6x12 with movements (tilt)

Just thinking loudly - is there a 6x12 camera that would allow for tilt movements? I know some 6x12 offer shift, but for landscape work the tilt would be more useful in my opinion. A few degrees would do the job for most shots.

I know - one can always attach a 6x12 back to 4x5 camera - but that means attaching heavy back to camera that is not too light to begin with. In my case (Tachihara 4x5 - no Graflock back - that would mean to use something like Sinar ZOOM back. I have never used one though).

What would be your thoughts?

Chamonix with a 6x12 back would be pretty light and pretty versatile. I love mine.

A friend of mine uses a Master Technika w/ a Linhof 6x12 rollfilm back. It uses the graflock slides to retain it. Not sure if it can slide under the g/g, its pretty chunky. Super solid though, and is reported to hold the film super duper flat.

Not cheap though, heck, its Linhof ;).

The other option is just shoot 4x5 and then crop it in post/scanning. Less equipment to carry that way, and you end up with a thicker negative/chrome to work with, easier(IMO) to handle than floppy 120/220 rollfilm, and must easier to store.

YMMV

-Dan

Cropping 4x5 not too practical - the point of 6x12 in my view is not only the format, but the lack of necessity of carrying 4x5 holders (or even the changing tent for longer trips).

I am wondering whether a small 6x12 monorail (I would not really need longer lenses than 180 or 240 at most) which would use the back from something like Gaoersi 6x12 camera with some movements on the front would not be the best option. Never heard of such a thing though. The point would be a camera that is bit more compact and lighter than 4x5 with 6x12 roll film back.

Or something a'la Hasselblad Flexbody ...

Matus,

I agree that the entire point of shooting 6x12cm is to shoot roll film thereby saving bulk/weight.

AFAIK, there are no 6x12 monorails available. There are a handful of 6x9 cameras if you don't mind losing the image width.

I opted for a Chamonix 4x5 and Horseman 6x12cm RFH. This relatively small/lightweight "4x5" kit is dedicated solely to 6x12cm roll film and I'll never carry any DDS holders with it. If I want 2:3 ratio I have the choice of cropping to 6x9 or stitching to 8x12cm... 75x112mm to be more precise. It's a pretty good option, IMHO.

Yes, there is, and it does involve a 4-5, or better yet a 5-7 camera, BUT no film back.

You can get 4 almost 6X12 images on a single sheet of 4X5 film, or 4 full 6X17 (cut to 6X12) if you like on a single sheet of 5X7, AND a LF camera that has rise/fall front and back to center the modified opening in the Dark Slide cut for framing the opening to accomplish two exposures per sheet of film. All you need do is sacrifice ONE dark slide by cutting an opening for the desired format in one half of the dark slide

Take a dark slide for the appropriate double sheet film holder, for either camera, and score/cut a hole the desired format dimension, on a location that is half the dark slide. Try to leave a border, as cutting the slide completely in half makes execution in use a bit tricky.

Then, when you put the modified Dark Slide in the opening, you will have an opening to shoot one image on the top of the 4x5/5x7 film in the regular film holder. You need only to reverse the modified (cut) dark slide to get another image on the other half of the film sheet.

Put the regular (non opening slide) back in the camera, reframe and reposition (center) the new image location, compose on the lower half of the GG, pull the slide, insert the modified Dark Slide (opening hole down), take the shot, and re-insert regular dark slide. Now you can also get two more images on the second film sheet in the film holder.

Benefits:

movements
2 exposures per sheet of film
more emulsions available in LF film
No Graflok required... can be done on any camera a normal DDS double film holder will fit
No heavy pano film back
much less expensive using more common LF cameras and lenses rather than $3000 to $5000 of dedicated panoramic equipment with no movements.
Can be done with the lightest monorail containing rise/fall front and back.
Can be done with a light field camera, where rise/fall perspective control is limited and won't affect final image.
Remember that where rise/fall is limited in one direction, set your settings for rise or fall only and flip the back 180 degrees for the second shot centering.

This is a bit more fiddly in tracking exposed frames, BUT a real solution to movements on Roll film, and the more limited availability of roll film. Plus if you are already set up to process 4X5/5X7.... Hey!!!

I've simplified this a bit, but hope you get the idea. It works for me....

I have a more complete work flow listed out on this method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky

JI know - one can always attach a 6x12 back to 4x5 camera - but that means attaching heavy back to camera that is not too light to begin with. In my case (Tachihara 4x5 - no Graflock back - that would mean to use something like Sinar ZOOM back. I have never used one though).

---

The Sinar Zoom is huge, and heavy. The Horseman 6x12 rollholder is much smaller and lighter. I expect it would go nicely with one of the lightweight 4x5 wide angle field cameras like the Ebony SW45 or the Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB.

