rinzlerb
Established
I’m hoping some of my wise brethren can explain a bit more about what is so great about larger media (6x9+). I’ve been shooting (and loving) 6x6 medium format for a couple years and have dabbled with 6X9. I don’t think I’m ready for true large format (4x5 or more) until my kids are in college, but 6x9 range finders seem like a workable step up. I've been blown away by what I've seen on the 6x9 thread, but have not come close to equaling it with my humble Moscva 5. I've shot a few keepers, but it's just too fiddly, especially for shooting people. I’ve read much about the added resolution, and less need for enlargement. I’ve also read several statements like “you won’t notice the difference unless you print larger than…” and I’ve found these resolution-based explanations unsatisfactory. I can see the difference between my 35mm pictures and 6X6 on my iphone, from arm’s length (not pixel-peeping!). Am I going to see a clear step up in in sumptuous, big film look from 6x6 to 6X9? I know that the depth of field is different. I love on my 6x6 how I still get a slightly blurred background at f8 on subjects that are about 20 feet away. I was a liberal arts major (a techy one, but definitely not a math or physics type) so I don’t really get the optical physics involved. I would love to have it explained to me clearly. Also, is it true that lenses don’t need to resolve as much when they project on a larger area? Doesn’t that change the whole equation? I’m leaning towards a Fuji GSW690ii since I’m on a pretty strict budget. Would welcome any advice. Thanks!
aeturnum
Established
First, the GSW690II is a great camera. I have a GS690II, and it produces wonderful photos. Good conversation piece too.
Second, 6x6 and 6x9 are very similar formats. There isn't any inherent increase in detail from 6x6 to 6x9. The 6x6 square in the middle of a 6x9 negative holds the same amount of information as your current 6x6 negatives. If there's a difference in sharpness, it's in the lens, not the format. 6x9 is generally seen as a step up in detail from 6x4.5.
I think the most obvious explanation for the difference between your 6x6 shots and generic 6x9 shots is that you're using a 50 year old camera from the USSR. Most 6x9 cameras are more modern.
Again, the Fuji is an excellent camera, but you're "just" going to be adding 6mmx1.5mm edges to your 6x6 format. You may want that, but I'd encourage you to also look into more modern 6x6 RFs (or even 645 RFs).
Second, 6x6 and 6x9 are very similar formats. There isn't any inherent increase in detail from 6x6 to 6x9. The 6x6 square in the middle of a 6x9 negative holds the same amount of information as your current 6x6 negatives. If there's a difference in sharpness, it's in the lens, not the format. 6x9 is generally seen as a step up in detail from 6x4.5.
I think the most obvious explanation for the difference between your 6x6 shots and generic 6x9 shots is that you're using a 50 year old camera from the USSR. Most 6x9 cameras are more modern.
Again, the Fuji is an excellent camera, but you're "just" going to be adding 6mmx1.5mm edges to your 6x6 format. You may want that, but I'd encourage you to also look into more modern 6x6 RFs (or even 645 RFs).
lonemantis
Well-known
I would second a recommendation for any of the Fuji 6X9 rangefinders. (I have a GW III because I use the normal length most often). It handles extremely well, like an oversized Leica, and the lens is excellent.
The difference in quality you'll see between 6x6 and a Fuji 6x9 also depends on what 6x6 you're stepping up from. For example, the lens on my Fuji is clearly sharper than my Hasselblad lenses, but that has less to do with the negative size and more to do with it being a more modern optical design.
Depth of field will tend to be more shallow as well because you can fit more in the frame either horizontally or vertically, and will likely end up shooting closer to your subjects than you would with 6x6.
The difference in quality you'll see between 6x6 and a Fuji 6x9 also depends on what 6x6 you're stepping up from. For example, the lens on my Fuji is clearly sharper than my Hasselblad lenses, but that has less to do with the negative size and more to do with it being a more modern optical design.
Depth of field will tend to be more shallow as well because you can fit more in the frame either horizontally or vertically, and will likely end up shooting closer to your subjects than you would with 6x6.
rinzlerb
Established
I've been using a yashicamat 124g. Love it!
lonemantis
Well-known
That's a great camera, I had one for awhile until it broke and I ended up selling it for parts.
If you like the look you're getting from your Yashica, I see no reason not to stick with it! Even if my Fuji's lens is sharper, I'll always go to my Hasselblad for portraits since the lenses are much better for people.
Corran
Well-known
What crop are you printing to on the 6x6 negatives? Full squares, or 4:5 (~645), or something else?
If you like the 2:3 aspect ratio, 6x9 would be a big step up compared to 4x6 cropped from the square. Also depends on the lens. I personally see 6x6 and 6x9 as very different formats with regard to composition/crop, not resolution.
If you like the 2:3 aspect ratio, 6x9 would be a big step up compared to 4x6 cropped from the square. Also depends on the lens. I personally see 6x6 and 6x9 as very different formats with regard to composition/crop, not resolution.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
As others have said, 6x9 is basically 6x6 with added edges. If you are always cropping 6x6 to a 3:2 format, then yes, the 6x9 negative will be 'sharper' (let's keep it simple and avoid all the issues that make a negative and a print 'sharp').
I had a Moskva 5 for a bt, probably for the same reason you do- wondering if 6x9 was worth it after the 6x6 of a TLR. And yes, you are on to something, it isn't a very smooth camera. Also issues of alignment and focus can make things unsharp. When I went to a FujiGW690, I got it- if I want 3:2 format and the 'same sharpness' as 6x6, the Texas Leica was a great way to go. Focus is fast and smooth, the rangefinder patch works well and is in the same window as the viewfinder. For people and street it works nicely.
I am back to a TLR for hand-held shooting, and work with the full square. I use a Horseman 6x9 view camera for tripod work. The Fujis have moved on, no fault of theirs but just didn't fit my shooting (well, that clack they make when you fire the shutter was annoying).
Give one a go. Not hard to sell them on if you are patient and find one for a decent price.
I had a Moskva 5 for a bt, probably for the same reason you do- wondering if 6x9 was worth it after the 6x6 of a TLR. And yes, you are on to something, it isn't a very smooth camera. Also issues of alignment and focus can make things unsharp. When I went to a FujiGW690, I got it- if I want 3:2 format and the 'same sharpness' as 6x6, the Texas Leica was a great way to go. Focus is fast and smooth, the rangefinder patch works well and is in the same window as the viewfinder. For people and street it works nicely.
I am back to a TLR for hand-held shooting, and work with the full square. I use a Horseman 6x9 view camera for tripod work. The Fujis have moved on, no fault of theirs but just didn't fit my shooting (well, that clack they make when you fire the shutter was annoying).
Give one a go. Not hard to sell them on if you are patient and find one for a decent price.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I like 6x9 from old folders. Due to compactness and longer focal length.
Didn't like square due to limited to the middle only framing and bad corner distortions on different cameras I have tried.
The only reason I found to be good in 6x6 is how easy to enlarge.
6x9 enlarger is difficult to find and it is huge.
Didn't like square due to limited to the middle only framing and bad corner distortions on different cameras I have tried.
The only reason I found to be good in 6x6 is how easy to enlarge.
6x9 enlarger is difficult to find and it is huge.
rinzlerb
Established
Will definitely keep the yashicamat. It's become second nature to operate and it's actually quite small. The "Texas Leica" probably won't come along as often, but who knows. I want it for a planned trip to the alps.
besk
Well-known
A whole lot more real estate is one of the biggest reasons for the 6X9 IMO. For handheld work a 6X6 TLR is great but for landscapes on a tripod the 6X9 just seems to be the best choice for me.
GaryLH
Veteran
While the Fuji 6x9 are nice.. They are big (there is a reason it is called a Texas Leica 
) and noisy. One of the loudest I have ever used.. For 6x9, my favorite is the Voigtlander Bessa II. It folds up small enough to fit in back pocket of some of my jeans. Nice silent leaf shutter...
Gary
) and noisy. One of the loudest I have ever used.. For 6x9, my favorite is the Voigtlander Bessa II. It folds up small enough to fit in back pocket of some of my jeans. Nice silent leaf shutter...Gary
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
If 6x6 is a comfortable format why bother. The YashicaMat has a fine lens ( I've got 3).
Myself I'm a sucker for the 6x9 format and as much as I like my Mockba-5 (they really don't take up much space) I've found my old Medalist lens superior in most ways. The 6x9 Fuji lens pretty much "set the bar" for others to aspire to ! So if you're suffering from GAS
then go for it, otherwise refer to the first sentence. Peter
Myself I'm a sucker for the 6x9 format and as much as I like my Mockba-5 (they really don't take up much space) I've found my old Medalist lens superior in most ways. The 6x9 Fuji lens pretty much "set the bar" for others to aspire to ! So if you're suffering from GAS
then go for it, otherwise refer to the first sentence. Peter
oftheherd
Veteran
A lot of questions here at RFF are answered and defended with almost religious fervor. The question of 6x6 to 6x7 or 6x9 is one of them. Fortunately not as bad as whether or not to put a clear filter on a lens.
I have and do use 6x6. But it is not my favorite format. I prefer 6x7 or 6x9. I only have one 6x7; a Super Press 23. It was what replaced my Yashica MAT 124G when it was stolen. It is heavier, but I really like the format. I found, as I think Corran was alluding, that I usually ended up with 645 of usable negative. Some times that was a good thing as I didn't have to crop as tight, and had more cropping choices. But regardless of what aeturnum's (I presume typo 1.5mm rather than 1.5cm) thoughts were, I find 6x9 significantly bigger looking than even 6x6. Even more than 6x7, but not so much.
I have a rather inexpensive Zeiss folding 6x9 that I think gives gook photos. It is very easy to carry and use. Having to set the distance is not something I am so used to, but not a big deal. One thing about 6x9 is that you get only 8 photos as opposed to 10 in 6x7 and 12 in 6x6 (or 16 in 645). You might want to try to find one of those first to see how you like that format. Then if you think it necessary, look for something with a better lens and/or more versatility.
One thing to consider is folding plate cameras. If you look in the Show Me Your 9x12 folder thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63330 you will find some 6x9 folding plate cameras as well. It might be an option you would want to try. If you asked me if they are of the optical quality as a Fujica 6x9, I don't know, but I would doubt it. Fujica makes some of the best lenses in the world imho.
Good luck in your quest.
I have and do use 6x6. But it is not my favorite format. I prefer 6x7 or 6x9. I only have one 6x7; a Super Press 23. It was what replaced my Yashica MAT 124G when it was stolen. It is heavier, but I really like the format. I found, as I think Corran was alluding, that I usually ended up with 645 of usable negative. Some times that was a good thing as I didn't have to crop as tight, and had more cropping choices. But regardless of what aeturnum's (I presume typo 1.5mm rather than 1.5cm) thoughts were, I find 6x9 significantly bigger looking than even 6x6. Even more than 6x7, but not so much.
I have a rather inexpensive Zeiss folding 6x9 that I think gives gook photos. It is very easy to carry and use. Having to set the distance is not something I am so used to, but not a big deal. One thing about 6x9 is that you get only 8 photos as opposed to 10 in 6x7 and 12 in 6x6 (or 16 in 645). You might want to try to find one of those first to see how you like that format. Then if you think it necessary, look for something with a better lens and/or more versatility.
One thing to consider is folding plate cameras. If you look in the Show Me Your 9x12 folder thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63330 you will find some 6x9 folding plate cameras as well. It might be an option you would want to try. If you asked me if they are of the optical quality as a Fujica 6x9, I don't know, but I would doubt it. Fujica makes some of the best lenses in the world imho.
Good luck in your quest.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Yes, gear talk aside, it is my experience that it is the focal lengths that cause the images to look different. On a 6x6 camera you can shoot an 80mm lens but with a much wider field of view than you have on a35mm camera.
.
mfogiel
Veteran
I would rather suggest to look at 645. There are some great cameras out there - I use Bronica RF, Pentax 645N and Contax 645. There is a much bigger jump in quality between 35mm and 645 than between 645 and 6x9. If you are on a budget and are fond of portraiture, go for the Pentax with 75, 120 macro or 150/3.5 lenses, great performance for little money, and you will get good enough negative to enlarge till 16x24' plus 16 shots on a roll.
oftheherd
Veteran
While there are many fine 645 cameras out there, I think the OP is considering whether to go up in negative size, not down.
defconfunk
n00b
Resolution does play a difference in optical enlarging quality.
Generally speaking an enlargement of 3x is visually as good as a contact print (basically the grains are still too small to be individually identifiable). This number changes with different film stocks, very fine grained film will have a lower multiplier, lower grained film will have a higher multiplier.
With a 35mm negative we get a 'contact print like image' up to 3"x4.5". With a 6x6 I can get a 6.5" x 6.5". But if we crop down to 3:2, then we're only getting 'contact quality' in a 4"x6" where as we'll get contact print quality in a 6.5"x10" from a 6x9 negative.
You can enlarge up to 8x and still get a fairly good image (I find that to be my comfort limit for HP5+, it's a personal choice). 35mm gets us an 7.5"x11" (round to 8x10), 6x6 gets us 17.5"x17.5" (or cropped to 11.5"x17.5") and 6x9 gives us 17.5"x26".
So, if you are shooting square, there is really no difference between 6x6 and 6x9, but if you are cropping down to a 3:2 ratio, then the 6x9 will give you nearly contact print quality all the way up to an 8x10, where as 6x6 cropped only gets that same quality in a 4x6.
pschauss
Well-known
My Beseler 23C does 6x9 and it is not particularly large.
mdarnton
Well-known
Yes, the math needs doing here: Most people have been comparing 6x6 to 6x9, but that only works if you don't crop. If you are cropping your 6x6, and using 4x6 of the neg, then 9x6 is twice as much negative! A pretty big jump if you're looking for more quality.
Texsport
Well-known
The subject matter and compositions you prefer tend to dictate the camera. I generally consider the camera- lens combination field of view, and how the human eye would react to the image I'm trying to grab. If I have a main subject, my field of vision would narrow, and if I'm looking at a scene, I try to scan as wide a view as I can.
I have 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, 6X12, and 6X17 cameras (as well as some panoramic 35mm formats)and believe that each has a type of photo they are most useful for.
To my eye, the 6X6 is primarily for centrally located subjects, while the 6X12 and 6X17 obviously for panoramic landscapes.
For 6X6, I use it for portraits primarily. Read on 6X6 photo composition and a centrally located subject is generally what is recommended. Because of this, I tend to use a single primary lens for most shots with each of these types - Square- Rittreck 80/2 and Pentacon Six TL 180/2.8.
For wide 6X12 or 6X17 panoramics, a favorite lens is also generally chosen. In a way, that's a good thing because I only need a single lens for each camera.
That leaves the 6X7 and particularly the 6X9 in between, both in negative size and function.
Specific uses----
Square Format
I also use the more square formats primarily for bokeh included head shot portraits. Square doesn't look wide enough for landscapes, generally leaving me questing what was just off the edges of my landscape attempts with that type. So, I feel limited to a centrally located subject with square formats.
Panoramic Formats
The panoramic formats are also specialized, and frankly require a lot of effort to fill the frames with worth while material, side-to-side.
Intermediate Formats
That leaves the 6X7 and 6X9. (6X8 if I had it) in between. I find them more useful, because they can do both central subjects and wider landscapes. One of my favorite compositions is the environmental portrait, including the subject and surroundings. These are shot mostly with 6X9 in horizontal aspect using a 100/3.5 lens. But I also take landscape shots with 50mm and 65mm lenses on my Fujica 690 cameras. So, 6X9 cameras are more useful to me.
If you have read this far, you'll realize that while 6X9 is more versatile, you'll need more lenses to take advantage of that versatility = a larger investment in equipment.
What I'd suggest is keeping your 6X6 for portraits and add a 6X9 Fujica with a 65mm lens for wider shots.
I try not to crop my photos by being as carefull with composing as I can.
My main reason for taking every picture is to eventually hang it on a wall - my own or someone I gift it to. Don't spend time scanning for internet posting.
Hope this helped.
Texsport
I have 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, 6X12, and 6X17 cameras (as well as some panoramic 35mm formats)and believe that each has a type of photo they are most useful for.
To my eye, the 6X6 is primarily for centrally located subjects, while the 6X12 and 6X17 obviously for panoramic landscapes.
For 6X6, I use it for portraits primarily. Read on 6X6 photo composition and a centrally located subject is generally what is recommended. Because of this, I tend to use a single primary lens for most shots with each of these types - Square- Rittreck 80/2 and Pentacon Six TL 180/2.8.
For wide 6X12 or 6X17 panoramics, a favorite lens is also generally chosen. In a way, that's a good thing because I only need a single lens for each camera.
That leaves the 6X7 and particularly the 6X9 in between, both in negative size and function.
Specific uses----
Square Format
I also use the more square formats primarily for bokeh included head shot portraits. Square doesn't look wide enough for landscapes, generally leaving me questing what was just off the edges of my landscape attempts with that type. So, I feel limited to a centrally located subject with square formats.
Panoramic Formats
The panoramic formats are also specialized, and frankly require a lot of effort to fill the frames with worth while material, side-to-side.
Intermediate Formats
That leaves the 6X7 and 6X9. (6X8 if I had it) in between. I find them more useful, because they can do both central subjects and wider landscapes. One of my favorite compositions is the environmental portrait, including the subject and surroundings. These are shot mostly with 6X9 in horizontal aspect using a 100/3.5 lens. But I also take landscape shots with 50mm and 65mm lenses on my Fujica 690 cameras. So, 6X9 cameras are more useful to me.
If you have read this far, you'll realize that while 6X9 is more versatile, you'll need more lenses to take advantage of that versatility = a larger investment in equipment.
What I'd suggest is keeping your 6X6 for portraits and add a 6X9 Fujica with a 65mm lens for wider shots.
I try not to crop my photos by being as carefull with composing as I can.
My main reason for taking every picture is to eventually hang it on a wall - my own or someone I gift it to. Don't spend time scanning for internet posting.
Hope this helped.
Texsport