[LargeFormat] rollfilm backs on 5x4

[philip lambert]

6x9 is actually 56x82, about 44% longer than square. 6x7 is actually 56x72
and its 28% longer than square negatives. 5x4 is only 25% longer than
square. 5x7 is 40% longer.
The only reasons for using a rollfilm adapter on 5x4 cameras are (a) you get
more shots for your money (b) there's probably wider choice & better
availability of rollfilm than LF (c) it's easier to load and unload a
rollfilm back in daylight than five 5x4 darkslides in a changing bag.
Rollfilm adapters weigh quite a lot and my former Linhof 5x4 Rollex was
really weighty.  The current Calumet slide-in back is a bit lighter and you
don't need to remove the gr-glass.
The only drawback is the smaller negative of the rollfilm (and
grain/resolution gets better yearly).  Probably you can use cheaper lenses
with rollfilm since they mostly use the centre of field of a LF lens and the
poorer edge performance of say Xenar or Angulon compared with Symmar or
Super Angulon matters less. Certainly I have used 135mm Xenars as a mild
long focus on 6x9 rollfilm negs, where I would prefer a Sironar or Symmar on
5x4.  If you aren't persuaded that rollfilm adapters are worthwhile at times
you are free to avoid them. PL
> 6x7 is so close to square (in my mind) and 6 x 9 is proportional to the
35mm
> frame. In this strange universe of LF I do appreciate whatever shreds of
the
> familiar I can find. Old habits die hard. (But die they must!)