Kuzano... You cannot get even two 6x12cm images on 4x5... you can only get two 6x9.5cm images per 4x5 sheet and that would require a strange (and easily-broken) pair of half dark slides. He could get two 4.5x12cm images using half dark slides but that is cropping a bit much, IMHO and 120 roll film will net better images. You can only get two 6x17cm images per sheet of 5x7 with a half dark slide. This would be an option if the OP wasn't trying to save bulk and weight. I realize you understand about the dark slides and how to make them but the resulting image size on 4x5 is smaller than 6x12cm and this method is not saving bulk and weight... unless he only carries two DDS and no light tent or extra film

These two are dedicated 6x17 with tilt, shift, rise, swing:

http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/cam/617SE.jpg
Ebony

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/...ducts/5825.jpg
Shen Hao

Attach a 6x12 back and you are set.

Or use a 4x5 with Graflock back and attach a 6x12 roll film back.

Matus,

I use the Sinar Zoom back and you're right, it's heavy. Previously I used a Horseman, much lighter, good film flatness, but requires removing the ground glass on most cameras which I didn't care for.

Calumet/Cambo does make a 6x12cm back that is one of the venerable C2n series (6x7, 6x9, and 6x12cm). Some will put these down for various reasons but my experience has been generally positive. The 6x12 Calumet/Cambo is relatively scarce but the later (all black) ones seem to have solved the occasional frame spacing problems of the older (silver film advance) ones. The Calumet/Cambo units are light weight, reliable, will fit any camera without removing the gg (AFAIK), and aren't terribly expensive, although the 6x12 is the most expensive of the series due to it's scarcity.

JD

Yes - saving a bit of bulk and weight while keeping some limited movements is my point. For me the disadvantage of "standard" roll film backs is, that my camera (Tachihara 4x5) does not have graflock back. And while I do consider to swap it for a different 4x5 camera, it is not a process of saving weight as Tachihara is pretty much one of the lightest cameras out there. So a separate 'light and compact' 6x12 would be preferable.

But once we are talking about the Horseman 6x12 back - does anybody knows the weight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble

Kuzano... You cannot get even two 6x12cm images on 4x5... you can only get two 6x9.5cm images per 4x5 sheet and that would require a strange (and easily-broken) pair of half dark slides. He could get two 4.5x12cm images using half dark slides but that is cropping a bit much, IMHO and 120 roll film will net better images. You can only get two 6x17cm images per sheet of 5x7 with a half dark slide. This would be an option if the OP wasn't trying to save bulk and weight. I realize you understand about the dark slides and how to make them but the resulting image size on 4x5 is smaller than 6x12cm and this method is not saving bulk and weight... unless he only carries two DDS and no light tent or extra film

---

Yes... you are right. To have a workable modified dark slide, you actually get about a 5X11.5 on a 4x5 sheet, but I consider that rather inconsequential. You can still enlarge/print to a good pano size for final result. Look at people who are getting panos from X-pans from that tiny 135 film...now there's a waste of film.

Also, the 4x5 modified dark slide is a bit frail, and I would (and have) encourage having a machine shop make a sheet slide out of a higher grade but same thickness aluminum. Something with more stiffness than the fiber dark slides we see in double film holders.

Referencing the bulk, this is where the OP's original request rather falls apart. The solution I propose results in no more weight bulk than most dedicated 6X12, 6X17 solutions with movements. my solution can be done with the lightest of LF cameras with movements, PLUS the modified dark slide.

My lightest observation and least bulk, would be a Gowland, or later, Calumet Pocket in 5X7, I also have a very light monorail that was produced for Badger a few years ago called the M1... about 4 pounds and movements duplicated on front and rear standard.

In terms of a more conventional field camera, as long as you flip the backs, (or revolve the), a Tachihara would be find, but even finer would be a Toyo 57, or if you can hack the 4x5 slightly smaller format (resulting in the not quite 6X12) then I would opt for a Toyo 45CF. I've had four of these and never a problem and easily as sturdy as any field, ie Tachihara, Chamonix. (As long as you don't become the "hulk" in locking them down.

Again, I feel this meets or diminishes the bulk issue, since no roll film back is used. That's a chunk right there.

I appreciate you catching me on the 6X12 issue. It's minor. And this has still been my solution to make a decent LF camera do dual purpose or more.

Once you have a camera "big enough" to do the formats, you can always minimize the formats, and spend a bunch less money.

In the worst case scenario, you can always get one 6X12 from a 4X5 sheet. That may be a bit of a waste of a full sheet, but considering all factors, not more expensive. If you only get 2 or 3 keeper pano's on a dedicated roll film camera, you still have to process a whole roll. Also, I think at this time, sheet film is available in more emulsions than roll film...????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky

But once we are talking about the Horseman 6x12 back - does anybody knows the weight?

---

The old B&H listing specified the weight as 590g. That sounds about right.

SW617 Roll Film Holder 6x12cm
Size : 216 (W) x 100 (H) x 50 (D) mm
Weight : 570g

I think some folks are thinking the OP only wants to carry enough film to shoot a maximum 8-12 images on a given outing. I could be wrong but I assumed he wanted the ability to shoot far more than that. If I assumed incorrectly then, yes, a RFH may not be the best solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toyotadesigner

SW617 Roll Film Holder 6x12cm
Size : 216 (W) x 100 (H) x 50 (D) mm
Weight : 570g

---

The weight varies just a bit between the 4x5, SW612 and SW617 versions because of differences in the mounting plate.

I took out that last post because my math was off. I stand corrected. The best dimension I can get from a 4X5 sheet of film is two frames at 46 x 118 millimeters. A horseman 6X12 output Panos at 56X114 Millimeters. Or, if the width is critical, make 2 modified slides. One for 56 X 118, slightly longer than most 6X12 Panos, and one for 36X118, for a very long appearing Pano. Also, You could also use a modified slide and take the pano from the middle of the sheet.

So I offer for Matus, these figures. Now in addition there is a 4X5 to 5X7 conversion for the Tachihara. One just sold on eBay for $169. See this link about conversion backs for Tachihara. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/tachihara.html

This back would allow you to easily get 6X12 AND 6X17 panos from your Tachi, using the modified framing/composition/shooting slide I have been talking about in this thread. It still uses a spring back, but it would be interesting to see if one could be had with Graflok attachment slides.

36x118 is getting dangerously close to 135 format. Might as well get an Expan. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble

36x118 is getting dangerously close to 135 format. Might as well get an Expan. :)

---

Wow!! interesting point, and thanks for creating another benefit for my solution. You are helping to make my case.:p:rolleyes:

OK, all the benefits I listed before.

And... You avoid buying a $3000 Hassy X-pan and get a pano twice as wide as the X-pan.

What a team we'd make brainstorming together.

Old N Feeble and I are (together) onto something here. There has to be a market for a set of these modified slides in a more suitable material. The set I see would be one for two 46X118mm, one for one 56X118 on one side, and one for 36X118 to use up the leftover from the 56x118, and that one to also create the X-Pan substitute. Wadda you say ONF... you up to making some serious money on a collaberation?????:cool:

If the Sinar Zoom/Zoom II back is in the hopper, you need at least 1" of clearance to slip it under the groundglass. I'm not sure if a Tachi opens that wide without modification. It is bulky, but it does give you the option of 5 different formats from 645 to 6x12, 120 or 220 if any of the remaining 220 options appeal to you or if you have a stash of 220 you like. It's also more delicate and fiddly than a Linhof or Horseman back, but that seems to go with the territory of having an adjustable mask for different formats that can be changed midroll. The Chinese-made multiformat backs have masks that can only be changed between rolls, but often that's sufficient, given the number of frames on a 120 roll with any format, and the fact that for most people it's hard to think compositionally in terms of five different formats for every shot. You could decide that you use 6x7 (if you see the world in 4x5" terms) or 6x9 (if you're most comfortable visually with 35mm) for most things, 6x12 when a panoramic opportunity arrives, 6x6 if you do square portraits, 645 when you wish you had a longer lens.

I shoot panoramic with an Xpan, a field 6x17cm and a 7x17", so I believe that I am well-versed on this subject.

You can get Xpans for well under $3000, so please don't muddy the water with claims they cost this much (mine was well under $2000, and I also purchased a 90mm for it for under $300).

As lightweight travel pano camera, I believe there is nothing to compare. With a film like Velvia 50, you will get images good enough to make large prints. It is quick to shoot if you want to. It is small, relatively light and does not draw attention.

If I want something to take colour panos for larger prints, I'll use the 6x17. If I want large B&W, I'll shoot the 7x17.

But I'll generally pack the Xpan every time I travel and be happy doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lachlan 717

I shoot panoramic with an Xpan, a field 6x17cm and a 7x17", so I believe that I am well-versed on this subject.

You can get Xpans for well under $3000, so please don't muddy the water with claims they cost this much (mine was well under $2000, and I also purchased a 90mm for it for under $300).

As lightweight travel pano camera, I believe there is nothing to compare. With a film like Velvia 50, you will get images good enough to make large prints. It is quick to shoot if you want to. It is small, relatively light and does not draw attention.

If I want something to take colour panos for larger prints, I'll use the 6x17. If I want large B&W, I'll shoot the 7x17.

But I'll generally pack the Xpan every time I travel and be happy doing so.

---

I did not realize the X-pan was such an inexpensive option. Never owned on, so should not have ventured a number. Personally I am not doing anything with 135 film, so I retract my number. In fact, why don't I just change it to $2000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuzano

Wow!! interesting point, and thanks for creating another benefit for my solution. You are helping to make my case.:p:rolleyes:

OK, all the benefits I listed before.

And... You avoid buying a $3000 Hassy X-pan and get a pano twice as wide as the X-pan.

What a team we'd make brainstorming together.

Old N Feeble and I are (together) onto something here. There has to be a market for a set of these modified slides in a more suitable material. The set I see would be one for two 46X118mm, one for one 56X118 on one side, and one for 36X118 to use up the leftover from the 56x118, and that one to also create the X-Pan substitute. Wadda you say ONF... you up to making some serious money on a collaberation?????:cool:

---

I'll leave that up to your youthful exuberance. I'm too old and brain-dead to be of any use to you... and my attitude sucks. ;)

Another option, Ted Bromwell sells a graflok back for the Osaka camera. The Osaka is indeed a Tachihara clone so the Osaka back would probably fit. I'm sure the Ted could tell you whether or not it would.

If the weight is not the issue, I can put my Sinar Zoom in my Sinar F-1 and measure the actual required gap for you. On the Sinar I always use it without removing the gg. For what it's worth, until recently I used it on a Shen Hao the same way.

There is a used Calumet/Cambo 6x12cm currently for sale. I think I saw it at KEH, but it could have been ebay.

JD

Now that is what I call creative approach :) - thank you a lot for all your advices and ideas. Let me go through there step by step

Although the original idea is NOT to use a 4x5 camera, I am reconsidering all the possibilities. The point is to find a camera that would lend itself better for longer trips (like visiting New Zealand or Patagonia) that would allow me to take the photos a little bit faster and allow me to use roll film and so save the weight of film holders (5 4x5 film holders weight 1kg) and changing tent and make also the flying part a bit easier.

Graflok back for Tachi:
First of all - is I remain in the 4x5 'business', than I will change my Tachi for something else - the main reason being that the camera is not well suited for lenses wider than 90 (I have 75 and it is really tough to use and I get nearly no movements). So I would not be looking for a graflok back for it.

But if I get another 4x5 camera - it will most probably be heavier than the Tachi and would not really serve the purpose of lighter and simpler (faster to use) 6x12 camera (I am looking into metal cameras this time - Toyo VX125, Arca-Swiss F-field or Linhof TK45S or similar)

Xpan:
I am aware of the Xpan of course and have to admit that it is really a very interesting camera, but my main point is - I am really after 2:1 ratio - so 6x12 would fit well. The more common 2.7:1 is just too much for my taste somehow and also find the 35mm film a bit too ... little. But concerning the simplicity and compactness the Xpan is miles ahead of any other option, so point taken.

Slide-under-GG 6x12 holder (a'la Sinar Zoom):
I have just checked with the Tachihara - it would be no problem to slide 1 inch (or even more) thick roll film holder under the GG.
The question that remains is - how heavy are the holders available, and which actually hold the film nicely flat?

"Normal" 6x12 cameras (a'la Horseman SW612):
Do not come with tilt movement - although it should be no big problem to make the back tilt-able for a few degrees, but that would be a custom work what probably means a lot of $$$

"Normal" 6x12 (or 6x17 for that matter) cameras add one more problem - as soon as one wants to carry more than 1 lens (I would be interested in 2 - 3) than the bulk and weight grows very fast - as each lens has its dedicated mount-cone with its own helical focusing. However if the camera just were to have a "nice little bellows" than the lenses could be mounted in a similar manner to view cameras.

Using half-dakslide with 4x5:
I did that in the past, but one needs really to be careful which part of the film was actually exposed. Also one needs to keep in mind during composition & focusing which half of the GG actually shows the image that will be recorded. Doable, but it adds several mistake sources. One can indeed produce 2 panoramic shots that size-wise are somewhere between dedicated 6x17 and Xpan. But again - the proportions are not what I want.

Another option is of course to use something like Fuji GW690 and either live with the format or crop it down - in that case I would probably just stay with 6x9.

