6x9 good camera availability

[aplumpton]

<p>Ray, it's sad to hear that only 2% of the Irish speak Gaelic. I think the number is higher in (Northern) Wales and probably also in Scotland, two other countries of the Gaelic tongue (also Brittany). Having and using a second language is no big deal, and to have one that is economic-global based, like English or Spanish or Mandarin, and another that relates more closely to the culture and society, like irish Gaelic, is a really good thing.</p>

<p>I remember taking a taxi from the airport in San Antonio to the city with a Mexican immigrant driver and asking him about the life of his Spanish speaking people, about 60% of the city population if I recall. He absolutely gave up all his Spanish/Mexican heritage and couldn't wait to be fully absorbed in the English speaking society. He may regret not holding on to both sometime in the future. Canada is one of the most multicultural of countries and from my experience most immigrants keep their original language at least at home while adopting one or other of our official languages to facilitate their integration and economic life.</p>

<p>We in Quebec (about the same population as Ireland, at nearly 8 million) have the advantage and everyday use of two languages, English Canadian and French Québécois tongue. An enriching atmosphere, with the advantages of both. Maybe it is hard to turn the clock back to recover lost heritage, but they have done it pretty well in Quebec since the 1950s. Good luck for Ireland.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Arthur, the Quebecois are swimming upriver. And some of their insistence on bilingualism may be for show. I went to Expo '67 with a classmate. We camped way out, drove in to the end of a Metro line, parked and took the Metro to the fair. One day the campground had a sort of barbecue. As soon as the francophones in the food line grasped that we weren't anglophone Canadians they were happy to speak English with us. We had somewhat the same experience in the fair. Supper one evening in the Maritime Provinces pavillion. We were sat down with a pair of middle-aged quebecoises. They spoke with each other in French, we spoke with each other in English. When the ladies finished their meal they switched to English, grilled us a bit, apparently decided we were ok, and told us where to go to pick up girls.</p>

<p>Spanish in Texas. Depends on where and with whom. My mother-in-law ended her days in Corpus Christi. We went down to sort through and dispose of her possessions, stayed there for around a week. The chain restaurants along South Padre Island Drive had fully bilingual staff. Staff in the little hole-in-the-wall taquerias a few blocks off SPID spoke only Spanish.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dan, swimming downriver gives you little control, you go with the tide. The Expo and 67 and all the 60s were a quite different time to the 80s, 90s, 00s and today in Quebec. It is a very relaxed and healthy society, with few real problems concerning language and the two cultures. Having two languages (indeed having even more) is energizing and most modern Quebeckers of French language succeed on the international scene (Bombardier, the engineering companies, artists, Cirque du Soleil, filmmakers, without sacrificing their origins, language and values). same for English Quebeckers accessing non-English speaking countries.</p>

<p>If that is swimming upriver, then it certainly must be more exhilarating than the downflow...</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Arthur, I suppose these days that residents of Quebec (the city) might be a little less embarrassed by their elected leader than residents of Toronto.</p>

[alfred_alfred]

How about the Voigtlander Bessa II . skopar or heliar lenses are

good.

[dan_fromm2]

<p>aa, the Bessa II is a completely manual folding camera and long out of production. Many people prize their Bessa IIs and they still command high prices but they don't meet the OP's requirements as stated in the first post in this thread. I can't speak for the OP but I expect he'd classify them as "VINTAGE or old crap." His words, not mine.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Ray, it's sad to hear that only 2% of the Irish speak Gaelic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I may have given you the wrong impression. When pushed, most people here can string together at least some rudimentary Irish. We learn it at school from ages 5 to 18 - and yet somehow, we emerge from school with better French or German after only 5 years spent learning those.</p>

<p>So the ~ 2% figure referred to those who choose to *use* their Irish in everyday situations, and who are truly fluent and confident in their usage.</p>

<p>In our most recent census, there were considerably more daily speakers of Polish in Ireland than there were daily speakers of Irish, with French and Chinese not far behind Irish. (Around 12% of the population was born outside Ireland, with Poles being the largest contigent of "the new Irish"). The Constitution still refers to Irish as the national and first official language of the State. It's only the 3rd most spoken language. You see the problem there.</p>

<p>As youngsters, the one good thing about having some command of Irish was that when travelling abroad with our friends, we could say things to each other about the local pretty young ladies without fear of them understanding! At one time, the story goes, the Israeli intelligence service used Irish for the same reason of obfuscation...</p>

<p>It is indeed very different with Welsh speaking in Wales, but Wales has very different circumstances. It is politically and culturally subsumed into the UK, much more closely tied to England than even Scotland or Northern Ireland are. So its people look to their ancient language as the most obvious thing that can set their identity apart. Perhaps much the same applies to the Quebecois. Ireland doesn't need to do that. Its distinct identity is assured, it has its political independence, and so much else going for it culturally that the language is not that big a deal. Of late the language has to some extent found it's "cool" factor, and I sense that its usage is actually growing amongst younger people, but from that very small base. We'll see where it goes from here.</p>

<p>This has been a fun and informative tangent to 6x9 cameras !</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dan, you're right, he has yet to be found buying crack or lying about his past, as apparently has Toronto's mayor. Both seem to be quite dynamic leaders, with a tendency to act (sometimes too) quickly and with a minimum of research, but each has a certain following in their cities. Monsieur La Beaume won quite handidly in our recent municipal elections. On the other hand, the big problem in Quebec (that is, the province not the city) is the history and level of corruption at certain major city halls and in a few of our engineering firms. Not the best news for we "habitants", when the world is coming out of a recession and each territory will have to be more competitive to attract business and growth.</p>

<p>I have little familiarity with some of the older 6x9 cameras but always considered the Zeiss-Ikon (C?) an interesting possibility for B&W scenics or architectural subjects, especially with the Tessar lens. The potential or real problem, I am told, are the bellows and the alignment of the folding mechanism, which seem to exist as well for most such bellows cameras.</p>

<p>The Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar is a landmark lens, but difficult to find on a working body at a reasonable price, which I believe brings the question of choice of a rangefinder 6x9 (admittedly and apparently not the OP's first choice as he would like an improbable existing SLR) to the much more modern Fujifilm GW 690 II or GSW 690 III (or the older II), the latter having a lens comparable in field of view to a 28mm in 35mm format. With the GSW you also have a reasonably extended D-o-F, at f8 and smaller apertures, but no inbuilt meter (not really a big problem for the type of photography normally practiced with these cameras). I have been very satisfied with the large negative and optical quality of the Fujis. My enlarger lens, albeit very fine, is in fact (the weakest link and is) surpassed by the Fuji camera lens.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Arthur, I'm a strong partisan of 2x3 Graphics and 2x3 view cameras, Cambo SC-1s in particular. Unfortunately neither comes close to meeting the OP's requirements as stated. I'm not so strong a partisan of fixed lens cameras in general, including pocketable folders, because they're limited to the one lens and for me, at least, the one lens isn't always the best lens for the situation. </p>

<p>I've always like 35 mm SLRs because they come closer to the universal 35 mm camera than interchangeable lens rangefinders or fixed lens cameras. I'm aware of mirror boxes for LTM and Contax mount RF cameras, but for my purposes they're very much second best.</p>

<p>So I can understand why the OP insisted so strongly on a 2x3 SLR. They exist but because of the scarcity (complete non-existence?) of retrofocus wide angle lenses that cover the format they're somewhat limited. I woke up the other day wondering whether a 2x3 Optika SLR module for my 2x3 Cambos might work better than the 2x3 Graflex module I have. The Graflex vignettes badly with long lenses, and of course that's what I had in mind to use. I'm reluctant to buy an Optika to find its' mirror box's dimensions, though.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dan, the important variable missing here is what the OP photographer intends as photographic objective. It is not stated, so we have to guess. Presumably his interests are quite varied or presumably he wouldn't have requested an SLR. For most landscape and even architectural photography (excepting correction of verticals) the fixed lens camera is often OK. Even the PJ photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson used the 50mm lens most of the time. He "walked" to change perspective/ or field of view.</p>

<p>Is there really an SLR that would be as compact (!?) and convenient in use as as a Pentax 67? Or are the SLR "additions" to field, technical or press cameras cumbersome and much like the Visoflex for a VF-RF Leica (The Viso is not as bad as some think, and due to the format size, it is not unwieldly)?</p>

<p>I think he knew all along that there was not a modern SLR of 6x9 format.</p>

<p>He may not have profited from our discussion, but that is quite OK as I am sure many others who have contributed here probably have.</p>

[magy_grendel]

<p>I have to thank to all professionals here ( All except <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=442690">Dan</a>. :P ) for their help and suggestion.<br /><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=509668">Dave</a> - cheers to you! English is not my mother language, but I still can understand in good enough level. And moreover always to be polite to people, who are not on the same knowledge level in particular thing as I am.<br>

I'm very happy, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=442690">Dan</a>, you enjoy your childish fun, but I probably disappoint you. You can't offend me. Not because this particular request/demand doesn't come from my head, but because you didn't become adult person, even I believe you become good photographer. If I would looking for sarcastic comments, I would definitely ask for. ;)</p>

[matthias_r.1]

<p>Magy,<br /> it's not easy to decide what an unreasonably high price is. If I think of 6x9 and a hand held camera still in production, I think of the Alpa 12 WA (www.alpa.ch) combined with Linhof 6x9 film magazines and Rodenstock/Schneider lenses. It's high end with every respect, no bargain for me, please check it out and decide whether it flys for you or not.</p>

<p>Matthias</p>

[kmcgrew]

<p>Magy:</p>

<p>If you insist on 2x3 proportions I humbly suggest that you find a used Wista DXII 4x5 field camera and a 6x9 roll film back. No, there's no auto-focus, no built-in meter, and the lenses need to be individually mounted on a lens board, but you'll get rise/fall, swing, and shift. If you want to shoot large format all you need is a film holder. If you want to shoot 6x7 all you need is a second roll film holder.</p>

<p>If you want auto-something, the GX680 is a great camera, although it will weigh more than a Wista or similar. </p>

<p>The Fuji GW690 is a fixed-lens camera, so if you want different focal lengths you'll need multiple cameras. The Fuji GL690 offers interchangeable lenses.</p>

<p>I've got both--and more than a dozen other cameras. </p>

<p>To me a camera is like a screw-driver or a wrench: it's a tool and I want to have the most appropriate tool for the job. I generally carry a Gerber Utility Tool and a Canon PowerShot S110 with a Joby Gorillapod Micro 250where ever I go--unless I'm flying with only carry-on luggage, then I leave the Gerber behind.</p>

<p>Kelly</p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>I wonder which 6x9 camera Robert Adams uses? I note that many of his more recent 6x9 pictures are verticals, which I don't care for. Seems to me that long verticals don't correspond with human vision, which tends to be horizontal or square. </p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>Turns out that those pictures by Adams were made with a 35mm camera, not 6x9. And the verticals in question were landscapes. </p>

[jon w.]

<p>There are tons of Fuji 6x9s available on eBay, many from Japan, where I presume they sold a lot more of them originally. The wide angle version costs a lot more than the normal. Beware VAT charges from customs, which caught me by surprise.</p>