ruby.monkey
Veteran
Given the Fuji connection, perhaps the equivalent of a product-improved GS645/GS645W pairing?
Bessa IV - 6x9 or 6x12
- Thread starter Matus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 1K
FT2
Member
Why not a compact Plaubel-Makina IIIR style camera? Interchangeable 50, 65, 75, 100, and 180 plus parallax correction?
For 2000+ dollars, this is what the Bessa III should have been in the first place. The Makina II through IIIR's interchangeable lenses don't couple to the rangefinder, so there would be no competition from that vintage system.
For 2000+ dollars, this is what the Bessa III should have been in the first place. The Makina II through IIIR's interchangeable lenses don't couple to the rangefinder, so there would be no competition from that vintage system.
segedi
RFicianado
How about a Zero Image 612 multiformat? Wouldn't have to worry about a lens and covers 6x6 through to 6x12. It's reasonable small and very light and looks great in teak and brass.
FT2
Member
Zero image? Pinholes are lame, unless you do it on 8x10 sheet film and contact print that ****. Even then it's questionable.
6x12 is for old sweating men with old sweating hands who want to drag around big cameras to show off. Lots of options already available, AKA: GRAFLEX.
6x7 is OK if you're into that sort of stubby look. 6x9 shoots just like 35, easy peasy. Nobody has made anything portable in this size since 1960 (fuji 6x9 cameras are huge).
Most old 120 folders except the Makinas are worthless for enlargement: they were meant for contact printing. Hence the destruction of resolution by front cell focusing and lack of film flatness. Finding a 6x9 plate camera with a roll adapter is a solution out, but most lack rangefinders.
6x12 is for old sweating men with old sweating hands who want to drag around big cameras to show off. Lots of options already available, AKA: GRAFLEX.
6x7 is OK if you're into that sort of stubby look. 6x9 shoots just like 35, easy peasy. Nobody has made anything portable in this size since 1960 (fuji 6x9 cameras are huge).
Most old 120 folders except the Makinas are worthless for enlargement: they were meant for contact printing. Hence the destruction of resolution by front cell focusing and lack of film flatness. Finding a 6x9 plate camera with a roll adapter is a solution out, but most lack rangefinders.
ssmc
Well-known
6x9 with 80mm is like a super-sized 135-format with a 35mm lens. 35mm is one of my absolute favorites on 135 and having an "equivalent" with humungous resolution from a negative more than 5x larger - I think this would be awesome!
BUT - one thing that IMO would be an absolute necessity for any future Fuji/Bessa folder would be the ability to close the camera with at least 1 filter in place! Since so many folks shoot MF in B&W, which almost invariably means using some kind of contrast filter, having to remove the filter (and find somewhere to put it) before closing the camera (or alternately leaving it open, and putting a lens cap on it...) sort of defeats the purpose of being able to fold the darn thing! YMMV, of course 🙂
BUT - one thing that IMO would be an absolute necessity for any future Fuji/Bessa folder would be the ability to close the camera with at least 1 filter in place! Since so many folks shoot MF in B&W, which almost invariably means using some kind of contrast filter, having to remove the filter (and find somewhere to put it) before closing the camera (or alternately leaving it open, and putting a lens cap on it...) sort of defeats the purpose of being able to fold the darn thing! YMMV, of course 🙂
kzphoto
Well-known
Yes, Please. or a GW/GSW690III with the same. And a switch to shoot 6x6. I need squares, sometimes.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice topic Matus.
I would love a Modern 69 folder with a 105mm lens. An "Update" if you will of folders from the past. For me a spot meter would be grand. I have been shooting a Gaeorsi 612 with a 75mm. It is fun and provides very nice negatives. My problem is then what? I don't have a 4x5 enlarger and my Bessler 23Cii does only up to 6x9 and not particularly well. Scanning is OK with V700 but I still need to improve my technique. Shooting such a big negative for me is aimed at printing though.
Scanning is just OK some flare in this sample as well
I would love a Modern 69 folder with a 105mm lens. An "Update" if you will of folders from the past. For me a spot meter would be grand. I have been shooting a Gaeorsi 612 with a 75mm. It is fun and provides very nice negatives. My problem is then what? I don't have a 4x5 enlarger and my Bessler 23Cii does only up to 6x9 and not particularly well. Scanning is OK with V700 but I still need to improve my technique. Shooting such a big negative for me is aimed at printing though.
Scanning is just OK some flare in this sample as well
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
anything wider than a 6x9 would cost crazy money, and would be extremely low volume sell, today...
KenR
Well-known
gsw690
gsw690
Having just purchased a Fuji GSW690 with the 65m lens, I can attest to the sharpness of the lens and the huge size of the camera. It is heavy - to the point that I thought that I would return it as soon as it arrived from KEH. However, once I put a strap on it and started walking around with it, it really is nicely balanced and really has been fine on my shoulder for an entire day. The downsides for me are the lack of metering and the need to change film really, really frequently. But, the results seem worth it (sorry for the lack of images).
gsw690
Having just purchased a Fuji GSW690 with the 65m lens, I can attest to the sharpness of the lens and the huge size of the camera. It is heavy - to the point that I thought that I would return it as soon as it arrived from KEH. However, once I put a strap on it and started walking around with it, it really is nicely balanced and really has been fine on my shoulder for an entire day. The downsides for me are the lack of metering and the need to change film really, really frequently. But, the results seem worth it (sorry for the lack of images).
rbelyell
Well-known
yeah the thing is this kinda already exists in the cheapest-maintaining-quality way in the gaoersi and dayi, both of which can be gotten at 6x12 for under $1000 including vf and cost of lens. they are very compact and seem to produce great images. how can, and why would fuji compete with that?
i myself am thinking of rigging up a nice schneider or kodak 90mm lens to the holga pano i received for xmas...
i myself am thinking of rigging up a nice schneider or kodak 90mm lens to the holga pano i received for xmas...
Matus
Well-known
You are probably right. But all these current 6x12 options have only scale focus (or ground glass) and are large and bulky.
Just thinking loud here - what about buying 2 of the Bessa III, sending them off to SK-Grimmes together with an Wide Field Ektar 80/6.3 or Angulon 90/6.8 .... and couple of grands $ 🙂 It MUST be possible with enough dough 😉
Just thinking loud here - what about buying 2 of the Bessa III, sending them off to SK-Grimmes together with an Wide Field Ektar 80/6.3 or Angulon 90/6.8 .... and couple of grands $ 🙂 It MUST be possible with enough dough 😉
rbelyell
Well-known
interseting idea matus! kinda like mine of puuting a real 90 on the holga, but a lot more expensive. and those gaeorsi and dayi 6x12's really are not big at all, but they are zone focus...still at 6x12 youre not gonna be doing portraits, right? probably landcsapes, buildings, some street secenes, things easily measured, especially at F8.
kuzano
Veteran
Well, don't overlook Razzle for his Obsession
Well, don't overlook Razzle for his Obsession
He can do them in 6x12 or 6x17.
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/index.html
Me, I use my Fuji G690 with the 100mm lens, on a tripod and take two closely comparable 6X9 negs/transparencies, on a tripod. Have had great luck having them scanned and stitched at any length up to 17cm.
Well, don't overlook Razzle for his Obsession
He can do them in 6x12 or 6x17.
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/index.html
Me, I use my Fuji G690 with the 100mm lens, on a tripod and take two closely comparable 6X9 negs/transparencies, on a tripod. Have had great luck having them scanned and stitched at any length up to 17cm.
roboflick
Well-known
my bessa ii is tack sharp between f8-f22, and just fine for taking pictures of people between f3.5 to f 8 before becoming so sharp that you can see every pore on the subjects face.
ive made huge cibachrome enlargements from velvia and ektachrome
lots of factors, though,mine is a well used example, and the sharpest slides were made mid roll from film that had just been pulled through before having a chance to buckle or bow.
I've also found that well used examples are sharper than pristine ones, the ones with sharp lenses tended to get used alot over the past 60 years!
plus it fits in my pocket, i plan on taking it and a 3d camera as my only cameras on a trip to paris in may, both will fit in vest pockets. I plan on shooting ektachrome e 100g in both.
awesome travel camera.
Nik
Carlos Cruz
Established
It seems a 6x9 with 65mm lens might satisfy most of us.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
bugmenot
Well-known
I just measured the size of a single exposure on the recently developed Velvia 100F roll from my Fujica GL690. It measures 56mm x 84mm.
Compared to 35mm format (24mm x 36mm), this 6x9 slide would be 2.3333 or 2.4 times the size.
If a new 6x9 rangefinder camera were to come out, it would either need interchangeable lenses, or has to come with at least two lens combinations: One to satisfy the 35mm equivalent focal length, and the other to satisfy the 50mm equivalent focal length.
In case of 6x9, 50mm equivalent = 120mm, and 35mm equivalent = 85mm (due to 1/2.4x crop factor).
Personally, I'd buy a 6x9 modern rangefinder by Voigtlander or Fuji that comes with any lens 70mm to 90mm in focal length. 🙂
6x12 and 6x17 are just too ... bizarre to my eyes.
Compared to 35mm format (24mm x 36mm), this 6x9 slide would be 2.3333 or 2.4 times the size.
If a new 6x9 rangefinder camera were to come out, it would either need interchangeable lenses, or has to come with at least two lens combinations: One to satisfy the 35mm equivalent focal length, and the other to satisfy the 50mm equivalent focal length.
In case of 6x9, 50mm equivalent = 120mm, and 35mm equivalent = 85mm (due to 1/2.4x crop factor).
Personally, I'd buy a 6x9 modern rangefinder by Voigtlander or Fuji that comes with any lens 70mm to 90mm in focal length. 🙂
6x12 and 6x17 are just too ... bizarre to my eyes.
sanmich
Veteran
I would love a 6x7 folder with a 105mm or so.
kuzano
Veteran
Not sure about your 35mm by 6X9 comparison
Not sure about your 35mm by 6X9 comparison
Using an area formula:
24X35 = 864 sq mm
56X88 = 4928 sq mm
Divide the 35mm number into the 6X9 area number gives you 5.7.
The 6X9 has 5.7X the film area that 35mm does. A testament to why a 6X9 image "blows" 35mm out of the park on IQ.
I've done this math over and over on all the 645, 66, 67, 68 and 69 compared to 35mm
I've also done this on 4X5 inch LF compared to 35, and all the MF formats.
Why??... Retired!!
Not sure about your 35mm by 6X9 comparison
Using an area formula:
24X35 = 864 sq mm
56X88 = 4928 sq mm
Divide the 35mm number into the 6X9 area number gives you 5.7.
The 6X9 has 5.7X the film area that 35mm does. A testament to why a 6X9 image "blows" 35mm out of the park on IQ.
I've done this math over and over on all the 645, 66, 67, 68 and 69 compared to 35mm
I've also done this on 4X5 inch LF compared to 35, and all the MF formats.
Why??... Retired!!
Matus
Well-known
It's been a long time since I have started this wishful thinking thread. And I still think that 6x12 folding camera would be great to have.
All better 6x12 that are out there (Linhof, Horseman) are big, heavy, bulky and cost €2500+ with one lens and have no rangefinder.
All better 6x12 that are out there (Linhof, Horseman) are big, heavy, bulky and cost €2500+ with one lens and have no rangefinder.