6x17 view cameras:
As mentioned by toyotadesigner there are (at least) 6x17 view cameras by Ebony and ShenHao. I have even found a 6x17 monorail on eBay caller "V-Pan MKIII) (see 270967413295). As interesting as these cameras look, these are not really smaller or lighter than field 4x5 camera (although the Ebony looks nice with the hinged GG)

***********

Now - where does this leaves me - it seems like I am after camera that nobody before me wanted or needed. That either suggest that my approach is either not correct or everyone else does not get it :p

So - what would you do .... a 3 week trip to Patagonia with your wife ... you travel a lot ... maybe with a camper van ... you try not to spend 20 minutes per shot ... and you like film ... and do not want to stitch your panoramas ... and want print a few 15x30" once you get home ... :confused:

Quote:

---

So - what would you do ....

---

I would pack my Plaubel ProShift 69W Superwide with the Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47mm and my Fuji GW 690 III with the EBC 3.5/90 mm :cool:

Same film format, no electronics, razor sharp lenses on both cameras.

BTW, if you scan a 6x9 @ 4.000 ppi, you'll end up with a file of 12.900 x 8.600 pixels. Printed @ 300 dpi (without any resizing!) it will give you a nice and sharp print of 109 x 83 centimeter or 43 x 29 inch, which is a lot more than you intend to hang on the wall.

However, you want or need tilt, so this dream team wouldn't work for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky

Now that is what I call creative approach :) - thank you a lot for all your advices and ideas. Let me go through there step by step

Although the original idea is NOT to use a 4x5 camera, I am reconsidering all the possibilities. The point is to find a camera that would lend itself better for longer trips (like visiting New Zealand or Patagonia) that would allow me to take the photos a little bit faster and allow me to use roll film and so save the weight of film holders (5 4x5 film holders weight 1kg) and changing tent and make also the flying part a bit easier.

Graflok back for Tachi:
First of all - is I remain in the 4x5 'business', than I will change my Tachi for something else - the main reason being that the camera is not well suited for lenses wider than 90 (I have 75 and it is really tough to use and I get nearly no movements). So I would not be looking for a graflok back for it.

But if I get another 4x5 camera - it will most probably be heavier than the Tachi and would not really serve the purpose of lighter and simpler (faster to use) 6x12 camera (I am looking into metal cameras this time - Toyo VX125, Arca-Swiss F-field or Linhof TK45S or similar)

Xpan:
I am aware of the Xpan of course and have to admit that it is really a very interesting camera, but my main point is - I am really after 2:1 ratio - so 6x12 would fit well. The more common 2.7:1 is just too much for my taste somehow and also find the 35mm film a bit too ... little. But concerning the simplicity and compactness the Xpan is miles ahead of any other option, so point taken.

Slide-under-GG 6x12 holder (a'la Sinar Zoom):
I have just checked with the Tachihara - it would be no problem to slide 1 inch (or even more) thick roll film holder under the GG.
The question that remains is - how heavy are the holders available, and which actually hold the film nicely flat?

"Normal" 6x12 cameras (a'la Horseman SW612):
Do not come with tilt movement - although it should be no big problem to make the back tilt-able for a few degrees, but that would be a custom work what probably means a lot of $$$

"Normal" 6x12 (or 6x17 for that matter) cameras add one more problem - as soon as one wants to carry more than 1 lens (I would be interested in 2 - 3) than the bulk and weight grows very fast - as each lens has its dedicated mount-cone with its own helical focusing. However if the camera just were to have a "nice little bellows" than the lenses could be mounted in a similar manner to view cameras.

Using half-dakslide with 4x5:
I did that in the past, but one needs really to be careful which part of the film was actually exposed. Also one needs to keep in mind during composition & focusing which half of the GG actually shows the image that will be recorded. Doable, but it adds several mistake sources. One can indeed produce 2 panoramic shots that size-wise are somewhere between dedicated 6x17 and Xpan. But again - the proportions are not what I want.

Another option is of course to use something like Fuji GW690 and either live with the format or crop it down - in that case I would probably just stay with 6x9.

6x17 view cameras:
As mentioned by toyotadesigner there are (at least) 6x17 view cameras by Ebony and ShenHao. I have even found a 6x17 monorail on eBay caller "V-Pan MKIII) (see 270967413295). As interesting as these cameras look, these are not really smaller or lighter than field 4x5 camera (although the Ebony looks nice with the hinged GG)

***********

Now - where does this leaves me - it seems like I am after camera that nobody before me wanted or needed. That either suggest that my approach is either not correct or everyone else does not get it :p

So - what would you do .... a 3 week trip to Patagonia with your wife ... you travel a lot ... maybe with a camper van ... you try not to spend 20 minutes per shot ... and you like film ... and do not want to stitch your panoramas ... and want print a few 15x30" once you get home ... :confused:

---

Linhof 617 Technorama with or without the shift option. Linhof Technorama 612 PC II, Linhof 56x120mm Techno Rollex 612 roll back for any Graflok backe 45.

