6x9 Why?

[1750Shooter]

I've been offered a nice Linhof kit (3 lenses & misc.) in 6x9. I'm having serious GAS, but don't really understand the rational behind 6x9. It seems as though it would be easier just to use 4x5 since the frame-count w/roll film is so low you'd probably be changing film incessantly. Anybody use this format & what are the advantages? Thanks for any help or advice.

[darr]

Well if you could shoot 220 the frame count would be higher. It is cheaper to shoot 6x9 film, but other than that, I guess shooting 6x9 is a personal choice.

[jp]

I don't see the advantages either, for suiting my own uses.

If you like medium format, it's got the movements and techniques of large format. You wouldn't need film holders which take lots of space.

I suspect it will become more popular as color film choices dwindle for sheet film. Modern film is fine enough grain that 6x9cm would be excellent for many purposes. I don't shoot color film, so it's not a concern to me.

Developing would be a lot cheaper for 120 film than sheet film. If you shoot a lot, roll film is cheaper to commercially process than sheet film. If you develop your self, you can do more exposures at once with roll film. (24 exp on 3 reels versus 6 sheets in a combiplan or mod reel)

Unless you have a nice (unobtainable) nikon medium format scanner, you'll probably be better off with sheet film for home scanning (the epson is more capable with the larger formats).

[ic-racer]

Loading and processing rollfilm is easier (for me) than sheet film. I can process ten rolls (80 shots) at a time. In 4x5 I'm limited to 10 shots at a time.

Loading the magazines can be done in the daylight. Dust is almost never an issue.

Film surface area is only about one-half of 4x5in, however.

Personally I use my 6x9 setup when I want to do handheld work with its rangefinder.

[Two23]

I only shoot 6x9 in my 1937 Voigtlander Bessa, when I need a compact camera. If I'm fooling around with a 4x5, I shoot 4x5.


Kent in SD

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I've been offered a nice Linhof kit (3 lenses & misc.) in 6x9. I'm having serious GAS, but don't really understand the rational behind 6x9. It seems as though it would be easier just to use 4x5 since the frame-count w/roll film is so low you'd probably be changing film incessantly. Anybody use this format & what are the advantages? Thanks for any help or advice.

Some people prefer 6X9 over 6X7 because the aspect ratio is the same as it is for 35mm, which is where many of us got our start.

With a high quality roll film back and sharp lenses 6X9 provides excellent print quality up to 16X20 inches, which is as much as many of us need or want.

The Linhof kit will provide movements lacking from cameras such as the Mamyia 7 or Fuji 69SWIII.

Also, two rolls of film take up less space than 8 4X5 film holders. You could also use 4 film holders and change them with a changing bag but that would be more hassle than reloading the roll film holder once.

Finally, if you are scanning at home, dedicated MF scanners have much better resolution and Dmax than budget 4X5 flatbed scanners.

Edward

[Doremus Scudder]

I shot 6x9 at the very beginning of my large-format life because I didn't have a 4x5 enlarger. Once I got one, I stopped using the 6x9 back and went exclusively to sheet film for precisely the reasons you mention.

Not only do I have the option of developing each sheet separately, regular sheet-film holders are much faster than my graflok roll-film holder was (no removing the ground glass, etc.).

That said, if you like or need the slightly smaller size of a view camera designed for 6x9, and/or need to pop off more than a few shots in a row, the Linhof setup you describe is great. I still print a few of those early (late 70s, early 80s) negatives and they rival 4x5 in sharpness and quality since they are really only slightly smaller.

Best,

Doremus

[Kevin Crisp]

If you can't immediately think of things you'd use it for, then probably best not to buy it. I could see it being handy for long trips where loading film holders is a problem and you're photographing things that require movements.

[Dan Fromm]

Years ago I shot, among other things, flowers on 35 mm. Manual flash, Kodachrome 25, 55 and 105 MicroNikkors, ... The image quality I got didn't quite satisfy. To put some of the blame on myself, I may have chosen the wrong compromise between depth of field and resolution attainable. But still and all, 35 mm has its limits.

