Seele
Anachronistic modernist
My fellow correspondents have done well making valuable suggestions and insights. I have not used a 6X6 Perkeo for some years now but I still use the Isolette III (uncoupled RF, Solinar lens, Synchro-Compur).
Having used a fair few folders over the last three decades or so, I feel that the most important aspect is the accuracy and precision of the folding structure: with the lens not perfectly held at where it is meant to be, even a truly great lens will produce disappointing results; that is, we would assume that the camera body is holding the film reasonably flat within depth-of-focus. We are, after all, talking about cameras which are more than a few years old, and some designs are better at weathering the same degree of wear and tear, and individual examples vary quite a lot too.
One thing I am not too sure about is the claim that Agfa folders tend to have unserviceable bellows now, but the ones that I have used - including an as-new Record III with Solinar and Synchro-Compur that I foolishly sild - have been just fine. Another point is that the increased degree of "user-friendliness" might back-fire on the user over time. Say for instance, coupled rangefinder on a folder might sound appealing, but the greater degree of mechanical complexity might also increase the likelihood of failure as well. For me, the Isolette III is a pretty good compromise, where it has a rangefinder (which I serviced as it was stuck solid), and the coated Solinar always delivers. But then, the focussing thread, as expected, was frozen solid due to the appalling grease used by the boys at Munich, which was eventually rectified. Voigtländer folders tend not to suffer from that.
That said, the lens should really be properly collimated to ensure the focussing scale is correct. If the camera has coupled rangefinder, the rangefinder also needs to be correct and matched with the lens, and the focussing mechanism has to get both of them precisely tuned to get both of them matched up. This isn't something that I would want to try on a camera about half a century old! So, keeping things simple might be the most practical approach.
Having used a fair few folders over the last three decades or so, I feel that the most important aspect is the accuracy and precision of the folding structure: with the lens not perfectly held at where it is meant to be, even a truly great lens will produce disappointing results; that is, we would assume that the camera body is holding the film reasonably flat within depth-of-focus. We are, after all, talking about cameras which are more than a few years old, and some designs are better at weathering the same degree of wear and tear, and individual examples vary quite a lot too.
One thing I am not too sure about is the claim that Agfa folders tend to have unserviceable bellows now, but the ones that I have used - including an as-new Record III with Solinar and Synchro-Compur that I foolishly sild - have been just fine. Another point is that the increased degree of "user-friendliness" might back-fire on the user over time. Say for instance, coupled rangefinder on a folder might sound appealing, but the greater degree of mechanical complexity might also increase the likelihood of failure as well. For me, the Isolette III is a pretty good compromise, where it has a rangefinder (which I serviced as it was stuck solid), and the coated Solinar always delivers. But then, the focussing thread, as expected, was frozen solid due to the appalling grease used by the boys at Munich, which was eventually rectified. Voigtländer folders tend not to suffer from that.
That said, the lens should really be properly collimated to ensure the focussing scale is correct. If the camera has coupled rangefinder, the rangefinder also needs to be correct and matched with the lens, and the focussing mechanism has to get both of them precisely tuned to get both of them matched up. This isn't something that I would want to try on a camera about half a century old! So, keeping things simple might be the most practical approach.
kuzano
Veteran
Well said and I concur...
Well said and I concur...
And I will only reiterate what I previously said but shortened down.
I've owned ZI folders, Mamiya folders, Baldax and super Baldax, along with many others.
I've had Voigtlanders in 6X9, 6X6 and with or without rangefinders.
Have also owned the Bessa RF and Bessa I with the dual format mask for 645 and 6X9, mask included. The mask set on 645 allows 16 shots per roll on 120.
By far the most usable have been the Bessa I and the Perkeo I with color skopar lens, Synchro Compur shutter and with the double shot prevention and any film count/stop gearing removed, primarily for field use reliability. Three Perkeo II's with the complex film count and stop failed on me, and had to have the mechanism stripped out to return them to duty.
as the above quote indicates... with folders, KISS is best. Keep It Simple Stu...
I have never had a bad bellows on any Voigtlander, and never had a cell focusing lens stuck with hardened lubricant. Never in at least a dozen Voigtlanders going back to the late 30's Bessa RF... coupled rangefinder all black.
Well said and I concur...
And I will only reiterate what I previously said but shortened down.
I've owned ZI folders, Mamiya folders, Baldax and super Baldax, along with many others.
I've had Voigtlanders in 6X9, 6X6 and with or without rangefinders.
Have also owned the Bessa RF and Bessa I with the dual format mask for 645 and 6X9, mask included. The mask set on 645 allows 16 shots per roll on 120.
By far the most usable have been the Bessa I and the Perkeo I with color skopar lens, Synchro Compur shutter and with the double shot prevention and any film count/stop gearing removed, primarily for field use reliability. Three Perkeo II's with the complex film count and stop failed on me, and had to have the mechanism stripped out to return them to duty.
as the above quote indicates... with folders, KISS is best. Keep It Simple Stu...
I have never had a bad bellows on any Voigtlander, and never had a cell focusing lens stuck with hardened lubricant. Never in at least a dozen Voigtlanders going back to the late 30's Bessa RF... coupled rangefinder all black.
Thomas78
Well-known
I prefer foldes with the "red window film advance" because of the possible problems of the film transport system.
Therefore I prefer the Perkeo IIIe which use the classical film advance. (The space of the film transport mechanics was needed for the uncoupled rangefinder.)
Regarding coupled rangefindes I think the system of the Super Ikonta is a interesting solution as it allows having a coupled rangefindes without the need of having a mechanical linkage between the lens and the rangefinder optics at the camera body
I also have a Agfa Record II which I got about 20 - 25 year ago with a bellow in perfect condition (but with frozen focus), but I do not know if it was replaced in the past.
julio1fer
Well-known
Not much to add to above posts. I have used Isolette, Perkeo, Super-Isolette and Nettar.
I find Perkeo smaller and friendlier to use, while Isolette is a bit more rugged. I would consider Z-I Nettar in this comparison too, as well as other competitive brands of the period.
As said above, people worry way too much about the lenses on these little folders. You are not going to use these instruments in situations where you need large apertures, unless you are trying to prove something. Precise lens positioning (by the struts mechanism) and your own technique will be more important to produce good sharpness than optical differences, most of the time.
I find Perkeo smaller and friendlier to use, while Isolette is a bit more rugged. I would consider Z-I Nettar in this comparison too, as well as other competitive brands of the period.
As said above, people worry way too much about the lenses on these little folders. You are not going to use these instruments in situations where you need large apertures, unless you are trying to prove something. Precise lens positioning (by the struts mechanism) and your own technique will be more important to produce good sharpness than optical differences, most of the time.