Request for suggestion: 6x9 view cameras

[jrydberg]

I'm thinking about picking up a 6x9 (roll film) view camera -- could you guys maybe tell me a bit about your experiences with different cameras. And maybe their current price range.

Thanks.

 

[seawolf66]

Take a look at this thread for 6x9 folders and their owners comments on them :, I have 6 now [LOL]
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Venchka]

I can only say that I think a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film back is a better solution.

YMMV

 

[archphoto]

Why a 6x9 view camera ?

After 6x9 you want 4x5 inch anyway, so why not look for a 4x5 view and put a 6x9 back on it for the time being ?

Types: mono rail: great for the studio and in the field, and the field, great for the outdoors.
In weight a mono rail tends to be heavier then a field.

Cheap mono rails: Cambo, Sinar F series, the Sinar is a Lego-Box camera where you can add as you need.
Good field's: Shen Hao (not too expensive) and the more expensive Chamonix.

It all depends what you want to do with the view camera, there are so many.............
Don't forget the "old" Graphics (Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic and so on)

By the way, Shen Hao make an adapter for international 4x5 inch backs to put a Mamiya RB67 filmholder onto it.
RB67 filmbacks can be had for little money these days....

Peter

 

[keithwms]

I had a Horseman VH and liked it; sometimes I wished that I had the VH-R version but overall I liked the VH. The main limitation was that you can't go wider than a 55 or so, and that was with a recessed lensboard and no movements etc. But otherwise I liked it, it had almost all the movements I could ever want in that format and there are a number of inexpensive lenses that cover 6x9 very well. And by the way, the (inexpensive) rb roll film backs also fit on the VH. I was using the motorized rb 6x8 back on the VH most of the time, in fact. While I had the VH I did look at various linhofs and... yeah, very nice and exceptionally built, but the bang-per-buck factor was too much for me.

What do you want to do? If ultrawide then research the lens compatibility very carefully.

P.S. One interesting option, if you don't mind the bulk, is the fuji gx680III. Basically it's a big RB with some movements. I liked the concept but the battery requirements scared me off and I wound up with an rb and some 6x8 backs.

 

[bdial]

I haven't looked recently, but they've tended to be extremely expensive. View cameras get harder to use the smaller the GG is. I agree with Venchka that a 4x5 with a 6x9 back would be better than a dedicated 6x9 view. Some of the reasons are that there are many more choices of cameras backs, boards etc, and a larger GG to see the effects of the adjustments better, even if you only use a 6x9 rectangle out of the center.

What do you want to do with it?

 

[jrydberg]

Why 6x9? I want something smaller than my 8x10 Toyo View G setup.

Yes, getting a 4x5 and a roll back is an option. But I was hoping there was something smaller and cheaper out there.

And yes, I want to shoot wide since I do architecture stuff.

 

[archphoto]

Cheap and light: Shen Hao PTB54 with bag bellows, just have a look at it.

If you want cheaper: build one your self, by the end of september drawings will come available.

Peter

 

[JRJacobs]

OK, I'll disagree with the ohers.

I like the 6x9 viewcameras, and they are much smaller and easier to take out than my 4x5's. As long as you get one with a Graflok type back, you will be able to easily find film holders for them.

A good model to look for is a "Century Graphic" - which is a very lightweight model with a Graflok back.

I used to own a Linhof Technika 6x9, and it was a great camera, but was heavier than my 4x5 cameras, so I sold it.

I hear the Horseman's are nice.

 

[keithwms]

So, when I had the VH, ultrawide was too much of a hassle, especially if I wanted shift. But I had the 4x5 adapter back for the VH and I converted that into its own mega-shifting, ultrawide camera. As I recall a 47mm would have been possible with it, with many cm of movement to boot.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Calumet made a really nice monorail 2x3 (6x9) view camera. Full geared movements, interchangeable bellows, front and rear standards that you could swap out to turn it into a 4x5, etc. When they were new they were pricey, but I would expect they've come down a lot on the used market, if you can find one.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Why 6x9? I want something smaller than my 8x10 Toyo View G setup.

Yes, getting a 4x5 and a roll back is an option. But I was hoping there was something smaller and cheaper out there.

And yes, I want to shoot wide since I do architecture stuff.

Smaller there may be, but cheaper not in general. You can put together a nice 6x9 Arca-Swiss setup, for instance, and there are various new MF cameras with movements designed to work with both film and digi backs, all quite expensive.

I have a Linhof Tech V 23b, which is a 6x9 version of the 4x5" Tech V, and indeed, even though it's not the lightest 6x9 view camera out there (a 4x5" Chamonix with a Graflex rollfilm back is probably lighter), the whole kit is about half the size and weight of my 4x5" Tech V kit with a similar number of lenses, etc. If you go this route, look for a setup with three cammed lenses, so you can take advantage of the rangefinder and do some handheld shooting or portraits on a tripod. I've been traveling with this camera often since we had a baby, and have more stuff in general to travel with.

Less expensive still, there is the 6x9 Galvin monorail, very light, compact, and it seems capable, and there are a few wooden flatbed cameras for 6x9 (there's also an Ebony at the high end). These are generally designed to take 2x3" Graflok or RB67 rollfilm backs and/or 2x3" sheet film holders.

 

[Venchka]

Price and selection and movements with wide lenses and FOV with wide lenses all favor 4x5.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I was going to suggest the Galvin 6x9 but
David beat me to it. Peter Gowland also
makes and sells a lightweight 6x9:

http://www.petergowland.com/camera/

Peter is still kicking at 93, so buying a
camera from him is a fleeting opportunity.

