Looking for 6x6 Folder

Late Autorange 220's also came with a coated front-element focussing Ross Xpres 75mm lens (It's got the flip up thingy like the Super Ikontas.). This is a very nice camera, although it begs the question why Ensign didn't go whole hog and make a film-plane focussing 220 with the Ross lens. Probably the dodgy economics of the company prevented it.

--nosmok

(oops, just realized this camera is the Ensign Autorange 1620, and is 6 x 4.5 cm only. The 820 Autorange could do 6x6 with internal fold-out masks. Never mind, ignore me. I need more coffee. The 1620 has the nicest viewfinder for its format I've ever seen, though, you may want one just for that.).
 
Last edited:
Actually, the "regular" (i.e. VF, not RF) Selfix 16-20 came with Xpress 75/3.5 in one of its variants (mkIV?). The Selfix 16-20 can also be found with Ensar Anastigmat or Rosstar lenses, I have not seen other lenses on 16-20 (such as those not-so-common Tessars found in AutoRange 220s or Commandos).

But, you're right, 6x4.5 only.
 
About 4 years ago I decided to try shooting medium format. After some research I bought a 6x6 folder from Jurgen Kreckel (Certo6). Here's what I went with:

Agfa Isolette III Mark II
Solinar 75mm f3.5 lens
Prontor SV shutter (B, 1, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/300) 10 blade aperture, X-sync, Self Timer

It came with new black bellows + an original camera case, lens hood, yellow filter, green Filter, and a filter/hood holder.

All together it's a really nice kit. I specifically chose the Prontor SV shutter because I wanted the 10 blade aperture and the Prontor SV is supposedly less likely to need repair.

Alas, I never really took to medium format. I occasionally shoot a roll or two, but it's just not for me. I don't develop myself and I find film, processing, and prints strains my photography budget. I'd be willing to let it go if your interested.

Dave
 
nosmok said:
... it begs the question why Ensign didn't go whole hog and make a film-plane focussing 220 with the Ross lens. Probably the dodgy economics of the company prevented it. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, and they had also previously diverted focus in the direction of the Commando development. I had one many years ago that I quite liked (and now have another faulty one until I get round to fixing it), but the only thing that I think it really added over the Autorange 220 was over-engineering. But, after all, it was developed with a military contract in mind ... 🙄

Veering even a bit further off-topic, one of my regrets is that Ensign never 'stretched' the design of the Autorange 220 to 6x9. But then, the story of Ensign at the the time is all about 'if only ...' .
 
Having tried many different ones, I personally prefer Welta Weltur. Simple and easy to use. Good lenses. Smaller than many. and well made. They are old, so finding a good one can be a challenge, plus people that know them are willing to pay top dollar for a good one. Love mine - goes with me on every trip.


welturs by krosyagms, on Flickr

knoght.jpg
 
Not that bad either, I have one with Xenar and black top cover, and also a Minolta Auto Semi, its japanese copy. Together with the Super Ikonta, my three 6x4.5 folders of choice (the Auto range 16-20 will join them some day, whenever I manage to have it repaired)
 
Well, I still haven't found a camera yet. I did go and see a secondhand dealer at the weekend to see what was available. There was nothing on the shelves so I did ask if there was anything in the pipeline. I did rattle off a numebr of cameras that have been suggested here of possibles, but when I mentioned Iskra & Ensigns he suggested I was aiming rather low. His response was to get a Super Ikonta.
 
martinsmith99 said:
I did rattle off a numebr of cameras that have been suggested here of possibles, but when I mentioned Iskra & Ensigns he suggested I was aiming rather low. His response was to get a Super Ikonta.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why he said low. Never used an Ensign, but I have used the iskra. I think mileage can very with this camera. A lot depends on the person that put it together since qa was not the greatest on these Russian cameras. That being said, the one I used did a great job.

The iskra uses helical focusing of complete lens unit unlike the super ikonta which uses front element group movement for focusing. Some people claim the unit focusing design is sharper, but in real life with all the other issues that can pop up I personally have not noticed the difference.

In terms of super ikonta, stick w/tessar when possible. It is not to say triplet's are bad. I have a franka solida II with a enna triplet that is so good that I thought it was a tessar design at first. Probability of getting a good lens is higher with tessar.

Built like a tank with very good lens would be the super ikonta b 532/16. They came with a real good 80 f2.8 tessar.


Super ikonta IIi, lighter weight but just as good. The iv added something I don't like EV style control.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Well, I see it like going to a second-hand car dealer asking for Car A, and the seller saying "hey dude, you're aiming too low, why have a Car A when you can have a Car B with basically the same motor but different shape and slightly better materials for double the price?"

So, it depends on what you want. I have and use an Ensign 220 Auto Range and a Super Ikonta 532/16. Both are unit focussing, coupled RFs. While Auto Ranges always have a combined rangefinder, only post-war Super Ikontas mounted it. Both have automatic film counter (yeah, Ensign's is simpler, but it allows 12 shots per roll, while the SI losses one frame, and for me with 50+ y.o. cameras, simpler is better). My Super Ikonta has a MC Tessar while the Ensign has a SC Ensar, but I like Ensign's triplet. Both can be found with Compur shutters. As said there are Auto Range 220s with Tessar lenses, but I reckon those are somewhat uncommon. All Auto Ranges 220 are double format, allowing you to take 16 exposures, for which the Super Ikonta is not prepared.

Something "with the name" of the Super Ikonta may be the Mamiya Six or the Welta Weltur already mentioned. All in all, I'd say it mostly depends on what you want and can afford.
 
Last edited:
+1 to that.
To give the consulted dealer his due, I don't suppose he was particularly expecting to have one of his recommendations 'in the pipeline' to be available to sell. But it's not the first time that I have had the impression of a dealer 'talking up the market' towards a more expensive option. It may, or may not, make sense to go for that depending on the circumstances.

I'm as 'guilty' as anybody of aiming to get, or at least try out, the version of a camera with, for example, the most highly-specified lens and shutter combination 🙄 . But what I end up keeping to use is a camera that I find suits me to handle and is 'good enough' for my type of use. This is not necessarily one with the most public 'brand recognition'. But it's difficult to do this quickly nowadays, unless you happen to live close to a classic camera specialist dealer with a wide choice on the shelf for side-by side comparison.
 
How about those Japanese 6x6 folding cameras with coupled RF? I used to have a Mamiya Six with Tessar copy lens, which is similar to a Super Isolette. The camera is solidly built yet compact, the whole film plane moves to adjust focus (unlike the Ikontas), and the Tessar copy lens is quite decent. I have also owned a Isolette II and I agree with you that uncoupled RF/VF is not that fast to use.

Fujica 6 or Super 6 might be difficult to find, but slightly better VF/RF. There should be some Minolta or Olympus copies as well.
 
martinsmith99 said:
Well, I still haven't found a camera yet. I did go and see a secondhand dealer at the weekend to see what was available. There was nothing on the shelves so I did ask if there was anything in the pipeline. I did rattle off a numebr of cameras that have been suggested here of possibles, but when I mentioned Iskra & Ensigns he suggested I was aiming rather low. His response was to get a Super Ikonta.
Click to expand...

Actually, none of the TOL folders were junk. However, when you are dealing with 50-60 year old cameras the most important thing is condition. Parts are scarce, repairs are expensive, so a excellent+ camera will always win out in the end.

If you look through the photos here on the forum taken with the Iskra, you will notice that they are some of the best images. Unfortunately, as the Cold War wound on the Soviet economy got very bad and folks there could not afford new cameras, so many Iskra were beat to death. A decent one is a very nice camera.

Ensigns, saying ensigns are junk is like saying Kodak's are junk, they both made very cheap cameras and they both made very expensive cameras. An interesting aside is that very cheap cameras from back in the day tend to be a lot better quality than very cheap cameras today.

The first thing to look for is something that you will like using. The second thing to look for is something that is in good condition. The third thing is to remember that dealers always say the cameras they don't have, are not as good as the ones they do have.
 
I don't have any personal experience of the Japanese MF folders from the era that mostly interests me (late 1930s through to mid/late 1950s), purely because for geographical and historical reasons they seem to be rarer on this side of the pond. (Later of course 35mm became all the rage and that was a different story!). It might be worth looking for those with USA-based sellers.
 
citizen99 said:
I don't have any personal experience of the Japanese MF folders from the era that mostly interests me (late 1930s through to mid/late 1950s), purely because for geographical and historical reasons they seem to be rarer on this side of the pond. (Later of course 35mm became all the rage and that was a different story!). It might be worth looking for those with USA-based sellers.
Click to expand...

Sharing that interest with you, I am lucky enough to have tried out and even own a few japanese folders. In my opinion, most of them are close copies to their German counterparts. I have Mamiya, Minolta, Olympus and Konica RFs, and Mihama, Proud, Welmy, etc. VFs. They are interesting, but generally speaking I find the construction quality poorer than the equivalent European cameras. Nevertheless, are fun to use, and that's the important thing 😀
 
I am a big fan of the Zeiss Super Ikonta IIIs and IVs. I have each and they have very sharp Zeiss Tessar lenses. Sometimes the IIIs have 75/3.5 Novar/Anastigmat lenses and I definitely prefer the Tessars. Jim
 
+1 for the Super Ikonta IV. I bought both a Super Ikonta B 533/16 and a Super Ikonta IV. The B is very nice, coated 80mm Tessar, but the IV is smaller and lighter. The Tessar's are very sharp. I was rather shocked at how well the scans came out, even from my V750 in the standard film holders.

I'll probably ditch the B, and keep the IV.
 
Well, I have another Iskra on the way as I couldn't wait to start shooting with a CRF; I missed a bargain Autorange so the Iskra was consolation. I think I'll grab an Ikonta in the future if I can find one in good condition that's not to spendy.
 
martinsmith99 said:
Well, I have another Iskra on the way as I couldn't wait to start shooting with a CRF; I missed a bargain Autorange so the Iskra was consolation. I think I'll grab an Ikonta in the future if I can find one in good condition that's not to spendy.
Click to expand...

I think you will like the Iskra, especially the images from it.

One thing, if the focus is real stiff the 4 screws that hold the bellows to the lens board (inside the bellows) are probably not evenly tightened. Many say to loosen them; but I found that what was needed was to back them off, turn them in just snug, then tighten them all 1/6-1/4 turn. If they are not all tightened the same it causes binding when focusing.

The only fault I find with an Iskra in good condition is that they are rather heavy at about a kilogram (a bit over 2lbs). There is an English translation of the manual available on the web. http://www.mediafire.com/?emzcfei2jhs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom