freecitizen
Newbie
Hello everyone
I am learning about 6x6 and 6x9 folders and want to get a fine camera to use rather then just put on a shelf. Monochrome only, printed in my darkroom at home. I have a tendency to always go for the fastest glass possible.
There are two things I think I have noticed in searching through this forum :
Pretty much all these 120 folders have lenses which are Tessars or Tessar copies. Are there any with planar, sonnar, gauss, biogon or other types of lens designs ?
Also, they all seem to have the “standard “ focal length lens or thereabouts. Are there any with wider angle lenses than standard? I would really like one with focal length equivalent to, say, 35mm in 135 format, or wider.
I enjoy this forum immensely and always learn something when I visit.
Many Thanks.
I am learning about 6x6 and 6x9 folders and want to get a fine camera to use rather then just put on a shelf. Monochrome only, printed in my darkroom at home. I have a tendency to always go for the fastest glass possible.
There are two things I think I have noticed in searching through this forum :
Pretty much all these 120 folders have lenses which are Tessars or Tessar copies. Are there any with planar, sonnar, gauss, biogon or other types of lens designs ?
Also, they all seem to have the “standard “ focal length lens or thereabouts. Are there any with wider angle lenses than standard? I would really like one with focal length equivalent to, say, 35mm in 135 format, or wider.
I enjoy this forum immensely and always learn something when I visit.
Many Thanks.
Scrambler
Well-known
Hi freecitizen.
Most will have "normal" lenses. But bear in mind that 50mm is NOT the correct "normal" focal length for 35mm - that would be 43mm. So must MF folders will be pretty close to a 40-45mm lens, or as near to 35mm as they are to 50mm. 6x6 folders tend to have 80mm but some will have 75mm which will give a slightly wider perspective. You will usually find the 6x9's have a 105mm lens, giving the equivalent of a 43mm lens on 35mm.
I would say that virtually all the folders have either Tessar or triplet lenses. You won't find any AFAIK with Planar/double Gauss (same thing), Sonnar or Biogon lenses. Sonnars are much to big to consider putting in a folder. Planars likewise - but you can get TLRs with Planar lens designs if you want an "affordable" MF Planar.
Why Tessars as the "quality" lens? Firstly, you dont WANT a really fast lens in a MF camera - it will have too thin depth-of-field and too much light falloff/vignetting. Second, Tessars are thin, light and economical to make - fitting with folders as economy cameras - the equivalent in their day of modern P&S cameras. For this reason many will have triplet lenses - I have owned a total of 5 MF folders, and 4 had triplets (and the other has a single-element lens!)
I have to say I was disappointed with my first MF folder - a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515 with triplet lens. It had so little vignetting, and was so sharp, that it could have been a modern camera not a 1930's antique. I got over it
Most will have "normal" lenses. But bear in mind that 50mm is NOT the correct "normal" focal length for 35mm - that would be 43mm. So must MF folders will be pretty close to a 40-45mm lens, or as near to 35mm as they are to 50mm. 6x6 folders tend to have 80mm but some will have 75mm which will give a slightly wider perspective. You will usually find the 6x9's have a 105mm lens, giving the equivalent of a 43mm lens on 35mm.
I would say that virtually all the folders have either Tessar or triplet lenses. You won't find any AFAIK with Planar/double Gauss (same thing), Sonnar or Biogon lenses. Sonnars are much to big to consider putting in a folder. Planars likewise - but you can get TLRs with Planar lens designs if you want an "affordable" MF Planar.
Why Tessars as the "quality" lens? Firstly, you dont WANT a really fast lens in a MF camera - it will have too thin depth-of-field and too much light falloff/vignetting. Second, Tessars are thin, light and economical to make - fitting with folders as economy cameras - the equivalent in their day of modern P&S cameras. For this reason many will have triplet lenses - I have owned a total of 5 MF folders, and 4 had triplets (and the other has a single-element lens!)
I have to say I was disappointed with my first MF folder - a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515 with triplet lens. It had so little vignetting, and was so sharp, that it could have been a modern camera not a 1930's antique. I got over it
nanthor
Well-known
I agree with most all that Scrambler has to say. I do add though that there are some nicer lenses to be had in a folder than the 3 elements, though as he stated, some of the 3 element lenses are very sharp. I have and really like my Voigtlander Bessa RF 6x9 folder with the color heliar 5 element lens. While it is certainly sharp (but drops off in the corners) I mostly like the rendering that the heliar lens imparts, certainly the best 3D look that I have ever encountered. While not really wide, I think the 105mm lens is wider than the standard 50mm look you would find in a 35mm camera. It supposedly equals a 45mm lens in 35mm format. The camera is also VERY light and thin for a 6x9 camera. I think they also made the same camera with a color skopar lens, which is a 4 element lens and also very sharp. Not sure about that though. Other's might know and add to this. Bob.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Voigtländer Perkeo II with Color Skopar 80mm f/3.5 is one of my favorites, and a stunningly good lens. 6x6 format, very compact camera when folded, and a feel of quality and robustness right up there with the Zeiss Ikons, but without the weight.
I also have a Balda Baldix with Baltar 75/2.8 lens. Much more lightly built and even smaller, but the lens is not up to the quality of the Color Skopar.
You're going to stop down 6x6 and 6x9 folders (particularly scale focus models like these) quite a lot most of the time anyway, so it's better to go with the slower, lighter, higher quality lenses most of the time.
G
I also have a Balda Baldix with Baltar 75/2.8 lens. Much more lightly built and even smaller, but the lens is not up to the quality of the Color Skopar.
You're going to stop down 6x6 and 6x9 folders (particularly scale focus models like these) quite a lot most of the time anyway, so it's better to go with the slower, lighter, higher quality lenses most of the time.
G
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, there would be the modern Makina 67 and Fuji GF667/Bessa III series, with Gauss type lenses, at a price, and not really true to type.
But that is about it - at the time when folders were a dominant high value camera type, triplet derived lenses (Triplet, Tessar, Heliar) were the best they had for that speed and coverage. The shortest generally available Sonnar to barely cover 6x9 before WWII was the 180mm (past folder dimensions), the Double Gauss lenses of the period were slow large format wide angles, and the Ernostar was big enough to make its 6x9 camera appendage look like a lens cap (for little more than a stop advantage over the fastest Tessars, and no performance benefit at smaller apertures)...
Some of the odd few interchangeable lens plate or strut folders (e.g. Makina II/III) could be equipped with modest wide angles, but these traded in speed for coverage, weren't superior to a triplet in any other aspect, and bypassed the rangefinder focusing.
But that is about it - at the time when folders were a dominant high value camera type, triplet derived lenses (Triplet, Tessar, Heliar) were the best they had for that speed and coverage. The shortest generally available Sonnar to barely cover 6x9 before WWII was the 180mm (past folder dimensions), the Double Gauss lenses of the period were slow large format wide angles, and the Ernostar was big enough to make its 6x9 camera appendage look like a lens cap (for little more than a stop advantage over the fastest Tessars, and no performance benefit at smaller apertures)...
Some of the odd few interchangeable lens plate or strut folders (e.g. Makina II/III) could be equipped with modest wide angles, but these traded in speed for coverage, weren't superior to a triplet in any other aspect, and bypassed the rangefinder focusing.
Spanik
Well-known
Depends if you want a "period" folder or a more modern one. If you look at modern folders you might get something "wide".
There is the Makina Plaubel W67 with a 50mm (28mm equiv) and the W69 with a 47mm (21mm equiv). These are a bit wider than you're looking for. For the old version there was a 73mm which on 6x9 could fit your quest. But finding one might be a quest in itself. The Fuji 667W has a 55mm but then it isn't folding like it's "normal" lensed version. If you could stretch your definition of folder to a Mamiya 6 with the 50mm it might be an option. And Fuji made some non-folding 670 and 690 models with wide angle lenses.
The only old one I could find with a wider lens is the Agfa Ansco Plenax PB 20 (takes 620 film) and Veribrooks wide.
There is the Makina Plaubel W67 with a 50mm (28mm equiv) and the W69 with a 47mm (21mm equiv). These are a bit wider than you're looking for. For the old version there was a 73mm which on 6x9 could fit your quest. But finding one might be a quest in itself. The Fuji 667W has a 55mm but then it isn't folding like it's "normal" lensed version. If you could stretch your definition of folder to a Mamiya 6 with the 50mm it might be an option. And Fuji made some non-folding 670 and 690 models with wide angle lenses.
The only old one I could find with a wider lens is the Agfa Ansco Plenax PB 20 (takes 620 film) and Veribrooks wide.
Spicy
Well-known
Scrambler mentions some great points. The Tessars tend to be quite pleasant and offer a slightly different aesthetic. Also, bear in mind that in the 30s-70s when folders were still recipients of a fair amount of attention before the 35mm SLR came in and crushed everything, today's modern "bokeh-whoring" wasn't really seen as a photographic/artistic technique, and shooting wide-open all the time to minimize depth-of-field was more in the realm of rangefinders with their fast lenses and more precise RF focusing. While some more well-equipped folders do have RFs, the bulk of them are relatively primitive in comparison to Leicas/Nikons of the same period. Back then, the RFs were to help focusing accuracy for when you were put in the unfortunate situation with uncontrollably low light, not really to enable precision/low-light shooting, wide-open.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The Plaubel 69W was no folder (and hence not in the Makina series), but a sub view camera panoramic/architecture camera - a huge beast, even 6x7 medium format SLRs are smaller and lighter.
citizen99
Well-known
I have had and can confirm that the Bessa 6x9 Rangefinder (and the non-RF Bessas) are also be found with the Skopar and with the (triplet) Helomar which are all excellent lenses. (I currently have the Voigtlander Bessa RF 6x9 folder).
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
.Steve M.
Veteran
There are Heliar lenses on the Voigtlander 6x4.5 and 6x6 small folding cameras, and also on the larger Bessa II and Bessa RF folding cameras (6x4.5 and 6x9 with an internal film mask). One of the most fabled lens designs in photography. The Isolettes also have Solinar lenses, but I found them to be not in the same category as Heliars. What is?
Front cell focusing lenses are fine at 15' and beyond, for portrait work and all around better shots on the close side of 15' (approx) I recommend a unit focusing camera. All the Heliars on the folders are unit focusing.
Front cell focusing lenses are fine at 15' and beyond, for portrait work and all around better shots on the close side of 15' (approx) I recommend a unit focusing camera. All the Heliars on the folders are unit focusing.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Debatable. The Heliar on the big Bessas is a very fine lens. But the front-cell focusing Heliar on the Bessa 46 and 66 is nowhere up to the Color Skopar on the Perkeo series that succeeded it, at least in any sample I've ever owned. Perhaps that design is not suitable for front-cell focusing.
graywolf
Well-known
Probably the best lens ever mounted on a folding (non-press) camera was the Voightlander Apo-Lanthar (sp?). However those have a cult following so you can expect to pay in the thousands for a Bessa with one of those.
The next best seems to be the lens on the Russian Iskra. Unless the users of those cameras are better at scanning negatives than users of other cameras (check out photo posted here from the Iskra). I have an Iskra myself, and can varify the quality of the lens, but they are big heavy cameras.
Beyond those two the above posts seem to be about right.
6x9 press type cameras will give you infinite lens options (planars, Xenotars, Biogons, etc.), but they are not casual carry-around type camers.
Most folders were availabe with two, three, or more lens/shutter combinations. The bottom combination was snapshot quality but most of the more expensive combinations were rather good, some were great.
The next best seems to be the lens on the Russian Iskra. Unless the users of those cameras are better at scanning negatives than users of other cameras (check out photo posted here from the Iskra). I have an Iskra myself, and can varify the quality of the lens, but they are big heavy cameras.
Beyond those two the above posts seem to be about right.
6x9 press type cameras will give you infinite lens options (planars, Xenotars, Biogons, etc.), but they are not casual carry-around type camers.
Most folders were availabe with two, three, or more lens/shutter combinations. The bottom combination was snapshot quality but most of the more expensive combinations were rather good, some were great.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Tom - Both APO Lanthar the Bessa II and Industar on the Iskra are unit focusing - which wasn't the norm on 120 format folders.
I really like the brass helical type focusing on Agfa built Super Isolette/Super Speedex as opposed to the rack and pinion on the Voigtlander. The Iskra bears a faint, unintended, resemblance to both my Super Speedex and Super Isolette - so hopefully the focusing is similar.
It would be very difficult to differentiate photos taken with a Xenar equipped Rolleicord and the unit focusing 75mm Solinar on either my Agfa Super Isolette or Ansco Super Speedex. -
It's a shame that medium format folders didn't survive long enough to receive the Xenon and Ultron double Gaussian lenses - which graced higher end 35mm folders like the Retinas and Vitessas. The genre faded fast during the mid-1950'ies.
Best Regards,
Best Regards, .
I really like the brass helical type focusing on Agfa built Super Isolette/Super Speedex as opposed to the rack and pinion on the Voigtlander. The Iskra bears a faint, unintended, resemblance to both my Super Speedex and Super Isolette - so hopefully the focusing is similar.
It would be very difficult to differentiate photos taken with a Xenar equipped Rolleicord and the unit focusing 75mm Solinar on either my Agfa Super Isolette or Ansco Super Speedex. -
It's a shame that medium format folders didn't survive long enough to receive the Xenon and Ultron double Gaussian lenses - which graced higher end 35mm folders like the Retinas and Vitessas. The genre faded fast during the mid-1950'ies.
Best Regards,
Best Regards, .
f16sunshine
Moderator
I can't find faults in the Bessa ii Color Heliar f3.5/105mm.
It's even sharp wide open and not so swirly in out of focus as a Tessar scheme.
Highly recommend one over a Tessar/Color Skopar/Solinar etc...
The triplets are not even close to a being as well corrected. That said for stopped down they are fine.
It's not about Bokeh but rather a nice calm oof background.
Color Heliar 105 f3.5 (Who needs a Planar when you get this sort of image from a lightweight Heliar?)
And here is a Skopar image as for a bokeh test. Subject only to have a focus point (not artist)
Focus point is sharp on center but look how dizzy the background is.
Moving in close and filling the frame the Skopar is better but still the background is quite nervous.
Back to Heliar. This is an older uncoated Bessa RF with Heliar 105 f3.5. No coatings gives a unique and lovely rendering.
It's even sharp wide open and not so swirly in out of focus as a Tessar scheme.
Highly recommend one over a Tessar/Color Skopar/Solinar etc...
The triplets are not even close to a being as well corrected. That said for stopped down they are fine.
It's not about Bokeh but rather a nice calm oof background.
Color Heliar 105 f3.5 (Who needs a Planar when you get this sort of image from a lightweight Heliar?)
And here is a Skopar image as for a bokeh test. Subject only to have a focus point (not artist)
Focus point is sharp on center but look how dizzy the background is.
Moving in close and filling the frame the Skopar is better but still the background is quite nervous.
Back to Heliar. This is an older uncoated Bessa RF with Heliar 105 f3.5. No coatings gives a unique and lovely rendering.
GaryLH
Veteran
The Bessa II w/ Heliar or Fuji gf670/Bessa 3 or perkeo II w/ Skopar would be my choices for folding camera. I have all three. I have owned all of the others mentioned above except Makina 670w. The older folders like the Bessa II are actually more compact then the gf670 btw.
Gary
Gary
citizen99
Well-known
Illustrating rendition in colour, there are more Bessa Rangefinder (late 1930s according to shutter and Heliar lens serial numbers) pictures here.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Very nice images of the Heliars. Still Tessar related of course but you are correct on the out of focus character. I see that more swirly effect in the Iskra Industar but not bad. The Kodak Monitor Anastigmat Special is even better.
I do not think that there is a real Planar design on any folder, I consider the lenses of the Makina 67 and Fuji GF667/Bessa III more as deviations from the Plasmat than from the double Gaussian. Plasmats can be quite small.
The Kodak Wide Angle 100mm lens is small enough for folder cameras. A shorter focal length one too. The quality is good considering Chris Perez's tests of them compared with folder lenses like the Anastigmat Special he also tested. Front cell focusing is of course not possible then. There probably was no demand for wide angle cameras in this market segment. The ones that come close are the Telka III 6x9 with a Tessar type 90mm and the Agfa Plenax already mentioned, the last probably a simple symmetrical two element. The later Makina W67 version with the 55mm shows that a folder wide angle is a bit of a contradiction, the shorter the focal length the less you gain in folding the focal path.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Very nice images of the Heliars. Still Tessar related of course but you are correct on the out of focus character. I see that more swirly effect in the Iskra Industar but not bad. The Kodak Monitor Anastigmat Special is even better.
I do not think that there is a real Planar design on any folder, I consider the lenses of the Makina 67 and Fuji GF667/Bessa III more as deviations from the Plasmat than from the double Gaussian. Plasmats can be quite small.
The Kodak Wide Angle 100mm lens is small enough for folder cameras. A shorter focal length one too. The quality is good considering Chris Perez's tests of them compared with folder lenses like the Anastigmat Special he also tested. Front cell focusing is of course not possible then. There probably was no demand for wide angle cameras in this market segment. The ones that come close are the Telka III 6x9 with a Tessar type 90mm and the Agfa Plenax already mentioned, the last probably a simple symmetrical two element. The later Makina W67 version with the 55mm shows that a folder wide angle is a bit of a contradiction, the shorter the focal length the less you gain in folding the focal path.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots
freecitizen
Newbie
Thanks - am I on the right track ?
Thanks - am I on the right track ?
Thankyou everyone, for this torrent of information. It is really very helpful.
I am starting to form an idea of where to look. I have gotten this far in what I think I want :
My main concern is the lens because I think it is the heart and soul of a camera. I generally prefer fast lenses, but as I have learned here, this is probably not so important and useable as with my Leica. Still tend towards the 2.8’s though.
It is the character of the lens I care about most. I have chased and bought specific lens because of their “look “ , Leica’s 35 Summilux pre-aspherical, and the 74/1.4 come to mind. I regard the camera as a means to an end. Making a photograph look the way I want it to look starts, I believe, with the camera. I have always been prepared to pay for a superb lens, as long as it is superb enough to justify the price.
I don’t like a background that agitates the eye, rather want smooth and placid. I don’t have to have a generally high contrast lens, but I want it sharp where I have focused it, with good rendition of detail and microcontrast. I don’t mind an “ older “ look as long as it has “class “. I like that 1950’s low contrast, detailed look with the clear, extended zone 7 to 9 detail and separation. It looks so crisp in a good darkroom print. I guess it is about how the lens interprets the light.
My intention is to use the camera for shooting various monochrome film types and printing them in my darkroom. It is only equipped for monochrome, but that is what I prefer anyway. I am not shooting with a view to scanning the negatives, although there may be very rare occasions when I might. I don’t intend to shoot colour at all ….. well, perhaps try velvia in a pinch, but the processing costs are so high ….. better to use the Leica M.
I will be shooting general scenes, landscape, street, candid and maybe the occasional impromptu portrait. Here in Australia, the light is strong and can be very harsh, hence my preference for a a bit less than high contrast lens. Despite my love for shooting wide open with fast lenses, I understand MF folders usually need stopping down to get a sharp negative and so I will regard the camera as generally being an “ outdoors “ camera.
I also want small ( as possible ) and light weight. This is important to me. ( Currently I have an Olympus XA in my pocket. I would love a MF version of that camera ! ). Small and light means I will carry the camera with me instead of leaving it at home. I intend to use it as a point and shoot and I thank Scrambler for saying “ these folders were the equivalent in their day of the modern point and shoot cameras “. That single comment really put things in perspective for me.
Thought I was absolutely certain I wanted one with coupled rangefinder, now not sure if rangefinder is essential. This is something I reconsidered after reading this forum. So I’m now considering the “ guesstimation “ cameras too.
Looked at the Fuji GF670/Bessa 667 but it is far too big and expensive. I didn’t think it was value at the current prices. Also I disliked the bokeh from that lens.
I think I would prefer something a little more advanced than a red window camera, but this would not be a deal-breaker. I am aiming for coated lenses of quality from mid 1950’s to the 1960’s.
Shutter needs to go from 1 to 1/500 seconds and most preferably synchro compur. Pretty sure about this.
I am considering 6x6 and 6x9. I may end up with one of each. But I do not want to end up with several of each and suddenly realize I have become a collector. I am buying the camera to shoot. I have an Agfa Varioscop enlarger which is superb with negs up to 6x9.
I much prefer German made cameras ( the quality ), but am also looking at the latest Mamiya six folding cameras. I want a quality build, not a fragile camera.
Tried to buy a very nice Perkeo II with colour scopar on that auction site a couple of days ago but got sniped in the last second. Such is life. Plenty of other cameras to try for …. But that one seemed to be small, light and with a good lens.
I have other cameras of high quality for my photography. I’m interested in MF folders to use like a point and shoot and get back to the darkroom. I need a break from digital. So I have spent my money on these other cameras without regret, they are superb. The MF folder will not be to compete with the cameras I already have, but will be fun and something new for me. Consequently I have a budget and do not want to spend any more than say $300 ……or for something very special, $400 tops.
My plan is to keep watching and learning and reading this forum, occasionally putting in low bids on quality gear for now, until I get to know more.
If anything I just said needs reconsidering, or anyone has more info and opinions, I would be delighted to hear.
Thanks again for all the terrific replies.
Thanks - am I on the right track ?
Thankyou everyone, for this torrent of information. It is really very helpful.
I am starting to form an idea of where to look. I have gotten this far in what I think I want :
My main concern is the lens because I think it is the heart and soul of a camera. I generally prefer fast lenses, but as I have learned here, this is probably not so important and useable as with my Leica. Still tend towards the 2.8’s though.
It is the character of the lens I care about most. I have chased and bought specific lens because of their “look “ , Leica’s 35 Summilux pre-aspherical, and the 74/1.4 come to mind. I regard the camera as a means to an end. Making a photograph look the way I want it to look starts, I believe, with the camera. I have always been prepared to pay for a superb lens, as long as it is superb enough to justify the price.
I don’t like a background that agitates the eye, rather want smooth and placid. I don’t have to have a generally high contrast lens, but I want it sharp where I have focused it, with good rendition of detail and microcontrast. I don’t mind an “ older “ look as long as it has “class “. I like that 1950’s low contrast, detailed look with the clear, extended zone 7 to 9 detail and separation. It looks so crisp in a good darkroom print. I guess it is about how the lens interprets the light.
My intention is to use the camera for shooting various monochrome film types and printing them in my darkroom. It is only equipped for monochrome, but that is what I prefer anyway. I am not shooting with a view to scanning the negatives, although there may be very rare occasions when I might. I don’t intend to shoot colour at all ….. well, perhaps try velvia in a pinch, but the processing costs are so high ….. better to use the Leica M.
I will be shooting general scenes, landscape, street, candid and maybe the occasional impromptu portrait. Here in Australia, the light is strong and can be very harsh, hence my preference for a a bit less than high contrast lens. Despite my love for shooting wide open with fast lenses, I understand MF folders usually need stopping down to get a sharp negative and so I will regard the camera as generally being an “ outdoors “ camera.
I also want small ( as possible ) and light weight. This is important to me. ( Currently I have an Olympus XA in my pocket. I would love a MF version of that camera ! ). Small and light means I will carry the camera with me instead of leaving it at home. I intend to use it as a point and shoot and I thank Scrambler for saying “ these folders were the equivalent in their day of the modern point and shoot cameras “. That single comment really put things in perspective for me.
Thought I was absolutely certain I wanted one with coupled rangefinder, now not sure if rangefinder is essential. This is something I reconsidered after reading this forum. So I’m now considering the “ guesstimation “ cameras too.
Looked at the Fuji GF670/Bessa 667 but it is far too big and expensive. I didn’t think it was value at the current prices. Also I disliked the bokeh from that lens.
I think I would prefer something a little more advanced than a red window camera, but this would not be a deal-breaker. I am aiming for coated lenses of quality from mid 1950’s to the 1960’s.
Shutter needs to go from 1 to 1/500 seconds and most preferably synchro compur. Pretty sure about this.
I am considering 6x6 and 6x9. I may end up with one of each. But I do not want to end up with several of each and suddenly realize I have become a collector. I am buying the camera to shoot. I have an Agfa Varioscop enlarger which is superb with negs up to 6x9.
I much prefer German made cameras ( the quality ), but am also looking at the latest Mamiya six folding cameras. I want a quality build, not a fragile camera.
Tried to buy a very nice Perkeo II with colour scopar on that auction site a couple of days ago but got sniped in the last second. Such is life. Plenty of other cameras to try for …. But that one seemed to be small, light and with a good lens.
I have other cameras of high quality for my photography. I’m interested in MF folders to use like a point and shoot and get back to the darkroom. I need a break from digital. So I have spent my money on these other cameras without regret, they are superb. The MF folder will not be to compete with the cameras I already have, but will be fun and something new for me. Consequently I have a budget and do not want to spend any more than say $300 ……or for something very special, $400 tops.
My plan is to keep watching and learning and reading this forum, occasionally putting in low bids on quality gear for now, until I get to know more.
If anything I just said needs reconsidering, or anyone has more info and opinions, I would be delighted to hear.
Thanks again for all the terrific replies.
GaryLH
Veteran
Perkeo is like the mf version of a Olympus xa for sure. I can put one in my back jean pocket. The are other Germain companies that have made very compact folders as well, but I am partial to the Voitlander cameras.
The fastest lens in mf folder is a Tessar 80f2.8 or the nikor f2.8 collapsible on the makina pabel 670.
Gary
The fastest lens in mf folder is a Tessar 80f2.8 or the nikor f2.8 collapsible on the makina pabel 670.
Gary