Why do you shoot medium format with your 4x5" equipement ?

[Clement Apffel]

Recently I've been thinking about buying a calumet C2 6x7 roll film back for my 4x5".

And to make my decision, I'd like those of you who shoot 120 film with large format equipement to share their reasons here.

Of course I have my reasons, but I'm always curious to read other's reasons and choices, as I always learn tons of details I would never think of.

thanks !


PS : if ever you have reasons NOT to shoot 120 with your 4x5", I'm also interrested :)

[David Aimone]

1. Especially with color, since I don't develop my own.
2. Not a particularly good reason, but a 300mm lens on 6x7 is more of a zoom lens than on 4x5.
3. Less film holders to carry.
4. Easier to change film in the field than changing film in film holders.

Having said all of that, I don't use my roll film back too often.

[IanG]

Haven't used my 6x9 Wista back for a while but I bought it and used it when out for longer backpacking sessions as a backup to give me greater shooting capacity.

Main reason I've not used it in the past 5 years is I've been working mainly hand held in Greece & Turkey and rarely run out of film in a day, and I left the 6x9 RF holder back in the UK but I also shoot with a 6x6 TLR so that effectively replaces it - I've found I like the square format.

Ian

[RJC]

I use colour film currently more than I use B&W (only just getting back into monochrome after a 30 year gap). The cost of buying, processing and get a good professional scan of 4x5 film makes me really consider if a particular shot merits the expense. If I'm not quite sure I'll opt for shooting it on 120 which I can scan myself on a Nikon Coolscan. If I need movements I'll use my 6x7 back, otherwise I'll press a Mamiya 7 into service.

Also, if a particular composition lends itself to a panoramic format I'll shoot on my 6x12 back rather than crop a sheet of 4x5 ... again the driver is economical.

Rob

[Scott Walker]

I thought I needed one at one time as well, turned out that I was wrong. Put a roll of film through it and realized that I had to expose everything in a fashion that would allow for the same development of all the images....have not used it since. Kinda made me wonder why I packed all that gear out in the first place when I could have gotten almost the exact same results with a point & shoot.

[BrianShaw]

1. Especially with color, since I don't develop my own.
2. Not a particularly good reason, but a 300mm lens on 6x7 is more of a zoom lens than on 4x5.
3. Less film holders to carry.
4. Easier to change film in the field than changing film in film holders.

Having said all of that, I don't use my roll film back too often.

"ditto"

[Sirius Glass]

I am still learning to use my 4"x5"s and I am starting to use them for serious work.

I use my Hasselblads for serious work. Hasselblad 903 SWC 38mm, Hasselblad 503 CX with 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm and a 2X extender.

For casual work such as travelling when I do not have time to fine tune the compositions I have two slr Nikons, one with black & white and one with color.

Often I will walk around with the 35mm cameras to figure out compositions and focal lengths and retreive the Hasselblads or the 4"x5" equipment and then photograph. I already figured out at I should check out where I want to put the tripod for the 4"x5" cameras before I carry the 4"x5" cameras and the tripod to a spot and set up! By the way, when I need a spot meter I put the 28mm to 300mm zoom lens on the F100 in the spot meter mode, hence a spot meter for the Hasselblads and the 4"x5" cameras.

I develop all my color and black & white film but I do not have a color darkroom on the East Coast, only on the West Coast.

Just for kicks I will point out that all my cameras, lenses, and darkroom equipment including a 32" wide drum print dryer costs less that the top of the line Nikon or Canon digital bodies alone. The top of the line digital back cost $50,000US to $60,000US for the Hasselblad and I would have to buy an new computer, RAID drives and a ton of software. I can shot an process a whole lot of film for that kind of money!

[jnantz]

because it is just as much fun as shooting sheets of film ?

[Gem Singer]

Been there. Done that.

Soon realized that it was a better idea to tote a smaller, light weight 6x7 or 6x9 roll film camera around than a LF camera outfit with a roll film back that actually got very little use.

I agree that a roll film back for a LF camera is the most economical way to go if you plan on shooting a large amount of color film with your LF camera.

Also, a 6x17 roll film back for a 5x7 camera, or a 6x12 back for a 4x5 camera is the practical way to go for panoramic photography. Dedicated pano cameras are pricey.

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Bonjour, Clément-de-Lyon,

I never shot medium format sheet film with my 4x5" camera :D for this I have other medium format cameras that can take the smaller 2x3" - 6.5x9cm cut film holders ;-)

However, I often use rollfilm backs on my 4x5" camera for colour images ; mostly 6x12 colour slides, but I also have a 6x9 linhof rollfilm back fitting the 4x5 international back. mostly for slides as well.

I would probably shoot 6x7 color negs some day since the C-41 minilabs (Fuji Frontier and Noritsu machines) available in my town cannot process sheet film and will scan 120- or 220-size rollfilm up to the 6x7 format.
I heard that Fuji Frontier machines can scan up to the 6x8 format, but apparently, in France, few minilabs owners have the dedicated 6x8 film holder.

For B&W that I can process myslef, I have never used any rollfilm with my 4x5", except may be for testing lenses.

[toolbox]

I've got a roll film back for my Grarflok cameras, but I've never actually used it. I've got an RB67 and a bunch of other medium format cameras, so I guess I just haven't seen the need yet. I think I'd get more use out of a Grafmatic on 4x5.
If you want to give medium format a try, there's a bazillion folders from the '30s to the 1950s out there at very reasonably prices...just as an example I just picked up a nice Ansco Speedex for $20 that's a perfectly useable 6x6.

[Bob Salomon]

One reason not mentioned is to be able to control the shape of the subject by using back movements and to be able to control the plane of sharp focus by using lens and back tilts and swings when shooting roll film. Also, a roll film back is a heck of a lot less expensive that a T/S lens for a medium format camera. And every large format lens you own/borrow or rent can be used as a T/S lens when using roll film on a 45 camera.

[David Higgs]

I have a 6x7 back that I occasionally use for images that require movements and I cannot replicate with MF gear. Also it enables me to do some nice portraiture, especially kids where you might need a number of shots to get the right one.

I almost exclusively use a 6x12 back ( I have two). Most of my work is panoramic and the 612 can be cropped to an effective 617 with ease - my preferred ratio is 614!

4x5 is a hassle so i really need to be making a BIG print to go for it. Roll film is easy and cheap.

[paulr]

I'm glad you asked this question, because I rethought it as "why DON'T I shoot medium format with my 4x5?"

I did my last color project with a borrowed MF camera and the current one with a dslr, because color film and processing are so expensive. But if I could get an affordable rollfilm back ...

What would I need to shoot 6x7 or 6x9 on an old Toyo "Special" field camera, that was made in the not-quite-5x7 size?

[John Kasaian]

One reason for: Panoramic vistas 2-1/4"x5" with the correct holder (although you could make a slide fit a conventional 4x5 holder,)
Two reasons against:
1)Having to carry a bigger camera around than you really need (although many field cameras are lighter than mf cameras.)
2)With a 4x5, unless its something like a speeder, crown or technika you'll be married to a tripod.

[goodfood]

I use 6X12 back on my 4X5. More easy get 120 roll film and dev.

[cjbroadbent]

Ever since dicovering that 6x12 is more acceptable than 6x17, I use a 6x12 rollfilm back on 4x5 (Cambo Wide, EbonySW with a Super Symmar 80) because 4x5's got shift. Unless you are standing on a lookout point, a Technorama shot is half full rocks - I could have saved the money. I've done two calendars on Scala invetable B&W with the 6x12 back.

[Alan Gales]

If you are a beginner like me, shooting medium format is great practice. It's a lot cheaper making my mistakes on medium format film! :D

[tgtaylor]

Another reason not mentioned is the ability to shoot a transparency for those fun slide shows of the scene you just photographed on sheet film:)

A well executed 6x7 transparency projected on a large screen in a darkened room is absolutely stunning!

Thomas

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I bought a 6x9 roll film holder (the good late Graflex Singer one with the rollers and lever advance) for my Super Graphic 4x5 just to shoot Ektar 100 with it before it was available in 4x5. (Then Ektar became available in 4x5).