Bob, what is the price range for the 612 PC II (with shift I think), a roll film back plus a 65 mm and 125 mm Rodenstock lens? AFAIK it's around 10.000 Euro or 13.000 US$, and still doesn't offer any tilt option.

Matus... It's not that no one has ever wanted an ultralight 6x12cm field camera. There aren't enough buyers for the market to support production of any. Most folks who shoot 6x12cm also want to shoot 4x5... or the option to anyway. Let's face it, a 4x5in camera with a 6x12cm RFH is more versatile and not significantly heavier/bulkier than a dedicated 6x12cm field camera would be.

If you think about it, as soon as you add a rotating back option to the design of a 6x12cm view camera, you've got a 4x5" view camera. If you want a camera that does verticals by tilting it on its side and no rotating back, then you probably want both swing and tilt, and the additional weight of the swing mechanism puts you in the territory of a 4x5" camera made with similar materials.

I can weigh my Zoom (I) rollfilm holder when I get home tonight, if no one else does it before I do.

I can say from personal experience that all you need to do is to take up 8x10" and larger, and you'll start thinking of the 4x5" as your lightweight snapshot camera, and you won't be too concerned about the differences between a hypothetical 6x12 camera and a 4x5" camera.

Matus,

I read with interest your list of various camera's and methods. I do agree that the modified slides can be fussy and hard to manage.

However, after looking over your list, I contend that you have the closest thing to what you are looking for in your possession already. Just leave out the need for working with roll film... less emulsions anyway and mask a piece of ground glass for a 6X12 from the middle of a 4X5 sheet:

1) no managing the cut dark slides
2) consistent 6X12 exposure
3) movements, which you are already familiar with.
4) The film holder mechanism is familiar, and you can use readyloads/quickloads.
5) The waste is negligible.

Otherwise, it appears your option, if you persist in movements, is to have a 4X5 customized to a rollfilm back, making it a single purpose camera, and expensive to boot, I suspect.

If you forego the movements, then I offer one other suggestion that I have done. Shoot with a Fuji GM670 or GW670 and stitch with Pano SW, for 6X12, or shoot two images with the GW690 and scan stitch for 6X17.

Yes, I suspect my desire for one-off cameras (call that obsession) has led me down many paths where the roadblocks have been cost of the project. Hence I often succeed in jerry rigging something quite less expensive to get the same result. For me there is much pride in making cost manageable and getting the project done. When I buy the obsession driven custom model, the pride of ownership of a one-off model is less rewarding, AND I am broke to boot.

- toyotadesigner -
I have to admit that that wold be probably the best approach to get the largest neg possible with hand-holdable camera. I will probably get the GW690III at some point to try it out. Price wise it is on the reasonable side compared to other modern medium format rangefinders.

- Old-N-Feeble -
I completely agree - there is (obviously) not large-enough market for such a 6x12 camera.

- David -
Thanks, the weight of the Sinar Zoom holder would be great to know. Concerning the 8x10 - you indeed have a point. But after my experience from New Zealand the 4x5 was often simply too much - although my wife was indeed patient with me, often it was slowing us down too much. For shooting 6x12 landscapes here in the area or on shorter trips the 4x5 camera with a 6x12 back is probably the best solution, but for long travel it seemed to get too much in the way of traveling and exploring.

- Kuzano -
Indeed - on shorter trips I can just shoot 4x5 film and crop later (masking the ground glass is probably a good idea) - I do not shoot that much of film to be hindered by the cost (and indeed that is the way I will start to shoot (as soon as we will finish our new apartment).). And for the long trips (as mentioned above) - I would probably get some 6x9 camera and enjoy the trip.

I am actually slowly coming to the point where I realize, that I try to get two properties that exclude each other - on one hand a relatively light and easy to use 6x12 camera, on the other hand tilt movement which per definition requires care to be done properly. But it all seems so doable sitting at home on a sofa after dinner :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky

- David -
Thanks, the weight of the Sinar Zoom holder would be great to know. Concerning the 8x10 - you indeed have a point. But after my experience from New Zealand the 4x5 was often simply too much - although my wife was indeed patient with me, often it was slowing us down too much. For shooting 6x12 landscapes here in the area or on shorter trips the 4x5 camera with a 6x12 back is probably the best solution, but for long travel it seemed to get too much in the way of traveling and exploring.

