Thomas78
Well-known
I have a Perkeo IIIe and sometimes take it with me on hiking tours.
It is my smallest 6x6 folder and my second smallest folder at all (my Ihagee 127 film 4x6.5 is smaller than a Rollei 35).
It has a uncoupled RF (but mine has one scale in feet and one in meters) and a red window film advance which I prefer because there is little chance that anything goes wrong with it. But it has a double exposure prevention.
But my favourite folder for using (despite its ergonomics) is My Moskva 5 which I got in really great shape.
For me it is an evolution of the pre war Super Ikonra C. The viewfinder is a classic one without (fainted) frame lines and the focus ring gives you a better grip since it is much wider compared to the Super Ikonta.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro
It is my smallest 6x6 folder and my second smallest folder at all (my Ihagee 127 film 4x6.5 is smaller than a Rollei 35).
It has a uncoupled RF (but mine has one scale in feet and one in meters) and a red window film advance which I prefer because there is little chance that anything goes wrong with it. But it has a double exposure prevention.
But my favourite folder for using (despite its ergonomics) is My Moskva 5 which I got in really great shape.
For me it is an evolution of the pre war Super Ikonra C. The viewfinder is a classic one without (fainted) frame lines and the focus ring gives you a better grip since it is much wider compared to the Super Ikonta.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Are folders really that bad?
Are folders really that bad?
I've used both professional grade medium format cameras - and - MF folders. Even with the advances in digital cameras, I still have a Fuji GW 690 III and a slew of medium format folders.
I'll start with the Voightlander Perkeo, which I've have had good luck in getting a keeper. There is always room for a Perkeo in a backpack and three rolls of film. Mine is a Perkeo II. I like the automatic frame stop feature when winding. I've never really given much thought as to whether or not the front standard is perfectly aligned with the film plane.
Does the Skopar lens have the same resolution of a EBC Fujinon or the Zeiss lens on a Hasselblad? Probably not, but I don't really care - because the Perkeo II fits in the front pocket of my Dockers or Cabelas cargo pants.
The story of the repair person mentioned by ozmoose leads me to my next fortunate find - which was local. A few years back I picked up an Ikonta 524/2 with a 3.5 Tessar from someone who is in my age group and was selling her Dads possessions .
I call it the beast. It's not really pocketable. I also own a Bessa II, which also isn't small and not really pocketable either. The left handed film winder, lack of an automatic film wind stop and left hand shutter release really slow me down - but with only 8 frames per roll, maybe slow is good.
As mentioned, the 524/2 is a slow motion kind of camera. The RF is uncoupled and the film advance is via viewing a red window on the back of the camera. Not exactly the ideal camera for Basketball or Hockey - but you know what, at f5.6 or f8, I'd pit this particular coated Tessar against the Fujinon on my Fuji, (at least close enough for hand-held work using Tri-X).
By the way, the rangefinder isn't too shabby with its 1:1 magnification and a base length between the two windows that is wider than the RF on my big Fuji. The front standard when erected has a solid click.
The second photo is a crop of the first.
There's a manufacturers label by the switch
Are folders really that bad?
I've used both professional grade medium format cameras - and - MF folders. Even with the advances in digital cameras, I still have a Fuji GW 690 III and a slew of medium format folders.
I'll start with the Voightlander Perkeo, which I've have had good luck in getting a keeper. There is always room for a Perkeo in a backpack and three rolls of film. Mine is a Perkeo II. I like the automatic frame stop feature when winding. I've never really given much thought as to whether or not the front standard is perfectly aligned with the film plane.
Does the Skopar lens have the same resolution of a EBC Fujinon or the Zeiss lens on a Hasselblad? Probably not, but I don't really care - because the Perkeo II fits in the front pocket of my Dockers or Cabelas cargo pants.
The story of the repair person mentioned by ozmoose leads me to my next fortunate find - which was local. A few years back I picked up an Ikonta 524/2 with a 3.5 Tessar from someone who is in my age group and was selling her Dads possessions .
I call it the beast. It's not really pocketable. I also own a Bessa II, which also isn't small and not really pocketable either. The left handed film winder, lack of an automatic film wind stop and left hand shutter release really slow me down - but with only 8 frames per roll, maybe slow is good.
As mentioned, the 524/2 is a slow motion kind of camera. The RF is uncoupled and the film advance is via viewing a red window on the back of the camera. Not exactly the ideal camera for Basketball or Hockey - but you know what, at f5.6 or f8, I'd pit this particular coated Tessar against the Fujinon on my Fuji, (at least close enough for hand-held work using Tri-X).
By the way, the rangefinder isn't too shabby with its 1:1 magnification and a base length between the two windows that is wider than the RF on my big Fuji. The front standard when erected has a solid click.
The second photo is a crop of the first.
There's a manufacturers label by the switch
Valdormar
Member
Iskra is my pick
Iskra is my pick
I enjoy classic folders a lot. Over the years I have used Agfa, Fuji, Mamiya, Voigtlander, Seagull, Zeiss, and a few others.
Most used is my Iskra. That 75mm Industar-58 is very special. Bought 5 over the years and I've had to restore all of them.
Great cameras to work on and worth it.
Image taken with my latest restored Iskra (1959 first version (PM7605) Nº6001501
Fomapan 100
@f/4 - 30/sec
ISKRA - Industar-58 'P' 3.5 75mm by Valdormar Hauslendale, on Flickr
Iskra is my pick
I enjoy classic folders a lot. Over the years I have used Agfa, Fuji, Mamiya, Voigtlander, Seagull, Zeiss, and a few others.
Most used is my Iskra. That 75mm Industar-58 is very special. Bought 5 over the years and I've had to restore all of them.
Great cameras to work on and worth it.
Image taken with my latest restored Iskra (1959 first version (PM7605) Nº6001501
Fomapan 100
@f/4 - 30/sec
ISKRA - Industar-58 'P' 3.5 75mm by Valdormar Hauslendale, on Flickr
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
This is a stunning portrait!
Robert.M
Well-known
Folding cameras are wonderful, they are lightweight, compact when folded, and often fitted with quality lens. I have a few dozen and I use them often. We must not forget that these veterans are often 50 years old or more.
The main precaution when buying is to check the condition of the bellows. When using do not forget to advance the film only when the camera is open to prevent aspiration that may compromise the flatness of the film.
If you respect these conditions you can get good results.
Here are some pictures taken with them.
Ihagee Auto Ultrix 6x9 folder
Radionar 4.5/105
Welta Perle 4.5/6 folder
Tessar 4.5/75
Voigtlander Bessa 66 6x6 folder
Heliar 4.5/75
Ensign Selfix 820 6x9 folder
Ross Xpres 3.8/105
The main precaution when buying is to check the condition of the bellows. When using do not forget to advance the film only when the camera is open to prevent aspiration that may compromise the flatness of the film.
If you respect these conditions you can get good results.
Here are some pictures taken with them.
Ihagee Auto Ultrix 6x9 folder
Radionar 4.5/105
Welta Perle 4.5/6 folder
Tessar 4.5/75
Voigtlander Bessa 66 6x6 folder
Heliar 4.5/75
Ensign Selfix 820 6x9 folder
Ross Xpres 3.8/105
Huss
Veteran
really nice pics.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Agreed - exquisite images and great optics.
I see my favourite camera shop has an Ensign Selfix 12-20 for the grand total of £29...
I see my favourite camera shop has an Ensign Selfix 12-20 for the grand total of £29...
donkee
Established
I have had a few kodak folders, down to just one now a Vigilant 620. It actually is a pretty good camera that produces nice images the same as most of the other Kodaks I had. My 2 newest folders are in the "1st roll stage". An Agfa Super Solinette that just came back from Jergen Krekel and Voigtlander Bessa with Voigtar 4.5. I expect to see great images from them and doubt I'll be disappointed. Anyone that doesn't try a nice folder is missing out, IMO.....
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Yes, folders are capable of great images. But how about consistency in image quality?
Has any photographer built his career on folders that you know of? In past or present?
Just asking!
Has any photographer built his career on folders that you know of? In past or present?
Just asking!
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Horses for Courses
Horses for Courses
First, let me mention their strong points. With a Tessar equivalent lens, for landscape and architectural scenes, the high-end folders will match those of a TLR. Second, there is always room in my compact camera bag for medium format folder along side a 35mm. With a medium format TLR or SLR in tow with one of my 35mm cameras, I need a bigger camera bag.
To answer your second question regarding pro use: Not that I know of.
Let's put aside the number of steps necessary the photographer needs to take between exposures. An important is issue that the viewfinders on these camera are for the most part primitive. Leica M-like frame lines with parallax correction weren't part of the game for medium format folders built in the early nineteen fifties.
Composing an image with viewfinder on a medium format TLR or SLR is far superior to any folder built before 1955.
Image quality - the cameras with the better lenses yield consistent results provided that achieve proper focus and the film is wound after the bellows have been extended. With regards to focus, I find that the few medium format folders that used unit focusing lens assemblies coupled to a rangefinder, much easier to focus than a TLR, where I usually need to use the magnifier.