Another thing a roll film back for a 4x5 facilitated (but as I'll explain below didn't prove very practical) was having generous shifts and moves with a small image-circle but fabulously sharp 135mm Wollensak Raptar I already had and liked.
The camera worked well enough but for one thing: Graflok roll film holders like these on a LF cameras require removing the GG after focusing. (The one exception I know of being a Galvin camera's bail back) The problem is not so much that removing the GG back is particularly difficult to do-- it's not-- it's the question of what do you do with it--a vulnerable and easily scratched or broken fresnel/GG-- out in the field, on the beach, in snow, etc.

So I would up leaving the GG back at home or back in the truck and take the camera afield with the roll back attached. Configured like that an accurate RF is essential. It was very accurate alright, but only with the one old Raptar lens, and I didn't have other RF cams. So the camera ended up being little more than a glorified (heavy, clumsy) rangefinder.

So next time maybe I'd go for a slide-in type roll back, since with the other kind most of the view camera advantages are lost. But the best of these, the ones that hold roll film sufficiently flat-- Sinar, Linhof-- are still rather spendy, negating most of the cost differential that made 120 format film appealing in the first place.

[paulr]

If you are a beginner like me, shooting medium format is great practice. It's a lot cheaper making my mistakes on medium format film! :D

That's a good point, although most of my beginners mistakes involved wrecking the sheet film. There are lots of ways to do it.

[Brian Ellis]

I bought the Calumet C2 6x7 film holder but I only used it once or twice. While there are good reasons for some to use roll film with a 4x5 camera, e.g. on a trip you can carry more 120 film than 4x5, I felt that if I was going to the trouble of carrying and using a 4x5 camera I wanted to get 4x5 images. Also, the ability to control development times of individual images was important to me and I didn't want to give that up by using roll film. I also used b&w exclusively and processed it myself so saving costs wasn't that big a deal for me.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't like printing from roll film comapred to sheets, but did just pick up a very clean
Horseman 6X9 holder to supplement my regular gear. Here's why: I generally prefer long lenses per format. My 6X7 Pentax is real nice for grab shots on the side of the road of perhaps some distant peak when the light is rapidly changing or it is just too windy for the view camera, or perhaps I want to work fast and not get clipped by a
sleep-deprived semi trucker. A 300mm lens for the Pentax weighs about 5 lbs on its own and requires my biggest Ries wooden tripod to stabilize it. And I have no movements, so forget the foreground. By comparison, I already own a range of view
camera lenses which weigh very little. I can take my Sinar 4x5 with its 28-inch bellows
up a peak with a few regular sheet film holder, and if I need to experiment with even
more reach or extra shots, the roll film holder will accomodate it. My 450 Fuji C suddenly becomes the equivalent of about a 675mm lens on 6x9, then 300 equivalent
to 450 and so forth. Just one more thing in the kit, or another toy to play with when
I want a change of pace. When a typical med format camera disappoints me is most
often the lack of movements. This solves that problem and reduces weight too, but
sacrifices the speedy setup of ordinary MF gear like my Pentax.

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Why Not? I shoot with a Deardorff 4x5 Special with a revolving Grafloc back.
I have a 58mm Grandagon thats a great lens. The film holder is a 6x9 that I machined the opening to 6x12 and stripped oit the winding gears so I wind by counting turns of the knob. Crude but it works just fine. I also made the mask my color lab uses to print the negs. OK that was the mechanics. The images are super If the subject was super. You know what I mean. I use movements all the time. Even with the 58. The prints are fine and the system is fine. If you are using a lab make sure they can print them.

[Sirius Glass]

I am still learning to use my 4"x5"s and I am starting to use them for serious work.

I use my Hasselblads for serious work. Hasselblad 903 SWC 38mm, Hasselblad 503 CX with 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm and a 2X extender.

For casual work such as travelling when I do not have time to fine tune the compositions I have two slr Nikons, one with black & white and one with color.

Often I will walk around with the 35mm cameras to figure out compositions and focal lengths and retreive the Hasselblads or the 4"x5" equipment and then photograph. I already figured out at I should check out where I want to put the tripod for the 4"x5" cameras before I carry the 4"x5" cameras and the tripod to a spot and set up! By the way, when I need a spot meter I put the 28mm to 300mm zoom lens on the F100 in the spot meter mode, hence a spot meter for the Hasselblads and the 4"x5" cameras.

I develop all my color and black & white film but I do not have a color darkroom on the East Coast, only on the West Coast.

Just for kicks I will point out that all my cameras, lenses, and darkroom equipment including a 32" wide drum print dryer costs less that the top of the line Nikon or Canon digital bodies alone. The top of the line digital back cost $50,000US to $60,000US for the Hasselblad and I would have to buy an new computer, RAID drives and a ton of software. I can shot an process a whole lot of film for that kind of money!

To clarify:

35mm is shot with 35mm cameras
MF is shot with Hasselblads
4"x5" is shot with Graflex and Pacemaker Speed Graphic Cameras
Each is kept with its own kind.

Steve

[BrianShaw]

Each is kept with its own kind.


I once was followed that kind of parochialism... and still do for the most part. But sometimes there is excellent utility in "mix-n-match". My experience with 35mm in a MF camera (Rollei TLR) was interesting and helpful for portraiture but cumbersome. Replacing the Rollei with a Hassy ended that. But roll film backs on 4x5 (especially with Graphics) is extremely useful at times... like when shooting hand-held. It requires a well calibrated rangefinder and accessory viewfinder masks, but those aren't particulary difficult requirements. but, sure, in that situation the Hassy would work too... and would be a tad lighter to carry. Maybe you're right after all!

[Sirius Glass]

Ever try to find a 35mm film back for a Hasselblad? They exist but it is hard to find one for sale. The price - "Forgetaboutit".

[Oren Grad]

What would I need to shoot 6x7 or 6x9 on an old Toyo "Special" field camera, that was made in the not-quite-5x7 size?

If your 4x5 back has a removable GG and Graflok sliders, there are many different rollholders to choose from. If not, there are some rollholders designed for slide-in use - Calumet, Sinar, Linhof Rapid Rollex (6x7 only), and Wista "butterfly"-type holders come to mind. These do vary in thickness, and some may be difficult or impossible to use if your back is tightly sprung or doesn't open very far. Of the slide-in backs, I think the Rapid Rollex is probably the thinnest, and older Calumets probably the cheapest.

[Bob Salomon]

Ever since dicovering that 6x12 is more acceptable than 6x17, I use a 6x12 rollfilm back on 4x5 (Cambo Wide, EbonySW with a Super Symmar 80) because 4x5's got shift. Unless you are standing on a lookout point, a Technorama shot is half full rocks - I could have saved the money. I've done two calendars on Scala invetable B&W with the 6x12 back.

The Technorama 612 PC I and the II have a built-in shift so if the camera is used with the finder on the top the camera has buit-in rise which is reflected in what you see in the finder. If it is used with the finder on the bottom (there is an extra tripod socket on the top of the camera so you can do that. Then you have built-in drop.
With the Technorama 617 S III there is an accessory shift adapter for the 72, 90 and 110mm lenses so you can do rise or fall easily on a tripod. This model also accepts a ground glass back for the lenses so you can accurately see what your composition would be. The latest version of the T 617 SIII now has a darkslide so lenses can be changed in mid roll and the ground glass can be used for each exposure, if desired.

The built-in shift on the T612 works with the 5 current lenses from 58 to 180 as well as with the older 65 and 135mm lenses that are no longer available. The 180 and 250mm lenses on the T617 S III can not be used with the Shift Adapter on that camera.

So no, you don't have to see rocks as in your example.

[stephen.taylor]

for me, My Super Rollex 6x7 back that I use with my Linhof is about convenience. I do my on color and black and white processing, but there are times when I just don't want to carry all of the film holders with me (color or black and white).

[Clement Apffel]

Thanks to everyone for the various answers.
I'm still hesitating, but all your comments really helps whatever my final decision will be.
:-)

[paulr]

If your 4x5 back has a removable GG and Graflok sliders, there are many different rollholders to choose from. If not, there are some rollholders designed for slide-in use - Calumet, Sinar, Linhof Rapid Rollex (6x7 only), and Wista "butterfly"-type holders come to mind. These do vary in thickness, and some may be difficult or impossible to use if your back is tightly sprung or doesn't open very far. Of the slide-in backs, I think the Rapid Rollex is probably the thinnest, and older Calumets probably the cheapest.

Thanks, I'll look into it. Not sure if the thing has Graflok sliders or not. Would be a fun project someday. My 4x5 has been gathering dust since I've been working on color.

[Lynn Jones]

Recently I've been thinking about buying a calumet C2 6x7 roll film back for my 4x5".

And to make my decision, I'd like those of you who shoot 120 film with large format equipement to share their reasons here.

Of course I have my reasons, but I'm always curious to read other's reasons and choices, as I always learn tons of details I would never think of.

thanks !


PS : if ever you have reasons NOT to shoot 120 with your 4x5", I'm also interrested :)

Hi Clement,

In the mid 60's at Calumet in Chicago, we were the largest selling 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras in the world (about 85% of the world production). However, we knew that for lots of catalog or other advertising photography needs, swings and tilts but not a great deal of square inches of film would be appropriate. Bill Ryan and I created 220 roll film and the management team, Ken Becker, Pres., Bill Ryan, VP, Ben Booko, VP, and I were the principals who created the 2.25"X 2.75: format roll film holders for 4x5 cameras. The format was actually created by Fred Simmon of Simmon Omega in about 1950 or so, although several others have tried to take credit for it.

A later owner stopped making Calumet cameras and started using Cambos instead (he also owned Cambo in Holland, what a shock, it was the only way Cambo could be truly profitable). Among other things, they gave all the tooling and permission to use, the 120/220 C1 Roll Holder. Fortunately for me I was gone as a Celestron executive.

Lynn

[Stoogley]

I'm using MF in the 4x5 to facilitate my transition to using the LF camera.
Cheaper film for the learning curve and I'm set up to process 120 film but not yet 4x5s.
Though I plan to remedy that in the next few weeks.

[Peter Gomena]

In the "old days," studio tabletop shooters could switch formats without switching cameras. This was especially convenient in catalog work when shooting small items or making an image that would run small in the final book. Saved money on film and Polaroid.

Peter Gomena

[Robert Brummitt]

I use both formats myself. Why not? It's versatile. Why limit oneself?

[toyotadesigner]

Instead of investing into a 4x5 I went the road for a 6x9 because it allowed me to keep the same workflow as with my 6x9 rangefinders. Easier to load anywhere (I have three roll film holders), fast set up on location, all movements, compact in storage. OK, I'm mostly shooting slides and have them developed in a professional lab for 2 Euro per roll. Scans are made with my Coolscan, so 6x9 meant no investment into an additional scanner. I thought about stepping up to a 4x5, but then I wouldn't be able to use my wide angle lenses anymore (45mm to 210mm).

Considering the excellent resolution and resolving power of modern MF slide film or Ilford Delta 100 I just love the MF solution.

[rjbuzzclick]

I use a 6x7 back to shoot color transparencies which I don't process myself. Although on my last outing I was wishing I had my Koni-Omega Rapid M and 60mm lens along as I could have used a wider angle than I was getting with a 90mm on the Speed Graphic, albeit without the (limited) movements. When I'm using the SG on a tripod, swapping out the GG for the film holder is not an issue for me. I just set the GG in my camera bag to protect it.

Leaving the film holder on and using the rangefinder works well too. I have found that the 6x9 mask for the viewfinder is horribly inaccurate vertically (compensating for the narrower 6x7 width of course), which is odd since using the viewfinder for 4x5 works fine. Using the wire frame finder and leaving a bit of extra space around the image I want works much better.

[Thom Bennett]

Lynn, I used your roll film back to shoot catalog stuff back in the day. Now I have all the Horsemen roll film backs (6x7, 6x9, and 6x12) so my Deardorff Special is actually 5 formats (5x7, 4x5, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12) and, while I don't use the roll backs or the 5x7 as much as I'd like, its nice to have the versatility. I shot a job recently and used everything but the 5x7 format.

[redu]

1) Easy to reach roll film
2) Kodak Ektar 100 is only available in 135 and 120 (AFAIK)
3) Easy to develop (both color and B&W) at home
4) Good scan yields better results to many medium format digital backs
5) Very portable
6) I love my Technikardan 23
7) Rollbacks are very practical.
8) 6x9 is not that small
9) All of my other gear is medium format.
10) My Grandagon 45mm f4.5 does not vignette
11) My Komura 500mm f7 tele really behaves like a tele.

[Kuzano]

All the expense reasons and film handling reasons, plus all the controls of a camera with movements. Pretty simple and highly justifiable. Of those, panoramic on 120 is high on the list. Also high on the list is getting dual purpose out of a view camera that is often less expensive than many MF and MF panoramic camera purchased and maintained separately.

The list is extensive, but not as expensive as two dedicated systems.

Nuff Said!!!;)

[tom thomas]

I use a 23 roll film adapter in my Graflex 45 so I can afford the hobby. Processing is $4.50 per 4X5 neg or about the same for a roll of 120 with 8 exposures. I also like the panoramic look without having to crop a 4X5 too much.

tom

[rdenney]

6x12 is too big for a 2x3"/6x9 view camera, and that's my preferred roll-film format. It uses nearly all of what's available in a 4x5's width, and a 4x5 view camera provides full movement capabilities. I like the panoramic format, though I'm still struggling to understand it.

Also, I have to scan 4x5 using an Epson flatbed, but I can scan 6x12 using my Nikon LS-8000. That is a significant advantage. If I make two 6x12 exposures shifted to cover, say, 9x12, I can make four scans in the Nikon and stitch them perfectly. They will align perfectly because I can use the rise and fall of the back instead of turning the camera. I haven't done it, yet, but I want to be able to.

Finally, I can have rollfilm processed locally (C41 only), but I have to send 4x5 color film out. That's enough of a difference so that if I was doing black and white, I would use sheet film and process it at home.

I have the capability to do 6x9 easily, but generally if I'm going to use rollfilm in the view camera, it will be 6x12. Smaller than that, and I just use my Pentax and grumble about having to pass by subjects that would require movements.

Rick "who has struggled to find time to do much of any photography" Denney

[sully75]

for people who are shooting 6x12, what's the hierarchy of holders? Anything reasonably priced that works well? I'd been wanting 6x17 for a while but maybe 6x12 makes more sense...

[rdenney]

for people who are shooting 6x12, what's the hierarchy of holders? Anything reasonably priced that works well? I'd been wanting 6x17 for a while but maybe 6x12 makes more sense...

I have and use a Sinar Vario (among the most expensive when new) and a Shen-Hao (among the cheapest) and they both work well, producing pin-sharp images. The Sinar will take 220 (I have some in the freezer) and it can also be used for other formats without compromise. The Shen-Hao uses a red-window advance (120 only) and other formats require a mask which I don't trust. The Sinar will slip under a bail back while the Shen-Hao is Graflok only. Word is that the Sinar will hold the film flatter, but I've never noticed any effects suggesting the Shen-Hao doesn't hold it flat enough. The Sinar has an integral dark slide and an interlock to prevent boo-boos, and the Shen-Hao does not.

Horseman also made one and so did Linhof. It goes without saying that the Linhof holder is excellent, but the Horseman has a good reputation, too.

The Calumet is a slide-in and the only one associated with negative comments, though I cannot confirm those comments. My bet is that it works well, too, when used carefully.

Rick "who intends the Shen-Hao for a project camera using a Cambo rear standard" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

I use a 6x7 back on a Linhof STIV. Sometimes handheld, with a 90mm lens, but usually for closeups with a 150mm lens, following the principle that the smallest negative that will get the job done is the format to use. Mainly flowers and so on. Also quite a bit with color; those Kodachrome 6x7 transparencies are stunning.
Also for the movements.

[Lynn Jones]

I use a 6x7 back on a Linhof STIV. Sometimes handheld, with a 90mm lens, but usually for closeups with a 150mm lens, following the principle that the smallest negative that will get the job done is the format to use. Mainly flowers and so on. Also quite a bit with color; those Kodachrome 6x7 transparencies are stunning.
Also for the movements.

Hi EvH

You sound good for a guy 146 years old!

I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist.

Lynn

[patrickjames]

I like to use medium format backs for color since it is easy to get processed and I use them (6x7 and 6x9) for messing around since it is easier to process 120 than 4x5. I have to admit though I use the backs sporadically.

A tip for the sporadic users- I often didn't remember if I had any film loaded in the 120 backs I have (Graflex) and have started to put the insert in upside down if it is empty. Saves me a lot of grief.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi EvH

You sound good for a guy 146 years old!

I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist.

Lynn

Thank you.

We Krauts are stubborn..... Now if I could just fix those b@$tards at Ziess....:)

[BrianShaw]

We Krauts are stubborn...

I heard that almost every day from an elderly neighbor of mine. He was such a stubborn "Kraut" that he waited until just a few years ago to die from injuries sustained during the Second World War. ~That's stubborn~

[Steve Barber]

Having a 6x7 roll film holder makes it possible to have the full capability of both the 6x7 and the 4x5 for the negligible added weight of the roll film holder and a couple of rolls of film put into the bag with the 4x5. Since I do not like being without the ability to make 6x7 slides, the result is that the 4x5 gets taken along where it would otherwise be left at home and I get the best of both worlds. Using a Linhof Rapid Rollex holder is just like using any other, slide-in, 4x5 holders, but it gives you the equivalent of a 6x7 body with all of the features of a 4x5 view camera. Also, with it, you get full use of a filter system that would be awkward or impossible to use on a 6x7 rangefinder camera.

[E. von Hoegh]

I heard that almost every day from an elderly neighbor of mine. He was such a stubborn "Kraut" that he waited until just a few years ago to die from injuries sustained during the Second World War. ~That's stubborn~

My father's family comes from Germany, they were on both sides in WWI and WWII; at one point my father (US Army) and his third cousin(Wehrmacht) were within 100 miles of each other near the Rapido river in southern Italy. What is interesting is that, although the family split between the US and Germany in the 1870's, both sides still contain an amazing number of incredibly stubborn people. I learned this during the family reunification in 1998. I guess genes do matter.

[Scratched Glass]

1) Expense
2) Convenience - easier to load and carry in the field especially hand held shots
3) Not every subject needs to be enlarged to billboard size

[David N Docherty]

I purchased a Sinar F2 kit last year and it came with a Calumet C2 roll-film holder. Using roll film in the holder is, at this time, for me, an educational solution with several benefits.

Consider:
*I can practice tilt/shifts using the much less expensive roll film.
*I can practice to understand DOF and bellows extension issue more cheaply.
.....roll film costs less than a third the cost of sheet film.....
*10 exposure session and the film is quickly loaded into a daylight tank to develop
*My enlarger's condensor is too small for 4X5, so until I get a larger one, I am still "in business."

None of this takes away from the Sinars ability to capture magnificent LF images, it simply helps me to become better able to exploit the capabilities of my fine equipment in much the same way that digital has helped to improve (and motivate) my 35mm and MF photography. When I encounter, or manufacture, a subject that screams out LF, I still have the equipment to use, and better yet, I am experientially more ready to tackle the project.

Bottom Line: MF film in a LF system has a valid place and deserves consideration.

[Sirius Glass]

I use 35mm for 35mm.
I use MF for MF.
I use LF for LF.

No mixed media for me.

[D. Bryant]

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

+1!

[Sirius Glass]

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

+ 2

[alexn]

+3

Having said that, I am more than happy to use my 6x17 and 6x12 roll film backs on my 4x5... Why? Well...

1 - Its cheaper to buy, cheaper to process.
2 - Much easier to load/unload in the field.
3 - Less weight to carry.
4 - 6x12 is still fairly large format. Yes its 120 MF roll film, but its still a large neg/slide
5 - 6x17 is so close to 4x5 in surface area that to consider it as MF as opposed to LF is silly.
6 - I personally prefer the panoramic format.
7 - I like to bracket exposures. Doing this with sheet film is expensive, difficult to remember which shot is which and requires lots of holders. doing it with 120 roll film is easy... Shot 1 - on meter. Shot 2 - +1 stop. Shot 3 - -1 stop.. All on the same roll.

