Newbie to folders looking for suggestions

[dboeren]

I own a Yashica TLR which got me into medium format, and now I'm looking to try out a folding rangefinder camera.

I've got two candidates I'm currently contemplating and wondering which is the better deal (or neither):

1. Mess Ikonta 524/16 w/ 3.5 75mm Tessar for $180
2. Super Baldax w/ 3.5 80mm Baldinar for $150

The Ikonta has a better lens (Baldinar is a triplet), but is uncoupled. I suspect that it's also better build quality. The Super Baldax is slightly cheaper but the coupled rangefinder may make it easier to use.

One thing I don't know is the comparative niceness of their rangefinders - size, brightness, etc...

What do you guys think? I could also just go to certo6's page and get whatever I want but the price would be about double and since I haven't used a RF before I wonder if it's better to start off with something inexpensive.

I'm open to other models or vendors but want to stick with 6x6 format and a rangefinder, whether uncoupled or coupled.

Thanks!

 

[Noll]

welcome to the forum! I can't offer much expertise on the wide array of folding camera out there, but I can say this: A lot of those three-element lenses deliver really gorgeous results. Don't dismiss a folder outright because of that.

That said, I have a scale focus Ikonta (523/16) with the same 3.5 Opton Tessar as in the 524 and it is a dynamite lens, helped by a curved 10-blade diaphragm. It's small - for a folder - and sturdy too. Great package all around.

Most of these ebay folders will probably have something wrong with them. Haze, bellows pinholes, RF issues, corrosion, slow speeds off, etc so paying more for a recently serviced camera might be worth it. Good luck, post some photos here when you get it!

 

[ZeissFan]

Tbe Baldas are good cameras, and it's true that the Tessar should give better performance. However, stopped down to f/8 or smaller, both lenses should perform about the same. I think that should be a Baldanar.

As users, a coupled rangefinder is always simpler than an uncoupled rangefinder. I admit to sometimes focusing and then forgetting to set the lens to that distance. I just finished a roll with the 524/16's big brother, the 524/2 (6x9), and luckily I didn't do that this time.

So, your choice is easier to use vs. a better lens. I probably would go for the better lens.

By the way, that's a very good price on the Mess Ikonta. Those often sell for the mid- to high-$200 range. Or at least, they used to.

And it is true that any camera that is 60+ years old should be serviced.

 

[Godfrey]

I had Super Ikontas in the past, and have a Balda Baldix and a Voigtländer Perkeo II now. Of them all, the Perkeo II is my favorite for its very small size, superb Color Skopar lens, and outstanding build and feel. Despite being scale focus only, it makes the best photos of the group.

G

 

[thegman]

I've had coupled folders, and non-coupled ones. I think I'd spring for the coupled one, regardless of the lens. It may not be the best lens in the world, but one man's imperfection is another man's 'character'.

As stated above, as you stop down, it'll get better.

I'd mostly base my decision on condition, but all being equal, I'd get the coupled one.

 

[BW400CN]

Is it nessesary to be a rangefinder?

An alternative would be a plate camera with a rollfilm (120) back


Voigtländer Avus 6x9 par BW400CN, bei ipernity

This is a Voigtländer Avus 6x9 with Rada back


Voigtländer Avus - Fuji Reala 100 par BW400CN, bei ipernity

I realy love the 4.5 10.5cm Skopar


Zeiss Ikon Mess-Ikonta 524/2 par BW400CN, bei ipernity

The Zeiss Ikon Mess Ikonta would be an alternative to - but the RF isn´t coupeld.
The first Film is still in prograss to develop - so stay tuned to see the results.

 

[jnoir]

Directly answering OP's question:

Assuming both are in good shape and working well, I'd go with the Super Baldax (although I would prefer it to have a Radionar, one of my favorite triplets). I am not sure what rebadged lens the Baldinar is.

Two main reasons for it:

- It has unit focussing, with the Mess-Ikonta being front cell focussing. CRF is a plus.
- It has auto film advance AND red window

And it is 30 bucks cheaper ;-)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally I'd go for neither and a bigger format -- 6x9 cm.

And I'd not worry too much about an RF. Guessing is not that hard (and it gets easier with practice) or you can use a separate RF or even a tape measure for close-ups. Viewfinders on folders are so awful that precise framing isn't really an option.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Tbe Baldas are good cameras, and it's true that the Tessar should give better performance. However, stopped down to f/8 or smaller, both lenses should perform about the same. I think that should be a Baldanar.

As users, a coupled rangefinder is always simpler than an uncoupled rangefinder. I admit to sometimes focusing and then forgetting to set the lens to that distance. I just finished a roll with the 524/16's big brother, the 524/2 (6x9), and luckily I didn't do that this time.

So, your choice is easier to use vs. a better lens. I probably would go for the better lens.

By the way, that's a very good price on the Mess Ikonta. Those often sell for the mid- to high-$200 range. Or at least, they used to.

And it is true that any camera that is 60+ years old should be serviced.

Dear Mike,

Can't agree. As long as the shutter works (and Compurs are unbelievably reliable) and the lens focuses, there's bugger all else in there to go wrong, at least with 'red window' cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jnoir]

Far from my intention to disagree but, the way I see it it's a really valuable advice: when dealing with the first foray into folders having a nice, working one might be one of the key parts to catch the folder bug.

As you know probably better than I do, shutter (Compurs may be reliable, but unfortunately there are more cameras without Compur shutter than with it) and lens focus are not the only two points of failure. Bellows pinholes or deformations (it is not only an Agfa disease, although occurrence in other brands is, by far, less frequent), damaged light seals (not to mention Iskra's light leaks due to unglued or removed leatherette... awful), bad glass (faded RF patch, lens scratched or with fungus... anything may be if the camera has been stored in the closet or in the cellar for half a century), mistreated struts (lens panel alignment is important, isn't it? ;-), mistreated pressure plates (I am trying to repair a Perkeo with this issue at this point), or even cameras with fallen plastic red window.

Sure, most of them are an easy fix - or some cameras are more prone to one or another -, but a fix nevertheless. Some people like you and me enjoy to tinker and repair, but even I have wanted some times to get a camera that is ready to shoot. Sometimes I have found them on auction sites, but unless you find a reliable seller with an accurate description, it is mostly a lottery IMHO.

 

[KoNickon]

Most definitely check for light leaks in the bellows. They can be patched with stuff marketed as "liquid electrical tape" or the like; works quite well.

As for the reliability of Compur shutters, I don't know. They are very high quality, no doubt. But I've found them to be very prone to not working at the lower speeds. By contrast, in my experience the Prontor shutters seem to work much better after having sat unexercised for many years.

Both cameras the original poster is considering are excellent, though as I recall the Mess Ikonta has "red window" film advance. This is less convenient than auto-stop as with the Super Baldax, but red window advance has the very great benefit of being a design that won't ever require repair!

 

[oftheherd]

deboeren - first, another welcome to the forums. You might want to go to the members only area and tell us more about yourself. Glad you like your Yashica TLR. I had one a long time ago, and really loved it.

As to folders, I haven't owned either you are asking about. I do have a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 non RF. I really like the 6x9 negative and that camera. It is thin and light. As Mr. Hicks mentioned, I don't find it difficult to guesstimate distance. I trained myself on that with an old Welta Welti which my father owned. Of course, YMMV. Did I mention the 6x9 negative is really nice? If you are willing to try 6x9, consider a Moskva. They are heavy and you can buy masks for 6x6. And they have RF. But they are FSU, and like FED, Zorki, Kiev, and others, the quality control was always a crap shoot. If you do ever decide to try one, I suggest the extra money from a reputable repair person, or expecting to send one off for CLA, to be well worth it.

If you buy off ebay, do ask a lot of specific questions about the condition of the camera. That is protection in case it arrives in less that good condition. Many of the old folders have survived the ageing process well, some have not. Only you know if you are capable of working on minor issues on a camera, and enjoy it. If not, be wary of answers of "I don't know anything about cameras, look at the photos," or "It is in mint condition, except for .... and .... and ...." and on and on.

BW400CN has a lot of nice cameras, including some very nice drop bed cameras that he is very fond of. I have some and like them too. But I think they are a little different animals, and my experience is they are more likely to require some work. Not major, but things like cleaning the shutter, fixing the latch for the drop bed, repairing the leather, etc. If you get a nice one with a roll film back, from 6x7 to 9x12, you will probably learn to like it. But I would try a folder of the type you asked about first.

Of the 6x6 folders I have that I enjoy most, it would be a Welta (I have a couple) a Fujica (One Welta and one Fujica have the 645 masks), and a Mamiya Six. I think the Weltas may be built a little better. Welta did make RF folders, but I don't have one. The Mamiya Six is well enough built, and I like the RF feature. I like having it and the fact that focus is acheived by moving the film plane. The film advance is also automatic. However, one needs to ask even more questions before buying one. They tend to be missing film plates, focus springs, and have shutter problems.

As to shutters, I find Weltas again to be pretty good, as most have Compurs. I agree that in my limited experience, they seem to work longer without attention. But don't be surprised at finding any shutter that old to need cleaning.

There are some RFFers that have the specific cameras you are asking about, as you can see. Wait for some more to come up and comment before jumping for one.

One thing I can tell you, is that a working folder is easy to carry (easier without RF), and a lot of fun to use.

 

[maddoc]

I am newbie also (regarding folders) and after some reading here and there I decided to get a Moskva-5 (latest version of a Zeiss Super [?] Ikonta) with coupled RF and either 6x6 or 6x9 (changeable via a frame mask). The lens is an Industar-24 105/4.5 and I like the results so far. These cameras are not to expensive.

 

[dboeren]

Thanks for all your input. Let me try to address some of the points that have been brought up...

New Members forum: Will get right on that.

The Mess Ikonta has a Synchro-Compur shutter. The Super Baldax has a Prontur. Both cameras are advertised as having been CLA'd. The Mess Ikonta also advertises a 14-day return period.

