6x9 Why?
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.
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).
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.
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
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
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.Originally Posted by 1750Shooter
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
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
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.
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.
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!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks