Do I still need my dedicated 6x17 camera or is a back enough?

[sdzsdz]

Hi guys!

I´m an absolute fan of the 6x17 format. For me it is the best format in the world. Therefore I buyed a Fotoman 6x17 Camera and a Grandagon N 75. But since a few months I also use a Tachihara 4x5 and also like it a lot.

Now the question is:

- Do I still need the 6x17 camera? If I would sell it, I would have more space and less weight in my backpack and much more money in my pocket to buy a nice lens and some heck of films. And I can use all lenses for both formats!

- Can I make (with a good 6x17 back) the same high quality shots with sharpness from corner to corner with an wide angle lens (alignment of the lens is very important) on my 4x5 like on the dedicated 6x17 camera?

- Can I use 75mm with a recessed board on my Tachihara with a 6x17 back?

- Wich back is the best in terms of quality?

Would be very interested to hear your comments!

Best regards, Sebastian

[dave_whatever]

I don't think Tachihara's have a graflok back (most seem to have a basic spring back instead), in which case you can't use a 6x17 back with it. You would need a camera with a graflok back where the focussing screen unclips and can be removed, like a Shen Hao, Chamonix, Ebony, (most) Crown Graphics etc.

[hoffner]

Think of this in this way - there is a good reason why there are dedicated cameras for 6x17 and field cameras that can also take a 6x17 back. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. To name just one - you will never get the same alignment precision for your 75 mm lens on a field camera as you have on your Fotoman. The ideal of having one camera that does it all has yet to be reached.

[richardman]

Isn't there a pinned post on this? Any case, 617 back requires extension, so it's pretty bulky. I have a Chamonix F1 4x5 and a Shen Hao PTB617. Previously I owned a Fotoman 617. I think the two view cameras are less bulky than the Fotoman! I haven't taken both view cameras out together yet, but I bet it's doable.

[Bob Salomon]

How are you going to use it? I shoot with the Linhof 617 S III with the 72mm lens and most of the time I am hand holding it. Whether it is shooting in Death Valley, Moab or around the Golden Gate I prefer the freedom that hand holding this camera allows. And so far, for me, that works. So that would eliminate a back on a view camera for me!

And the easiest way on a view camera would be to just use split 57 rather then add a bulky back to a 45.

[Jac@stafford.net]

How are you going to use it? I shoot with the Linhof 617 S III with the 72mm lens and most of the time I am hand holding it.

I agree with Bob. I use 6x12 (and would love to have a Linhof 617), and an associate has used a Linhof Technorama (http://www.linhof.com/technorama-e.html) 617 for decades, mostly hand-held and even from the rolling deck of a ship (http://www.swipeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/swell_by-Stuart_Klipper.jpeg). (We joke that he is one of the few whose Technorama has paid for itself dozens of times over.)

In my modest experience the 617 backs for 4x5 are not good enough, they stick out the back too far, weigh too much, are a pain to focus.

[cgrab]

With a 4x5 camera and a 6x17 back you are limited to using lenses from about 110 to 180mm, give and take a bit depending on the model of camera and back. So you would need a very deeply recessed lensboard to be able to mount a 75mm, which would make handling the shutter and changing f-stops and speeds very cumbersome, if not outright impossible.

The advantage of a view camera compared to a fixed Fotoman/linhof/Fuji panoramic cameras, lies in the ability to use a larger selection of lenses, and to tilt and shift. With a 4x5 - 6x17 combo both advantages don't fully apply. If you really want only one camera, go for a 5x7 camera with 4x5 and 6x17 backs.

Finally, I agree with you, 6x17 is the best format in the world.
Best regards Christoph

[Bob Salomon]

With a 4x5 camera and a 6x17 back you are limited to using lenses from about 110 to 180mm, give and take a bit depending on the model of camera and back. So you would need a very deeply recessed lensboard to be able to mount a 75mm, which would make handling the shutter and changing f-stops and speeds very cumbersome, if not outright impossible.

The advantage of a view camera compared to a fixed Fotoman/linhof/Fuji panoramic cameras, lies in the ability to use a larger selection of lenses, and to tilt and shift. With a 4x5 - 6x17 combo both advantages don't fully apply. If you really want only one camera, go for a 5x7 camera with 4x5 and 6x17 backs.

