Jump to content

6x6 folding film camera resolution, ---- Should I get a 6x6 Folding camera?


Recommended Posts

buy what you want, but a repair will most likely cost more then a similar repair to a leica m body. 

 

A number of those old cameras had special attachments to change the image format, those inserts are essentially gone and forgotten in a dump somewhere before Noah built the ark.  And if you do manage to find one, there was one on ebay that let a 6x9 folder take 645 images.. the insert was priced at i believe 350$. the camera at teh time was merely 80-100$ on ebay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PetPhoto said:

A number of those old cameras had special attachments to change the image format, those inserts are essentially gone and forgotten in a dump somewhere before Noah built the ark.  And if you do manage to find one, there was one on ebay that let a 6x9 folder take 645 images.. the insert was priced at i believe 350$. the camera at teh time was merely 80-100$ on ebay.

That's only a worry for collectors, not for users, and most old folders aren't very collectible.

Mine came with a stamped metal piece that converts it from 6x9 to 6x6. It slips into the film channel and blocks 1.5cm from each side of the image. The other step to switch formats is a slider on the back that hides or reveals the 6x6 and 6x9 ruby windows.

The "worst case" is that you can't be bothered to fashion your own format mask and you end-up shooting the larger format option. It'll cost you more for film (per-frame, not per-roll), but you'll have more negative to play with later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

That's only a worry for collectors, not for users, and most old folders aren't very collectible.

Mine came with a stamped metal piece that converts it from 6x9 to 6x6. It slips into the film channel and blocks 1.5cm from each side of the image. The other step to switch formats is a slider on the back that hides or reveals the 6x6 and 6x9 ruby windows.

The "worst case" is that you can't be bothered to fashion your own format mask and you end-up shooting the larger format option. It'll cost you more for film (per-frame, not per-roll), but you'll have more negative to play with later.

and when you figure in the ass backwards film advances in most of those cameras... you go nutty with empty wasted film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PetPhoto said:

ass backwards film advances in most of those cameras

There's a key which you turn in the direction of the arrow. It's just maddening.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The ruby window system is as basic as it gets, you need a little discipline to remember to wind the film immediately after every exposure. 

On a related note, I would highly recommend any Rolleiflex TLR over a folder. Even a Rolleicord with a Tessar (or Xenar) will do. They are wonderful cameras, and still relatively cheap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2025 at 11:59 AM, Einst_Stein said:

According to some old reviews, the lens resolution of a 6x6 folding camera shooting at f8, with film flatness etc. considered, is around 30 lpmm.  This is equivalent to about 16MP in digital camera (or 24Mp digital camera cropped to square format). It seems most digital cameras can be cropped to achieve the same level of IQ. 

ive only just started shooting 120. mainly in 645 (with a Fuji folder), but i have shot 1 roll of 6x6 (to test my Yaschica 635 TLR with T-Max 400). the 635 uses a triplet lens and the image below was shot relatively wide open at shot f5.6 (standard lab dev & scan).

to my eyes the 6x6 performs quite well 

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have a few old Kodak folders (in 127, 120 & 122 film sizes) here's a modern "folder" that I've been working with:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

This is a Fuji GF670 that does both 6x6 & 6x7 frame sizes. (Voigtlander also sold their version.) It has a very "M-like" rangefinder patch in the VF, good meter and electronic (blade) shutter that is nearly silent. Manual or auto shutter speed.

I tend to get sharper photos from my Pentax 6x7 SLR, but the Fuji is a lot handier to carry and use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sometimesmaybe said:

ive only just started shooting 120. mainly in 645 (with a Fuji folder), but i have shot 1 roll of 6x6 (to test my Yaschica 635 TLR with T-Max 400). the 635 uses a triplet lens and the image below was shot relatively wide open at shot f5.6 (standard lab dev & scan).

to my eyes the 6x6 performs quite well 

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

a TLR is a great thing, provided you have the eyes for the screen, and dont need to hurry with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2025 at 11:18 PM, bags27 said:

Maybe not a folder technically, more a collapsible, the Mamiya 6 will likely be as sharp as any 6x6 you can get. Glass on my Mamiya 7 seems sharper than equivalent Zeiss glass on my Blad 500 c/m, though I haven't compared the Mamiya 43mm to my SWC, which would really be a battle of the supersharp superwides. The 3 Mamiya 6 lenses are said to be as sharp as those on the Mamiya 7. 

 

I also came here to recommend the Mamiya 6. It's pretty darn compact when collapsed, especially with the 75mm lens (although still compact with the 50mm).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2025 at 2:20 PM, sometimesmaybe said:

ive only just started shooting 120. mainly in 645 (with a Fuji folder), but i have shot 1 roll of 6x6 (to test my Yaschica 635 TLR with T-Max 400). the 635 uses a triplet lens and the image below was shot relatively wide open at shot f5.6 (standard lab dev & scan).

to my eyes the 6x6 performs quite well 

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Most 6x6 film cameras work quite well. The above pictures surely prove that.

I don't mean 6x6 folder is bad, I only mean the digitals with M43 or larger sensor can achieve similar or better IQ, at least in the sense of resolution, and nothing inferior in the tonal gradation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I don't mean 6x6 folder is bad, I only mean the digitals with M43 or larger sensor can achieve similar or better IQ, at least in the sense of resolution, and nothing inferior in the tonal gradation. 

I'm not sure why you are that interested about resolution, unless you are doing copy work. Tonal gradation will depend more on your film and processing than on your film format.

High-quality folding cameras are just as good as non-folding cameras, so you can expect typical medium-format IQ: 20" (50 cm) prints should be tack-sharp even up-close, and you should be able to print twice as big (4x the area) with minimal degradation, as viewed from a reasonable distance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

I'm not sure why you are that interested about resolution, unless you are doing copy work. Tonal gradation will depend more on your film and processing than on your film format.

High-quality folding cameras are just as good as non-folding cameras, so you can expect typical medium-format IQ: 20" (50 cm) prints should be tack-sharp even up-close, and you should be able to print twice as big (4x the area) with minimal degradation, as viewed from a reasonable distance.

No objection on what you said.

So can digital ps with M43 and larger sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

So can digital ps with M43 and larger sensor.

Both mediums can be printed large, but you'll have a hard time if you want to make them look similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Both mediums can be printed large, but you'll have a hard time if you want to make them look similar.

I have no intention to make them similar. I prefer to explore each own capability.. but I started wanting 6x6 folder for the square format. Then realize cropping digitalis is more than what I thought before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I only mean the digitals with M43 or larger sensor can achieve similar or better IQ

i cant disagree with that, m43 and most interchangeable digital cameras made in the last 15 years are very good. shooting film has changed the way i shoot and edit my digital images - less interested in super shallow DOF and way better at doing my own colour adjustments across a series of image (and not just applying a preset etc). YMMV

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If I compare digital photography with paintings, I feel film photography is in the middle, though maybe much closer to digital photography. The end output is one thing, but the joy are quite different. 

I enjoy shooting film and darkroom work, but recently I shoot mostly only with cameras that I have not find digital replacement yet. My most favorite film camera is Hasselblad SWC. I tried super wide 15mm  lens on FF digital camera, but nothing is as fun as HB SWC yet. Besides, the HB SWC is such a lovely jewel, simply put on hand without shooting film can spend a whole afternoon! 

Edited by Einst_Stein
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

FWIW here's a photo taken on an old Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Medium Angle Rectilinear (MAR - not disimilar to a 35mm on FX) lens. Its a 6 image stitch and equates to about 6x9cm and ~100MPixels. The lens dates from the later part of the 1890s. Despite some software artifacts from stitching it gives some idea that even such an old lens can provide acceptable results even today. Many folders were equipped with TT&H Cooke lenses which are probably better than this MAR.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by pgk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, pgk said:

FWIW here's a photo taken on an old Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Medium Angle Rectilinear (MAR - not disimilar to a 35mm on FX) lens. Its a 6 image stitch and equates to about 6x9cm and ~100MPixels. The lens dates from the later part of the 1890s. Despite some software artifacts from stitching it gives some idea that even such an old lens can provide acceptable results even today. Many folders were equipped with TT&H Cooke lenses which are probably better than this MAR.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Whatever you post here is pixeled down to 2.73MB file size, right? Most digital cameras can produce much larger file.

So, what do you think this can prove?

Edited by Einst_Stein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...