6x12 Backs - Horseman or Sinar Zoom or ?

[Frank Petronio]

Thinking about a 6x12 back for the Technika for travel... I rarely see Linhof Techno 6x12 backs and fear I probably can't afford one, but what about the Horseman and Sinar Zoom I and II backs?

I am disinclined to want a Chinese back, call me a xenophobe if you will. I've had Horseman 6x9 backs in the olden days. I think there are some general cautions about the Sinar Zooms or why did they make the "II"? And is the Linhof Techno 6x12 better somehow, other than superb build quality?

Also, for handheld work, what would be the best viewfinder solution for a 4x5 Technika V? I would probably be using a 90 or 150 lens.

Thanks,

Frank

[Oren Grad]

In addition to the Zoom and Zoom 2, there was also the Vario, which was the predecessor to the Zoom, and the Panorama, which is a fixed-format 6x12 back. I had a Vario briefly and a Panorama for a while. On the plus side: all of them share a pre-film-gate path that's very flat. The worst vices from my perspective are the size, weight and shape - it's big and heavy, and would be extremely unwieldy for hand-held use - and the fussy loading - the film goes into a separate cassette (something else to lose!) but also has to be threaded through a very long winding path. Among the variable-format holders, the Zoom 2 is less mechanically complex than the Vario and Zoom, but IIRC it lacks grooves for Graflok sliders, which means it can't be locked to the camera back as securely. Between the cassette and the long film path I think the Sinars are also a bit more difficult to keep really clean.

On theoretical grounds I like the flatter pre-exposure film path, but if I were buying a 6x12 back today I'd probably just go for a Horseman, unless I got a screaming deal on a Sinar Panorama.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I bought a Horseman 6x12 RFH and, IMHO, its very well-made. I don't think I'd like a zoom RFH because, IMO, changing formats mid roll seems clumsy. I'd rather just shoot 6x12 and crop if I need to.

[Mark Sampson]

Calumet offered, for a while, a 6x12 roll back based on their C2 6x7 back. Since they were asking $800 for them in the '90s, I didn't buy one. I suspect they didn't sell very many, but perhaps one could be found.

[Frank Petronio]

Oh but those C2 backs curled the film horribly.... well not that bad but enough to dissuade me from spending nearly the same money for one as a better back.

Heck the crude Chinese backs are $384 and I'm seeing the Horseman for $550, seems like it would be reasonable to go for the name brand.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Hey Frank,

I have used/owned the Calumet 6x12, the Horseman 6x12, and, currently the Sinar Zoom. Firstly, I found the Calumet, a rental, very difficult to load, and I have lots of experience with the Calumet 6x7 and 6x9 versions. The problem seems to be that there is very little excess leader on the 6x12 due to the large film gate. Some films wouldn't grab the take up spool at all and needed to be taped.

The Horseman was: 1) easy to load, 2) solidly built, without being heavier than it had to be (think Chinese here) and, 3) great as far as film flatness was concerned. Essentially one of the best backs I have ever worked with. I switched to the Sinar only because I got tired of having to remove the gg back.

The Sinar is not as easy to load, although it gets more tolerable with practice, and I really like the ability to change formats, although 6x12 is what I shoot most of the time. Film flatness seems equal to the Horseman. Both the Sinar and Horseman are well built and, used at least, can be had for about the same price. I sold my Horseman for $500 and bought the Sinar Zoom off Ebay for the same amount.

I really like the Sinar variable format mask that came with mine although you can probably find them separately as well.

If I were shopping for one now, which would I choose...honestly, I'm not sure. I really like the Sinar, but it is bulkier than the Horseman though the weight seems about the same. I need to use the Sinar more, maybe a lot more, before I can say with 100% certainty which I consider "best".

The short answer, Horseman or Sinar, either is a good choice but they both have pluses and minuses (life's just like that, huh?). Calumet...not so much.

Hope this doesn't add too much confusion. :p

JD

[Frank Petronio]

Am I right in assuming the Horseman is simpler and therefore maybe more reliable? I think I remember reading complaints about the Sinar, although being a slide-in makes it more attractive to me.

