raid
Dad Photographer
Which wide angle medium format camera are you using?
I guess, with a MF SLR, it is simply a matter of attaching a wide angle lens, and there are many excellent wdie angle lenses on the market. As for a rangefinder camera (or without a range finder), I use a Graflex XLW wide body with the Schneider 47mm/8 lens.
The later 47mm/5.6 is supposedly of a better quality than the 47mm/8, but I find the 47mm/8 very sharp. The Graflex camera is not heavy at all, and it is a pleasure to carry it on trips without viewing it as a burden. I have four backs for this camera, ranging from 6x9, 6x8, 6x7, to a 6x6. Even a very light tripod can stabilize this camera when needed for a long exposure. I also like to use this camera for street photography. Its 47mm lens is similar to a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera with the 6x9 back. The lens is very sharp. I have some very sharp 20x30 prints from Velvia transparencies.
I now use a 25mm viewer (from my CV 25mm lens) as my external viewer. A more expensive alternative is the Brooks Veriwide camera which sports the same lens. I have read somewhere that the Brooks shows more actual coverage on film than the Graflex. It is more like a 6x10,or it could be that you get a true 6x9 whereas the Grafles back gives a 6x8 coverage.
I paid many years ago locally about $350 for the XLW with lens and one back, and it was one of my best buys.
I am now looking forward to getting highly detailed 6x7 negatives the coming days. I have loaded the camera with XP2 film, and I am ready to go.
Raid
I guess, with a MF SLR, it is simply a matter of attaching a wide angle lens, and there are many excellent wdie angle lenses on the market. As for a rangefinder camera (or without a range finder), I use a Graflex XLW wide body with the Schneider 47mm/8 lens.
The later 47mm/5.6 is supposedly of a better quality than the 47mm/8, but I find the 47mm/8 very sharp. The Graflex camera is not heavy at all, and it is a pleasure to carry it on trips without viewing it as a burden. I have four backs for this camera, ranging from 6x9, 6x8, 6x7, to a 6x6. Even a very light tripod can stabilize this camera when needed for a long exposure. I also like to use this camera for street photography. Its 47mm lens is similar to a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera with the 6x9 back. The lens is very sharp. I have some very sharp 20x30 prints from Velvia transparencies.
I now use a 25mm viewer (from my CV 25mm lens) as my external viewer. A more expensive alternative is the Brooks Veriwide camera which sports the same lens. I have read somewhere that the Brooks shows more actual coverage on film than the Graflex. It is more like a 6x10,or it could be that you get a true 6x9 whereas the Grafles back gives a 6x8 coverage.
I paid many years ago locally about $350 for the XLW with lens and one back, and it was one of my best buys.
I am now looking forward to getting highly detailed 6x7 negatives the coming days. I have loaded the camera with XP2 film, and I am ready to go.
Raid
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Post some of the shots when you get them developed. Maybe back alley will decide to buy one of these systems and then I can buy it from him 3 weeks later.
Wayne
Wayne
Bryce
Well-known
I have a Brooks Veriwide XL, the newer version, but with the older 47/8 angulon. Its negatives measure 56mm x 80mm, so not really very 6x9 at all... I've read that the earlier and more compact version produced wider negatives though. I have been tempted to widen the back a little bit.
I'm quite happy with the lens, by the way. The only real hang up I have with it is the sheer, shocking amount of light falloff in the corners, must be something like 2 stops, and enough to "overpower" slide film's useable exposure range. With B+W it is usually manageable in the darkroom or even pleasing.
I haven't been able to find a center filter that I know to be appropriate for the lens, and buying something that expensive as a test is outside reason for me.
I'm quite happy with the lens, by the way. The only real hang up I have with it is the sheer, shocking amount of light falloff in the corners, must be something like 2 stops, and enough to "overpower" slide film's useable exposure range. With B+W it is usually manageable in the darkroom or even pleasing.
I haven't been able to find a center filter that I know to be appropriate for the lens, and buying something that expensive as a test is outside reason for me.
FrankS
Registered User
Compared to the systems listed above, my GS645W with 45mm lens is small stuff, but it meets my needs in WA MF.
I do have a 4x5 Speed Graphic and a 90mm Angulon lens (that I need to find a lens board for.)
I do have a 4x5 Speed Graphic and a 90mm Angulon lens (that I need to find a lens board for.)
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I have to agree with Bryce regarding the light falloff, but I noticed that not all images show such falloff clearly. Slide film based images of a blue sky will show light falloff. I have mounted on the camera a 6x7 back to get more images out of the roll of film and also to get a less wide image.Imay get the equivalent of 24mm (I am guessing) and not 21mm with a 6x9 back. Am I even close to getting things right?
Frank: Your 645 camera is modern. I bet, it gives images thart are tack sharp.
Raid
Frank: Your 645 camera is modern. I bet, it gives images thart are tack sharp.
Raid
x-ray
Veteran
Fuji G617 with a 105 Fujinon and center filter. Love those 2-1/4 x 7 inch negs. I would love to have something in a 6x12 other than using my 6x12 back on a 4x5.
raid
Dad Photographer
X-ray: Which particular 6X12 back do you have? Is it the Chinese version for about $600?
Raid
Raid
Raid, the Graflex XL is an interesting system that has tempted me from time to time. What are the dimensions of the film gate for your 6x8 back? Nine exposures on 120?
So, wide MF RFs... My Fuji GS645S is sorta wide at 60mm, but to get as wide as Frank’s Fuji I need to get out my GA645Wi with its 45mm. I also have the 45mm for Bronica RF645. Hmmm... I guess that’s about it, since this is the RF Forum...
But that reminds me to mention, Raid, that 55mm lens on 56x70mm film is about like a 26mm on the teensy 135 format, though the different proportions make comparison difficult. Figuring a 2.1x multiplier, the 47mm would come out about 22mm.
Since the 6x9 format (let’s assume 56x83mm) is about the same proportions as 135, its 2.3x multiplier is more useful. That would put the equivalent of the 47mm at 20.4mm.
So, wide MF RFs... My Fuji GS645S is sorta wide at 60mm, but to get as wide as Frank’s Fuji I need to get out my GA645Wi with its 45mm. I also have the 45mm for Bronica RF645. Hmmm... I guess that’s about it, since this is the RF Forum...
But that reminds me to mention, Raid, that 55mm lens on 56x70mm film is about like a 26mm on the teensy 135 format, though the different proportions make comparison difficult. Figuring a 2.1x multiplier, the 47mm would come out about 22mm.
Since the 6x9 format (let’s assume 56x83mm) is about the same proportions as 135, its 2.3x multiplier is more useful. That would put the equivalent of the 47mm at 20.4mm.
Last edited:
Bullwinkle
J. Moose
Fuji GW690II (6x9) with the fixed 90mm lens. I just dragged it out of the closet and took it for a walk to the Golden Gate Bridge this afternoon. (This website has gotten me all excited.)
raid
Dad Photographer
Doug said:Raid, the Graflex XL is an interesting system that has tempted me from time to time. What are the dimensions of the film gate for your 6x8 back? Nine exposures on 120?
So, wide MF RFs... My Fuji GS645S is sorta wide at 60mm, but to get as wide as Frank’s Fuji I need to get out my GA645Wi with its 45mm. I also have the 45mm for Bronica RF645. Hmmm... I guess that’s about it, since this is the RF Forum...
But that reminds me to mention, Raid, that 55mm lens on 56x70mm film is about like a 26mm on the teensy 135 format, though the different proportions make comparison difficult. Figuring a 2.1x multiplier, the 47mm would come out about 22mm.
Since the 6x9 format (let’s assume 56x83mm) is about the same proportions as 135, its 2.3x multiplier is more useful. That would put the equivalent of the 47mm at 20.4mm.
Doug: What focal length equivalent would I get with the 6x6/6x7/ and 6x8 backs then? The 6x6 and 6x7 backs give me 10 exposures while the 6x8 and 6x9 backs give me 8 exposures.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
Bullwinkle said:
J Moose: This website is great because its membership includes great people like ... there are too many to list!
Raid
Bullwinkle
J. Moose
Yes, thanks to everyone. This site has been quite inspirational.
By the way, years ago I did a bunch of street shooting with the Fuji 6x9. It's really the wrong camera for it (you can't get that close to people), but it's what I had and you shoot what you got. What I found in the darkroom was that I constantly had an extra cm of landscape on each side that I was constantly cropping out. In vertical format I always had a lot of extra sky. My conclusion was that for street shooting 6x7 would have been sufficient.
