It swings and tilts... :+)
Well, do ya?
Printable View
It swings and tilts... :+)
Well, do ya?
If it is the lens and/or film planes that swing and tilt, I'll consider it large format, even if it is "just" roll film.
But doesn't 6x9 seem a little, well, small for someone with the handle of studmuffin?:rolleyes:
Vaughn
I'd call it a medium format view camera, but still fair game for this forum (unlike the old f32.net forum that was strictly 4x5" and larger).
it's "weenie large format" -but go ahead... :)
Who cares what we think, you're the studmuffin. If it works for you, use it.
Size is relative to the beholder.:eek:
That would have to be 6 x 9 INCHES, right?
It is interesting how definitions change with time. During the 50s and early 60s, I never heard the term "large format" used for anything smaller than 8x10, ... well maybe (???) sometimes for 5x7.
The 4x5 and 6x9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4, if you will) were referred to simply as "press cameras", and 35mm was "miniature" format. Kodak's Dataguide on Lenses (1946) even refers to the Kodak Ektra and the Bantam as being miniature cameras.
I do not recall any of the roll films, 118, 120, 620, 122, 124, 127, 130, 116, 616, or 828 sizes ever being referred to as "medium format". News editors at the time were adament that photography had to be done with a press camera and these other formats were not considered serious contenders. Hasselblad and the other serious medium format cameras were successful later on.
One of my colleagues did manage to convince our editor that his photos were just as good with his TLR Rolleiflex, thereby saving money on materials. [Back in those days we were paid $3 for an 8x10 non-action photo and $5 for an action (sports, fires, accidents, etc.) photo. We purchased our own supplies and did our own darkroom work, so the editor only saw the final print.]
In just a year or two, ca. 1960-1961 as I recall, the Leicas and Nikons suddenly began to emerge as the cameras of choice for journalism, displacing the bulky press cameras for handheld work.
Somewhere along the way, the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 press camera seems to have become lumped in with the other large format cameras, at least as far as the photo magazines and camera stores are concerned. I believe this has more to do with its press functionality and resemblence to the 4x5.
I like to shoot with all sizes and do not see that it is worth splitting hairs over these classifications. They all use sheet film and are operated in a similar manner. I have no quarrel with considering 4x5 to be large format. Compared to the subminiature chip that digital uses, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 appears to be headed to a large format classification as well.
In dog years its ULF! :)
Medium Large.