Newbie camera advice for landscapes. 6x9?

[Pigeon]

Great response Ken, Thanx.

So regardless of the better optical capabilities of a Nikon 9000 in comparison to an Epson flatbed, the fact that a 4x5 neg will be enlarged less than a 6x9, the 4x5 will always result in an optically better print?

[Ken Lee]

So regardless of the better optical capabilities of a Nikon 9000 in comparison to an Epson flatbed, the fact that a 4x5 neg will be enlarged less than a 6x9, the 4x5 will always result in an optically better print?

It all depends on how large an image you intend to make, and the distance from which people will view the image.

Let's say the Nikon gives 3300ppi. And let's say that the Epson, while claiming to get 3200 ppi, gives something more like 2400 ppi in reality.

Let's say the taking lens gives 80 lp/mm, and that a person needs to see 10 lp/mm to experience critical sharpness. That means the upper limit of enlargement will be 8x, no matter what the scanner is capable of. In reality, few LF lenses will deliver that much at all apertures, but let's presume they get close enough.

Let's say, for simplicity, that we want to send the image to the printer at 300 dpi. This means that the Nikon will allow us to make 3300/300 or 11x enlargements, and the Epson will allow us to make 2400/300 or 8x enlargements.

We make a 10x enlargement of a 6x7 image, which will give us, roughly, a 20x25 image. At that point, we are at the upper limit of the Nikon scanner, and we can see the grain. The image will have 80/10 or 8 lp/mm, which is below the level of critical sharpness that our eyes can detect.

To make the same image with the 4x5, we need a 5x enlargement. Since the Epson can enlarge by 8x, our 5x enlargement is well within the capacity of the scanner.

Your final image from 4x5 will have 80 lp/mm divided by 5, or 16 lp/mm. It will look twice as sharp as the 6x7 image.

We all have to draw the line somewhere - and you are the best person to judge final image quality for your work, and how it fits in with the other factors, like portability, affordability, etc.

So before you invest, you might want to see what a 16x20 looks like, when made with the equipment you like, and the workflow you propose - and compare it to images made on larger film, smaller film, etc.

[Atul Mohidekar]

Here is a somewhat contrarian view of "why 6x9 and NOT 4x5"? I had responded to similar question somewhere else. Here was MY justification:

Here are some pros and cons of 6x9 compared to 4x5 (of course, as I see them):

Advantages of 6x9:
1. The film handling is much easier and much less expensive than 4x5. One could easily carry multiple 120 or 220 rolls in the field without worrying about volume and weight compared to 4x5 film. This affects a couple of important things: i) ability to freely bracket photos without worrying about running out of film and ii) ability to hike long distances without worrying about running out of film and breaking your back.
2. The camera, the lenses and the film pack more compact and weigh less due to smaller lens boards and usage of roll film.
3. Better DOF for a given aperture.
4. I like the more rectangular aspect ratio of 6x9 compared to 4x5. This is just a personal preference.
5. If you want to scan film yourself to save $$$, the only good non-drum and relatively affordable film scanner available is Nikon 9000 (Minolta 5400 was a good one, but is not longer in production). It can scan up to 6x9 and not 4x5.
6. The ability to use REALLY sharp digital lenses. These have are not usable on 4x5 because of their smaller ICs. A very few could be used on a 6x9. I own 120mm Digitar and the results are superb!

Advantages of 4x5:
1. The larger real estate of 4x5 film allows larger enlargements compared to 6x9. One could scan and enlarge a good 4x5 transparency to a 40"x50" print, but I would not go beyond 20"x30" with a good 6x9.
2. Ability to expose each frame differently so that it can be developed accordingly. This is important if you are doing B&W photography and/or using zone system.
3. Bigger area for focusing. So one does not have to be as much critical about the focus as 6x9.
4. The lenses don't have to be as sharp as required for 6x9.

I might have missed some in the above list.

In my case, the advantages of 6x9 Arca Swiss, outweighed those of any 4x5 system. If I change my mind and decide to go for 4x5 (quite possible), the modular design of Arca Swiss allows me to do that by reusing many of the components of 6x9, though at a substantial expense but much less expensive than buying a 4x5 Arca Swiss system from scratch.


// Atul

[Matt Logue]

I'll second the posters who mention that only you can decide what makes an acceptable enlargement - having seen Wim Wenders' exhibition "Pictures from the Surface of the Earth" in 2004, which was made up of medium format 6x7's and 6x17's blown up to two meters (and more) wide, it was stunning, and the film format wasn't really an issue. It just depends on your shooting style.

[Pigeon]

Thanks again for your responses.

Choosing between 6x9 and 4x5 is more difficult than I had anticipated. There are such good reasons to go either way.

If I could ask one more question....

Is it difficult to use field cameras (I am thinking maybe the Ebony RW 45E) in order to take shots off horizontal, or is such style of shooting better served by monorails?
I ask because I don't necessarily just want to take landscapes where I am lining up the horizon (in fact I would be taking very few of those shots).

[Ken Lee]

You can tilt a tripod head any way you like.

Many 4x5 cameras will allow you to mount a 6x9 back, or any other MF back, like 6x6, 6x9, 645, etc.

Why not have your cake and eat it too ? As they say, it's only money :-)

Modular cameras like the Arca Swiss and Sinar let you swap out the 4x5 back/bellows for 5x7 and 8x10 as well as MF. Why limit yourself ?

If you find that you never use one or more of the film sizes, then sell the corresponding equipment. If you purchase it used to begin with, you may even make money on the deal !

[Gordon Moat]

Whether 6x9 or 4x5, you want to budget a sturdy tripod. My own preference is to a pan/tilt head, though a few people like using a ball head; basically just get something that would hold at an angle, and not become off balance.

One aspect of a rollfilm back on a 4x5 is the additional room to input movements into the standards. However, the real limitation of movements would be the image circle of whatever lenses you choose to use.

You might want to look into a Horseman VHR, or similar camera in 6x9. These might be price competitve to some other cameras, at least when buying one used. Usually you can find one in condition for less than a Linhof or Ebony.

I mostly shoot 4x5 on my field camera, though I do use a Linhof Super Rollex 56x72 rollfilm back. One nice thing about the rollfilm back is the ten shots on 120 film, though it is only appropriate for multiple images of the same subject/scene.

Scanning is a separate issue, and one area your Nikon film scanner will do much better with is shadow details. Regardless of resolution figures, the improvement on shadow details of a 6x7 (or 6x9) scan on a Nikon film scanner will be noticeably better than a 4x5 scan on a new Epson mid-range flatbed. True Dmax performance and colour quality should be bigger issues.

I do agree with some recommending a 4x5 with rollfilm back. While you do not have the good quality 4x5 scanner in reach now, you might in the future. However, should you decide on a dedicated 6x9 camera, then you might be able to sell it used for little loss in the event you move to 4x5 in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Ted Harris]

Gordon, I've never used a VHR but if memory serves it is about the same size and weight as the 45FA isn't it?

[Oren Grad]

Ted, the VH-R is comparable in weight to the 45FA, but the VH (without the rangefinder) is about 3.75 pounds, perhaps 8-10 ounces lighter than the 45FA or VH-R.

Apart from other pros and cons, the stock VH-R (or VH) is not a good camera if you anticipate doing ultrawide work. The shortest focal length that can be used without exotic special measures is 65mm, which is roughly comparable to a 28 on 35mm.

Pigeon: most modern 6x9 view cameras have reversing or revolving backs, just like their big 4x5 brothers. This means you can switch the back between horizontal and vertical orientation without needing to remove the camera from the tripod or tilt the tripod head. A few older press or technical type 2x3/6x9 cameras (e.g. Graphics, Horseman 9xx series) have fixed backs; with those you'd have to tilt the whole camera.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, I've never used a VHR but if memory serves it is about the same size and weight as the 45FA isn't it?

Basically as Oren stated. I think the difference is more balance than weight, though I don't know if the OP would use a VHR hand held. The other aspect is these can be found for relatively low cost on the used market. Not a great system, but not bad for the price. Money no object, then a Linhof or Arca Swiss might be better choices.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio