6x9 technical camera

Hello everyone:

I would like to start taking pictures with a nice long lasting 6x9 technical camera. I am not sure if a field or a monorail will be better. My instinct says a monorail (if i am using technical cameras, i would like to have all technical movements).

I am not afraid about technical idiosyncrasy. I have been using a mamiya 23 with a ground glass for a couple of years. And I love the big focusing screen for composing. I take pictures very slowly. My workflow is always the same. Plan. Find localization. Get together everything I need. Wait for appropiate wheather. Get there. Prepare. Take picture. Scan. Postproduce. Print.

I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED, that's why I am choosing 6x9 (I clean and postproduce every negative in my computer), also because i love that proportion when used horizontally.

My first choice is the Cambo system. More exactly the 45SF or the 23 SF (4kg!).

Pros: they have a digital update, not too old camera, not too expensive. I am located in Spain, Cambo is from the Netherlands, so replacements, lens boards, etc won't be a problem. Can be packed with relative ease. Universal G back. Still in production. Modular system.

Cons: 4kg!!!!!!! (the SF23 is 3,8kg o.O) Not a lot of second hand.

I would appreciate advice and experiences on 6x9 technical cameras. ¿Am I pointing in the right direction?

By the way I plan spending 1000-1200eur in this system.

Thanks a lot!!!

:D

I spent about 5 years with a Horseman 980 6x9 field camera, had a lot of stuff with it, 65, 105, 150 Horseman lenses and a 270 Rodenstock Rotelar, sliding back to use ground glass with a roll holder and a 4x5 back. Started using more 4x5 and sold it for a Toyo aluminum field camera. Anyway the Horseman was a good camera, all but the 4x5 back fit nicely in a large Domke bag and wasn't too heavy. A lot of my favorite photos were taken with this set up.
What you loose with a field camera is precision camera movements, you have some movements, but not nearly as nice as monorail, or the extension of a monorail if you are doing macro.

Tom

I enjoy medium format photography, and I used a Linhof Technika IV for a few years. It's a solid camera that's built like a tank. But, if you like wide angle photos, a Technika is limited. There's the Technika Master that facilitates wide angle lenses better, but it's expensive. (If you can find one.)

I finally decided on an old-style Arca Swiss, when one became available on EBay for a reasonable price. After some fixups, and being lucky enough to find accessories, it's an excellent camera. But, parts are hard to find. (e.g. bag bellows, especially recessed lensboards, etc.)

I see Arca Classic F's for sale on EBay. But, that's expensive!

How about a flat bed, like a Shen Hao? They're lightweight. Or a lightweight 4x5 with the Graflok system that accepts bag bellows? (A bit clumsy, though.)

Take a look at a Linhof TK 23 or 45S or a Master Tecnika 3000 if you want to be able to go very wide easily.

Not to be overlooked for a bit more panorama. 6X9 is a 3:2 ratio, so you get the benefit of a larger film format in the 35mm aspect ratio. I use a lot of 6x9, but in rangefinder Fuji's. I'm presuming you want technical for movements.

However, since there is not much difference in size and weight of folding or monorail technical cameras, you may want to consider the 4X5 format, and a roll film back. That takes you up to short panoramic if you then get a 6X12 roll film back.

You will be packing around about as much weight, so why not add to your options, for a larger and different aspect ratio. ???

In addition, it's quite likely that you can get a very nice 4X5 technical camera for less money than a dedicated 6X9. I doubt there are as many dedicated 6X9 camera's available in the used market as there are 4X5.

And what about film emulsions.... 220 roll film is essentially NLA and 120 may be more limited than LF films. In the worst case scenario you could shoot 4X5 film with either a mask or guidelines/crop to any format under 4X5. So buying a roll film back may NOT be an added expense.

I have before, shot a strange panorama of 2X5 inches on a 4X5 using a DDS film holder with cut dark slides, for 4 images on 2 sheets of film. Centering the image can be done with offset lens boards, or rise/fall. A modified "sliding back" can also be an options. Using this method, a 5X7 could crank out four sheets of 6X12 on one DDS with the cut dark slide. Film availability may outstrip 120 roll film choices at some point.

With all these considerations, every time I came close to the purchase of a technical 6X9 camera, I can't seem to pull the trigger. I guess that's why I am still shooting 6X9 in a more conventional camera without movements.

I do my 2X5 inch (5X12) format, however, with a 4X5 and masks. I do 6X12 with a dedicated roll film back. I have a Dayi back that works great... multiformat.

I am very frugal on my choices as a function of being now on retirement income. That sound great at this point in my life, but even going back many years, my friends and associates have always regarded me as a "cheap bastid". Always seeking workarounds or modifications to reduce expense.

I've been very, very good however, in the hope that my Karma in the next life is to be "filthy rich" and spend money the way many others seem to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil poulsen

I enjoy medium format photography, and I used a Linhof Technika IV for a few years. It's a solid camera that's built like a tank. But, if you like wide angle photos, a Technika is limited. There's the Technika Master that facilitates wide angle lenses better, but it's expensive. (If you can find one.)

I finally decided on an old-style Arca Swiss, when one became available on EBay for a reasonable price. After some fixups, and being lucky enough to find accessories, it's an excellent camera. But, parts are hard to find. (e.g. bag bellows, especially recessed lensboards, etc.)

I see Arca Classic F's for sale on EBay. But, that's expensive!

How about a flat bed, like a Shen Hao? They're lightweight. Or a lightweight 4x5 with the Graflok system that accepts bag bellows? (A bit clumsy, though.)

---

Neil in that direction (lightweight 4x5) there is the Plaubel Peco Jr. That's another possible option I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuzano

Not to be overlooked for a bit more panorama. 6X9 is a 3:2 ratio, so you get the benefit of a larger film format in the 35mm aspect ratio. I use a lot of 6x9, but in rangefinder Fuji's. I'm presuming you want technical for movements.

However, since there is not much difference in size and weight of folding or monorail technical cameras, you may want to consider the 4X5 format, and a roll film back. That takes you up to short panoramic if you then get a 6X12 roll film back.

You will be packing around about as much weight, so why not add to your options, for a larger and different aspect ratio. ???

In addition, it's quite likely that you can get a very nice 4X5 technical camera for less money than a dedicated 6X9. I doubt there are as many dedicated 6X9 camera's available in the used market as there are 4X5.

And what about film emulsions.... 220 roll film is essentially NLA and 120 may be more limited than LF films. In the worst case scenario you could shoot 4X5 film with either a mask or guidelines/crop to any format under 4X5. So buying a roll film back may NOT be an added expense.

I have before, shot a strange panorama of 2X5 inches on a 4X5 using a DDS film holder with cut dark slides, for 4 images on 2 sheets of film. Centering the image can be done with offset lens boards, or rise/fall. A modified "sliding back" can also be an options. Using this method, a 5X7 could crank out four sheets of 6X12 on one DDS with the cut dark slide. Film availability may outstrip 120 roll film choices at some point.

With all these considerations, every time I came close to the purchase of a technical 6X9 camera, I can't seem to pull the trigger. I guess that's why I am still shooting 6X9 in a more conventional camera without movements.

I do my 2X5 inch (5X12) format, however, with a 4X5 and masks. I do 6X12 with a dedicated roll film back. I have a Dayi back that works great... multiformat.

I am very frugal on my choices as a function of being now on retirement income. That sound great at this point in my life, but even going back many years, my friends and associates have always regarded me as a "cheap bastid". Always seeking workarounds or modifications to reduce expense.

I've been very, very good however, in the hope that my Karma in the next life is to be "filthy rich" and spend money the way many others seem to do.

---

Kuzano, I expect that film makers do not discontinue 120 roll film. Is true that is near to impossible to find 220 (I used it on my mamiya 23).
I have never managed 4x5 film, so it seems by now a bit difficult for me to get to mask 4x5 film to get 2 exposures of 2x5. Anyway I will study that in a near future.

I live in Spain, believe me I am far from retirement, but I have to be frugal. Crisis here is beating hard on the economy. I am just selling equipment to buy this.

¿By the way what camera are you using?

Best.
Brandán

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing

Take a look at a Linhof TK 23 or 45S or a Master Tecnika 3000 if you want to be able to go very wide easily.

---

Yes Bob the Technikardan is a great option, I will try to find any. Thanks!!!

Arca F Compact 6x9...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evan clarke

Arca F Compact 6x9...

---

I am not sure to find any Arca Swiss below 1000eur...
I am sure that those cameras are like gitzo tripods. You buy a lifetime piece.
Maybe I have to stay frugal as kuzano commented.
Thanks Neil!!!!

Um, Brandan, if you can do without the digital update I think there's still a 2x3 Cambo SC on ebay.co.uk that will fit inside your budget. 2x3 SFs typically cost more than you want to spend.

I found this set in a very reputed dealer. The kit seems very well preserved.

Plaubel Peco Junior 4x5

"Beautiful set with Tessar 4.5/16.5cm no.618118 in Compur shutter, Xenar 3.5/13.5cm no.1777139 on Plaubel lens board, black Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.B), chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.C), chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.D) and chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.D)"

He is asking 490 euros for the kit. (659 USD)

In this link the pictured camera has a graflok back, but you can get an idea.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34306759@N00/385476674

As I could read in the camera manual, these are the specs:

Monorail with rise/fall and shift on the front, and swing, tilt on the rear.

Tilt 35º
Swing:65º
Max extension: 220mm
Min extension: 60mm

Lens-panel movements:
Rise: 55mm
Fall: 28mm
Cross (right): 45mm
Cross (left): 45mm

Weight of the camera 1460 grs with lens panel (this is for a 6x9, for a 4x5 estimate around 2000grs)

¿What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Um, Brandan, if you can do without the digital update I think there's still a 2x3 Cambo SC on ebay.co.uk that will fit inside your budget. 2x3 SFs typically cost more than you want to spend.

---

Dan thank you very much. I will do some research about this camera. But it seems the right choice.
Thanks a lot!!!!

Brandan, the Peco Jr you're looking at is, like the Cambo SC, not precise enough to be used with a digital back. It is a 4x5, not a 2x3. There are also 2x3 Peco Juniors, see http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/plaubel_1.html . Plaubel cameras don't have Graflok backs, they have Plaubel backs that accept RADA roll holders. See http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/plaubel_2.html . Plaubel backs aren't compatible with anything else.

The link you posted doesn't show the back of the camera as clearly as I'd like, but the roll holder on it appears to be a RADA and the text you quoted says Rada several times. If you want to shoot 2x3 on the relatively cheap, yeah, sure, it will do, but if you ever want to add a digital back an old Plaubel is a waste of money.

If you want to shoot 2x3 on the relatively cheap, there are other 4x5 monorail cameras that are compatible with standard backs and that can be got for less money than that Plaubel. Think Sinar, with which I'm not familiar, and Cambo, with which I am. 2x3 monorails are scarce and almost always more expensive than their 4x5 counterparts. Bits for 2x3 monorails are also more expensive than bits for 4x5ers.

Calm down and don't spend a centavo until you've educated yourself better.

A "technical camera" implies is can be used with sportfinder or rangefinder focus and not just groundglass. There are compromises to thing kind of design. The premier cameras would be the
Technika (Super and later). But if you're working from slightly wide to slightly longer than "normal"
the Horsemand FA is a lovely machine, and they're turning up at very good prices at the moment.
Just be aware when you need dedicated rollfilm backs rather than something generic. The nice thing
about the FA is that you can use it as a conventional 4x5 sheet film camera as well. The Technika will
give you greater bellows range, but at higher price and a bit of weight penalty. There are also some
older Wista technical cameras out there, and of course, the old Speed Graphics.

Dan, thanks you are very helpful. I know there are Plaubel JR in 6x9 and in 4x5. The one I posted is certanly a 4x5. I knew that. By the way Glenn View says that a Plaubel Peco Jr is a good candidate for a digital back
You are right about costs in 6x9 monorails. That's why I am also considering a Sinar norma.
But I doubt when I think that maybe I will never use a 4x5 neg.
I can always buy a 4x5 and use part of the equipment.
You are also right that I have to educate myself better. That sure will happen when I can handle a monorrail camera myself.

Thanks for sharing knowledge!!!!!!!!
Brandan

Brandan, nearly everyone who has a 2x3 view camera to sell claims that it is a good candidate for a digital back. Here's another: http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-CAMBO-S...-/121059162871 The seller is a notorious liar.

I have a 2x3 Cambo. Two and a half, in fact. They're not good for digital backs because they lack fine focus; they don't even have geared focusing or movements.

As for Glenn Evan's pretty little 2x3 Peco Junior, it has a Plaubel back. Until proven otherwise, there are no adapters for mounting a digital back on any size of Peco. It has geared focus, true, but only coarse. The movements aren't geared.

If you want a 2x3 view camera that can use digital backs, get a Linhof Techno, M679, or Technikardan or a Cambo Ultima or SF. I'm not sure whether the small digital Sinars will accept roll holders (don't see why not but I don't know for sure) but people whom I respect highly insist that they're the best for digital. There is no inexpensive way to shoot digital with a view camera.

Focus gets pretty fussy with rollfilm backs, and even worse with digital, simply because the viewing
area and capture surface get smaller and smaller. Many older view cameras simply weren't made for this level of precision. The new monorail cameras dedicated for such use have finer gearing and are
typically damned expensive, as are digital backs themselves. When it comes to rollfilm holders you've
got similar issues. Not all of them were particularly precise. Some were horrible in terms of film plane
accuracy. And some are heavy. So you need to do a little research in this respect too. But any Norma
or Sinar F in good shape should work fine with a decent 6x9 back. As I noted already, I've found the
Horseman holders to be precise and quite portable; but you'd need the kind with the 4x5 plate, not the
dedicated 6x9 camera type, unless you have a 6x9 Horseman camera per se.

Thanks Dan & Drew
You are showing lots of patience here. I will ask you one more thing:
If we forget about digital upgrading do you find 2x3 format useable?
Or yes or yes 4x5 with a roll film holder is a better option?

Best.
Brandan

I shoot 2x3 with 2x3 Graphics (Century and Pacemaker Speed) and with my 2x3 Cambo. I have no regrets about getting and using the Graphics. I'm accumulating the pieces to shoot 6x12 with a hybrid (2x3 front, 4x5 rear) Cambo. I feel like an idiot for making a hybrid, using a 4x5 Cambo (or other 4x5 monorail) for 6x12 would have been less expensive.

Whether a 4x5 view camera with a 2x3 roll holder is a better idea than a 2x3 View camera depends on prices. My first 2x3 Cambo was a gift. Complete outfit: standards, rail, tripod mounting block, pleated and bag bellows, boards. I recently bought a nearly complete 2x3 Cambo (standards, board, pleated bellows, no rail or tripod mounting block) for very little. The parts will be useful.

I've been very happy with my little Graphics, have taken little advantage of things my Cambo (now Cambos) can do and they can't. You can read about the crazy things I've done with my Graphics at http://www.galerie-photo.com/telecha...2011-03-29.pdf . Understand that Graphics are not view cameras, have no movements to speak of and are not for everyone.

If you are locked into 120 film because of the Coolscan, then you may want a dedicated 6x9 camera. However, a 4x5 system is often cheaper with no to little weight gain, and you have the option of shooting different formats - 6x12, 6x9, 6x7, etc. If you are comfortable with the image quality you get from your Super 23 using the groundglass to focus, compose and add movements, then you will be comfortable with a 6x9 camera (though films backs should be considered - I believe the Mamiya backs are the best).

A digital back complicates this considerably due to the precision required. If you go with film only, then you have a lot of options at a lot of price points. If you are set on digital, then you need a very precise camera, and the options dwindle to only a few, with the best costing beaucoup $$$, and weighing a ton due to the geared movements.

IMHO the Linhof baby technika is a sweet camera because it is so versatile. But amazing work can be done with a Speed or Crown Graphic.

Dan, Drew, Peter. Thanks a lot for your time and advices.
I will try to find a 4x5 camera, Sinar or Cambo.

They are modern, cheaper that 2X3, modular and have lots of replacements, much more Sinar than Cambo, but for my type of work that's not very important.

Sincerely, thanks!
I will post my first pictures as soon as I can.

Brandán

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandan

Dan, Drew, Peter. Thanks a lot for your time and advices.
I will try to find a 4x5 camera, Sinar or Cambo.

They are modern, cheaper that 2X3, modular and have lots of replacements, much more Sinar than Cambo, but for my type of work that's not very important.

Sincerely, thanks!
I will post my first pictures as soon as I can.

Brandán

---

After you find one then look at a Linhof TK 23S.

If you are in to wide angle's and 120 film a 4x5 will to restricted most of the time. There is a reason why good second hand 2X3 camera's are expensive.

I will second Bob's advise: Be a bit patient and look for a used Linhof Technikardan 45S. It is extremely versatile, built to the highest standards imaginable, and folds down compact for travel. Along with the Arca Swiss metric compact (and Toyo VX125) it is the do-it-all technical field camera... it just happens to be much cheaper used than the Arcas on the used market.

This shot was done stitching two 4x5 negatives on the Technikardan using back shifts (and front rise, of course). Effectively it is a 5x8" image. Used a Rodenstock Grandagon-N 115mm f/6.8

Attachment 88278

WHOA!!!!

Sweet dreams come from this image.
Thanks for sharing.

But Bob says the TK 23S and you recommend the 45S. Both are superb I suppose.
There is one selling right now at Devil's Bay 1500 eur ...

