JPD
Retina and Rollei user
Not what you are looking for, but worth to mention. Some early folders from the late 1910's till the early 1930's have interesting lenses like the Goerz Dagor, dialytes like Goerz Dogmar or Agfa Doppel-Anastigmat, or four element Double-Gauss lenses like ICA:s Hekla.
The Voigtländer E-Bessa with a 3,5/105 mm Heliar sounds like an excellent choice for you. The Heliar is awesome, as you can see on the photos posted here. The fastest shutter speed is 1/400, and it takes 37 mm slip-on filters and shade. The Heliar has very good "bokeh" wide open, and the result is almost 3D. Superb for portraits. And stopped down to 8 - 16 it's very sharp for landscapes and such. The E-Bessa has a coupled rangefinder. And it's not very heavy.
Folders with Tessar-type lenses, and more modern folders with Double Gauss lenses, are nice, but they lack the "soul" of the Heliar.
The Voigtländer E-Bessa with a 3,5/105 mm Heliar sounds like an excellent choice for you. The Heliar is awesome, as you can see on the photos posted here. The fastest shutter speed is 1/400, and it takes 37 mm slip-on filters and shade. The Heliar has very good "bokeh" wide open, and the result is almost 3D. Superb for portraits. And stopped down to 8 - 16 it's very sharp for landscapes and such. The E-Bessa has a coupled rangefinder. And it's not very heavy.
Folders with Tessar-type lenses, and more modern folders with Double Gauss lenses, are nice, but they lack the "soul" of the Heliar.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Seriously - I don't consider any of my folders to be point & shoot ready for street photography. It takes me about 10 to 15 seconds to get the camera out, unfold the front lens bed, wind the film, set the focus , most importantly tension the shutter and compose.
That 10 - 15 seconds is with a camera that features a winder that stops automatically at the next frame.
My Voigtlander Perkeo II with semi-automat film wind feature is the Olympus XA for 6x6. Actually, because it lacks a coupled-RF, it is more like a Rollei 35.
* It's good to go in about 10 seconds - if you want to shoot at f/8 to f/16.
* The front-cell focusing 75mm Skopar is adjusted by guestimation.
My Agfa Super Isolette and its rebranded twin - the Ansco Super Speedex see more use due to full a automat film winder and a coupled RF in the viewfinder.
* With the Super Isolette/Super Speedex, I can shoot close up and in low light - due to the coupled RF. Focusing is just like a 35mm camera.
* The 75mm 3.5 Solinar is a coated Tessar design and unit focusing.
* It does fit in a front pocket - if you wear cargo pants.
************
On any folder to maintain film flatness - I recommend winding the film just before making the exposure - especially with the 6x9 format.
I have no personal experience with one - but I'd like to mention that the final version of the Mamiya Six had not only automat winding - but it would automatic tension the shutter in the process of winding the film.
Best Regards,
Scrambler
Well-known
Freecitizen, I think you will eventually find something that fits the bill, but it's not as straightforward as all that.
When 120 format was invented, it was a small film size compared to the glass plates "quality" cameras used. Until the use of 35mm motion picture film, the only smaller, readily available format was 127. 127 was a snapshot format, 120 was the smallest negative that could be used with the intention of producing a decent image quality.
It was also adopted for inexpensive cameras like the Box Brownies, because the negative size meant less enlarging, allowing a poorer-resolving lens to still produce acceptable image quality.
These factors mean that 1) 120 (and 620) format cameras tend to be middle- to lower-range cameras, up until the 1950's. Before that, large format (4x5 mostly) was the "quality" format. 2) You don't need a stellar lens if you are enlarging to the same print size as your 35mm. The proportionally smaller grain and lower enlargement gives improved resolution in the final print.
If you look specifically at Rollei's, where you can compare f2.8 Planars with f3.5 Planars with f3.5 Tessars of the same era, the accepted wisdom is that there is very little difference between the f2.8 and f3.5 lenses, and only a little less peripheral resolution between the f3.5 Planars and the f3.5 Tessars. Central resolution is essentially equal across all three lenses (and the equivalent Xenar/ Xenotars).
Many of the folding cameras use front-cell focussing which tends to degrade the image production. This may not make enough difference to be worth worrying about - see above.
I have a f2.9 Cassar (triplet) out of a Welta on the front of Ensign Auto-range 220. The Auto-range 220 is about the most basic camera that would fit your "wants" but it usually comes with an f4.5 triplet, though some examples have Zeiss Tessars, I believe. It is unit focussing (the Welta was front-cell).
