can use them with no problem.

Dan

I'm all for solidarity among Dans but must disagree with you on several points.

2x3 Graflexes are very limited. One lens, ~ 25% longer than normal for the format, and that's the shortest lens that will work on them. I spent too much money and put much too much effort into building a long lens camera around one. The camera operates but is a failure.

Film for 2x3 Graflexes isn't a problem at all. Graflex Inc made 2x3 roll holders that attach to 2x3 Graflex backs. I have two, both marked "23" Graflex on the back. Both have the slot needed to engage a Graflex back's light trap, one also has a ridge to engage a Graflok back's slot and attaches to 2x3 Graflok and 2x3 Graflex backs. You can read a little about them here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/graflex_1.html

2x3 Graphics (Miniature Speed Graphic, Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Pacemaker Crown Graphic, and Century Graphic) are very usable but can be slow working.

Come to think of it, I disagree with erikg too. As wee beasties go, 2x3 Graflexes aren't particularly wee. If it had a door, my little 2x3 RB Ser B would hold between three and four Ensign Selfix 820s. Graflexes aren't that heavy -- I mean, they're hollow -- but my little 2x3 RB Ser. B with "23" Graflex roll holder, no film and no lens (it has a plate to attach it to a 2x3 Cambo function carrier) weighs 1,869 grams. Heavier than the Medalist that the OP finds heavy. Not cheap either, if in good working order. And not as fast working as a rangefinder camera because of the need to stop down manually before taking the exposure.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[erikg]

I'm all for solidarity among Dans but must disagree with you on several points.

2x3 Graflexes are very limited. One lens, ~ 25% longer than normal for the format, and that's the shortest lens that will work on them. I spent too much money and put much too much effort into building a long lens camera around one. The camera operates but is a failure.

Film for 2x3 Graflexes isn't a problem at all. Graflex Inc made 2x3 roll holders that attach to 2x3 Graflex backs. I have two, both marked "23" Graflex on the back. Both have the slot needed to engage a Graflex back's light trap, one also has a ridge to engage a Graflok back's slot and attaches to 2x3 Graflok and 2x3 Graflex backs. You can read a little about them here: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/graflex_1.html

2x3 Graphics (Miniature Speed Graphic, Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Pacemaker Crown Graphic, and Century Graphic) are very usable but can be slow working.

Come to think of it, I disagree with erikg too. As wee beasties go, 2x3 Graflexes aren't particularly wee. If it had a door, my little 2x3 RB Ser B would hold between three and four Ensign Selfix 820s. Graflexes aren't that heavy -- I mean, they're hollow -- but my little 2x3 RB Ser. B with "23" Graflex roll holder, no film and no lens (it has a plate to attach it to a 2x3 Cambo function carrier) weighs 1,869 grams. Heavier than the Medalist that the OP finds heavy. Not cheap either, if in good working order. And not as fast working as a rangefinder camera because of the need to stop down manually before taking the exposure.

Cheers,

Dan

I'm not sure how we disagree as we both mention using roll film backs on a graflex. I was merely stating a preference towards that vs. 2x3 sheet film for that type of camera. You make some excellent points about all of the older cameras you mention. As for the 6x9 general question I made my choice long ago for Fuji rangefinders, they are my mainstays. I love graflexes but I wouldn't trade the fujis for one unless I was after a certain look with a certain lens, or just for the fun of it, sort of a special case type thing.

 

[macrorie]

Again, thank you all for your comments. I usually don't dither so much in buying cameras, but I am still deciding between a Medalist II or a 2X3 pre-Century Graphic with a 105 Ektar 4.5. I have decided against a folder, at least for now. It is definitely a fair question to ask about the kind of photography I have in mind for this camera, and it will be largely scenics, from a tripod most of the time. With only 8 frames to a roll, I will be working slowly most of the time to find the best shots. I would not mind having the capability of using the movements available with the Graphic option.

Some more questions that might be helpful to the decision. I appreciated hearing about the limitations of using longer lenses on the Graphics: what are the most common options and focal lengths for wide angle shooting? Also, do most Graphex and Kodak Supermatic shutters take standard cable releases? If your Graphic has a Graflock back with the ground glass and folding hood, will a normal loupe like the Schneider 4X work for focus-checking the ground glass, or do you need something with a longer barrel to stand out beyond the hood flaps?

Finally, can you use a standard cable release on a Medalist II: I read somewhere that you need to use a release with a shorter than normal connecting point. True??

Thanks, I will make the decision shortly. I never realized how many people are shooting in this format.

 

[Pioneer]

I'm all for solidarity among Dans but must disagree with you on several points.

Cheers,

Dan

I don't disagree at all. I love working with my own "little" Graflex B (I also work with an Auto RB Graflex so the B does seem little in comparison), but it is not a real speed demon and the lens selection is very small. Not everyone wants to pack around a camera that looks like a large makeup case. But it is fun to use and it does work quite well. I love the pictures. Of course mine is pretty much the way it came when it was first built way back when.

