msbarnes
Well-known
I'm not sure which folder I'm interested in, maybe the Isolette or Ikonta. I haven't look too much into them to be honest.
1) What is the close-focus limit.
2) How do uncoupled rangefinders work? My understanding is that you set the distance on the lens separately. If you find the range with the rangefinder, does it give you a distance? I'm worried because I like to shoot at close-distances at wide-apertures, so my DOF is a little shallow.
3) Would you consider the bokeh to be better than 35mm folders? Bokeh is subjective but I prefer smooth creamy out-of-focus rendering over swirls and harsh circles.
I'm also considering a 35mm folder: Kodak Retina or Vitessa. I feel that those cameras are more practical and easier to use but the image quality and bokeh not on par.
1) What is the close-focus limit.
2) How do uncoupled rangefinders work? My understanding is that you set the distance on the lens separately. If you find the range with the rangefinder, does it give you a distance? I'm worried because I like to shoot at close-distances at wide-apertures, so my DOF is a little shallow.
3) Would you consider the bokeh to be better than 35mm folders? Bokeh is subjective but I prefer smooth creamy out-of-focus rendering over swirls and harsh circles.
I'm also considering a 35mm folder: Kodak Retina or Vitessa. I feel that those cameras are more practical and easier to use but the image quality and bokeh not on par.
Brian Legge
Veteran
1) Varies but generally about 1 meter.
2) Yes, you focus, look at the rangefinder to read the distance (from the top of the camera or where ever it is displayed), then look at the lens and set it to that distance. If your subject is stationary and you can repeatedly position the camera in the same spot, this should still work fine.
3) Varies by camera again. There are good and bad cameras in either set, though there are a lot more older 120 folders which don't perform as well as the more recent 35mm and 120 folders.
I haven't used a Vitessa but a some of the Retinas have very sharp lenses. This is with a Retina IIIc, probably around f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4941740123/lightbox/
This is the same lens, wide open in a rather challenging condition. Not a great shot but gives you a sense of how it may handle it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5256432759/lightbox/
On the 120 side, this is a Super Speedex at around f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6234252153/lightbox/
...and this is a shot taken with an inexpensive Zenobia, a 6x4.5 scale focus folder. Guessed the focus, was totally wrong but love the result. And a good example of how scale focus can both be good and bad.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5564387963/in/set-72157624508300963/lightbox/ And an example with better focus with an auxiliary rangefinder on the camera: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4817040279/in/set-72157624508300963/lightbox/
Given your common use, I'd lean towards something with a coupled rangefinder unless your subjects are stationary and you can repeatedly position the camera in the same place - particularly if you are looking at a faster (3.5 or 2.8) medium format camera - as it doesn't take much to throw it out of focus. The price difference is painful though.
2) Yes, you focus, look at the rangefinder to read the distance (from the top of the camera or where ever it is displayed), then look at the lens and set it to that distance. If your subject is stationary and you can repeatedly position the camera in the same spot, this should still work fine.
3) Varies by camera again. There are good and bad cameras in either set, though there are a lot more older 120 folders which don't perform as well as the more recent 35mm and 120 folders.
I haven't used a Vitessa but a some of the Retinas have very sharp lenses. This is with a Retina IIIc, probably around f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4941740123/lightbox/
This is the same lens, wide open in a rather challenging condition. Not a great shot but gives you a sense of how it may handle it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5256432759/lightbox/
On the 120 side, this is a Super Speedex at around f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6234252153/lightbox/
...and this is a shot taken with an inexpensive Zenobia, a 6x4.5 scale focus folder. Guessed the focus, was totally wrong but love the result. And a good example of how scale focus can both be good and bad.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5564387963/in/set-72157624508300963/lightbox/ And an example with better focus with an auxiliary rangefinder on the camera: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4817040279/in/set-72157624508300963/lightbox/
Given your common use, I'd lean towards something with a coupled rangefinder unless your subjects are stationary and you can repeatedly position the camera in the same place - particularly if you are looking at a faster (3.5 or 2.8) medium format camera - as it doesn't take much to throw it out of focus. The price difference is painful though.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I've had one 120 folder only. And I rather liked it, I just like the biiiig waist level finders on 120 TLR's and SLR's more. So its been passed on to another RFF member.
Guestimating focus can work quite well. I had the Ikonta 523/16 with no aids for estimating range, other than the eye. Its not that difficult. I never really got it very wrong (not that I shot than many rolls with it)
An example at f5.6 and close to minimum focus:
Stream under Ice by Eirik0304, on Flickr
Have in mind this is with a Novar triplet, and yet quite good.