Finally, I agree with you, 6x17 is the best format in the world.
Best regards Christoph
You can always add the Shift Adapter to the Linhof 617 S III. But it uses different lenses then the camera without the adapter. Different means different mounts.

[gregmo]

The dedicated 617 camera has a number of benefits over a view camera/ 617 back. Personally, I own a Gaoersi 617 which offers shift. Due to the light weight & smallish size, I can put the camera in places/ angles I could never do with a much heavier view camera. Also without the bellows, I can shoot in wind conditions with long exposures that I most likely would have trouble with otherwise.
If you ever have an interest in using longer lenses (ex. 180, 300mm) with the camera, a 4x5 won't allow for 617 coverage.

[richardman]

A dedicated 617 view camera, e.g. SH PTB617 is just over 2 lbs. MUCH lighter than the "P&S"

It's an advantage for wind resistance or long exposure though, hence I actually have a Gaoersi 4x5 PS...

[angusparker]

Worth a read on the various options in 6x17 and their advantages and disadvantages. Personally I would rate a 6x17 back on a 4x5 as the worst option. http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2014/1/review-of-shen-hao-ptb-617

[Grumium]

Although this is the large format forum where people tend to not like dedicated 617 by definition ... I love my Linhof. I am more into ULF 7x17 lately, but highly appreciate the advantages of the Linhof. This even more since I use the Canham. With the 617 I can shoot in almost every weather condition (where field cameras often fail), film is easy to load and carry, film development is way easier, etc.

116277

If you want to reduce the weight of your backpack, I'd suggest to leave one of both cameras at home and focus on using just one. This also applies for the number of lenses, the number of different types of film and possibly also for the number of films shot.

If you want to just have one camera capable for providing both formats, I'd sell the actual camera gear and buy a solid 5x7 (e.g. Mike Walker Titan for wide angle use). I wouldn't buy a dedicated 617 back as they are clumsy and add extra weight. 5x7 is easily cropped to 617 and any other format (smaller than 5x7) later in the process. You could mark different formats on the ground glass for easier composition.

[angusparker]

Although this is the large format forum where people tend to not like dedicated 617 by definition ... I love my Linhof. I am more into ULF 7x17 lately, but highly appreciate the advantages of the Linhof. This even more since I use the Canham. With the 617 I can shoot in almost every weather condition (where field cameras often fail), film is easy to load and carry, film development is way easier, etc.

116277

If you want to reduce the weight of your backpack, I'd suggest to leave one of both cameras at home and focus on using just one. This also applies for the number of lenses, the number of different types of film and possibly also for the number of films shot.

If you want to just have one camera capable for providing both formats, I'd sell the actual camera gear and buy a solid 5x7 (e.g. Mike Walker Titan for wide angle use). I wouldn't buy a dedicated 617 back as they are clumsy and add extra weight. 5x7 is easily cropped to 617 and any other format (smaller than 5x7) later in the process. You could mark different formats on the ground glass for easier composition.

+1

[IanG]

I agree with Angus that a 6x17 back is the worst option for shooting with a 75mm, which is the only lens I use for 6x17 on a dedicated camera.

However I often shoot 5x4 & 6x17 and am about to build a dedicated camera that can shoot both formats, I'm using the focus track from a Speed Graphic with a Super Graphic front standard to allow for movements. I bought a large box of Graflex parts from Paris (France) last year and have already modified the Super Graphic front standard to fit any any Speed/Crown Graphic track (inc per-Anniversary).

The idea is to have a hand holdable dual format camera with a 6x17 and a 5x4 back, I currently shoot hand-held with a Super or Crown Graphic and a Gaoersi 617 when tripods aren't permitted.

Ian

[richardman]

I would love to have a hybrid view camera that can take either a 4x5 or 6x17 back!!! Hand-holdable not a requirements for me...

[richardman]

I love the way Shen Hao PTB617 solves the ground glass issue: a flip down ground glass that you can then attach a 617 roll film back. It would take some good engineering skills to design a back holder that can take both 4x5 and 617 backs and provide ground glass viewing for both!

[IanG]

I love the way Shen Hao PTB617 solves the ground glass issue: a flip down ground glass that you can then attach a 617 roll film back. It would take some good engineering skills to design a back holder that can take both 4x5 and 617 backs and provide ground glass viewing for both!

You just gave me an idea and it may not be too difficult at all, some lateral thinking is needed. I had initially planned to use 2 separate backs & focus screens.

