6x9 in a 4x5 flat-bed

[________1]

Thinking about architectural photography and the one zillion of features and

trade-offs involved in picking a first camera. I'm wondering if shooting 6x9 in

an inexpensive 4x5 folder, 65mm lens, would give one the movements and necessary

coverage to do a reasonable job... most of the time. Any opinions?

 

Thanks!

[pvp]

I'm going to guess, that by "inexpensive folder" you mean a Speed Graphic or similar press camera. The short answer to your question, in that case, would be, "No."

 

Press cameras have only a very abbreviated subset of the possible movements, and it can be difficult to work around their inherent limitations.

 

OTOH, if you're NOT talking about press camera, a Shen Hao with a bag bellows would be a nice starter at a reasonable price.

[nickc1]

Your problem is twofold - if you use a 'simple folder' you will have neither sufficient movements, or amount of movement for those you do have, and the usual lenses fitted to these cameras does not have sufficient coverage to accomodate movements. You are quite right in that by using 6x9 you would address the coverage issue, however the main one - ie movements will still prevent you from achieving what you are trying to do.

 

Nick

[leonard_evens]

I agree that you would find that configuration pretty disappointing. Ideally, if you want to do 6 x 9 view camera photography, you should use a camera designed specifically for 6 x 9. If you use a camera designed for 4 x 5, you have to contend with possible limitations of how close you can bring the standards together to use short focal length lenses, among other problems. Some 4 x 5 cameras are sufficeintly flexible, but they also tend to be much more expensive.

 

If you look on the used market, you may be able to find a used 6 x 9 Technika or Horseman technical camera. Even those have some limitations for the uses you intend.

[jeffpolaski]

I have a Century Graphic 2x3 (6x9 rollback on a Graflok). The movements are there, buut they are limited. It being a used camera, I fond myself in need of a new piece of ground glass to do any kind of critical focusing and perspective adjustments.

 

So, short of investing in a real view camera (whatever size), and the cost of film and printing, I use the 6x9 to get a good clean negative to scan, and adjust prespective in Photoshop. Bleasphemy, perhaps, but it fits into my time and budget.

 

The little Graphic is pure fun to use. One roll of 120 film equals several hours of shooting.

[________1]

Thanks for the replys. I was in fact thinking along the lines of a second hand Tachihara, Shen Hao or camera in that class. These seem to turn up on Ebay with some regularity.

[colin carron]

To my mind 65mm on to 6x9 would not be wide enough for many architectural photography situations. 65mm on to 4x5 (diagonal = 154mm) is about equivalent to 20mm in 35mm terms but on to 6x9 (diagonal = 98mm) it would be roughly eqivalent to 32mm. If you decide to go down this route you might wish to consider the 47mm focal length as well. The Schneider Super Angulon 47mm f/5.6 only covers 6x9 anyway but will give a useful field of view for architecture and some movement. The SA 65mm f/8 is an inexpensive secondhand buy and would give good coverage on to 6x9 but will cover 4x5 with little movement to spare. The f/5.6 is a better lens in tha respect.

[pvp]

I use a Tachihara, and I have a 6x7 holder but seldom use it. The Tachi will focus a 65mm lens, but you don't have a bag bellows option, and you'll be fighting the bellows to use much rise with that short a lens. OTOH, a 90mm lens is fine and I can use all the movements I need. If you anticipate using really short lenses, you would probably like the Shen Hao better since it has interchangeable bellows.

 

Of course, the Tachihara is prettier. And lighter weight. And folds smaller. And it's prettier...

 

Why 6x9? Why not use the format the camera is designed for?

[leonard_evens]

65 mm on 6 x 9 is equivalent to 28 mm in 35 mm 24 x 36 format, not to 20 mm. If you have movements, then you gain an advantage in framing the subject, so there is not an exact equivalence. But it is still true that 65 mm is not wide enough for many situations encountered in architectural photography. I have some experience in the matter since I used a Horseman 980 6 x 9 camera for some 30 years and my widest angle lens was 65 mm. You can't make an exact comparison because the aspect ratios are different, but 65 mm in 6 x 9 is roughly equivalent to something in the range 100-110 mm in 4 x 5. I now do architectural photography with 4 x 5 and I regularly use my 90 mm lens and sometimes my 75 mm lens. The latter would be roughly equivalent to a 47 mm lens in 6 x 9.

 

Many 4 x 5 cameras would have a hard time accomodating even a 65 mm lens, and going shorter, which I think would often be necessary for 6 x 9, would be out of the question. If you are going to get a 4 x 5 camera for this purpose, make sure it can handle lenses short enough for the job.

[george_hart1]

No-one has said it perhaps because you used the word "inexpensive", but a non-folder may

be what you really want. I'm an enthusiastic adherent to the 6x9 format and I use an Ebony

45S. This camera would easily accommodate a 65 mm lens, with lots of movements front and

rear, and it is very easy to set up and use. The excellent Walker Titan XL would also handle

this lens very well; it has a fixed back. It's best to define your range of focal lengths first,

then the movements you will need. This will help you choose in what could otherwise be a

bewildering array of new and second-hand cameras.

[jtk]

I've shot a lot of 6X9 but movements on that format are almost impossible to evaluate on ground glass. I sure wouldn't want to rely on 6X9 for architecture or table-top products if my dinner depended upon it.

 

As well, dust on 6X9 is more of a problem than dust on 4X5, and dust is inevitable.

[jimsimmons]

If you're patient, you can find a used Arca-Swiss 6x9 camera, either a recent F model (expensive) or the older model (reasonable). They are designed to allow the standards to come very close together, therefore the use of wide lenses. They take standard Horseman-style 6x9 backs. Not a folder, but fairly light and quite rigid.