6x9 Why?

[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.