PDA

View Full Version : 617 vs 4x10'' format



ambroz
18-Dec-2008, 04:25
I am (still) buying a panoramic camera, mainly shoot landscapes. My style is 'setup and wait for the light', not 'point and shoot'. I like the idea of GG for precise composing and ability to tilt for getting more DOF.

So I intended to buy 617 view camera (Ebony / Shen Hao 617 type), not the rangefinder type (Linhof, Fotoman, ...). But - if I am buying a panoramic view camera, why not 4x10'' format?

1. What's the difference between 6x17 cm an 4x10 inch on big prints (40'' = 1m wide and bigger)?

2. Large format lenses have best sharpness at f16-f22. That's where 617 format works OK. But for 4x10, apertures of f32 - f90 must be used, that's where diffraction occurs, I believe. Isn't better then to use sharp 617 transparencies than 4x10?

3. Is groundglass on 617 camera big enough to see, if both foreground and background are sharp?

Ambroz

David A. Goldfarb
18-Dec-2008, 05:03
If the lenses cover 4x10", I don't see why you think you need f:32 and smaller for the larger format. I use my 8x10" lenses for 4x10", and I often shoot around f:22 for landscapes. I suppose you might want smaller apertures if you are using the camera for interiors or tabletop work, but since you say you are shooting landscapes, I don't think that would be necessary.

I've done 6x17cm with a DaYi 6x17 back and 4x10" with a half-darkslide mask on an 8x10" camera, and I'd say my 4x10" results have been better than 6x17cm, even though I used more modern lenses with the 6x17cm back. I don't make huge prints in general, but a larger original will almost always give you a better result, all things being roughly equal (and even somewhat unequal), and presuming the inconvenience of the larger camera doesn't stand in the way of getting the shot in the first place.

I didn't have any difficulty using the 6x17 groundglass.

The main attractions of the 6x17 back to me were convenience, because it fit on a smaller 4x5" camera, and I could use it handheld with rangefinder focus on my Linhof Technika. On the other hand, if I'm shooting 8x10", I always have the 4x10" mask in the bag, since it doesn't weigh much or take up too much space.

Bruce Watson
18-Dec-2008, 06:44
1. What's the difference between 6x17 cm an 4x10 inch on big prints (40'' = 1m wide and bigger)?

More film area means less enlargement for the same print size. This in turn means less perceived graininess and more perceived sharpness. You can't beat more square inches.


2. Large format lenses have best sharpness at f16-f22. That's where 617 format works OK. But for 4x10, apertures of f32 - f90 must be used, that's where diffraction occurs, I believe. Isn't better then to use sharp 617 transparencies than 4x10?

First, your supposition is problematic. There's nothing about 4x10 format that says you have to use apertures below f/32. Aperture choice is still the photographers to make.

And again, for the same size print, you have less enlargement of the 4x10 film over the 6x17 film. Apparent sharpness may actually be better for the 4x10 film simply because of the lower enlargement ratio.


3. Is groundglass on 617 camera big enough to see, if both foreground and background are sharp?

No idea. Never seen one.

Dominique Cesari
18-Dec-2008, 08:22
3. Is groundglass on 617 camera big enough to see, if both foreground and background are sharp?
Yes, with the aid of a magnifier. But with short lenses, the corners are really dim.
And one of the most attractive feature of the Linhof/Fuji/Fotoman/Gaoersi style 617 cameras is the ability to use them without a groundglass.

keeds
18-Dec-2008, 08:28
How are you going to create you final images. Scanning or traditional enlarger? 6x17 can be done on a 5x7 enlarger. 4x10 will obviously need an 8x10 enlarger. Also it might be easier to scan a 6x17 neg than a 4x10?

Nick_3536
18-Dec-2008, 09:20
The obvious 6x17 is almost 3:1. 4x10 is 2.5x1.

My 8x10 is my 4x10 is my 6x17. I'd rather have one bigger camera with multiple backs then three cameras. Admittly my Shen FCL-810 isn't that heavy in 8x10 terms. so it's not a big hardship

David A. Goldfarb
18-Dec-2008, 09:28
And one of the most attractive feature of the Linhof/Fuji/Fotoman/Gaoersi style 617 cameras is the ability to use them without a groundglass.

But, if your camera has an accessory shoe, like my Technika, or if it is possible to install one, you can add a 6x17 viewfinder.

Ken Lee
18-Dec-2008, 09:29
If you shoot roll film in black and white, it is hard to control the development of an individual shot. With sheet film, you can.

With roll film, you have to develop the entire roll, whether you have exposed it all, or not. With sheet film, you only have to develop the exposed sheets.

On the other hand, roll film generally lets you shoot several shots in succession, more quickly, and you only need to carry one holder.

Nick_3536
18-Dec-2008, 09:32
True but it's only 4 shots on a 6x17 roll.

David Vickery
18-Dec-2008, 10:13
As far as the ground glass goes, if you are using a loop that has to touch the ground glass for you to see a sharp image then you will not be able to see the top and bottom of the g.glass very well-if at all near the edges. The larger size of the 4x10 ground glass will be much easier to compose and focus on.

The diffraction limitation of lenses is not a relevant issue/concern for these formats, in my opinion. It is certainly not anywhere near reason enough to not use the larger format.

I believe that the 4x10 would be easier to use in every regard, including processing, composing, scanning, etc., except possibly for film loading--that will take a little more time and be less convenient than roll film.

David A. Goldfarb
18-Dec-2008, 10:17
Well, if you're thinking of a dedicated 4x10" camera, there are issues of film and filmholder availability and cost, and the need to cut down film, if you want films that don't come in 4x10", for instance if you shoot color.

Nick_3536
18-Dec-2008, 10:22
Shen Hao makes [or at least sells] 4x10 holders. I think Ebony might sell the same ones.

Does anybody stock 4x10 film? I always figured it was a cut your own. So no better/worse then 8x10.

Brian Vuillemenot
18-Dec-2008, 19:41
I see the 6X17 and 4X10 cameras as distinctly different beasts. The 6X17s, such as Fuji, Linhoff, and Fotoman, are basically medium format cameras that are overgrown in the horizontal direction. They offer quick and easy workability, not needing a dark cloth, and don't really need any movements to be useful. On the other hand, dedicated 4X10 cameras, as well as 8X10s with half darkslides, are large format cameras offering larger film, movement capabilities, and a generally different work ethic and connection to the user. I have used all three (Fuji 6X17, dedicated 4X10, and 8X10 with half darkslide) for a number of years now, and each has it's advantages depending on the subject. Choosing which to take on a photo trip is a matter of "the best tool for the job".

What I don't understand is the appeal of these 6X17 view cameras that have recently appeared. I will preface this with the fact that I've never used one, but to me they seem to offer serious disadvantages of both the "point and shoot" 6X17s and those of using a true view camera. My Fuji 6X17 is a great camera since I don't have to use a dark cloth, can use it in windy and inclement weather, and can set it up and take a shot very quickly. With a 4X10, you get an appreciably larger piece of film which makes a huge difference, particularly if you're going to be enlarging to big sizes or are using a consumer flatbed scanner to make your prints. With scans from my 4990, I can make 12X30 prints that look fantastic, but the same size print from a 6X17 scan looks soft and mushy. With a 6X17 view camera, why would you want to buy a camera that has small film size and more limited usability?

You really don't need as many movements using a panoramic format as you would for a regular format, so the value of them on a 6X17 view camera is not entirely clear to me. And the price of the Ebony 6X17 is pretty shocking, especially since it's more than their 4X10 and some of their 8X10s!

Of course, as mentioned above, dedicated 4X10 cameras have many issues of their own, first and foremost the lack of film holders and other support available. In B&W, there's only one emulsion available in that size- Berger (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)- and while it's not too difficult to cut 8X10 film in half in the dark, it's tedious and is another step in an already long and challenging process. But the main reason that stoped me from using a dedicated 4X10 is the lack of available E6 processing. If you're doing B&W and/or have a Jobo to do it yourself, it's not a big deal, but I have yet to find a commercial lab that will do 4X10 E6 at a reasonable price. A local camera store was charging me more per 4X10 sheet than I can get an 8X10 processed for if I send it out, which, or course, has 2 4X10 exposures on it!

So, for me, I will continue to shoot both 6X17 and 4X10, but not with dedicated 6X17 or 4X10 view cameras. I carry my Fuji along with my 8X10, and, by carrying a 4X5 back and a half darkslide, I can shoot any of 4 formats, depending on what the light, subject, and mood dictate.

ambroz
19-Dec-2008, 00:28
It is getting clear to me, that 617 view camera has disadvantages of both worlds (medium and large format): 'small' film size and slow workflow. I also think, 6x17 shots that need tilt are rare.

Drum scanned 617 transparency should be OK, I believe. OTOH, I compared 6x17 and 4x10'' film formats and the difference in size really is enormous.

I'll probably go for Fotoman, for it has best price/performance ratio (my opinion only). But in the future maybe I'll try 4x10. Christopher Burkett also has Hasselblad for fast work and 8x10 for dedicated shots.

Ambroz

randy larson
19-Dec-2008, 09:04
I shoot 4x5 with an Ebony and 6x17cm with a Fotoman, which I like very much. I will probably try the Shen Hao 6x17 view camera, and these are my reasons: I really like the 6x17 format and using roll film. Most of my panoramic prints are sold at 17"x50" and the image quality from a drum scan is terrific. I will be able to use most of my 4x5 lenses, up to 300mm. On the Fotoman I use a 90mm and 180mm combo, and shoot the longer lens much more frequently. The Fotoman is not as handy with longer lenses because of the bulk of the cones, and changing lenses is clumsy. The Shen Hao may give me the opportunity to dayhike with the 4x5/6x17 in one (large) backpack. I shoot 90% of my work or more composing off the groundglass, so the slower but familiar use of the Shen Hao is not much of an issue. I think the view camera 617 and the Fotoman type systems are complimentary and fill different roles. I also want to say that the results I have gotten from the Fotoman have been terrific and I would recommend highly. I will keep mine for now to compliment the Shen Hao. I have a good friend that shoots with a dedicated 4x10 and gets terrific results. For me the convenience of roll film and the attraction of the 6x17 format are the deciding issues.
Randy

Scott Morgan
19-Dec-2008, 19:49
... mainly shoot landscapes. My style is 'setup and wait for the light', not 'point and shoot'. I like the idea of GG for precise composing and ability to tilt for getting more DOF.

So I intended to buy 617 view camera (Ebony / Shen Hao 617 type), not the rangefinder type (Linhof, Fotoman, ...). But - if I am buying a panoramic view camera, why not 4x10'' format?
Ambroz

Hi Ambroz,
I have been mulling over the exact same thing with the same use. I like the panoramic format and want to start shooting it (have a 4x5 now). I would love to have the $$$ to buy a Fuji or Linhof 6x17, however with a 3-lens kit you're talking serious money, and those lenses are dedicated to the camera.

Dedicated lenses as well for the Fotoman and Gaoersi, because your lenses for those won't be dual use....you won't be changing out the lens onto a lensboard for view camera use too often.

So, for me, on a budget, it boiled down to having the ability to use my same lenses on both my 4x5 and on a future panoramic camera. (So my 4-lens kit will be ones that cover the 4x10 format, and of course are on lensboards common to both cameras.)
Scott

Mr_Toad
21-Dec-2008, 17:27
Just a comment...

I've just ordered a Shen-Hao 617 bellows pano camera...and I'm quite anxious to receive it, because I already have a Shen-Hao 4x5...and both cameras use the same lens boards. This will be a great benefit, versus the need to unattach/ reattach one of my 4x5 lens to an expensive Pano lens adapter, just to shoot pano.

Also....while the need for some movements in pano are few, the need to raise or lower the film plane is almost inevitable. To get the horizon where you want it in a pano image is very desirable for us, and can't be accomplished by tilting the entire camera, since...as we know...it curves the horizon.

Also...my vote is for the safety of 120 rollfilm cameras, simply because a camera investment in todays world must support 20 years of future use for me, and I hope to be able to buy 120 rollfilm when sheet film and processing sadly comes to an end. :(

Thanks!

Robt.

butterflydream
21-Dec-2008, 18:10
Do you shot vertical panorama sometimes? That would be also a point to consider.

David A. Goldfarb
21-Dec-2008, 18:23
Some say that sheet film has a longer projected life span than medium format. 220 is dwindling. 120 depends on the manufacture of backing paper, which is not a simple matter. The manufacture of medium format cameras has been on the wane for some time. Wedding and portrait shooters were the big MF users, and they've mostly gone digital.

Sheet film in master rolls can be cut to any size, and LF and ULF are experiencing something of a revival.

Don Dudenbostel
22-Dec-2008, 14:34
I haven't taken the time to read all the posts so this may have been mentioned earlier.

I debated 4x10 vs 6x17 also. I've shot LF and ULF since the mid 60's and
have owned and shot a great deal of film through my 6x17 fuji over the past 15 years. I debated 4x10 but finally decided to buy a Canham 5x7 and Canham 6x17 back. My reasons are that the selection of emulsions for 4x10 / 8x10 are much more limited than 120 and my favorite B&W film is not available or easily found in 8x10. Processing issues for color 4x5 and OK for 8x10 but no issue for 120. MY 8x10 Deardorff is large and heavy and I'm much less likely to take it places than I am a dedicated 617 or my Canham and 6x17 back. Convenience of roll vs cutting sheet film and the high probability of dust and scratches happening while cutting 8x10. 4x10 film almost certainly has to be done in a tray which increases the potential of damage. Cost of film is a factor with 4 shots of 6x17 for about the cost of 1 frame of 4x10. I can print my 617 in my Durst 138 and I no longer have an 8x10 enlarger. I like the look of silver gelatin prints vs digital so I would have to buy an 8x10 enlarger again which is an issue with regard to space. I rarely print larger than 16x20 so quality is not an issue. In any case there should be little to no difference even in a carefully made 40 inch print between a 10 inch neg and a 7 inch neg. The difference is just under 6x for a 6x17 vs 4x for a 4x10 which is virtually a non issue.

I decided that I would go really large rather than mess with a 4x10 if I wanted a sheet size pano camera. I figure if I ever want larger negs I will buy a 7x17 and contact print. The camera is bigger, film is more costly, tray dev. is required but the contacts are large enough to be viewed with ease. For the moment and I think for the future I'm more then happy with the 5x7 Canham and 6x17 back and my 617 Fuji when I'm feeling lazy.

Mr_Toad
22-Dec-2008, 16:23
Uh-oh...Medium format 120 likely going away before sheet film?

Now i have ANOTHER thing to worry about!

:rolleyes:

Marco Annaratone
28-Dec-2008, 12:52
Ambroz,
I had a 617 Technorama with a 90mm and now I have a Fotoman with a SA 72mm XL. I mostly used them as glorified point-and-shoots (hand-held, mostly street photography, BW, 3200/6400 ASA). (This is the reason I have a 72mm XL now, somewhat of an overkill for a 6x17 under normal usage.)

I did use them for some color landscapes (tripod and much more relaxed picture taking, which I understand is how you plan to use the camera), but I did not like the experience because when I wanted/needed to use a polarizer and/or a graduated neutral filter I had to throw away lots of film to be able to use the ground glass. Having a removable back would be a must for me if I had to pick a "rigid" 6x17 for landscape photography (i.e., no bellows), and to the best of my knowledge only the Horseman SW617 lets you do that.

Print size? My 6x17 landscape color negatives were scanned by a Creo iQsmart 3 (wet-mount) and I had no problem obtaining wonderfully detailed prints with a 9x enlargement. I am pretty sure you can do better than that, certainly at least 12x.

Film flatness may limit maximum scanning resolution, but I have not seen any solid study on film flatness in various 6x17 cameras, only random gripes by some users when something bad happened. Frankly, though, film flatness of a 4x10 sheet is unlikely to be greater. My two cents.

Cheers!

Bob Salomon
28-Dec-2008, 13:37
Ambroz,
Having a removable back would be a must for me if I had to pick a "rigid" 6x17 for landscape photography (i.e., no bellows), and to the best of my knowledge only the Horseman SW617 lets you do that.

Cheers!

No, The Linhof Technorama 617 SIII now has a darkslide and it has had a groundglass back option for several years. There is also a sliding loupe for the T617 SIII ground glass back as an accessory. The 617 SIII also now accepts a shift adapter that can be used with the 72, 90 and 110mm lenses. The 180 and 250mm lenses will not adapt to the shift adapter.

If one already has Linhof 617 72 and 90mm lenses they would have to be converted at the factory to fit onto the shift adapter.

Marco Annaratone
29-Dec-2008, 11:14
OK, I am talking about a removable back, right? That contraption the Hasselblad 5xx have, or the Mamiya RB/RZ have, or the Horseman SW617 has, that lets you change film in mid roll. Or in the case of the Horseman SW617 (or SW612) that it lets you use the ground glass for critical focusing any time you want without throwing away any film.

Let me sure I get it then: your "NO" in your post implies that the Technorama 617 III now has it? 'Cause the one I used until a few years ago sure it did not.

Cheers!

Bob Salomon
29-Dec-2008, 12:11
OK, I am talking about a removable back, right? That contraption the Hasselblad 5xx have, or the Mamiya RB/RZ have, or the Horseman SW617 has, that lets you change film in mid roll. Or in the case of the Horseman SW617 (or SW612) that it lets you use the ground glass for critical focusing any time you want without throwing away any film.

Let me sure I get it then: your "NO" in your post implies that the Technorama 617 III now has it? 'Cause the one I used until a few years ago sure it did not.

Cheers!

The Linhof has had it for a while now. About 2 years.

Bob Salomon
29-Dec-2008, 12:12
OK, I am talking about a removable back, right? That contraption the Hasselblad 5xx have, or the Mamiya RB/RZ have, or the Horseman SW617 has, that lets you change film in mid roll. Or in the case of the Horseman SW617 (or SW612) that it lets you use the ground glass for critical focusing any time you want without throwing away any film.

Let me sure I get it then: your "NO" in your post implies that the Technorama 617 III now has it? 'Cause the one I used until a few years ago sure it did not.

Cheers!

The Linhof has had it for a while now. About 2 years. In fact it has it again in a way. The very first Linhof Technorama 617 had a ground glass back as an accessory. But unlike the current body it did not have a darkslide or interchangeable lenses.

Marco Annaratone
10-Jan-2009, 07:01
.....
Having a removable back would be a must for me if I had to pick a "rigid" 6x17 for landscape photography (i.e., no bellows), and to the best of my knowledge only the Horseman SW617 lets you do that.
...


Correction: the exotic and gorgeous and $$$ Gilde 66-17 MST 3D has a removable back as well (besides a bunch of other impressive features).

Cheers!