6x9 or 4x5?!? HELP!

[jake_brods]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I really want to get into sheet film so I can use ground glass and the tilt/shift motions that view cameras have. 4x5 is, of course, the simplest option, but I have a bit of a budget problem with 4x5. What seems to be cheaper is 2 1/4x3 1/4 (6x9) sheet film. The film seems available at B&H (I live in New York) and I am looking at a camera that includes film holders. Is it something to get into or will I have buyers remorse? I know I could just get a 6x9 roll film camera, but I want the view camera advantages. What should I do? Wait it out for a 4x5 and maybe get lucky or settle for 6x9 sheet film. Thanks.</p>

<p>-Jake</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>Are you worried about the film price?<br>

If so, try freestyle in LA. They have very good prices on all films and supplies and the results you will acheve with a 4x5 will be better than with the 6x9</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>With 6x9 your film choices are rather limited unless you trim 4x5 to fit. There are many more choices of 4x5 cameras available.</p>

 

[sattler123]

<p>YOu willl regret not getting a 4x5 - if tilt/shift and other movements are important to you, you need at least a 4x5. Seeing the effect of the movements on a 6x9 ground glass is very difficult.</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p>Film cost is going to end up being negligible. LF isn't like smaller formats. Where roll film people can go through multiple rolls a day, you'll go through multiple sheets a day. The difference is that more of your shoots will be keepers. Maybe. At least after you've climbed the learning curves and become "fluent" in LF photography.</p>

<p>The real problem with a 6x9 ground glass is that you won't be able to see what you are doing very well. It's much easier to learn on 5x4. Much about movements is non-intuitive. You really need to be able to see what's happening to learn how to do it correctly. For learning, the bigger ground glass is highly desirable.</p>

<p>The other thing is, 6x9 cameras and accessories like film holders are often harder to find. It was never a very popular size and there's usually not much around on the used markets. It's much easier to find 4x5 equipment.</p>

<p>Finally, if you really do want to use the 6x9 format, you can always get a roll film back for your 4x5. A fair number of people do this apparently. Learn on 4x5, then drop down to 6x9 roll film. It's not a bad way to go.</p>

<p>For these reasons I advise going the 4x5 route. Clearly YMMV. But you asked, so that's my advice.</p>

[john_galuszka]

<p>The advantage to 6X9 is that you don't need a darkroon full of sloshing chemicals; you mail the film to a processor, then scan the negatives and play with them in the computer. It's more economical to shoot roll film than 4X5.</p>

<p>The advantage of 4x5 is that you have a <em><strong>lot</strong> </em> of control over perspective, angles, etc.</p>

<p>Therefore: do both--get a 4x5 and use a 6X9 back. <strong>You get convenience and control!</strong> I just built a 6X15 panorama back for my 4X5 Calumet. Now I can go out and shoot a redwood tree without having to worry about the "fall-back" perspective problem. And I can do it easily and inexpensively. (My 4X5 enlarger thinks that it is related to "the Maytag repair man.")</p>

[frank_bunnik]

What a coincidence. Over the last couple of weeks, I had the same considerations. I wanted a (medium format) camera that does not take up too much space while travelling and that as a set with some lenses etc. does not not weigh too much. I regularly go out on walking trips. This summer I go to Ladakh in the Indian Himalaya for a month and I want to make a trekking of at least 2 weeks for example. I was also on a budget. I never liked the 6x4.5 format that much so I was considering the Pentax 6x7 with a WLF and a few lenses. The lenses are not that heavy but they are big so they take up considerable room.

 

I had a Fuji GX680II and a IIIS (the one without lens movements) and I planned to take my IIIs this summer but the beast is just way too heavy eventhough it was lighter than the 680II. So I sold the whole 680 set. It also needed a heavy tripod. Thus more weight.

 

However, I did like the movements of the 680II (though they were limited) and in the past I have used a Linhof Technika 70 with a 100mm apo-symmar. Now that was a superb lens. There results I got on Velvia were just fantastic. The Technika was however a bit cumbersome. There was no fresnel lens so the focussing screen got very dark in the corners, the rangefinder was not working well on my model and parts for it were scarce to say the least. This was in the pre-internet age so looking for all kinds of extras for the camera was more difficult than it is today.

 

I decided to look again for a fieldcamera. About 14 years ago I read a comparitive test in a Dutch photographic magazine between the Horseman VH-R and the Technika V. Indeed, a 6x9 and a 4x5 camera. The Horseman looked small next to the Linhof and the Horseman came out of the test with a positive result. The lens range for the Horseman in combination with the rangefinder was a bit limited (65, 75, 90, 105, 120, 150 and 180mm). Not too much tele and no extreme wide-angle but the quality of the lenses was tested as good to very good and, because the lenses only have to cover 6x9 with room for movements, they are also smaller compared to 4x5 lenses. I was tempted then but I did not have the money and I was spoiled with autofocus etc. But how lovely did those fieldcameras look. I used the Technika 70 a few years later by the way.

 

The test came back to memory again these last weeks and I looked all over the internet for information on fieldcameras, both 6x9 and 4x5. Because I want to use the camera also while travelling in difficult terrain, I would need a Fuji Quickload holder to use 4x5 film so it can be loaded without the fear of dust on the film. These holders are expensive and so is quickload film. I could indeed use a 6x9 back on the camera but I would be using a big camera for a "small" format. Except for the Linhof Technikas, other 4x5 fieldcameras do not have a rangefinder. Thus you always need to focus on the groundglass and I would like the comfort of rangefinder focussing for those moments when movements are not needed and I just want to be a bit "quicker".

 

Thus I came back to the Horseman 6x9 fieldcameras and I orderd a VH-R with 3 lenses and a 6x9 back just a few days ago from Keh. All in EX to LN- condition. I realise that 4x5 has a lot of postive aspects to it but for my intended purposes, the 6x9 VH-R should be fine. The 6x9 camera set is also a lot cheaper than a similar 4x5 set. Compared to the Horseman 985, 980 and 970 fieldcameras, the VH-R has a rotating back and this is come comfortable than turning the camera sideways (which needs to be done to these other models), especially when movements are also needed. The tripod can also be a bit lighter compared to the one I would need for a 4x5 camera.

 

I now plan to sell my Fuji GW670III to buy a few more extras for the Horseman set.

[chuck_pere]

<p>For most newer 2x3 view cameras you have the option of using a roll film back instead of sheet film holders. Unless you have a specific need to use sheets , like individual processing of each sheet for the zone system, I would go with a roll back. Much easier to find film of all kinds, easier to process and the number of photos you take in the field is only limited to how many rolls you carry not how many film holders. If traveling you will not have to spend nights unloading and loading film holders in motel bathrooms. One roll film disadvantage is that you usually have to remove the ground glass back to put on a roll holder ( some sliding backs are out there to correct this) but for sheet film holders you usually just slip them under the glass under spring tension. I would go with 4x5 before 2x3 sheet film as problems are similar but the bigger negative is easier to print. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Lenses are likely to cost a lot more than film/processing unless / until you shoot a lot. Figure out what angle(s) of view you want, then look at what lenses are out there and what they cost. You might find that the greater number of lenses designed for 4x5 give you a price advantage. (Yes, I realize a 4x5 lens will probably work on a 6x9, but then you have the "crop factor" of 1.7x, so getting a real wide angle may prove more difficult and/or expensive.)</p>

<p>If you want to shoot 6x9, I can't see why you'd fool with sheets, instead of a roll film holder. Shoot 120 film and get 8 shots on a roll.</p>

 

[bohdan_pryszlak]

<p>I had a few days with a Technika 23 once and I found it a nice roll film camera. However, the moment I tried to use the ground glass I found it frustratingly dim and small to use. I ended up buying a 4x5 and have never looked back. I suspect that you'll end up using sheet film most of the time and for the few instances when you want to shoot roll film, simply load up a back. They're plentiful and cheap these days and you can get them in a number of aspects: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 for example.</p>

[steven nelson]

<p>Continuing on Bohdan's point: working with a loupe on the 4x5 ground glass gives you plenty of room to check critical areas for focus especially when trying to maximize the depth of field. Trying to do the same on a smaller ground glass would be difficult, more so with slower lenses. Get the 4x5.</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>1. The bigger the better, so 4x5 in your case.</p>

<p>2. Film cost: the more you learn (to see...), the less you'll shoot (because you'll more "pre-select").<br>

I buy large amounts of film every 3 or 4 years or so, and everytime I think "f...ing expensive" but compared to my roll film years I pay less for LF film now.</p>

[brian_wallen]

If you are attracted to the 6 x 9 format and want to focus on groundglass, a reflex or magnifying viewer gives you about as clear and bright a view with the 6 x 9 as it does the 4 x 5 format. The reflex viewer also turns the image right side up. What others have said about focusing being cramped is true if you are trying to use a focusing loupe.

<p>

 

Although these add bulk, auxiliary backs that slide or rotate to allow you to switch between GG viewing and a rollholder really make using rollfilm more convenient in either format. For more:<br>

http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ReflexFinders1.html

<p>

 

Film is still available in the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 size or if you are comfortable trimming film, you can get 4 of these sheets out of a single 5 x 7 sheet. In the longer term, 4 x 5 is likely to be more available.

<p>

 

If you want a technical back and full front movements in a 6 x 9, the Horseman VH and VH-R models give you the choice of a rangefinder/viewfinder or not. These are usually priced lower than the 6 x 9 Technikas. The VH weights about 3.7 pounds. A Horseman HD, a 4 x 5 without the technical rotating back, weighs the same, but is usually 50-100% more expensive. A Horseman FA, a 4 x 5 with full movements weighs about 4.5 lbs and will be $1000+. A 4 x 5 Super Graphic with RF/VF and a rotating, but not a technical back, but with good front movements would be about the same price as a Horseman VH. If you are interesting in these kinds of comparisons, there are more at:<br>

http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ViewNeedsEval1.htm

[razzledog]

<p>I would go with the 4x5...then you have so many options. You can shoot all 4x5 filmstocks, plus 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 using suitable rollbacks. Forget about 6x9 sheet, it's too hard to get and too fiddly. Nothing beats 4x5 when it comes to the smallest camera with the biggest neg, providing you don't go for a clumsy old and heavy view camera.....having said that I would kill for a baby Linhof.</p>