Newbie camera advice for landscapes. 6x9?

[Pigeon]

Hi all,

I need some advice on purchasing a camera system for landscape work (as I have never used a view/field camera before).

1. Is the 6x9 format too small for landscape work in terms of final print size? Can I assume 16x20 sized prints would be the max enlargement?

The 6x9 is appealing because:
-I already own a Nikon 9000 scanner which would be perfect for 6x9 scans.
-Being able to bracket exposures using 120 film plus cheaper to buy and more lab-accessible for processing.
-I am of small(ish) build and weight/portability is an issue.

2. Is an Arca-Swiss F metric compact (either 4x5 or 6x9) overkill in terms of movements and features for landscape work? For instance, are yaw-free movements, geared movements so helpful?

Should I be looking for a simpler, lighter system such as the Ebony's? I do like wideangles in my 35mm work, so I would need a system to cope with 20-21mm equiv. in 35mm format.

3. Are there any web links to photos of this particular Arca Swiss camera with photographers (or their hands) using the camera, so I have an idea of the size of the camera?

Apologies for so many questions (but I am a newbie!).

Any advice or comments appreciated.

Thanks.

[Vaughn]

I assume you want to stick with roll film, so 6x9 will make fine 16x20 enlargements.

Yes, I believe yaw-free movements are over-kill for landscapes (note...personal opinion, your milage may differ.)

I suggest getting a 4x5 field camera so that you have the option of going 4x5 if you wish and then using roll backs to fit it for the use of 120 roll film. Field cameras can weigh under 4 pounds.

I use to have a chart that gave me the equivilent focal lenghts for different formats -- can't find it. But as an example, 28mm on a 35mm camera is comparable to 55mm on a 6x7 and a 90mm on a 4x5. A comparative lens for 6x9 that would be close to 20mm on 35mm would be around 45mm...which is expensive and might need a center filter to even out the exposure...new about $1800+ for lens and filter.

You would also need a camera with a bag bellows for a lens that short. But I don't shoot that wide, so others might be better to answer that question.

vaughn

[Jiri Vasina]

I'm not using view cameras that long, but from my experience so far, you don't need that wide a lens as you would need to use on a 35mm. The composition can usually be taken using camera movements with a slightly longer lens... But that might only be my initial impression, someone of you gurus please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Dan Fromm]

Vaughn, 47 Super Angulons see about the same angles of view on nominal 6x9 as a 21 mm lens sees on 24x36. They're all used now, and early f/5.6s can be had for considerably less than the $1800+ you quoted. I'm quite happy with the one I use on my Century Graphic, don't feel the need for a center filter even with E-6 film.

Pigeon, FWIW I shoot landscapes with a 2x3 camera that has practically no movements. ~ 10 mm front rise, sometimes useful for lowering the horizon/disappearing the foreground. I've rarely hit situations where it wouldn't do.

[Vaughn]

Thanks Dan!

I was looking at a 3 year old cataloge (Calumet) for the prices. (Grandagons and Super Angulon XL's).

I imagine that a lens that short (47mm) would eliminate the need for a lot of camera movement due to its large depth of field. I probably should not have posted since I have little experience with wide angle lenses on 6x9 or 4x5. But I am waiting for 8x10 negs to wash and got bored!

I assume that your bellows on your 2x3 can easily handle a 47mm. That might make a difference to Pigeon between getting a dedicated 6cmx7cm camera or going up to 4x5.

Would going to 4x5 with a 47mm Super Angulon require (or just work easier with) a center filter for E-6?

vaughn

[eric black]

FWIW lenses and equipment aside; I find that a 2x3 is such a tiny camera that my fat fingers have a bit of a problem working with them- when the light is changing and you need to work fast, a 4x5 is a much easier format to get into position, get a good image on the screen and then capture and image with. Before going with a 2x3 I would recommend using one- I think Photomark in Phoenix rents them and AZ is a marvelous place to get the feel for what you will ultimately spend some serious $$ on. Im sure there are other rental possiblities wherever you are inclined to test something out.

As for the lens I also used to do quite a bit of wide angle work and find that with 4x5 my widest work seems to be in the 80mm range despite owning wider lenses.

For features, I have never complained about the number of features on my Arca F-line and have used every one of them at some point or another; but for a beginner make sure that you have at a minimum back movements- most people I shoot with dont even really make use of the front movements.

Good luck

[Ted Harris]

Vaughn, using a 47mm can eliminate the use of shifts or rise and fall in terms of how you frame the picture and what real estate you capture but it is not going to chang th need to use swings and tilts, in fact might even increae it in some instances. As for the use of a center filter, most shooting situations will require the use of one for any film unless you like dark corners.

As for the original question, as others have sated, there is little sense to a 6x9 dedicated camera as there is precious little size ad weight difference beetween the dedicted 6x9 cameras and many lightweight 4x5's. If you go to this Forum's Home Page you will find many articles comparing the relative merits of a wide range of 4x5 cameras. The ony Ebony model that falls into the real lightweight category is th RW. Others such as Tachihara and Horseman rival it. All hae different features. You are likely to find that your eye views the world differently in 4x5 than it does in 35mm; thus, you may find you have less interest in a lens as wide as 47mm ... that a 58mm or even a 75mm works well for you. Also remember that none of the folding cameras that I can think of are capable of easily handling a 47mm lesn if you want movements unless you use a bag bellows. The Arca or the comperable Toyo VX125 are always good choices if you want a rail camera that works well in the field.

[Pigeon]

Thanks everybody for your comments so far.

Would anyone know how a 6x9 slide scanned with a Nikon 9000 compares to a 4x5scanned with an Epson v750 for example at a print size of 16x20?

Would the better quality Nikon scanner bring more tonality to the scan and thus the final print, or would the less magnification favour the 4x5 scan, thus producing an optically superior print?

[Nick_3536]

Camera weights are often over worried about with LF. You can find LF cameras lighter then some 35mm cameras. LF lenses tend to be fairly light unless they take large shutters.


On the wide angle thing. Don't assume you will have the same feelings with bigger cameras. I don't like wide angles much on 35mm but with each bigger camera I tend to get wider.

[Ken Lee]

We have to answer the question of film size ourselves. Image quality is highly subjective, and is influenced not only by choice of film and lenses, but also by print viewing distance, lighting conditions, and choice of subject.

The same scene can often appear much sharper when shot in angular sunshine under a clear sky, than when shot in overcast light.

Since you have mentioned 16x20, this suggests that you will be cropping your 6x9 negatives down to 6x7. If that's the case, then consider getting a 6x7 back, since this will give you more shots per roll.

To go from 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 to 16 x 20 is an enlargement of roughly 7X. If you plan to print at 360 ppi, this means you need to scan at 7x360 or 2500 ppi - which the Nikon can deliver.

If we ignore film, this suggests that a lens which gives 80 lp/mm will print out at 80/7 or 11 lp/mm, which is just in-range for appearing sharp to the average viewer. If we toss in some image degradation from the scanner itself (since every step involves some loss of info), then we really are at the limit. If you intend to crop further, then the enlargement factor grows larger, and image quality declines accordingly.

There is a reason why 4x5 is such a popular format: people find it to be a "sweet-spot" - the convergence of portability, quality, and affordability, not to mention the availability of equipment, lenses, and accessories both new and used.

Once you add up all the equipment, such as camera, tripod, meter, film, holders, backs, etc. the difference between MF and 4x5 view cameras becomes negligable. Add to that, the fact that you only develop the film that you shoot, and that each shot can be processed individually, and you drift further towards 4x5.