Horses for Courses
First, let me mention their strong points. With a Tessar equivalent lens, for landscape and architectural scenes, the high-end folders will match those of a TLR. Second, there is always room in my compact camera bag for medium format folder along side a 35mm. With a medium format TLR or SLR in tow with one of my 35mm cameras, I need a bigger camera bag.
To answer your second question regarding pro use: Not that I know of.
Let's put aside the number of steps necessary the photographer needs to take between exposures. An important is issue that the viewfinders on these camera are for the most part primitive. Leica M-like frame lines with parallax correction weren't part of the game for medium format folders built in the early nineteen fifties.
Composing an image with viewfinder on a medium format TLR or SLR is far superior to any folder built before 1955.
Image quality - the cameras with the better lenses yield consistent results provided that achieve proper focus and the film is wound after the bellows have been extended. With regards to focus, I find that the few medium format folders that used unit focusing lens assemblies coupled to a rangefinder, much easier to focus than a TLR, where I usually need to use the magnifier.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
A Quick Street Photo take with a Super Isolette
A Quick Street Photo take with a Super Isolette
SuperIso_TioLionel
A Quick Street Photo take with a Super Isolette
SuperIso_TioLionel
donkee
Established
So everyone who takes a photo should use "professional" gear otherwise they are wasting their time? I guess 75% of us on the forum should take up basket weaving instead......
Russell W. Barnes
Well-known
Balda Baldix 6x6 folder, Ennagon f3.5 75mm lens; Ilford Delta 400 in Ilford ID-11 1+3 for 20 mins.
Gnarly Tree by Russell W Barnes, on Flickr
Gnarly Tree by Russell W Barnes, on Flickrjgrainger
Established
I saw this post yesterday and have been considering my response. I actually love and hate folding medium format cameras, both views with a passion...
Where to start.. essentially they bring about ideas based from an idealist mindset, such as having a lovely and compact pocketable camera that is capable of great results.
They are capable of excellent results, yet I don't think so many really reach their potential, largely thanks to the difficulties of combining low weight, folding linkages, pressed parts, dimensional accuracy.. using traditional materials and production methods.
My Kodak 620 Duo produces reasonably sharp 645 photos, it combines a unit focusing Tessar with a fairly rigid folding mechanism, and it's rather small.. it's basically a well made German camera rather than what most people would associate with Kodak and I'd be interesting to see how it compares to the rarer rangefinder version.
It's ideal for a walk around a place worth photographing when you're not there just for taking pictures.. and the appearance means people don't take you too seriously..
That's one of the charms of folding cameras - the friendly stealth-like quality of them.
Most of the time I'm sure some good 35mm cameras give folders a run for their money when it comes to the resolution - a rigid 35mm vs a slightly "off" or tired folding camera, but then the overall look of the prints has that magic due to the larger negative, and partly due to uncoated or single coated lenses.
I have tried the idea of top of the range folding cameras.. coupled rangefinders, unit focusing, large negatives, fast lenses..
I'm now convinced that the idea is better in theory than practice.. there's added weight and the issues of trying to make a folding camera top-notch - which sort of defeats the purpose of them, when there are rigid cameras which can be bought cheaper, producing better results.. I mean, how far do you take it.. to have a top-notch camera you may want to be using a yellow filter and sunshade.. these you have to remove to shut the camera, bringing it back to being a rigid camera with greater fragility of the folding parts and bellows, not to mention the ergonomics of working round those parts when in use. Even the sunshade and filter are likely to gather dust unless you're careful about storing etc - so that's all extra stuff to be doing between each shot, or few shots, and you compromise on the reasons you might want a coupled rangefinder or fast lens, if that includes spontaneity, convenience, ease of carrying (with the additional dust-free filter and sunshade pouch).
Then there's also some engineering philosophy such as Zeiss's decision to use and stick with the front cell focusing mechanism.. only one maker but certainly a prominent one - relevant because so many of their cameras survive (I do like their rigidity compared to some).
On that topic, compare the rigidity and dimensional accuracy / stability of a sheet metal folder body with solid top plate vs the body of a Kodak Medalist / Zeiss Contax / period Leica / press camera.. I think when one starts getting to the idea of seriously using one of the top models, there is a point when a rigid camera should be considered.
I'm not entirely against those top of the range folding cameras btw, just haven't found one which meets my expectations of being a top model (in terms of what I expect vs actual performance) compared to that of simpler models/ 35mm rigid rangefinders/ affordable rigid medium-format models, etc. I do have a soft spot for large format folding press cameras, particularly the Busch Pressman - they are built for professional use.
I also really like the whole polished never-ready cases with matching strap, chrome (or nickel) and aesthetically stylish design from a bygone era, little is better at that than a fancy folding camera.
Where to start.. essentially they bring about ideas based from an idealist mindset, such as having a lovely and compact pocketable camera that is capable of great results.
They are capable of excellent results, yet I don't think so many really reach their potential, largely thanks to the difficulties of combining low weight, folding linkages, pressed parts, dimensional accuracy.. using traditional materials and production methods.
My Kodak 620 Duo produces reasonably sharp 645 photos, it combines a unit focusing Tessar with a fairly rigid folding mechanism, and it's rather small.. it's basically a well made German camera rather than what most people would associate with Kodak and I'd be interesting to see how it compares to the rarer rangefinder version.
It's ideal for a walk around a place worth photographing when you're not there just for taking pictures.. and the appearance means people don't take you too seriously..
That's one of the charms of folding cameras - the friendly stealth-like quality of them.
Most of the time I'm sure some good 35mm cameras give folders a run for their money when it comes to the resolution - a rigid 35mm vs a slightly "off" or tired folding camera, but then the overall look of the prints has that magic due to the larger negative, and partly due to uncoated or single coated lenses.
I have tried the idea of top of the range folding cameras.. coupled rangefinders, unit focusing, large negatives, fast lenses..
I'm now convinced that the idea is better in theory than practice.. there's added weight and the issues of trying to make a folding camera top-notch - which sort of defeats the purpose of them, when there are rigid cameras which can be bought cheaper, producing better results.. I mean, how far do you take it.. to have a top-notch camera you may want to be using a yellow filter and sunshade.. these you have to remove to shut the camera, bringing it back to being a rigid camera with greater fragility of the folding parts and bellows, not to mention the ergonomics of working round those parts when in use. Even the sunshade and filter are likely to gather dust unless you're careful about storing etc - so that's all extra stuff to be doing between each shot, or few shots, and you compromise on the reasons you might want a coupled rangefinder or fast lens, if that includes spontaneity, convenience, ease of carrying (with the additional dust-free filter and sunshade pouch).
Then there's also some engineering philosophy such as Zeiss's decision to use and stick with the front cell focusing mechanism.. only one maker but certainly a prominent one - relevant because so many of their cameras survive (I do like their rigidity compared to some).
On that topic, compare the rigidity and dimensional accuracy / stability of a sheet metal folder body with solid top plate vs the body of a Kodak Medalist / Zeiss Contax / period Leica / press camera.. I think when one starts getting to the idea of seriously using one of the top models, there is a point when a rigid camera should be considered.
I'm not entirely against those top of the range folding cameras btw, just haven't found one which meets my expectations of being a top model (in terms of what I expect vs actual performance) compared to that of simpler models/ 35mm rigid rangefinders/ affordable rigid medium-format models, etc. I do have a soft spot for large format folding press cameras, particularly the Busch Pressman - they are built for professional use.
I also really like the whole polished never-ready cases with matching strap, chrome (or nickel) and aesthetically stylish design from a bygone era, little is better at that than a fancy folding camera.
Joao
Negativistic forever
I guess I have been lucky with folders
Zeiss Ikonta 521 (bought for around 20 euros in a Prague fleamarket, needed a lens cleaning, now fully functional)
ISKRA bought as a “for parts” camera from a US seller, sent to Oleg – yes, he repaired them at that time – and now working very well ( apart from a stiff focus ring…)
Isolette (needed a cleaning at the lens helical, easy to do). Working fine, at least until I sold it
Black boat by João Freitas, no Flickr
Regards
Joao
Zeiss Ikonta 521 (bought for around 20 euros in a Prague fleamarket, needed a lens cleaning, now fully functional)
ISKRA bought as a “for parts” camera from a US seller, sent to Oleg – yes, he repaired them at that time – and now working very well ( apart from a stiff focus ring…)
Isolette (needed a cleaning at the lens helical, easy to do). Working fine, at least until I sold it
Black boat by João Freitas, no FlickrRegards
Joao
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
Its too bad “making” really wide old roll film sizes is not practical because some early folders gave massive postcard negatives.
aizan
Veteran
And years later, I ended up getting a Voigtländer Rollfilm. The dial-set Compur shutter only shoots at one speed, so it’s sitting around until I can open it up and see what’s wrong.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Getting that 70 year old camera serviced?
Getting that 70 year old camera serviced?
A well sorted medium format folder has the signature of a larger negative with regards to tonality and transitional contrast. Essentially more pixels and photons are involved in recording the image.
One worry that comes to mind when reading your post is that most of these cameras are getting close to 70 years old and receiving a camera that is well-sorted.
Before placing the first roll of film in a newly acquired medium format folder, I personally check if the lens is colimated correctly at infinity and check the shutter operation. I'll be honest here, I've had a couple that were unserviceable/unrepairable due to either a bent or loose front standards, which is the lens mount. With that said, I've been able to sort out issues on the rest. Nearly all of them have required removal of the shutter to very lightly clean and lube the pivot points in their geared escapements.
My Perkeo II was the only camera that was spot-on with regards to both lens and shutter when purchased - However, I did remove and reinstall the viewfinder for cleaning. - That's a wrap with regards to a well-sorted medium format camera.
With regards to resolution - a four element in three groups, Tessar type lens for medium format has a very different signature in the corners of the frame when compared to a modern Planar design for a 35mm camera when shot wide open at f/3.5. For anyone obsessed with lines per mm of resolution be ready to utilize an f8 to f16 aperture range, when using a nearly 70 year old medium format folding camera.
Getting that 70 year old camera serviced?
A well sorted medium format folder has the signature of a larger negative with regards to tonality and transitional contrast. Essentially more pixels and photons are involved in recording the image.
One worry that comes to mind when reading your post is that most of these cameras are getting close to 70 years old and receiving a camera that is well-sorted.
Before placing the first roll of film in a newly acquired medium format folder, I personally check if the lens is colimated correctly at infinity and check the shutter operation. I'll be honest here, I've had a couple that were unserviceable/unrepairable due to either a bent or loose front standards, which is the lens mount. With that said, I've been able to sort out issues on the rest. Nearly all of them have required removal of the shutter to very lightly clean and lube the pivot points in their geared escapements.
My Perkeo II was the only camera that was spot-on with regards to both lens and shutter when purchased - However, I did remove and reinstall the viewfinder for cleaning. - That's a wrap with regards to a well-sorted medium format camera.
With regards to resolution - a four element in three groups, Tessar type lens for medium format has a very different signature in the corners of the frame when compared to a modern Planar design for a 35mm camera when shot wide open at f/3.5. For anyone obsessed with lines per mm of resolution be ready to utilize an f8 to f16 aperture range, when using a nearly 70 year old medium format folding camera.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Just a not so quick edit to point I was trying to make with regards to using an old camera that all its issues sorted out versus a random drawer/attic queen from eBay: Medium format folders are much, much, easier to work on than modern cameras from the post 1955 era. What I've noticed through various purchases is that the Compur leaf shutters aren't always smooth performers, if they haven't been used for decades. Reviving the leaf shutters gives me a chance to cleaning the inner lens surfaces and collimate the lens at infinity.
Secondly and last, I just love the way these old Tessar-type lens render an image on 6x9 film.
Secondly and last, I just love the way these old Tessar-type lens render an image on 6x9 film.
ranger9
Well-known
To respond to one earlier question: I believe André Kertész started out working with a folding camera (because he was a soldier in the trenches of the Great War and needed something he could carry in his uniform pocket.) I can't think of any other big-name photographers who are known for using folding cameras (other than Speed Graphics, Miroflexes, and such) but that doesn't mean there weren’t any!
Re the more common rollfilm folders, the only one I know much about is my Mamiya Six Automat, and I think it answers most of the issues others have raised in this thread. Its front standard is super-rigid (thanks to Mr. Mamiya's cleverness in making it focus by moving the film plane rather than the lens), it has a high-quality lens and shutter, and it has the full complement of '50s “convenience features” such as automatic film stop and shutter cocking. Film flatness is no problem because there's a big whacking slide-in pressure plate that clamps it down. The only places it falls short by modern standards are the typically '50s smallish, darkish range/viewfinder and the lack of interchangeable lenses.
Re the more common rollfilm folders, the only one I know much about is my Mamiya Six Automat, and I think it answers most of the issues others have raised in this thread. Its front standard is super-rigid (thanks to Mr. Mamiya's cleverness in making it focus by moving the film plane rather than the lens), it has a high-quality lens and shutter, and it has the full complement of '50s “convenience features” such as automatic film stop and shutter cocking. Film flatness is no problem because there's a big whacking slide-in pressure plate that clamps it down. The only places it falls short by modern standards are the typically '50s smallish, darkish range/viewfinder and the lack of interchangeable lenses.