68degrees
Well-known
what do you guys think of this showdown?
oftheherd
Veteran
Wow, I would have thought there might have been several who had used both cameras and could compare them. RFF has so many very experienced people and although they aren't that common, I do hear them talked about enough. Do you have them, want one, or just ask out of couriosity?
alienmeatsack
Well-known
I own and use a Perkeo II among others but have not used the Isolette II (0r any of the Agfa series).
All I can tell you is, my Perkeo II has the nicer lens and the pictures are so sharp they could cut glass. I got mine CLA'd and paid a little more then I had planned but it was worth it. It's surprisingly small and very easy to use as long as you are comfortable guessing distance for the focus and can meter either by feel or have a meter or metering app.
I seem to remember some discussion here about this family of similar cameras at one point here. There's also quite a bit of info out there visually on Flickr and other sites if seeing if believing to you. (It is for me.)
All I can tell you is, my Perkeo II has the nicer lens and the pictures are so sharp they could cut glass. I got mine CLA'd and paid a little more then I had planned but it was worth it. It's surprisingly small and very easy to use as long as you are comfortable guessing distance for the focus and can meter either by feel or have a meter or metering app.
I seem to remember some discussion here about this family of similar cameras at one point here. There's also quite a bit of info out there visually on Flickr and other sites if seeing if believing to you. (It is for me.)
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The Perkeo is much smaller. There is no noticeable difference in image quality. Indeed, the German post-WWII Tessar types perform so similar that it is hard to distinguish them across brands - and once you stop down by a stop or two, the Triplets perform identically as well...
Pioneer
Veteran
I agree. I have not used a Perkeo but I have used several other types, including the Agfa/Ansco cameras with Solinar lenses. The Tessars and the Triplets are all great lenses.
68degrees
Well-known
I like the isolette II solinar but I was reading flickr on the perkeo and it looks smaller and sharper maybe someone would say that it holds the film flatter or something also I dont know if the perkeo has the whole lens moving to focus or if jus the front element moves like the isolette II solinar. So i was wondering if anyone had experience with both for comparison sake. Thanks
alienmeatsack
Well-known
I'd be happy to take some photos of my Perkeo II and/or any specific parts of it if you want details, measurements etc 68degrees.
I've only got a handful of photos online from it currently, but they are super sharp and like I said it's very small and works nicely. My only complaint is the film advance system even after being fixed is flakey, but it's an easy work around, I just shoot and manual advance.
I've only got a handful of photos online from it currently, but they are super sharp and like I said it's very small and works nicely. My only complaint is the film advance system even after being fixed is flakey, but it's an easy work around, I just shoot and manual advance.
hanskerensky
Well-known
Yes, the Perkeo II is a bit smaller then the Isolette (about 15mm).
Its Color-Skopar has front cell focusing just like my Solinar equiped Isolette III.
There is not much difference in optical quality. Both are great lenses on great cameras.
The Perkeo II has a more complex filmtransport due to its counter and autostop. The Isolette allways needs the red window (unless you have the Super Isolette of course
)The Perkeo II has a vertical frontdoor. The Isolette a horizontal one. I prefer the handling of the Isolette in that respect. It's easier to hold. But guess this is also a personal matter of getting accustomed to.
Most common problem with many a vintage folder is that somebody took it apart and afterwards didn't properly re-adjust the infinity focus.
Pioneer
Veteran
I have a Isolette III with a front cell focusing Solinar and I have a Super Isolette that focuses by moving the entire lens assembly back and forth. To be completely honest, at the magnifications I use, I can't see any difference between the two types. There may very well be a difference, but since I don't currently enlarge past 11x17, I just can't see it yet.
I think that people worry way too much about the lenses on these little folders. I really think that there so many variables that occur with all cameras, but especially folders, that it can be almost impossible to evaluate little differences like front cell or full lens focus. Your own technique, or lack of it, will cover up any tiny differences you might expect to see.
To be totally honest I have an Isolette II with a very nice Apotar triplet lens that renders far more beautifully to my eye than my Solinar lenses. The camera is certainly less convenient to use. No meter, no rangefinder. Simple 8 Speed Prontor shutter.
Is that Apotar lens really better? I don't know, but probably not by the numbers. It may have been ground and polished a tiny bit better. The lens may just be a tiny bit better aligned when the bellows is deployed. The film may be just a bit flatter when it runs over the platen. The camera may be the perfect size and weight for my hands and I am able to hold it that much better. Because it has no rangefinder I may be just a touch more careful when I am using my external Voigtlander rangefinder. Who knows. What I do know is that worrying excessively over lens type, focus type, and even camera brand, usually just raises the cost but doesn't guarantee a better picture at the other end.
68degrees
Well-known
thank you Alien for your offer thats very kind of you. and thank you everyone for your responses very helpful.
shortstop
Well-known
I'recently acquired both a Super Isolette and a Perkeo II.
The first results are unbelievable.
I don't know yet which optics is better.
Perkeo is truly a dwarf camera and for me very very cool, I wonder how a so small object can take pictures not easily distinguishable from those taken with my Rolleiflex 3,5f (the only difference I've noticed is the tridimensionality of the Planar).
The difference in using the two (perkeo and Agfa Super Isolette) is certainly the greater speed you take photos with Super Isolette. But Perkeo is very very smaller and lighter.
The geniality of these two instruments are forgotten in the redundant digital camera of today.
Antonio
The first results are unbelievable.
I don't know yet which optics is better.
Perkeo is truly a dwarf camera and for me very very cool, I wonder how a so small object can take pictures not easily distinguishable from those taken with my Rolleiflex 3,5f (the only difference I've noticed is the tridimensionality of the Planar).
The difference in using the two (perkeo and Agfa Super Isolette) is certainly the greater speed you take photos with Super Isolette. But Perkeo is very very smaller and lighter.
The geniality of these two instruments are forgotten in the redundant digital camera of today.
Antonio
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
It's worth to mention that most Agfa Isolettes require service. They have bad quality bellows and the grease for the lens helical hardened over time. Only the very late Isolettes had better, leather bellows.
joeswe
Well-known
As a practical shooter I do favor my Isolette III with Solinar (f3.5/75mm) over my Perkeo II.
A couple of reasons: overall ruggedness, stability of the folding mechanism, failproof film transport (film counter/transport mechanism on Perkeo II is known to be fragile), better film pressure plate, and last but not least a brillant and tack-sharp Solinar lens, which I find to be a notch above the C-Skopar on my Perkeo and almost as good as the Rollei 3.5f Planar, except maybe for some noticeable corner falloff and general wide open performance (f3.5).
The Agfa is my standard camera to take on hiking holidays and I use it to shoot slides (Provia 100F) for projection. While the Perkeo II is a beautifully finished and designed, extremely tiny and lightweight camera that will win the "beauty" contest against the Agfa hands down, for the reasons outlined, it would be only my second choice as a practical shooter.
A couple of reasons: overall ruggedness, stability of the folding mechanism, failproof film transport (film counter/transport mechanism on Perkeo II is known to be fragile), better film pressure plate, and last but not least a brillant and tack-sharp Solinar lens, which I find to be a notch above the C-Skopar on my Perkeo and almost as good as the Rollei 3.5f Planar, except maybe for some noticeable corner falloff and general wide open performance (f3.5).
The Agfa is my standard camera to take on hiking holidays and I use it to shoot slides (Provia 100F) for projection. While the Perkeo II is a beautifully finished and designed, extremely tiny and lightweight camera that will win the "beauty" contest against the Agfa hands down, for the reasons outlined, it would be only my second choice as a practical shooter.
shortstop
Well-known
perfect synthesis. My Super Isolette is definitely faster and focusing a lot easier than with Perkeo. But using the Perkeo (which stands quietly in your pocket) is much more "cool". The Planar 3.5 gives better three-dimensional images than Solinar.
I never imagined the quality of photos that can be made with these folding.
Antonio
I never imagined the quality of photos that can be made with these folding.
Antonio
Attachments
jnoir
Well-known
Super Isolette : Unit focusing
Isolette : Front cell focusing
Perkeo : Front cell focusing
Unit focusing is of course more precise and much more useful for closer subjects or when using the lens wide open.
Between Isolette and Perkeo - own / have owned several of both - I could not say which one is better. I like the Perkeo for her reduced size and the design of her opening mechanism, but the Isolette's key point is her simplicity and, with a bit of care, her reliability.
Isolette : Front cell focusing
Perkeo : Front cell focusing
Unit focusing is of course more precise and much more useful for closer subjects or when using the lens wide open.
Between Isolette and Perkeo - own / have owned several of both - I could not say which one is better. I like the Perkeo for her reduced size and the design of her opening mechanism, but the Isolette's key point is her simplicity and, with a bit of care, her reliability.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is debatable - as a matter of fact, cell focusing has less inevitable issues close up than unit focusing, as the correction of a static, unit focused lens can be for one distance only. The first lenses to use more advanced cell focusing concepts (namely moving elements and internal focusing) for quality reasons were lenses with a extended close-up range and super-fast teles...
jnoir
Well-known
I may be misunderstanding something, but I'll take the advantage of quoting yourself
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2028492&postcount=2
So there's always a compromise, that's clear.
Don't take me wrong, in my experience - and that's highly subjective - unit focusing has allowed me to take sharp photos under difficult circumstances, when a front cell focusing camera failed to provide what I needed or wanted to achieve. Be it a folder or a TLR or... but from the same vintage, 1920-1960. Can't say for modern tele lenses with modern focus mechanisms, haven't used them.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2028492&postcount=2
So there's always a compromise, that's clear.
Don't take me wrong, in my experience - and that's highly subjective - unit focusing has allowed me to take sharp photos under difficult circumstances, when a front cell focusing camera failed to provide what I needed or wanted to achieve. Be it a folder or a TLR or... but from the same vintage, 1920-1960. Can't say for modern tele lenses with modern focus mechanisms, haven't used them.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
In retrospect that is a somewhat careless response - comparing Agfa/Voigtländer (who had unit focused folders at the top of their line-up) with cell-focusing Zeiss Ikon, the image quality differences really are by price range rather than by design principle. If there is a reason to avoid Super Ikontas it is not the cell focusing, but their excessively complex and failure-prone mechanics.
jnoir
Well-known
Ah, we're growing older, experience's a hard teacher, or so they say
Actually I will never part with my 532/16 and in fact use it quite frequently, most of the time I have a hard time choosing between it and the M7II. I took it with me on a trip to Eastern Europe last month, and was the perfect choice.
I completely agree that simpler is usually better. But I also think most of us don't do it just because, but enjoy the craftmanship and beauty of our cameras. Not always does mind rule over your heart :bang:
Actually I will never part with my 532/16 and in fact use it quite frequently, most of the time I have a hard time choosing between it and the M7II. I took it with me on a trip to Eastern Europe last month, and was the perfect choice.
I completely agree that simpler is usually better. But I also think most of us don't do it just because, but enjoy the craftmanship and beauty of our cameras. Not always does mind rule over your heart :bang:
kuzano
Veteran
Perkeo I and II....
Perkeo I and II....
I've had a few Perkeo's. Occasionally you find a Perkeo I that came equipped with the front standard of the Perkeo II (silver rather than black crackle), and the Color Skopar lens in the Synchro Compur shutter. The lens routinely found on the Perkeo I is the Vaskar 75 in Prontor shutter.
That's the one I have now and have held on to for some time. Reason, I've owned three of the Perkeo II's and never had good luck with the reliability of the complex gearing under the top for the film count and stop. The Perkeo I has double shot prevention, but not the complexity of the Perkeo II.
The Perkeo I/II have the same body, and is verly close to pocketable. Certainly in a coat pocket, and I have carried them in front levi pockets.
The Vaskar lens that is normally on the Perkeo I is not a bad lens at all, but I've had two of the Perkeo I's with the upgrade Color Skopar lens. Simple and sharp and I prefer the ruby window film advance for accuracy on frame advancement.
Couple of pics...
Perkeo I and II....
I've had a few Perkeo's. Occasionally you find a Perkeo I that came equipped with the front standard of the Perkeo II (silver rather than black crackle), and the Color Skopar lens in the Synchro Compur shutter. The lens routinely found on the Perkeo I is the Vaskar 75 in Prontor shutter.
That's the one I have now and have held on to for some time. Reason, I've owned three of the Perkeo II's and never had good luck with the reliability of the complex gearing under the top for the film count and stop. The Perkeo I has double shot prevention, but not the complexity of the Perkeo II.
The Perkeo I/II have the same body, and is verly close to pocketable. Certainly in a coat pocket, and I have carried them in front levi pockets.
The Vaskar lens that is normally on the Perkeo I is not a bad lens at all, but I've had two of the Perkeo I's with the upgrade Color Skopar lens. Simple and sharp and I prefer the ruby window film advance for accuracy on frame advancement.
Couple of pics...