In terms of bang-for-your-buck in MF, the 1950's and on Twin Lens Reflexes are pretty much uniformly Tessar designs (except the Rolleiflexes, which were even better lenses), have automatic film indexing and decently fast lenses (f3.5) for the format. They aren't as small as a folder but they deliver nearly everything you say you are looking for.
An option you may want to consider is doing what I did - take the shutter and lenses from one camera and graft onto another. This got me additional fast and slow speeds and 2 f-stops. The Cassar is front-cell-focussing and I have set the whole camera up for portraits, with the RF and the lens focus set to max out at about 5m. This gives a further 20-30cm of closer focus using the RF.
f2.9 and minimum focus:
IMG_0007 by Scrambler@4350, on Flickr
When 120 format was invented, it was a small film size compared to the glass plates "quality" cameras used. Until the use of 35mm motion picture film, the only smaller, readily available format was 127. 127 was a snapshot format, 120 was the smallest negative that could be used with the intention of producing a decent image quality.
It was also adopted for inexpensive cameras like the Box Brownies, because the negative size meant less enlarging, allowing a poorer-resolving lens to still produce acceptable image quality.
These factors mean that 1) 120 (and 620) format cameras tend to be middle- to lower-range cameras, up until the 1950's. Before that, large format (4x5 mostly) was the "quality" format. 2) You don't need a stellar lens if you are enlarging to the same print size as your 35mm. The proportionally smaller grain and lower enlargement gives improved resolution in the final print.
If you look specifically at Rollei's, where you can compare f2.8 Planars with f3.5 Planars with f3.5 Tessars of the same era, the accepted wisdom is that there is very little difference between the f2.8 and f3.5 lenses, and only a little less peripheral resolution between the f3.5 Planars and the f3.5 Tessars. Central resolution is essentially equal across all three lenses (and the equivalent Xenar/ Xenotars).
Many of the folding cameras use front-cell focussing which tends to degrade the image production. This may not make enough difference to be worth worrying about - see above.
I have a f2.9 Cassar (triplet) out of a Welta on the front of Ensign Auto-range 220. The Auto-range 220 is about the most basic camera that would fit your "wants" but it usually comes with an f4.5 triplet, though some examples have Zeiss Tessars, I believe. It is unit focussing (the Welta was front-cell).
In terms of bang-for-your-buck in MF, the 1950's and on Twin Lens Reflexes are pretty much uniformly Tessar designs (except the Rolleiflexes, which were even better lenses), have automatic film indexing and decently fast lenses (f3.5) for the format. They aren't as small as a folder but they deliver nearly everything you say you are looking for.
An option you may want to consider is doing what I did - take the shutter and lenses from one camera and graft onto another. This got me additional fast and slow speeds and 2 f-stops. The Cassar is front-cell-focussing and I have set the whole camera up for portraits, with the RF and the lens focus set to max out at about 5m. This gives a further 20-30cm of closer focus using the RF.
f2.9 and minimum focus:
IMG_0007 by Scrambler@4350, on Flickr
Solinar
Analog Preferred
With regards to the Voigtlander Bessa II - it's a beauty on paper, but a bit cumbersome in the field.
Unlike the two cameras I mentioned above - my big Voigtlander Bessa II with the Heliar begs to be used with a tripod.
* For hand-held use, the shutter release is cumbersome.
* Hand-held shutter speeds 1/100th, 1/250 and 1/500.
* Film winding is slow and deliberate using a red window.
* Focusing dial on the top left is not like a 35mm camera.
* A Bessa II with a Heliar is not in your price range.
With all that said, no other lens that I own draws an out of focus background as creamy and smooth like a 105mm/3.5 Heliar.
Best Regards,
Unlike the two cameras I mentioned above - my big Voigtlander Bessa II with the Heliar begs to be used with a tripod.
* For hand-held use, the shutter release is cumbersome.
* Hand-held shutter speeds 1/100th, 1/250 and 1/500.
* Film winding is slow and deliberate using a red window.
* Focusing dial on the top left is not like a 35mm camera.
* A Bessa II with a Heliar is not in your price range.
With all that said, no other lens that I own draws an out of focus background as creamy and smooth like a 105mm/3.5 Heliar.
Best Regards,
citizen99
Well-known
...[snip]I once took a picture of a local pub with an Ensign Autorange 6x6 with Ensar triplet. Their publicity agents 'pinched' it off Flickr and used it in an advertisement in the local rag. They probably never even noticed that it wasn't from a modern digital camera.