---

What I decided to do for travel when we had a baby and suddenly had a lot of extra stuff to carry was to get a 2x3" Technika. It could do most of what my 4x5" Technika could do, sacrificing the format size of course (also the 2x3" Tech V doesn't have front swings, but that's manageable in a couple of different ways), but the whole kit took up about half the space, since I could shoot rollfilm, use smaller lensboards and smaller lenses, filters, shades, etc. The other attraction of rollfilm is more convenient film processing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky

I am actually slowly coming to the point where I realize, that I try to get two properties that exclude each other - on one hand a relatively light and easy to use 6x12 camera, on the other hand tilt movement which per definition requires care to be done properly. But it all seems so doable sitting at home on a sofa after dinner :)

---

Usually done in front of my computer:p

One of the camera's I have been tempted to introduce into this discussion, but think of it as an also-ran....

The Fuji GX680...

Movements, but only 6X8. And I don't think the movements would coincide with scan/stitch very well. Lot of them out there and a goodly array of lenses... and Fuji EBC glass at that. Have actually wondered about those lenses on the front standard of a very short 4X5, like a Gowland Pocket or such. After ownership of 4 Pockets, you'd think one would give up, but they are such great toys, at 3 pound and less. I'm even a great fan of Toyo 45CF's but only 3 so far. Perhaps one more to get them out of my system.

I get a lot of mileage out of my Fuji 6X9, including becoming very satisfied with stitching up to 3 images to 6X24, with careful management of the camera on the tripod... level and align like.

Good luck on future ADP research. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toyotadesigner

Bob, what is the price range for the 612 PC II (with shift I think), a roll film back plus a 65 mm and 125 mm Rodenstock lens? AFAIK it's around 10.000 Euro or 13.000 US$, and still doesn't offer any tilt option.

---

No, but a TK 45s with a Techno Rollex back gives shifts + tilts + swings front and back. Rodenstock does not make a 125mm lens.

My Sinar Zoom (I) is 970g without film.

The Zoom II should be similar. The main difference is that instead of the adjustable mask acting also as the darkslide, it has a traditional darkslide, which would be a good thing not only to prevent light leaks but to protect the adjustable mask, which seems a bit fragile. I keep it in a soft pack (which normally holds 3 Grafmatics) with a sheet of mat board on one side to protect the metal curtains.

Matus,

I've been working a lot with 6x12, 6x17 and 4x5 using different configurations, but on your case I'd would think about the Shen-Hao no-foldable 4x5' and the Horseman 6x12 back. I think my Shen-Hao PTB is pretty much light and the Horseman back doesn't add that much. This way you may have all the tilt you need and the benefit of extensive shift, which I think is most important on panoramic format.
Besides that, changing lens is pretty easy and also making vertical shots while preserving the same movements.

By the way, I meant that extensive rise and fall is the most important on panoramic format, but of course shift is also welcome.

Matus, if you should decide to invest into a Fuji 6x9 (either the GW 690 with the EBC 3.5/90mm or the GSW 690 with the EBC 5.6/65mm), always ask the seller about the figure on the counter at the bottom of the camera. It is a 3 digit counter. The number has to be multiplied by 10 to get the current number of shots made with the camera. Anything below 100 is ok, anything over 400 is risky, because at 500 (=5000 shots) the camera should be serviced (CLA). Depending on the use (and abuse) of the camera, you can keep shooting up to 999, then the counter will jump to 000 again and at 020 the camera finally will stop functioning.

I am just mentioning it because currently you can find a lot of 690 models at ebay from Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan) for relatively low prices. However, these sellers don't disclose the number on the counter.

There is no difference between the 690 series II and III, except that the series III features a bubble level above the finder and a rubber coating. The III is made of the same rock solid metal as the series II.

I have an article about the Fujis in my blog here if you want to know more about these cameras, with lots of links.

Shen Hao 617 and put the 6x12cm baffles in the roll film holder.

Coming back after a while.

I realized that whatever sort of 6x12 one takes (maybe with exemption of Polaroid conversions) - all these cameras are intended to be used on tripod. The largest film area with decent RF is probably the GW690 (which I may get if me and my wife will start to think seriously about a long trip).

So considering the 6x12 I would say that what would make sense are cameras like Technorama, Horseman 612 (or the cheaper ones like DAYI, footman, etc..) or similar - which when coupled with 1 or 2 lenses are reasonably compact and fast to use.

One more question:
I have recently come across a 6x12 camera(s) that are built around Mamiya 6x7 back (modified to take 6x12 images). Does anybody have experience with such camera / back? These seem to be quite rare and often custom built. Was there ever a 'standard' Mamiya 6x12 camera?

What caught my attention was the compact size of the camera - seemed much less bulky than those 'standard' 6x12 cameras (like mentioned above)

Reviving a bit this thread...
Matus, did you get any further with your search for a travel kit? I am asking just because I am lately thinking about the same question. I use a Sinar 13x18 monorail for LF, which IS rather heavy (although great) and I wanted to pick up a camera to fill the gap between my 6x6 rollei and the Sinar.
So far this was an interesting discussion, in fact I found here all the possibilities that occured to my mind.. I would like to shoot only roll-film for the ease of use while travelling (not such a big trips like you suggested, just some hikes with family, also for scouting out locations), it is OK with me to use tripod always, and also I'd love to have tilts of all movements..
If you omit 6x12 - have you been considering 6x9 view cameras as well? Baby Linhof, or Horseman (with or without rangefinder)?

As for the Fuji G(s)W 690 - is it OK for longer exposure and tripod bound work (e.g. using IR or ND filters)? From my own use of 35mm rangefinders I have always percieved RF cameras to be just for the purpose of very quick snap-shooting...

Thank you.

Andrej

I always use 6x12 Format roll film backs on 4x5 Cameras. I have two Horseman backs which I like just fine. Vastly superior to the Calumet back, and results are comparable to the Sinar Zoom 2 holders with a much faster loading time. You can contact me about purchasing my two Sinar Zoom 2 holders, if interested. The multi format capability of these Sinar backs is very nice, but I prefer the compact size of the Horsemans. I have used the 6x12 Format on Cambo Wide Cameras since 1989. I had the original set with the one direction shift, and immediately changed over to the Cambo Wide DS when it came out. The Cambo cameras are super fast to set up, and with wide lenses, the absence of tilt was not a big problem. Stopping down could bring high degrees of sharpness and depth of field. Eventually I wanted to work with a 150 lens and for that, having no tilt capability, I eventually designed and fabricated a simple tilting lens panel which worked well. A year ago I started using a Linhof Technika with 6x12, and the tilt capability for the longer lenses is a great advantage.

I know the thread is old by a couple of weeks and Matus may have already made his decision. I missed it the first time around.

If you want tilts (which about 90% of the camera suggestions do not provide), then a 612 back on a view camera is the only option.

I have both the Shen-Hao 612 holder and the Sinar Vario (aka Zoom I, except that I cannot change formats mid-roll). The Vario and Zoom holders are large, heavy, delicate and fiddly. Perfect on a strong monorail, but a pain in the next, I would expect, when the need is for something compact and light. But they hold the film very flat.

The later Cambo/Calumet holders apparently also hold the film pretty flat, but there is always discussion about it. I've seen excellent results from a photographer who used one, but I have not used one myself.

The Shen-Hao is the smallest and lightest of them all, because it uses red-window advance rather than requiring a mechanism for spacing the frames. It works very well, and in my experience holds the film quite flat.

Any compact field camera with a Shen-Hao back would work quite well and fulfill all your requirements, but you do need the Graflok back.

But I think there may be another solution: Something like a press camera with tilts, like a Super Graphic, would do fine. And if you aren't using tilts, you can still use the rangefinder. The movements are limited, but that fits with your requirements. And it might be cheap enough to consider just for that purpose, with a Shen-Hao holder.

There is nothing, however, more flexible with really short lenses than a good monorail. Cameras like the Technika are as good, perhaps, but none are better. My F2 is not that heavy--not really much heavier than many field cameras especially in the context of the entire kit--but it is bulky.

Rick "who shoots 6x12 with as short as a 47mm lens on an F2" Denney

Nah, no decision yet - I am slow when it comes to large format :)

I have simply realized that 6x12 with movements beyond a little tilt AND compact at the same time is not only hard to achieve, but simply not realistic. To use tilt movements on sub-4x5" requires even more precision so one has to anyhow use the camera in a 'view' mode with ground glass and a loupe and a dark cloth and ... So I realized that if I want to shoot 6x12 and use the movements that I simply have to get a 6x12 back for 4x5" camera. That is the place where it get's more complicated as my Tachi does not have graflock back and so does not accept the widely preferred Horseman 6x12 back.

For now I have decided to use my 4x5 for the purpose and compose for 1:2 (maybe I will even make a blind for the GG with 1:2 opening). One of the reasons are those 40 sheets of Ektar and 30 sheets of FP4+

I keep pondering to swap my Tachi for some kind of 'field-monorail' for some time, but I am not there yet. In the extreme case I may 'replace' my 4x5 with 7x11" and then get some 6x9 camera for travel landscapes.

So - should I ever really get a compact 6x12 I would get some of those 'movements-less' models with 1 or 2 lenses (something like 65 and 105 or similar) or I will 'step down' to 6x9 and there the GW690 would be probably my first choice.

I should probably stop here as it feels like I am milking this 6x12 topic.