I currently use a 6x9 Arca Swiss with a 50 cm rail and Rodenstock 120 macro lens setup solely for macro work. An additional 4x5 Arca Swiss w/orbix can be found close by in my studio for other commercial works. I recently sold my Ebony SV45U traveling camera that I occasionally used the 4x5 to 6x9 adapter with and a roll back for portraiture. Today I use 6x9 primarily for macro work and a Mamiya RB67 for portraiture.
I used a Horseman 980 with 6 x 7 roll film holders (occasionally 6 x 9 sheet film holders) over a period of some 30 years. About 6 years ago I switched to 4 x 5, but I occasionally still use my Horseman.
I agree with Atul's analysis, which pretty much covers the main points. I would add the following additional considerations.
If you plan to do darkroom work, equipment, from enlargers to film processing equipment, for medium format is less expensive, and, more important, takes up significantly less room. (For example, in my condo, I couldn't do 4 x 5 darkroom printing unless I sacrificed a bathroom.) On the other hand, if you scan film, as I do, then you can make do with lower quality flat bed scanners for 4 x 5. If you want the best scanning equipment, 4 x 5 equipment is of course considerably more expensive, but will also deliver better results.
For the same capablity in terms of rise/fall/shift and tilt/swing, you have to pay considerably more for the same capability in a 6 x 9 camera than in a 4 x 5 camera Medium format requires much more precision for tilt/swing, and to some extent also for rise/fall/shift. (But such tilts or swings are less neecessary because of increased depth of field.) Fewer wide angle lenses may be available for 6 x 9, but more for long focal lengths---this relative to the format. Generally, you want higher quality optics for the smaller format, so lenses may be more expensive.
Paul says he has been able to use a 47 mm lens with his Horseman VH. I once found a web site which listed the lenses that would work with Horseman Technical 6 x 9 cameras, and it showed no lens shorter than 65 mm. I can't find that web site with a google search now, so if anyone knows where it is, it would be helpful to let the rest of us know. I don't doubt Paul's report, but I would be curious to know what special arragements were necessary, if any.
I upgraded to 4 x 5 from my Horseman 980 because the latter had relatively limited movements, particularly rise, with my 65 mm lens. I used 6 x 7 format to conform with typical 4:5 aspect ratio for prints, and 65 mm for that format is roughly equivalent to 120 mm with 4 x 5. Even 47 mm is only equivalent to about 85 mm. I regularly use a 75 mm lens with my 4 x 5 system and could go lower if necessary. Also, I find it easier to compose on the larger gg. The only reasonable alternative to going to 4 x 5 was getting a much more expensive 6 x 9 monorail like the Arca Swiss that Atul uses. Because of the move to the condo, I planned to scan rather than print with an enlarger, so I was not limited by the darkroom considerations mentioned previously. My 4 x 5 is a toho FC-45x (not Toyo) which is actually lighter than and just as portable as my Horseman 980.
There is the alternative of gettinga 4 x 5 camera and using it with roll film backs, but you have to be very careful about which 4 x 5 camera you get. Such cameras are generally designed to be used with longer focal length lenses, and that can limit significnatly what you can do at what is the short focal length end of the range for medium format. Also, you will need finer and more precise control of movements than is adequate for 4 x 5. You may end up paying as much or more than a good 6 x 9 monorail would cost you, and the camera will probably be bulkier, heavier, and more difficult to transport.
If I were fantastically wealthy, and had time enough to devote to different formats, I would get an Arca-Swiss 6 x 9, rent space somewhere for a complete darkroom, and have the best of both worlds.
Last edited by Leonard Evens; 23-Nov-2006 at 09:55.
I use a Linhof M679 both in the studio and in the field, with a roll film back. The precision of the movements and rigidity of the setup is terrific, mitigated only by the weight of the camera. All accessories are smaller too. The outfit is housed in a relatively small rigid fitted box which is very protective, but not waterproof. The necessary tripod is smaller and lighter than that required for my 8x10 Sinar P.
Focusing has to be done carefully since the screen is relatively small and front or back movements are not as obvious as with 8x10.
Because I still want to make extreme enlargements, the selection of lenses must be made carefully. I generally stick to modern lenses made for 6x9. Using older lenses made for 4x5 does not always work out well. Their greater coverage sometimes means that there can be internal reflections on the bellows from the 'unused' coverage. Their reduced resolution, compared to say Mamiya 6x8 or Zeiss/Hasselblad 6x6 lenses, did not always result in sufficient quality for extreme enlargements.
For a while I had access to a Kodak digital back which was adapted to the 679 using a 'wechelschlitten/sliding back' sized to a Hasselblad back. I never tried it with a 6x6 film back, but the operation of a sliding back made switching between the focus magnifier and the chip back really easy.
