Related Links:
Classic Film Sizes and Adapters
Film Formats Compared
(LF, MF, 35mm.. by Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
History of Film Formats
Superslide 127 film sources (4x4 cm)
| Medium Format Cameras by Formats |
|---|
|
|
Mamiya's Why
Size
Counts site shows the tremendous visual impact of the larger images
compared to a 35mm original. We will explore some of the actual format sizes
and areas in the article below.
The number of 6x6cm and 6x4.5cm cameras is too long to list here, but many
examples
are listed in Medium Format Camera Library
List.
In other cases, you have a few popular choices (again, other than cutting
down film):
The panoramic functions are highly specialized, and in some cases, you have few or only one choice (other than cutting down film):
The 6x9cm cameras are rare in current models
Older folder models, Plaubel Makina, and the Zeiss Super Ikonta and
copies such as the Moskva-4 provide some lower cost 6x9cm options.
Most of these cameras have options to provide smaller formats using
different rollfilm backs, masks, or other approaches. As an example, the
Alpa 12 WA/SWA feature many formats (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9
cm) and a unique perspective control with wide angle lens design.
For extreme panoramic format cameras in 6x17cm format, options (not
including 5x7 view camera backs) include:
| Lusting after 6x17cm Formats? |
|---|
| the 6x17cm format is best reserved for impressing clients with huge
original transparencies, or for those rare individuals whose personal vision requires them to work in this way Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz in the Medium and Large Format Photography book, p. 49 |
Since 127 film is now obsolete, there
aren't any new 4x4cm cameras, but many Baby Rolleis and related cameras
are available used for this superslide format.
Similarly, many cameras feature backs which can be adjusted or
replaceable magazines are set to provide 6x4.5cm formats (e.g.,
Hasselblad A16, Bronica Model E for Bronica S2.
Other folder cameras have masks or settings for not only 6x9cm, but also
6x6cm and even 6x4.5cm in some cases.
Finally, cutting down film from view cameras offers a way to get a number
of formats, particularly with 5x7 inch film (6x12cm down). See Medium Format on a Budget for more ideas on using
a viewcamera as a substitute for more expensive medium format panoramic
cameras. You will also find hints there on using obsolete film size and
folder cameras for inexpensive panoramic camera alternatives.
| Quality Factors - 6x4.5 vs. 6x6 vs. 6x7 |
|---|
| Ernst Wildi in his Medium Format Advantage book notes (on p.28) that the 6x4.5cm vs. 6x6cm cropped rectangular images printed at 8x10" both have to be enlarged by a factor of 4.6X. Using a 6x7cm (56mm x 68mm) image, the rectangle has to be enlarged only 3.8X, a difference of only 20%. By comparison, the area of the 6x7cm image is 60% greater than the 6x4.5cm (or cropped 6x6cm) rectangle. It is the longest side length which determines enlargement factors, rather than the relative area of the two images. This result is counter-intuitive; the much (60%+) larger area 6x7cm image only provides circa 20%+ extra enlargement overhead or quality. This factor helps explain why there is such a large improvement in quality in going from 35mm to medium format, but relatively modest differences between quality of different medium format sizes. |
Where Can I find out more about the types of Medium Format
Cameras?
From: Ivan Singer ivansinger@sprintmail.com
Subject: Response to Format: 645, 67 or larger??
Date: 1998-02-12
Sounds like you want a multi-purpose camera; a camera that can shoot portraits and turn around and be lugged through the countryside. Seven years ago I was in the same decision-making process, went 6x9, and would not trade it for anything else. I use a Fujica G690 w/100mm and 180mm lenses and use it to do headshots, weddings, industrial, landscape, everything! With 6x9 you start off with the largest image size and you get extreme sharpness at even the smallest format . Headshots could be cropped to 35mm sized neg areas with better quality than a full frame 35mm camera. Panoramas are easy to print full out to 90mm. Group shots can even be handheld at 1/125sec w/o blur. Don't settle for 645, it is not that different from 35mm.
Because it is a leaf shutter design, flash sync ghosting is not an issue.
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999
From: zeitgeist greenky.wa@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: formats and cropping ratios - why there are no best formats...
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> let's look at common USA paper sizes for enlargements: > > print: X by Y ratio: (USA paper sizes in inches) > 3.000 5.000 0.600 > 4.000 6.000 0.667 > 5.000 7.000 0.714 > 8.000 10.000 0.800 > 11.000 14.000 0.786 > 16.000 20.000 0.800 > 20.000 24.000 0.833
You left off
24.00 x30.00 .800
30 x40 .750
both are available and printable
> > format X by Y (mm) ratio: > 6x4.5 41.500 56.000 0.741 > 6x6 56.000 56.000 1.000 > 6x7 56.000 69.800 0.802 (8x10/16x20) > 6x8 56.000 75.000 0.747 > 35mm 24.000 36.000 0.667 (4x6) > And don't various medium format viewfinders only provide a subset of what > actually gets on film? I mean my Bronica S2a shows circa 90% of the 56x56mm > on-film results, and other cameras show 93%, or 100%, or as low as the > current Exakta 66 with 69% and 80% of the on-film image in the viewfinder. > see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/FAQexakta.txt > > So, uh, how does someone with a less than 100% viewfinder view compose an > image that they can't completely see so it doesn't require cropping in > the final enlargement? > > In short, I've never understood the whole "ideal" format argument. > > You shoot with whatever medium format camera you happen to like, composing > what you see in the viewfinder to your tastes, and enlarge to various > sizes depending on your needs and budget. You don't say, hey, today I > feel like shooting 8x10 enlargements, better take the pentax 67 and leave > the bronica 6x6 at home ;-) grins bobm
That last bit sorta answers the question. Most people
oriented pros place their negs in aperture cards for auto
enlargements anyway, and the Standard card for my 645 is the
D card, which, (I'm sure by shear coincidence,) comes close
to the cropped view finder image. Don't forget that there
is usually some cropping when you splash the image on the
paper easel, unless you are a fanatic, it would be difficult
to get the entire image on the paper without getting a bit
of black edge. So you expect some overlap, or crop anyway.
I've been shooting 645 for almost 20 years. You would think
that it is merely a cropped square neg., BUT, square
shooters have a "larger" neg. technically because they can
put their negs into an "E" card which would show two black
edges if I get an 8x10 with that same card with a 645 neg.
I can get a full image 5x7 on an E card, but 8x10's require
that I go to a "D".
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: formats and cropping ratios - why there are no best
formats...
Date: 8 Jun 1999
You also left off 6x9 negs, a format featured by Fuji.
More than just Fuji -- I shoot 6x9 in both an old Moscow
rangefinder and a Mamiya 23.
For a lot of landscapes, even 6x9 is a little too square for my
tastes, but if you do your own printing you don't have to waste
a lot of paper. Take a sheet of 16x20, cut it down the middle,
and you have two sheets of 10x16, 0.625 ratio. Start with 20x24
and you get 12x20, 0.600.
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA
98013
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999
From: KarpsComp@aol.com
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Polaroid backs for SQAi
Stock agencies won't accept 645 because of the filing requirements. They
readily accept 35mm, indeed that's the format most frequently used for stock,
and they will file 6x6 and usually 4x5. They don't want to add another
format to the files beyond these three.
If you'll look through agency listings in a book such as "Photographer's
Market", you'll find that very few agencies list 6x4.5 as an acceptable
format.
Kim Karpeles
Life Through the Lens
Deerfield, IL
I'm sorry, I've missed much of this discussion, but I'd like to add a point
about 6x6 that I've not seen mentioned before.
I shoot 6x4.5, and I often wish that I had a shift lens so that I could
control convergence problems of parallel lines better. Once was I was
trying to visualize what I could do with just a bit of shift, I reallized
that 6x6 actually has 15mm of shift built into it if you're going to crop
it to 6x4.5. For example, if I'm shooting a building, I could frame the
building at the top of the frame (planning to crop off the bottom 1.5cm of
the frame). This way I could get away without having to point my camera up
so far, so I don't have vertical lines converging so badly.
I spoken to one 6x6 photographer about this, and he said that he supposed
that he did take advantage of it, but hadn't really thought of it sort of
a built in shift before.
Do other people take advantage of this aspect of 6x6 when shooting subjects
with potential convergence problems?
--Tom Thurston
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6X7 or 6X9?
Date: 19 Oct 1999
....
>Sparks) wrote: > >> I think 6x8 is a really nice aspect ratio and wish there more more choices >> in that format (only Fuji and motorized back for RB 67 as far as I know). > > :) In my experience a LOT of so-called 6x9cm are actually 6x8.
Most 6x9 are about 56x82mm or 56x84mm. These are pretty close to the 2:3
ratio of 6x9 (even though they are smaller). I know I'm being picky, but
I prefer the 3:4 ratio of 6x8 (56x75mm) over both 2:3 and 4:5 (6x7).
I think that's one good reason to call the formats 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8
and 6x9 as it accurately describes the aspect ratio of the formats rather
than the actual size (all are smaller by 56/60). Since these
formats are rarely contact printed (for final prints anyway), the ratio
has much more to do with the final print size (assuming full frame
printing) than slight differences in negative size.
John Sparks
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: T Loizeaux LoizCren@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium-format 6x9
The "6x9" image is usually not really 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. In the case of my
camera, it's 56 x 82mm. Though the European versions are slightly
longer, they all are slightly more square than a true 1.5:1.
I print all my images with a border around the image...letting the
uncropped image place nicely on the paper. I'd rather cut the paper than
crop the image. In my system, I don't do either.
Tom
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: This 35mm vs 4x5 myth
KeyserSoze917 wrote:
> So you shoot 35 and have had a burning desire to "move up" to 4x5. Wait a > minute and consider saving your coins! I have had the pleasure of shooting all > formats and believe me 35 reigns supreme in almost all categories that make > photography fun. Consider:
So far, I've avoided responding to any of your posts, but you actually
seemed to put some thought into this one, so what the heck. BTW, this
issue has been discussed at length MANY times in this and other
rec.photo forums. If you're interested in what's already been said on
the topic, you might try running a dejanews search at
http://www.deja.com.
That said the first thing I'd like to ask is, Myth, what myth?
Everytime this comes up, the consensus is that there is no single
"correct" format for all users or all uses. That's why we have so many
different formats. If, as you say "35 reigns supreme in almost all
categories that make photography fun", why do the other formats even
exist. BTW, while some people may consider speed and ease of use fun,
others actually prefer the slower, more contemplative approach of large
format photography. Some people prefer to do things the old fashioned
way for the pleasure of the process, for the feeling that they are in
total control of the images they produce, not some auto-everything wizz
bang computerized camera. The key is to match the right tool to the
subject AND the way you personally like to shoot. For many people and
many subjects, that means 35mm, for others, that means 4x5 (or 8x10 or
12x20 or one of the many 120 roll film formats). Some musicians prefer
a Stradivarius and other prefer a Fender Stratocaster. It all depends on
the type of music they play and the way they like to play it. Neither
is any more "right" than the other. This whole 35mm vs. 4x5 debate is
equally nonsensical. There is no good vs. evil or us vs. them issue
here. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Many people work
successfully in multiple formats, choosing the right tool for the job
based on the subject matter and the desired result. No, 4x5 is not the
best tool for shooting sports or wildlife. Nor is the 35mm the best
format if you are shooting architecture or want to make 30x40 prints.
Pick what works best for you and let eveyone else do the same.
> 4x5 equipment is expensive and therefore limits (unless you have a large > budget) the ability to have a wide variety of lenses in your greasy little > hands that you may find usefull, especially in the tele area.
Here's the real myth. My first 4x5 cost $200 complete with lens and a
couple film holders. Yeah, 4x5 gear CAN be expensive, but so can 35mm
gear (you priced an F5 and a 600mm f4 lately?). Yeah, it was an older
used camera and lens, but it introduced me to handling sheet film and
the joy of viewing a 4x5 transparency on the lightbox and nearly
grainless 20x24 prints (and some of the images made with that $200
camera and lens are still some of my biggest sellers).
BTW, since 4x5 is so ill suited to the subjects traditionally shot with
long telephotos (sports, birds, etc.), I don't find the lack of super
teles for 4x5 to be a valid argument. Teles are avilable up to 1200mm
for large format (and they are big and expensive, but so are long 35mm
teles). The longest 4x5 lens I own is a 720mm (roughly equivalent to
210mm in the 35mm format), but it is my least used lens. For the
subjects I shoot in 4x5, I just don't find the need for anything that
long very often (although I do use the 360mm and 500mm tele quite a
bit).
> It takes a good deal of study and experience to even grasp what the 4x5 can do. > Unless you're prepared to "practice" (an expensive practice) swing, tilt, > shift, rise, fall, hinge, Scheimpflug, et al., be prepared for some nasty > surprises when you receive your very expensive 4x5 chromes back from the lab!
Oh come on, it's not rocket science. Here's another myth for you. You
don't need a PhD in optics or mathematics to operate a 4x5 camera. I'm
self-taught in large format, as is almost every LF shooter I know. Sure
it takes practice, being good at anything takes practice. Guess what,
you can actually observe the effects of rise, fall, sift, swing, tilt
(hinge? never heard that one before) right there on the ground glass
without ever burning a single sheet of film. BTW, black and white film
is also available in sheets, and much less expensive if you just want to
"waste a few" for learning purposes.
> Those masterpieces you may have thought you were getting can be plagued with > light leaks, very limited depth of field and vignetting if your lens did not > have the covering area you hoped for.
Again, you can easily check for vignetting before exposing the film
(just look through the corners of the ground glass and make sure the
entire diaphram opening is visible). Light leaks, unless your using a
bellows with holes in it (easily checked with a light bulb in a dark
room) or some really used and abused holders, it shouldn't be a
problem. Naturally, if you're using damaged equipment, the results will
be unpreditcable (regardless of format).
> Let's see, $90 for 50 sheets of 4x5 Velvia, plus $2 each to get it developed > versus > $10 for a 35mm roll, plus $8 to get it developed...Yikes! Wanna bracket alot of > 4x5 shots?
Why the need to bracket so much? I often shoot multiple sheets of a
given composition, but not for the sake of hoping one will be right. I
expose them all the same, but I often want multiple copies for my files
(and 4x5 dupes are VERY expensive and inferior in quality to multiple
originals). BTW, I pay $1.35/sheet for standard E-6 processing. If
you're paying $2.00/sheet, you might want to find a new lab. Besides,
with the slower shooting style of large format (and the lack of motor
drives and autobracketing program modes), the amount of film you can
shoot in a day is pretty self-limiting. BTW, I think if you compare the
cost per square inch for film and processing, 35mm and 4x5 come out
pretty much the same, with medium format beating them both by a fair
margin. Still, it depends on the desired results. Do you want a lot of
little images or a few big images? Again, it comes down to the subject,
the shooting style of the photographer, and the desired results. No one
answer can possibly be correct for all situations or all photographers.
> But 4x5 is so much sharper than 35, right? Appears that way, but it's bigger! > The resolving power of today's 35mm lens and film is great and getting better > all the time.
Ditto for 4x5 (and medium format). This has been BEAT TO DEATH in every
photo forum I've ever participated in. Again, it all comes down to the
desired results. And aside from all the huffing and puffing about
theorecical optical performance, etc. it all comes down to one simple
test. Shoot the same subject on 35mm and 4x5 and print the resulting
chromes/negs at equal size and then you tell me which is the sharper
print with more detail and less obvious grain. I don't care if you
print the results at 8x10 or 30x40, it will be obvious which is which.
Of course, it will be less obvious in the smaller prints, and the
differences might not be significant to justify the higher cost (in time
and materials) of the large format is you never print any bigger than
8x10. Still the differences will be there. Yeah, the best 35mm lenses
theoretically have much higher resolution than the best 4x5 lenses, but
in the real world (i.e. capturing images on film for printing) the
differences aren't that great (due to the limitations of the film), and
are swamped by the huge size advantage of the large film. In other
words, in theory, the best 35mm lenses may be able to resolve 400 (or
600, or whatever) lp/mm, but in practice, they are limited to about 100
lp/mm (or maybe 120 lp/mm) by current pictorial films. The best 4x5
lenses are capable of on-film resolution in the 80 lp/mm range. On-film
resolutions of 60 lp/mm are very common (pretty much the norm for all
modern 4x5 lenses - and even quite common in decent quality 50 year old
LF lenses). Actual on-film resolution will always be lower than the
lowest of lens resolution and film resolution. Currently, the resolving
abilites of the film are still the limiting factor, regardless of
format. And guess what, the finest grain color transparency films (and
black and white negative films) that are avilable in 35mm are also
available in 4x5 (and 8x10). And, even if the 35mm lens/film
combination had 4x the resolving ablility 4x5 lens/film combination
(it's doesn't, it's currently less than 2x), the grain in the 35mm print
would would still be 4x as large as in the 4x5 print. Sorry to beat
this dead horse to death, but this myth (that 35mm lenses and film are
so good these days there's no reason to shoot 4x5), is so prevelant
(both online and in print). I really don't understand this, since it is
so obviusly not true to anyone whose ever looked at prints from both
formats.
BTW, I'm not saying this makes 4x5 "superior" to 35mm. Again, it
depends on your subject, shooting style, and in this case especially,
desired results. If you're goal is not large prints with maximum
sharpness and detail, then 4x5 (or 8x10) may not be thr "right" format
for you. But ask yourself this, why do so many fine art photographers,
who rely on print sales for a significant portion of their income, still
shoot 4x5 (or even 8x10)? It's simple, it's the right tool for the job.
> Ever pull over to the side of the road and snap away at a fading sunset or > rainbow? Then you know that you have minutes to work before the scene > vanishes. You can shoot 10 rolls of 35 before the lens is even stopped down on > the 4x5. That is if you want to shotgun the scene aka capture the image.
Yep, 4x5 is definately a slower format and is not good for a "shotgun"
approach to anything. Still depending on your goal, it may be better to
have one big, beautiful 4x5 chrome than 10 rolls of 35mm slide (or vice
versa, depending on your goals). By planning head and reaching your
desired location BEFORE the peak light, you have plenty of time to
set-up the 4x5 and wait for the "moment". I like to be at my desired
location about 20 minutes before I anticipate best light. That allows
me to set-up the camera, compose and focus, etc. and a very relaxed
pace. Still, in a pinch, I can do all of the above in less than 5
minutes (from screeching tires, to first exposed sheet). Still, I
prefer the relaxed approach (I like to watch the scene develop before my
eyes as the light changes).
> (this is my favorite) Editors, calendars and the like want only 4x5 chromes > always. Not true! If your work is creative and technically sound enough they > will look and buy. Ask Art Wolfe, John Shaw or Jim Brandenberg about this myth.
Again it depends on the market and the subject. All the folks you
mention are very successful (deservedly so), but I can name just as many
4x5 shooters whose work graces the pages of the popular magazines and
calendars just as frequently (hey, if you're good, you're good).
However, I still do occasionally encounter certain publishers (depends
on the market) that won't accept submissions from "unknowns" unless
you're shooting at least medium format. One calendar company editor
told me that the competition is so fierce to get published in their
calendars that they get over 1000 images submitted for every one they
publish. She told me that since they get way more images than they ever
need, they limited new contribitors to those shooting medium format and
preferrably 4x5. Not because they find 35mm work unnactable for their
purposes (they do in fact work with several established 35mm shooters),
but because shooting in the larger formats shows a serious commitment by
those wishing to break into their market. BTW, these were her
sentiments (paraphrased by me), not mine. And while you may or may not
agree with her approach, her goal was to limit the volume of submissions
received (why make her job any more time consuming than necesary?), and
this was the method she chose. Yeah, great work is great work
regardless of format, but in some cases 4x5 still wins the battle of the
lightbox.
> So, among the vast other problems with the larger format, what is the deciding > limiting factor when one has the 35vs4x5 decision to make? Photography should > be fun and not akin to manual labor as the 4x5 system will become. But...The > large format can do some amazing things. Ask yourself if those things are > important to you while sacrificing others.
It all depends on how you define "fun" and "sacrifice" Some people
actually find the contemplative style of shooting large format to be
"fun" and anything else to "sacrfice" image quality. 4x5 is a labor of
love, but if you truly love it, the labor is worth it.
> Is this bullshit? Do you know enough about photography to dispute my arguments? > Believe me, both systems have merit. But if you love 35, don't give switching > an additional thought!
Again, I don't understand this either/or, one or the other attitude.
You don't have to forever foresake 35mm if you want to give 4x5 a try.
You can actually shoot in more than one format. Think about what you
shoot, how you like to shoot it, and what your final output will be.
It's a very personal choice, and a bunch of online pontificating by
stangers should not effect your answers in the least. Examine your
goals and pick the format(s) that makes sense for you, not what anybody
else tells you you should be shooting. 4x5 isn't for everyone, neither
is 35mm. Choose your tools wisely and use them well.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From Contax List:
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [CONTAX] Re: 645 concept/marketing
you wrote:
>You'll probably find an equal number of opinions for 645 vs 6x6 and >vice-versa. Personally I don't care for square format, and since I shoot >(almost) exclusively chromes, I prefer to do my composition/cropping >in-camera. I've seen quite a few others state that they dislike the square >format, and probably an equal number who love it.
In the wedding community these days, one of the biggest upsells, putting
much needed money in the photographers' wallets, is moving the customer
from 8x10 to 10x10 albums. The shooter using 6x6 can make this pitch at
any
time up to when the album's being ordered. The expense to the photog is
minimal and the retail price increase is notable. People shooting 6x4.5
(including me) are not able to do this, obviously.
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000
From: "John Shafer" john@photographyreview.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 format
Mark-
I used to be a mural printer at a custom lab. I printed mostly
Ilfochromes and then moved to LightJets. My opinion is that 645 isn't big
enough for a good 30x40 print. I think you can get a decent 20x30, but
30x40 will probably disappoint you. It's also very hard to print that size
from a 645. Exposure times get excessively long and dodging and burning
are very problematic.
I'd say that if you're interested in prints that size you should be
looking at 6x7's or large format equipment. I used to be pretty anti 645
because I felt that the film size wasn't large enough to justify the cost.
However, the introduction of autofocus 645's has changed my mind. Still,
if you want prints that big you should look at bigger cameras.
Hope that helps-
--
John Shafer
john@photographyreview.com
www.PhotographyREVIEW.com
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999
From: Tony Oresteen aorestee@avana.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6X7 or 6X9?
"John Stafford" John@Stafford.net wrote:
> So, I'm asking again: are any of these 6x9cm formats REALLY 6x9? > Which ones are not?
Here's the 6x9 scoop.
There are NO 6x9 cameras except those that use European 6x9cm sheet
film.
The ORIGINAL standards for 120 roll film were 16 exp 2.25" x 1 5/8", 12
exp 2.25" x 2.25", and 8 exp 2.25" x 3.25". ASA standards. Also used
for 620 film). 10 exp 2.25" x 2 3/4" 6x7 did not exist.
Sheet film was also made 2.25" x 3.25" OUTSIDE measurement. The SFH
would crop some from the edges. Sold as 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" but smaller
than a 120 2.25 x 3.25 negative.
In EUROPE sheet film was cut 6cm x 9 cm (2.5" x 3.5") and sold as 6 x 9
cm. DIN standards. Still is.
In describing 120 film formats manufacturers have been very liberal
with using metric designations with 120 film. 6x6 is easier to use
than 56mm x 56mm. There is no exact 1 to 1 translation. The standards
were written in inches and have been "translated" to metric.
If you measue the film gates on old 120 roll film folders, 8 exp 2.25 x
3.25 formats will be just that: 2.25" x 3.25".
Why Fuji called their's a 6x8 is beyond me.
Bottom line: There are NO 6x9 cameras except those that use European
6x9 sheet film and the English size is 2.5" x 3.5".
