Pioneer
Veteran
I am beginning a project where I will be using 6x9 medium format but I would like to get some opinions. The majority of the shots will be scenic/landscape type photography featuring mountains, deserts, ghost towns, rural towns, mines, mining equipment, etc. If a worthwhile wildlife shot presents itself I will certainly take it but I am not purposely going out for that purpose. I have considered 4x5, and may use some along the line as well, but I have no easy way to scan these negatives.
I own a very nice Voigtlander Bessa II with a Color Heliar 105/3.5 lens and I also own a very nice Kodak Monitor Six-20 with the Anistigmat Special 101/4.5 lens. Both lenses are very clean and the focus is quite accurate.
The Bessa II has a rangefinder and it has proven itself to be quite accurate in test photos. The Kodak Monitor does not have a rangefinder but I do own an accessory rangefinder that uses the same scale as found on the Monitor and is quite accurate as well. Of course, a lot of the photographs will be taken using scale focus anyway.
The Monitor uses 620 roll film and the Voigtlander uses 120 roll film. Obviously 120 film is available at decent prices whereas 620 film is now pretty specialty and quite costly. But for me that is pretty much a non-issue since I re-roll 120 to 620 all the time. It is really no different than hand rolling 35mm film.
I will be using Kodak TriX and/or Kodak TMY no matter which camera I use. The great majority, if not all, photography will be done with a tripod.
I have already tested the shutters and they are actually pretty accurate thoughout the range. In both cases the 1/400 speed is actually 1/350 but the remaining speeds are very close to the advertised speed. The Kodak Monitor uses the Kodak Flash Supermatic with speeds from Bulb through 1/400 seconds. The Bessa II uses a Compur Rapid with an identical range of shutter speeds.
My question for you is this; which of these cameras would you use and why?
I own a very nice Voigtlander Bessa II with a Color Heliar 105/3.5 lens and I also own a very nice Kodak Monitor Six-20 with the Anistigmat Special 101/4.5 lens. Both lenses are very clean and the focus is quite accurate.
The Bessa II has a rangefinder and it has proven itself to be quite accurate in test photos. The Kodak Monitor does not have a rangefinder but I do own an accessory rangefinder that uses the same scale as found on the Monitor and is quite accurate as well. Of course, a lot of the photographs will be taken using scale focus anyway.
The Monitor uses 620 roll film and the Voigtlander uses 120 roll film. Obviously 120 film is available at decent prices whereas 620 film is now pretty specialty and quite costly. But for me that is pretty much a non-issue since I re-roll 120 to 620 all the time. It is really no different than hand rolling 35mm film.
I will be using Kodak TriX and/or Kodak TMY no matter which camera I use. The great majority, if not all, photography will be done with a tripod.
I have already tested the shutters and they are actually pretty accurate thoughout the range. In both cases the 1/400 speed is actually 1/350 but the remaining speeds are very close to the advertised speed. The Kodak Monitor uses the Kodak Flash Supermatic with speeds from Bulb through 1/400 seconds. The Bessa II uses a Compur Rapid with an identical range of shutter speeds.
My question for you is this; which of these cameras would you use and why?
farlymac
PF McFarland
The Bessa, for two reasons. One, it has a rangefinder, which will come in very handy when doing close focusing. And secondly, since this is going to be a long project, 120 film seems more convenient than having to guess how many rolls to re-roll per day for use.
PF
PF
vitaly66
slightly tilted
Bessa all the way:
* unit focusing lens
* heliar "magic"
* rangefinder
* 120 film (without respooling)
* unit focusing lens
* heliar "magic"
* rangefinder
* 120 film (without respooling)
02Pilot
Malcontent
I'm not personally acquainted with either of those lenses, but I'd consider how I felt about their respective rendering qualities before anything else. If there's not much to choose between the two lenses, I'd go with the one I found more natural to use. If again there's no significant difference, and there may not be given the tripod use, I'd choose the Bessa, since it eliminates the need to respool the film; I know it's not hard to do, but it adds time to the process.
CMur12
Veteran
I think 02Pilot makes some good points about going with whichever camera you handle most naturally. Other points made above are also worthy considerations.
I'm not familiar with the Kodak Monitor, but I once had a Bessa II with the Color Skopar lens (and shutter speeds to 1/500) and I was blown away by the chromes I got from it. It was a lovely camera and I only let it go because it was too difficult to sight through the squinty finder while wearing glasses. I don't know if you wear glasses and I know nothing about the finder on the Monitor.
- Murray
I'm not familiar with the Kodak Monitor, but I once had a Bessa II with the Color Skopar lens (and shutter speeds to 1/500) and I was blown away by the chromes I got from it. It was a lovely camera and I only let it go because it was too difficult to sight through the squinty finder while wearing glasses. I don't know if you wear glasses and I know nothing about the finder on the Monitor.
- Murray
Swift1
Veteran
Get the best of both with a Kodak Medalist II 
In all seriousness though...
In my mind, it comes down to the lenses and the look they create. Do you prefer the Heliar, or the Tessar type Kodak lens.
I would personally be tempted to go with the Kodak, partially because I think it's probably underrated, and different.
In all seriousness though...
In my mind, it comes down to the lenses and the look they create. Do you prefer the Heliar, or the Tessar type Kodak lens.
I would personally be tempted to go with the Kodak, partially because I think it's probably underrated, and different.
Pioneer
Veteran
Both of the lenses are very nice. Most of the results will end up in a book so either lens is certainly adequate for the task. I will however be printing some of the photographs at 1x14 and larger so I do need to do some testing at these sizes to get a feel for the final results.
Another thing I should test is the color film performance. Though my work will primarily be in black and white there are certain photos that are better done in color.
I have owned both cameras for awhile and have been pretty happy with both of them. Though there is the inconvenience of re-rolling 120 to 620 the Monitor is very easy to work with in the field. The Bessa II viewfinder can be a bit squinty to use at times, but the Monitor has a very clear, large, parallax corrected viewfinder and another waist level brilliant finder on the lens itself that rotates for landscape and portrait views. It is also very clear and easy to work with. The other nice thing about the monitor is that once the first frame is set, the camera has a handy film advance mechanism that stops at each frame after the first one without having to use the red window on the back.
At this point I really am not leaning either way, but I think it should be realized that the Monitor, while not having a built in rangefinder and requiring re-rolled film, does have some great user advantages.
Another thing I should test is the color film performance. Though my work will primarily be in black and white there are certain photos that are better done in color.
I have owned both cameras for awhile and have been pretty happy with both of them. Though there is the inconvenience of re-rolling 120 to 620 the Monitor is very easy to work with in the field. The Bessa II viewfinder can be a bit squinty to use at times, but the Monitor has a very clear, large, parallax corrected viewfinder and another waist level brilliant finder on the lens itself that rotates for landscape and portrait views. It is also very clear and easy to work with. The other nice thing about the monitor is that once the first frame is set, the camera has a handy film advance mechanism that stops at each frame after the first one without having to use the red window on the back.
At this point I really am not leaning either way, but I think it should be realized that the Monitor, while not having a built in rangefinder and requiring re-rolled film, does have some great user advantages.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Anyone know if there is an easy mod of the Monitor to take 120 spools in the supply side? I think that's a common thing on the Kodak Medalist, to modify only the supply side for 120. Then you need a supply of 620 reels for take-up, and to remember to save them after devleoping. This eliminates the need to respool.
I'm not certain how you can do wildlife with either camera.
Another approach, but it requires new equipment. A Horseman VH 6x9 view camera. This allows for different lenes, wide and telephoto. The ground glass leads to a deliberateness in shooting, as you know from 4x5.
Other than that, as people have said, which lens do you like? Which camera works for you? Either one can be made to work.
I'm not certain how you can do wildlife with either camera.
Another approach, but it requires new equipment. A Horseman VH 6x9 view camera. This allows for different lenes, wide and telephoto. The ground glass leads to a deliberateness in shooting, as you know from 4x5.
Other than that, as people have said, which lens do you like? Which camera works for you? Either one can be made to work.
shawn
Veteran
"Anyone know if there is an easy mod of the Monitor to take 120 spools in the supply side?"
On older Monitors you can simply clip the 120 spool with nail clippers (at the indent on the spool) and use it like that with a 620 take up spool. Later model Monitors have a different film holder that prevents that from working. Details in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145297&highlight=shawn
BTW, the Monitor auto film advance works by measuring film movement directly, it isn't based on the spool rotation. As such if you change the winder key to fit a 120 roll you should be able to use the clipped 120 spools in the take up side too. I haven't tried that yet though.
Shawn
On older Monitors you can simply clip the 120 spool with nail clippers (at the indent on the spool) and use it like that with a 620 take up spool. Later model Monitors have a different film holder that prevents that from working. Details in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145297&highlight=shawn
BTW, the Monitor auto film advance works by measuring film movement directly, it isn't based on the spool rotation. As such if you change the winder key to fit a 120 roll you should be able to use the clipped 120 spools in the take up side too. I haven't tried that yet though.
Shawn
Pioneer
Veteran
What Shawn says. I did look into this but mine is a newer version so it doesn't work. Also, the problem with using a 120 roll on the take up is that the slots are different and the film advance key for the 620 camera won't work in 120 spools. In the end it was just so easy to re-spool 120 onto 620 spools that it didn't make a lot of sense to change the camera to accept the 120 roll.
Your mention of the Horseman did get me thinking thought. I do have a Baby Graphic that shoots 6x9 sheet film. Graflex did make a 120 roll film holder that would fit the camera so I may look into this. It also allows exchangeable lenses if I want. The problem, of course, is that the Baby Graphic, though small, is still a lot larger than either one of the folders.
Ah well, lots to think about. Thanks.
Your mention of the Horseman did get me thinking thought. I do have a Baby Graphic that shoots 6x9 sheet film. Graflex did make a 120 roll film holder that would fit the camera so I may look into this. It also allows exchangeable lenses if I want. The problem, of course, is that the Baby Graphic, though small, is still a lot larger than either one of the folders.
Ah well, lots to think about. Thanks.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Here I have the Bessa I with the Color Skopar + Prontor and the Monitor 620 Anastigmat Special. Not a frequent shooter but I have more images of the Monitor printed at large sizes than images of the Bessa I. For one reason or another. They have more appeal or I had the Anastigmat Special with me on more rewarding moments.
I usually had the Iskra rangefinder with me so could use its rangefinder to get the distance for either Bessa or Monitor but a rangefinder that gives the information in feet is more handy.
I have written about this before: in the end I transplanted the Anastigmat Special on an Agfa Record body to overcome the 620 film issues. I had the Monitor converted to 120 film but was not really happy with that conversion. The Record body is slimmer, lighter, better ergonomics too, slightly wider frame size and better shutter button transfer with some DIY work. Lost the auto frame counter that way. The stiff bellow crops the images a bit on the vertical but I can live with that.
You choice is harder to make, the Heliar should be better than my Skopar, the integrated rangefinder a huge advantage. As a viewfinder quite small though when I tried one at a camera fair.
Ernst Dinkla
I usually had the Iskra rangefinder with me so could use its rangefinder to get the distance for either Bessa or Monitor but a rangefinder that gives the information in feet is more handy.
I have written about this before: in the end I transplanted the Anastigmat Special on an Agfa Record body to overcome the 620 film issues. I had the Monitor converted to 120 film but was not really happy with that conversion. The Record body is slimmer, lighter, better ergonomics too, slightly wider frame size and better shutter button transfer with some DIY work. Lost the auto frame counter that way. The stiff bellow crops the images a bit on the vertical but I can live with that.
You choice is harder to make, the Heliar should be better than my Skopar, the integrated rangefinder a huge advantage. As a viewfinder quite small though when I tried one at a camera fair.
Ernst Dinkla
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't have either of those cameras, so I can't comment on them. I do have a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 folder that I like a lot. No rangefinder so it is thin and light. It uses zone focus but that hasn't been a problem for me. I learned how to estimate distance as a teenager and to put that into my work flow with cameras that needed it.
If the 620 rewind isn't a problem, and you like the Monitor as well as you seem to, that may be the one. But if you are willing to consider a Baby Graphic, why not just take both, unless the idea of interchangeable lenses is that important. But I don't think any of the Graphic's lenses will give you the look of the Bessa or Kodak if you like that.
Good luck in your choice. Hope we get seen some of the photos along your way.
besk
Well-known
If you have a Graflok back on the miniature graphic you can adapt the Horseman film holders to it as I did. It is not difficult at all.
The advantage of the graphic is interchangeable lenses plus a ground glass back. I use a 65mm Angulon and a 100/5.6 Apo-Symmar on mine but also have a Kodak 80/6.3 Widefield and a Kodak 105/3.7 available.
The Kodak Ektar 105/3.7 is a Heliar design and was a "standard" for these cameras.
The advantage of the graphic is interchangeable lenses plus a ground glass back. I use a 65mm Angulon and a 100/5.6 Apo-Symmar on mine but also have a Kodak 80/6.3 Widefield and a Kodak 105/3.7 available.
The Kodak Ektar 105/3.7 is a Heliar design and was a "standard" for these cameras.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I second the Medalist II. It has a Heliar type lens, which is quite the killer in sharpness. I had mine modified to take 120 film by Ken Ruth. The ultimate in convenience and imaging. The RF is accurate, and the film winding stops automatically at the next frame. Unfortunately, my top speed is actually 1/200 instead of 1/400. It happens when the spring comes from the late 1940s/early 1950s.
I also have a Bessa RF (the precursor to the Bessa II). Small, light, and the separate VF and RF windows (like on an LTM Leica) means that the VF is not dim in any way. The RF is magnified also. Plus, there is the benefit of the ability to take 6 x 4.5cm shots with the mask in the film gate. I've just run my first film through it, so I can't tell yet how that Color Heliar lens is working. Mine is vintage 1947.
Actually, for your purposes, I'd recommend the new Bessa IIIW. Modern, fully corrected lens with auto exposure. And, a shutter that is truly silent. You'd probably appreciate the wide angle view, which is somewhat akin to 28mm (equivalent to 135 film) as 6x6, and maybe a 25mm as 6 x7. I've just run my first roll through this one too. But the person who sold it to me remarked on how incredible this lens was.
I also have a Bessa RF (the precursor to the Bessa II). Small, light, and the separate VF and RF windows (like on an LTM Leica) means that the VF is not dim in any way. The RF is magnified also. Plus, there is the benefit of the ability to take 6 x 4.5cm shots with the mask in the film gate. I've just run my first film through it, so I can't tell yet how that Color Heliar lens is working. Mine is vintage 1947.
Actually, for your purposes, I'd recommend the new Bessa IIIW. Modern, fully corrected lens with auto exposure. And, a shutter that is truly silent. You'd probably appreciate the wide angle view, which is somewhat akin to 28mm (equivalent to 135 film) as 6x6, and maybe a 25mm as 6 x7. I've just run my first roll through this one too. But the person who sold it to me remarked on how incredible this lens was.
citizen99
Well-known
I also have a Bessa RF, and a Medalist I . I love them both, but as pointed out above, the Bessa is great for 'pocketability'. The Heliar lens on mine is dated to ~1937 by the serial number, and is both sharp and 'not soft' - colours with Ektar 100 are vivid. The Color-Heliar of the Bessa II must be at least as good !
Swift1
Veteran
Are you saying your Medalist Ektar lens is dated 1937?
Pioneer
Veteran
I sincerely doubt I'll try to do this right now but if you have any references to adapting the Kodak Anistigmat Special to the Agfa Record I would certainly like to review the information.
Pioneer
Veteran
I have a 6x9 Graphlex 23 roll film holder on the way for the Baby Speed and I'll play around a bit with it this upcoming weekend. The extra size and weight may be worthwhile if the image quality of the Kodak Ektar 101/4.5 lens.
I am really not a big "lens tester" since I believe that there are a lot of variables involved, and field results don't usually justify the work it takes. But if I do see a substantial quality difference between the Kodak Ektar lens and the other two (Kodak Anistigmat Special and Color Heliar) then I may consider it. However, of my experience means anything, the two 6x9 folders will hold their own with no difficulty.
So far I have seen tons of good ideas and good advice. Thanks everyone for your opinions. I do have a bit of testing to do this weekend and I'll try to post some of the images for your review and comment.
kuzano
Veteran
I'm for the Voightlander.
I'm for the Voightlander.
Have never seen a Voightlander with a bad bellows. Have seen more than a few bad bellows on Kodaks..
The internal rangefinder and Heliar are points for the BESSA. That same rangefinder mechanism was used in the BESSA RF many years before very succesfully.
I'd opt for 6X9 over 4X5, Because I like to shoot two, sometimes 3 overlapped images, scan them an stitch them for close to 6x17 or 6x24 panoramas. Love those long scenics. This has worked well for me.
I now use a Fujica Gl690 for such panoramas. Thinking about getting a GSW690 for a bit lighter camera. Spot on focus when rangefinder adjusted properly. No batteries,
But in your post, I'd pick the Bessa. I really liked my older BESSA RF.
I'm for the Voightlander.
Have never seen a Voightlander with a bad bellows. Have seen more than a few bad bellows on Kodaks..
The internal rangefinder and Heliar are points for the BESSA. That same rangefinder mechanism was used in the BESSA RF many years before very succesfully.
I'd opt for 6X9 over 4X5, Because I like to shoot two, sometimes 3 overlapped images, scan them an stitch them for close to 6x17 or 6x24 panoramas. Love those long scenics. This has worked well for me.
I now use a Fujica Gl690 for such panoramas. Thinking about getting a GSW690 for a bit lighter camera. Spot on focus when rangefinder adjusted properly. No batteries,
But in your post, I'd pick the Bessa. I really liked my older BESSA RF.
citizen99
Well-known
Sorry, my wording could have been more explict
; the Heliar lens on the Bessa RF is the one dating to ~1937.Just for information, CAMEROSITY dates the Ektar of the Medalist to 1943.
Oh, and my reference to 'Ektar 100' referred to the film. Kodak's ambiguity of 'Ektar' for film and lens ... and don't even mention the Ektra cameras !