[Oren Grad]

Am I right in assuming the Horseman is simpler and therefore maybe more reliable? I think I remember reading complaints about the Sinar, although being a slide-in makes it more attractive to me.

Simpler, yes. More reliable, who knows? Cheaper to repair if necessary, probably yes. The variable-format Sinars have a more complex film advance mechanism, and the Vario and original Zoom have a somewhat delicate built-in dark curtain. IIRC the Panorama and the Zoom 2 have a traditional, simple darkslide.

Re weight - I think the Horseman is in the range of 650g, the Sinars more like 900g or so.

[Joseph Dickerson]

I pretty much agree with what Oren has to say, I no longer have the Horseman back but I just weighed a similar Wista at approximately 1.5 pounds and the Sinar weighs right at 2 pounds. This was measured on my fishing scale so take it with a grain or two of sodium chloride.

JD

[Sevo]

The variable-format Sinars have a more complex film advance mechanism, and the Vario and original Zoom have a somewhat delicate built-in dark curtain.

Well, delicate or not, I haven't damaged mine in something like 25 years, and treated them rough. While closed they seem to be fairly hard to destroy. Arguably they may be more at risk in third party cameras, where the holder with slide opened might be removed from the camera - opening the back flap in that state is a safe method to rip out the roller blind slide, I've seen one destroyed where someone had attempted to load film while the slide was open. But in Sinars that cannot happen by accident - the holder is locked into the back while the slider is open, and protected by a locking pin when outside a camera.

[Drew Wiley]

Sheer weight is sometimes an issue. Not all camera backs will accommodate something like
the Sinar or Linhof without something flexing, if it fits at all. The Horseman is agreeable light, and I've seen clean ones for sale quite reasonably if one is patient. Just make certain you film plane on the camera itself is accurate (not always the case with wooden
field cameras). The Horseman weighs a pound even. But with most cameras you have to
remove the back to use it.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Sheer weight is sometimes an issue. Not all camera backs will accommodate something like
the Sinar or Linhof without something flexing, if it fits at all. The Horseman is agreeable light, and I've seen clean ones for sale quite reasonably if one is patient. Just make certain you film plane on the camera itself is accurate (not always the case with wooden
field cameras). The Horseman weighs a pound even. But with most cameras you have to
remove the back to use it.

I agree but that's true with DDS too. If you get good results with DDS then you'll be fine with a 120 RFH.

[Sideshow Bob]

I just weighed my Horseman 6x12 and it weighs 1lb5oz. Frank, I'll sell you mine if you are interested, I bought it new and I've only used couple of times. Comes with box, instructions and a padded bag. Let me know if you are interested and I'll send you some photos.

Mr.Gale

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the Zoom (I), and I've handled a friend's Horseman 6x12, and the Horseman seems simpler to operate and load, and there seems less that could go wrong, more like a Linhof 6x7 or 6x9 rollfilm back. The Zoom I and II backs give you the option of other formats, which is not such a bad thing, and 220, if you happen to have a stash of it or shoot one of the few films still available in that format. Say you're shooting B&W 4x5" and you want to shoot 6x7 color (as opposed to 4x5") with the same model to keep costs reasonable--the multi-format back comes in handy.

[Henry Ambrose]

Horseman backs are pretty fool-proof.
I've had several and never any problems.

[Helen Bach]

I have the Sinar Zoom 2 and Panorama. I haven't had problems with either, but I haven't used any other backs of that format to compare. It is possible to add Graflok grooves to the Zoom 2.

Best,
Helen

[Frank Petronio]

I mostly use a Sinar anyway, thanks

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Another vote for the Horseman 6x12 back.
I bought one "like-new-in-box" from a gentleman on this forum and I have been more than satisfied since. Hence I can also speak in praise of the transcations on the "used : for sale" section.

The question of taking the GG off is not a real issue to me, I use an Arca Swiss "field" 4x5" camera and have acquired an additional Arca Swiss 141-to-4x5-graflok plate.
Hence I juste have to swap the GG plate with the Arcaswiss-ified Horseman+plate combo, a one-hand operation with the famous self-locking latches, exactly like on the Arca Swiss 6x9 camera, this is quicker and easier than inserting any film holder under a spring back.

