PDA

View Full Version : Is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 considered to be the same as 6x9?



DLee
18-Jan-2014, 16:50
Thanks,

dennis

Oren Grad
18-Jan-2014, 17:34
Usage is not always consistent. However, these days it's common for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" to be used to refer to cut sheet film in that size or to view cameras designed to accept film holders in that size, while 6x9 cm is most frequently used to refer to 120 roll film exposed in roll film cameras or in view camera roll film holders to produce an image size of approximately 56x84 mm (there are many small variations in exact image area among different cameras and roll holders).

Many cameras - for example, the Horseman press cameras (VH, VH-R and earlier models) - accept both 6x9 cm rollholders and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" cut sheet film holders.

Dan Fromm
18-Jan-2014, 19:14
Short answer, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 6x9 refer to the same size negative. Usually, except when they don't.

2.25" x 3.25", loosely called 2x3, translates to 57.2 mm x 82.6 mm, rounded to three digits. It is a sheet film size. 6 x 9 cm is a poor metric approximation to 57 x 82.

As far as I know all nominal 6x9 roll holders and roll film cameras take 120 film, which is 60 mm high. Most produce negatives approximately 57 mm x 82 mm. There are exceptions. A few, e.g., Graflex RH-8 and late Graphic 23 holders with pin rollers, shoot 57 x 78. And some European roll film cameras and a few roll holders too shoot 57 x "longer than 82" mm.

120 film seems to be an EKCo invention and so is 2x3. #1 Folding Pocket Kodaks shoot 2x3 on 120 film.

There is a European cut film format 6.5 x 9 cm that is larger than 2x3. It is approximately 2.5" x 3.5". But and however, see http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/65871-6-5x9-2x3-sheet-film-actual-size.html

We're all a little sloppy, some are sloppier than others. Really sloppy folks say 6.5 x 9 when they mean 6x9 (= 2x3 = 2.25" x 3.25").

As Oren said, usage is inconsistent. There's no legislating usage.

DLee
18-Jan-2014, 22:17
Thanks, very informative. I had forgotten about the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 film holders and I have run across some 6.5 x 9 finder masks for the Linhof universal finder.

The reason for my question, which I should have stated at the beginning, is for finding a mask for my Universal finder.

I have one of the older Linhof roll film backs; Rollex 6x9, and would like to get a mask to match it on the Technika Universal Sucher. I think I may have found a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 labeled mask that will fit… but I'm wondering if I should hold out for a 6x9 labeled mask that might be a little more accurate?

The whole rangefinder thing is ambiguous… but being closer to 'reality' can't be such a bad thing. I'm just doing testing now with my Linhof Technika III v. 5 and hope to put the roll film back to good use with the rangefinder and viewfinder combo. I haven't processed a roll of film from the back yet so I'm not sure on advance/spacing etc. - but I'm knocking on wood and hoping for the best.

My Rollex 6x9 actually measures 63mm x 87mm or 2 1/2 x 3 3/8(+) inches. So in reality a 6x9 mask would be closer… I'm just wondering if there's actually a difference between the 6x9 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 masks for the Universal Finder… I guess this really should have been my question: Is there a difference between these two masks in dimensions?

Dennis

Oren Grad
18-Jan-2014, 22:34
I doubt there's a difference, but I've very far from a Technika expert. Bob Salomon is the one to ask about all things Technika. He works for the US distributor for Linhof and has a wealth of knowledge about Linhof products present and past. He may see this thread, but you could also start a fresh thread - or perhaps the moderators can rename this one - to call attention to your Linhof finder question in the thread title.

toyotadesigner
19-Jan-2014, 03:09
6x9 is the gross size of 120mm film images. Depending on the roll film back you'll get anything between 53mm and 57mm height and 78mm and 87mm width.

6.5x9 is a sheet film format.

For the format mask you are looking for: don't bean count the ratio and size, just use it as an approximation. Even the markings on some ground glasses for Arca Swiss 6x9 are not too precise and differ up to several millimeters in width and height. I used a felt tip pen to draw the correct markings onto my gg screens.