If I made a book-form style back as used on older British Field cameras I could flip the focus panel up and slide the 6x17 or 5x4 back into place. I've already made adapters to allow me to use a Graflex RH10 RF holder on a Quarter plate Houghton Victo, and another to use modern 5x4 DDS with a Half plate Houghton Duchess so I know it works. I'll have the advantage of making the backs from scratch so have full control over the register.

The 5x4 part would be like a Graflok back without any focus screen so relatively light weight.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

I would love to have a hybrid view camera that can take either a 4x5 or 6x17 back!!! Hand-holdable not a requirements for me...

Not exactly what you want, but the idea will work for you. Some years ago I was given a Cambo SC-1. I'd been shooting 2x3 with Graphics, had many lenses on 2x3 Pacemaker Graphic board. SKGrimes attached a 2x3 Pacemaker front standard to a 2x3 Cambo board so that I could use my lenses on Graphic boards on the Cambo. When I decided that I wanted to shoot 6x12, I got a 6x12 roll holder that attaches to a Graflok-type back, a 4x5 Cambo standard with Graflok type of back, a Cambo-made pleated bellows that attaches to a 2x3 standard at one end and to a 4x5 standard at the other. Since I like short lenses, I made a simple bag bellows that attaches to a 2x3 Cambo standard at one end and to a 4x5er at the other.

Your situation is parallel to mine. The 5x7 Cambo SC-3 uses a 4x5 front standard at the front and a 5x7 standard at the rear. There are reducing backs (5x7 to 4x5) for it, or you can take my approach and carry a 4x5 Cambo, 5x7 rear standard, and 5x7 pleated bellows. If the pleated bellows won't let you use lenses as short as you want, making a short ugly stepped bag bellows isn't that hard.

[cgrab]

I would love to have a hybrid view camera that can take either a 4x5 or 6x17 back!!! Hand-holdable not a requirements for me...

Canham 5x7 cameras, either traditional or metal, would fit the bill. of course, you would still have to change the back of the camera, which is easily done, and then use the appropiate film holder or rollfilm back.

One of the advantages of the 6x17 rollfilm back, which in my opinion compensates for its extra weight, is the small size of the actual film. A roll of 120 is quite a bit smaller and lighter than a 5x7 film holder, and both are good for four 6x17s. The more pictures you intend to take, the more this favours the 6x17 back.

[richardman]

The Canham is a good possibility. However, if one has the money to commission one, or skillful enough to make one, I suspect one can make a 4x5+617 hybrid that is about not much bigger than a 4x5. The Shen Hao PTB617 is quite small and similar weight as the Chamonix F1. This is important to me as I am a small person.

[Carsten Wolff]

It isn't necessarily a case of either/or though anyway:
I have a Canham 617 back:
I use it on my Arca-Swiss 5x7,
made a dedicated P&S front for it, turning it into a hand-holdable panorama camera (75mm SW-Nikkor)
and also use it on a third, (obviously also custom made, waterproof, tilt-lens) camera.

Main reason for having it is useability: Apart from handling issues, there is less stuffing around with split darkslides and also the sparse number of 5x7 color emulsions about.

[Joshua Dunn]

I have posted on this a few times so if I am repeating myself I apologize.

I shoot my Canham 6x17 back on a modified Sinar 5x7 standard. Because the Sinar system is modular I shoot 4x5, 6x17 and 8x10 by switching out the rear standard and bellows and adding rail extensions as needed. Its easier than hauling multiple cameras around. The nice part of using 6x17 on the Sinar is you have infinite movements and can use any lens that you can match a bellows and rail combination to. I have shot from 72mm to 600mm on the Canham 6x17 back.

As far as being "better" to have dedicated a 6x17 camera there is no one answer for that. It certainly depends on how you photograph. While my setup is incredibly versatile it is large and requires a large tripod. I can create images that a dedicated camera cannot however the portability of a dedicated 6x17 camera opens up possibilities that my setup might not be able to create. For example years ago I photographed a wedding with a Linhof 6x17 camera. Because of the portability of that camera I was able to get some really nice images but would not have been able to get any of them with my current Sinar. But if you only use one or maybe two lenses and don't use movements (although some dedicated cameras have limited movements) a dedicated camera may be a better choice.

Cameras are tools. There is no one tool that is right for every job. You need to find the best tool for how you work.

-Joshua