6x9 Why?

[Joseph Dickerson]

Lots of good advice but I'd like to add one additional thing.

Years ago I lusted after a Horseman VHR, I have 4x5 cameras but thought how much nicer a compact camera with real movements would be when traveling and back packing.

Well I got one with several lenses, film backs et al...I very quickly discovered that (a) focusing on that little ground glass was really difficult and (b) the damn knobs were so small and fiddly that the camera was almost impossible to deal with. Traded it for a Deardorff.

Yes I do have large hands but not exceptionally so.

I'd really suggest trying before you buy.

JD

[Jeff Keller]

Put a reflex viewer on the back of a VHR and you have an easy to use landscape camera. I wish the VHR had a swinging focus screen like some of the Ebony cameras.

A sharply focused image over a large DOF isn't hard to get, a sharply focused image with a shallow DOF is harder.

Jeff Keller

[Mark Sampson]

+1 for Mr. Dickerson's comments. A couple of years ago I tried out a 6x9 Technika kit for traveling, and found that it didn't work for me for those same reasons. There's an excellent review of those cameras on the front page of this site, which tells basically the same story. I wound up taking a Hasselblad on that trip, as my girlfriend (uncharacteristically) banned my 4x5. Pictures turned out well, too...

[cjbroadbent]

As Joseph says, there's too much condensed mechanics in front of a small piece of film.
Its like downsized heavy jeans, with grown-up stitching and brass buttons on a four-year-old child. I had one (brand-new) in the seventies and passed it on. The perfect form factor is Technica 5x7. Even the 4x5 has a lot of mass.

[1750Shooter]

Thanks so much for your input folks. I'm beginning to feel that I'll let this one go. I can't decide if 6x9 is LF lite or MF magnum so I'll think a bit more.

[Roger Cole]

Better to get a 4x5 camera, which is larger but not unwieldy, and easy to use, and a roll film back.

I like that combination. I'd like it more if I had a lens wider than 90mm and a camera that could easily use same. Then you have the option of shooting 4x5 or roll film.

As others said, roll film DOES have advantages. Virtually no problems with dust, much cheaper per shot, easy to load in the field, much greater variety of film available especially in color, and a negative plenty large enough for most purposes with modern films. You can even use the zone system by having several backs, say N-1, N and N+2, and mark the film accordingly.

I have a 6x7 back because that's what I found, but 6x9 does make sense. Might as well use the largest negative area you can without stretching the proportions too oddly like a 6x12 panorama (nice for the right shots, not ideal for general use IMHO.)

[ki6mf]

Ditto on the aspect ratio!!! 6X9 matches the aspect ratio of most printing papers. This lets you use maximum negative size with less extension on the enlarger for more detailed images. Put another way get closer fill the negative with your image and use smaller enlarger height to create the most detailed images possible.

[Frank Petronio]

I like 6x9 but something like the Fuji rangefinders are a lot more useful for the times that 4x5 is too slow but you still want a large negative with a quick handheld camera. I dare say these are a better option than a handheld 4x5, no offense to all the poor souls who bought fancier options.

If focusing a 6x9 camera on the ground glass is difficult, imagine what it is like working with the 43 x 56mm medium format sensor size and trying to make movements and fine focusing.... that "exposes" the bogusity of "you can alway put a digital back on your view camera" lol.

[hmf]

Ditto on the aspect ratio!!! 6X9 matches the aspect ratio of most printing papers. This lets you use maximum negative size with less extension on the enlarger to more detailed images. Put another way get closer fill the negative with your image and use smaller enlarger height to create the most detailed images possible.

Am I missing something? Don't 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24 all most closely match the 1.25x aspect ratio of 4X5, vs the 1.5 aspect ratio of 6X9?

[ki6mf]

Am I missing something? Don't 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24 all most closely match the 1.25x aspect ratio of 4X5, vs the 1.5 aspect ratio of 6X9?

Ahhhhh I knew i should have had coffee before reading the forum. That is why i leave my 6X9 at home and always shoot 4X5