Take into consideration that the image circle of a lens is smaller at large aperture openings, that's why image circle comparisons are always measured with the standard aperture of f=22. That means the the light fall off at f=5.6 can be visible in the corners, while at f=22 you'll get a very even exposure. For this reason it might be a good idea to compose a scene with a bit 'flesh' to the edges if shooting wide open.

DLee
19-Jan-2014, 08:23
Take into consideration that the image circle of a lens is smaller at large aperture openings, that's why image circle comparisons are always measured with the standard aperture of f=22. That means the the light fall off at f=5.6 can be visible in the corners, while at f=22 you'll get a very even exposure. For this reason it might be a good idea to compose a scene with a bit 'flesh' to the edges if shooting wide open.

I've done a lot of Leica shooting so I'm familiar with the 'intuitive' framing… but I hadn't thought of lens coverage.

I'm on a 4x5 Technika III v. 5 so hopefully the 6x9 will have plenty coverage wide open. I will need to remember this for 4x5 though. I guess this will all become clear with some accurate note taking and picture making. Shooting wide open; one or two stops down, has been my intention so I'm very appreciative for this reminder.

What a process this Large Format stuff is. Love it!

Thanks to all.

Dennis

David Lobato
19-Jan-2014, 10:52
I have proof that Kodak once thought they were the same. I have a 6X9 Kodak Medalist which uses 620 film, or 120 film re-spooled onto 620 reels. My camera also came with the Kodak ground glass "Accessory Back" "For Kodak Medalist", along with three Kodak 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film holders and two German made sheet film holders.

Dan Fromm
19-Jan-2014, 11:51
David, are you sure that Kodak ever called the Medalist a 6x9 camera? The instruction manual (see http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_medalist_ii/kodak_medalist_ii.htm) says that it shoots "a picture as large as 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches." The format 6x9 isn't mentioned in the manual.

I've never seen anything from Kodak (Rochester) that mentions 6x9, its all 2x3.

Kodak AG sold the Regent as a 6x9 camera. I have no idea how long the Regent's gate is, but 6 cm high is impossible because it used 620 film. 620 film differs from 120 in having a spool with a thinner axle, slightly smaller flanges and a different recess for the wind key.

Kodak France sold a variety of French-made versions of the US-made Tourist ("negative size 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches") as 6x9 cameras.

I don't know whether loose lips still sink ships, but they really confuse people who can't accept the idea that an entity can have two names whose meanings, read literally, are different. 56 mm x 82 mm is smaller than 6 cm x 9 cm but the film formats 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" and 6 cm x 9 cm are identical nearly all the time nearly everywhere.

smithdoor
19-Jan-2014, 12:01
If you where back in 40's it was inches today we use both 2 1/4 = 5.715cm and round off it is 6cm The film stock is 6.096cm or 2.4 inches
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/126_film_%28roll_format%29#126roll


120 roll film 1901 Present 2¼" × 3¼"
6 cm × 7 cm
2¼" × 2¼"
2¼" × 1⅝" 8
10
12-13
15-16 2.4 inch (60.96 mm) stock, unperforated, paper-backed

Dave

dsphotog
19-Jan-2014, 12:31
That pesky metric system, always makin' trouble....

Jac@stafford.net
19-Jan-2014, 12:56
More minutae


Super Ikonta "6x9"
55x85mm


Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide
55x90


Brooks Veriwide
55x80

Tin Can
19-Jan-2014, 13:19
The fun really starts with film enlarger negative carriers of which there are dozens for some enlargers.

For 120 roll film
6x6
6x7
6x8
6x9
6x12
6x17
6x24

For 2-1/4x3-1/4 sheet film you need a special smaller width glassless carrier. Sheet film 2x3 film is narrower than 120 roll film.

I mostly use a 2 piece glass carrier with my Besler 23IIC as it holds everything flat and does any size medium format.

Then there is 3x4 Polaroid shot on a medium format 405 back which is another exposed size and don't forget Mamiya RB does 7x7 Polaroid on a 6x7 camera!

But, it's all the same to answer the OP.

Bob Salomon
19-Jan-2014, 13:25
The fun really starts with film enlarger negative carriers of which there are dozens for some enlargers.