Moving up in format was the obvious next step. I was then, and still am, influenced by A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography. He discusses moving up in format, suggests that increasing image size by less than double on both edges of the frame isn't worth the trouble and expense. Twice 24x36 is 48x72. So nominal 6x7 (56 x, depending on the manufacturer, 68 - 72) is roughly the first step up from 35 mm; 645 and 6x6 are too small. Nominal 6x9 (56 x 78 - 82 or so, depending) is usefully larger, still uses 120 film.

So I went 2x3. It is big enough for me, roll film is a bit easier in some ways than sheet film, costs usefully less per shot, ...

2x3 isn't a magic bullet and for flowers close-up I'm probably still on the wrong side of the DoF-resolution compromise. It isn't for everyone and, 1750, it may not be for you.

That said, 1750, your aversion to reloading a roll holder is misplaced.

[banjo]

will one thing that is nice about some 6x9 cameras if you have been using 35mm
the 6x9 give you more to work with! as with my Century Graphic I can use RB67 backs and that lets me us a 35mm roll film holder, a 645, a 6x6, a 6x7, or minty others brands in a 6x7 & 6x9 or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 B&W sheet film so I can change my Format as I like! I have some movements
AND as things are going just how long do you thank that 4x5 film will still be here?!?
BUT it all depends on what you are going to do !! as to using a 6x9 or a 4x5!!
I almost never need a 4x5 to do the job! I like using a 6x7 most of the time!

[Joseph Dickerson]

Lots of good advice but I'd like to add one additional thing.

Years ago I lusted after a Horseman VHR, I have 4x5 cameras but thought how much nicer a compact camera with real movements would be when traveling and back packing.

Well I got one with several lenses, film backs et al...I very quickly discovered that (a) focusing on that little ground glass was really difficult and (b) the damn knobs were so small and fiddly that the camera was almost impossible to deal with. Traded it for a Deardorff.

Yes I do have large hands but not exceptionally so.

I'd really suggest trying before you buy.

JD

[Jeff Keller]

Put a reflex viewer on the back of a VHR and you have an easy to use landscape camera. I wish the VHR had a swinging focus screen like some of the Ebony cameras.

A sharply focused image over a large DOF isn't hard to get, a sharply focused image with a shallow DOF is harder.

Jeff Keller

[Mark Sampson]

+1 for Mr. Dickerson's comments. A couple of years ago I tried out a 6x9 Technika kit for traveling, and found that it didn't work for me for those same reasons. There's an excellent review of those cameras on the front page of this site, which tells basically the same story. I wound up taking a Hasselblad on that trip, as my girlfriend (uncharacteristically) banned my 4x5. Pictures turned out well, too...

[cjbroadbent]

As Joseph says, there's too much condensed mechanics in front of a small piece of film.
Its like downsized heavy jeans, with grown-up stitching and brass buttons on a four-year-old child. I had one (brand-new) in the seventies and passed it on. The perfect form factor is Technica 5x7. Even the 4x5 has a lot of mass.

[1750Shooter]

Thanks so much for your input folks. I'm beginning to feel that I'll let this one go. I can't decide if 6x9 is LF lite or MF magnum so I'll think a bit more.

[Roger Cole]

Better to get a 4x5 camera, which is larger but not unwieldy, and easy to use, and a roll film back.

I like that combination. I'd like it more if I had a lens wider than 90mm and a camera that could easily use same. Then you have the option of shooting 4x5 or roll film.

As others said, roll film DOES have advantages. Virtually no problems with dust, much cheaper per shot, easy to load in the field, much greater variety of film available especially in color, and a negative plenty large enough for most purposes with modern films. You can even use the zone system by having several backs, say N-1, N and N+2, and mark the film accordingly.

I have a 6x7 back because that's what I found, but 6x9 does make sense. Might as well use the largest negative area you can without stretching the proportions too oddly like a 6x12 panorama (nice for the right shots, not ideal for general use IMHO.)

