6x9 Technical or 4x5 field for Architecture

[dmhorne]

Hi everyone, I'm considering which type of camera to purchase used, for location architectual work.

Would a 6x9 technical camera (Linhof, Horseman) have enough movements for general interior &

exterior work? If so, which camera on the used market would fit the bill. How wide of a lens can I use on

these cameras? I presently have a 4x5 monorail that I use for product work in the studio, but I would

like something dedicated for location work.

[gary_ferguson1]

I used a 4x5 Linhof Master Techika for architecture for many, many years. However, about

five or six years ago I came to the conclusion that film quality had moved on and I could

safely save some film and processing costs by moving to a Linhof M679 6x9 outfit. I've

subsequently moved to using a Phase One P25 back on the Linhof M679.

 

My conclusions are mixed.

 

Putting a 6x9 back on a high precision, fully geared, tecnical camera wasn't too much of a

change from 4x5. But it really has to be a camera that's accurate enough to deliver the

more demanding level of setting precision required from a smaller format. Going to a

37mm x 49mm digital sensor on a technical camera takes the required level of precision

to the very limits of practicality. Despite thirty years of large format experience it really did

take a few weeks of practise before being able to consistently deliver the quality that

digital is capable of.

 

So IMO a 6x9 camera can make sense for architecture, but choose a good 6x9 camera that

really can deliver the higher level of precision needed to exploit modern emulsions.

[leonard_evens]

I have a Horseman 980 which I used on and off over a 30 year period. I have the Horseman 65 mm, 90 mm, and 150 mm lenses, two 6 x 7 roll film holders and some sheet film holders. There is a web site somewhere which lists the lenses that will work with the Horseman, and I believe there is no lens shorter than 65 mm. I've used my camera for external architectural photography quite a bit, but mostly for two and three story houses. (See /www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/Vineyard/1760716a-1.html

for an example.) Even for those, it has limitations. I eventually upgraded to a 4 x 5 camera, which I find much better for that purpose.

 

With medium format, as opposed to 4 x 5, there is less need for use of tilts and swings because there is more depth of field for similar scenes. But you do need rise/fall and shifts. Rise is particularly useful for architecture. With my camera, with the 65 mm lens, you are so close to the camera body that rise is limited when the camera is in landscape position. More up-to-date Horsemans and similar cameras have revolving backs, so you could mount the camera vertically and rotate the back, which would eliminate this problem. Be that as it may, 65 mm is not short enough for common situations met in architectural photography. Used with the 6 x 7 format, it is roughly equivalent to a 110 mm lens on 4 x 5. I have a 90 mm and a 75 mm lens for my 4 x 5 camera. I regularly use 90 mm and on occasion I need the 75 mm lens.

 

I am just beginning to think about indoor architectural photography. For that the lack of availability of short focal length lenses would be even more of a limitation.

 

My 4 x 5 is a Toho FC-45X (not Toyo) It is a monorail, but it is very light and comes apart for easy transport. For professional work, if you can afford it, you might do better with a more rigid camera, but I think the toho is usable for that purpose. There are several 4 x 5 monorails, such as some made by Arca-Swiss, which are easy to transport.

 

If you are used to doing product work with a monorail, I think you will find a 6 x 9 technical camera like the Horseman inadequate for what you want to do.

[kmcgrew]

In the late '80s and early 1990 I shot many houses of worship as part of an independent effort (private, non-professional) to record religious architecture of the Pacific Northwest. My camera is a Plaubel 4x5 and I used a Schneider 90mm lens. Subjects were both interiors and exteriors of the buildings.

 

I would stick with the 4x5 myself, depending on the size of enalrgments and amount of cropping you need to do.

[jimsimmons]

Gerry Kopelow wrote a pretty good book on architectural photography, devoting a good deal of attention to your particular question. He specifically described the two MF format cameras he used and their particular limitations - the Fuji 680GX and a Linhof 6x9 Technical camera. The Linhof had to be modified for sufficient rise, and the Fuji doesn't provide enough movements for some tasks. He uses a 4x5 for maximum capabilities.

 

Architectural photographers are doing more and more work on MF film these days. Some are using rollfilm holders on 4x5s, some are using Pentax 6x7 and doing their perspective control on photoshop.

 

Some are doing their day-in/day-out work on Canon full frame DSLRs with the Canon 24mm and 45mm shift lenses, and only using 4x5 for jobs that require it.

 

I use an Arca Swiss F Metric, shooting mostly 6x7 roll film backs and 4x5 when needed (or for my own pleasure). The precision of the F-Metric is excellent. My lens spacing is pretty wide at 55-90-150-250, but in 35mm terms these relate to (roughly) 16-28-45-70 in 4x5 and 28-45-70-120 in 6x7. You can see how this makes shifting up or down easy to previsualize as I change formats. You WILL need a 55mm or wider for interiors.

[jimsimmons]

I meant that you will need a 55mm for shooting medium format interiors, not for 4x5.

[big toys are better]

One thing to ponder is the reputation for sheet film to lay flatter in its holder than roll film in the roll film back. 6x9 is not such a stretch (pardon the pun) that its flatness will be greatly compromized, but you could just get a 6x9 roll film back such as the Cambo/calumet version and use on your 4x5, and still be able to shoot sheets of 4x5.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that the big advantage of a 6x9 view camera (and Carbon <Japan> also makes a very nice 6x9 field unit) is using a high resolution digital back on it rather than shoot film. THAT would get my attention! but either way, shooting 6x9 vs. 4x5 is all about getting the right lenses, much like the fancy "35mm" digital SLRs with either full size or smaller sensors, and getting the lenses needed to get all that the cameras claim they can do.

[friedemann_pistorius]

David, did you take an Ebony camera into consideration? Their non folding cameras are especially suited for architectural work (www.ebonycamera.com).

[d_g]

for 6x9 and architecture, arca swiss f-line 69 is the way to go !

And if you can afford the metric one, it's even better !