I have had these with uncoated f/4.5 Ensar triplet, uncoated f/2.8 Tessar, and coated f/4.5 Ensar. The Tessar one gave the 'softer' image; I kept the one with the coated Ensar which is fine for hand-held daylight landscape/townscape use .
freecitizen
Newbie
comparison with other cameras of the time
comparison with other cameras of the time
I don’t understand how the image quality of these MF folders compares with other photographic tools of the time. I would like to get a clear understanding of what I will get for the money I spend, so can anyone help me get a feel for the equipment please ……………..
For example, in comparison to my Rollieflex T ( Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 with broken film transport which I need to have repaired ) ….. how do they stack up? How about versus an early 1960's Linhof Technica 6x9 with Xenar lens?
Which maker and models of MF folders would equal the Rollie T and which would surpass it for image quality ?
Many Thanks
comparison with other cameras of the time
I don’t understand how the image quality of these MF folders compares with other photographic tools of the time. I would like to get a clear understanding of what I will get for the money I spend, so can anyone help me get a feel for the equipment please ……………..
For example, in comparison to my Rollieflex T ( Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 with broken film transport which I need to have repaired ) ….. how do they stack up? How about versus an early 1960's Linhof Technica 6x9 with Xenar lens?
Which maker and models of MF folders would equal the Rollie T and which would surpass it for image quality ?
Many Thanks
btgc
Veteran
Yesterday I got proof scans from first roll I put through Ikonta with Tessar Opton 75/3.5 and were amazed by what I did see. I don't own cameras you mention so I can't compare directly but mismatch of image I see and look of the camera especially when folded, leave me thinking how misleading appearance can be. Something like when I got back prints from Reala in Mju II after plastic lens single speed P&S - simply hard to believe such small package is capable of that images.
freecitizen
Newbie
help with comparisons please ?
help with comparisons please ?
I have just realized that it might help if I said which MF cameras from that era I am familiar with, so that forum members might more easily be able to make comparisons.
I won’t mention 35mm cameras because they are such a different kettle of fish and comparisons would be pretty meaningless.
The MF cameras I have used, processed and printed as monochromes in a darkroom are :
Mamiya Press with Mamiya 90/3.5 ( Tessar design )
Linhof 23 with Schneider 105/3.5 Tessar,
Linhof Technika 70 with Schneider 100/5.6 Symmar
Rollieflex T with Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5
Any comments relating image quality of MF folder models and makers to any of the above would be very useful to me.
help with comparisons please ?
I have just realized that it might help if I said which MF cameras from that era I am familiar with, so that forum members might more easily be able to make comparisons.
I won’t mention 35mm cameras because they are such a different kettle of fish and comparisons would be pretty meaningless.
The MF cameras I have used, processed and printed as monochromes in a darkroom are :
Mamiya Press with Mamiya 90/3.5 ( Tessar design )
Linhof 23 with Schneider 105/3.5 Tessar,
Linhof Technika 70 with Schneider 100/5.6 Symmar
Rollieflex T with Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5
Any comments relating image quality of MF folder models and makers to any of the above would be very useful to me.
Scrambler
Well-known
A Tessar is a Tessar, but coatings improved over time so newer Tessars perform better than older ones. The folders with Tessars should be comparable with the Tessars above.
Triplets will be softer around the edges until the mid apertures. Uncoated and older coatings will have more flare, less contrast and lose resolution in many situations due to this, so hoods (which are a pain with folders) are mandated with older designs. Or accept the flarey, low-contrast look.
02Pilot
Malcontent
All things being equal, a folder with the same lens as a non-folding camera should produce nearly identical images. Of course all things are rarely equal. I've not encountered major differences with front-cell focusing vs. unit focusing, but I have read of the superiority of the latter often enough to at least consider it a potential factor. The larger issue, I believe, is that folders have considerably more likelihood of mechanical misalignment resulting in image degradation. After 50+ years and countless open-and-close cycles, there are a lot of little bits that may have worn, bent, or otherwise gone out of whack; my Perkeo II, for example, required a tiny adjustment of the lower stop to correct a slight focus problem on one side of the frame. Some designs are going to be more prone to this than others, but given the amount of time that's passed since they were new, I think condition of individual samples matters more than anything else.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
In my opinion, an Agfa Super Isolette will match the image quality of a Rollie T and features full automat film loading.
I have both the Agfa Super Isolette and its rebranded twin, the Ansco Super Speedex. In short, I'm so pleased with the design that I made sure to have a spare.
The 75mm/3.5 Solinar is a hard coated Tessar-type and unit focusing using a helical similar to a Kodak Retina 35mm.
Best Regards,
Attachments
ZeissFan
Veteran
I'm also in the camp that doesn't see a huge performance difference in fornt-cell focusing and unit focusing.
However, I do understand that moving the entire lens should result in a sharper image because you're moving all elements in once, rather than moving just the front element, while the others remains stationary.
I think that you will find a Tessar from a Rolleiflex will perform very closely/identically to a Tessar from a Linhof or a Tessar from another medium format camera.
If you want to know how a Tessar on one camera will perform compared with a Tessar on a different camera, keep in mind that all Zeiss-branded Tessars were produced by Carl Zeiss in the same production facility, except for those made in East Germany. You're not comparing a Ford to a Chevy. You're comparing a Ford to a Ford or a Chevy to a Chevy.
However, I do understand that moving the entire lens should result in a sharper image because you're moving all elements in once, rather than moving just the front element, while the others remains stationary.
I think that you will find a Tessar from a Rolleiflex will perform very closely/identically to a Tessar from a Linhof or a Tessar from another medium format camera.
If you want to know how a Tessar on one camera will perform compared with a Tessar on a different camera, keep in mind that all Zeiss-branded Tessars were produced by Carl Zeiss in the same production facility, except for those made in East Germany. You're not comparing a Ford to a Chevy. You're comparing a Ford to a Ford or a Chevy to a Chevy.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Mike has a point regarding front-cell focusing lenses. They are not all bad.
While not as highly regarded as the 105mm/3.5, Tessar-Jena on an Ercona II - the photo below was shot @f/4.5 using an Agfa Record III with a front-cell focusing 105 Solinar.
Best Regards,
While not as highly regarded as the 105mm/3.5, Tessar-Jena on an Ercona II - the photo below was shot @f/4.5 using an Agfa Record III with a front-cell focusing 105 Solinar.
Best Regards,
oftheherd
Veteran
I have Mamiya Super Press 23 with the 100mm f/3.5 lens. I don't remember the type of lens, but it is sharp.
In folders, I have several; Mamiya Six, Fujica Six, and a couple of Weltas, all 6x6. I really recommend the Weltas. The non-RF are light and usually small. Can't say that for the Mamiya Six. I also have a Zeiss 6x9, that is even lighter than the others, quite thin, and delivers great photos.
But in cameras that are that old, I think it will depend on the shape they are in more than how good they were when new. Not what you want to hear, but a fact. You won't lose much if you have to sell one and try another. When you find a good one, you will know and be happy with the result of the search. Folders have a charm of their own.
Not what most think of when they talk about folders, but there were drop bed 6x9 folders that were compact as well. Zeiss made some. So did Bee Bee. Bee Bee also had interchangeable lenses, but anything other than the 105mm are hard to come across.
But I can recommend most any Welta, and the Zeiss 6x9. Sorry I haven't acquired more of what you are looking at to compare, but fortunately, others here at RFF have.
Pioneer
Veteran
The reality is, any triplet or tessar type lens is capable of making stunning photos with any folder. Everyone has their favorites and will try to make big points. They will insist that their Color Heliar or Color Skopar is better than anything they have ever used.
But my experience is that they all do a great job, IF THE FOLDER MECHANISM IS STILL IN GOOD CONDITION. The lens is the least of your problems. I shoot an old Agfa Billy Record with a 100/6.3 Igestar lens that takes great photographs. The lens is an old triplet so it has some vignetting and a bit of distortion, but it is still wonderful. Face it, you are talking about 6x9 centimeters of film surface. A properly exposed Velvia 50 photo from this camera will absolutely blow your mind.
But the film fits well and is kept tight to the film guides so the film plane is consistent. The leather bellows are still supple, pliable and light-tight. The struts are still aligned properly and in great condition. Nothing is bent and the bellows and lens deploy properly and lock tightly in place with no obvious movement or misalignment. The lens is properly aligned with the film plane. The shutter speeds are not abundant but they are still relatively accurate. They are more than adequate for black and white and even color negative film, as the latitude can be very forgiving. If you want to shoot color slides you may want pick up a shutter speed tester and record the actual shutter speeds as they may be a bit different than what is written on the camera. The early lenses are not coated so your contrast will be a bit lower, and you will certainly want to fit a lens shade to avoid flare.
This modern age is far removed from the golden age of folders. You will need to master a new skill set. The Brownie was the P&S of this era. The folder was actually the camera for the advanced amateur. Fast films were ISO 25. For much of the early era films were color blind so chromatic aberrations were not a problem. The 6x9 was popular because you could contact print and still have a useable photograph of your friends or family. Enlarging was rare so a bit of camera shake was not an issue.
If this is your first folding camera the best thing you can do is to buy from someone who is very reputable and sells cameras that are checked out and adjusted properly. It is a lot more fun to shoot an old camera with a far less expensive triplet lens when it works, then to spend your money on a more expensive Tessar that does not work, leaving you to try and trouble shoot something you may not fully understand.
But my experience is that they all do a great job, IF THE FOLDER MECHANISM IS STILL IN GOOD CONDITION. The lens is the least of your problems. I shoot an old Agfa Billy Record with a 100/6.3 Igestar lens that takes great photographs. The lens is an old triplet so it has some vignetting and a bit of distortion, but it is still wonderful. Face it, you are talking about 6x9 centimeters of film surface. A properly exposed Velvia 50 photo from this camera will absolutely blow your mind.
But the film fits well and is kept tight to the film guides so the film plane is consistent. The leather bellows are still supple, pliable and light-tight. The struts are still aligned properly and in great condition. Nothing is bent and the bellows and lens deploy properly and lock tightly in place with no obvious movement or misalignment. The lens is properly aligned with the film plane. The shutter speeds are not abundant but they are still relatively accurate. They are more than adequate for black and white and even color negative film, as the latitude can be very forgiving. If you want to shoot color slides you may want pick up a shutter speed tester and record the actual shutter speeds as they may be a bit different than what is written on the camera. The early lenses are not coated so your contrast will be a bit lower, and you will certainly want to fit a lens shade to avoid flare.
This modern age is far removed from the golden age of folders. You will need to master a new skill set. The Brownie was the P&S of this era. The folder was actually the camera for the advanced amateur. Fast films were ISO 25. For much of the early era films were color blind so chromatic aberrations were not a problem. The 6x9 was popular because you could contact print and still have a useable photograph of your friends or family. Enlarging was rare so a bit of camera shake was not an issue.
If this is your first folding camera the best thing you can do is to buy from someone who is very reputable and sells cameras that are checked out and adjusted properly. It is a lot more fun to shoot an old camera with a far less expensive triplet lens when it works, then to spend your money on a more expensive Tessar that does not work, leaving you to try and trouble shoot something you may not fully understand.
f16sunshine
Moderator
There was something very special about those Zeiss Opton years.
Look how beautiful the coating are on this f3.5/105mm tessar.
This is from a a 524/2 "Mess Ikonta". I never could get on with transferring the distance from the un-coupled Rangefinder. The scale was simply not detailed enough to get accurate focus which was a shame because this lens was very sharp at wide open.
Some Porn
Here you can see the scale. The scale on the lens was marked in a corresponding manner so using a more refined external RF was nearly futile.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I recently got this camera:
Theoretically at least, it should be very capable - unit-focusing Zeiss Tessar, coupled rangefinder, very stable lens bed. I haven't had much chance to test it yet, but early results seem to bear this out (note that it produces a 6x4.5 negative):
But at the same time I can't say that I see any major difference in image quality between it and my Perkeo II. In other words, I stand by my earlier contention that condition should be the primary consideration over equipment specs.
Theoretically at least, it should be very capable - unit-focusing Zeiss Tessar, coupled rangefinder, very stable lens bed. I haven't had much chance to test it yet, but early results seem to bear this out (note that it produces a 6x4.5 negative):
But at the same time I can't say that I see any major difference in image quality between it and my Perkeo II. In other words, I stand by my earlier contention that condition should be the primary consideration over equipment specs.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
What camera is that? It resembles the prewar Bessa rangefinder but has a Tessar and the size is 6/4.5. The body looks like it could have a wider frame than 645, is there a mask to crop it to 645?
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
02Pilot
Malcontent
It's a Certo Super Sport Dolly. It's a dual-format camera (6x6 and 6x4.5), but due to the odd arrangement of incorporating the rollers into the mask, if you don't have one of the masks you're pretty much stuck with one format; I only have the 6x4.5.
There's not a huge amount of information out there, but I pulled together what I could find and wrote a bit more about it here: https://filmosaur.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/meet-the-camera-certo-super-sport-dolly/
There's not a huge amount of information out there, but I pulled together what I could find and wrote a bit more about it here: https://filmosaur.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/meet-the-camera-certo-super-sport-dolly/
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Dual format but three red windows, what is the function of the other one?
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectra...ctrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.