[ki6mf]

Ditto on the aspect ratio!!! 6X9 matches the aspect ratio of most printing papers. This lets you use maximum negative size with less extension on the enlarger for more detailed images. Put another way get closer fill the negative with your image and use smaller enlarger height to create the most detailed images possible.

[Frank Petronio]

I like 6x9 but something like the Fuji rangefinders are a lot more useful for the times that 4x5 is too slow but you still want a large negative with a quick handheld camera. I dare say these are a better option than a handheld 4x5, no offense to all the poor souls who bought fancier options.

If focusing a 6x9 camera on the ground glass is difficult, imagine what it is like working with the 43 x 56mm medium format sensor size and trying to make movements and fine focusing.... that "exposes" the bogusity of "you can alway put a digital back on your view camera" lol.

[hmf]

Ditto on the aspect ratio!!! 6X9 matches the aspect ratio of most printing papers. This lets you use maximum negative size with less extension on the enlarger to more detailed images. Put another way get closer fill the negative with your image and use smaller enlarger height to create the most detailed images possible.

Am I missing something? Don't 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24 all most closely match the 1.25x aspect ratio of 4X5, vs the 1.5 aspect ratio of 6X9?

[ki6mf]

Am I missing something? Don't 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24 all most closely match the 1.25x aspect ratio of 4X5, vs the 1.5 aspect ratio of 6X9?

Ahhhhh I knew i should have had coffee before reading the forum. That is why i leave my 6X9 at home and always shoot 4X5

[rdenney]

I'd like it more if I had a lens wider than 90mm and a camera that could easily use same.

That's why I switched to a Sinar from a Cambo. Once I discovered the WA Bellows 2, I can use a 47mm lens on a flat board, and still have some movements.

A 4x5 screen works better for 6x9 than a 6x9 screen. You can hang a loupe off the edge of the frame, which is very useful with those short lenses.

I have a 6x9 and 6x12 holder, plus a Sinar Vario holder which does them all. I can scan those in my Nikon scanner at higher resolution than larger film on my Epson. 4x5 still looks better--format rules--but not because of resolution. It's a useful tool, and it's a lot cheaper than sheet film.

For black and white, I'll take sheet film any day. It's just easier for me to handle when processing, and I want the ability to adjust development sheet by sheet.

Rick "who does both roll and sheet film" Denney

[rdenney]

Am I missing something? Don't 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24 all most closely match the 1.25x aspect ratio of 4X5, vs the 1.5 aspect ratio of 6X9?

I usually adjust my print shape to whatever works for the image.

Rick "for whom this was important for paid work that needed standard enlargements for cost reasons, though" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

The key also hinges on scanning, with the $3000 used Nikon Coolscan or an Imacon being the popular/practical choice. I will scan medium format on the Epson 700 but it is a real compromise compared to using a film scanner.

Scanning 4x5 on an Epson isn't idea either but at least the larger area mitigates the issues more than medium format.

[rdenney]

If focusing a 6x9 camera on the ground glass is difficult, imagine what it is like working with the 43 x 56mm medium format sensor size and trying to make movements and fine focusing.... that "exposes" the bogusity of "you can alway put a digital back on your view camera" lol.

If I could afford to do digital at that size, I'd get a Pentax 645D in a heartbeat. Even if I mounted that on a view camera, I could use its ground glass and focusing aids. But lenses with some movements are probably easier.

Rick "who has shift lenses in 45, 55, and 75mm that are mountable on a Pentax 645" Denney

[ic-racer]

Ditto on the aspect ratio!!! 6X9 matches the aspect ratio of most printing papers. This lets you use maximum negative size with less extension on the enlarger for more detailed images. Put another way get closer fill the negative with your image and use smaller enlarger height to create the most detailed images possible.

Mis-type?
6x7

[Ivan J. Eberle]

1 hour minilab processing and scanning to CD has been available beyond the demise of most 1 hour E6 labs. This oFfers reasonable preview and can typically can do up to 6x9 roll film but no larger. The easy availability of Nikon, Minolta and perhaps a few other scanners with Digital ICE and multiscan were similarly reasons for the continued popularity, as these scanners offered quality that rivaled low end LF drum scans. But many of the above rationales for 6x9 are fast slipping away.