[Bob Salomon]

Image size! The Linhof 612 size is 56 x120mm. All the others are smaller. Some as small as 56 x 111mm or so.

[Old-N-Feeble]

The extra 8mm (.315 inch) is nice but I wouldn't make that the deciding factor. I suppose if I routinely cropped to 2:5 or 1:3 ratio then it would be important but since I'd rather shoot two images via shift-n-stitch that extra width won't help me.

[John Schneider]

I have the Linhof, Horseman (SW612 variety) and Sinar Panorama. The Linhof has the largest image area and it has the build quality of a Mercedes, but it's heavy. Other than that it is a joy to use. The Horseman is simple and rugged and pretty intuitive to use, somewhat more so than the Linhof. The Sinar has the advantage of being able to be slipped under a GG, but it requires a special film cassette, special loading/operation procedures, and appears IMO finicky and somewhat fragile. Both the Linhof and Sinar accept either 120 and 220, if that makes a difference.

So in the end, go for the Linhof if you like the larger image, require the use of 220, and have the wallet and back to carry it. Get the Sinar if you need the slip-under-the-GG capability. Otherwise, get the Horseman, which IMO is the best overall solution.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I mostly use a Sinar anyway, thanks

If you're using a Sinar (I don't know if this works with the older Norma back), there are pins on the Zoom back that lock the holder in place when you have the curtains open, so you can't remove the holder without closing them. Of course, if you're determined, you can still ruin a frame by doing things like inserting the holder and opening the curtains before closing the shutter (unless you have DB lenses and a Sinar shutter with appropriate cables to make everything work automagically).

[Bob Salomon]

The extra 8mm (.315 inch) is nice but I wouldn't make that the deciding factor. I suppose if I routinely cropped to 2:5 or 1:3 ratio then it would be important but since I'd rather shoot two images via shift-n-stitch that extra width won't help me.

That extra length makes the lens effectively wider. So it can be material.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Bob... I didn't state that the extra width is immaterial in general. I stated, due to "my" shooting practices, it doesn't matter to "me". I concede that it may matter to others.;)

[Phil Hudson]

Not sure if this has already been covered but the Sinar slip-in types don't fit all non-Sinar cameras. The design prevents it from being fully inserted in some g/glass backs (it depends on the length of the finger tabs that help you pull the focus panel out the insert a dark slide). I have the Sinar Panorama fixed 6x12 and a Horseman 6x12; I find the Horseman is easier to load but I like the captive dark slide and long film path of the Sinar.........

[jan staller]

Horseman backs are very compact and much faster to load than Sinar Zoom 2 backs. The ability to change formats is a welcome advantage offered by the Sinar. I have used the same Horseman holders since 1989, and they have needed repairs only a few times. I will sell you two Sinar ZOOM 2 Backs if you like. I also have a Linhof 6x12 Techno Rollex in near new condition, which I have listed on Ebay but will sell directly. It's just an amazingly well made tool and makes all the other holders seem like toys. Not cheap, but it does offer true 6x12 cm size and not the 6x11 or so of the other backs. Regarding the Calumet- I tried that many years ago, and it's workmanship was very crude and as I recall, the film was not very flat due to lack of tension between the take up and supply rollers and poor engineering for the film path.

[Tim Stahl]

I have used the Linhof 6x12 back for over a decade now. I have never had an issue with it beyond weight, it's heavy like a brick. That being said, it keeps the film flat and is a joy to use knowing that it will work (from -20 in Alaska to 100 on the beach in Galveston) and help me make the images I want to make (assuming I'm not a klutz).

[Kodachrome25]

I have been using a pair of DaYi backs strictly for infrared work in 6x12 the past two weeks, love them. The two together were less than one Horseman. Build quality is decent as is function and the resulting images have been great. They seem fairly light too which is key since I am hauling them thousands of feet up mountains.

Just my two cents...