The only real problem is trying to put 6 x9 sheet film into 2 1/4 x 3
1/4 SFH. Won't work. Been there, dun that!
Tony
From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000
From: GAPiccagli@aol.com
Subject: Re: actual vs ratio sizes
Actually, I think getting the actual sizes, including major variations
(often no more than two or three for each nominal size), would be a
wonderful service for some people, especially those people interested in
home-brews. Knowing that a nominal 6X12 is actually 56X112 means all the
difference in whether it is worth someone's while to convert some cameras
or not. A number of modifications have used camera bodies that, with a
little filing out, would accommodate 56X112, but would never accommodate
60X120. If you're thinking of using available transparency mounts or
presentation mats, this is also significant. But it is true that for some
applications, close enough is fine. Panoramically yours,
Giorgio Piccagli
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
From: jalbert@nyx.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF vs 35mm quality--it's obvious!
Here's what Ansel Adams has to say about choice of film format, all from
his book, The Camera.
on page 29:
"Large-format cameras are heavier and more cumberson than their small
counterparts, and almost always require the use of a tripod. they
offer a number of advantages, however, including larger negative size,
full control of position of the lens and film planes, and ability to
process each negative individually....
There is no question that using a view camera requires some physical
stamina. In my earlier years, I backpacked through the mountains with
an 8x10 view camera, 2 lenses, 12 double film holders, tripod, filters,
focusing cloth, etc. I finally resorted to using a pack animal on the
trails, and gradually reduced the weight and size of my equipment. Now,
when asked what camera I use, I reply, 'The heaviest one I can carry!'
Obviously, this is not the equipment for casual snapshots, but i believe
that hte greater effort and restrictions of the large camera lead to
precision of seeing and a higher level of mechanical prefection."
on page 21:
"The term medium format is loosely applied to cameras larger than 35mm but
smaller than 4x5 format. in function, as in size, most of these cameras
represent a compromise between the rapid operation of a 35mm camera and
the static, fully controlled approach of a 4x5 or larger view camera.
the negative, several times larger than 35mm, results in improved
sharpness
and less grain in enlargements for the same final image size."
on page 27, the chapter on medium format ends as follows:
"The photographer who uses this [medium] format does so because he finds
the compromises involved in work to his benefit. He may achieve better
image
quality than is possible with a 35mm camera, with greater mobility than a
4x5 camera permits. No one camera is suitable for all kinds of
photography,
but for those who confront a wide variety of subjects and working
conditions,
with demands for high image quality, a medium-format camera may be a
logical choice."
[sorry to female readers for the male pronouns, but I was just quoting
the
text]
on page 9, on small format, as Ansel calls 35mm:
"The modern small camera can function as an extension of the eye in
'reaching out' into the world. The flow of life, the rapidly changing
relationships of objects and realities, seem to come into an embrace
with the photographer's eye and imagination. This view of hte world is
far more fluent than is possible with a view camera. Yet it is this
very fluency that is the greatest challeng of small-format photography,
for the photographer is called upon to assess the moving elements of a
scene
and integrate them into an effective still photograph in fractions of
a second."
on page 109, about hand-held cameras:
"Mobility is a great virtue of the hand-held camera, and it should be
fully
appreciated and enjoyed. By using a hand-held camera, we can relate to
the non-static aspects of the world-- objects and people in motion,
singly
and in groups. The masters of the small camera, such as Henri
Cartier-Bresson
and W. Eugene Smith, learned through practice and experience to seek what
Cartier-Bresson calls the 'decisive moment'. When our subject is
fleeting
relationships and experiessions, we must make decisions about viewpoint,
framing, and the decisive moment to expose almost instantly, in contrast
to the more contemplative approach of stationary subjects with static,
tripod-mounted cameras.
Recording this brief moments introduces a new factor in image management
called anticipation. Through practice, we learn to anticipate instants
of high intensity, the visual peaks of activity. We must also take into
account the slight delay between the mental impulse to expose, and the
actual instant of exposure, a psycho-physical lag caused by the complext
chain of human and mechanical actions involved in operating the shutter.
Anticipation becomes intuitive in successful small-camera photographers,
although some learn it more quickly, and employ it with greater
facility....
The same principle applies to various subjects, such as facial features
during
a portrait session. the face is usually in constant motion, passing
rapidly
from one expression to another, showing both appropriate expressions that
represent the personality of the subject, and atypical expressions that
do not. We frequently see the latter in the unfortunate caricatures of
public figures so often published by the news media. A good portrait
photographer learns to develop and understanding and rapport with his
subject quickly, and to photograph the moments that reveal the genuine
personality."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope that helps shed some light on Ansel's perspective on choice of
format for a given task at hand.
JA
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
From: jalbert@nyx.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF vs 35mm quality--it's obvious!
John J Stafford Stafford@nova.winona.msus.edu wrote:
>P~l Jensen paal@norvol.hi.is wrote: > >> [...] >> You don't need 2.8 lenses for medium format. They don't make any sense. > > You knew when you posted the above that you would find disagreement. > Pray tell, why not a fast lens? Not all subjects are appropriate to > the F64 school. I particularly like shooting at F2.8 with my 300mm > (non Pentax) lens on my 67, and with 4x5" I like shooting at 2.8 > with my 200mm lens.
the reason you don't need as fast a lens with larger format is that
depth of field is less at a given f-stop if you frame the same image
as with 35mm. this is because the same image has higher magnification
than with 35mm. if we assume that medium format is exactly 2x the
size of 35mm for the sake of discussion (645 and 6x6 are about 1.8x
larger,
and 6x7 and 6x9 are about 2.3x larger) then you have to stop down 2
stops to get the same depth of field if you set up the identical image.
the medium format camera with have a lens with 2x the focal length,
will produce an image that is 2x larger, and will have the same depth
of field set 2 stops lower.
so, a 300/2.8 for 35mm will produce the same image wide open as
a 300/5.6 wide open for medium format. a medium format 300/2.8
would have imaging capability of a hypothetical 300/1.4 in 35mm
format, and neither exist.
now, 2 stops lower means more diffraction, but it turns out that
you also will enlarge half as much to get the same image, and so
that comes out in the wash. the tradeoff of 35mm and larger format
then is shutter speed vs. (grain, tonality, acutance, and sharpness).
with 35mm you get about 2 stops of shutter speed vs medium format
for setting up the exact same shot with exact same depth of field,
but with medium format you get finer grain and other quality advantages.
so, there is no advantage to 35mm unless the subject is
moving, or you have limitations on weight that can be carried.
JA
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999
From: "Stephe" stephe@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More Questions re: FUJI rangefinders
Kevin J Sperl wrote
>Please bear with me, more questions, Thnx. > >.. Pros/Cons of the 690 vs 670 image size.
The only con I see in 6X9 is you get two less exposures per roll. On the
plus side, you get more image area to crop from and while some people
consider cropping any of the negative a sin, I see nothing wrong with
being able to choose the image you want to print later. It does fit 5X7
perfectly and you could print 8X12's from it like some 35mm people do.
I've printed some cool semi panaramic prints from this longer format as
well. Another plus is when shooting verticals, this crop gives you a sorta
shift effect and I've even used just the upper 6X4.5 of the neg for this
very reason. I'll gladly give up two exposures a roll for this ability.
>Will I be able to get prints from either size > easily? Will there be a smaller number of labs able to handle 6x9?
While getting the whole 6X9 neg printed may be tough as far as proofs or
machine prints, any place that prints 6X7 can print a 6X7 crop of the 6X9
no problem. Any place that does "custom" printing would be able to do
whatever you want later though..
>.. Will the Cokin P holder work with the GW-690 and/or GW-670?
Same lens is used on both so shouldn't be a problem either way.
Basically these camera's are the same size/weight, have the same
lens-shutter-mechanism so it boils down to are you the type of
photographer who -HAS- to print the -whole- negative and/or would the
extra two negs per roll add up to a substantial savings? If neither of
these applies, I'd get the 6X9...
Stephe
http://members.tripod.com/~stephe_2
From: lemon@lime.org (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: formats and cropping ratios - why there are no best
formats...
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999
rmonagha@news.smu.edu (Robert
Monaghan) wrote:
> let's look at common USA paper sizes for enlargements: > > print: X by Y ratio: (USA paper sizes in inches) > 3.000 5.000 0.600 > 4.000 6.000 0.667 > 5.000 7.000 0.714 > 8.000 10.000 0.800 > 11.000 14.000 0.786 > 16.000 20.000 0.800 > 20.000 24.000 0.833 > > format X by Y (mm) ratio: > 6x4.5 41.500 56.000 0.741 > 6x6 56.000 56.000 1.000 > 6x7 56.000 69.800 0.802 (8x10/16x20) > 6x8 56.000 75.000 0.747 > 35mm 24.000 36.000 0.667 (4x6) > > Except for 6x7 printed on 8x10 inch paper, it seems to me none of the > standard medium formats match any of the standard sized prints, right?
Just a note that if you print with equal borders, the ratios, except for
squares, change: for example an 8x10 with 1/4" borders becomes a 7.5x9.5,
with a resultant ratio of .789.
Also, not all cameras with the same nominal formats give the same size
images. For example I note some of my 6x6 negs are in fact 56x58...
--
From: gblank@bellatlantic.net (Gregory Blank)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000
Subject: Re: Medium to large.
mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com wrote:
with 645 being "half-plate"?
Mark Rabiner
Closer to a ninth
Quote from the History of Photography
Beaumont Newhall
pg. 27
whole plate 165mm x 216mm - 6.5 x 8.5 inches half plate 114 x 140mm - 4.5 x 5.5 inches quarter 83 x 108mm - 3.25 x 4.25 inches Sixth 70 x 83mm - 2.75 x 3.25 inches Ninth 51 x 64mm - 2 x 2.5 inches
--
Gregory W.Blank Photography
P.O. Box 726
Finksburg, MD. 21048
Check out my website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
[Ed. note: interesting thread on logic of format and camera
selection...]
From: "Rick Rieger" rrieger@voyager.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. 645 when travelling on vacation
John,
If you do landscape work the Fuji (either 6x7 or 6x9) is well-suited. I
have the 6x9 only because the negative is bigger in the same size camera.
It makes for a pretty decent panoramic camera, as well. The negative
width is actually wider than produced by the Hassleblad Xpan.
On the GS-1, I came to my decision based on the following requirements:
1. The camera would be used primarily for field work, so size and weight
were important.
2. I wanted 6x7.
3. I wanted a SLR so I could do macro work.
4. I wanted to be able to change backs. Many times, I will shoot a few
chromes of a scene, and then switch to color or B&W; neg and click off a
few
frames. That way, I have a big slide I can show in my Cabin 6x7
projector,
and a neg to make a print. Another benefit of an interchangeable back
system is that a Polaroid back allows quick and easy test shots.
5. I wanted a system that was easy to use.
This left me with six choices: 1. Mamiya RB 2. Mamiya RZ 3. Pentax 6x7 4. Fuji 680 5. View camera alternatives 6. Bronica GS-1
I eliminated the RB/RZ primarily on the size and weight issue. Mind you,
these are great cameras, especially the RZ, but just a bit on the large
side. The Fuji 680 is the most sophisticated of the bunch and has front
standard movements, but it is a real beast. John Gerlach, professional
nature photographer has one of these and he uses it almost exclusively in
the field. He told me it's not too bad to lug around, but it takes two
good sized camera bags to do it (he has 4 lenses). The view camera
alternative broke down in the ease of use category. The Pentax 6x7 was
very tempting. My dad has one so I'm familiar with it. The lack of
interchangeable backs stopped me here. I also wondered if the focal plane
shutter caused any camera vibration (the mirror slap does, but you can
stop this via mirror lockup). This is probably not an issue. The flash
sync on the Pentax is very slow (1/30), but this was not a show stopper.
I was left with the GS-1. It weighs no more than the Pentax, handles well
with the speed grip, has great lenses, does 6x6 and 6x4.5, and can take
shots with no vibration at all. On this latter point, if I lock the
mirror up and release the shutter, the only things moving are the small
in-lens shutter blades. I bought all my stuff used, mostly from Midwest
Photo here in Columbus. Yes, the system (especially lenses) are more
expensive than the equivalent Pentax, but generally a little less than RZ
and a lot less than Hassleblad or Rollei. The GS-1 is an underrated
camera, not promoted by its distributor. One other point, not too
important to me, is that the GS-1 is a smaller "system" than the others,
meaning fewer choices of lenses, etc. BTW, the Bronica PG 150mm is a
superb portait lens.
All that said, I think all the cameras listed are fine machines and you
wouldn't go wrong with any of them. If you go with the Pentax, make sure
you get a mirror-lockup model. The early incarnations did not have this
feature.
Rick Rieger
John Welton jwelton2@home.com wrote
> Thanks for the info, Rick. I like the 6x7 format but don't like shlepping my > Crown Graphic and roll film back so I am considering a dedicated MF. I was > vascillating between the Fuji 6x7 and Pentax 6x7 - the Fuji has the weight > and cost advantage but suffers from the limitations you noted. I like the > Pentax but its a big honker (and a useful weapon if ever needed!) and I'm > just not sure it would be as appealing as the Fuji on trips. I do mostly > landscape work and some outside portraits, and a small amount of macro work > which the Nikon handles well. > > I am interested in the GS1. I like the grip attachment and do like using a > waistlevel finder. Cost, though is highest of the three (KEH is in the $1600 > range for a used setup with the 100mm PG lense and I've seen the P67 go for > nearly half that with the 105). Can you make a comparison between the GS1 > and Pentax 6x7? I do wide angle work so the P67 45mm lens is very appealing > (and not too bad $$ wise). The GS1 has a 50mm as its widest but I haven't > seen anything on the newsgroups or other web sites about it. Have you used > it? > > Thanks, John
From: John Sparks sparks@sparks.cos.agilent.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Four Formats
Vadim Zaliva lord@crocodile.org wrote:
>I am wondering, what is main use nowdays for 6x9? In mose discussions >abuout medium format people rarely mention this one. Is it obsoletted?
I use it as my small view camera. If I want a view camera and I'm not
walking far or traveling by airplane, I'll use 8x10. I used to use 4x5
for a small view camera when hiking all day or traveling by plane. I
now use 6x9 instead. I don't find the difference in print quality in
the size prints I typically make (11x14 & 16x20) to be worth carrying
the extra weight and dealing with the extra hassle of sheet film. I
also like a more rectangular shape than 4x5 which makes cropped 4x5 and
6x9 even closer to the same size.
Other than view cameras, 6x9 only exists in Fuji rangefinders and
discontinued cameras (though some are still very usable and high
quality). I'm sure it's not as popular today as it was when 6x9 folding
cameras were popular snapshot cameras.
John Sparks
From: Pookywinkel pookywinkel@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Four Formats
chris cpurdum@seanet.com wrote:
> I was just wondering if anyone regularly shot in more than three > formats. > Chris
Chris:
I routinely shoot in several formats:
35mm full frame 35mm panoramic (not true panormic but cropped down = wide aspect ratio; that's the conventional marketeering buzzword for it) 35mm 5p Stereo Realist 3D 35mm 7p European 3D 35mm half frame, both 2D and 3D APS, both H and P formats 120 6x6cm 120 6x645cm 120 6x9cm
Less frequently I shoot larger than 120 formats: various Polaroid
formats
I'll shoot about any format to appreciate and understand what each
format's advantages and disadvantages are. It's not at all a binary
issue with me.
Cuspid Pookywinkel
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
From: CLARINETJK@aol.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Horseman SW612 question
Steve: Plate is 6 1/32" x 3 1/8". John K
[Ed. note: not sure if this masking kit has med fmt uses, but it might be
used for some purposes as an idea e.g. panoramic masks or ??]
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Has anyone tried VARY-FORMAT?
Pierre Bellavance wrote:
> Has anyone tried Vary-Format, available at http://www.vary-format.com
At first this looks really bizarre - a solution without a problem. But,
then I found:
http://www.vary-format.com/the_birth_of_vary-format.htm
Synopsis: This came about from teaching photography in South Africa.
Agfa had donated film and processing. The teacher was looking for a
way to stretch the donation (and realizing that most of the shots
are discards - as is true for everyone). So the teacher came up
with the idea of masking the top/bottom sides/middle of a 35mm
aperture and running the film through multiple times: exposing
the top half the first time through, the bottom half the second.
If things are kept in register, and the system seems to have that figured
out, then the drugstore prints that come back have 2, 3 or 4 pictures on
them.
It's a product from the rest of the world, folks. A very nice effort,
by a very decent man.
Deserving of applause, not derision.
And maybe you would like to buy a kit for when you feel like letting
your 7 year old (but talented like a ....) loose with a roll of Kodacolor
and your F5..... You know only one shot in 144 is going to be printable,
so why waste 4 rolls of film...
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001
From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Ideal format
I believe the "ideal format" was introduced by Omega in th 1940s, on
request from the US Military. The 6x7 aspect ratio (or better 56x70mm)
is only ideal for printing on 8x10" paper. Although I personally prefer
18x24cm for 35mm, 8x10" is just a very reasonable size for "handmade"
prints as well as for handheld viewing: not too large trays, but big
enough for dodging and burning.
Generally the most popular negative formats (24x36mm, 6x6) do not match
well with available paper formats (18x24cm, 20x25cm, 24x30cm, 30x40cm
etc.). You always "waste" some millimetres of film or centimetres of
paper. If that absolutely bothers you, Ilford makes MGIV in 10x10" and
24x26cm, but it is not really cheaper that way. Or go digital with A4 or
A3 prints (1:1.41 aspect ratio, and thus closer to 24x36).
Hans-Peter
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Exact image size of Mamiya Press/Universal?
Willem-Jan Markerink w.j.markerink@a1.nl wrote:
>Dear group, > >What is the exact frame size of the Mamiya Press/Universal 6x9? >Same inflated math as with 6x8 (56 x 71-76mm), ie possibly 56 x 81mm?
The frame size is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" or 57 mm X 82.5 mm, as expected,
for the roll film back.
They also have holders for cut film, film packs and dry plates (2.5x3.5),
and a holder for quartered 12x16.5 cm film (57x83 mm frame size).
The exact sizes with masking requirements for the GG back are given
in the S23 manual.
>Or even the same dependance on lens as with the RB 6x8 backs? > >(wanna laugh?....not even Mamiya itself knows the coverage for the 37mm >fisheye....it's not listed in their brochures....fools....8-)) > >Thanx! > >PS: what is the price range for the Press/Universal 50mm?
Check the web and ebay...
I paid $400 USD for a 100, 50 with finder, hoods, a black S23, GG back, 2
6x7 backs and a 6x9 back a little over 10 years ago when they were
considered useless junk.
If you get a 50 mm lens, tear it down, and clean the inner surface of the
groups which accumulates a shutter oil film. Other than a 100 for a Hassy,
the 50 is the only MF lens I've owned which consistently puts 100 + lpmm
onto TMX @ f/8 & f/11.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 01
From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inflated math of MF Re: Exact image size of Mamiya Press/Universal?
rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>yep, I got into a discussion with some folks here 5-6 months ago >re: Veriwide 6x10cm, noting it was 56x91+mm, yet 6x10cm (per manual and >"inflated math" of ratios for enlarging (rated against 56mm width)). But I >was repeatedly told that this was really a 6x9cm camera. Then I said the >56x82mm are 6x9cm, then they said no, that's 6x8cm, no says I, that's >56x74mm or so, well what about 6x7cm? Oh, now that _is_ 56x69.8mm. Then >they gave up on me in disgust ;-) ;-) And as for panoramic formats, they >are all different, even if they are the same (6x12..) by mfger ;-) phew!
Noblex is 5x12cm, but they don't make that a secret....:))....and it does
make a nice 2.4 ratio, unlike most others who cheat on the wide
side....:))
But the problem of inch-conversions based on rounded inch-sizes is a
separate issue....you can't blame the manufacturers for that....even
1/32" inch sizes don't cut it, one would still be left with 2mm
inaccuracies....:))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
From: Garrett Adams gadams@jps.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Exact image size of Mamiya Press/Universal?
My circa 1986 brochure lists: "Picture Size = 56 x 83mm", for both
6x9cm roll film backs ( Model 3 and Model K).
- Garrett
From: Steinar Jonsson sjonsson@online.no
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Exact image size of Mamiya Press/Universal?
...
Actually, different generations of the Mamiya Press roll film holders
had slightly different dimensions. I own two, one is about 57 x 82.5mm
the other about 57 x 83.5mm.
Steinar Jonsson
sjonsson@online.no
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Exact image size of Mamiya Press/Universal?
...
I measured the actual frame size, and it is 57 x 82.5 or 83 mm.
The dimensions of the 6x7 rollfilm back's opening is 57 x 72 mm,
though they list it as 56 x 72 mm.
I think that part of the problem is related to the use of sheet film
sizes which are masked by the hold-down side rails. The image area
of the old sheet film holders appears to have been preserved in the
rollfilm backs for 120.
...
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001
From: "Jeffery S. Harrison" karaya@ktn.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya question
2.7 times the area maybe but in reality it's only about a 1.6x enlargement
in length and just under a 2x enlargement in width over a 35mm negative.
6x7 gives you roughly a 1.9x enlargement in length and about a 2.4x
enlargement in width over a 35mm negative. Since printing an 8x10 requires
cropping the 35mm negative length by about 20% the important comparison
here is the width so a 645 is smaller than the 6x7 by about 20%.
Personally I prefer 6x7 but that's only me and not based on any factual
superiority of the format over 645.
Jeffery S. Harrison
...
RWatson767 at
rwatson767@aol.com wrote
> For those of you who shoot with a 6X17 back or camera. What is the exact > image > size on the film? > Thanks > Bob AZ
Linhof Technorama 56 x 172mm
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: "Roger I. McMillan" rimc@texas.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6X17 Image size?
>From a Fuji G617: 55 x 168 mm +- ~0.5 mm
RWatson767 wrote:
> For those of you who shoot with a 6X17 back or camera. What is the exact image > size on the film? > Thanks > Bob AZ
--
Roger I. McMillan
From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@/"NoSpam>"/snip.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Mamiya RB67 lenses Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 After about five years of research on the web, my conclusion is that the GS1 lenses are better than the SQ lenses - even the PS series. That said, I think the PS series SQ lenses compete well against the Zeiss offerings and I have seen many user comments on the SQ lenses that agree with my assessment. Unfortunately I no longer have a link to the web site that posted the test results between Pentax 67, Bronica GS1 and Mamiya RZ lenses. The test was for a wide, normal, and short tele from each system. It showed the GS1 100mm normal lens was better than either the Pentax or Mamiya RB normal lens. The Pentax 55mm F4 was better than the Bronica 65mm and the Mamiya RZ 65mm. The Bronica 150mm was better than the Pentax 165mm F2.8 and the Mamiya 165mm F4. But we're talking hair splitting margins . . . not enough to make a difference in the final decision for me. Every user review that I have seen on the GS1 raves about the quality of the 100mm F3.5 as the best MF normal lens they have ever used. There are sweet lenses and so-so lenses made by every manufacturer. The Mamiya 7 lenses are supposed to be the best MF lenses ever made - every test and user review I have seen confirms this. The Bronica SQ 80mm lens is on a par with most normal MF lenses. The new 180mm and 135mm lenses for the SQ series are reputed to be world class performers. The Bronica wides compare favorably to Mamiya. The Hasselblad 100mm F3.5, 120mm F4.0, and 180mm F4.0 are the sweetest of the Zeiss offerings. The 50mm FLE Hassy lens is also reputed to be very nice. The 55mm F4.0 for the Pentax 67 is often claimed as one of the best MF wide lenses made. The 200mm F4 Pentax 67 and the 400MM F4 ED Pentax 67 are reputed to be stellar performers. The short tele-portrait lenses of all MF brands are well suited to their forte - soft wide open - sharp stopped down - nice bokeh. Bottom line - just about any 6x7 system will outperform 6x6 once you crop rectangular. Of the currently available (still manufactured new) 6x7 cameras and lenses, there are really no "dogs" that I have heard about. If I was looking for a 6x7 street camera, I would not rule out the Fuji GW670 II or III. I owned the GW670 II for about a year and I would put that 90mm F3.5 EBC lens up against any other manufacturer's lens for sharpness, contrast, and bokeh . . . is the Mamiya 7 with the 80mm worth 3x the cost? Maybe if you also need interchangeable lenses. If you are looking for a street camera with big film, I would start with the Mamiya 7 or the Fuji GW670/690. Everything else in that format gets bulky and heavy - especially when you add a prism finder, a grip, and additional lenses. -- Tom Bloomer Hartly, DE "Christopher M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com> ... if the question is concerning Bronica lenses in general, and not limited to GS-1, then the Mamiya RB stands a good chance of providing better lenses. In Bronica 6x6, the lenses we've seen so far lead me to believe they are on par with Pentax 67 lenses. That is to say, OK, but not real exciting. Want _real_ exciting? Mamiya 7 lenses are incredible. Nothing we've so far seen comes close (except for a few 135mm/150mm and maybe a 240 Fuji A and 110XL large format lenses). I hope this helps - Chris "Tom Bloomer snip.net bloomer@NoSpam wrote > I agree with QG on this one. If you are thinking about the RB or RZ, you > should be making your decision based on the features of the system. It is > not light weight or portable. If you are looking for a studio camera you > should be comparing the RB/RZ to the Fuji GX680. The Bronica GS1 does not > have a revolving back which makes it much lighter. It does not have bellows > focusing, so it's lenses do not focus as close as the RB/RZ/GX680. > > That said, the GS1 lenses are reputed to be the best 6x7 lenses - > outperformed only by the lenses for the Mamiya 7. Price wise, used Bronica > is always a bargain compared to other brands. Quality wise, Bronica lenses > are extremely rugged and well finished. You should not be disappointed with > the lens performance in any of the systems mentioned above. The overall > system features and how you plan to use it should be the determining > factors. It might be worth it to go to a camera shop where you can see and > handle each system to get a feel for what works for you. Once you get to > 6x7 format, lens performance issues become less important. You can get nice > a 20x24 out of any modern 6x7 camera working within the limitations of the > system. > -- > Tom Bloomer > Hartly, DE > > "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl> wrote > Neurula [Sydney] wrote: > > > Hi how do the Mamiya RB67 lenses compare with Bronica ones? Price-wise and > > quality-wise? > > Mamiya RBs (and RZs) belong to the category cameras where it no longer > makes sense to worry about lens performance (or build quality). They are > simply more than good enough. The decision whether or not to get a RB (or > RZ) should be based on considerations concerning format, weight, etc.
From: "Ray Paseur" ray@nondashaol.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 6x7 vs 645 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 I agree with David's post - we use 645 and 6x7 for portraits. At 16x20, no client has ever been able to tell the difference, and usually I can't either! Very large prints show some difference, but it's subtle and almost unnoticeable at the usual viewing distance of 5-10 feet. --- Ray Paseur www.non-aol.com "Robin Chee" pelelim@singnet.com.sg> wrote > If I need to blow up to at most 16x20inch using ASA 400 color negative, > would there be much difference in using a 6x7 vs a 645. While a 6x7 is > definitely better, I need to weight the relative difference in quality and > portability/cost. >
From: xoons@earthlink.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 6x7 vs 645 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 The Basic Film Sizes Format Width Height Area Diagonal 35 36mm 24mm 864 sq mm 43.27mm 645 56mm 41.5mm 2324 sq mm 69.70mm 66 56mm 56mm 3136 sq mm 79.20mm 67 69.5mm 56mm 3892 sq mm 89.25mm 69 89.5mm 56mm 5012 sq mm 105.58mm Prints 1.25:1 This is the standard ratio print for 8x10 and 16x20 enlargements and roughly the ratio of 11x14 enlargemnts (1.27:1) and 20x24 enlargements (1.2:1). Note that the 67 format is often said to be an 'ideal format' because almost the entire negative area is used in this common print ratio. Format Usable Width Usable Height Usable Area Usable Diagonal 35 30mm 24mm 720 sq mm 33.94mm 645 51.875mm 41.5mm 2153 sq mm 66.43mm 66 56mm 44.8mm 2509 sq mm 71.71mm 67 69.5mm 55.6mm 3864 sq mm 89.00mm 69 70mm 56mm 3920 sq mm 89.64mm Relative comparison: 35 1.0 0.51091 645 1.95727 1.0 66 2.11284 1.07948 67 2.62227 1.33975 69 2.64997 1.34939 So: 645 is 96% larger than 35mm 67 is 162% larger than 35mm 67 is 33% larger than 645 1.5:1 Prints This is the standard ratio for 35mm negatives and corresponds directly to print sizes of 4x6 and 8x12 and 20x30, and is fairly close to 5x7 (1.4:1) and 3.5x5 (1.43:1). For this print ratio, 35mm and 69 formats are 'ideal'. Format Usable Width Usable Height Usable Area Usable Diagonal 35 36mm 24mm 864 sq mm 43.27mm 645 56mm 37.33mm 2090 sq mm 67.30mm 66 56mm 37.33mm 2090 sq mm 67.30mm 67 69.5mm 46.33mm 3220 sq mm 83.53mm 69 89.5mm 56mm 5012 sq mm 105.58mm relative: 35 1.0 0.64294 645 1.55535 1.0 67 1.93043 1.24115 69 2.44002 1.56879 So: 645 is 55% larger than 35mm 67 is 93% larger than 35mm 67 is 24% larger than 645 69 is 144% larger than 35mm 69 is 56% larger than 645 Conclusions: 67 is never more than 33% larger than 645 for both 1.25:1 and 1.5:1 prints. 69 is 56% larger than 645 for 1.5:1 prints but only 35% larger for 1.25:1 prints. Pentax sez: "The effective image areas of the 6x7 and 6x4.5 formats are approximately 4.5 times and 2.7 times larger than that of the 35mm format. When printing an image on the same full-sized photographic paper, the 35mm format requires 300-times enlargement, in comparison with 110 times for the 6x4.5 format and mere 66 times for the 6x7 format. The size of image area on film results in unrecoverable difference in gradation, graininess and sharpness of detail on final prints. This is why professionals prefer the larger 6x7 and 6x4.5 formats to the 35mm format." This would make 67 66% larger than 645. This comparison cannot be based on film diagonals, but must be based on "usable area". For 1.25:1 35 1.0 0.33441 645 2.99027 1.0 67 5.36666 1.79470 On this basis, 67 is 79% larger than 645. For 1.5:1 35 1.0 0.41339 645 2.41898 1.0 67 3.72685 1.54066 67 is 54% larger than 645. Some of this arithmetic is probably wrong, sorry.
From: "Leonard Evens" len@math.northwestern.edu> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Normal lens for 6x9? Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 "Eldritch" TiredofSpa_m@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could some kind soul tell me what a normal lens is for a 6x9cm camera? > Would it be 105cm? I bought an old Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521/2 and that's > the lens it came with. > > E > As others have commented, the normal focal length is supposed to be the diagonal of negative. Also, one might want to distinguish the nominal dimensions from the actual dimensions of the image area, which will be slightly smaller. Roll film and sheet film holders may produce different results for the film area. However, a few mm either way shouldn't make an enormous difference. But I've always thought that taking the diagonal without reference to the aspect ratio didn't make much sense. 6 x 9 is pretty close to 35 mm with an aspect ratio of close to 1.5. 6 x 7 is usually 56 x 70 mm, with an aspect ratio of 1.25, which is the same as a lot of photographic paper, e.g., 8 x 10, 16 x 20. 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 would have roughly the same angle of view in the short dimension but different angles of view in the long direction. If one printed on standard paper, one would have to crop the 6 x 9 image anyway. Keep in mind also that the diagonal of a 24 x 36 mm frame is about 43 mm, while the normal focal length for such a camera is usually taken to be 50 mm or even 55 mm. If one crops to 8 x 10 format, that makes such a lens look definitely long rather than normal. The "normal lens" for 6 x 6 format is usually taken to be about 75 or 80 mm. The latter is pretty close to the diagonal. But 6 x 6 images are usually cropped to an 8 x 10 aspect ratio, which again makes this appear to be a bit long. -- Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Nominal MF Sizes Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com> wrote > square format is neither 6x6cm nor 2-1/4 square but rather > 55 to 56mm square. > what are the nominal--if not official-- > dimensions of 645, 6x7 and 6x9? There are no "official" dimensions of the actual frame, but medium format ("roll") film is produced to certain standards in terms of length, width and thickens. For instance, Kodak uses the following "standards": 120 and 220 film: width: 2.41 to 2.45 in Average width is 61.5 mm - approx. 2.4231 inch. length 120 film: 31.73 to 33.48 in 220 film: 65.0 to 67.0 in As you can see, there are minimal variations in width (otherwise wouldn't fit in a camera...) but quite considerable differences in length. Image sizes vary for different camera manufacturers. As you know, format 6x6 cm ends up being often 5.6 x 5.6 cm, and 6x9 cm can be 5.6 x 8.2cm or 5.6 x 9.1 cm, etc. 4.5x6 becomes 4.2x5.6 cm in many cameras. Michael
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 From: adri de groot adrijanus@juno.com> Subject: Re: 120/220 film; ideas for enw formats To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au The number of exposures on 120/220 film has more to do with the camera than with the length of the film: 120: 6x4.5 format 16 shots 6x6 format 12 shots 6x7 format 10 shots 6x8/9 format 8-9 shots depending on camera 6x12 format 6 shots 6x14 format 5 shots (the Gilde camera introduced this format upon my request) 6x17 format 4 shots 6x24 format 3 shots 360 cameras up to entire roll, depending on angle of coverage chosen and focal lenght of lens 220: double the above numbers In other words, one could introduce different formats, such as 6x2 panoramic format and get about 30 shots on a 120 roll, and 60 on a 220 (wow!). That would perhaps be a cheaper way than using an X-pan. Advantage: no need to reload so often. Adri de Groot, Ph.D.
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Date: 25 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: scoop on 6x9cm was Re: 56mm x 82mm = 6x9? >I measured my "6x9" negative carrier last night 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 for the >23c.I'm not sure what that is in MM. Seems we have had this discussion many times. I jsut measured some 6x9 chromes from my fuji GW690II and they are 6 x 8.5. Ted Harris Resource Strategy Henniker, New Hampshire
From: "maf" maf@switchboard.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: scoop on 6x9cm was Re: 56mm x 82mm = 6x9? Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 "Ted Harris" slberfuchs@aol.com> wrote > Seems we have had this discussion many times. I jsut measured some 6x9 chromes > from my fuji GW690II and they are 6 x 8.5. > Ted Harris > Resource Strategy > Henniker, New Hampshire Since the actual film base of 120 film is only 61mm, the image cannot be 60mm (6cm). Can you please measure your Fuji 6x9 again, this time using millimeter measurements?
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Date: 25 Jan 2002 Subject: Re: scoop on 6x9cm was Re: 56mm x 82mm = 6x9? >Since the actual film base of 120 film is only 61mm, the image cannot be >60mm (6cm). Can you please measure your Fuji 6x9 again, this time using >millimeter measurements? My first measurement was in mm. I just measured again and you are right ... it is hard to be exact as the chromes I had handy on the light table were dark top and bottom but another look shows ~56mm top to bottom. Thanks for catching the error. Ted Harris Resource Strategy Henniker, New Hampshire
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 From: Roy Ooms royooms@shaw.ca Reply to: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: how wide the 617's/ ralph fuerbringer at rof@mac.com wrote: > the horseman 612 rollholder has a horizontal film opening just short of > 112mm , a full 8mm short of that key dimension in its name. does anyone > know the actual horizontal aperature on these so-called 617's: > linhof technorama 617, fixed 90mm lens? > Fuji 617 with fixed 105? > Linhof 617 with interchangeable lenses? > Fuji 617 with interdhangeable lenses? > > it would be useful to know the true horizontal dimensions of these 617's > instead of swallowing manufacturers possible b.s. I've ralph nadered the > horseman 612 (not 12cm with any caliper) can any on the list do the same for > 1 or more of these 617's? > i suspect none are 17cm but love to hear i am misjudging Linhof and Fuji. > ralph Hi Ralph, I own the Fuji GX617 (interchangeable lenses) and a transparency in my files measures: 166.5mm x 55.5mm. When it comes to accuracy of measurements there's few things which are "true". Most lenses are not the focal length or the maximum aperture they claim to be. i.e.. a 135mm lens is more likely to be 132mm or 137mm but since 135mm is considered the standard, most manufacturers will market their lens as a 135mm. I suspect some companies found that in designing a lens, the best optical formula for a lens in that range may have been something other than exactly 135mm. Rather than compromise the design, they produced the lens but called it a 135mm because that's the closest "standard" size. It's pretty difficult marketing a 132mm lens. The one exception might be Leica(Zeiss) which makes a few odd size lenses. Same story with apertures. Roy
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@mpwarner.com Reply to: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: how wide the 617's/ The opening on my V-Pan Mk III is 182mm. This may seem an advantage but I have to be careful with images that I'm going to put in cardboard mount. If I fill the image area corner to corner then the mounted image seems inept. mpwarner
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 From: "M. Denis Hill" denis@area360.com To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: RE: how wide the 617's/ I just checked a Fuji G617 tranny; it measures 6-5/8". M. Denis Hill Qualified Panoramic Photographer
From Panoramic Mailing List: Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 From: adrijanus@juno.com Subject: Re:RE: how wide the 617's/ Linhof 617 (fixed lens): almost 6 3/4, or 17.1cm exactly Fuji 617 (fixed lens): almost 6 5/8, or 16.8cm exactly Old Navy Torpedo or Burke & James Royal Panoram back: 17.8cm or eactly 7 inches (the winner!) While the Linhof and Fuji uses the entire width (height in this case) of the film, the Torpedo back only uses 2 inches exactly. Hope this helps.
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 From: AJNECP@aol.com To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: how wide the 617's/ In reference to Roy's statement on lenses. The lens designations, such as 135mm, is merely a reference point. The Fstops are not the true value of the lens speed, it is based on Focal Length and diameter of the lens. Different manufacturer's F2.0 can vary in actual speed. So when you encounter a problem, it might not be your exposure meter. You might have to adjust the film speed to compensate for the difference in actual value of the effective Fstops.- + or -. A 135mm, for example, can be anything from 134.1 to 135.9 - even more or less. No two 135mm from the same manufacturer may have the same exact focal length. This is the reason that in using a Roundshot camera each lens must be tested to determine the exact focal length to produce accurate Panoramics. Most lenses are tested at F8 for a portion of the spectrum. Exception - Leica lenses have the lowest tolerance. Leitz publishes the exact Focal length of their lenses. Example my 135mm is actually a 135.1. Leica lenses are tested at all apertures for the entire spectrum. That is why they are so perfect and also so costly. They have a very high rejection factor. I ran tests of Leica vs. others... and WOW - I saw enough of a difference so that I use only Leica lenses. When I used my Roundshots, and Nikon lenses, I spent a day evaluating each of my ten lenses for exact focal length. When I switched to Leica I did not have to test each, I used Leica's exact specs. AJ
From: "ann lee" annqlee@msn.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Another newbie reports in (long) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 Michael, You can check out a little asp that I wrote for format comparisons http://carcassi.eng.uci.edu/film.asp I recommend the 300 Rodenstock Geronar, it is very decent. I wish you the best of luck, Ann
From: zeno Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Why is 35mm film not called 36mm film? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 Never mind..I found out :) Its at.. http://www.panoramafactory.com/equiv35/equiv35.html#What%20does%20the%2035%2 0mean%20in%20"35mm%20camera" Turns out it refers to the width of the film including the sprockets.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format From: urs.mattle@gmx.net (Urs) Subject: Re: Fuji 6x9 rangefinder picture size Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 ... >Hi, > >Could anyone give me the exact size of the pictures >from the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders (e.g. 56mm x ??mm). > >Thanks, >Pieter exact picture sizes: 56mm x 82mm (Fujifilm GW 690 III) 42.5mm x 56mm (Fujifilm GA 645 Wi) Regards, Urs
From: Babar de Saint Cyr babardesaintcyr@wanadoo.fr Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Fuji 6x9 rangefinder picture size Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 > Could anyone give me the exact size of the pictures > from the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders (e.g. 56mm x ??mm). 56 x 82.6 mm exactly said Mr Fuji. Take a look at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/apple2/fuji690.htm Babar
From: shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 30 Jun 2002 Subject: Re: Is the best MF a 4x5? And let's not forget that 6x6 cm = 36 sq, cm's. But 6x9 c,m = 54 sq cm. That's 50% greater area. A significant advantage over 6x6. And even more significant if you enlarge the 6x6 to 8x10 or 11x14 cropping away area in the process Although your arithmetic is persuasive, in actual practice those differences depend on degree of enlargement. Up to 16X20, I find the increase in negative size from 6X6 to 6X7 negligible in the print. They may well show up in larger print sizes, but since the largest I ever print is 16X20, I'm home free. In fact, the most impressive MF work I have seen in years was in Bryan Lanker's exhibition, "I Dream a World." It consists of portraits, mostly environmental, of African American women of accomplishment. About half were taken with and 8X10, the rest with Hasselblad. Enlargements were from 40 to 60 inches long/wide, and they had to be viewed closely to pick out the MF from the LF. I doubt the results wouyld have been much better with 6X7/6X9. I hope the exhbition makes the rounds again and subscribers to this NG (or anyone else!) get a chance to see it. Apart from their considerable artistic merit, the prints are quite convincing as to the quality potential of MF. Allen Zak
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 19 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Format wars >Subject: Re: Format wars >From: blades@starband.net >Date: 7/18/02 > don't think it's that complicated. Larger formats have better potential >image quality. Period. It is far more complicated than that. The price you pay for the larger neg is longer slower lenses with less depth of field. And to many, it just isn't worth it. The 35mm camera with its short fast lenses and great depth far outweighs the larger neg for many applications such as available light work, photojournalism, sports, reportage and a dozen more applications all of which rule out medium format. Besides, with the ever increasing reolution of modern films the difference in neg size is fading fast. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 19 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Format wars >Subject: Re: Format wars >From: Chris Quayle lightwork@aerosys.co.uk >Date: 7/19/02 >I would have thought autofocus speed, IS and accurate autoexposure were >more important factors than outright image quality... > >Chris Exactly. We use 35mm in spite of the film size, not because of it. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: 645 is a waste (was Re: Why do I need ...) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 zeus@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote > Don't underestimate 645, Velvia/provia trans are very good and if you > are planning to sell for, magazines, postcards, books, calendars etc > the trans will almost certainly be used as rectangles not square. I've read that often enough to finally ask: What person in his right mind thinks that editors want photographers to crop their pictures for them? You can crop the square anywhere, and that's what editors want: wiggle room. If they have to crop a 645, which is small to begin with, then there goes half the virtue of MF. MF pros don't talk about saving film. They talk about delivering results. 645 is a wasted format.
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Too good? Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 Well I've done some shooting with my 5X7 using a rodenstock geronar 210mm and the results are outstanding. The negative are large enough to make direct contact prints and the details etc in the prints are amazing, there in is the problem(?). There is so much detail in the prints, one can't even begin to see it with the naked eye. With a loupe I can see every leaf in every tree yet looking at the prints ever up real close none of this can be seen. I feel given modern film and even decent modern glass, the results from these contact prints is almost overkill. I can't envision buying a 5X7 enlarger as I already have a 4X5 size one and how much loss would there be on a 5X7 print from a 4X5 negative? I've been thinking about playing with an 8X10 camera but now wonder if this is basically the same deal, so good that it can't even been seen? Am I missing something? Is there going to be a difference between an enlarged 4X5 negative to 8X10 print and a contact print from an 8x10 neg that can be seen with the naked eye? Don't get me wrong, this 5X7 camera is fun and as it cost me $20 and some time (about 10-15 hours of run restoring it) I don't feel I've lost anything playing with it and will probably still use it some from time to time. I'm just wondering if the money an 8x10 is going to cost is something I will see without a loupe? -- Stacey
From: Eric eric002@limpoc.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Too good? Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 fotocord wrote: > I've been thinking about playing with an 8X10 camera but now wonder if this > is basically the same deal, so good that it can't even been seen? Am I > missing something? Is there going to be a difference between an enlarged > 4X5 negative to 8X10 print and a contact print from an 8x10 neg that can be > seen with the naked eye? I'm pretty confident that I could reliably distinguish an 8x10 contact print from an 8x10 print enlarged from 4x5. I just think contact prints have a particular look that is different from prints that have been through the optics of an enlarger. I've heard a variety of mumbo-jumbo sounding explanations for why this may be, but nevertheless I think there is a different look. If you're going to enlarge, though, you may as well use 4x5. Modern film and lenses are good enough that I think it's quite difficult to tell a 16x20 print enlarged from 4x5 from one enlarged from 8x10. I've made quite a few of both and never found myself wishing I'd shot the 4x5 originals on larger film. I shoot 8x10 because a) i like the look of contact prints, b) I like the process of printing contact prints, and c) I print platinum and hate making internegs. Obviously if you're going to make truly enormous prints, you might appreciate having the larger negative. eric
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Too good? Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 ...(quotes above orig. posting) > Stacey Try comparing a 5x7 from the very best 4x5 negative you can make with a 5x7 contact print. That is a very small enlargement. If you have very good lenses on the 4x5 and very good lenses on the enalarger you should see little difference, even with the loupe. I've tried with with 8x10 vs: 4x5. If your 5x7 camera has front focusing you can use it as an enlarger. Making a lamphouse is not too difficult and an adaptor to use a glass sandwich negative holder is simple. It simply replaces the normal back. The lamphouse is mounted on a separate support which also supports the camera so that the camera itself doesn't have to support anything. Such an arrangement can be made for vertical or horizontal enlarging. The lamphouse is simply a metal box with an array of flourescent lamps in it. The type of lamp used to replace incandescent lamps works and may be easier to impliment than tubular flourescents. A sheet of diffusing plastic is placed over the front of the lamphouse. The material is the same as used for light boxes. When you are finished enlarging the camera goes back in its case and the adaptor in the closet. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Medium Format vs. 35mm Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: ... > the Europeans insist on using oddball paper sizes ;-0) The A-series of office papers has exactly one aspect ratio, sqrt(2), or about 0.707. When you split it, both halves have the same ratio. Et cetera, ad infinitum. In future office sizes will dominate over any historic photographic sizes, because the prints will be made with inkjet printers. > and US printing ratios vary all over the place, viz.: > > > >U.S. Printing Paper Sizes > >X Y Ratio > >3 5 0.600 > >4 6 0.667 > >5 7 0.714 > >8 10 0.800 > >11 14 0.786 > >16 20 0.800 > >24 30 0.800 > >30 40 0.750 So who's got the oddball sizes... -- Lassi
From: "Tim Ellestad" ellestad@mailbag.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: New Hasselblad Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 ... >>> Look at www.hasselblad.com they have a new camera! >>> > >Please lets not even compare 35mm with 645 as if the difference is not >significant. If you crop 6x6 into a rectangle you are then using 645 anyway. OK if you are making prints in the 5x7 aspect ratio. But if you are making prints in the 8x10 aspect ratio you are really loosing ground with 645. The 645 offers only a little less than 82% of the area of 6x6 to make 8x10's from. 645 frame dimensions are 40.5x56. I have both and you can definitely see the difference in 8x10 prints. >E.T. >for7@aol.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Which Crown Graphic 4x5 or 3x4 how to tell (easily) ?? Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 ... Its a 4x5 camera. The actual film size for 4x5 is about 1/8th inch smaller in each direction plus there is some masking by the holder. The ground glass is not full 4x5. In fact, I checked the size of a Graflok screen and is was exactly what you posted above. The 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 ground glass actually is this size since smaller sheet film is the "nominal" size and not smaller as is 4x5 and above. 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 film is available only from specialty suppliers at rather high prices. It is truely an orphan size. Graflex tried for about twenty years to make it a pouplar size for press work but never succeeded; press photographers continued to prefer 4x5, until large press cameras were supplanted by 35mm cameras. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 10x8 Why this size Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Graham Stewart wrote: > Which begs the obvious question of why 8.5 x 11 was chosen for magazines, > and why not make film the exact same size :) > Some of this is history, some inertia, ... Way back when all paper was hand made, the largest screen papermakers could conveniently hold was a little over 17" x 22". After the ragged edges were trimmed off, they cut sheets were 17x22. Cutting them in four (quarto), made sheets 8.5x11. Now by the time they were printing magazines on web presses, this no longer mattered, but except for things like Life and Saturday Evening Post, most were printed the same size. They are more flexible now. -- Jean-David Beyer
From: Ron Todd rltodd@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 10x8 Why this size Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 I think it goes back to the 1800s when the wet plate process was invented. Glass window panes were a available source of something inert and flat to for the base to hold the emulsion. The small size window panes were 8" by 10". Once you get one of these standards started it requires a really compelling reason to change. MarkB wrote: > > Hi all > > Does anyone know why the 10x8 ratio was chosen as a standard format? > Why not 10x7 or 11x6 etc > > Mark Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.
From: Alexander Selzer alex_No_1NOSPAM@gmx.de Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 10x8 Why this size Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 schrieb Ron Todd rltodd@ix.netcom.com: > I think it goes back to the 1800s when the wet plate process was > invented. The small plate with 6+x8+" was known as "whole plate". 6+x8+" 1/1 plate 4+x6+" 1/2 plate 4x5" 1/3 plate 3+x4+ 1/4 plate 3+x3+ Lantern plate And 5x7" was the common American size (as of about mid 20th century). Alex -- Alexander Selzer http://www.grosskabinett.de/
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 10x8 Why this size From: Helge Nareid hn.ix02@nareid.me.uk Date: 31 Jan 2003 ... > And 5x7" was the common American size (as of about mid 20th century). > > Alex I have not heard of the 4x5" as a 1/3 plate before, but apart from that, the series above is one of the 3 size sequences (I know of) which used to be in common usage. The other two I know of are: US: 11x14" 8x10" 5x7" 4x5" 2+x3+" (not sure of the exact fractional inches on this one) Continental Europe: 24x30cm 18x24cm 13x18cm 9x12cm 6.5x9cm The UK used to stay with the whole/half plate convention, but have migrated to the US size range in later years. The situation in continental Europe varies from country to country, some use the inch formats and others the centimeter formats. Occassionally, this can get quite confusing. I have in my collection 9x12cm and 4x5" film holders which will fit the same camera backs, but the worst case is 4+x6+", 5x7" and 13x18cm sheet films which all use holders with the same external dimensions, but you have to use the right holder with the appropriate film size (the 5x7" and 13x18cm only differs by 3 and 2mm on the short and long side respectively, but one film will not fit the other size holder). -- Helge Nareid
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 10x8 Why this size From: dfstein@earthlink.net (David Stein) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 Helge Nareid hn.ix02@nareid.me.uk wrote: > Continental Europe: > 24x30cm > 18x24cm > 13x18cm > 9x12cm > 6.5x9cm And also a 10x15cm-"true" postcard size.
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 10 Feb 2003 Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations >Then why did you government spy monkeys use such large film? To get more coverage in the same area. Look at it this way. Say I take a photograph with a good quality 11x14 camera using a 360mm lens. After processing the negative I now cut up this negative into smaller pieces. These pieces being one 8x10 negative, one 5x7 negative, one 4x5 negative one 2x3 negative one 2.5x2.5 negative, 35mm negative one 16mm negative and one 8mm negative. All pieces from the same original 11x14 negative. Now which one of these smaller negatives contain the higher image quality. I say the image quality is exactly the same with all these negatives since they were connected at one time into one single negative. Again, image quality inputs are focal length distance and resolution. So you see, coverage and image quality are two seperate issues. The larger the negative, the more land mass coverage. The smaller the negative the smaller the coverage. Larry
From: Craig Schroeder craigclu69n@netscape.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: which 6x7? Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 "Steven" steven_vh@pandora.be wrote: >Hi, >I want to buy a medium format camera. I've only worked with a Hassy 501CM, >which is OK. I found an affordable 501 kit at B&H;, but I like 6x7 better. >Any recommendations? >TIA > 6X7...... Field use: Mamiya 7 Fuji RF's (if one lens will do) Pentax 67 (if you need slr capabilities) Studio: Mamiya RB/RZ Bronica GS (rumors persist on being discontinued???) Some years back, I used the Koni systems, both Omega and Omegaflex. The optics are as good as about anything and these are very affordable if that is an issue. The Technika and Horseman rigs have merit, too. As I'm rambling on here, I realize that you should pick based on application and that they all are designed to satisfy pro expectations for image quality with proper technique. I look back through things I did on Rollei and Mamiya TLRs and am reminded of what fine work they are capable of, too. The Hassy experience you've had should serve as something of a benchmark (everyone else seems to use them for that!), so you're coming out of the box with a good perspective.
From: "ug" ug@nospam.ug12345.free-online.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Exact image size of 4x5? Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 There is a chart available from http://www.viewcamera.com/images/focalchart.gif - it may save you some time. "Dan Beaty" nospamdbeaty@copper.net wrote > Could someone give me the exact dimensions of the standard image size on 4x5 > film? I have tried to find this on the web, but so far no luck. I am working > on a reference sheet for finding equivalent lenses from the various formats. > Most of what I have found on this are not that precise. > > Millimeters would be fine. > > Dan Beaty
From: "Martin Glader" martin.glader@kolumbus.fi Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Exact image size of 4x5? Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 Different filmholders give slightly different image sizes. See http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm "Dan Beaty" nospamdbeaty@copper.net wrote > Could someone give me the exact dimensions of the standard image size on 4x5 > film?
From camera makers mailing list: From: "Leonard Robertson" leonard@harrington-wa.com To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] actual film size Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 Murray - I measured a couple of pieces of undeveloped scrap film and found the 5X7 to be 1/16" less on both dimensions than the nominal size, that is 4 15/16" X 6 15/16". Surprisingly, the 4X5 was slightly smaller on both dimensions - 5/64", or 3 59/64" X 4 59/64". These measurments were taken with a Starrett steel machinist rule, not a wooden yardstick, so they are pretty accurate. If you need more precise measurement, I can dig out a vernier caliper, but I suspect that is overkill. If you are using aerial roll film, I seem to recall some/all of it uses a thinner film base than sheet film. It seems possible you may need to cut your sheets either wider or narrower if the thinner film has a tendency to flex and "fall out" of the film holder, or the thinner base is more difficult to load into the holder. So you may want to make your cutting jig with a tiny bit of adjustment in case you need to do some trial and error to find the best size. I suspect in 4X5 and 5X7 sizes, you won't have any real problems. Please let us know how you come out with this project. Also, what are you using to cut your film? Leonard
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Exact image size of 4x5? Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 ... Sheet film in 4x5 and larger sizes is slightly smaller than the given dimensions, which are for glass plates. The film is about 1/8th inch smaller in each direction and the image is about another 1/8th inch smaller because of the masking of the holder. This gives an approximate size of 4-3/4" x 5-3/4". The diagonal of actual 4x5 images is slightly smller than this, about 6" or 152mm. Many charts showing lens angles of view for various formats are calculated on the full size of glass plates. The resulting focal lengths are too long by about 6% for sheet film of the same nominal size. Also, when calculating equivalent angles of view remember to account for the differences in aspect ratio. For instance, when finding the equivalent of a 4x5 lens for a 35mm lens the 35mm frame should be calculated to be 24x30mm rather than 24x36mm. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From camera makers mailing list: From: "Uptown Gallery" murray@uptowngallery.org To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 Subject: [Cameramakers] film dimensions for your reference The following data is courtesy of Ilford. Murray Part I 4x5 - 3.922 x 4.922 inches; or 99.62 x 125.02 mm 5x7 - 4.938 x 6.938 inches; or 125.43 x 176.23 mm Film is allowed to vary by about .4mm (4x5) or .8mm (5x7) and still be regarded as being within spec, so your holders should be designed accordingly. Part II (second inquiry) 8 x 10 201.63 x 252.81 mm +/- .8mm; 7.938 x 9.953 in +/- .031 in 11x14 278.61 x 354.81 mm +/- .8mm; 10.938 x 13.969 in +/- .031 in 16x20 405.61 x 507.21 mm +/- .8mm; 15.938 x 19.969 in +/- .031 in 20x24 507.21 x 608.81 mm +/- .8mm; 19.969 x 23.969 in +/- .31 in For other (non-standard) sizes, the standard would depend on the demension: For <5 in; nominal size - .41mm (.016in), with a max of nominal size, and minimum of nominal - .79mm (.031 in) For >= 5 in, nominal size - .79mm(.031in), with max of nominal size,
From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: definition of "medium format"? Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 > But where does that leave Bantam and 3x4 on 127 film? Today I suppose > that makes sense but historically it hasn't been that clear cut. I know I tend to agree with you. Essentially though - when the likes of Bantam and 127 film were current - there appears to have been no such thing as MF. 35mm was considered miniature. 127 and Bantam were often considered miniature - but not by the 35mm users. Even 120 rollfilm (especially the 6x6) was classed by some as miniature - at least in the 1930s. Everything above miniature (and even then - I'm talking about the 1930s-1950 the line was drawn in different places) was considered to be of a normal size. Cameras 4x5 and above were often classified by film type (plate/cut film) or type (eg technical). The fact that the film was larger was considered unimportant. However for the purposes of today - the following is true: > Jim Waggener wrote: > > > ..between 35mm and 4x5 is considered medium format. Period. The only issue I see is the people who adhere to the above statement - and then say the Box cameras aren't MF because they don't have high quality lenses (or somesuch similar critiscism). MF has been 'tarnished' by the expectation that quality will be better than 35mm where as its actually easier to build a MF camera that works than a 35mm one. :-) Roland. http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/
From: Le Grande Raoul raoul@olympus.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: definition of "medium format"? Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 matt rellimkm@yahoo.com wrote: > so 3.25"x4.25" is medium format? Well, here we go..... I'd be willing to bet that the person who gave the absolute that 'medium format' is between 35mm and 4x5 doesn't even know that 3.25x4.25 even existed. 3.25x4.25, historically, makes a lot of sence. It is called 'Quarter Plate' because is is one quarter of the Full Plate size of 6.5x8.5. Conspiricy theorists might think that it was a plot on the part of UPI and the Great Yellow Father to force a wholesale change from 4x5 to 3.25x4.25. Who knows why it didn't take over... I guess the definition could be further 'balkanized' to saying that large format film is in holders and medium format fil is in roll. Then, someone would pipe up and say, "Well, what about 6x9 sheet film? Is that Large Format???" Or, "Yeah? what about Cirkut cameras? They use film in rolls but it can be 5" wide! Is that medium format?" Or, how 'bout, "6x12 is medium format because the film is in rolls. But, damn! It needs a 4x5 enlarger to enlarge it!" Or, "My Speed Graphic is a large format camera because it uses 4x5 film. And, I can convert it to a medium format camera with a 6x7 back!" Yeah, but so what? If definitons are necessary, I gues it could be said, "Medium format is between 35mm and 4x5. Except when it isn't. Then, it's something else. I guess." I don't know that it even matters. Jeff > "Jim Waggener" jimw@visi.net wrote > > ..between 35mm and 4x5 is considered medium format. Period. ...
From: "Daniel VERMEERSCH" dvermeersch@nordnet.fr To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] film holder spec. Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 Leonard, you are the best! Thanks a lot. Friendly yours. Daniel ----- Original Message ----- From: Leonard Roberts To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] film holder spec. Daniel, I measured an 8X20 holder and here is what I found: Thickness of holder: 13/16" (20.5mm). Outside sizes: 9 19/32" (243.5mm) by 22 3/8" (569mm). Exposure field window sizes: 8" (230.5mm) by 19 5/8" (499mm). Distance to exposure field at end: 1 1/4" (31.5mm) at "flap" = end. 1 1/2" (38mm), = at darkslide insertion end. Depth to film surface: 23/64'" to 3/8" (9mm). I took most of these measurements with steel machinist rules, so they are fairly accurate, although this is an old wooden holder, so the dimensions of the holder vary somewhat. The "Depth to film surface" is actually the depth to the face of the center divider board that the film lays against. On my holder, this board appears to be a dense cardboard material and is slightly warped, so this depth varies depending on where on the holder the measurement is taken. If the material you use for a center divider is a different thickness from the material in my holder, you will have to change the thickness of the holder to allow for the difference. If you need any other measurements, please let me know. If you are sucessful making a holder, please post details for the rest of us. Leonard
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Moving up to medium format ... 6x4.5 or 6x7? Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 "JohnDoe" someone@somewhere.com wrote: > My question, is the > 645 format really big enough and worth the upgrade from 35mm, to give up the > luxury(autofocus/portability) of my 35mm camera? or should I jump all the > way to 6x7? What's the maximum size enlargement from a 645 film frame, > without noticable grain and loss of sharpness? what about a 6x7 format? Depends on the film: Provia and the like will do great 11x14s and 13x19s from 645. Above 13x19 (and perhaps at 13x19) you'll be able to tell the differnce between 645 and 6x7 when viewing at 10". For the US paper sizes (8x10, 11x14, 16x20) 6x7 is a big improvement over 645 (1.8x). For the A-series and 13x19, 6x8 or 6x9 are more of an improvement. 6x7 = 1.55x, 6x9 = 2X. Here are the frame dimensions. For 8x10/16x20, 35, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9 are: (24x30, 41x51, 45x56, 69x55, 56x70, 56x70, 56x70) But for A series and 13x19: (24x34, 39x56, 39x56, 49x69, 54x76, 56x79) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 The LoxFather wrote: > What are the advantages of each format? > > With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1. > > With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look. > > With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality. > > How do you think they compare? See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail Summary of 35mm, medium, large format film versus digital: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html Image comparisons up to 4x5: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html Some advantages of digital vs 35mm film: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html Roger Clark home page: http://www.clarkvision.com
From: Peter Marshall [petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk] Sent: Fri 11/21/2003 To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: Pakon 35mm Film Scanner > > and they give the frame size for the 35mm version of the Noblex as > > 24mm x > > 66mm, which is slightly wider than the 24mm x 65mm frame size for the > > XPan & > > the Fuji TX-1. and the Horizon negs are shorter still, something like 24x56mm. Widelux negs are just slightly longer than that at 59mm, usually the only way I can tell which camera I used with older negs. Peter Marshall Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/ email: photography.guide@about.com
From: Ted Baker [ted@ldeo.columbia.edu] Sent: Thu 11/20/2003 To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: Pakon 35mm Film Scanner Roger, > PS Are you sure the TX-1 and Noblex negatives are exactly the same size? I > do know that the Horizon/Horizont and the Widelux are different from the > TX-1. Actually I was slightly off on the Noblex frame size. I checked this Canadian Noblex dealer's web site: http://whistlerinns.com/noblex/135_tech_data.htm and they give the frame size for the 35mm version of the Noblex as 24mm x 66mm, which is slightly wider than the 24mm x 65mm frame size for the XPan & the Fuji TX-1. Regards, Ted
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: [HELP] Effective negative size Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 "Kamox" kamox@go.com wrote... > Hello, > I'm making a simple gif picture as reference in order to represent the > various photo formats. > I assumed as standard the following sizes (exposed film area expressed > in millimeters): > > 135: 24x36 > 645: 42x56 > 6x6: 56x56 > 6x7: 56x65 > 6x9: 56x84 > 4x5: 122x97 > > Now, I need to know the exact exposed area of a 5x7 and a 8x10 sheet, > but I wasn't able to find any useful informations on the web. May you > help me? > Feedback about the other sizes is also appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Kamox. Sheet film of 4x5 and larger is about 1/8th inch smaller than the "nominal" size. This is because when sheet film first became available most photographers were using glass plate holders. An adaptor is used in plate holders for film but there must be some space for the channels which hold the edges. So, while 4x5 glass plates are actually 4x5 inches, 4x5 film is smaller. The diagonal of a 4x5 film is about 6" (152mm). The exact size of the image depends on the construction of the film holder. Smaller size sheet film seems to be the "nominal" size, however, the image is still somewhat cropped because of the masking by the film channels. Roll film image size when given in English measure is exact, i.e, 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 is pretty close although exact image size depends on the film gate in the camera. For 120 film the standard sizes were for 8, 12, or 16 frames per roll. However, there are frame sizes also for 9 or 10 frames per roll, these are about the same aspect ratio as 8x10 or 4x5. Kodak considers the exact dimentions of its sheet film to be proprietary, I have no idea why. Thom Bell, of Kodak, has some information on his web site at: http://www.geocities.com/thombell/ More, including a history of roll film sizes, can be found on the Kodak site although you will have to do some poking around to find it. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: What was wrong with film? Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote: > I don't know if any bigger than 35mm would have been a good idea. One real problem with 30x40mm is that an SLR would have to have a significantly larger mirror box and pentaprism. But for rangefinders and P&S; cameras the size increase would be very modest given the same physical 35mm size of film. OTOH, while I dream of what might have been, a vest pocket size 46mm APS might have been a neat way to get a compact modern MF camera. You could get 4x6cm frames on 46mm film with a significantly smaller camera than a 645 on 120 model. Peter. -- pirwin@ktb.net
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio Bill Mcdonald wrote: > I just got back my 1st roll from my Agfa foldup which is 6 by 6. > These tiny 4 inch square prints were exposed properly etc > but having used 35 mm I'm used to rectangular prints. > > I can go up to 12 by 12 using 13 inch by 19 paper on my Canon S9000, > but my goal is larger prints in the papers format. > > My question is , what format is similiar to 35, I've seen several > folders on ebay that are 6 by 4.5, anybody using this format? Actually, some of the old 6 cm by 9 cm folder cameras are close to the same aspect ratio as 35 mm. Rather than try to match, it is easier to acknowledge that some cropping is needed in many prints, and can actually improve the final results. A 35 mm frame fits better to 8" by 12" rather than 8" by 10". If you use 6 by 4.5 or 6 by 7, then that framing will often fit closer to 8" by 10" prints, just as an example. Using 6 by 9 would require similar cropping as for 35 mm framing. Also, I do use an AGFA Jsolette that is 6 by 4.5. It also has little flip doors to allow 6 by 6 shots, though I prefer using it as 6 by 4.5, since I do not like square prints. I recently changed out the lens/shutter unit for a more modern (and useful) version with more possible settings. One way to tell if an old folder is multiple format is to look for two windows on the back, though that might not always help you. The old AGFA I have is somewhat of an exception, with the flip doors, since most multiple format folder cameras used a mask. Often that mask might be missing. Also, once the mask, or doors, are put in place, the entire film roll needs to be exposed at that framing. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Lassi lassi.hippelainen@welho.compromised.invalid Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 Mark A wrote: > > > > 6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm > > > > Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are > > 69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56. > > > Yes the 120 film backs for view cameras vary quite a bit, but I don't really > consider them to be MF cameras. There is very little variation in format > size of true MF cameras. There are no MF cameras made in the US that I am > aware of. Most are made in Japan and a few Europe. For me MF is pretty much equivalent to roll film. With limits... 6x17 just doesn't sound like MF anymore. > You are incorrect about the Pentax 6x7. It is 56mm x 70mm. Trust me, I have > owned one for the last 20 years. The size does vary very slightly (and I > emphasis VERY SLIGHTLY) depending on which lens and which aperture is used. > http://www.pentaxusa.com/products/cameras/camera_overview.cfm?productID=10291 In that case I've been misinformed. I don't own one :-( > > > > > 6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm > > > > More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2. > > -- Lassi > > Same comments I made above. You are talking about 120 film backs for LF > cameras. I am talking about true MF cameras like the Fuji 6x9. No. My Moscow 2 folder scans are 57x85, when the whole frame is covered, but only about 55x83 is clean. The edges of the bellows shade the corners a little. Since the Moscow is a Zeiss Super-Ikonta copy, the size is also copied from German practises. AFAIK also box cameras are about that size. > BTW, check out the specs on the Schneider 100mm f/5.6 enlarging lens which > they claim covers the 6x9 format. On page 2 of the MTF charts they state the > exact format coverage as 56mm x 79mm. I believe that Schneider is a European > company. > http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/photo_enlarging/componon-s/pdf/componon-s_56_100.pdf German, located in Kreutznach. Their 6x9 is even smaller than mine... -- Lassi
From: "Mark A" ma@switchboard.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 > > 6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm > > Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are > 69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56. Yes the 120 film backs for view cameras vary quite a bit, but I don't really consider them to be MF cameras. There is very little variation in format size of true MF cameras. There are no MF cameras made in the US that I am aware of. Most are made in Japan and a few Europe. You are incorrect about the Pentax 6x7. It is 56mm x 70mm. Trust me, I have owned one for the last 20 years. The size does vary very slightly (and I emphasis VERY SLIGHTLY) depending on which lens and which aperture is used. http://www.pentaxusa.com/products/cameras/camera_overview.cfm?productID=10291 > > > 6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm > > More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2. > -- Lassi Same comments I made above. You are talking about 120 film backs for LF cameras. I am talking about true MF cameras like the Fuji 6x9. BTW, check out the specs on the Schneider 100mm f/5.6 enlarging lens which they claim covers the 6x9 format. On page 2 of the MTF charts they state the exact format coverage as 56mm x 79mm. I believe that Schneider is a European company. http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/photo_enlarging/componon-s/pdf/componon-s_56_100.pdf
From: Lassi lassi.hippelainen@welho.compromised.invalid Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 Mark A wrote: ... > 6x7 - 69.5mm x 56mm Europeran cameras (Linhof, Sinar) are usually 72x56, Americans are 69.5x56 and Pentax 67 is 68x56. > 6x9 - 89.5mm x 56mm More commonly about 84x56. Makes the aspect ratio exactly 3:2. -- Lassi
From: wiltw@aol.com (Wilt W) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 14 Feb 2004 Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio >6x9cm 1:1.6 >35mm 1:1.5 >645cm 1:1.4 >6x7cm 1:1.3 >6x6cm 1:1 Frame sizes are NOT as expressed. 645, for example, has a frame of 55 x 42.5mm in Bronica. Mamiya and Pentax each have their own frame dimensions, but I think both use the 55 mm long dimension and vary on the short dimension. Using Bronica's frame size, that is 1:1.3, not the 1:1.4 as stated. Compared to all other formats (except the 6x9) it is longer than both standard print paper sizes and film formats. If one learns with 35mm (as most of us do), one gets accustomed to the overly long format, and has to readjust expectations to all other formats. --wilton
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: question about mf aspect ratio Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 Bob Monaghan wrote: > Speaking of which, the original kodak images were circular, making full > use of the lens coverage I guess? ;-) Well, no. The simple lens they used covered the rectangular format quite well. But rather than show their customers that they could not produce a camera with sufficient stray light reduction, they inserted a circular mask to hide how light bouncing off camera parts was marring the edges and corners (there in particular) of the frame.
End of Page