For 120 roll film
6x6
6x7
6x8
6x9
6x12
6x17
6x24

For 2-1/4x3-1/4 sheet film you need a special smaller width glassless carrier. Sheet film 2x3 film is narrower than 120 roll film.

I mostly use a 2 piece glass carrier with my Besler 23IIC as it holds everything flat and does any size medium format.

Then there is 3x4 Polaroid shot on a medium format 405 back which is another exposed size and don't forget Mamiya RB does 7x7 Polaroid on a 6x7 camera!

But, it's all the same to answer the OP.

And what about 645?

It was a very popular roll film size.

Bob Salomon
19-Jan-2014, 13:38
Thanks, very informative. I had forgotten about the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 film holders and I have run across some 6.5 x 9 finder masks for the Linhof universal finder.

The reason for my question, which I should have stated at the beginning, is for finding a mask for my Universal finder.

I have one of the older Linhof roll film backs; Rollex 6x9, and would like to get a mask to match it on the Technika Universal Sucher. I think I may have found a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 labeled mask that will fit… but I'm wondering if I should hold out for a 6x9 labeled mask that might be a little more accurate?

The whole rangefinder thing is ambiguous… but being closer to 'reality' can't be such a bad thing. I'm just doing testing now with my Linhof Technika III v. 5 and hope to put the roll film back to good use with the rangefinder and viewfinder combo. I haven't processed a roll of film from the back yet so I'm not sure on advance/spacing etc. - but I'm knocking on wood and hoping for the best.

My Rollex 6x9 actually measures 63mm x 87mm or 2 1/2 x 3 3/8(+) inches. So in reality a 6x9 mask would be closer… I'm just wondering if there's actually a difference between the 6x9 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 masks for the Universal Finder… I guess this really should have been my question: Is there a difference between these two masks in dimensions?

Dennis

Linhof has made several variations of the Linhof Multifocus Finder. The current one (made for the past 30+ years) has two concentric rings around the eyepiece. One zooms from 75 to 360mm and is color coded. The other has color coded distance scales to correct for field size. This finder, for 45, is supplied with a rotating 45 mask and masks for other formats, down to 6x6 cm, have been optionally available. But they will not fit any of the older versions of the finder. The current finder is a zoom finder. The image at 360mm is very large. The older finder were cropping finders. The image at 360mm is very tiny.

6x9 is a nominal size. The actual film size is slightly different. A better example would be 612. On a Linhof Techno Rollex 612 back the image area is 56 x 120mm. On Horseman, Sinar and other 612 back the image length is closer to 112mm so a Linhof mask for their finder will be very accurate with the Techno Rollex but be oversize for the other 612 backs.

As a word of caution. A Rollex back was knob wound. A Super Rollex is lever wound. Since the Rollex was made film manufacturers changed the film spool slightly requiring a minor modification for all of the old Rollex backs to obtain proper spacing. Check yours to see if it has been modified. You can call me at 800 735-4373 x 15 during the week (I will not be in after Wed for a few days) if you want to check wwhat to look for. Have your back with you when calling.

Tin Can
19-Jan-2014, 13:50
I never liked it and it is 1/2 size.


And what about 645?

It was a very popular roll film size.

Bob Salomon
19-Jan-2014, 17:48
I never liked it and it is 1/2 size.

Weather you like the format or not isn't the question. It is still a roll film format that was very popular. As for ½ size. What does that mean? 645 is simply the area of a 6x6 that would be used to print an 810 or similar proportion print.

Tin Can
19-Jan-2014, 18:37
It is fully half the size of the OP's 6x9 and 2x3 discussion, I simply never used it, I have always wanted bigger film, I also did not 'understand' half frame 35mm. My film life started, at age 7. with the extremely frustrating 8mm Minox cameras, where my father decided an enlarger was a worthless proposition. He managed to set me back several decades at least. Thus LF late in life.


Weather you like the format or not isn't the question. It is still a roll film format that was very popular. As for ½ size. What does that mean? 645 is simply the area of a 6x6 that would be used to print an 810 or similar proportion print.

toyotadesigner
20-Jan-2014, 00:26
That pesky metric system, always makin' trouble....

Sure, that's why the rest of the world uses the metric system. The reason is that it is much more precise than the Imperial system. Did you know that even the US military, navy, army, NASA uses the metric system exactly for this logical reason?


