cheap medium format coupled rangefinder

[Roger Hicks]

I've had a few of the Fujis (GS645, GS645W, GA645), a brace of the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas (645, 6x6, 6x9 models, can't remember the designations), a Balda Baldax (scale focus), and a Voigtländer Perkeo II (scale focus) over the past 25 years. All are gone now except the Perkeo II, for which I found a nice clip-on Voigtländer rangefinder (as well as a couple of others!).

The Perkeo II has been my favorite MF compact/folder for some years now. It has an excellent lens and folds up very small and light, with a quality feel that is the equal of the Super Ikontas but much lighter. I had it overhauled (cleaned, a couple of rusty bits replaced, etc) a few years back to solve some minor issues with the film transport, so it now feels like a new camera. The lack of a coupled rangefinder means it's a bit slower working, but it also means it's likely a bit more reliable.

I think I paid $125 for the Perkeo II when I got it, but the overhaul cost about $170. That's not too bad for an EXC+ camera now sixty-five years old with this level of quality.

info: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Voigtländer_Perkeo_II

G

Dear Godfrey,

Indeed, I prefer the quality of top-of-the-line Voigtlanders to similar Zeiss cameras. As I say in the piece referenced (and now linked) above,

But then, Voigtlander Bessas (I, no rangefinder, II, rangefinder) are nowadays very expensive too, though they are even better made and are usually equipped with even better lenses. I'd rather have a 1950s Bessa myself.

I have a Bessa I with a beautiful, sparkling-clean 105/3.5 Color Skopar in a Prontor SV, but it has a most improbable defect: no pressure plate! I didn't notice when I bought it (for 15€ at a vide-grenier) because who, after all, manages to lose a pressure plate? Ever since, I've been looking for a scrapper to serve as a donor. Years ago, someone kindly sent me a pattern for cutting a new pressure plate but I decided that my metal-working skills weren't up to it.

It's also missing the 645 mask but I don't really care (and wouldn't care it it were working, either) because for me, most of the reason for roll-film is the tonality and bigger is better. Also, with front-cell focusing on a Tessar-type lens, I've always found that 645 is pushing your luck a bit at full aperture.

Note to OP: BEWARE of 620 cameras (same film, smaller metal spool). Some are happy rewinding 120 onto 620 spools but I've always found it more trouble than it's worth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[oftheherd]

I think the Mamiya Super 23 is a bargain. It takes a variety of lenses, on the wide end there's a 65mm that's not terribly expensive (the viewfinder costs a bit though), a 90mm and 150mm are commonplace. It takes interchangeable backs 6x4.5 to 6x9, including a sheet film adapter. It's rangefinder coupled, of course. It's a press camera, so it's hand holdable as long as you have the handle (still a bit heavy though).

I also own a Super Press 23. Unfortunately, it is not small and light. :bang:

If the OP can give up the small and light, it is a nice camera with very good lenses. The 65mm lens is small and light for medium format. There is also a 50mm lens that is superb when in good shape. Hire two men and a boy to carry it. There is also a 250mm f/5 lens. It works with a selectable viewfinder 250 frame, no special viewfinder needed. It does require a caisson with a team of strong horses to pull it.

 

[citizen99]

I had various Voigtlander Bessa RF (6x9, late '30s to early '50s) models which I found nice to use (if you don't mind separate windows for the VF and RF). Just watch out for distortion of the lens standard by people having tried to force it closed without pressing the release tab (luckily one of those never came my way).
The Helomar triplet is good, the Skopar 4-glass and Heliar 5-glass are excellent.

It's later successor the Bessa II usually goes for a bit more, has the Color-Skopar or Color-Heliar.

PS I drafted this before seeing Roger's post above - nice to see commendation of the classic Voigtlanders, which I don't see mentioned so often as some 🙂 .

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The only cheap RF coupled medium format camera I'm aware of is copy of Zeiss Super Ikonta a.k.a. Moskva-2 and Moskva-4. Comparing to Iskra they were made to work.

 

[Archlich]

Fuji rangefinders are not repairable if the shutters go out, and they do. KEH refunded my money on one after the second time they attempted to fix it because there are no longer any parts for them.

I had my GS645W's stuck shutter repaired last year and it came back like new. Like the rest of the GS645 series it uses a Copal #00 shutter. Should be serviceable to any competent technician.

 

[Archlich]

Fuji rangefinders are not repairable if the shutters go out, and they do. KEH refunded my money on one after the second time they attempted to fix it because there are no longer any parts for them.