I wouldnt go smaller than 6x12... But 612/617 and 4x5 are all shot with my 4x5

[goodfood]

I still consider to buy a 6X17 attachment (us$600) attach to my 4X5 with lenses up to 150mm or buy a 6X17 field camera (us$1500) can fit to all my longer lenses. Or buy a 6X17 camera ( Photoman or Dai Yi , around us$1000) for my 75mm or 90mm lens. Each addition cone quite expensive. This is a easy use camera and ready to shot. Any advise.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

When Ektar 100 came out in 120, before it was available in sheet film sizes, I fell in love with it on my Pentax 645. So I picked up a Super Speed Graphic and a 6x9 lever style RH8 back for it. Never warmed up to working this way, though, as framing was too imprecise when shot handheld, and when working off a tripod and swapping out backs in the field for accurate framing there was rarely anywhere safe or convenient to set the GG down. I briefly considered one of the better slide in Sinar or Linhof roll-film holders, but the high prices these fetch negated any potential cost savings over sheet for the volumes I shoot. Then Ektar became available in sheet and I never looked back.

[PhiloFarmer]

For taking advantage of larger image circle coverage, and range of camera movements. I can compose more accurately with the extra room in bellows that 4x5 provides over MF. I also use the ability to stitch using rise or shift, as well the capacity of the sliding back adapter. Lots of possibilities...luring me into new territory....

[alexn]

I still consider to buy a 6X17 attachment (us$600) attach to my 4X5 with lenses up to 150mm or buy a 6X17 field camera (us$1500) can fit to all my longer lenses. Or buy a 6X17 camera ( Photoman or Dai Yi , around us$1000) for my 75mm or 90mm lens. Each addition cone quite expensive. This is a easy use camera and ready to shot. Any advise.

It really depends on how and what you shoot... I almost always shoot wide angle on my 617 roll film back. I used to have a fotoman 617 camera, and it was great, and easier to use than the roll film back on the 4x5 however because I like to shoot 4x5 and 6x17, Rather than carrying two cameras, and all the lens cones etc etc I found it to be a better idea to buy a film back for the 4x5. That way I am carrying less weight and still shooting my two favorite formats..

The advantages of the 6x17 camera are many, but then a 6x17 field camera has all the movements which, if you use them regularly on large format, you can really hate not having them on your 6x17... The 6x17 field cameras also allow more movements than a 6x17 back on a 4x5.

As I said originally. It depends most on WHAT you shoot, and HOW you shoot and whether or not you require movements to achieve your goals..

I regret selling my 6x17 fotoman as 90% of the time it was much more convenient than the 6x17 back on my 4x5 however I prefer only carrying one camera in the field.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I shoot roll film with my 4X5 camera because I have not been able to afford a high quality medium format camera. My German lenses are a lot better than the lens on my Yashicamat. Also, it is easier to use a cable release on the large format lenses than on the TLR. Sharper lenses plus less camera shake equals better and larger prints.

Additional benefits include use of movements and lab processing that takes less than a month. I mostly print 11X14. On the rare occasion I need a 16X20 I can have the negative/slide drum scanned. I would love to have a 6X12 back for 10X20 prints.

Edward

[Lynn Jones]

Back in the mid 60's we created the 2.25"x2.75" roll film holder for 4x5 cameras while Calumet's, Bill Ryan and I created 220 roll film at the same time. That format size was created by Fred Simmon of Omega and the designer of the Simmon Omega camera around 1950 plus or minus.

The primary reason was that we needed view camera swings and tilts but didn't need a great deal of enlargement such as for catalogs and national ads (at Calumet, we were the largest maker of LF view cameras in the world, 85% to 90%, and made in Chicago).

Lynn

[John Rodriguez]

I plan on adding a 6x7 back to "extend" my longest lens at any given time as it acts as a 1.6x multiplier. I prefer that route over cropping a 4x5 sheet because the drum scanning price is lower for 6x7. This will be for color only; I'll stick with sheet for BW to allow zone system processing.