Weather you like the format or not isn't the question. It is still a roll film format that was very popular. As for ½ size. What does that mean? 645 is simply the area of a 6x6 that would be used to print an 810 or similar proportion print.

6x4.5 is a 4:3 ratio. 8x10 is a 4:5 ratio. 6x9 is a 3:2 ratio. 6x6 is a 1:1 ratio but never 8x10, so I don't see any correlation between these formats at all.

BTW, 6x9 is the gross format for one frame, whereas 2 ¼ x 3 ¼ (= 82,55 x 57,15mm) is the net format of the 6x9 frame. Simple as that. There has never been a roll film with the dimension of 2 ¼ inch wide - 6x9 has always been 2,3622047" wide (an excellent example why the Imperial system is too complicated for precision industries!). You should ask yourself why the US uses a net size to specify a film format...

In addition, we had following film formats in the rest of the world:

9x12 cm
13x18 cm
18x24 cm

If you convert Imperial to metric you'll get following results:

4x5" -> 101.6 x 127 mm
5x7" -> 127 x 177.8 mm
8x10" -> 203.2 x 254 mm

Only because Kodak was so large, the rest of the world had to adopt to the imperial sheet film format...

The resulting problems were obvious: if you purchased a camera from the US, you couldn't use the European sheet film in the film holders. And vice versa. To make things even more complicated, the Europeans (and the rest of the world) adopted the nomenclature of the imperial system, that means if you see an offer for an old or used 4x5 camera from Europe, chances are high that you get a 9x12 which you can't use because the 4x5" sheet film won't fit.

If you want to be on the safe side, make sure the camera does have a Graflok back, so you can substitute the ground glass and film holder without hassle. Most Plaubel 9x12 cameras didn't have a Graflok back, if they had been manufactured for the European market. Surprisingly the 6x9 format cameras featured the Mini-Graflok system... only Arca offered the 6x9 cameras with a Mini-Graflok back where you can attach a 6.5x9 cm ground glass and film back for sheet film. Don't ask me why...

Tin Can
20-Jan-2014, 00:40
Did we need this lesson again?


Sure, that's why the rest of the world uses the metric system. The reason is that it is much more precise than the Imperial system. Did you know that even the US military, navy, army, NASA uses the metric system exactly for this logical reason?



6x4.5 is a 4:3 ratio. 8x10 is a 4:5 ratio. 6x9 is a 3:2 ratio. 6x6 is a 1:1 ratio but never 8x10, so I don't see any correlation between these formats at all.

BTW, 6x9 is the gross format for one frame, whereas 2 ¼ x 3 ¼ (= 82,55 x 57,15mm) is the net format of the 6x9 frame. Simple as that. There has never been a roll film with the dimension of 2 ¼ inch wide - 6x9 has always been 2,3622047" wide (an excellent example why the Imperial system is too complicated for precision industries!). You should ask yourself why the US uses a net size to specify a film format...

In addition, we had following film formats in the rest of the world:

9x12 cm
13x18 cm
18x24 cm

If you convert Imperial to metric you'll get following results:

4x5" -> 101.6 x 127 mm
5x7" -> 127 x 177.8 mm
8x10" -> 203.2 x 254 mm

Only because Kodak was so large, the rest of the world had to adopt to the imperial sheet film format...

The resulting problems were obvious: if you purchased a camera from the US, you couldn't use the European sheet film in the film holders. And vice versa. To make things even more complicated, the Europeans (and the rest of the world) adopted the nomenclature of the imperial system, that means if you see an offer for an old or used 4x5 camera from Europe, chances are high that you get a 9x12 which you can't use because the 4x5" sheet film won't fit.

If you want to be on the safe side, make sure the camera does have a Graflok back, so you can substitute the ground glass and film holder without hassle. Most Plaubel 9x12 cameras didn't have a Graflok back, if they had been manufactured for the European market. Surprisingly the 6x9 format cameras featured the Mini-Graflok system... only Arca offered the 6x9 cameras with a Mini-Graflok back where you can attach a 6.5x9 cm ground glass and film back for sheet film. Don't ask me why...

