Hello and question, please

Hi everyone,

I'm not new to p.net but somehow hadn't realized there were all these manual and vintage camera forums down low on the page in "Equipment'! Ah well, I'm here now and am interested in adding a 6X9 to my kit. Current cameras are a Hasselblad 5000cm, a modern(ish) M4/3 Olympus OMD EM1 (1st gen), and a just-purchased-have-yet-to-receive Voigltander Bessa R3M. Looking at vintage Zeiss folders at the moment, there's one with a Zeiss Tessar f3.5 10.5cm (105mm?) lens that I'm drooling over currently.

 

But I'm wondering about the lens, wouldn't that be a rather long lens or does it translate out to something different on this 6X9 folding camera/bellows format? Not knowing exactly, but thinking like how does this compare to a 50mm lens on 35mm format?

 

Others I have looked at had like 7.5cm lenses, but I don't recall seeing much middle ground between that and the 10.5cm.

 

 

Thanks in advance.

Standard lens for 6x9, 45mm equivalent.

 

6x9 Lens data

 

My Ensign Selfix 820 has a Ross Xpres 105mm, it's an improved Tessar and stunningly sharp.

As Steve almost said, the normal focal length for 24x36 is 43 mm. The normal focal length for 56 x 82 (that's what nominal 6x9 really is, it is a poor metric approximation to 2.25 x 3.25 inches) is 100 mm.

 

I don't agree with Steve about the Selfix 820's 105/3.8. It is a jes' plain Tessar type, two singlets in front of the diaphragm and a cemented doublet behind it, and it isn't very sharp. Although it is collimated properly I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot from it. The 101/4.5 Ektar on my 2x3 (short for 2.25 x 3.25) Graphics (Century, Pacemaker Speed) is much better.

For what it's worth the 75/80mm are usually tied with 6x6 format...that said of course 105mm will work for that as well.

what we call crop factor nowadays is MFT x2 -> FF (35mm) and 35mm x2 -> 6x9cm. 35mm x3 -> 4x5" Dunno where to place 6x6, due to its different shape. Does it really exist or is it basically a messy workaround to not need to engineer a rotating 6x4.5 back?... But who cares? - We have it and are probably making use of it.

Biggest question connected to slightly different focal lengths: What is the treshold to wake up, add &/ change lenses?

Example: In the 35mm realm you'll find folks who did stunning pictures with their 60mm macro lenses. Asssuming you have a 50mm right now, would their work really be a reason to change your kit? Or. Would the step from a (both 6x6) Pentacon with 120mm to a Mamiya with 135mm really matter?

 

Which focal lengths are worth getting and carrying? - Short side of your frame? - a basic super wide. Long side: a wide. 2 short sides: standard. 2-3 long sides: "portrait" and so on. Always the same scheme, just on a different scale, depending on your sensor or film size and math to be done roughly, without digging out calculators or pen & paper.

Buy one of the many 6x9 folders with the lens built in.

 

Avoid American cameras that require 620 film instead of 120. You can respool, but it's just more trouble.

The fuji 6x9 normally has a 90mm lens.

Thanks everyone. Sounds like the 105mm lens is just right on that Zeiss Ikonta folder. IF150mm on a 35 mm or 80mm on a 6X6 camera is "right", I guess is what I mean. Like it's a good medium focal length lens, not too wide and not too long, good for general purpose, yes?

 

SO moving on then, I see people are using quite a lot of old time manual cameras. Do any of you shoot a 1930s,1940s or 50s Zeiss 6X9 cameras? Like an Ikonta or any variation thereof?

Do any of you shoot a 1930s,1940s or 50s Zeiss 6X9 cameras? Like an Ikonta or any variation thereof?

 

I've shot a 521/2 and a 531/2. They're awkward to hold but produce nice images when everything goes right

Its not 6x9 but my 532/16 Super Ikonta is 6x6. There is something sweet about a medium format machine that fits in a jacket pocket. (and is built to last too).

Richocetrider said:

Do any of you shoot a 1930s,1940s or 50s Zeiss 6X9 cameras? Like an Ikonta or any variation thereof?

 

It may be a little old for your tastes, but this is one of my personal favourites:

 

Quality Personified : The Zeiss Ikon Icarette

Do any of you shoot a 1930s,1940s

My stuff that I really used starts in the 1950s, isn't very Zeiss heavy. Question to ask yourself: How will you handle uncoated glass from the 1930s? Resulting negs should be less contrasty and just different. - I failed to click with my 1920s Heliar. Couldn't do ordinary outdoors pictures the way I was used to with my coted stuff. (BW, wet darkroom) Dunno if you can PP just everything into a scan (in theory you should be able but using flatbeds or other CCD/CMOS tech you might not be able to produce enough grey scales, when they all are pretty close together on a neg).

All good stuff, thanks!

I guess my main concern is how bright or East to focus the viewfinder would be. I’ve had a couple older vintage cameras- like 40s & 50s in hand, and couldn’t seem to see the viewfinder well enough to achieve super sharp focus.

