Balda Super Baldax - really using it

[raccou]

So I'm shooting a rz67 pro II almost exclusively these days, but as you can imagine, I do get tired of lugging it around. I don't do street photography - mostly planned stuff with models, but I miss having a camera on me and to be honest, 35mm just doesn't do it anymore for me. So I'm looking for a camera to have on me more often. I was thinking about a hasselblad (yeah, not that compact, but compared to a rz67, a lot of cameras are portable 🙂 ) but I don't think I would want to risk having a another camera that's too big to take a long.
I've been doing some research and I found that maybe a 120 folder would do it. I came up with the Balda Super Baldax.
I've found one with a Ennit f2.8 synchro compur - early version (chrome lens ring, 4 digit serial). The camera has had a CLA by the owner and the only thing that's a bit off is some cleaning marks on the front lens element. He's asking €250 post paid.
My question is, how usable is this camera (or this type of camera)?
I would like to really use this camera (mainly portraits, still life and some other photography), I like low light (how is the finder?)

What do you think of the price?

Thanks!

 

[OlliL]

For that kind of money, I'd rather get a late Super Ikonta.
The VF is much better and even the "lesser" lenses are very good.

The Baldax is great though. Especially the Ennitar is superb.

When I bought (and sold bc of the VF) mine in 2010 I paid 60€ for it,
which I honestly think is reasonable. The prices just went crazy since then.

 

[graywolf]

Like most antique cameras, a good one is a dream, a bad one a nightmare.

I have a Hapo 66e which is a Baldix with the uncoupled rangefinder, the Super Baldax you are looking at has a coupled rangefinder. The Ennit has a good reputation.

All the viewfinder cameras of that era, save only the Leica M3, have really poor viewfinders by modern standards. Once you realized that even drugstore prints were cropped quite a bit back then, they do not seem so bad. You just have to learn to leave a little air around your subject.

Unfortunately, the collectors are driving the prices of nice cameras into the stratosphere, and the "my camera is really valuable" crowd have silly BIN's on their cameras. The $100 price on the Super Baldax, I paid that for the Hapo, that was common a few years back is probably gone forever. I gave up on finding one I could afford and bought an Iskra.

They seem to be pretty common in England, here in the states they are fairly uncommon. The strange thing about the prices on them is that they were relatively cheap cameras when new. The one you are looking at is the only one they made with a top quality lens and shutter. Most of the Baldas, even the Super Baldax, have slower shutters and 3 element lenses.

$320 does seem a bit high for a self-serviced camera with a scuffed lens. Probably in the right range ($300-350) for a professionally serviced one with a pristine lens. I would suggest getting a cheap 120 folder first to try out the waters, no use spending big money when a $25 camera will take almost as nice a photo.

If you find you like using it, then is the time to look for a top of the line camera.

 

[Sanders McNew]

I have a Super Baldax and they are nice cameras
for what they are. But if you are looking for a
compact medium format camera (and especially
if you consider a Hasselblad "compact") you
really should consider a Rolleiflex TLR. If weight
is a concern, look for an Automat or a T with a 3.5
Xenar/Tessar, or a Rolleicord -- any of these
would lead you in short order to shelve the folder.

The box form of the Rolleiflex makes it a bit
harder to carry around, compared to the folders.
But it is much more compact than just about any
other MF option. The form, the leaf shutter, and
the absence of a moving mirror inside, make them
easy to balance and shoot at slow shutter speeds.