6x7 vs 6x9

[golden]

<p>I have a question, i have both a 6x7 cn2 film holder and a graphic 23 film back, the c2n of course slides under the ground glass while the 23 back can be put on after removal of the ground glass, my delimma is this, i want to sell one of these backs but dont know which one i want to sell, the 6x7 back is much easier to use but the 6x9 negative is bigger, but it also seems that 6x9 has to be cropped to fit any paper sizes so its like shooting 6x7 anyway. am i correct here? in other words if you had a choice which one would you prefer to shoot? one of them has to go : p</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Bigger is always better.... You will want the larger area some time and not have it where you can crop the larger to smaller if that is what you need.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I find that I sell very few images in the 2:3 ratio....I would dump the 6x9 back....regards, Bob</p>

[martin_dake]

<p>I have the Graphic 23 back for use with my Super Graphic and a couple of old 6x9 folders.<br>

I have never really warmed up to the 6x9 format though.</p>

<p>Then a few weeks ago I got an RH10 (6x7) back for my Super and just last weekend a nice Rapid Omega 100. So far I am liking the 6x7 format much more.</p>

<p>Now if I can just find something to store 10 6x7 negatives, the Printfile sheets I have aren't cutting it.</p>

 

[golden]

<p>thanks guys for the comments, i think i will sell the 6x9 back, also it makes me nervous removing my glass everytime i want to use it. thanks again</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I was out voted Nice back though I bet you get a prety penny for it.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>If you take your nervousness about removing the groundglass out of the picture, here's an easy way to help you decide. Full frame, 35 mm negatives have the same aspect ratio, 1.5:1, as the 6 x 9 cm. negatives. If, and when you print these, do you find yourself cropping to fit the 8 x 10's aspect ratio? Medium format 6 x 7 cm. negatives have an aspect ratio of 1 16:1, much closer to the aspect ratio of an 8 x 10 inch print which is 1.25:1. If so, the decision is a no-brainer. The 6 x 7 cm. back will suit your needs better, and get you an extra two frames on each roll to boot.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Frank</p>

<p> As you say but I would rather have room to play with in composing then cut back if needed... I try not to do that in 35mm because it is already too small...</p>

<p>(G)</p>

[gt1]

<p>Agree with Larry. I've had a multitude of backs for my Mamiya press cameras and the 6x9 back is the one I use the most.</p>

<p>The point about 8x10s is noted, though.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>I feel the 6x9 is better for landscapes. If, the negs are printed with no cropping. But, I do agree with John about not wanting to take the GG off to use the back.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>I find myself often cropping 35mm images (and DSLR images); 2:3 is just too wide for me to be comfortable with it. In fact, I have a 6x9 format Voigtländer Bessa I, and while it's a fun camera and the large negatives are wonderful, I've noticed that I actually prefer using the camera with the 6x4.5 mask. The camera and lens is so low resolution I really should be using the whole frame, but the stubbier 6x4.5 format is just so much easier for me to use.</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Or one could sell both and get a Sinar Vario push-in style back that gives you all these format choices</p>

[norman_valentine]

<p>I have both 6 X 7 and 6 X 9. I print to A4 size (aspect ratio 1.414:1) so I prefer 6 X 9 which is preety close to that.<br>

It all depends on what you want to use it for.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I really like 67, but I still keep an old Zeiss Ercona II folder for those times when I want 69. No one format is perfect - it really depends on what you're shooting and how you visualize your subjects.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Louis, Keh has a Sinar vario-multi - format in EX condition. But, it's $725.00!</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>The original format was 2.25" X 2. 75" and was invented by Fred simmon, president/owner/inventor of Omega (enlargers in NYC) it produced 9 exposures on 120 film and matched the 4x5 and 8x10 papers. The camera, the Omega 120 was introduced in 1954 and was a great camera. Superb rangfinder, specially designed lens, excellent shutter, film entrapment kept the film perfectly flat. Unfortunately, if failed, not for performance reasons, the photographers just didn't get it at that time. It has a classical camera value of upwards of $350.</p>

<p>Several years later, Linhof created a roll holder for their small press camera (roll film and 70mm) and called it a 6x7, which wasn't quite true but was pretty close. They also claimed that they invented the format which was flatly untrue, having been invented by my friend Fred Simmon some years earlier. The Omega format had an aspect ratio of 1.00 to 1.25 (same as 4x5).</p>

<p>There were some 6x9's in Europe but the format most people call 6x9 is much closer to 6x8 or 2/25" X 3.25". Fuji made a superb medium format camera which they properly called 6x8. The 6x8 has an aspect ratio of 1.00 to 1.33, highly accepted on the continent. A 6x9 has an aspect ratio of 1.00 to 1.50, the same as a standard 35mm and I don't think I have seen one for over 50 years.</p>

<p>Most of the digital cameras sensors have an aspect ratio of 1.00 to 1.33, same as the European favorites.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If you want sometimes 6 x 8 and 6 x 9, as well as 6 x 7, forget the 6 x7 back. All it can give you, on cropping, is 6 x 6. Bigger is better, and more flexible. I never was restricted to commercial paper sizes. Each image dictates its own aspect ratio and size. In any case, few film backs mimic exactly 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24 or other standard photographic paper sizes</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Lynn, 6x9 backs are common to some LF cameras. Fujifilm made a 6x9 camera until very recently (with choice of two fixed focal length lenses (normal or moderate wide angle)).</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Even though I like 6x9 better. I would still sell the 6x9 back.(Since the GG has to be removed) You can always get a 6x9 slide-in type back later.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Jack that makes no sence to me but then I think I don't care now .....</p>

[tree]

<p>@Martin,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now if I can just find something to store 10 6x7 negatives, the Printfile sheets I have aren't cutting it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>PrintFile makes oversized negative storage pages for 6x7 (item PF1204UB100) , I use them for my RB67. Unfortunately you need an oversized binder as well, but it works well.</p>

 

[profhlynnjones]

<p>the European 6x9's were actually 6.5x9 and they were mostly plate and sheet film. At 2.55" on the short dimenstion they sure wouldn't fit on 120, although a true 6x9 could (2.25 x 3.625). The Fuji RF cameras was 2.25x3.25, or about 8.25cm.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[rothelle]

<p>As much as I love my Pentax 67. I also have a classic Zeiss Ikon 6.5x9 sheet film camera with 6 film holders. I mostly cut Tri-X 4x5 sheet film to it size for this camera. It is so cute and love shooting with it at home. When it come to printing, I just only make contact prints with it. As my enlarger is for 67 negs. But the contact prints from 6.5x9 look very good and so cute. I also have a 9x12cm that also get film cut for it. But now I play more with the 6.5x9 and both have ground glass.</p><div></div>