Pioneer
Veteran
I think 6x9 is a great format. I used to own and carry the Fuji Texas Leicas (owned two of them) but after awhile became disenchanted with the size. Now, if I decide to shoot 6x9 I just grab my Bessa II or Record III and go. Once in awhile I use my Crown Graphic with a 6x9 film back, but most of the time either of my folders gives me great results. But to be honest, my Fuji GF670 folder gives me the best photographs for serious enlargement.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"My concern with folders is that I would like to shoot at wide apertures and at close distances. "
then you should not be looking at rf's at all. RFs don't focus close, and even at 1m the framing error / angle of view difference is serious.
Or, how close is close for you?
then you should not be looking at rf's at all. RFs don't focus close, and even at 1m the framing error / angle of view difference is serious.
Or, how close is close for you?
jett
Well-known
I am not looking for tight headshots...just people pictures. If anything, environmental portraits. 1m is close enough. I do not expect framing to be a large concern to be honest.
In regards to slrs, the only one that I would expect to shoot comfortable at eye level is the pentax 67. It is 6x7 and not 6x9, though not a deal breaker. I have consid ered this camera but I fear that it would be too loud and the shutters speeds less useful at the slower end?
Can anyone chime in about the slower shutter speeds and noise? In comparison with the mamiya and fuji?
In regards to slrs, the only one that I would expect to shoot comfortable at eye level is the pentax 67. It is 6x7 and not 6x9, though not a deal breaker. I have consid ered this camera but I fear that it would be too loud and the shutters speeds less useful at the slower end?
Can anyone chime in about the slower shutter speeds and noise? In comparison with the mamiya and fuji?
shortstop
Well-known
Have you taken in consideration Plaubel Makina 6x7? The only defect: it's not 6x9
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The Fuji, unmodified, is at least as loud as the original Pentax 6x7, but that is a flaw in the film counter, which can be disabled. The original Pentax 6x7 was not only noisy, but had a bad reputation for mirror recoil that made it barely fit for speeds slower than 1/60 unless bolted down on a heavy tripod. But that improved significantly in each succeeding generation, and the 67II is smooth indeed.
On the other hand, do not underestimate the portrait capabilities of cube-type MF SLRs, when hand-held with grip and prism finder - the RZ, hand-held, was one of the most popular tools in 80's and 90's fashion photography.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Something like this?
Taken with the MUP, 100/2.8 lens in the evening. The light level is pretty low (EV 7 or somewhere thereof). Hand-held at low shutter speed.
Given the same light situation anywhere else, I won't hesitate to use the MUP because I know it'll give me quality, the rest is up to me.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
As a Fuji GW690 III owner that would be a great mod. I've yet to see one or hear of one.
Which are what I think of for composing head & shoulders shots.
Spanik
Well-known
Or get a version with changable lenses, they don't have the counter.
RBruceCR
Well-known
Hit us with your best shot!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Not yet, I developed but I still have to scan. But I have one of my car using the tilt feature that looks promising.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Here is a 'tilt' photo from my Super23:
RBruceCR
Well-known
Awesome! It has a swirling focus pattern! The cobblestones and the California Ranch Style houses remind me of the Good Housekeeping magazines that dad used to buy!
oftheherd
Veteran
OK right, I walked around town with my Super 23 today. Will develop the negatives tomorrow. I should not have purchased a 6x7 back because I have a Pentax 6x7. But really the 6x9 is the best 'feel' I have for a negative. I don't really have two films ever in the two backs. So, the changing of backs isn't a priority with me. But I have to say even with the bad rap on the 100mm f3.5, I still think mine is great. I can show you the wide open 100x edges and center shots I tested it with.
But here is one of the 65mm f6.3:
I love this lens, and I'm not really a lens guy.
I really like that photo!
I used my 65mm lens quite often since it was the only wide lens I had for my Super Press until about 4 years ago. I like all the lenses I have, 50mm, 65mm, 100mm f/3.5, 150mm, and 250mm. I never heard anything bad about the 100mm f/3.5. What have you heard?
Here is a 'tilt' photo from my Super23:
That's an interesting idea, I like it. Normally the tilt feature is touted for keeping things in focus, not the other way around. I need to try that some myself.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Oftheheard, well, Roger Hicks doesn't have much good to say about it. I think some others had jumped in to agree. I've also heard grumblings on the Super23 group at Flickr. But having to be shown, I did my own test, only at wide open, if you are interested I'll dig it out.
The fact remains that a 6x9 lens has to cover a much larger area than a 6x6 so Mamiya to me has done a great job these lenses. Thanks for the comment on that photo. I knew from the negative drying it was a winner for me.
EDIT: I'm not really use to using 'tilt, shift, rise (which 23 does not have)' but I find this feature very difficult to use.
The fact remains that a 6x9 lens has to cover a much larger area than a 6x6 so Mamiya to me has done a great job these lenses. Thanks for the comment on that photo. I knew from the negative drying it was a winner for me.
EDIT: I'm not really use to using 'tilt, shift, rise (which 23 does not have)' but I find this feature very difficult to use.
thegman
Veteran
I had a Bessa II once, can't say I loved the build, seemed rattly compared to my Zeiss Super Ikonta IV. Never had a problem with rigidity or film flatness though.
jett
Well-known
I'm leaning towards the Mamiya Press because the images on flickr look better to me. This is maybe not the best way of assessing a lens .... but Mamiya does have a sweet f2.8 lens available (although I may stick with f3.5).
I'm not interested in the folder anymore because the results and opinions are too mixed. If I'm going to bother with 6x9, then I want to know that I'm getting the best out of my lens. I would consider the Makina 67 and the Fuji GF670 if they were 6x9, but they are not and hence too pricey for a format that I care less about.
About the Mamiya Press. I'm just interested in a 6x9 back and a 100mm lens (f2.8 or f3.5).
1. What are the pros/cons between the super 23 and the universal?
2. Is the type III back and grip really that important? I know that the type III back and the grip are highly desired, but does anyone shoot with without these two?
I'm not interested in the folder anymore because the results and opinions are too mixed. If I'm going to bother with 6x9, then I want to know that I'm getting the best out of my lens. I would consider the Makina 67 and the Fuji GF670 if they were 6x9, but they are not and hence too pricey for a format that I care less about.
About the Mamiya Press. I'm just interested in a 6x9 back and a 100mm lens (f2.8 or f3.5).
1. What are the pros/cons between the super 23 and the universal?
2. Is the type III back and grip really that important? I know that the type III back and the grip are highly desired, but does anyone shoot with without these two?
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
1. Super 23 has the extensions and bellows on the back. With the collapsable 100mm f/3.5 lens, it allows some tilt. With any lens, these extensions can be used for closer focus and perhaps some tilt on closeups. Universal can take Polaroid and, with the right adapter, Horseman and Graphic film backs.
2. Type III -- I have one and the special hard to find cable release. The advantage is double exposure prevention (interlock) and the right hand on grip & film advance. My TypeIII is finicky; sometimes interlocks perfectly, but has locked up on me at times.
My net: Universal and skip the Type III.
2. Type III -- I have one and the special hard to find cable release. The advantage is double exposure prevention (interlock) and the right hand on grip & film advance. My TypeIII is finicky; sometimes interlocks perfectly, but has locked up on me at times.
My net: Universal and skip the Type III.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have never seen a Universal, so some of the Super23 cons that I have experienced are: forgetting to wind the film which can cause double exposures, or if you forget to remove the dark slide you get a blank frame, and/or any variation for the two above cons that may quadradically expand. Really the tilt back feature is not of great value but some may like it. It is heavy, but not anything you wouldn't expect from a 6x9. You do have to tune up the rangefinder, but that isn't very hard to do. If you have a ground glass back you can use the 100mm for close ups though:
But I wanted a 6x9 so I bought this one, I'm happy with it and the short comings I'm happy to live with.
But I wanted a 6x9 so I bought this one, I'm happy with it and the short comings I'm happy to live with.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The Super has a permanently attached bellows back (usually Mamiya Press mount, but a few Graflex mount ones seem to exist outside Europe) - when combined with a ground glass frame, it allows for close-up work without extension rings or tilts (close-up only unless you have one of the old, collapsing 100mm/3.5 lenses).
The Universal has no bellows, but user interchangeable backs, besides the regular Mamiya Press one there were Polaroid and Graflex/Mamiya RB backs. The Super and Universal were sold along each other for a while, but the Super was discontinued a decade or two earlier, so the condition of Universals often is better.
It gives you interlocks for double-exposure/blank-exposure prevention, and a right hand release/grip. I have a couple, but at the current prices I would not buy them again. Besides, the merits of having two out of the three interlocks standard on modern cameras are somewhat debatable - it will not cock the shutter for you, so you still can easily miss a shot.
As far as the 100mm lenses are concerned, the late, rigid, multicoated 100/3.5 is a excellent modern Tessar type, among the best of the type - but the earlier ones are supposed to be no better than those on good folders. The Planar type f/2.8 may be a cut above it - but in my experience the difference between it and the late f/3.5 is negligible when stopped down (which you mostly will have to, given a shutter whose - generally somewhat unsafe - shortest time is 1/500).
Spanik
Well-known
Only have the Standard 23 and Super 23 to compare. Must say I like the Standard best because of the better defined rangfinder patch, lock on the lens fitting and fixed back. The bellows don't keep closed well on my Super and in order to use them you need the ground glass and tripod making it a very large and heavy package. And I find rise/fall more usefull than tilt. But if tilt and close-up are things you care about then that could be different of course.
Have't used them enough to say something about the lenses but the collapsible one on the Super doesn't attract me at all. Just another thing to forget and the gain in collapsing it is so ridiculous that I wouldn't do it anyway. I'd say go for a ridgid lens.
Only have the first type backs.
Have't used them enough to say something about the lenses but the collapsible one on the Super doesn't attract me at all. Just another thing to forget and the gain in collapsing it is so ridiculous that I wouldn't do it anyway. I'd say go for a ridgid lens.
Only have the first type backs.