 

[fotch]

Cute novelty, cost more than a 4x5. With a 4x5 you can scale down but with a 6x9, well, your maxed out.

JMHO

 

[ic-racer]

The Horseman VH-R (and earlier) cameras are nice because they can be used as either a hand-held 6x9 Press camera or as a view camera.

However, my VH-R 6x9cm is about the same size as my Horseman 4x5in FA. In fact the front standard is exactly the same on each camera.

 

[micek]

Shen Hao has a 6x9 field camera, similar to Ebony's SW23, but cheaper I suppose...

 

[Fotoguy20d]

I'll second a Century Graphic. Remove the Kalart and it's pretty small and light. Graflok back is standard so it'll take a roll film holder, although I like using mine with a Grafmatic and Efke sheet film. I have a 65mm Optar on one of mine - you might even be able to go somewhat wider.

Dan

 

[georgecp]

I will also disagree with others. 6x9 view cameras are very handy - they are far lighter and smaller than an equivalent 4x5 outfit. If you want a 4x5, get one. A 6x9 is a different beast. They certainly do have restrictions - a smaller groundglass requires careful focusing, if you want to use a wide lens you will need a "w" version that has a bag bellows.

I started using a Galvin 6x9 but sold it becuase the monorail did not suit my style and the build quality/firmness was not a good as I wanted. I have had an Ebony SV23 for over 10 years now and do not regret the decision one bit. I have traveled with the outfit around the world. It is compact, light, uses roll-film holders. I made a custom maginifier that mounts to the back groundglass. I get far better movements with this camera than a tilt/shift lens on an Medium Format SLR or something smaller. The negative size big enough, yet small enough.

It is an excellent compromise depending on your objectives....

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The camera was called the Cambo 23 SF. I don't think it sold well, but it was a good idea at the wrong time. Keep an eye out for one on Ebay.

 

[Russ Young]

Another vote for 6x9... yes, I have 4x5, and 5x7 but as David G. noted, size can be an issue, especially when transporting on airplanes these days. I had a Century 2x3 which sold me on the concept- but not the camera. Then i lucked into a very cheap Galvin 6x9 which is ultra light and must have the largest lensboard ever for a 2x3, which adds appreciably to the applicable lens bank. I next bought a Linhof but it was too heavy and seemed very large (front to back) when folded; the Linhof back was also heavy. Then Jim at Midwest asked if I had ever tried a Horseman. So I ended up with a mint VH and have lived happily ever after. Reports to the contrary, the build quality is equal to the Linhof I owned.

The Horseman is relatively light and compact, crucial for a camera that actually has to be carried on my person. It accepts long lenses, which I prefer... I shoot a 240A f/9 Fujinon on it at infinity and can get close enough for any form of intimate landscape. There are a wide variety of specialized boards available, both extension and sunk; the 240 is mounted on a very slight (less than 1/2" extension). I shoot 6x9 and 6x7 backs...

Although many lenses will cover 2x3, you have to ask "are they sharp enough?" Unlike 4x5 and up, you WILL be making enlargements from your negatives. Some 4x5 lenses that were always decent enough in that format do not pass muster in 2x3. You will need to choose carefully, study Kerry Thalman's website. Also, focus becomes much more critical - get the best magnifying focuser you can find, otherwise you'll be saying unkind things on the light table.

If I always shot near a car, nothing less than my Canham 5x7 would do... but that excludes far too much of the world.

Your mileage may vary.

Russ

 

[Mike1234]

I've been researching and have "nearly" decided that a dedicated 6x12cm (or 6x9cm) roll film camera with a small/light 4x5 camera as the base isn't worth it as compared to just shooting 5x7 because it doesn't save enough bulk/weight to justify the difference in quality... just my opinion and shooting methods, of course.

On the other hand a dedicated 6x9cm kit with an ultralight 6x9cm camera could certainly be useful. There are many options for tiny lenses if you only need to cover 6x9cm and this is one of the major keys in keeping the kit small.

 

[keithwms]

On the subject of the VH, I would highly recommend using it with a monocular viewer. The GG is too small for pleasurable composition IMHO, the size of the GG is about the same as the distance between your eyes, so espeically if you use the pop-out shade, you wind up looking at it from a distance or through a loupe anyway. But if you put a monocular on there... pow! beautiful. And good enough for critical focus.

 

[Henry Carter]

I too agree that a 6x9 camera is handier than a 4x5 with a 6x9 back. I own both the 6x9 as well as the 4x5 versions of the same camera.

I have used a 4x5 Linhof Master Technika for 10 years, and last year I aquired its scaled down smaller brother - the 6x9 Linhof Super Technika V 23b.

I use these two cameras for different purposes, and never once felt that owning both was a duplication. Using a 6x9 back on the 4x5 does not give you the freedom of using a smaller, lighter, handier, and more portable 6x9 system.

I will grab and go with the 6x9 camera and take it along with me for situations that I would never have dreamed of with a 4x5 kit, even 4x5 with a roll-film back. I have travelled with both systems, and the 6x9 is a much easier travel companion, as is a smaller tripod etc.

And 6x9 negs give surprisingly good results!

 

[eclarke]

My neighbor and I both have Arca 6x9 F metrics and if you can afford it is a terrific camera. He uses his more than I do because I am now carrying my 4x5 141mm F metric whcih is amazingly compact...Evan Clarke