By the way, years ago I did a bunch of street shooting with the Fuji 6x9. It's really the wrong camera for it (you can't get that close to people), but it's what I had and you shoot what you got. What I found in the darkroom was that I constantly had an extra cm of landscape on each side that I was constantly cropping out. In vertical format I always had a lot of extra sky. My conclusion was that for street shooting 6x7 would have been sufficient.
Great that the discussion is so inspiring! We'll want to see pics from that walk soon.Bullwinkle said:
The 90mm on your camera is like a 39mm on the 135 format, so I guess that qualifies as "wide".... but the same lens on my GW670III is only "normal" I think at about 44mm equivalent, so I didn't mention it.Raid, the 6x6 (56x56mm) format is particularly difficult to compare, with that square proportion. I think you'd have to specify whether you generally crop, and then figure from the cropped proportion. For the other 120/220 film formats you mention, I'd suggest just going by the multiplier factors: 1.6x for 645 (56x41.5), 2.1x for 6x7 (56x70), and 2.3x for 6x9 (56x83). I don't know the dimensions of the 6x8 but one might guess a 2.2x factor. You can calculate the factors as the ratios of the format diagonals.raid said:
Complicating things a little is that the actual film gate dimensions vary among different cameras having the same nominal format. For instance, my Pentax 6x7's frame is a full 70mm long, while the Fuji 670 is only 68.5mm.
raid
Dad Photographer
Doug: Your input already has helped me a lot. I need to do some calculations to figure out the lens coverage for 6x6.
Raid
======================================================
Raid, the 6x6 (56x56mm) format is particularly difficult to compare, with that square proportion. I think you'd have to specify whether you generally crop, and then figure from the cropped proportion. For the other 120/220 film formats you mention, I'd suggest just going by the multiplier factors: 1.6x for 645 (56x41.5), 2.1x for 6x7 (56x70), and 2.3x for 6x9 (56x83). I don't know the dimensions of the 6x8 but one might guess a 2.2x factor. You can calculate the factors as the ratios of the format diagonals.
Complicating things a little is that the actual film gate dimensions vary among different cameras having the same nominal format. For instance, my Pentax 6x7's frame is a full 70mm long, while the Fuji 670 is only 68.5mm.
Raid
======================================================
Raid, the 6x6 (56x56mm) format is particularly difficult to compare, with that square proportion. I think you'd have to specify whether you generally crop, and then figure from the cropped proportion. For the other 120/220 film formats you mention, I'd suggest just going by the multiplier factors: 1.6x for 645 (56x41.5), 2.1x for 6x7 (56x70), and 2.3x for 6x9 (56x83). I don't know the dimensions of the 6x8 but one might guess a 2.2x factor. You can calculate the factors as the ratios of the format diagonals.
Complicating things a little is that the actual film gate dimensions vary among different cameras having the same nominal format. For instance, my Pentax 6x7's frame is a full 70mm long, while the Fuji 670 is only 68.5mm.
Finder
Veteran
I love my Horseman SW612 with the 55mm Apo-Grandagon. Yes, a center filter is needed, but then you cannot fight the cosine 4th law. You also need to shot at f/11 or smaller, but it is a great handheld camera. It works well with dynamic situations. One complaint about the lens, it does flare when pointing into the sun - nice little images of the aperture appear across the image.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
hassey SWC - 38/4.5 - stellar lens, small, handholdable, zero distortion and light fall off at the edges... it's close to perfect ... only downside for some is that it's 6x6
venchka
Veteran
My favorite: Pentax 6x7 and SMC Takumar 45mm/4.0 lens. Really wide, 88 degrees horizontal, about 22mm on 135? No light fall-off in the corners that I have noticed. It's the same focal length and horizontal angle of view as the Xpan+45mm lens. The difference being that you can crop your Xpan size image anywhere you like on that big 6x7 negative or positive. AND it focuses to about 1 foot.
besk
Well-known
My new wide angle camera is a Rollei panoramic tripod adapter for my Rolleiflex 3.5F whiteface
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've got an antique kodak No. 3 (?) panorama brownie or something like that- it's in my office, one of my students is going to borrow it. 1910 or so, held together with gaff tape, but makes beautiful images still. And takes 120 film!!
raid
Dad Photographer
I may one day get a 6x17 back or a 6x12 back (cheaper) for my 4x5 camera. This way, I finally start using the 4x5 after all. Does anyone here have experience with such backs?
Raid
Raid