kram
Well-known
A 6x9 should be quite simple to do with most ot the exisiting parts. There is room in the exisiting body for a 6x9 negative. A classical length would be 90mm or 65mm wide angle. What would sell it is a fast(ish) aperature. F2.8 for the 90mm or f4 for the 65mm.
Spanik
Well-known
I'd go for a 6x12 with something around 75mm.
6x9 is too well covered by the Fuji's and others. And a Fuji G617 is really a handfull, both as a camera and as area to fill with something interesting. A 6x12 would have less competition while at the same time not be too large a camera.
And I agree with others: don't make it folding. It's a complication that doesn't add anything. Whatever you do with it, this is going to be a large(ish) camera. If you go for something like 6x12 better wring the last possible drop of performance out of it. You are going to loose some at scantime anyway.
6x9 is too well covered by the Fuji's and others. And a Fuji G617 is really a handfull, both as a camera and as area to fill with something interesting. A 6x12 would have less competition while at the same time not be too large a camera.
And I agree with others: don't make it folding. It's a complication that doesn't add anything. Whatever you do with it, this is going to be a large(ish) camera. If you go for something like 6x12 better wring the last possible drop of performance out of it. You are going to loose some at scantime anyway.
Renato Tonelli
Member
I would like a 669! A camera that shoots 6x6 and 6x9.
The 667 is a great camera (6x6 and 6x7) but a 669 would be even better...
The 667 is a great camera (6x6 and 6x7) but a 669 would be even better...
kram
Well-known
Now the 667 is discontinued, time for a 6x9. Use as many parts from existing cameras to keep production costs down but have a nice fast lens f2.8/ f2.4 so peopl who wants speed, shallow focus will up grade ( and ship other secondhand 6x6/6x7 f2.8 options). Also close focus under 1m. I have found the 90cm cfd of the 667 more useful than I originally thought.
Michael Petersen
Newbie
I want a normal lens
I want a normal lens
Great idea to think about a new folding camera or a 6x9 camera in general. The Fuji 612/617 already exists so it has to be 6x9 for me. I'm a brand new shooter with a 6x9 Moskva 4 f4,5/110mm and fascinated by the format.
The majority of people want a wide lens, I seem to be lonely here wanting a NORMAL lens and in 6x9 that would be a 127mm. Even 110mm is too wide for me, the current 80mm "winner" in the poll is rediculously wide! Perhaps most people shoot landscapes but for beautiful play with boquet and non-distorted perpective you need a longer lens. And a normal lens on fixed lens cameras is something that does not exist, that would be something new!
So like with the existing 6x7 Fuji 667/Bessa III we need two versions: One longer than or at least 110mm, for example a 127mm like the existing 4,7/127mm Rodenstock on the Polaroid and a 75mm for the landscape people.
6x8 would also be a beautiful compromise format, a relative to 9x12 and not as square as 6x7, which is a format that does not know if it wants to be square or wide. 6x8 sadly exists again only as wide angle Fujis with 90mm or heavy RB67s, not to mention the 4,2kg Fuji GX680.
So this is my opinion voting for a normal lens approach
I won't pay 2000€/$ for a wide angle 6x9 but stay with the Moskva.
I want a normal lens
Great idea to think about a new folding camera or a 6x9 camera in general. The Fuji 612/617 already exists so it has to be 6x9 for me. I'm a brand new shooter with a 6x9 Moskva 4 f4,5/110mm and fascinated by the format.
The majority of people want a wide lens, I seem to be lonely here wanting a NORMAL lens and in 6x9 that would be a 127mm. Even 110mm is too wide for me, the current 80mm "winner" in the poll is rediculously wide! Perhaps most people shoot landscapes but for beautiful play with boquet and non-distorted perpective you need a longer lens. And a normal lens on fixed lens cameras is something that does not exist, that would be something new!
So like with the existing 6x7 Fuji 667/Bessa III we need two versions: One longer than or at least 110mm, for example a 127mm like the existing 4,7/127mm Rodenstock on the Polaroid and a 75mm for the landscape people.
6x8 would also be a beautiful compromise format, a relative to 9x12 and not as square as 6x7, which is a format that does not know if it wants to be square or wide. 6x8 sadly exists again only as wide angle Fujis with 90mm or heavy RB67s, not to mention the 4,2kg Fuji GX680.
So this is my opinion voting for a normal lens approach
I won't pay 2000€/$ for a wide angle 6x9 but stay with the Moskva.
Matus
Well-known
Some time has passed ... and I would still go for a 6x12 ... with whatever focal length Fuji would be able to offer. It would be an excellent addition to a Rolleiflex (I have and enjoy). It would also make a great landscape camera for our upcoming trip to Norway ...
JChrome
Street Worker
If you're going to have a 6x12, you're going to have a lens that can cover 4x5 with it's image circle. You might as well use that.
Why have a camera only shoot 6x12 when you can shoot 4x5?
I'd like to see a digital back for 4x5. It would offer a whole new world of creativity for people who shoot video.
Why have a camera only shoot 6x12 when you can shoot 4x5?
I'd like to see a digital back for 4x5. It would offer a whole new world of creativity for people who shoot video.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I don't know what to do with 6x12 other than scanning it. Unless you make a really big print out of it, I think it's an awkward ratio.
I like 6x9, sadly I don't have a 6x9 mask for my enlarger.
As for the lens, I don't know if it's even technically possible, but a relatively fast zoom (a'la Fuji 645 ZI) would be nice. Certainly with the lens technology we have now, image quality is not going to be a problem especially not for 6x9 film size.
I like 6x9, sadly I don't have a 6x9 mask for my enlarger.
As for the lens, I don't know if it's even technically possible, but a relatively fast zoom (a'la Fuji 645 ZI) would be nice. Certainly with the lens technology we have now, image quality is not going to be a problem especially not for 6x9 film size.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
6x12 is probably the largest readily enlargeable roll format - as it will fit in 4x5 enlargers.
I often think of 612 as a diptych of 6x6 frames.
Some don't consider 6x12 to be panoramic - just look at the APUG forum categories.
However I like it and bounced back into the format after a long gap by picking up a used Linhof 612.
The 6x12 /6x9 advantage over 4x5 is step up time - the Linhof 612 with 135mm lens is just a large point and shoot. Not so good for street photography though - the my camera is larger than yours scenario, attracts too much attention.
It seems unlikely now that there would ever be a Voigtlander/Bessa 6x9 or 6x12 camera - but I would like to see someone like Chamonix make an affordable lightweight wooden 6x9/6x12 Technika/Press field camera that is compact and can be scale focused ; with OVF making it useable handheld.
I often think of 612 as a diptych of 6x6 frames.
Some don't consider 6x12 to be panoramic - just look at the APUG forum categories.
However I like it and bounced back into the format after a long gap by picking up a used Linhof 612.
The 6x12 /6x9 advantage over 4x5 is step up time - the Linhof 612 with 135mm lens is just a large point and shoot
. Not so good for street photography though - the my camera is larger than yours scenario, attracts too much attention.It seems unlikely now that there would ever be a Voigtlander/Bessa 6x9 or 6x12 camera - but I would like to see someone like Chamonix make an affordable lightweight wooden 6x9/6x12 Technika/Press field camera that is compact and can be scale focused ; with OVF making it useable handheld.