Pete Watkins
20-Jan-2014, 02:14
You might think that you speak for Europe but imperial sized sheet film and paper have been, and still are, the standard in the U.K. Can't see that changing now. 13x18 film is so popular that it's like looking for Unicorn crap here in the UK, the film holders are dirt cheap here as well. Many of the smaller engineering companies also convert drawings to imperial sizes and use measuring instruments that are made working in inches.
Pete.

toyotadesigner
20-Jan-2014, 02:42
Pete, thanks a lot for this information, I didn't know that in the U.K. 13x18 film formats are still available. But I guess you mean b&w, not Fuji slide or Kodak Portra or Ektar films. The market for 5x7 and 13x18 is kind of dead in Germany, France, Spain, Italy...

Imperial sized sheet film is still around in Europe - as I said: Europe switched to the imperial system in film formats years ago. One exception: Ilford still manufactures b&w films for metric formats as well as for 5x7. Maybe that's because of the British heritage of Ilford, which now belongs to the Harman corporation. Ilford Switzerland went bankrupt last year, but they haven't been in the film business at all.

Dan Fromm
20-Jan-2014, 09:00
6x4.5 is a 4:3 ratio. 8x10 is a 4:5 ratio. 6x9 is a 3:2 ratio. 6x6 is a 1:1 ratio but never 8x10, so I don't see any correlation between these formats at all.

BTW, 6x9 is the gross format for one frame, whereas 2 ¼ x 3 ¼ (= 82,55 x 57,15mm) is the net format of the 6x9 frame. Simple as that. There has never been a roll film with the dimension of 2 ¼ inch wide - 6x9 has always been 2,3622047" wide (an excellent example why the Imperial system is too complicated for precision industries!). You should ask yourself why the US uses a net size to specify a film format...

If you want to be on the safe side, make sure the camera does have a Graflok back, so you can substitute the ground glass and film holder without hassle. Most Plaubel 9x12 cameras didn't have a Graflok back, if they had been manufactured for the European market. Surprisingly the 6x9 format cameras featured the Mini-Graflok system... only Arca offered the 6x9 cameras with a Mini-Graflok back where you can attach a 6.5x9 cm ground glass and film back for sheet film. Don't ask me why...

Interesting. I just measured a piece of 120 TMX, used dial calipers. As I measured it, 61.4 mm high, not 60 as I said earlier in this thread and you repeated. This is what I get for using a straight ruler and not making sure the film was absolutely flat the first time I measured. Spools (120, 620) flange-to-flange distances are slightly larger.

2.25" x 3.25" is an EKCo format. I can document that: the format was introduced no later than 1897 with the 1897 model Folding Pocket Kodak, which used #105 film. The first FPK was introduced in 1896, shot 3 3/4" x 4 3/4" on #103 film. #120 film was introduced no later than 1901.

In those days film was normally contact printed, not enlarged. EKCo's promotional literature described the sizes of images (print area of contact prints) Kodak cameras produced. I can't imagine how specifying a larger size can be anything but misleading.

What the roll film formats you mentioned, also 6x7, which you didn't mention, have in common is that cameras/roll holders for them all use 120, 220 or 620 film (EKCo designations, some European film manufacturers had their own designations for roll films of the same dimensions) and that the metric sizes you quoted are all poor approximations to the image sizes in inches.

Interesting that you bring up Plaubel cameras. The OP told us that he has a 4x5 Technika and that he asked whether 2x3 and 6x9 are the same because he wants to use a Linhof Super Rollex (nominal 6x9) and a Linhof finder on it.

If you can provide documentation that proves I'm mistaken, wonderful! I'd rather not carry around ideas that aren't so.

Bob Salomon
20-Jan-2014, 10:39
"The OP told us that he has a 4x5 Technika and that he asked whether 2x3 and 6x9 are the same because he wants to use a Linhof Super Rollex (nominal 6x9) and a Linhof finder on it."

He doesn't have a Super Rollex. He stated that he has the Rollex holder.
In the Linhof catalogs they list the following masks for their 45 finder:

4x5"
3 ¾ x 4 ¾" Polaroid Filmpack
9x12cm
2 ¾ x 5" / 6x12cm
2 ¼ x 3 ¼" / 6x9cm
2 ¼ x 2 ¾" / 6x7cm
2 ¼ x 2 ¼ / 6x6cm
2 ¼ x 2 ¾ / 6x7 cm for Rapid Rollex

Not all of these masks are still made.

For the 45 Super Rollex holder they list the following formats in their catalog:

2 ¼ x 2 ¼" / 6x6cm
2 ¼ x 2 ¾" / 6x7cm
2 ¼ x 3 ¼ / 6x9cm

Also listed is the Cine Rollex 70mm back which used perforated 70mm film and produced 6x7cm images. The Mamiya 70mm back for the RZ and RB also delivered 6x7cm so 120/220/620 are not the only roll backs to do so.

toyotadesigner
20-Jan-2014, 10:40
Interesting. I just measured a piece of 120 TMX, used dial calipers. As I measured it, 61.4 mm high, not 60 as I said earlier in this thread and you repeated. This is what I get for using a straight ruler and not making sure the film was absolutely flat the first time I measured. Spools (120, 620) flange-to-flange distances are slightly larger.

Out of curiosity I just measured a Fuji Provia 100F film: 61.2 mm. Now what? Seems there is a slight tolerance depending on the manufacturer's end. BTW, how do you measure 61.4 or 61.2 in imperial measurements? 61.2mm equals 2,4094488", 61.4mm equals 2,4173228" (are these dimensions 'poor approximations' or precise imperial measurements? :cool:). The spool size ranges from 62.5 to 63.0 mm (inner size). The old ones with the wood core are even a tad wider.


2.25" x 3.25" is an EKCo format. I can document that: the format was introduced no later than 1897 with the 1897 model Folding Pocket Kodak, which used #105 film. The first FPK was introduced in 1896, shot 3 3/4" x 4 3/4" on #103 film. #120 film was introduced no later than 1901.

In those days film was normally contact printed, not enlarged. EKCo's promotional literature described the sizes of images (print area of contact prints) Kodak cameras produced. I can't imagine how specifying a larger size can be anything but misleading.

I can't either. It's the net size of the film format vs. the gross size of the image. But they are known as 120 film (or MF for 'MittelFormat' or 60mm film in Germany). Enlightening, isn't it?


What the roll film formats you mentioned, also 6x7, which you didn't mention, have in common is that cameras/roll holders for them all use 120, 220 or 620 film (EKCo designations, some European film manufacturers had their own designations for roll films of the same dimensions) and that the metric sizes you quoted are all poor approximations to the image sizes in inches.

I'm sorry, I even forgot to mention the 6x8 format which had been very popular in Japan. Fuji even produced a short strip for the GW/GSW camera series for 4 images @ 6x9. The GW 680 had been developed for the 6x8 format, as well as the GX camera series, which featured the same ratio.


Interesting that you bring up Plaubel cameras. The OP told us that he has a 4x5 Technika and that he asked whether 2x3 and 6x9 are the same because he wants to use a Linhof Super Rollex (nominal 6x9) and a Linhof finder on it.

It was just an information for people who might be interested, nothing else. My apologize if this had been confusing.


If you can provide documentation that proves I'm mistaken, wonderful! I'd rather not carry around ideas that aren't so.

Just as a general information:
Linhof offers two formats (http://www.linhof.de/download_e/super-rollex_e.pdf) for the Super Rollex: 6x7 and 6x9 for Mini (or Pacemaker) Graflok and Graflok (International back). BTW, the term 'Graflok' is almost unknown in (continental) Europe.

Cameras 6x9: (Mini Graflok)
Format 6x7 – 001460
Format 6x9 – 001524

Linhof M 679/Linhof Techno: (I am not sure if they feature the Mini Graflok as well)
Format 6x9 – 001520

Internationales Rückteil 9x12/4x5”: (Graflok)
Format 6x7 – 001459
Format 6x9 – 001523

To cut the long story short: Of course the OP can use a '2x3' viewfinder for a 6x9 image format, but shouldn't care about one or two millimeters or 1/25.4th or 1/50.8th inch (use whichever measurement is more convenient to you).