I'll admit to being completely uneducated on plate cameras. Maybe sometime in the future, but I don't know nearly enough about them to get into one right now. However, I will do some reading on the matter. If anyone wants to briefly say what makes plate cameras more awesome than folders I'm open to hear it.

I'm potentially open to either a 6x6 camera or a 6x9 camera, but I do want bigger than 6x4.5 maximum and I'm leaning towards 6x6. A bigger camera that allows 6x4.5 with a mask of course is fine. I do want to stick with a model that has a rangefinder though because part of the point is that I've never used a rangefinder before and I want to try one. I realize it might be more practical to just buy a cheap 35mm rangefinder but somehow that's just not nearly as interesting as a cool medium format folding camera.

@Roger Hicks: However, using a secondary camera as a rangefinder is an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. I do already use a separate light meter with my Yashica TLR so there's a precedent right there. I will think about it. And yes, I too wish that the Super Baldax lens was at least a higher end triplet like the Radionar. Sadly there are exactly-what-you-want cameras and there are available-good-deal cameras, and seldom are they the same ones.

I agree that with an uncoupled camera you will occasionally forget to set the distance. We're used to that happening as a magical side effect of focusing. Hopefully with experience it will happen less frequently but I can't say for sure. On my TLR I've forgotten to focus at all a few times because I was so busy trying to deal with viewfinder being reversed 🙂 But, I find it generally happens on more "candid" shots when you're being more casual and not so much the important ones where you're taking your time and thinking more about it.

The Moskva-5 sounds interesting if the price is good but it's hard to tell who are good vendors from Eastern Europe and harder to return bad items. Are there any particular sellers who are recommended that will deliver a camera in fully CLA'd condition? I take it that the main point apart from the price is that the lens is more modern and possibly better or has better coatings than the 50's lenses?

 

[BW400CN]

Why I perfer plate cameras?
A plate camera as a screen bright and clear with a 100% view.
It.s like a good SLR where you realy see where your focus is and could frame the pic easily with out any paralax.
Using a 120 film back makes a plate for me the best folder you can get for money.
Ok it's not a point and shoot - but who needs a PAS with 120 film?
Scale focus is ok - ut I like to see what´s on my film! That´s why I put the "Rollfilm" back on the shelf.


Voigtländer Rollfilm 6x9 1929 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Voigtländer Rollfilm - Ilford XP2 par BW400CN, bei ipernity

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . @Roger Hicks: However, using a secondary camera as a rangefinder is an interesting idea that I hadn't considered. . .

Easier than that: you can just get accessory rangefinders that go in the accessory shoe.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dboeren]

Question for you guys... Being used to modern SLR lenses where speed often correlates with quality between similar lenses - does this hold true of folders as well?

ie - if a camera comes with the f/4.5 version of a lens instead of say the f/3.5, is that a sign that it's a lower quality lens in terms of sharpness or contrast? Otherwise, if you're going to want to shoot at f/8 anyway the capability to go faster than is wise doesn't seem that important here.

 

[Godfrey]

Dear Mike,

Can't agree. As long as the shutter works (and Compurs are unbelievably reliable) and the lens focuses, there's bugger all else in there to go wrong, at least with 'red window' cameras.

Cheers,

R.

Um, no. Every older camera I've used has benefitted dramatically by having it serviced. Lubricants get hard and crackly over time, particularly for 60 year old cameras. Shutters get slow, focusing mounts get sticky and rough, folder bed struts and mechanisms get sticky and imprecise, etc etc. Periodic servicing extends the life of the camera and keeps it feeling good, a pleasure to use.

Every single folder I've bought, including the "minty mint" Perkeo II that I bought from the original owner who treasure it like the family jewels, needed a clean, lubricate, and adjust service when I got it. In fact, the ONLY older cameras I've bought in the past ten years (a lot of them, from Hasselblads to Polaroids) that didn't need a service where those that had just been serviced before I bought them.

I always budget a CLA service into the price of every camera I buy. This is rewarded by accurate shutter speeds and reliable operation of all my cameras.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Question for you guys... Being used to modern SLR lenses where speed often correlates with quality between similar lenses - does this hold true of folders as well?

ie - if a camera comes with the f/4.5 version of a lens instead of say the f/3.5, is that a sign that it's a lower quality lens in terms of sharpness or contrast? Otherwise, if you're going to want to shoot at f/8 anyway the capability to go faster than is wise doesn't seem that important here.

The faster lens options are almost always (even today) the more 'premium' grade lens in the eyes of the manufacturer and customers. They cost more too. So they often are a better lens than the slower one.

BUT NOT ALWAYS ... The faster a lens is the more sophisticated its design and manufacture must be to achieve high quality performance.

So it's a little hard to predict lens performance solely by lens speed.

G

 

[dboeren]

Yes, I agree that speed alone isn't a good indicator. I'm only talking about between similar lenses. For instance, one camera has a Solinar 3.5 and another has a Solinar 4.5. Same general design, same manufacturer, but within that narrow comparison it sounds like the 3.5 version is more likely to be the better lens, just as it is with today's lenses and your reasoning makes sense.