Help me decide!

[RedLion]

I normally shoot an M8.2 (and canon dslrs) but have recently gotten interested in playing around with 6x9 to take roming portraits of folks and then later give them a 6x9 color slide of themselves (maybe in a small plastic frame - not sure yet), but anyway, I need some help to decide what type of 6x9 film camera to get.

I would MUCH prefer a rangefinder folder camera, but I'm not sure if they:

1) will have fast enough handling - how long does it take to manually check exposure, set exposure, wind, cock, focus, etc.. with the person waiting there.

2) Will have good enough sharpness contrast and image quality, as I will be shooting at around 5-6 feet with a wide open arpeture.

The alternative would be something like a (faster handling?) Fuji 690, but I'm not sure I really want to be sticking such a big monster in people's faces.

What say you all?

Thanks!

Joe

 

[Matus]

Well, I do not think you have too many choices. If you decide to get the Fuji GW/GSW than you definitely do not need to worry about the sharpness. However I am wondering whether a folding 6x9 camera with some decent lens (Bessa 6x9 with skopar for example, but there are others) would not be a better solution. While these lenses may not be as sharp as the Fuji (especially wide open), they are still plenty sharp - and you only want to give away slides, not 16x20" prints. However as none of these lenses are too fast, you will most probably need to go with Fuji Provia 400X to get more speed for interiors.

Another advantage of folding cameras is that they look more "cute" and less "dangerous" compared to Fuji GW690 🙂 Fuji will of course have brighter viewfinder, better rangefinder. In both cases you will need a light meter.

Still - you can measure the light before you start to "terrorize" your subject with huge cameras 🙂

BTW - giving color slides is cool, but keep in mind that most BW films can be developed as positive too. BW slides may look even better framed ... (no personal experience though)

HA! - you could even consider a hand holdable 4x5 camera (Polariod conversions come to my mind - like the razzle) - that would be something. Also the resulting image would be considerably larger. Just if Polaroid 4x5 films were still with us ... 🙁 ... but Fuji still makes some !

 

[furcafe]

As people say on the internet, YMMV.

Personally, I only have experience w/6X6 folders like the ZI Super Ikonta B & IV & Agfa Super Isolette, but w/that caveat in mind, I think you could use a RF folder for your purpose. Assuming you already have the camera unfolded & ready to go, the folder shouldn't be significantly slower to operate than the modern Fuji 690. As far as quality, a lot depends on what camera w/which lens, but I think even wide-open you will get good results, if not as contrasty & sharp as the Fuji (which might actually be a good thing for portraits). 1 alternative to a folder, especially if you're willing to respool film or spend the money on a conversion to 120, would be a Kodak Medalist (a 620 6x9 camera).

I normally shoot an M8.2 (and canon dslrs) but have recently gotten interested in playing around with 6x9 to take roming portraits of folks and then later give them a 6x9 color slide of themselves (maybe in a small plastic frame - not sure yet), but anyway, I need some help to decide what type of 6x9 film camera to get.

I would MUCH prefer a rangefinder folder camera, but I'm not sure if they:

1) will have fast enough handling - how long does it take to manually check exposure, set exposure, wind, cock, focus, etc.. with the person waiting there.

2) Will have good enough sharpness contrast and image quality, as I will be shooting at around 5-6 feet with a wide open arpeture.

The alternative would be something like a (faster handling?) Fuji 690, but I'm not sure I really want to be sticking such a big monster in people's faces.

What say you all?

Thanks!

Joe

 

[RedLion]

One more question

One more question

I'm leaning towards a folder right now - since I will mainly be just producing slides for direct viewing (no enlargement) and don't want to spook folks with a big modern looking camera, but it's down to a choice between a folder with a color-skopar lens (I assume it's a coated lens) and a pre-war folder with an uncoated lens. Since I will be using this out in bright light, with a wide-open arpeture at minimum distance, I am concerned that if I go with an uncoated lens, I will have excessive loss of contrast and/or flare.

What can I expect if shooting color with an uncoated lens? Is it that much of an issue?

Thanks all!

Joe

 

[jimcon11]

I would guess the one on the left is uncoated, one on the right coated. both beautiful shots though!!

 

[chris00nj]

What are the choices for a 6x9 with a rangfinder?

1. Bessa II
2. Welta Weltur 6x9 (uncoated lens?)
3. Zeiss Ikonta 524/2 (uncoupled rangefinder)
4. Agfa Billy Record III (uncoupled rangefinder)

Why the need for shooting wide open? At 5-6 feet, f/8 will have a shallow dof.

 

[RedLion]

I went and got a Folder!

I went and got a Folder!

Waiting for the arrival of a Welta Weltur 6x9.

Still need to get a lens shade though. Does it take 32mm push on hood and filters?

I'm thinking right now of using it for portraits at 5 feet with F4.5 (wide open) to throw the background of out focus. I enjoy super shallow DOF shots, (I'm usually using a Canon 5D mkII with 85mm F1.2 lens) You can see some of my typical stuff here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=35758923

As I will be shooting outside in the sun, I know I will need a hood and must think/plan the shot carefully as I will not have any fill-flash available.

Ordered some provia 100 film. With developing, I'm guessing that each 6x9 slide will ultimately cost me $1.80, so it will be a different work-flow from my digital past, for sure! (at eight slides per roll. $3.79 for a roll of 120 film, + $10 for developing + mailing costs, etc...)

Thanks for all the advice!

Joe

 

[shadowfox]

Waiting for the arrival of a Welta Weltur 6x9.

Still need to get a lens shade though. Does it take 32mm push on hood and filters?

I'm thinking right now of using it for portraits at 5 feet with F4.5 (wide open) to throw the background of out focus. I enjoy super shallow DOF shots, (I'm usually using a Canon 5D mkII with 85mm F1.2 lens) You can see some of my typical stuff here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=35758923

As I will be shooting outside in the sun, I know I will need a hood and must think/plan the shot carefully as I will not have any fill-flash available.

Ordered some provia 100 film. With developing, I'm guessing that each 6x9 slide will ultimately cost me $1.80, so it will be a different work-flow from my digital past, for sure! (at eight slides per roll. $3.79 for a roll of 120 film, + $10 for developing + mailing costs, etc...)

Thanks for all the advice!

Joe

Don't forget one of these if you don't have one already.
Especially if you're shooting slides.

And good luck on your project, that does sound like fun. 6x9 slides are gem-like in appearance.

 

[oftheherd]

any particular reason to make you lean in that direction Jim?

Myself, I thought most likely it was the one of the left that was the Skopar. It may be my monitor, but I thought I saw a little more detail in the hair. The difference in the lighting confuses things for me, as the detail in the dress seems better on the right, but I think that is lighting.

Did I blow it Chippy?

 

[oftheherd]

Sorry about confusing the Heliar with a Skopar. You had mentioned Skopar earlier in your post and I got confused (easily done 😀). I guess I got it right but perhaps for the wrong reasons?

But I think your overall comment on folders and those old lenses is correct. I use 6x6 for their size, but prefer my Zeiss Ikon non-RF in 6x9. It isn't really any heavier that the Weltas I like. All of them render very nicely. The aren't of course recommended for shooting into the sun, but not many lenses are. Fujinon EBC lenses are the only ones I have experience with that can handle that reasonably well.

I hadn't thought of suggesting a 9x12 folder with a roll film back. It is a little larger than the 6x7 or 6x9 roll film holders. It is interesting however, since if you get one in good shape, you have the wire finder that can be masked for the 6x9 roll film backs. Then as you mentioned, you have a slightly long lens for the portraiture the OP wanted them for. They are a little heavier. They are probably a little slower to use, but not that much. You also then have a more versatile camera for other uses.

I am assuming you meant 9x12 as you mentioned 135mm lenses. As you know, there are smaller cameras, I think they were 2 3/4 by 4 1/4 or so, that also take roll film backs. Have you used those?

 

[jimcon11]

actually they were both with identical type Heliar lens*, one uncoated, the other a Color Heliar (coated), they were both shot within a few minutes of each other so the lighting was pretty much the same (though slide film can show up small changes and the sun may have dipped a little), she turned her head into the shade in the pic on the right which makes it look a little different too, probably any other difference is either due to the coating on the lens or a slight difference in shutter performance , though i dont think there would be much at all, i think i might have bench tested both of them for shutter speed match up at some point before that was taken. anyway, the pic on the right is the uncoated lens! i find when using colour film, pics from the uncoated lenses (that are un-affected by flare) often have more saturation, particularly in the blues, sky often looks nicer--just nicer all over sometimes, a common misconception is an uncoated lens was not designed to work with colour but many of the lenses on folders were advertised as colour corrected for use with colour film, not that colour film was being used much pre-war!!

at the end of the day though, theres not a lot of difference between them tho eh! sometimes the uncoated has the edge, other times the coated is better.

Hmph I was wrong. My reasoning was just that the one on the right seemed to have a bit more contrast and the one on the left a bit of flare on her forearm, at least on my computer at work. On my laptop things look totally different.

Anyway, I am happy to have been wrong; I just bought a Super Ikonta B with the uncoated tessar. I hope it performs as well as your heliar🙂

 

[Krosya]

It's hard to go wrong with a good Welta:

welturs by krosyagms, on Flickr

And uncoated lenses on them never really caused a problem for me:

 

[oftheherd]

Korsya - You've got to quit showing those two beautiful Weltas. I get hard to cure attacks of GAS every time you do. 😀

 

[lorenzo1910]

It's hard to go wrong with a good Welta:

I think it's hard to go wrong with a good photographer (Welta or not...) 😉

 

[johannielscom]

...

thats where the 9x12's are brilliant, they have all their other benefits of greater format size but if you want to use roll film then the perspective of the 135mm-150mm lens on 6x6 or 6x9 negative is ideal for portrait (its one of the main things i like about using roll film on them), think 150mm on hasselblad (or other) for example..it gets you out of the subjects personal space so they feel more relaxed and in return, as the photographer you get a flatter perspective, all for a couple of hundred bucks or much much less! does it get any better than that!🙂😀😛

...

Chippy, very nice wording here, I can easily see what you mean from it!

to the OP: If you would consider dropping the 'folder' bit, I'd recommend you a Kodak Medalist camera. 6x9 RF (albeit a bit hard to focus, split RF and frame windows in the same viewfinder, am I making sense?) OTOH, I sold a Bessa RF with a coated Heliar a while back and it wasn't any easier to focus than a Medalist.

Yes it's a big and (quite) somewhat clunky camera, but for some reason people around me are interested in it instead of eager to put some distance between the camera and themselves.😕 Apparently it was used to fence of street muggers without any mechanical and visible damage to the camera (hate to think what the mugger looked like after impact...😉)

You can feed it with 120 rolls (use toe nail clipper to get rid of excess spool plastic, I got a pictorial on that) but need a 620 take up spool.

The Medalist takes only very little off a frame, borders are really narrow. The Ektar 100/3.5 lens is spectacular.

Sanders McNew started a thread on them on RFF and posted some spectacular pictures from his. Made me as itchy with GAS as those Welturs Krosya keeps showing off here 😉

 

[RedLion]

Need some advice on a 6x6

Need some advice on a 6x6

I'm also interested in a 6x6 to compliment my 6x9. I'd like a coupled rangefinder.

Looking at some photos of the camera the rear eyepiece looks a bit small and as an eyeglass wearer how do you all rate the Zeiss super ikonta 533/16 (and similar) cameras? That camera looks pretty cool.

Wearing glasses, will I be able to see through the rangefinder OK to focus and compose?

As a second choice, I could wait for a Welta Weltur 6x6 to come available, if it really is that much better.

Do either of these handle faster than the other?

Joe

 

[Krosya]

I'd check ebay for a welta - i think I saw a pretty good one there a day or two ago.
I really like these cameras (6x6 more for the compact size). It's amazing to me that they were able to make such a good camera back almost a 100 years ago. And it still works perfect , with all original parts (I just cleaned it a bit). Many cameras that came AFTER - were not as good IMO. It's a lot of joy for me to use the Folders and TLRs - coolest cameras out there:

a few more form Welta Weltur 6x6:

 

[oftheherd]

Chippy had mentioned that I should show some photos of the interchangeable lens 9x12 I have. It is called a BEE BEE and has a 135mm keranar lens. Below is the camera showing the way the lens is mounted. The lens fits in two flanges, well, actually three. One larger one above, and two smaller ones below. The larger has a spring it it. You push the lens up against the sprint and into the flange. You then fit the lens against the lens board and let the spring push it down into the two lower flanges. Above and to the left, you will see a circular lever, and a tang on it which holds the spring down. That prevents the lens from moving up and out of the flange. And as you can see, this camera has a range finder.

Below is the camera with the lens removed. You can also see in the middle, the infinity stop. It isn't easy to see, and I will have to take some other photos to show parts of the RF mechanism better. It is actually easier to see above. But the infinity stop of course, is as far as the lens standard should come out for the RF to be accurate at infinity.

Right now, the RF isn't working properly. I don't know if it is accurate or not as it doesn't move easily so I can't use it. I don't know if parts are out of alignment, or if it is simply dirty. As I have time, I will clean it and if that doesn't make it work, then I will have to take on the RF and the follower arm and slide. You can see it, although not the well below. The follower arm comes out of the RF, goes down and angles past the closing strut, then at the end has a bend so the rod can fit into an open track (that track's end can be seen in the 2nd photo above). I suspect that is where the hang up is, due to dirt or mis-alignment.

Another photo that shows part of the mechanism.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5026776329_0ef78f16df_b.jpg

Hope you find this interesting. I will take some (hopefully) better photos to show other parts of the camera.

 

[ianstamatic]

+1 for anything with welta written on it !

 

[oftheherd]

what do i win! 😛 sight unseen, my guess was right oftheheard, it is a Certo! a Certo Certotrop to be precise, renamed and imported for the American market by Burleigh Brooks whom liked it enough to name it after his own initials ''Bee Bee'' [not the gun, but makes you wonder if it influenced] (yours is the Model B as well btw and with the rangefinder is almost fully loaded 😛 just missing the wide and telephoto lenses)..btw i think you mean Zeranar not Keranar lens

Thanks Chippy. I figured if anybody would know it would be you. I have been looking but so far no luck on lenses. My luck it would be sold by someone who wanted a couple of hundred dollars for each lens. 😀 BTW, were they also called Zeranars?

And yes you are right, I meant Zeranar. I have picked up some kind of apparent telephoto lens that someone has cobbled together. Not a Zeranar. And it doesn't even come close to mating with my Certo. It does have the circular plate like the Zeranar, but thicker. Certo eh, who knew? Thanks again.

I hope in the not too distant future to have a chance to look at it more and see if I can get the RF to work. Then I need to work on the bellows. They have tape, so I am worried if there are other problems. I may convert on of my not so good 9x12s to a parts camera.