Bob Salomon
20-Jan-2014, 10:41
It is fully half the size of the OP's 6x9 and 2x3 discussion, I simply never used it, I have always wanted bigger film, I also did not 'understand' half frame 35mm. My film life started, at age 7. with the extremely frustrating 8mm Minox cameras, where my father decided an enlarger was a worthless proposition. He managed to set me back several decades at least. Thus LF late in life.

Join the crowd. My father started me with a Minox 3B. First thing I learned with it on a field trip to the sub base at Groton was not to stand on the side of the road with a Minox and take pictures of subs through the chain link fence. The Navy took my film.

Bob Salomon
20-Jan-2014, 10:47
"Linhof M 679/Linhof Techno: (I am not sure if they feature the Mini Graflok as well)
Format 6x9 – 001520"

No, this back only fits onto the M679 cameras and the Techno camera.

dsphotog
20-Jan-2014, 11:24
How is one system of measure more precise than the other?


I always thought it was funny that tripod mounting thread is 1/4" or 3/8", ....Even if the rest of the tripod is metric.

StoneNYC
20-Jan-2014, 14:43
Join the crowd. My father started me with a Minox 3B. First thing I learned with it on a field trip to the sub base at Groton was not to stand on the side of the road with a Minox and take pictures of subs through the chain link fence. The Navy took my film.

Wait are you still near Groton? I'm about an hour away from there I-95 South. :)

Tin Can
20-Jan-2014, 15:01
Some things were standardized long ago in odd combinations. Like spark plugs (14mm x 3/4" is common) and car wheel sizes. Bearings were internationally all the same dimensions, at least they were until recently, I am out of that game. Then we have all kinds of marine length, depth, speed measurements.

I prefer 3/8-16 for a tripod head screw, so EU.

All 'precise' measurement are easily converted, we have done it for 95 years at my former employer.


How is one system of measure more precise than the other?


I always thought it was funny that tripod mounting thread is 1/4" or 3/8", ....Even if the rest of the tripod is metric.

Tin Can
20-Jan-2014, 15:08
Then I 'borrowed' his Pentax H3 and wow, contact prints I could actually see, but still no enlargement, so it became Kodachrome slide shows, and no more home film processing.

My mother shot a pic of a German sub off Los Angeles during the war. I wonder if I ever find that image again. I am looking.


Join the crowd. My father started me with a Minox 3B. First thing I learned with it on a field trip to the sub base at Groton was not to stand on the side of the road with a Minox and take pictures of subs through the chain link fence. The Navy took my film.

Jac@stafford.net
20-Jan-2014, 15:50
How is one system of measure more precise than the other?

I always thought it was funny that tripod mounting thread is 1/4" or 3/8", ....Even if the rest of the tripod is metric.

Both sizes, diameter and pitch, were metric before becoming 'American'.

Pete Watkins
21-Jan-2014, 02:01
Jac, as far as I know both those tripod mounting thread sizes are Whitworth, otherwise known as British Standard Whitworth. Whitworth invented/first designed the thread.
Pete

Bob Salomon
21-Jan-2014, 04:59
Wait are you still near Groton? I'm about an hour away from there I-95 South. :)

No, when that happened we lived in Darien. But have been in Morris County, NJ for the past 30 odd years.

StoneNYC
21-Jan-2014, 08:27
No, when that happened we lived in Darien. But have been in Morris County, NJ for the past 30 odd years.

Oh well, had to try, I'm near Bridgeport.

Bob Salomon
21-Jan-2014, 09:03
Oh well, had to try, I'm near Bridgeport.

A very long time ago I lived in Bridgeport and then in Long Hill.

My grandfather was the Desoto/Plymouth dealer in Bridgeport and he and his brothers were the Mopar distributor in NE. Today all that is left of all that is a cousin in New Haven who has the VW dealership.

StoneNYC
21-Jan-2014, 10:11
A very long time ago I lived in Bridgeport and then in Long Hill.

My grandfather was the Desoto/Plymouth dealer in Bridgeport and he and his brothers were the Mopar distributor in NE. Today all that is left of all that is a cousin in New Haven who has the VW dealership.

Hah! Small world... :)

DLee
22-Jan-2014, 09:18
Tug and Sub, Mare Island Straight, Mare Island Naval Shipyaryd (now closed), Vallejo, CA

109002

Dennis