I had my GS645W's stuck shutter repaired last year and it came back like new. Like the rest of the GS645 series it uses Copal #00 shutter. Should be serviceable to any competent technician.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The only cheap RF coupled medium format camera I'm aware of is copy of Zeiss Super Ikonta a.k.a. Moskva-2 and Moskva-4. Comparing to Iskra they were made to work.

Very true. But the few good Iskras I've ever seen (not many) looked and sounded very good.

As you say, though, the Moskvas are better cameras -- again assuming they haven't been "repaired" by amateurs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gerry M]

If you consider scale focus folders, Zenobia 645 with Neo Hespar (Tessar type) lens may be a good choice for you. Usually can be found for under $90 US. I have had a couple (have 1 now) and they have served me as well as Ikes & Super Ikes I have owned. You could also consider a ZI Mess Ikonta.

 

[mich rassena]

I also own a Super Press 23. Unfortunately, it is not small and light. :bang:

If the OP can give up the small and light, it is a nice camera with very good lenses. The 65mm lens is small and light for medium format. There is also a 50mm lens that is superb when in good shape. Hire two men and a boy to carry it. There is also a 250mm f/5 lens. It works with a selectable viewfinder 250 frame, no special viewfinder needed. It does require a caisson with a team of strong horses to pull it.

I think it's about 5 pounds fully loaded, but I'd have to weigh it to be sure. Oh well, small, cheap, and good, you can only pick two of the three. My eye falls first on cheap, and everything else is secondary, but that's my bias.

The list of small, cheap rangefinder-coupled medium format cameras with wide-angle lenses must be very short.

 

[Brian Legge]

I had issues with shake while using a Moskva at its highest speed. As a result, photos weren't as sharp as I expected given the large negative. I gave up on the Fujis after trying a few and rapidly hitting failures of sorts. I didn't trust CLA's to keep them alive as long as I wanted to shoot them. Working ones are great though.

I shot an Iskra for a bit. After taping up the insides to address light leaks, it was a stellar camera. Wonderful sharp lens and a large, bright finder. I did have issues with the film counter on films that were really thin. Current production film seemed fine but it struggled with some older Konica film. If I hadn't stumbled on to a wonderful Super Isoleete I probably would've stuck with it. The only direct competition was a Super Ikonta IV which was smaller but also had a softer lens.

If you can do without a film counter and rangefinder, I'll throw the Zenobia in the list. It's about as small as 6x4.5 gets and the seem to hold up well, though film roll fit can be snug.

 

[jgrainger]

I've a 35mm variant of the Balda folder, that type of lens and rangefinder setup is pretty nice compared to some.. it gives unit focusing, and a lens standard which can be designed to be strong rather than also having to move - or requiring a front cell focusing lens.

The Mamiya 6 folder is also a sensible suggestion, though some people suggest some of the lenses aren't as quite as good as on some other makes of camera (only pretty good lol).

The Zeiss 6x6 folders can be cheap (when of a low spec), and at the more rigid end of the strength spectrum. The triplets are actually pretty decent but I kind of have a grudge against Zeiss of all companies, for sticking with the front cell focusing setup when you can get their lenses on other makers unit focusing models.

Without a rangefinder but with a unit focusing lens, rather small, sometimes really cheap, but needing film respooling: the Kodak 620 Duo (as used by Amelia Earhart) with tessar, xenar, or Kodak anastigmat (the cameras were made in germany btw).. there is a usually expensive and rare coupled rangefinder variant.. to be fair, some other models of Kodak are also fine.

If you could stretch to something big then the Mamiya press/ 23/ universal aren't too expensive and have a good lens selection.

There's also the (big) Koni Omega which is a little bit like a really cheap and less user friendly alternative to a Mamiya 7.. good lenses and a not too bad viewfinder - the viewfinder on the omega (and Mamiya) is probably better than most folder suggestions so far.

 

[Michael I.]

I have a red window modified Iskra I use, its a pain in the ass at times, but the lens is great

 

[Pentode]

A Moskva 2 or 4 is about the best deal you're likely to find on a coupled 6x9 rangefinder.
I'm not sure I'd call it small, exactly, but you can drop it in a coat pocket so it's not big either. The only caveat is that you would be strongly advised to only buy an FSU camera from a reputable dealer.

Another option is the Chinese 6x6 Seagull 203. The construction of these is somewhat crude, but the lenses are surprisingly good and they're very robust. Not quite as nice as an Iskra but they are very, very cheap and not bad performers. I bought mine new in the early 1990s and it has never needed repair.

 

[citizen99]

... (snip)
The list of small, cheap rangefinder-coupled medium format cameras with wide-angle lenses must be very short.

Indeed so; I would be curious to learn if any existed that fullfil all of the criteria.

I did play around with a 65mm Angulon (not, of course, the 'Super-') on a 6x9 trackbed folder as a 'test of concept'. OK, but a bit 'clunky' to use. No rangefinder, either, but with 65mm you don't need one for daylight landscape/townscape use with fast-ish film. Think 'Group.64' philosophy, scaled down to F:32 for the smaller format 😉 .

In the end I went for a hacked tube-extension 6x9 box camera that fits in a reasonably large jacket pocket.

 

[RObert Budding]

How cheap? The ebay seller certo6 is offering a CLA's Voigtlander Bessa II with a new bellows for $525.

eBay item number:302824272994

 

[mich rassena]

Indeed so; I would be curious to learn if any existed that fullfil all of the criteria.

I did play around with a 65mm Angulon (not, of course, the 'Super-') on a 6x9 trackbed folder as a 'test of concept'. OK, but a bit 'clunky' to use. No rangefinder, either, but with 65mm you don't need one for daylight landscape/townscape use with fast-ish film. Think 'Group.64' philosophy, scaled down to F:32 for the smaller format 😉 .

In the end I went for a hacked tube-extension 6x9 box camera that fits in a reasonably large jacket pocket.

"Cheap" is a rather subjective term which makes it hard to make a good recommendation. I actually did some hunting for a wide-angle folder a while back, rangefinder coupled or not. One series I found was the Telka III, 6x9 with a 95mm lens, which is just a bit wide. They're rare, and not cheap, $500 or more.

I keep looking for an inexpensive old Kodak folder that I wouldn't feel bad modifying, I think your term, trackbed is the style I'm thinking of. I have a 90mm lens that is supposed to cover 5x7. It should be relatively easy to attach that lens instead and put some new markings on the bed, and use an accessory rangefinder to gauge the distance. Some of those cameras took very large film, so 6x12 or greater should be possible on a small budget.

Do you have a photo of your tube extension box camera?

 

[BernardL]

IMO, you'll get the most for you dollars (yens, euros) spent by buying a plain MF camera --with a good lens-- and an accessory rangefinder. For most pictures, and with minimal training, your guesstimate will be good enough (meaning within the generally recognized depth of focus tolerance). In practical terms, assume you use 400 film rated at 200 (grain is not an issue in MF). Daylight, open shadow, 1/100 f:8. Distance 3m, DOF is +/-0.5m (6x6 format, 80mm lens, data from http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html). I've used extensively my Fuji GS645W (scale focusing) with good results, only occasionally using my calibrated feet (30cm) to measure nearby subjects.

And, occasionally, you'll bring out the accessory rangefinder from your pocket. Be aware, though, of what I found out recently with a Voigtlander Perkeo I: while the accessory rangefinder measures distance from where it sits (what else?) some (many? most?) old cameras have their engraved distance scale with an origin at the lens, not the film plane.

Medium format cameras with coupled rangefinders are considered prestige and carry higher prices. Would you not rather spend the money at lens quality? or buying more film?

 

[citizen99]

"Cheap" is a rather subjective term which makes it hard to make a good recommendation. I actually did some hunting for a wide-angle folder a while back, rangefinder coupled or not. One series I found was the Telka III, 6x9 with a 95mm lens, which is just a bit wide. They're rare, and not cheap, $500 or more.

I keep looking for an inexpensive old Kodak folder that I wouldn't feel bad modifying, I think your term, trackbed is the style I'm thinking of. I have a 90mm lens that is supposed to cover 5x7. It should be relatively easy to attach that lens instead and put some new markings on the bed, and use an accessory rangefinder to gauge the distance. Some of those cameras took very large film, so 6x12 or greater should be possible on a small budget.

Do you have a photo of your tube extension box camera?

Here are pictures of the front and rear of the final version. Careful attention had to be paid to the configuration to minimise vignetting.

Your 90mm lens should work well. Depending on what size folder you would find, you might have to check for vignetting on one side by the long trackbed door.
JFYI here was the 6x9 folder experiment.
Good hunting !

 

[RObert Budding]

The Zeiss Ercona II with a Tessar lens is very sharp, but it is zone focus. The attached photo was hand held. And here's a link to a larger version. https://www.flickr.com/photos/45489297@N00/2853554159/in/dateposted-public/

 

[mich rassena]

Here are pictures of the front and rear of the final version. Careful attention had to be paid to the configuration to minimise vignetting.

Your 90mm lens should work well. Depending on what size folder you would find, you might have to check for vignetting on one side by the long trackbed door.
JFYI here was the 6x9 folder experiment.
Good hunting !

Looking at the results, both projects have yielded some great photos. Thanks for linking the images, I'll use them for inspiration.