127 Film Folding Cameras

[Thomas78]

Hello,

here I want to start a discussion about folders for 127 film.

Since they can be smaller an lighter than a Rollei 35 (mine (IHAGEE) is 297 g without film, and 120 x 70 x 32 mm) while offering a image size of 40 x 62 mm (called 4 x 6.5 cm, about three times the image area of 24 x 36 mm) they look like a interesting travel camera concept to me.

Unfortunately my 127 folder seems to give rather low contrast pictures:

It seems to be a combinaton of the uncoated lens, the anastigmat type lens construction and the lens seem to have some spots of haze (or even fungus, im not that shure)


Do you know if there are 127 folders (4 x 4 or 4 x 6.5 cm) around which give a decent quality (with a tessar type lens) ?

 

[Muggins]

Hello Thomas,

You should definitely have more contrast than that - elderly lenses tend to be lower contrast anyway, but something is not right there - they're not THAT low. It could be the spots - even a small patch of crud or fungus will have quite a big effect as the lens is so small. The anastigmats were better lenses - the original "lazy tongs" Vest Pocket Kodak had a meniscus lens, and I suspect that the later non-lazy tongs version in its basic form was the same.

Kodak launched VP (Vest Pocket - aka 127) film, so a Vest Pocket Kodak might be your most likely find. They built "Special" models with various lens and shutter combinations and, although I haven't got my 1927 catalogue to hand, you might find a Tessar model in there. However, they were relatively expensive so I suspect that they're pretty rare. From the few I've seen, most 127 cameras were fairly low-end things. There were higher spec ones - the Kine Exacta SLR, for example, and later on the "Baby Rollei" and the Yashica 44 (both TLRs) but I suspect most folders were pretty basic. I look forward to being proved wrong, though!

It was definitely a format that attracted weird cameras - several companies built box cameras, some cheaply enough to be given away in exchange for tokens, the most notable being Zeiss-Ikon's Baby Box Tengor, and the prize for wackiest of the lot surely has to go to the English Purma Speed, Special and Plus with their gravity operated shutter. There are definitely other models out there, though - I've never seen a 127 Ihagee like yours - so I'd be interested in what other people know of.

Adrian

 

[ZeissFan]

There was a Kodak/Nagel Vollenda Type 48 with either a Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar (triplet) or a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar. Both lenses are 5cm and will be in either a Pronto(r) or Compur shutter. I have both, and the Tessar performs as you would expect. The Radionar is an adequate lens.

There also is the Zeiss Ikon Baby Ikonta 520/18 -- again either with a Novar or a Tessar in the Pronto(r) or Compur shutters. I have the version with the Tessar. Again, 5cm focal length. It performs similarly (probably identically) to the Vollenda.

Ergonomically, the Vollenda is slightly easier to use, especially if you have the little shutter plunger. The lens bed folds down on the Vollenda and from the side on the Bby Ikonta. But both are very nice little cameras. Tiny, too.

Others include the Kodak Vest Pocket and the Contessa-Nettel Piccolette, which became a Zeiss Ikon product after the merger.

Finally, there is the Zeiss Ikon Kolibri, which has a spring-loaded collapsible 5cm Novar or Tessar. It's a very nice camera, although not all that comfortable to hold.

 

[ZeissFan]

The cameras:

From left: Zeiss Ikon Baby Ikonta, Kodak/Nagel Vollenda Type 48, Zeiss Ikon Kolibri
Back row: The Kolibri's case.

Note that the Baby Ikonta has a simple glassless frame finder, while the Vollenda has a Gallilean finder. The Kolibri's Gallilean finder is on the end of the camera and flips down on either side when not in use.

The Vollenda also has the shutter release plunger. If I fit this plunger to the Baby Ikonta, the camera won't close. The Kolibri has its own three-inch cable release, which really isn't useful when shooting handheld.

Kodak/Nagel also offered the Pupille, which is pricey today, and the Ranca, which is rarely seen. Both are 127 cameras, and neither is a folding camera.

 

[Muggins]

That's a very nice collection, Mike. Looks as though Germany was the home of the 127 folder!

I forgot the Foth Derby and its French copy the Gallus Derby - though as they had cloth focal-plane shutters, I doubt you'd find a working one these days. There's also the Ensign Multex with a collapsible lens rather than a folding bellows, but they are like hen's teeth, and rarely worked even when new...

Adrian

 

[Thomas78]

Thank you for your replies!

... I've never seen a 127 Ihagee like yours - so I'd be interested in what other people know of.

Adrian

I made a few photos of the camera, pehaps it is of some interest for you:

 

[Muggins]

Now that's a little cutie - though it looks like a very hazy lens to me, which might explain the contrast issue.

Have you any idea what the purpose was of the red cross-hair in the viewfinder? I have a Welta Perle with a similar VF, and I've never worked out what you were meant to do with it...

Adrian

 

[oftheherd]

Whew, that does look like a hazy lens.

Here is my 127 folder: 😀

This was something my father rigged up to a 9x12 camera some 55 or 60 years ago.

EDIT: The thread where I mentioned the above camera is at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62688&highlight=9x12 and shows the GG he built to use for focusing the 127 camera he hacked to the cut film holder.

 

[Thomas78]

Thank you Adrian!

I think I have to look for someone who wants to do a CLA on folders...

 

[ZeissFan]

I have an Ihagee Parvola, which is a 127 camera. It's in my cabinet. I shot one roll with it but didn't process it and managed to misplace the film about five years ago. It's not a folder.

 

[Thomas78]

The Ihagee has got a CLA and I tried a roll of Efke R100 exposed at 400:


Ihagee_Efke100_400_01_006 von thomas.78 auf Flickr


Ihagee_Efke100_400_01_008 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

 

[Gumby]

It seems to be a combinaton of the uncoated lens, the anastigmat type lens construction and the lens seem to have some spots of haze (or even fungus, im not that shure)


Do you know if there are 127 folders (4 x 4 or 4 x 6.5 cm) around which give a decent quality (with a tessar type lens) ?

Not a 127 camera but I've had much better success than you with a Kodak Duo 645 (620 film) and a "cruddy" triplet lens. Are you sure your light meter and shutter are operating properly?

 

[Thomas78]

Not a 127 camera but I've had much better success than you with a Kodak Duo 645 (620 film) and a "cruddy" triplet lens. Are you sure your light meter and shutter are operating properly?

I have to confess that I accidently overexposed the first picture by two stops and did experimental development as I didn't had a recipe for the development of Efke R100 with Rollei RHS at 400 ISO.

I think I should give it a secound try...

 

[Gumby]

I think I should give it a secound try...

I should think so. Knowing that makes the question of an alternative a bit premature.

Check your shutter speeds first!

 

[Thomas78]

Here on image with Efke R100, developed in Rodinal 1:50:


Ihagee_03_Efke R100_007 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

 

[graywolf]

That last shoot is beginning to get there. Still low contrast however. I kind of doubt the camera is the problem. Are you scanning the negative or the print?

Suggestion: when testing cameras/lenses shoot at the standard ISO and use standard processing. If there are more than one variable you can not know what the problems is.

 

[Thomas78]

That last shoot is beginning to get there. Still low contrast however. I kind of doubt the camera is the problem. Are you scanning the negative or the print?

Some other negatives had even less contrast.

I think that straylight might reduce the contrast and that I should consider to build a lens shade for it.

I am scanning the negative.

Suggestion: when testing cameras/lenses shoot at the standard ISO and use standard processing. If there are more than one variable you can not know what the problems is.

That is true.
I already used the standard ISO rating of 100 and rodinal does not look like an exotic developer for this kind of film.

I think I should do one roll with my Rollei 4x4 with the same development and take a look to the pictures it gives.

 

[Dwig]

You may find that the folder does give somewhat low contrast images. If so, you should simply alter processing on film shot with it, increasing the development (time and/or agitation). Processing should be done with the camera/lens' characteristics in mind. There is no such thing as "one size fits all" processing.

You may also find that altered digital processing of the scan is called for. Here's the result of a quick and dirty Levels curve applied to the posted image:

 

[graywolf]

No question that he can fix it in Photoshop. BUT!

He is trying to figure out whether he has a camera problem, a film problem, or a processing problem. Fixing it does not help with that.

Actually, there is a one size fits all processing. That is the correct processing for the film being used. Color film proves that, you adjust your exposure to the film and processing in color work. In black and white, if you are sending your film out, you do exactly the same thing.

The purpose of the zone system and such is to be able to print all your images on one contrast grade of paper. In this day and age of VC papers that is a silly thing to do. Like a lot of things that seem real cool.

That is why I suggested that Thomas do a test where the only variable is exposure. If there is nothing wrong with the camera, one of those negatives should be pretty damn good. Then all he has to do is figure out what film speed that negative was shot at. If none of those are OK, then he needs to look to his processing (I use true stand developing, so my processing is correct unless I do some thing wrong like over or under agitating at the start of the process). If that does not fix the problem, he has a camera problem, Since he had the camera serviced, he needs to know that for sure so he can have the service tech correct his error.

Fixing it in Photoshop does not do that for him.

 

[Thomas78]

Thank you Dwig and graywolf for your response!

...

That is why I suggested that Thomas do a test where the only variable is exposure. If there is nothing wrong with the camera, one of those negatives should be pretty damn good. Then all he has to do is figure out what film speed that negative was shot at. If none of those are OK, then he needs to look to his processing (I use true stand developing, so my processing is correct unless I do some thing wrong like over or under agitating at the start of the process). If that does not fix the problem, he has a camera problem, Since he had the camera serviced, he needs to know that for sure so he can have the service tech correct his error.

Fixing it in Photoshop does not do that for him.

I think it might be a good idea to do some variation at an exposure series: EV-values: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3

And a developemt for the standard ISO value of 100.

But before doing this I should get/build/modify a lens shape for it to prevent stray light...