4x5's easily adaptable to 6x9 ?

[Scott Teven]

I am trying to decide on my first LF camera. I shoot mostly landscape and some architecture.

I really like the convenience of roll film and the 6x9 format. On the other hand there are occasions when I would like the larger 4x5 film size. I know that some 4x5s are adaptable to 6x9. It would be nice to have both film formats in one LF camera but I am concerned about 2 things:

1 - I will comprimise some of the functions of the 6x9 format. Perhaps it be better to get a separate camera for each format?

2 - It will complicate my LF learning process.

[Vick Vickery]

Start with a 4x5 with a "universal" or "Graflock" back...most of the currently manufactured cameras have these and a good many of the older ones did, too. The old Graphic roll holders are readily available in 6x9, 6x7, and even 6x6 formats (some makers also have them available in 6x12). You simply compose and focus on the ground glass (marked in some manner for the roll film format) and remove the ground glass pannel, replacing it with the roll film back before making the exposure. Easier to do than to say.

I don't think it complicated my learning curve any...the photos are made the same way regardless of the format.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Virtually all 4x5" cameras can accept a 6x9cm back without difficulty. Most more recent cameras, as well as many cameras going back to the 1940s have a Graflok or International style back with a removable groundglass panel and slide locks for holding a rollfilm back, but even cameras that have a plain spring back can accept some rollfilm holders that slide under the groundglass panel like a regular sheet film holder.

Many 4x5" cameras make better 6x9 cameras than dedicated 6x9 cameras, so there is not necessarily any compromise, and I don't see how this will complicate your LF learning process.

[Renato Tonelli]

When I shoot roll film on the 4x5 I sue the the "roll film holders that slide under the groundglass panel like a regular sheet film holder", as David mentions above. They work well, they are fast and will most likely work on all 4x5's. I have a 6x9 and a 6x12; they are made by Cambo and I ordered them from Calumet.

[Bill_1856]

The idea of being able to use 120 roll film with a 4x5 camera actually sounds better than it works out in practice.
While I shot thousands of rolls of "prom couples" with a roll film holder on my Graphic View II when I was at university, but for things you'd normally use a view camera for, (landscapes, architecture) you won't find it very useful. For portraits it might, or might not, work.

[gary mulder]

some combinations of a 4 X 5 camera and roll film will give you restrictions in the wide angle department. If you like wide angles this is something to reckon with.

[Warren Clark]

Hi Scott,

I frequently use my Horseman FA 4x5 camera with a Horseman 6x9
and 6x12 back. Great combination that gives you some other options
in the field. You can keep a few backs loaded with different films
ready for action..

Warren Clark

[Nathan Potter]

You'll find compromises in going either way you are considering. A very high quality dedicated 6X7 has the handling and precision film plane edge over a 4X5; but no movement capability (usually). The 4X5 has the movements and larger format advantage.
In my experience unless you are a pro with varied client demands it will turn out to be a bit of a PITA to carry both cameras around. You will ultimately gravitate toward one type.

So I would consider the 4X5 first using Quickloads for simplicity. Then I'd buy a used roll film back at some modest cost. Finally if you find you are using the roll film back more exclusively you would get a dedicated 6X7 camera. If necessary you could always sell the 4X5 at the end of the process.

Realize that most of us photographers, in choosing an equipment set, evolve over time. Since you are already shooting landscapes and architecture in some format I can presume that you are the evolving type also. Moving through various equipment types is some of the fum in photography. Now just wait until you view an 8X10 image on a ground glass screen for the first time!

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Aender Brepsom]

Using a 6x9 roll film holder on a 4x5 camera (with international back) is very easy and allows you to have 2 cameras (= formats) in one.
A dedicated 6x9 field camera is very nice, but since you're only going to carry one camera, you might end up missing the possibility to use 4x5 film.
Of course, a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 RFH is a bit bulkier and heavier to carry, but much more versatile.
I have been using 6x9 Horsemans and Ebonys, but have decided to go with just one 4x5 camera in the future. I won't have to ask myself anymore which camera to take since I don't have a choice. The Horseman 6x9 RFH works perfectly well on my 4x5 Ebony.
BTW, 6x9 cameras are not noticebly cheaper than their 4x5 counterparts. And they don't show up so often on the used market, so the offer is less wide if you want to buy used (which I'd strongly recommend).

[Neal Shields]

The supposed compromise with roll film backs that slide under the ground glass instead of replacing it is that they bend the film too sharply and that a roll left in the holder can take a set and cause focus problems. It wouldn't seem to be a problem as the film is already wound fairly tightly around the roll. Does anyone know if the film is bent emulsion out on the return leg? Has anyone really had a problem with this?? Or is it just a "old photographer's wives tale"?

My personal experience shooting 6x9 with 4x5 is that once you go to all the trouble to set up a 4x5, focus with the ground glass and carry all that weight around, it seems silly not to use sheet film. My very expensive 6x9 Linhof holder would be a "garage bunny" if it were a car.

Neal

[Aender Brepsom]

My personal experience shooting 6x9 with 4x5 is that once you go to all the trouble to set up a 4x5, focus with the ground glass and carry all that weight around, it seems silly not to use sheet film. My very expensive 6x9 Linhof holder would be a "garage bunny" if it were a car.

Neal

I do agree, but there are two reasons why I keep using 6x9 alongside with 4x5:
- to keep the cost low, especially when braketing seems wise in tricky conditions
- because I have a good 6x9 scanner, but only a V700 flatbed for the 4x5 trannies

[Sevo]

YMMV depending on the back. The old no-slide-under Rollex backs actually were pretty bad where film bending was concerned. As far as my experience goes, the later generation of post seventies slide-unders were quite a improvement on them, even where film flatness was concerned. The wrap-around bottom roller of the Sinar slide-under (Vario and Zoom) backs is huge by comparison, and the feed cartridge barely bends the film at all - they actually behave better than the best clamp-ons or MF camera backs.

Sevo

[Kirk Gittings]

I use a Calumet "Wide Field" for 6x9 and some 4x5 shooting architecture. I use the Calumet C2N 6x9 roll film backs. It is good down to a 47mm without a recessed board which is great for architecture. It has a very flexible bellows and has full movements on the 47. At the other end, for 4x5, with a 210 you will need an extension board to achieve full use with 4x5. You run into these occasionally on EBay for under $300 and Calumet still has all the important parts.

[Ken Lee]

"- because I have a good 6x9 scanner, but only a V700 flatbed for the 4x5 trannies"

There's the rub, at least with regard to initial expense. With 4x5, even a consumer scanner will get you acceptable results, for print sizes that many people would consider fairly large. To get the same from Medium Format, you need, at least, a good film scanner. At present, the only one still being manufactured is the Nikon, and it costs around $ 2000 new. An Epson 4990 can be had for around $200, 1/10 the price. Compared to the 4000 spi of the Nikon, the Epson gives only somewhere around 2000 spi at best, probably closer to 1600 spi.

Initial expense may be inconsequential over time, if you shoot a lot of film, and depending on how you evaluate the cost of having someone develop it, or develop it yourself.

[Aender Brepsom]

Well, I had the scanner (Polaroid Sprintscan 120) already before getting into 4x5. I have prints from 6x9 scans in 60x90cm that look excellent. With the Epson, even from a 4x5 slide, I have not yet been able to come close to that. If I want to get a good print from a 4x5 slide (anything larger than 30x40cm), I send them to somebody who uses a Hasselblad X5.

[Hugh Sakols]

First I must admit that I have never used a 4x5 camera. Because I have a Minolta Multi Pro Scanner, I use a Horseman VHR. Yes focusing on ground glass can be a bit of a challenge and I am limited regarding my lens choices. However, I do hike several miles with this setup in the Yosemite's High Country. Someday I want the real ground glass experience but if I do that I would really like to learn a traditional bw process and maybe just contact print.

[Ken Lee]

Speaking of Medium Format: If anyone wants to get me a Holiday gift... here (http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7jzkae.html) it is.

[neil poulsen]

I think it would work out better if you found a monorail with interchangeable bellows. Flatbed cameras and cameras with non-interchangeable, standard bellows don't usually have the freedom of movement for 6x9 wide-angles.

If you're not concerned about mobility, being able to backpack the camera, etc., then the Cambo-Calumet cameras would be excellent. Lot's of reasonably priced accessories available, and it has both wide-angle and standard bellows. I've seen good examples of these go for less than $300 on EBay. Another camera that comes to mind and fits into this category are the Sinar F series cameras. It would be good for both formats, but I'm not sure how easy it is to backpack. The camera that Kirk mentioned fits into this category, except that it can't take long lenses. (Not sure on backpacking.) Also, the Horseman monorails.

If mobility and backpacking are important, then the decision may come to convenience versus expense. The Arca Swiss works very well for both and easily backpacks. But, it's expensive. The same can be said for the Toyo VX125. Light weight. Expensive.

As to complicating the learning process, I don't think this would be a problem. These cameras are intuitive. You don't usually need an instruction manual to use these cameras.

[Scott Teven]

Thank you for the great advice! I really don't plan to take the camera backpacking so a Cambo-Calumet monorail would be fine and affordable for my 1st LF camera.

[evan clarke]

Speaking of Medium Format: If anyone wants to get me a Holiday gift... here (http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7jzkae.html) it is.

I was really hot for this when it was announced but it seems like it is as big as my Mamiya 7II and I have cooled off on it a little. The right price could heat me up though!!:) ..
Evan Clarke

[Rafael Garcia]

Go for the Graflock back and filmholder. Only you can determine if it works or not. I like having the option, but have not used my 6x7 back enough yet to advice you. The time I did I liked the results.

[Ken Lee]

I was really hot for this when it was announced but it seems like it is as big as my Mamiya 7II and I have cooled off on it a little. The right price could heat me up though!!:) ..
Evan Clarke

Right you are !

The other thing which annoys me about this sort of camera (and the Mamiya when I had one), is that being a rangefinder, there is always a need for calibration. Without good calibration, the benefits of large film and modern lens design are tossed out the window. You really need a tripod if you want to get the best from the equipment. If you're going to do that, why not shoot 4x5, or at least a Hassy ?