Beware, its not the S-version, which has zero-detents. You certainly want the S-version if you want to use a roll film back... you probably want the S-version no matter what.
Bob answers your questions and I tell you what you really want ;) no, I just agree with the advise given to you earlier, that it would be a good idea to go for a 4x5 instead of dedicated 6x9... all of the sudden you will start appreciating the 4x5 ratio and handling sheet film really isn't anything to worry about. I see your scanning issue, but an Epson V700 or V750 isn't too expensive and offers good results. Alternatively you might have - as I do - a lab or gallery, where you can rent Imacons by the hour. I can scan 10 4x5's in 1 hour and it costs $12/€8. Cheap and very good quality.

Thanks for the nice words on the image. Its the inside of Copenhagen's finest cathedral, ie. an unused Gasholder. Sadly they blew it up this fall:

Attachment 88298

... a truly sad moment (for me at least). Captured on a Linhof Technika V with a 210 Symmar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandan

WHOA!!!!

Sweet dreams come from this image.
Thanks for sharing.

But Bob says the TK 23S and you recommend the 45S. Both are superb I suppose.
There is one selling right now at Devil's Bay 1500 eur ...

---

You asked about 23 cameras and I answered with the TK 23S. But I personally would get the 45 version. The 45 version is 4 square inches larger, has a 20" rail rather then a 12' rail, has more movement and can take slide-in or International type roll backs including 6x12 backs. The 23 version can not shoot 612 format.
The camera offered is the original version not the S version. The easiest way to tell the difference between a 23 or 45 S and non-S version is the L standard. On the S it is made from 3 pieces, two straight pieces and a joining block to make an L shape. On the original version it was made from one piece of metal bent into an L shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing

You asked about 23 cameras and I answered with the TK 23S. But I personally would get the 45 version. The 45 version is 4 square inches larger, has a 20" rail rather then a 12' rail, has more movement and can take slide-in or International type roll backs including 6x12 backs. The 23 version can not shoot 612 format.
The camera offered is the original version not the S version. The easiest way to tell the difference between a 23 or 45 S and non-S version is the L standard. On the S it is made from 3 pieces, two straight pieces and a joining block to make an L shape. On the original version it was made from one piece of metal bent into an L shape.

---

Is the Linhoff TK 23S precise enough for use with MF digital back?

Sandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Is the Linhoff TK 23S precise enough for use with MF digital back?

Sandy

---

Sandy,

I'd go for an Alpa/Arca/Cambo tech camera or Linhof Techno if planning to use as a 'technical' camera with a digital back, personally. Although the Technikardan 23/23S, TK45/45S, Master Technika classic/2000/3000 are all digitally capable, having very fine-geared movements really aids in exacting composition IMO... That's where the first one's I mentioned are really designed for digital, but also work well with rollfilm too!

Just get your wallet ready, prices, even used on these 'tech' cameras are STEEP compared to a used MT2000 and a couple of really nice lenses. Not to mention, more versatile IMO...

-Dan

Addition:

Personally, having handled(but not used all) of the ones I mentioned above in one manner or another, MY favorite one thus far was the Arca RM3di, the built-in tilt function is handier than most think!

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/..._detail&p=3167

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Is the Linhoff TK 23S precise enough for use with MF digital back?

Sandy

---

For a while I used a TK 23S with a phase one P65+. The TK23S is know replaced with a Linhof m679cs. If that answers your question. Also the TK can not be used with a sliding back.

I use a TK23S, and it's a very fine technical film camera - love it. But I think I would agree that it is not really suited to use with a digital back, despite the images in the brochure.

That situation may change if and when one of the digital back manufacturers comes up with a back with true live view - there is certainly demand for such a product, so it is probably only a matter of time. However, since it is likley that new lenses will also be needed to get the most out of such a back anyway, the actual camera becomes very much the lesser problem in the overall deal - almost petty cash by comparison.

For the moment, especially if working to a budget, I'd recommend dropping the digital upgrade option as a bit of a red herring as things currently stand. A TK23S or an Arca-Swiss 6X9 with film are both capapble of very good images indeed - and a Coolcsan 9000 works well with such a package (I use one, too!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gary mulder

For a while I used a TK 23S with a phase one P65+. The TK23S is know replaced with a Linhof m679cs. If that answers your question. Also the TK can not be used with a sliding back.

---

This is misleading.
The 23S is not replaced at all. It and the 45S are current cameras.
Linhof now makes two different cameras designed primarily for digital:
The Techno
The M67cs
Both cameras take the same back accessories, including the two sliding backs that Linhof currently offers for these cameras. A third sliding back is available for the Master Technika Classic and the Master Technika 3000 and the ealier versions back to the IV.

