Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Juan, when I want the 35mm FOV in a larger format, I use either the 50mm or 60mm Lens on my 500c/m, with the A16 back. I put tape on my viewing glass to represent the 3:2 aspect ratio (36mm image height on the glass). This gets the job done without buying anything.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
Chris101
summicronia
It's actually equivalent to a 28, but I used to like to shoot with a mamiya 645 and the 45mm f/2.8 manual focus lens. Easy to focus on the waist level finder, at arm's length. Camera (J) plus lens should be less than $300.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Without a 2:3 format, there is no exact equivalent. This means 6x9 (56x84mm), because the so-called 645 is commonly 42x56m instead of 42x63mm or 38mmx57mm
On 6x9cm (56x84mm) the diagonal is 101mm. With 35mm, the diagonal is 43mm. Therefore, you need a focal length of 101 x 35/43 = 82mm -- NOT 65mm, which is more like 28mm on 35mm.
If you can find a 6x9 with an 80mm lens, that should be close enough. I cannot however think of a compact 6x9 with such a lens. The Plaubel Makina , for example, was compact with an 80/2.8 lens, but it was 6x7 not 6x9. A 75mm lens on my Polaroid 600E with a 6x9 back is pretty close to the coverage, but it certainly ain't compact. Likewise an 80mm on my Graflex XL with a 6x9 back, but the viewfinder is 6x7. Was there a 75mm or 80mm for the Mamiya Press? I don't think so.
Cheers,
R.
On 6x9cm (56x84mm) the diagonal is 101mm. With 35mm, the diagonal is 43mm. Therefore, you need a focal length of 101 x 35/43 = 82mm -- NOT 65mm, which is more like 28mm on 35mm.
If you can find a 6x9 with an 80mm lens, that should be close enough. I cannot however think of a compact 6x9 with such a lens. The Plaubel Makina , for example, was compact with an 80/2.8 lens, but it was 6x7 not 6x9. A 75mm lens on my Polaroid 600E with a 6x9 back is pretty close to the coverage, but it certainly ain't compact. Likewise an 80mm on my Graflex XL with a 6x9 back, but the viewfinder is 6x7. Was there a 75mm or 80mm for the Mamiya Press? I don't think so.
Cheers,
R.
Spanik
Well-known
An RF645 or any of the Fuji's that comes closes to your prefered fov would be my bet as well. A Mamiya 645J with the 55mm might be an option. But all of those do need a battery to work unless you go for an old Fuji rangefinder with changable lens. Almost all of the common tlr's and folders are at the 50mm equivalent fov and being uncommon attract quite a bit of attention.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'd go for the fixed lens Fuji 6x9 Rfs, I don't remember the actual model numbers but they have fantastic lenses, all mechanical as far as I remember, big but importantly they're light, only drawback being they don't focus terribly close, a good meter and a bit, so head and shoulders for portraits.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Large, not compact, and hardly stealthy, but the Mamiya Press with the terrific 75mm lens gives just the view and aspect ratio that you want. And it includes a rangefinder.
Texsport
Well-known
The interchangeable lens Fujica 670 cameras, like GL670, with Fujinon 65mm lens is equivalent to 30mm on a 35mm camera.(Others have posited out that the same lens is 28mm equivalent on 6X9 format).
Mechanical, with excellent quality.
Discrete is something else.
Texsport
Mechanical, with excellent quality.
Discrete is something else.
Texsport
Texsport
Well-known
Here's a very useful reference for 35mm equivalents on 6X6 Pentacon cameras, but should be the same on any 6X6.
http://www.pentaconsix.com/35mmequiv.htm
Texsport
http://www.pentaconsix.com/35mmequiv.htm
Texsport
RBruceCR
Well-known
Mr. Hicks, there is a 90mm f/3.5 for the Mamiya Standard 23, and a 75mm f/5.6 for the Super/Universal and Polaroid 600SE available on eBay as well as other markets.
The 75/5.6 requires a special view finder that encompassed three focal lengths 50mm, 75mm and 100mm.
Regards,
Robert H. Bruce
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
The Fuji would be a GW690 with the 90/3.5. Very slightly narrower than 35mm (more like 37-38mm), but it operates exactly like a 35mm camera. I would look at version 1 or 3.
If you want AE, grab a G690 with the 100mm AE lens. Make sure you get a copy that works.
Dante
If you want AE, grab a G690 with the 100mm AE lens. Make sure you get a copy that works.
Dante
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah, thanks. I didn't know that the 75/5.6 was available for any of the Mamiyas, though I have one for my 600SE. I'm not as familiar with the Mamiyas as I should be -- though the difference between 80mm and 90mm is always more than I expect, and the OP was looking for a 35mm equivalent.
Cheers,
R.
mdarnton
Well-known
Quite a few people seem confused by your question.
To get the same field of view as you get on 35mm with 35mm you need a lens that is the focal length about equal to the actual horizontal of the film image (a 35mm frame is 36mm wide) and then you do probably need to crop to some appropriate horizontal proportion of your choosing, which if you want the same look would be around 3:2, not 1:1 or something else.
The frame of a 6x6 camera is 56mm wide, so something in that line would be about right for a TLR or other 6x6 camera. For 6x9, around 85 or less for most cameras (90 is maybe close enough, maybe not). For 5x7, a lens a bit short of 7". You get it. . . .
But when you ask for a larger camera that is small, you're asking for the Tardis--larger on the inside than the outside. I don't think you will find that anywhere except among folding 120 cameras, and probably not even then. Mostly, larger cameras seem to feel disproportionately larger. For a remarkably small camera (take the accessories off and open the shutter--there's nothing there but a small thin box!), Hasselblads seem quite large.
Perhaps, if you want more quality, the answer is to switch to a slower film. I used to do studio work that my boss used his Hasselblad and Plus-X on with 35mm Panatomic-X and he couldn't tell the difference. You will get to have all the things you have now, and more, in the same size.
Another consideration is that the equivalent focal length may "feel" different on a different camera. For me, on 35mm, 35mm is my most unused focal length. For 5x7, 7" is my most used.
To get the same field of view as you get on 35mm with 35mm you need a lens that is the focal length about equal to the actual horizontal of the film image (a 35mm frame is 36mm wide) and then you do probably need to crop to some appropriate horizontal proportion of your choosing, which if you want the same look would be around 3:2, not 1:1 or something else.
The frame of a 6x6 camera is 56mm wide, so something in that line would be about right for a TLR or other 6x6 camera. For 6x9, around 85 or less for most cameras (90 is maybe close enough, maybe not). For 5x7, a lens a bit short of 7". You get it. . . .
But when you ask for a larger camera that is small, you're asking for the Tardis--larger on the inside than the outside. I don't think you will find that anywhere except among folding 120 cameras, and probably not even then. Mostly, larger cameras seem to feel disproportionately larger. For a remarkably small camera (take the accessories off and open the shutter--there's nothing there but a small thin box!), Hasselblads seem quite large.
Perhaps, if you want more quality, the answer is to switch to a slower film. I used to do studio work that my boss used his Hasselblad and Plus-X on with 35mm Panatomic-X and he couldn't tell the difference. You will get to have all the things you have now, and more, in the same size.
Another consideration is that the equivalent focal length may "feel" different on a different camera. For me, on 35mm, 35mm is my most unused focal length. For 5x7, 7" is my most used.
RBruceCR
Well-known
Indeed, precision in your definition! The 90mm is a bit narrower than the 80mm!
However, there are quite a few lenses for the newer Mamiya Universal and Super on eBay! It is indeed a pathway for entry to the medium format.
The Mamiya press it's not quite a Hasselblad, but easier to justify the Mamiya than the Swedesh marque on this side of the ocean. It has also the capabilities to do all four formats from 6 X 4.5 to 6 X 6, 6 X 7 up to 6 X 9.
I have a question. How can I see and understand the difference between a 90mm/3.5 that my camera has, albeit, (with a fungus attacked rear element) and that of a 100/3.5 the newer version for the newer Mamiya's?
Regards,
Robert
pagpow
Well-known
I have experimented with the 65mm Angulon lens on old 6x9 folders and on an adapted 6x9 bakelite helicoid camera. But this gives a FOV on 6x9 that's closer to that of a 28mm lens on 135. (For my daylight use the comparative slowness of the 'old', compact, Angulon is not an issue.) Plenty of view on plenty of film.
For the OP's desired f=35mm equivalent, compactness, and availability, the 90mm Angulon (not Super-) would probably be the best bet if 6x9 is wanted and if f/6.8 is not a limitation.
+1 here. I have also collected bits and pieces and had Photography on Bald Mountain cobble together a camera using an ikonta Nettar body, an Angulon (not Super) 65mm/6.8, a focus mount from an Oly OM or Canon FD 50mm lens, and a 28mm VF. Others on RFF, handier than me have done their own and saved money.
Camera is light, small, discreet, and rigid.
65mm is 28mm equivalent. If that is too wide, the 90 suggested works but adds about an inch in depth.
More if you are interested.
Giorgio
aizan
Veteran
Fuji GS645S: cheap, compact, 35mm-e, metered, mechanical.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Robert,
Slippery slope.
Can you tell a 75 from an 80? Probably not. Can you tell an 80 from a 90? Probably not. Can you tell a 90 from a 100? Probably not.
Can you tell a 75 from a 100? Probably quite often.
Cheers,
R.
RBruceCR
Well-known
Well I am going to slide down that hill, even without a push!
Kind regards,
Robert H. Bruce
oftheherd
Veteran
When I first saw this thread I was thinking only of MF. I expect by this time the OP has decided on a solution and gone to it. But if not, and for any others contemplating the issue, a 9x12 might be worth consideration.
There were a variety of auxillery lenses made for the old 9x12 folders. There were closeup lenses, portrait lenses (not so closeup), wide angle, and telephoto. I have two of them that my father used. In the case they were carried in, he marked on 35mm and the other 135mm. I have used them and one is indeed wide and the other long. I have never set them up against a 35mm lens to seen how close those aux lenses get to those focal lengths. Granted on may be worried about the quality loss of using an aux lens, but remember the 9x12 is almost a 4x5 sheet of film. Using the better lenses of the time, I think you would be surprised at the quality and enlargement that can be achieved.
Given some of the MF cameras suggested above, a 9x12 folder would be rather compact and light. Might be worth a try.
There were a variety of auxillery lenses made for the old 9x12 folders. There were closeup lenses, portrait lenses (not so closeup), wide angle, and telephoto. I have two of them that my father used. In the case they were carried in, he marked on 35mm and the other 135mm. I have used them and one is indeed wide and the other long. I have never set them up against a 35mm lens to seen how close those aux lenses get to those focal lengths. Granted on may be worried about the quality loss of using an aux lens, but remember the 9x12 is almost a 4x5 sheet of film. Using the better lenses of the time, I think you would be surprised at the quality and enlargement that can be achieved.
Given some of the MF cameras suggested above, a 9x12 folder would be rather compact and light. Might be worth a try.