To be completely truthful, with the exception of folders, no 6x9 camera is particularly small. In fact, my Fuji G690BL is probably as small as they get for an interchangeable lens 6x9. Maybe that is why they have fallen out of favor over the years. Since 35mm took over in the 70s not that many people seem all that interested in working with the larger cameras or larger formats in the field any longer. Of course looking at a little chart on the side of the camera to figure out how to set your shutter is probably a bit of a turn off for most.

I have to be honest though. If what you intend to do is shoot landscapes from a tripod you might as well pick up an inexpensive, used, 4x5 field camera and attach a roll film adapter. Fold it up, slide it into a small backpack, throw it on your back with your tripod over your shoulder and go for a hike.

 

[Denverdad]

The Medalist II can use standard cable releases.

 

[summicron1]

if ur going to use a tripod, a medalist may be a good choice -- rangefinder focusing is really quick and accurate, the medalist automatically cocks the shutter when you advance the film (I've seen some for sale where this did not work -- accept no alternative but working, they are not all that expensive) and, yes, any standard cable release will work, but then you have to still depress the shutter release to advance the film because of the interlock not being actuated by the cable.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/kodak_pdf/kodak_medalist.pdf

 

[Loris Medici]

Given they're in good condition / CLA'd by a proficient technician, high end 6x9 folders like Bessa RF / Bessa II are perfect for scenics; very good image quality in a very light package.

See this test image from a 1938 Bessa RF for an instance:
Small repro of the full frame,
100% crop from 1600dpi Epson flatbet scan
(Shot taken *hand-held*!)

I don't see any reason in carrying heavier stuff for the job, unless I absolutely want the luxury of interchangeable lenses...

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Regular Rod]

After using a borrowed Fuji 6X9 rangefinder, I am interested in exploring the 6X9 format more. I really enjoyed the Fuji, but I would also prefer to avoid paying as much as what appears to be the common prices for them. So, I am interested in other options. What I have thought about so far are folders like Super and not Super Ikontas, Erconas, Agfas and Moskvas, Medalists, and the various view-type field and press cameras which can take 6X9 rollbacks. But, I would like the best compromise between price and image quality, and I have concerns about film flatness and front-cell lens focusing issues with folders. The field and press camera option will involve cameras that are larger in size than what I would consider optimal, and I am also concerned about film flatness issues with old rollbacks.

Which leaves Medalists. I know from reading about them that they are heavy, and there is the 620 issue, and I am not too worried about those variables. But from the photos I have seen, the viewfinder looks tiny. How easy is it to compose through one of those viewfinders? They also seem to be selling right now for not that much less than the older Fuji rangefinders.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Low cost + Compact + Lightweight + Easy to use + Quality = FOLDER

AGFA Record III with either the Solinar (best) or the Apotar (next best) will give you great results and fits in your jacket pocket...

RR

 

[Dan Fromm]

Again, thank you all for your comments. I usually don't dither so much in buying cameras, but I am still deciding between a Medalist II or a 2X3 pre-Century Graphic with a 105 Ektar 4.5. I have decided against a folder, at least for now.

Ain't no pre-Century Graphic. Ain't no 105/4.5 Ektar. You may be thinking of the 105/3.7 Ektar. Per my tests, the best Ektar normal lens for 2x3 is the 101/4.5. In 2x3, Graflex Inc and predecessors offered Miniature Speed Graphic, 2x3 Pacemaker Crown Graphic, 2x3 Crown Graphic, and Century Graphic (economy version of the 2x3 Crown, IMO just as good and I have both).

Re lenses, read my lens diary http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf . Without heroic measures, the range of focal lengths that can be used with 2x3 on a Century (= 2x3 Crown) is 35 mm (35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, very expensive, I have one) to around 200 mm non-tele, 250 mm telephoto. The range of focal lengths that can be used on 2x3 with a 2x3 Speed is ~ 60 mm (58/5.6 Grandagon, 65 /5.6 and /8 Super Angulon) to 250 mm telephoto. The Speed's advantage over the Century is that it can be used with lenses in barrel and with slightly longer non-teles. AFAIK the shortest lens that will make infinity on a 2x3 Speed is the 1.75"/2.8 Elcan, but it covers little more than 6x6.

 

[Dan Fromm]

That Graphics have usable movements is a fantasy that refuses to die.

2x3 Graphics have 19 mm front rise, no front fall. All 19 mm can be used with lenses that make infinity with the front standard on the outer bed rails. Less rise is available for shorter lenses, the wire frame finder hits the box. The wire frame finder can be removed, I did this with my Century.

No swing at all.

The cameras look like they have ~ 10 mm of shift in either directions, but with lenses that make infinity with the front standard inside the bed struts shift is impossible. The struts are in the way.

The cameras look like they have backwards tilt. No frontwards tilt. The backwards tilt is there to allow the lens board to be made parallel to the film plane when the outer bed is dropped and the front standard is on the outer bed. This is useful for a very limited range of focal lengths and focused distances.

Macrorie, if you want what a view camera can do, get a view camera or a good grade of technical camera. If you want a relatively cheap and very cheerful camera that will shoot 2x3 with a useful range of lenses, then a 2x3 Graphic might be for you. I like my Graphics but they're not view cameras.

 

[macrorie]

Dan, thanks for clarifications on the Graphics. By "pre-Century" Graphics, I meant that I think that having a model with a focal plane shutter may indeed be useful, but I have only started looking at these cameras and am no doubt missing the details regarding the chronology and development of models and their features. And I also meant the Ektar 101mm 4.5 as the desired lens. Given what you have said about the movements on the Graphic, I am less interested in them for that reason. But I also still like the idea of being able to use normal and wide angle lenses and carry a couple of loaded film backs, which is not an option with the other choices other than the Mamiya 23 rangefinders.

 

[wombat2go]

Interesting thread.
Below is the Speed with the Pentax 6x7 1:3.5 55mm adapted, for the RH/8 rollfilm holder.
The whole thing weighs 8 pound ~4kg.
I have to make a framing viewfinder for the 55mm, it won't need a rangefinder.

Last weekend at outdoor function I took a roll of Fuji 160 using the home-built 6x7 with the Pentax 90 mm ls
Not processed yet. The home built is my favorite (of course) and I will be using it out and about tomorrow

At that function was the old friend who has given me his 1936 Nettar folder ( 6x9 and 105mm). I have Ektar in it.
I asked him to take some with it, he took one photo, folded it up and continued using his point & shoot!

I have just purchased a Century Graphic 2x3 with Graftar 103/4.5 and the RH/10, should arrive soon.
And on the way is an original flash for it.
The advantage of this camera over the above ones is that it finally gives me a rangefinder on a lens standard for 6x7.
So the first job will be checking the rangefinder on its gg and a test roll.

 

[Jim Rice]

At least 4x5 Pacemaker Graphics have front swings, just loosen the clamp for the standard and depress the little flat spring in front of the clamp. Also the drop bed provides down tilt. Kludgy, I admit, but there.

 

[macrorie]

Outcome of the Quest: I've been following a number of auctions for 2X3 Graphics and filmbacks, Kodak Medalist IIs and assorted folders. I also contacted Ken Ruth and he kindly gave me some advice on Medalists. Although I was very interested in getting a Medalist II, the limited availability of the versions that I wanted, their price-points and odds of needing servicing finally led me to buy a Fuji GW690 Professional - basically going back to where this whole idea started. However, given the stories that have been told in this thread, I think it is possible that I may yet become acquainted with some of those other 6X9 options....

 

[RattyMouse]

The Fuji rangefinders are excellent cameras. I just wish they came with meters.

 

[nbagno]

The Fuji rangefinders are excellent cameras. I just wish they came with meters.

I am glad my 690 does not have a meter or I would eat up way more film than I should.

Pardon any typos, I can't spell and I'm using my phone.

 

[Pioneer]

The Fuji rangefinders are excellent cameras. I just wish they came with meters.

They do. Find a GL690 and the AE 100/3.5

 

[macrorie]

In a spectacular GAS attack I have also bought a 1949 Medalist II now....So, a shooting competition is in progress, and I will keep the one that I like the best. I have to say that the Medalist is certainly an original design. I am not having trouble with its ergonomics, but if I keep it I can see a day when the fussiness of rerolling 120 onto 620 spools may induce me to have Ken Ruth convert the feed side to take 120 directly.

 

[darinwc]

LOL the GAS has started.

FWIW, the 2x3 graphics are quite flexible cameras. But they do have their limitations and hindrances.

The fuji 69's are wonderful usable cameras. Their main limitation is just one lens. Their second drawback is only that they are big.. clown-sized big.

I will be interested to know what you think of the medalist in comparison.

 

[lbenac]

In a spectacular GAS attack I have also bought a 1949 Medalist II now....So, a shooting competition is in progress, and I will keep the one that I like the best. I have to say that the Medalist is certainly an original design. I am not having trouble with its ergonomics, but if I keep it I can see a day when the fussiness of rerolling 120 onto 620 spools may induce me to have Ken Ruth convert the feed side to take 120 directly.

My Medalist II (1945-1946) fully converted by Ken Ruth is the only MF that I have kept and that I am using.
The price of the conversion is noticeable and put the Medalist in the same price points than the Fuji GW690 so you better be sure that you like it.
Personaly for landscapes on a day when clouds move in and out before or after the rain loaded with HP5, that is my favourite camera (outside of using my 4x5 but that is a different animal altogether).

Cheers,

Luc

 

[SafetyBob]

I can't wait for your comparison report. I got a folder a long time ago (can't even remember what it is right now) that stays on the self and was only used once to verify it's operation. Glad to see there are around 4 or 5 of us here who still have/use our Mamiya Press cameras. I need to get it out and run some film through it.

For the record, I think other than getting a new Fuji camera, you will have to have any camera CLA'ed as a minimum anymore since most of the medium format equipment is 20+ years old.....if not older. Crap, I just figured out my Super 23 is around 45 years old.....wow.

Bob E.