[robert lyons]

I actually own the 6x9 Linhof...technikardan 69s. After much testing I found lenses that were incredibly sharp at F8,11, 16 and used the camera quite a bit when I traveled. I had been using the Fuji RF for over 20 years but the need to get closer and also other things made me turn to the Linhof. It is a superb camera, a bit heavy but with careful use and proper lenses you can make very large prints, my largest being 5.5'x7" approximate.....

The advantage is cost, ease of film transport, processing and less dust (from loading holders) and the need for a less expensive scanner (Imacon 343 is very nice). It all depends upon what your work is like, and if you prefer the 6x7 ration then a RF and 4x5 would be the ideal. I had preferred the 2/3 ratio of 6x9 for many years....

The cameras are a bit heavy but very sturdy and fold into a small pacakge!

[robert lyons]

I actually own the 6x9 Linhof...technikardan 69s. After much testing I found lenses that were incredibly sharp at F8,11, 16 and used the camera quite a bit when I traveled. I had been using the Fuji RF for over 20 years but the need to get closer and also other things made me turn to the Linhof. It is a superb camera, a bit heavy but with careful use and proper lenses you can make very large prints, my largest being 5.5'x7" approximate.....

The advantage is cost, ease of film transport, processing and less dust (from loading holders) and the need for a less expensive scanner (Imacon 343 is very nice). It all depends upon what your work is like, and if you prefer the 6x7 ration then a RF and 4x5 would be the ideal. I had preferred the 2/3 ratio of 6x9 for many years....

The cameras are a bit heavy but very sturdy and fold into a small package!

[Lightbender]

As Joseph says, there's too much condensed mechanics in front of a small piece of film.
Its like downsized heavy jeans, with grown-up stitching and brass buttons on a four-year-old child. I had one (brand-new) in the seventies and passed it on. The perfect form factor is Technica 5x7. Even the 4x5 has a lot of mass.

" I had one (brand-new) in the seventies and passed it on."
-You mean a camera or that pair of jeans? =]

[Steve Smith]

I had one (brand-new) in the seventies and passed it on.
-You mean a camera or that pair of jeans?

I think he means the camera... although I probably had those jeans in the early seventies!


Steve.

[Cor]

Somewhere on this forum this article by Ctein (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/12/burning-our-bridges.html) was mentioned, it looked pretty alarming when you are into scanning medium format film..

best,

Cor

[genotypewriter]

I've been offered a nice Linhof kit (3 lenses & misc.) in 6x9. I'm having serious GAS, but don't really understand the rational behind 6x9. It seems as though it would be easier just to use 4x5 since the frame-count w/roll film is so low you'd probably be changing film incessantly. Anybody use this format & what are the advantages? Thanks for any help or advice.

It's difficult to talk about 4x5 vs. 6x9 without the reasoning generalising ultimately to larger vs. smaller format film.

For me the rest comes down to: sheet vs. roll, film emulsion availability, availability of labs, etc.

Roll films are thinner and there's much talk about film flatness. Personally, I haven't had any such issues with film flatness on my Fuji GW690III (6x9, 90 f/3.5, 120/220 film, fixed-lens rangefinder). But there are people go as far as getting vacuum backs for 645 cameras.

We all know about the availability of film emulsions so there's not much to be said there. Would be nice to see Delta 3200 on 4x5 and 8x10.

Where I come from, Melbourne (Australia), there are only two labs that I know of that process large format. And only one of them does 8x10. It's a scary thought. Can't see how it's a bad idea to have a 120/220 back for the LF gear.

At the end of the day, if it's a particular large format "look" that you're after from your images, it's easier to get it from... large format. You need to go through much trouble and expenses to say get the DOF of a f/5.6 lens on 8x10. On the plus side, the equipment will most likely be more portable... especially as the fields of view get narrower.

YMMV :)