The Linhof sliding backs and the Linhof Digi Adapters for the TK cameras (23 and 45 versions) accept adapter plates to mount digital backs that fit Hasselblad H, Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645 AF and Contax 645 cameras. Most of these backs have a viewing function for focusing, composing, previewing and examining the file after the shot.

Did you mean that you replaced your TK23S with the M679cs rather then implying that the TK23S is discontinued.

What I mean is that my experience is that, for my work with a phase one p65+ the TK 23 S is lacking the required precision and I have replaced mine with a M679.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gary mulder

What I mean is that my experience is that, for my work with a phase one p65+ the TK 23 S is lacking the required precision and I have replaced mine with a M679.

---

I hoped that that was the answer. But I didn't want others to think that the 23 TK S was no longer available,

Since your original post is now almost a year old, I guess you have made your decision and purchased a camera. However, in case you are still reviewing various options, I'd like to fill you in on the Plaubel Peco Juniors, the 6.5 x 9 cm model and the 9 x 12 cm camera. The 6 x 9 Peco Junior was designed by Goetz Schrader, owner of Plaubel, and was introduced at the 1958 Photokina trade show. It has several advantages as well as problems, depending on your needs. One big claim to fame is its weight: only 1.5 kg (ca. 3-1/4 lbs) without shutter and lens. Except for the bellows and ground glass, it is an all-metal construction on a flat geared monorail, 250 mm long, so it is quite sturdy and compact. The original pleated bellows was leather and probably has been replaced since the last camera was sold 50 years ago, and if not, it should be. The bellows is interchangeable with a soft wide-angle bag bellows. The front standard has rise/fall and side shift movements but no lens tilt or swing; the rear standard has tilts and swings instead, plus a spirit level. Focusing is geared for both front and rear standards. The ground glass is shielded by a collapsing metal hood, but some photographers feel it is better to replace it with a focusing cloth. The lens board is 95 x 95 mm. The basic camera is augmented by various accessories, including two roll film backs ( 6x6 cm and 6x9 cm, with and without counters), a 35 mm back, a 6.5x9 cm plate holder with sheet film adapter, a spring-loaded 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" ground glass back for U.S. double film holders, etc. Instead of a metal carrying case, Plaubel offered the choice of a canvas case or a leather "hold-all" for the camera, lenses, several film holders, or what-have-you, which could be hung over a shoulder. The monorail has a tripod socket in its base, Some cameras might have focusing scales which were factory-installed upon order for photographers who were comfortable hand-holding the little monorail.

The 9x12 (4" x 5") Peco Junior is quite different. Schrader introduced it at the next Photokina in 1960. Again, it was a flat geared monorail view camera, but this time the front standard had full rise/fall, shift, tilt and swing movements, and the rear standard had tilt and swing on the optical axis. The monorail is 320 mm long (12-1/2") and has a tripod socket in its base. The camera's weight is relatively light for its size: 2.5 kg (about 5-1/2 lbs) but its main claim to fame is its compactness -- because either standard can be disconnected from the bellows and both standards can be swiveled until they are parallel with the monorail, the camera can become a flat package only 320 mm (12-1/2") long and less than 60 mm thick, fitting into a flat case.
As with the smaller Peco Junior, the original leather bellows has probably been replaced since the last model came off the production line some 50 years ago, but the interchangeable bellows had a soft wide-angle bag bellows as well. The quick-change lens board measures 120 x 120 mm, including a recessed wide-angle board for the 75 mm and 90 mm Super Angulons. There are spirit levels on the rear standard, and accessory shoes on both standards, as well as an adjustable compendium and filter holder on the front, naturally. A variety of backs includes the usual 9 x 12 cm spring back for metric plate or sheet film holders, two US backs (spring or Graflok) for 4" x 5" holders, a Makinarail adapter for 6.5 x 9 cm holders and magazines, a Makinarail sliding back with built-in ground glass on one end and accepting all 6.5 x 9 cm holders and magazines on the other end, two 120 roll film adapters, one for eight 2-1/4" x 3-1/4 frames and the other for twelve 2-/4" x 2-1/4" frames, both with counters, and finally, a 35 mm magazine. I hope all this detail is useful and not too tedious, but these cameras were discontinued a long time ago, so there are not many sources for information. However, Plaubel's offices in Frankfurt still service them. Good luck in your search!