6x17 Panoramic Back on 4x5 Camera ? Opinions? Experiences?

[robert_hurd]

Hi, All,

 

Could folks share their experiences/ opinions in using a 6x17 film

back on a 4x5?

 

(I am thinking of getting one as a Xmas gift for me and my Shen-Hao

4x5.)

 

1. How well does the 6x17 back work?

 

2. Is it really significantly better or different from just shooting

with 4x5 film and then cropping to a panoramic image?

 

3. What lenses work well with the 6x17? (Wider than 90?)

 

4. Is there a huge light fall-off toward the edges, thus requiring a

center filter?

 

I searched and found the following post on the "Tomiyama Art Panorama

617": http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009rqY

 

Thanks all!

 

Robt.

[richard_ilomaki]

Robert:

 

The main advantage, or so I have been told by my architect photog friends is that it allows the use of 120 roll film, which make the per-shot cost lower and increases the range of films available.

 

The 17 cm dimension makes it closer to a 5 x 7 format, so coverage will likely be an issue.

 

The Shen Hao back is a simple device( and very much less expensive) than some others, but it works. It uses a ruby window for film winding and the finish is industrial rather than fine instrument work. ( I have seen and held it at the factory)

 

cheers

[daniel_blakeslee]

You will indeed have to have a 5x7 camera to use a 6x17 film back because 17cm is just short of seven inches. Some 4x5 cameras have available a back extender which converts them to 5x7. Do that and you might be able to use a 6x17 rollfilm back.

[richard_ilomaki]

Continued

 

The Shen Hao has a steel extension bellows-like section which takes the focal plane back until it can support the 6 x 17 holder. Both pieces are included.

 

Cheers

[lars ake vinberg]

THe Shen-Hao back is OK for lenses about 90-150 mm. For lenses longer than that the 4x5 frame crops the sides slightly, and for shorter focal lengths a recessed lens board would be necessary.

 

Finish is decent but not exactly Linhof-level. The back and the focusing back are heavy. The rollfilm back actually crops more than the focusing back because of differen designs, but this can easily be machined. If done properly, a 180mm lens should work with virtually no side cropping.

 

My first test roll shows that the back works as intended - no surprises.

 

There is a good article on the Shen-Hao back by Kerry Thalmann in a recent View Camera Magazine.

 

Light fall-off depends on the lens used. For wider lenses you will see dramatic fall-off so center filter might be necessary. Longer lenses seldom have a need for center filter. My 120 could perhaps use a center filter, whereas my 180 is fine without it. For 90 or shorter center filter is a must if you shoot color film, but possibly not with b/w (a matter of taste).

[peter_roberts4]

Where to buy this 6x17 film back? At what cost?

[scott_walton2]

I had thought of it but bought a 6x17 Fuji instead. The problem is more post production (but agreeing with the posts above also). 17 isn't fully printable with a 4x5 enlarger where as a 12cm is. You might want to look into a 6x12 back otherwise you'll be committed to scanning all your images... Just a thought.

[deans]

http://www.badgergraphic.com sells the 6x17 panoramic back for 4x5

[robert_hurd]

Thanks for all the insights!

 

I guess my remaining question...is the 6x17 image that much better than a cropped 4x5, that it is worth the expense? (I'm sure this is a personal opinion, but I am wondering how the 6x17 image compares with just a 4x5 cropped and printed to a 6x17 aspect ratio.)

 

Thanks!

 

Robt.

[wyverndude]

As Richard pointed out, the raison d'etre for a 6X17 back is to allow the use of roll film. This of course offers many advantages over cropping a 5X7 sheet of film... all of which are pretty well negated if you do very little work in this format.

 

As far as any advantage over a cropped 4X5, I would have to say that the difference (grain, etc) would be minor, if not negligible. A more significant difference will be to limit your movements and choice of lenses.

 

Unless you have a specific need for exactly 6X17, I would think you'd be far better off using a 6X12 back on 4X5. The 6X12 images can be cropped to give you the same proportions if you want; and you will have a much easier time finding lenses.

 

As an example, I was looking into this when I was designing my camera, and realized that I was going to get a wider angle of view with the Rodenstock Grandagon 35 than could be possible with any lens (that I could find) that would cover 6X17.

[doug_meek1]

A 6x17 chrome has 96% more area than a 4x5 chrome cropped to a 6x17 aspect ratio (9408 vs 4800 square mm). That's a lot of real estate, and I would hardly call that negligible! The difference in big enlargements would be readily apparent. It just depends on how big you plan to go with your enlargements.

[wyverndude]

<I>It just depends on how big you plan to go with your enlargements</I>

<P>

Exactly.

[robert_hurd]

Thanks, all!

 

I am interested in being able to make Panoramic prints of three to four feet in length...roughly.

 

Robt.

[doug_meek1]

At 3 feet wide your 4x5 should work fine - that's only an 8x enlargement factor. At 4 feet wide you will definitely notice a difference in quality between using 4x5 vs 6x17. The 4x5 would be a 10x enlargement factor and the 6x17 would only be 7X. Side by side comparisons would show a clear difference in quality. However, only you can determine what is acceptable for you in terms of quality. It's all relative. You might be perfectly happy with a 10x enlargement from your 4x5. For me - that's pusing it, but that's just me. I hear many people say how they get 40x50 enlargements from medium format and how sharp they are. By my standards, they are not at all sharp. To each his own.

[doug_meek1]

Correction - the first line in my response above should say 7x enlargement factor, not 8.

[robert_hurd]

Thanks, Doug,

 

I am back and forth on the issue...but since a 6x17 back is rather pricy, I should probably abstain. Retirement saving and all..

 

Robt.

[doug_meek1]

I totally understand where you're coming from Robert. 4x5 already gives you so many options. You can get stunning 6x12's, you can of course shoot 4x5, and you can go the 40 x 120 route if you choose to. Sure those 6x17 chromes look awesome, but like you said - it's expensive! Definitely the law of diminishing returns coming into play. I have both a 4x5 and a Fuji GX617 system. I get MUCH more bang for my buck with the 4x5 system - and with movements to boot!