 

I guess I also hadn’t realized the lenses without a coating on would be so different although some of the recent images I’ve seen shot with old cameras do seem to support that.

 

there are at least a couple late 40s or early 50s Zeiss Ilon Ikontas on eBay right now, one or two in amazing original condition. Asking upwards of 350.00 or more. I’m hesitant to drop that kind of money into one tho, without absolutely knowing. I’m in it to shoot not to have something sit on the shelf. And I want to shoot 120 film, not some esoteric roll film I can’t just go buy.

my main concern is how bright or East to focus the viewfinder would be. I’ve had a couple older vintage cameras- like 40s & 50s in hand, and couldn’t seem to see the viewfinder well enough to achieve super sharp focus.

Sorry, I fear that environmental influences are too important and variable, to make a statement that would be relevant for your purchase too. A first owner could have had quite a few cigars in the bedsit, shared with your camera...

IDK what (else?) is how bad for RF beam spliter silverings and such, but I guess you are getting the general idea.

The RFs in my 1950s & soviet stuff seem dimmer than in my M3 and even that one is due for refurbishing, compared to more recent Leicas. OTOH I'd call the Rangemeter of my Linhof "still shootable".

Buy one of the many 6x9 folders with the lens built in.

 

Avoid American cameras that require 620 film instead of 120. You can respool, but it's just more trouble.

 

I would't necessarily avoid American made cameras because they use 620 size film. Some of these 620 cameras can easily accept a trimmed down 120 film. It's only a minor inconvenience in my eyes that enables one to use some pretty fantastic cameras and lenses.

Some of these 620 cameras can easily accept a trimmed down 120 film.

 

Not my experience. Respooling is not difficult, but it is tedious. There are lots of cameras that take 120 film, some of them among the best medium format cameras ever.

Other than a Kodak Medalist II with its incredible Ektar lens, I can't think of a 620 camera that would be worth the effort (to me). Shaving 120 spools to fit, or re-spooling 120 film onto 620 spools, is the kind of thing that some photographers have a real knack for, and others don't. If you have the knack, there's nothing to it and you'll think the rest of us are lazy. If you don't have the knack, you'll think the 620 enthusiasts are a bit... strange. YMMV, but for someone just starting out in medium format, 120 would definitely be the easier first step.

Respooling 120 film onto 620 reels really isn't a big deal, if you have a film changing bag or tent. While I'm lucky enough to have a darkroom, it takes me no more than a minute to respool a film, probably less time than it takes to home-load a cassette of 35mm.To forgo the purchase of a good camera merely because it uses 620 film seems rather a shame. Acquiring a couple of 620 spools is a bigger problem...

I usually limit my 620 "exploits" to cameras that can at least take a 120 spool on the supply side. There are quite a few in this category, including earlier versions of the ubiquitous Brownie Hawkeye(which is basically a 1950s Holga without the light leaks). These make the 620 situation a lot more bearable since you're effectively letting the camera respool the film for you. With that said, even a lot of those are only worth burning an expired roll of B&W if I REALLY feel a pressing need to take 1950s-looking happy snaps.

 

I go back and forth on 6x9. On one hand, the film area is appealing, but you'll end up cropping a lot of it down to roughly the equivalent of 6x7 for most of the common print sizes(8x10 and larger), so in effect you're just wasting two frames per roll of film. Some folks like to call 6x7 the "ideal format" because it prints to so many common sizes with minimal cropping, but you also get into a lot of larger, newer, and typically more expensive/pro oriented cameras to shoot it. From what I've seen, the Koni-Omega line is probably the most affordable entry into the format, but it's a heavy and to me sort of awkward beast. I consider the Mamiya RB67 probably the best all around value since it's a comprehensive system with mostly excellent lenses that is also fairly affordable(some of the newest K/L lenses, the oddballs, and things like Pro-SD backs still hold their value well, while the rest is a fraction of its Hasselblad equivalent) but you pay a significant size/weight penalty on it.

 

About two months ago, I got the itch for a smaller/semi-pocketable medium format camera, and ended up with a Super Ikonta 532/16. These can still hold their value decently well as they have some fairly desirable features not present in a lot of lower end cameras of the period, including a combined coupled rangefinder(so you know it's correctly focused as long as the rangefinder calibration is correct) and automatic frame indexing once you hit the first frame. The downsides are that it's designed to only give 11 frames on a roll as a safeguard to prevent overlap(some people can finesse a 12th frame on theirs-I only end up with half a frame when I try on mine). Also, IMO f/2.8 is probably stretching things a bit for a medium format Tessar, and I don't like to use mine any wider than f/4, and preferably at f/5.6 or f/8. That's true of pretty much all Tessar and Tessar type lenses, though, including the stupidly expensive F mount one Nikon came out with in ~2000. In addition, Tessars are often okay uncoated, but for an f/2.8 I want a coated lens, and this model camera came both ways.