One really nice feature of the Linhof 679 ground glass back is that the fresnel can be separately shifted to put the 'sweet spot' closer to the focus point to improve the light distribution.
The camera uses on-axis tilts and swings, which is not as nice as the Sinar P with asymmetric action, but using that 8x10 'monster' in the field requires friendly 'bearers' to carry-out the expedition.
A good point, Joe! Yet there is a simple and efficient means to prevent it. You can make a paper cone collar, put on the rear lens diameter, with a limiting collar at its other end. The cone, made bigger than the light cone coming out of the lens, covered with flocked paper, and having the end baffle at its end works perfectly. It can stay on the lens, as it is not longer than bellows draw. Just make sure it's made of paper that doesn't pulverize - because of the dust.Originally Posted by Joe Blaze
I enjoy using 6x9 on a 4x5 camera. I like the larger bellows, that has less likelihodd of reflecting light off the bellows onto the film. Lenses are lighter, if one purchases for the format. (Versus using a 90mm S.A. f5.6 as a medium lense.) Film is less expensive, too. I use about three 6x9 roll film backs, which let's me easily change from one development to another. (e.g. N, N-1, N+1, or whatever.) I also like the way 6x9 enlarges to about a 6"x9" print size. On my system, I can do all my lenses for 6x9 on a leather bag bellows. So, it's easier in that sense,. too.
Leonard... I think this might be the web page you are looking for... (http://www.horsemanusa.com/lens_list.html) It appears hidden away on the Horseman USA website.
I assume all of the data published refers to using lens boards available from Horseman. There was someone (once upon a time) in the USA who made special recessed lensboards for the VH that allowed lenses down to a 58XL to be used. I managed to find one of these, and subsequently had a deeper recessed board made for the 47XL by a machinest. I had to also have extended levers made to adjust aperture and shutter speed, because I couldn't get my finger inside the recessed board. I use a stylus pen to cock the shutter.
The front standard sits just barely on the bed rail (dropped), and only the tiniest amount of rise is avaialble... about 3mm. Tilt of about 3-4mm is available as well. I use this lens infrequently because of the limitations, but when I need it... I need it.
The last 5 years I have been using a Linhof TK23 for my landscapes. The setup consists of TK23 (non S version because the latter is about 700 gr heavier) with 38, 58, 150, 300 mm lenses and a rapid rolex 6X7 film holder. I have published a small expose on the internet www.roosnoreengary.demon.nl
For most of the previous posts I can certainly agree exept for using a 4X5 for medium format. I possess a Sinar and Master technika but there is no way I would be using these for 6X9. Simply because why hauling around heavier equipment then that you are planning to use. Also I think TK45 when folded the bellows are far too exposed and vulnerable. And the Master Technika cannot handle the shorter lenses with ease that are necessary for the smaller format.
Lately I have started to use more 4X5 for my landscapes simply because I like to go bigger than the maximum (quality) print of the 6X7.
I hope this brings you further towards your decision.
Lovely pictures, Gary! Between 6x7 and 4x5 there is the -6x9! My Arca Swiss wants to go to Island badly... I tell her to first earn for the car rental there!
Hmm. I shoot 2x3 with little Graphics. Landscape and closeup of static subjects, one of this winter's projects is a small set of focusing frames to facilitate shooting more mobile subjects closeup. I use a variety of lenses, for a partial list see my post in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=21170 .
2x3 is manageable, usefully larger than 35 mm. I went up to 2x3 from 35 mm not to gain movements but to be able to shoot closeup and put my subjects in their settings without having to give up fine detail in the subjects.
Many of the lenses I shoot -- all of the ones longer than 160 mm -- are in barrel and have adapters for mounting in front of a #1 shutter. All of my lenses longer than 120 mm cover considerably more than 2x3. Perhaps because of front mounting, perhaps because the interiors of my cameras bellows aren't very reflective, I haven't encountered the bellows flare at least one poster has mentioned.
Cheers,
Dan
Thanks for the information. It tells me what I would have to do should I ever decide to adapt my Horseman 980 to use with a lens shorter than 65 mm. I think it is fair to say from your description that one can't routinely assume it is possible to use lenses shorter than 65 mm with Horseman 6 x 9 technical cameras. I'm not completely sure what the problem is. When the front standard is close to the back, it comes off the front focusing track and starts to engage the storage track. In that position, the normal focusing mechanism wouldn't work, so you would have to slide the standard on the tracks, which would difficult to do precisely, and you couldn't be sure the front standard was parallel to the film plane. But it should be possible to rig something up to deal with that. Another possible problem is that the back of the lens can't be too wide, or it won't fit in the bellows. Perhaps there is some other problem I'm not aware of.
Last edited by Leonard Evens; 24-Nov-2006 at 07:33.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks