Newbie camera advice for landscapes. 6x9?

[Pigeon]

Hi all,

I need some advice on purchasing a camera system for landscape work (as I have never used a view/field camera before).

1. Is the 6x9 format too small for landscape work in terms of final print size? Can I assume 16x20 sized prints would be the max enlargement?

The 6x9 is appealing because:
-I already own a Nikon 9000 scanner which would be perfect for 6x9 scans.
-Being able to bracket exposures using 120 film plus cheaper to buy and more lab-accessible for processing.
-I am of small(ish) build and weight/portability is an issue.

2. Is an Arca-Swiss F metric compact (either 4x5 or 6x9) overkill in terms of movements and features for landscape work? For instance, are yaw-free movements, geared movements so helpful?

Should I be looking for a simpler, lighter system such as the Ebony's? I do like wideangles in my 35mm work, so I would need a system to cope with 20-21mm equiv. in 35mm format.

3. Are there any web links to photos of this particular Arca Swiss camera with photographers (or their hands) using the camera, so I have an idea of the size of the camera?

Apologies for so many questions (but I am a newbie!).

Any advice or comments appreciated.

Thanks.

[Vaughn]

I assume you want to stick with roll film, so 6x9 will make fine 16x20 enlargements.

Yes, I believe yaw-free movements are over-kill for landscapes (note...personal opinion, your milage may differ.)

I suggest getting a 4x5 field camera so that you have the option of going 4x5 if you wish and then using roll backs to fit it for the use of 120 roll film. Field cameras can weigh under 4 pounds.

I use to have a chart that gave me the equivilent focal lenghts for different formats -- can't find it. But as an example, 28mm on a 35mm camera is comparable to 55mm on a 6x7 and a 90mm on a 4x5. A comparative lens for 6x9 that would be close to 20mm on 35mm would be around 45mm...which is expensive and might need a center filter to even out the exposure...new about $1800+ for lens and filter.

You would also need a camera with a bag bellows for a lens that short. But I don't shoot that wide, so others might be better to answer that question.

vaughn

[Jiri Vasina]

I'm not using view cameras that long, but from my experience so far, you don't need that wide a lens as you would need to use on a 35mm. The composition can usually be taken using camera movements with a slightly longer lens... But that might only be my initial impression, someone of you gurus please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Dan Fromm]

Vaughn, 47 Super Angulons see about the same angles of view on nominal 6x9 as a 21 mm lens sees on 24x36. They're all used now, and early f/5.6s can be had for considerably less than the $1800+ you quoted. I'm quite happy with the one I use on my Century Graphic, don't feel the need for a center filter even with E-6 film.

Pigeon, FWIW I shoot landscapes with a 2x3 camera that has practically no movements. ~ 10 mm front rise, sometimes useful for lowering the horizon/disappearing the foreground. I've rarely hit situations where it wouldn't do.

[Vaughn]

Thanks Dan!

I was looking at a 3 year old cataloge (Calumet) for the prices. (Grandagons and Super Angulon XL's).

I imagine that a lens that short (47mm) would eliminate the need for a lot of camera movement due to its large depth of field. I probably should not have posted since I have little experience with wide angle lenses on 6x9 or 4x5. But I am waiting for 8x10 negs to wash and got bored!

I assume that your bellows on your 2x3 can easily handle a 47mm. That might make a difference to Pigeon between getting a dedicated 6cmx7cm camera or going up to 4x5.

Would going to 4x5 with a 47mm Super Angulon require (or just work easier with) a center filter for E-6?

vaughn

[eric black]

FWIW lenses and equipment aside; I find that a 2x3 is such a tiny camera that my fat fingers have a bit of a problem working with them- when the light is changing and you need to work fast, a 4x5 is a much easier format to get into position, get a good image on the screen and then capture and image with. Before going with a 2x3 I would recommend using one- I think Photomark in Phoenix rents them and AZ is a marvelous place to get the feel for what you will ultimately spend some serious $$ on. Im sure there are other rental possiblities wherever you are inclined to test something out.

As for the lens I also used to do quite a bit of wide angle work and find that with 4x5 my widest work seems to be in the 80mm range despite owning wider lenses.

For features, I have never complained about the number of features on my Arca F-line and have used every one of them at some point or another; but for a beginner make sure that you have at a minimum back movements- most people I shoot with dont even really make use of the front movements.

Good luck

[Ted Harris]

Vaughn, using a 47mm can eliminate the use of shifts or rise and fall in terms of how you frame the picture and what real estate you capture but it is not going to chang th need to use swings and tilts, in fact might even increae it in some instances. As for the use of a center filter, most shooting situations will require the use of one for any film unless you like dark corners.

As for the original question, as others have sated, there is little sense to a 6x9 dedicated camera as there is precious little size ad weight difference beetween the dedicted 6x9 cameras and many lightweight 4x5's. If you go to this Forum's Home Page you will find many articles comparing the relative merits of a wide range of 4x5 cameras. The ony Ebony model that falls into the real lightweight category is th RW. Others such as Tachihara and Horseman rival it. All hae different features. You are likely to find that your eye views the world differently in 4x5 than it does in 35mm; thus, you may find you have less interest in a lens as wide as 47mm ... that a 58mm or even a 75mm works well for you. Also remember that none of the folding cameras that I can think of are capable of easily handling a 47mm lesn if you want movements unless you use a bag bellows. The Arca or the comperable Toyo VX125 are always good choices if you want a rail camera that works well in the field.

[Pigeon]

Thanks everybody for your comments so far.

Would anyone know how a 6x9 slide scanned with a Nikon 9000 compares to a 4x5scanned with an Epson v750 for example at a print size of 16x20?

Would the better quality Nikon scanner bring more tonality to the scan and thus the final print, or would the less magnification favour the 4x5 scan, thus producing an optically superior print?

[Nick_3536]

Camera weights are often over worried about with LF. You can find LF cameras lighter then some 35mm cameras. LF lenses tend to be fairly light unless they take large shutters.


On the wide angle thing. Don't assume you will have the same feelings with bigger cameras. I don't like wide angles much on 35mm but with each bigger camera I tend to get wider.

[Ken Lee]

We have to answer the question of film size ourselves. Image quality is highly subjective, and is influenced not only by choice of film and lenses, but also by print viewing distance, lighting conditions, and choice of subject.

The same scene can often appear much sharper when shot in angular sunshine under a clear sky, than when shot in overcast light.

Since you have mentioned 16x20, this suggests that you will be cropping your 6x9 negatives down to 6x7. If that's the case, then consider getting a 6x7 back, since this will give you more shots per roll.

To go from 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 to 16 x 20 is an enlargement of roughly 7X. If you plan to print at 360 ppi, this means you need to scan at 7x360 or 2500 ppi - which the Nikon can deliver.

If we ignore film, this suggests that a lens which gives 80 lp/mm will print out at 80/7 or 11 lp/mm, which is just in-range for appearing sharp to the average viewer. If we toss in some image degradation from the scanner itself (since every step involves some loss of info), then we really are at the limit. If you intend to crop further, then the enlargement factor grows larger, and image quality declines accordingly.

There is a reason why 4x5 is such a popular format: people find it to be a "sweet-spot" - the convergence of portability, quality, and affordability, not to mention the availability of equipment, lenses, and accessories both new and used.

Once you add up all the equipment, such as camera, tripod, meter, film, holders, backs, etc. the difference between MF and 4x5 view cameras becomes negligable. Add to that, the fact that you only develop the film that you shoot, and that each shot can be processed individually, and you drift further towards 4x5.

[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 (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[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 (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Pigeon]

Thanks again to you all for your comments. :)

Th choice between 6x9 and 4x5 is more difficult than I had anticipated with many pros and cons.

I may end up with an entry level 4x5, like the Shen Hao or the Ebony RW45E, and only one lens and 'practice'. Once I am more confident re: which movements I require for my style of shooting, I will consider upgrading to an Arca Swiss.

Cheers.