ljsegil
Well-known
I have developed a new found love for classic 120 folders. This shot was taken with a pre-war Voigtlander Bessa Rangefinder ("E" model) equipped with a Voitlander f/3.5 10.5cm Heliar and loaded with Portra 160NC with me as the weak link trying to hold it all together. I also lucked into a very early Zeiss Super Ikonta C, pre-war and pre-body shutter release modification with a f/4.5 10.5cm Tessar, both cameras in remarkably good condition, although the Bessa rangefinder could stand some vertical alignment (I lack the necessaries to try it myself, but it still seems to focus accurately at a full range of distances, better evidenced by other shots). I am quite smitten by my new treasures. Who needs the Bessa III (or II or I even) anyway, when these sorts of treasures are already out there for the picking? Much happiness in small and simple packages, no frills, just photography unadorned by the distracting bells and whistles, and therefore ready for and unprotected from any and all operator errors which I happily also provide.
Larry
Larry
Attachments
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Very nice cameras and a very nice photo. Be warned, folders can be very addictive (it's probably too late already though). Yes, once overhauled, with a folder you pretty much have only yourself to blame if a photo doesn't come out right.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Almost forgot: I agree with you about the Bessa III too. It has some features I'd pay not to have on there.
Windscale
Well-known
Quite agree. I wouldn't pay that much for an electronic shutter.
The older good lenses are really very good. All they need is a proper hood.
Jamie123
Veteran
Aaah, but have you tried out the Bessa III yet? When it was announced I was certain that it would be a vastly overpriced camera. However, after trying one out at the store yesterday I'm now putting all my Hasselblad gear up for sale to fund a Bessa III. Beautiful piece of equipment. And I like the fact that it has an electronic shutter. That means it won't have to go to the store every two years because the speeds are off.
laoyou
Member
I have acquired three folders in last month,
and maybe one more in next couple of weeks. Must stop now. :bang:ljsegil
Well-known
I just got back my rolls in which I tried to directly compare the Bessa/Heliar to the Ikonta C/Tessar in both color and B&W. Naturally, my testing was imperfect, but I would call the results pretty much a wash. They're both potentially wonderful if I don't screw up. Based on those four rolls I could not choose between the two based on results, but the Bessa does have an edge in ergonomics, shutter speed, and aperture. Of the other random rolls that I have shot, the pictures that most knocked me out were from the Bessa.
Oh, but this is fun!
Larry
Oh, but this is fun!
Larry
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Sorry, but I'm still convinced that your first impression was right. I can see they've put a lot of work into the ergonomics, but that doesn't really matter to me. If you're shooting medium format you should probably be shooting from a tripod. I think that making it easier to shoot handheld = making it easier to screw up. I also prefer using a handheld meter. Personally, just I prefer the Voigtlander Bessa II.
Some of us do our own CLAs. Once you've learned, there really isn't that much to it. If something does go wrong, 90% of the time mechanics are easier (and far less expensive) to repair/replace than electronics. I REALLY don't like electronic shutters. I prefer things I can fix if they get broken, that won't cost me an arm and a leg to get repaired, and that won't kill your shoot if the batteries die. If you do this long enough, you will forget to pack extra batteries at an inopportune time.
Last edited:
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Much as the Bessa III is quite attractive, its price really puts it out of the question for me for the foreseeable future. I think I'd rather get a Bessa II with the Heliar for substantially less (but still way more than the typical folder).
With folders, often the lowlier the camera, the better: Part of the fun with these cameras is seeing what fine results you can get with seemingly second-rate lens designs, such as 3 element lenses like the Novar, Vaskar or Radionar. And slow as they are in use, the "red window" cameras at least have the benefit of no overlapping frames! (Unless you're totally clueless, of course.) And you don't have to worry about issues with frame overlap because of the different thickness of film now compared with when the cameras were made.
But vintage folders have their own unique problems relating to the rigidity of struts and the light-tightness of the bellows. Bellows replacement may not be cost-effective. And if the struts aren't rock-solid, I don't know that they can be fixed.
With folders, often the lowlier the camera, the better: Part of the fun with these cameras is seeing what fine results you can get with seemingly second-rate lens designs, such as 3 element lenses like the Novar, Vaskar or Radionar. And slow as they are in use, the "red window" cameras at least have the benefit of no overlapping frames! (Unless you're totally clueless, of course.) And you don't have to worry about issues with frame overlap because of the different thickness of film now compared with when the cameras were made.
But vintage folders have their own unique problems relating to the rigidity of struts and the light-tightness of the bellows. Bellows replacement may not be cost-effective. And if the struts aren't rock-solid, I don't know that they can be fixed.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
And a true 6x9 if it is like my Bessa I, 56x88 mm frame size. Actually 6 mm too long for the Nikon 8000 scanner's maximum scan length.
The Monitor 620, the Agfa Record II all have an 82/83 mm frame length. Calling them 6x8 would have been more appropriate.
The Bessa III doesn't go beyond 56x68 mm which is a true 2 centimeter less than the Bessa I (II). It isn't the Ideal format either like some call it, that should be 56x72 mm according Linhof.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Jamie123
Veteran
Oh, I completely understand that the OP is happy with the vintage 6x9 folder. I'm not making a case against vintage folder but for the Bessa III. All I was saying is that while on paper the camera might seem "soso" in real use it proves to be (to me at least) a very nice modern camera. Now if it's worth the cost is a whole other question and up to one self to decide.
Now my decision to replace my Hasselblad has different reasons. I really like the Hassy system and have been shooting with it exclusively for the past 4 years. My kit consisted of a body, several lenses, backs and lots of accessories so I took full advantage of the modularity of the system. However, this modularity can also be a curse. Not only are you always carrying around a lot of weight but also is there the possibility of any one piece failing at any time. This is not only a big PITA but also quite expensive as I do not trust myself with repairing this kind of equipment.
My choice to get the Bessa III has a few reasons, one of them being my recent acquisition of a Canon 5DII. The Canon will from now on take over for paid work, pushing film into the personal domain. When shooting for myself I just don't like to carry around 15lbs of gear, especially not when travelling. If size were no issue I'd have gone with a Mamiya RZ long ago which, IMO, is a nicer camera.
The Bessa with the fixed 80mm lens has its limitations but it is also a simplification which I like.
A few thoughts on your other comments. Firstly, I don't like 6x9 and prefer the 6x7 aspect ratio. Sure you can crop but it's an awful waste of film. Also, should I ever want to do digital medium format I'd most likely go with a different system.
Jamie123
Veteran
Sorry but I'll have to disagree with a few things here. Firstly, there's no reason why one should use a tripod with medium format any more than with 35mm film. You could argue that it is even less necessary since you don't need to magnify as much.
Secondly, the battery issue is a moot point. It's just as easy to forget the film and batteries are available at a lot more places than rollfilm.
I do agree about the meter, though. I have a hard time trusting in-camera meters.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Intellectually, I love 'em. In the real world, I find that almost all of them are disappointingly unsharp, whether as a result of sheer old age or the inherent problem of front-cell focusing. Tonally lovely, yes. Sharp, very rarely. Frances and I currently own about half a dozen, and none of 'em comes near our rigid-bodied cameras (such as Polaroid 600SE or Graflex XL) or TLRS (even Lyubitel) or 'baby' Linhofs or our 4x5 cameras with roll-film backs.
Tashi delek,
R.
Tashi delek,
R.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Hmmm..... I suppose its a user error in some cases. If you know what you are doing and have a good folder, I see no problems getting decent pics. Will they match Hassy - no, but they can deliver useable results - just check pics from your folder thread! I have had many different folders and now have just two - both Welta Welturs, as I like them so much. Both are nearly 100 years old. Both had to be adjusted, which I did myself and both function PERFECT. and 6x6 model has lens faster than a new Bessa - 75/2.8 Xenar and does a good job wide open (flatbed scanner):
and here is the camera I took those pics with:
And I'm sure, it can outperform Lubitel.
and here is the camera I took those pics with:
And I'm sure, it can outperform Lubitel.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I've no doubt that the very best are excellent, and will easily beat a Lyubitel. Your pictures look very good, from what one can tell on a monitor: sincere congratulations, because I'd have been happy to shoot them. It's just that surprisingly few of the ones that that I've used in the last 43 years have been any good. Many of my friends have sung their praises; I must have been consistently unlucky, or have quite high standards for sharpness.
"User error"? Well, apart from focusing at the correct distance and setting correct exposure, I don't see much scope for this.
Cheers,
R.
peterm1
Veteran
For one mad moment I had imagined that you had struck up a relationship with a lady contortionist. That aside the images here are very nice indeed. I must think about getting a medium format folder at some time - presently I only own a 35mm Kodak Retina (early post war) that is fun to use but which I have not explored much after being given it by a work colleague.
Jamie123
Veteran
no problem Jamie, thnks for your clarifacation. a walk around folding camera certainly has its benefits to having a large kit if you cant make use of it. be warned there are more people around that get rid of their hasse equipement and miss it later on than not though
That's quite possible but then I can always get another one. Hassys aren't getting more expensive. On the other hand, were I to keep it in a bag and not use it for a few years it would be quite likely that the shutter would start sticking and some springs would lose tension. Hassys need a bit of exercise every once in a while
curious though if you (or others) dont like 6x9 format then why do you and every one else like 35mm and digital full frame! its exactly the same ratio
I like the ratio for 35mm because it works with the faster, more dynamic type of work but with the slower, more contemplative workflow of MF I prefer 6x7. Besides, there's just no alternative when using 35mm/digital.
As far as MF digital goes I currently prefer to rent whenever I need it than actually buying it. If I were to buy into a system it would probably be the Hasseblad H system. I prefer to use a camera with the least possible amount of crop and the prices are quite reasonable. Also, you can rent H equipment almost anywhere in the world which is a big plus IMO.
ljsegil
Well-known
Well, with my limited experience thus far the only thing I've ever used that I could actually carry in my pocket and produce images approaching the quality I've already seen as I learn my new (very old) folders is the current (though perhaps even less available than the old folders) Voigtlander Bessa R2S with the 3.5/50 Heliar attached. Certainly other systems can produce images of the quality I've produced thus far, but one sacrifices the portability and pleasure of purely analogue use offered by the folders. I'll ride this wave as far as it will carry me, and am only beginning to learn and explore this Brave Old World. Pure unmitigated enjoyment thus far, and with rigid struts on both and whole lens focusing on the Bessa, front element helical on the Zeiss. Easier to truck than my 5x7 (emphasis on the truck), and "no bells to whistle, no buttons to push" (J. Hendrix 1967, though not referring to photographic equipment), simple enough for even my easily overtaxed mind and fumbling fingers (don't get along well with those digital menus).
Much joy and pleasing images to all those who partake of the experience,
Larry
Much joy and pleasing images to all those who partake of the experience,
Larry
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Sorry, but I think that's just wrong. Pretty much the whole point of going to a larger format than 35mm is to use that bigger negative to capture more fine detail and to do it in sharp focus. I think the best way to do that is to shoot from a tripod. If not, I believe you might just as well have stayed with 35mm.
It's simple. The more things there are to forget, the more likely it is that you'll forget one or more of them. I've never forgotten my film. I have however, forgotten to bring extra batteries -- when I needed them -- twice.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not necessarily. Tonality may be at least as large an argument for some people.
Cheers,
R.