Linhof for 6x9?

[Wheelie52]

Hi all,

I'm a very infrequent vistor here but that may change. I've been using a Bronica RF645 occasionally but don't see a huge advantage over 35mm to be honest and would really like to move to 6x9. I've thought about a Fuji GW/GWS? but the idea of the fixed lenses is not that appealing. I saw a Linhof Technica for sale recently on RFF and was totally besotted with it's looks and I understand that certain model Linhofs take 6x9 roll backs for 120 film. What models have this capability and what would be a reasonable price for a camera with a couple of backs and possibly two or three lenses?

I used my Crown Graphic for the first time the other day and was totally blown away by the experience though they are a large beastie to lug around. How does the Linhof compare size and weight wise to the Graphic?

Thanking you for any advice opinions in advance! :)

[Bill_1856]

The 4x5 Linhof Technika is slightly smaller than the Crown, and a LOT heavier and more clumsy to use (it also has more lens and back movements available).
You can use the same 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 backs on your Crown that you would use on a Linhof.
I don't think that you will get any substantial improvement over the RF645 until you go to full 4x5.

[Brian Ellis]

The Crown weighs about a pound and a half more than a 4x5 Technika (about 4.8 lbs vs about 6.2 lbs) without lenses. But you get more camera in terms of movements (especially front forward tilt, perhaps the most common movement with LF cameras, which the Technika has and the Crown doesn't), quality of construction, accessories, etc. I've owned two Technikas and haven't found them clumsy to use relative to any other 4x5 camera. They're beautifully engineered and constructed, everything locks where it's supposed to lock, everything works very easily and smoothly. Great cameras. Personally I wouldn't buy a 4x5 camera for the sole purpose of using it with medium format film but some people do.

[Bob Salomon]

All Linhof 6x9 and 4x5 cameras accept 6x9 roll backs for 120 film.

[ic-racer]

When I was looking at 6x9 I almost got a Fuji, but for the price I wound up getting a Horseman 6x9 system. I think that because the Horseman is less expensive than the Linhof, the parts and lenses are easier to find. I was able to get all 8 Horseman lenses and cams without much trouble (read 'expense').

Image quality? It is right where it would be expected; in between 6x6cm and 4x5in. I think you will see a significant improvement in 11x14s and 16x20s over your 6x4.5 system.

[Wheelie52]

Probably a stupid question but when you use a 6x9 film back on a 5x4 camera how do you frame the subject. I've seen focusing screens with lines etched into them for the different format and was wondering if this is the way it goes!

[Ash]

Personally I love the RF645, and I use it with pride. Then again I prefer the ergonomics to a lot of 35mm cameras.

I can't help with your choice, I've not gone the way of 6x9. Most will etch or pencil lines for smaller formats onto the GG, or use a masking frame.

[Peter K]

Lines on the ground glass is one possibility. Or a mask laid over the focusing screen. For the hand-held camera masks are aviable for the view finder.

[Vlad Soare]

If you only want to use rollfilm, you could try a Baby Technika.

[neil poulsen]

Do you like wide angle photography, or would be content with longer lenses?

If you like wide-angle photography, then it depends on whether you have to drop the front bed of a Technika 4x5 to avoid its interfering with the picture? (Like for a 75mm or a 65mm lens?) If so, you end up having to focus the lens on a slant. So, the closer you focus the lens towards the film, the more rise you obtain. Or, there's a special focusing device you can get that allows you to have independent adjustment of both rise and focus.

I owned a Technika IV 6x9 camera. But, rise with a 65mm was restricted by the inside of the camera's body or by the viewfinder. I've been told the same occurs with a 75mm lens. Yet, a 75mm is only a moderate wide-angle with 6x9 film. I sold it.

I'd say there are better options for 6x9 than either or these cameras. If you like wide angles and also like Linhof build quality, you might consider a used Linhof 6x9 Technikardon? Very neat and clever camera, and it can handle any wide angle for 6x9. I've seen a couple of these recently sell on EBay.

[Mattg]

Hi Wheelie,
I use a 6x9cm monorail as my only camera and am happy to accept the compromises that come with this format. You do need to be aware of the compromises though as they are significant and may lead to disappointment.

The only reason to use a 6x9cm view camera is if you really need camera movements and you are going to use rollfilm exclusively. As Neil said, the use of wide angle lenses almost requires a monorail camera. Bill's comment that you won't gain a lot of extra quality is also correct because you will be using lenses designed for 4x5" on a smaller format and they just don't resolve as well as your MF Bronica lenses. The lenses will also often be limited to use between about F16 and F32 for acceptable quality. There should still be some increase in image quality if you choose your lenses and films carefully and are meticulous about setting up the camera; but it won't be huge.

If you want a significant step up in quality then a Mamiya 7 might fit the bill.

If you want movements and a significant step-up in quality then a 4x5 camera is the go. Be aware that there are the same pitfalls to flat bed cameras in this size if you need to focus and shift wide angle lenses being used for rollfilm.

If you really want camera movements, are happy to accept only a slight increase in image quality and are happy to only use rollfilm, then perhaps a 6x9cm view camera is the right choice.

[Dan Fromm]

I don't agree with Neil's suggestion that a monorail is necessary for shooting with short lenses. He's right that a press/technical/field camera's bed has to be dropped with lenses much shorter than normal. That's one more thing to remember and one more step in setting up and taking down, but isn't a killer.

As a counter example to the idea that a monorail is necessary with short lenses, people I know have used a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon on Century Graphics. And I shoot 38/4.5 Biogon (does not cover 2x3), 47/5.6 SA, 58/5.6 Grandagon, 65/8 Ilex (much like an f/8 SA), and 80 WF Ektar on my Century. From the 58 up, all of these lenses work on my 2x3 Speed too. In fact, the 58 is better used on the Speed since on the Century it makes infinity with the front standard on the bed's hinge. From 80 mm up the bed doesn't have to be dropped.

2x3 Graphics have practically no useful movements so are a poor choice in some situations. FWIW, one of my neighbors has a cute little 6x9 Cambo and a 6x9 Technikardan and has offered me a long term loan of either. So far I haven't found a compelling reason to accept his generous offer. But then, I've been dithering about whether to buy a 2x3 Galvin since the mid-'80s.

For me, where a monorail (or a tailboard camera) has greatest appeal is in photomacrography. There are, for example, some focal length/magnification combinations in which a Graphic's bed will interfere with the subject. A monorail can be set up with all of the camera behind the front standard.

Cheers,

Dan

[Mattg]

That's interesting to hear Dan. I still think that flatbeds would be limited in some circumstances although I can see they're quite acceptable in others.

In my case I use a 65mm lens, which isn't very wide. The thing is that I find myself using rear rise for about 15% of my shots; they tend to be urban landscapes. I had been a bit dismissive about field cameras because I thought they would really struggle with this without mounting them upside down. Is this something you come across often and how do you get around it?

I guess the other reason I had dismissed them is that I regularly find myself using quite a bit of parallel movements, for instance 3cm of rise or shift. Again it's for a specific subject matter and might be a bit unusual but I had thought flatbeds would stuggle. Do you often find yourself having to use indirrect parallel movements?

I have long lusted after a late model Super Technika 6x9 but really didn't think it would be suitable for me, even though it would be great to have a rangefinder with movements.

[David A. Goldfarb]

On a 2x3" Technika, the front standard has tilt, rise and shift. If you want front drop without mounting the camera upside down, you can turn it on its side and use shift, since the back rotates 360 degrees.

Mine doesn't have front swings (Tech V 23b), so to do an indirect shift, if you ran out of regular shift, that would also require turning the camera on its side and using front and rear tilt.

Indirect front rise would be straightforward. Indirect front drop would require mounting the camera upside down.

[Bob Salomon]

I have long lusted after a late model Super Technika 6x9 but really didn't think it would be suitable for me, even though it would be great to have a rangefinder with movements.

The rangefinder does not work with movements.

[Mattg]

The rangefinder does not work with movements.

At first that seems obvious Bob, but then, why wouldn't it work with parallel movements? Apart from the missalignment in the viewfinder, wouldn't the rangefinder still give accurate focus?

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're only using rise or shift, direct or indirect (and with indirect movements, you'll need to be very accurate about keeping the standards parallel), then the rangefinder should be accurate, but with parallel movements, the infinity stops won't likely be in the right place anymore, so you would need to check the groundglass.

It's unlikely that you would ever work that way, because once you start using movements, it makes sense to look at the groundglass, and if you're looking at the groundglass, you might as well use a loupe and focus that way. Occasionally in low light, maybe, I've confirmed focus in that situation with the rangefinder, but it's something I would do rarely.

[neil poulsen]

I don't agree with Neil's suggestion that a monorail is necessary for shooting with short lenses. He's right that a press/technical/field camera's bed has to be dropped with lenses much shorter than normal. That's one more thing to remember and one more step in setting up and taking down, but isn't a killer.

Didn't say a monorail was necessary for short lenses on 6x9. But, can say that a monorail is my preference for short lenses on 6x9.

For example, there's a couple of 6x9 Ebony's that would work for short lenses on 6x9.

Isn't there a 6x9 Technika that has a flap on top for greater rise on short lenses, similar to the Master Technikas? (Not sure, though.)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Isn't there a 6x9 Technika that has a flap on top for greater rise on short lenses, similar to the Master Technikas? (Not sure, though.)

Yes, the version I have does--Tech V 23b--the last version. Earlier ones like mine are tan, and the last ones are black, but they are otherwise identical. My widest lenses are 55mm and 65mm, and the flap does come in handy for them. I don't think it would be useful for a 47mm or 45mm, which would probably require a focus mount and would sit on the inner rails of the camera most likely. For the time being I've decided that if I need a lens that wide, I'll just shoot 4x5", since my 55mm lens covers 4x5" and Tech 23 lensboards work directly on the wideangle focusing device for the 4x5" camera.