Would it be foolish to learn to use a view camera with 6x9 format?

[Hugh Sakols]

I have read that movements must be more precise when using a 6x9 format. Would that make it foolish to start with a 6x9 rollback? Of course I want to use my multiformat scanner. Also where can I find a good used 6x9 view camera such as a Horseman VH? I've looked at E- Bay and Midwest Photo Exchange?

[Ken Lee]

You can also get a 4x5 camera and a roll-film back. That way you can shoot both sheet film and roll film. With a a 4x5, you can shoot 6x12, 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 645, etc. depending on the back you use.

You will probably find a lot more equipment for 4x5 than for dedicated 6x9 view cameras. I wonder if a 6x9 camera will be dramatically smaller and lighter than an "equivalent" 4x5, all things being equal, as they never are.

A wider lens for 4x5 becomes a longer lens for 6x7, or 6x9, or 6x12, and vice versa.

[CXC]

The biggest problem with 6x9 is the dinky ground glass. Benefits are slim to none in using a 6x9 camera over a 4x5 camera, which gives you a reasonable sized piece of glass and the option of shooting larger if/when you wish to.

[Moe_4073]

Foolish - no, but I think you will get more for your dollar (in terms of versatility) if you buy a 4x5 camera and suitable rollfilm back. Being much more common, a 4x5 setup would likely be less expensive anyway. Regards,

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree. You have many more options if you add a 6x9 back to a 4x5" camera than if you are looking for a dedicated 6x9 camera.

[Darin Cozine]

Also consider that 4x5 view cameras are only slightly larger than 6x9, yet you get a much larger ground glass to work from.

[Ralph Barker]

Linhof makes a lovely medium-format view camera that provides great precision, the M679cc. It's available from B&H on special order for about $5,400 or so. For shallower pockets, however, a 4x5 and a good rollfilm back might be less painful. ;-)

For learning purposes, a 4x5 with reasonable movements is the better approach, I think. Depending on the nature of the work you plan to do (e.g. studio vs. landscapes), you could choose either a monorail for maximum flexibility, or a field camera with less in terms of movements, but far greater convenience.

My suggestion would be to consider using a 4x5 straight (no ice ;-) ), with 4x5 Polaroid film. Although the 4x5 polaroid film is fairly expensive, it provides (almost) instant feedback, so you'll learn much more quickly. Trying to figure out what you did right, and wrong, on each image of a roll of film developed later can be a real challenge. To do so requires making copious notes on each exposure (movements used, exposure data, etc.), so the film/prints can be compared back to the notes.

[Danny Burk]

I'm also in agreement that your best choice, if you want to shoot 6x9, is a rollfilm back on a 4x5 body. As everyone has said, there's really no practical benefit to a dedicated 6x9 body, and it's a major disadvantage if/when you do want to shoot 4x5. Shoot with the RF back by all means if you want to use your present scanner, but carry a few sheets of 4x5 and take a second exposure for those most promising shots. Even if you just scan the 6x9 now, you'll have a 4x5 that can be drum scanned later. You'll be glad you have it; to date I've never wished that I shot anything on a *smaller* format

You'll also typically get more bellows on a 4x5 than a 6x9, allowing you to use longer lenses (or get more extension for close range) in either format.

Regards, Danny www.dannyburk.com

[Leonard Evens]

Again, let me say that if scanning is the issue, you should consider getting an Epson 4870 (or even a reconditioned or such like Epson 3200, if you can find one). Then you can scan 4 x 5 film. Figure that possibility into the total cost along with possible 4 x 5 cameras.

The main drawback to using a 4 x 5 camera with medium format rollfilm holder is the limited possibilities at the wide angle end of the lens spectrum. Moderate priced 4 x 5 cameras often can't be used easily with lenses too much below 80 mm, and 90 mm is considered a normal lens for 6 x 7. On the other hand, if you pick the right 4 x 5, you should be able to find a 65 mm lens which will cover 6 x 9 and even allow some movement. The last time I checked there are no lenses with focal length shorter than 65 mm which will work with the Horseman 6 x 9 cameras.

[Bruce Watson]

Foolish? No. But is a view camera required for 6x9? No.

You can also shoot 6x9 with a folder rangefinder camera. Much more portable. Hand held shooting is possible, but tripods work too. Excellent optics. Not as flexible as a view camera or your 645 for that matter, but the optical quality can be excellent. Here's a source:

http://www.cleanimages.com/Article-MediumFormatInYourPocket.asp

Just a thought...