Other than a Kodak Medalist II with its incredible Ektar lens, I can't think of a 620 camera that would be worth the effort (to me). Shaving 120 spools to fit, or re-spooling 120 film onto 620 spools, is the kind of thing that some photographers have a real knack for, and others don't. If you have the knack, there's nothing to it and you'll think the rest of us are lazy. If you don't have the knack, you'll think the 620 enthusiasts are a bit... strange. YMMV, but for someone just starting out in medium format, 120 would definitely be the easier first step.

 

The Medalist (I & II) if I recall, can't accept a trimmed down 120 spool in the supply chamber, so it may very well require a re-spooled roll of film, but I haven't personally tried it. The Chevron, on the other hand, can certainly accept the trimmed 120 spools, but it is a 6x6 camera and not 6x9. It too has a very nice Ektar lens. If you can use a pair of cuticle scissors, and a simple file to smooth the edges (sometimes the file isn't even needed), you can trim a spool. No real "knack" needed to trim plastic

I usually limit my 620 "exploits" to cameras that can at least take a 120 spool on the supply side. There are quite a few in this category, including earlier versions of the ubiquitous Brownie Hawkeye(which is basically a 1950s Holga without the light leaks). These make the 620 situation a lot more bearable since you're effectively letting the camera respool the film for you. With that said, even a lot of those are only worth burning an expired roll of B&W if I REALLY feel a pressing need to take 1950s-looking happy snaps.

 

I have trimmed down 120 film to fit a Kodak Bull's Eye camera and used it recently to snap pictures at a friend's 50th birthday party. It really was a hoot to use with T-max 100 film with the clear M2 flashbulbs. For such a simple camera, all the pictures came out properly exposed.

The Kodak Monitor Six-20 with f/4.5 Anastigmat Special lens is pretty optically impressive and rigid. Takes trimmed 120 feed spools, but requires 620 take-up spools. But the bellows almost always need to be replaced when you buy one, which is a big downside. But I'm sure it doesn't hold a candle to the Medalist...

 

I think my Monitor Six-20 has a better lens than my Ikonta C with f/4.5 Tessar. The Anastigmat Special is also a Tessar, but with rare earth glass.

Did a random internet search for "6X9 camera" and turned up the Mamiya press camera (standard?) and the Mamiya Super 23. Both seem to have they oqnqualities but the 23 seems to be a little more flexible interns of what can be achieved with it. And speaking to the comment about coated lenses, I think it possible to use any Mamiya lens on the system? So a more recent lens might be able to work. Still digging up info on these but found a good write up from 2017:

Double review: Mamiya Press Super 23 and Mamiya Universal Press | EMULSIVE

 

Will handle a number of film styles with various attachments.No cutting or trimming required. The older models (pre super23) will also take a polaroid film back.

I think it possible to use any Mamiya lens on the system?

Grammar alert! I won't try to count how many different Mamiya systems flooded the market. 35mm, 6x6 TLR, 6x6 RF, 3 different 6x7s I am aware of - maybe the press you dug out serves as a 4th?... Be careful what you'll shop. But that stuff is so young that each and every lens should at least be coated. If multiple generations exist you might benefit from the later one but read reviews by folks who used the stuff and make up your mind if differences matter to you or not. - I can't be bothered to hunt down a "black" 135mm to replace my earlier chrome one on the TLRs. I am loading fast film, printing rather small, shooting hand held and am content with my results. - YMMV. Worried about IQ, I'd still load rather fast film and bring a bigger camera. Or switch to digital...

I haven't handled a press / universal but what I have seen was big and far from "coat pocketable", like the folders you mentioned earlier.

Is somebody making peel apart "Polaroid" for those cameras right now? - Is it in your price range? - Wouldn't it be better to shoot it with a 4x5", to use the entire "film" format? Can 6x9cm prints be $2 per pop impressive?...

Did a random internet search for "6X9 camera" and turned up the Mamiya press camera (standard?) and the Mamiya Super 23. Both seem to have they oqnqualities but the 23 seems to be a little more flexible interns of what can be achieved with it. And speaking to the comment about coated lenses, I think it possible to use any Mamiya lens on the system? So a more recent lens might be able to work.

 

Mamiya Press cameras accept lenses in Mamiya Press mount. Putting foul alien unclean other lenses in Press mount and making the RF coupling work isn't trivial. End of discussion.

 

If you want to use nearly any lens your best bet is a 2x3 view or press camera. I've used a wide range of lenses on my 2x3 Cambo SC and on 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics. Neither will fit in a pocket.

 

You earlier remarked that you don't want to use uncoated lenses. If that's what you don't want to do, fine. But and however, I've got excellent results with uncoated Tessar types, in particular with echt f/6.3 CZJ Tessars, f/6.3 B&Ls and a 101/4.5 Ektar as supplied with some US-made 2x3 press cameras, and with uncoated dagor types, in particular f/14 Ser. VIa Perigraphes.