6x12 with movements (tilt)

[Matus Kalisky]

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?

[Kuzano]

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...????

[Oren Grad]

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.

[toyotadesigner]

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

[Old-N-Feeble]

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.

[Oren Grad]

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.

[Kuzano]

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.

[Old-N-Feeble]

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

[Kuzano]

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.

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?????

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.