Is 6X9 LF when it has movements?

fidget

fidget

Lemon magnet
Local time
7:31 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,357
I wondered if a Graflex Century 6x9 would be considered to be LF? (It has a range of movements similar to say a 5x4).
I feel that I could get some use from such an outfit. I would probably try to get a roll film back for this. I notice that the Busch 2x3 is almost the same. Anyone have experience of these?
Dave..
 
I would consider it a view camera, but not a LF. I know there are several 6x9 rollfilm backs available - I love the one on my horseman.
 
VC not LF

VC not LF

Hello:

I would agree: view camera not large format. In an earlier age 4x5 was considered miniature!

yours
Frank
 
Last edited:
well, if we consider 4x5 to be the "smallest" large format, then that's 20 square inches. A 6x9 is 2.25x3.5 inches. That's still less than 8 square inches. Pretty big difference.

Personally, I have no opinion on it.

allan
 
Thanks for the responses. Not LF then.
Anyone have any experience with them?
I should ask this in another forum, I guess.
 
I recall on another forum, many years ago, someone commenting that one problem with 6x9 cameras is just how difficult it is to focus an image on the ground glass screen. I gather that it's a heck of a lot trickier than on, say, a 5x4.

Large format is 5x4 upwards. 6x9 is roll film is medium format, irrespective of whether it has movements.

Personally speaking, I think if you are going to all the trouble of shooting with a view camera then I think that you may as well go for a format big enough to really show you the leap in image quality, ie 8x10 or 5x7. I never felt that shooting on 5x4 was the effort over working on medium format. That's my feeling and I have no doubt that there are die hard 5x4 shooters who would disagree with me.

YMMV.
 
Hello:

LF and medium format bbs will both have relevant topics. The Century has a rangefinder and it is accurate so discussion here is relevant.

I find GG focusing remarkably easy if I use a Schneider 3X loupe and F2.8 lens such as the 100mm Tessar.

A complete century kit fits in a soft lunch cooler! not easily done with other field cameras.

yours
Frank
 
Last edited:
The graflex cameras are all great, IMO, and if you put a nice fresh ground glass in there it is no harder to focus than with any other ground glass (like the one in an SLR, for instance).

allan
 
I'd say no since you're still using 120 (or 220) roll film. Pespective control lenses have "movements", that doesn't make a 35mm using one large format. 6X9 is medium format.
 
Whether it should count as LF notwithstanding most of the issues and techniques will be in common with the LF guys. Questions relating to your camera get asked and answered on the LF forums all the time.
 
The 6x9 graflex is quite a chunk. I've been pondering the same sort of question and I keep coming to the conclusion that, if I'm going to deal with so much camera, I want to take it one step up and get the 4x5.

Just my take though....
 
I have a Horseman VHR as well as the Horseman FA 4x5 . The VHR is a rangefinder with a cam system that calibrates the lens to the viewfinder for accurate focusing. I usually use a reflex viewer to focus on the ground glass and it is easy. The camera is small and the back rotates from vertical to horizontal. It will use the horseman 6x9 and 6x7 backs and also the the less expensive Graphic backs from 6x6 -- 6x9. I use lenses from 65nikkor, 120nikkor macro, 150 lanthar, 240docter and a linhof 270 tele-xenar.
 
dazedgonebye said:
The 6x9 graflex is quite a chunk. I've been pondering the same sort of question and I keep coming to the conclusion that, if I'm going to deal with so much camera, I want to take it one step up and get the 4x5.

Just my take though....
Click to expand...

Yes, this is just where I am, I guess that I could set up a 5x4 for a roll film back and get the same movements, with the advantages of large negs if/when I want to go there. So it may come down to deciding whether I really need the (slightly) better portability or limiting my work to roll film.
 
Size wise and weight wise there is not much advantage of using 6x9 instead of 4x5. There are plenty of light-weight small 4x5 options. Processing costs would be much lower though with roll film. Medium format view cameras are mainly produced for use with digital backs. If you want a 4x5 Leica take a look at the Littman 45s. Smaller and lighter then a lot of medium format cameras.
 
I use just the 2x3 "press" cameras, as the 4x5 is a bit bigger than I want to carry. The Century, and my favorite, the Crown, both usually have the Graflok back. That makes using a rollfilm back very simple. I have a modified Busch, and the work necessary is pretty simple. The backs and inserts can be found without too much difficulty. The cameras themselves are fun to use, but require more steps (pulling dark slide, focusing that checking view, seperate speed/aperture, etc.) making the photography more deliberate. After some time, things are either pre-set or become more or less automatic.

Since I don't use 4x5, and the 100-105 lenses are just slightly tele using 120/220, I'm right where I want to be image-wise. The usual 135 lens on a 4x5 gives a more pronounced telephoto effect than I generally want or need. Also, the backs for that size seem slightly more expensive and hard to find.
The Speed is a very nice camera, but there is more weight involved, and the shutter may not be very accurate, condiering its age. The Crown is all metal, reasonably light, and my favorite. The Busch comes in as a close second, but the lenses available aren't quite as good as the 105/3.7 Ektra on the Crown. Most lenses for the 2x3's are at least good, many are excellent, considering vintage. Mostly the same applies to the 4x5, so its a matter of wanting the larger negative size available.

Jump in, I think you'll have a good time.

Harry
 
A metal Crown? that's interesting...I didn't know that.

Dan Fromm on APUG and Graflex.org when it's up is nearly a 2x3 press cam evangelist...he'll give you plenty of reasons to do that instead of other options.

Don't worry about shutter accuracy mentioned above on ht ebasis of age alone...most old cameras need some maintenance.I hear many Speed Graphic focal plane shutters, if functional, are accurate and hold their accuracy well.
 
I have a Wista 4x5 Technical Camera. I perfer using it with medium-format roll film backs - 6x6 and 6x12. It is faster and more economical than sheet film and less of a chance for making mistakes or having dust problems. And 4x5 sheet film holders and changing tents add a lot of bulk and weight to the bag which makes 4x5 significantly heavier and bigger than a medium-format option. I would say a medium-format view camera could be a very good tool.

But there is still magic in that 4x5 piece of film.
 
One of the major benefits of using sheet film over roll film is the ability to process each sheet individually. If one scene requires normal development and the next scene N-1, and the one following that one N+1 it is easy to develop each sheet properly. If you are shooting all of the scenes on roll film you have to sacrifice individual development or have different roll film backs that can be dedicated to normal, N+1, N-1 development etc.

Having said all of that, my vote would be to get a 4x5 camera with graflock back so that a roll film adapter can be used if wanted.

As far as a 6x9 being a large format camera, I don't know and I don't really care, it is considerably bigger than 35mm, but tiny compared to 8x10.

Wayne
 
6x9 format

6x9 format

I had a 6x9 view for about 20 years and the 'largest' problem I had was finding WA lenses that were far enough away from the film plane with a large enough circle that I could get swings and tilts. Did alot of playing and some work with it and saved my back at the same time. 65mm Angulion was about the best I could do. Worked like large formant but was not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom