Dinky 4.5x6 folders.

[TheHub]

Folders are not only compact and svelte, but they're a cheap way to get into medium format.

I use a Minolta Semi-P (6x4.5) and an Agfa Billy-Record (6x9) myself.

I had a Nettar I got a while back, but the lens was hazier than downtown L.A. and the shutter speeds were all off so I ended up getting my money back 🙁

 

[Muggins]

There's currently an Ensign Autorange 16-20 on you-know-where:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Superb-Ross-E...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

It looks in very good nick, perhaps my one concern is that the seller has only opened it, he's not moved the RF arm up to its operating position.

Haven't a clue whether they were sold outside the UK - I'd guess that the European market was dominated by German cameras and the US by Japanese, so British cameras would have found it hard to get a look-in.

Adrian

 

[fidget]

There's currently an Ensign Autorange 16-20 on you-know-where:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Superb-Ross-E...39:1|66:2|65:12|240:1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

It looks in very good nick, perhaps my one concern is that the seller has only opened it, he's not moved the RF arm up to its operating position.

Haven't a clue whether they were sold outside the UK - I'd guess that the European market was dominated by German cameras and the US by Japanese, so British cameras would have found it hard to get a look-in.

Adrian

That went for much more than I would have guessed it would.
The inclusion of an RF feature and a fair lens brings extra money doesn't it?

Dave

 

[Muggins]

Doesn't it just... Bang go my dreams (but then I'm a tightwad).

Adrian

 

[chippy]

Haven't a clue whether they were sold outside the UK - I'd guess that the European market was dominated by German cameras and the US by Japanese, so British cameras would have found it hard to get a look-in.

sounds about right although certain photographic outlets in Australia (and probably other commonwealth countries) traditionaly imported British cameras, more particularly from the Houghton company and its subsequent name changes through the years, in preferance to German or American cameras, and built their businesses around Houghton cameras from the dawn of photography. Fantasic history to the company and between the two wars houghton was simply the biggest and best photographic company in England and possibly the commonwealth

i beleive by the mid to late50's though its recognised that (Houghton) Ross Ensign poured too much money into the development and production of the Autorange camera's (good for us and those that bought them) and not into 35mm which was taking over in the amature market beleiving as many of us here do that 120 film is far superior to 35mm (because it is!) . and many pro's were using different formats and cameras to the folders--so by the early 60's sadly Ross Ensign is gone.

The 1620 is a superb looking camera and if i had the last Autorange 820 i would want the 1620 simply to keep it company. the last 820 is the creme de la creme though with its smooth lines and large viewfinder, which it has in common with the 1620, but the 820 has unit focusing as well, as opposed to front cell in the 1620.

i can see the appeal of the 6x4.5 format; small pocketable ect but personaly i have never really been fond of the format-probably stemming from using a hasselblad for a long time; i had 6x4.5 backs so that i could be frugal with film but i just found it anoying to have to turn the camera around and prefered for ease of use to simply crop a 6x6 if i had to and not worry about the small expenace. IMHO the neg size is only a slight step up from 35mm for the effort so i prefer 6x6 or 6x9 but thats just me .

still its a lovely looking camera and for those that like 6x4.5 i would say its choice camera--enjoy...i enjoyed the pictures-fantasic! the back focus is wierd tho did you measure distance to cans ,i presume you did

 

[oftheherd]

I have always felt the same about the 645 Chippy. I know a lot of people disagree, but to me it just never seemed that much more than 35mm. Or at least not enough more. To me, 6x6 is just an easy way to use 645, since I am not overly fond of the square format. Of course, I loved my Yashica MAT 124 G when I had it, and like my 6x6 folders for their ease of carrying. 6x7 and 6x9 are the formats I really like.

All that said, I really enjoy using my Welta and Fujica folders.

 

[fidget]

still its a lovely looking camera and for those that like 6x4.5 i would say its choice camera--enjoy...i enjoyed the pictures-fantasic! the back focus is wierd tho did you measure distance to cans ,i presume you did

Yes, measured from the film plane to the centre can. Could have been 2 or even 3 inches out.
I set my lens focus scale by finding a good focus at infinity and fitting the ring there, hoping that all other distances will be on. This time the results were poor so I went back and focussed at 6 or 7 feet and locked it up there, hoping that infinity will be ok. The test pic here is after that adjustment, so I am puzzled by the size of the error.

I will use it for now and include a few infintys shot wide open to check that the focus there is ok. At 10ft on the cans, the focus was acceptable over all the cans, so I guess that the focus at infinity will be good too.

I believe that there may be great variation according to where the ground glass screen is positioned for these tests, all vary slightly: across the rollers at each side of the gate, across the lowest part of the gate and across the channel at the top and bottom of the gate (this should be identical to the rollers, but ain't quite).

I've hit on a fair compromise, although perhaps long winded. Adjust following the results of tests like this. After this one, for example, I might set up the cam to show 5ft on the scale, mark it up, then refit the focus scale so it shows 5.5ft (also checking infinity at each stage).
I wouldn't do this normally but I feel that this one may be worth it.

Dave....