This is done at f16 and scale focused to attain sharpness front to back. Works too.
Boat by Eirik0304, on Flickr
Good things about 120 folders. Cheap, compact, big negative, readily available, simple self explanatory, if a bit laborious operation.
Bad things. The bellows can leak, the front standard can warp, bend or come out of alignment. As with all old cameras, may need a good clean and lube.
I would try one out, not a bad place to start with medium format.
Guestimating focus can work quite well. I had the Ikonta 523/16 with no aids for estimating range, other than the eye. Its not that difficult. I never really got it very wrong (not that I shot than many rolls with it)
An example at f5.6 and close to minimum focus:
Stream under Ice by Eirik0304, on Flickr
Have in mind this is with a Novar triplet, and yet quite good.
This is done at f16 and scale focused to attain sharpness front to back. Works too.
Boat by Eirik0304, on Flickr
Good things about 120 folders. Cheap, compact, big negative, readily available, simple self explanatory, if a bit laborious operation.
Bad things. The bellows can leak, the front standard can warp, bend or come out of alignment. As with all old cameras, may need a good clean and lube.
I would try one out, not a bad place to start with medium format.
RanceEric
The name is Rance
I have both the Super Ikonta A (531) and B (532/16). Love them both. Both have coupled RF, but the 531 has a seperate VF, whereas the 532/16 has combined VF/RF.
The Super Ikonta A (531) focuses pretty close, down to 1.2m, but has a slower lens than my 532/16, and a seperate VF. the 531 is also 6x4.5cm (vertical) format.
Here's an example of the lens wide open:
Classifieds on Flickr
At f/8:
White on Flickr
Super Ikonta B (532/16) only focuses down to 5ft.. which can be limiting inside, but the faster Tessar f/2.8 lens is nice and very sharp even wide open. The combined VF/RF is also a plus. the B is 6x6 format.
Wide open (f/2.8):
James and His Ikonta on Flickr
Another wide open:
Stacey on Flickr
Hope this is helpful!
The Super Ikonta A (531) focuses pretty close, down to 1.2m, but has a slower lens than my 532/16, and a seperate VF. the 531 is also 6x4.5cm (vertical) format.
Here's an example of the lens wide open:
Classifieds on Flickr
At f/8:
White on Flickr
Super Ikonta B (532/16) only focuses down to 5ft.. which can be limiting inside, but the faster Tessar f/2.8 lens is nice and very sharp even wide open. The combined VF/RF is also a plus. the B is 6x6 format.
Wide open (f/2.8):
James and His Ikonta on Flickr
Another wide open:
Stacey on Flickr
Hope this is helpful!
graywolf
Well-known
Most viewfinder cameras only focus down to about one meter (3.5 feet), because of the parallax problem. There were many ways to get around that in the old days, usually involving close up lens and some kind of composing device. Using a SLR is much simpler for close up work. However something like a Press Camera has a ground glass back option.
Rangefinders: Not as necessary as most folks suppose. I have all five types, scale focus, uncoupled separate, uncoupled combined, coupled separate, and coupled combined. I get about the same percentage of accurate focus with all of them. The camera I use the most is the one with the uncoupled combined RF/VF, because it is compact enough to fit in my pants pocket. Mostly I only use the RF on it when the f/stop is wider than f/8; then I usually use it by setting the RF and the lens to the same distance and move into position where the RF is set. In other words, I move the camera to match the RF distance rather than the RF to match the camera position. That works well because usually when I need really accurate focus is close up in the 1-3 meter range, and I pretty much know what distance gives the composition I want. Those are also usually candid people pictures (street photos).
Rangefinders: Not as necessary as most folks suppose. I have all five types, scale focus, uncoupled separate, uncoupled combined, coupled separate, and coupled combined. I get about the same percentage of accurate focus with all of them. The camera I use the most is the one with the uncoupled combined RF/VF, because it is compact enough to fit in my pants pocket. Mostly I only use the RF on it when the f/stop is wider than f/8; then I usually use it by setting the RF and the lens to the same distance and move into position where the RF is set. In other words, I move the camera to match the RF distance rather than the RF to match the camera position. That works well because usually when I need really accurate focus is close up in the 1-3 meter range, and I pretty much know what distance gives the composition I want. Those are also usually candid people pictures (street photos).
Last edited:
f16sunshine
Moderator
I love folders but, after reading here now about your shooting style I would not recomend one. For 6x6 I would recomend a TLR. Much easier to focus close in and be accurate. As well you will have more options for close up lenses. Minimum focus will be around one meter with folders as well as most TLR's. Mamiya being the exception with its long focus rail you can get in close. Mania TLR's are heavy though. I consider them as tripod cameras.
As to lens Character. Much of the 66 folders have older lens schemes that likely will be a bit swirly. Avoid the Tripplet based lenses. Look instead for Tessar/Solinar/Xenar or better still a Heliar such as the Voigtlander Bessa. Still some swirls but not as much.
As to lens Character. Much of the 66 folders have older lens schemes that likely will be a bit swirly. Avoid the Tripplet based lenses. Look instead for Tessar/Solinar/Xenar or better still a Heliar such as the Voigtlander Bessa. Still some swirls but not as much.
msbarnes
Well-known
Yeah, you are probably right. I figured that a TLR would be cheaper, more accurate, and easier to use/focus.
I want a camera for candids/casual portraits and an uncoupled 120 folder would probably be too slow to operate and a gamble at wide-apertures. I'm not trying to be discrete or anything so it doesn't have to be an invisible camera just something smallish and not intimidating.
What I like about folders is that they have eye-level viewing, I feel that it would make my subjects feel more comfortable because looking down at a viewfinder seems more impersonal because I usually like to have a conversation to make them feel at ease. The Mamiya TLR w/ prism might be too big/bulky and awkward to use. Not sure.
I actually do have a Mamiya C220 and I like it alot but I just recently discovered 120 folders and gave that a thought. After reading this thread, I think the best idea is to get a smaller TLR or add a prism if i want to stick with 120. I might just add a prism: it's easier and cheaper.
Last edited:
citizen99
Well-known
The Ultron lens on the Vitessa is superb (and the Skopar is also excellent). But you would be well advised to check that the unusual film advance mechanism is not worn before buying
.
jnoir
Well-known
The Ultron lens on the Vitessa is superb (and the Skopar is also excellent). But you would be well advised to check that the unusual film advance mechanism is not worn before buying
+1
I have one with the 50/2 Ultron, and although I don't use it that often, for some reason I can't get rid of it... The "combi-plunger" is great when you become used to it, and lens performance is great
Corto
Well-known
Get an isolette to play around with, they are dead simple and can be found for not too much money.
It can be fast enough for candids with just a little practice.
It can be fast enough for candids with just a little practice.
msbarnes
Well-known
Actually. I kind of want a folder again. lol.
How are the viewfinders? And what are the typical magnifications? ~0.7?
How are the viewfinders? And what are the typical magnifications? ~0.7?
jnoir
Well-known
Tipically, those with non-combined RF (i.e. separate windows for RF and VF, usually three on the front and two on the rear part of the top cover) provide higher magnification. I vouch for a Braun Gloria, is one of the brightest I've used on that kind of camera (but, the Gloria is not a folder "per se", instead of bellows it has a collapsible stainless steel tube). I happen to have one serviced for sale. Cheap and reliable. A Bessa with Heliar is an amazing performer, too, but way more expensive. And it depends whether you want a 6x9 or 6x6 camera (the Bessa can have an accessory mask for 6x4.5, but they are lost more often than not)
I cannot provide absolute figures, though.
I cannot provide absolute figures, though.
roboflick
Well-known
I second the 532/16. Great camera, beautiful images, and easy to focus close up 5 ft/1.5m and wide open. Its's actually indistiguishable in sharpnesss from my rolleiflex wideopen. SHarper actually, because I nail the focus more often. The auto film counter can be unreliable. Mine is going back to Essex for a fix, they couldnt fix it the first time it was overhauled, and only 11 shots a roll. But no complaints about image quality or focusing accuracy. I find rangefinder focusing easier and more accurate than using a focusing screen. But it is a very personal decision
Nik
Nik
jett
Well-known
Are the viewfinders very squinty?
In general, how have the patches held up?
Anyone know the close-focus limit on the Isolette?
In general, how have the patches held up?
Anyone know the close-focus limit on the Isolette?
Corto
Well-known
graywolf
Well-known
The viewfinders of all cameras of that era (With the exception of the Leica M series) were atrocious if you wore glasses. Rangefinder patches depend upon condition, but very few of them worked very well in dim light (Which was why the Graphics had the focus spot attachment available). Cameras really had improved a lot viewfinder wise by the late 1970's. Actually, I think the folding viewfinders from the 1930's work better for us glasses wearers, you can slip the rear part up under your glasses and it works as well as if you had 20/20 vision.