Balda-Baldax anyone?

[Dave Wilkinson]

My cravings, and expenditure on expensive kit has about disappeared these days ( honestly! ), but I do occasionaly treat myself to a 'cheapie' - when I have been a good lad!, and something takes my fancy!. Currently I have my beady eye on a Baldax 6x6 rangefinder from the fifties, with f3.5 80mm Baldanar lens. I suspect this lens may not rival the Schneiders and Ziess lenses that are on a lot of these folders, but would be interested to hear opinions ( if any! ) and maybe a picture or two? 🙂........but it's not too big deal - if one of my cheapies does'nt work out!
Cheers, Dave.

 

[dazedgonebye]

The Baldanar is a three element lens. Good stopped down, but not super sharp otherwise.
Is the rangefinder coupled? If so, you're talking about a Super Baldax.
If the rangefinder is not coupled, you're looking at a Mess Baldix.

I've had both, still have the super with a 4 element f2.8 lens. They have quirks, but are very small and competent.

 

[charjohncarter]

It can't be any worse than the Balda Hapo66E Enna lens:

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

The Baldanar is a three element lens. Good stopped down, but not super sharp otherwise.
Is the rangefinder coupled? If so, you're talking about a Super Baldax.
If the rangefinder is not coupled, you're looking at a Mess Baldix.

I've had both, still have the super with a 4 element f2.8 lens. They have quirks, but are very small and competent.

Thanks Steve - yes it is the 'Super Baldax', but only the f3.5, is the v/f and r/f decent?. not handled yet.
Dave.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Thanks Steve - yes it is the 'Super Baldax', but only the f3.5, is the v/f and r/f decent?. not handled yet.
Dave.

It's about what you'd expect from the 1950s. Not spectacular, but usable without being too annoying.
It's a very small camera.
This is the only picture I have that shows any kind of scale...using the attached meter.

The clever film counting system has been unreliable on my two copies, but it has a red window and that works fine.

 

[charjohncarter]

It's about what you'd expect from the 1950s. Not spectacular, but usable without being too annoying.
It's a very small camera.
This is the only picture I have that shows any kind of scale...using the attached meter.

The clever film counting system has been unreliable on my two copies, but it has a red window and that works fine.

My 'clever film counting system' works, but I have to get my notes out everytime I use it. I have never seen anything like it. If it breaks down I won't be losing any sleep. By the way, I don't think my lens is bad. In fact, after I got the RF keyed in it is just fine for me.

 

[imajypsee]

I have that very camera

I have that very camera

and it makes very good pictures -- IF you get the damn thing loaded correctly. I managed to load the film loose and ruined a whole roll somehow. As far as sharpness in the lens, it's fine, but I'm not a "sharpness" seeker, so my opinion may not be useful. The VF is ok as long as you have some light. Winding the thing is nutty (you wind counterclockwise and then clockwise) and mine works.

Here's one at f/3.5; 1/30s; Tmax 100 film

same film, stopped down shutter

 

[malkmata]

I just got the Super Baldax a few months ago with a Radionar f2.9 lens. It's not as sharp as the Xenar from my Rolliecord but the small folder is very handy to carry around. I find the rangefinder very good and bright.

A couple of shots with Neopan 400.