LOOP
maraboutflash
I'd choose a Moskva 5 as the price is low or a Bessa.For both look for a clean , without light leak camera. Both cameras are not quick ... but more modern are more expensive or heavy .. I'd begin with a cheap camera.
But I prefer an Iskra or a Rolleiflex : 6 x 6 both are easier to use. Iskra is not expensive but it is not easy to find a well working camera.
But I prefer an Iskra or a Rolleiflex : 6 x 6 both are easier to use. Iskra is not expensive but it is not easy to find a well working camera.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I disagree with concerns about front-focusing lenses.
A properly collimated lens can be an excellent optic, whether used for distance or for close-up work.
A properly collimated lens can be an excellent optic, whether used for distance or for close-up work.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Hi ZeissFan,
Maybe a small-sample problem on my part, but I don't agree. Front-cell focussing lenses can be good lenses (and certainly Zeiss lenses typically are) but at the margin they are inferior to the same lens that is used as a non-front-cell focussing lens, partly because the front-cell focussing means that you will have changing focal lengths as you change focussing. I got a couple of (non-folding) 35mm Contessamats, and although they all have good optics, the non-front-cell focussing versions beat the stuffing out of their front-cell focussing brothers
Maybe a small-sample problem on my part, but I don't agree. Front-cell focussing lenses can be good lenses (and certainly Zeiss lenses typically are) but at the margin they are inferior to the same lens that is used as a non-front-cell focussing lens, partly because the front-cell focussing means that you will have changing focal lengths as you change focussing. I got a couple of (non-folding) 35mm Contessamats, and although they all have good optics, the non-front-cell focussing versions beat the stuffing out of their front-cell focussing brothers
pagpow
Well-known
Lot of good, quick advice above about the relative mechanical sturdiness of various folders. ZI is repeatedly referenced on various sites as having the sturdiest struts (and thus front standard alignment).
The 101 Kodak Anastigmat Special has been singled out as the sharpest lens, and cheap.
I have both ZI and Monitors, both seem very sturdy; ZI (6x9) seems lighter than monitor.
OTOH, I was not aware of mbsic's point that folder lenses of that era were not optimized for infinity. I'm not disagreeing; I simply had not seen that before. Most of the commentary I had seen was that front-cell focusing lenses suffered reductions in performance when focused near.
Now, on basis of experience:
1) My shooting experience is same as monnemmer's -- either w. Monitors or ZI (6x9)
2) I use my (6x9) for daylight landscape transparencies and often at the red dot settings -- essentially simplified hyperfocal focusing -- so do focus it forward of infinity and stopped down. At least to my 35mm eyes, those trannies leave little to be desired and certainly provide a big WOW
3) I also shoot trannies on a Fuji 690 and (to be expected) find those trannies more contrasty and the cameras more rigid -- but I don't take the Fuji on hikes and do take the folders
4) look at the difference $40-60 for a folder, $400 up for the Fuji (and most likely $700)
5) I was reluctant to give up integral rangefinder when moving up from 35mm but unwilling to pay the price for Super Ikontas or take the risk w. Moskvas -- haven't found the lack of a rangefinder any issue at all for landscape -- but I don't shoot portraits or available light with these cameras
6) while Tessars are more desirable, you will also find tons of references that stopped down, the ZI triplets are very good -- I own both and agree
7) I find the less complicated the camera -- simple red window advance (no auto frame counting), no RF, simpler shutters -- the cheaper, lighter, and more reliable the cameras, with little performance penalty in daylight landscape
8) I own 645, 66, 69 and have found the 6X9 more attractive and less fiddly, and reach for it more
YMMV
The 101 Kodak Anastigmat Special has been singled out as the sharpest lens, and cheap.
I have both ZI and Monitors, both seem very sturdy; ZI (6x9) seems lighter than monitor.
OTOH, I was not aware of mbsic's point that folder lenses of that era were not optimized for infinity. I'm not disagreeing; I simply had not seen that before. Most of the commentary I had seen was that front-cell focusing lenses suffered reductions in performance when focused near.
Now, on basis of experience:
1) My shooting experience is same as monnemmer's -- either w. Monitors or ZI (6x9)
2) I use my (6x9) for daylight landscape transparencies and often at the red dot settings -- essentially simplified hyperfocal focusing -- so do focus it forward of infinity and stopped down. At least to my 35mm eyes, those trannies leave little to be desired and certainly provide a big WOW
3) I also shoot trannies on a Fuji 690 and (to be expected) find those trannies more contrasty and the cameras more rigid -- but I don't take the Fuji on hikes and do take the folders
4) look at the difference $40-60 for a folder, $400 up for the Fuji (and most likely $700)
5) I was reluctant to give up integral rangefinder when moving up from 35mm but unwilling to pay the price for Super Ikontas or take the risk w. Moskvas -- haven't found the lack of a rangefinder any issue at all for landscape -- but I don't shoot portraits or available light with these cameras
6) while Tessars are more desirable, you will also find tons of references that stopped down, the ZI triplets are very good -- I own both and agree
7) I find the less complicated the camera -- simple red window advance (no auto frame counting), no RF, simpler shutters -- the cheaper, lighter, and more reliable the cameras, with little performance penalty in daylight landscape
8) I own 645, 66, 69 and have found the 6X9 more attractive and less fiddly, and reach for it more
YMMV
ZeissFan
Veteran
I think we'll simply respectfully disagree on this point.
In any case, most of the folding cameras that you'll encounter will be front-cell focusing. You'll want to do your own tests to decide if it works for you.
The good thing is that there are thousands and thousands of cameras out there. You should be able to find one that you like.
Remember, after Kodak introduced 620, it largely abandoned the 120 format in its own camera manufacturing. It continued to make 120 film, but not the cameras.
Ironically, the 120 format survived, while the 620 format was eventually dropped. Kodak has a history of introducing a film format and then later abandoning it (616, 620, 127, 126, 110 and Disc come to mind).
In any case, most of the folding cameras that you'll encounter will be front-cell focusing. You'll want to do your own tests to decide if it works for you.
The good thing is that there are thousands and thousands of cameras out there. You should be able to find one that you like.
Remember, after Kodak introduced 620, it largely abandoned the 120 format in its own camera manufacturing. It continued to make 120 film, but not the cameras.
Ironically, the 120 format survived, while the 620 format was eventually dropped. Kodak has a history of introducing a film format and then later abandoning it (616, 620, 127, 126, 110 and Disc come to mind).
monemmer
Established
I remember reading on Brian Wallen's Kodak web site that the Anastar lens on the Kodak Reflex TLR (a front cell focusing design) was a design that was optimized for around 15 feet focusing distance. I believe that this was probably true for most if not all front cell focusing lens designs of the day. Still, very good results are possible with those lenses stopped down a bit at infinity.
An issue that probably has a much larger impact on image quality than lens design (front cell vs. unit focusing) is film flatness, in particular for 6x9 folders. To address this problem somewhat, I always advance the film to the next frame just before I shoot the a frame, after I unfold the camera, otherwise the film gets sucked away from the film pressure plate and is no longer flat.
I agree with ZeissFan on the failed Kodak film formats. Not only were these proprietary and Kodak went to great lengths to 'improve' their 620 only cameras such that you really could not use any 120 film, but the 620 format also had a very thin spool, which gave the last few frames more curl than from 120 spool, probably resulting in poorer film flatness.
An issue that probably has a much larger impact on image quality than lens design (front cell vs. unit focusing) is film flatness, in particular for 6x9 folders. To address this problem somewhat, I always advance the film to the next frame just before I shoot the a frame, after I unfold the camera, otherwise the film gets sucked away from the film pressure plate and is no longer flat.
I agree with ZeissFan on the failed Kodak film formats. Not only were these proprietary and Kodak went to great lengths to 'improve' their 620 only cameras such that you really could not use any 120 film, but the 620 format also had a very thin spool, which gave the last few frames more curl than from 120 spool, probably resulting in poorer film flatness.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I'm by no means an expert on this, but what I remember reading about this on one of my "classic camera" email lists from an expert was that these 6x9 folders were the P&S cameras of their day, and as such optimized for the most common distance -- people pictures -- around 10-30ft...
Krosya
Konicaze
While opinions vary, I'd look at this thread first . From what I have read about Certo6 guy - I would stay far far away from him and his work. He is Way overpriced, provides poor service if there is a problem and I have seen him plain lie about some cameras in his ads. I know some things about some cameras as well and what he says at times - it's just to impress people that know nothing about cameras and to justify his high prices. My opinion of course. But while I never got anything from him - I did contact him about a few things and his answers made me realize - he is NOT a person I would trust to deal with.
Anyway - back to folders - there are many that are good. I'd stick with a coupled RF ones - yes more money but really worth it. Bessas are very good, with Bessa II (as several people already pointed out) being a better one. As I said Weltas are great, but more difficult to find. THere are others, but many are hard to find. But whatever you get - they are great fun!
Argenticien
Dave
Over time I've found that long thread to be equivocal at best (if not trending anti) so I can't be troubled to gamble on him to see whether I'll end up a "love him" reviewer or "run the other way!" reviewer. So I'm going to be in a few weeks sending off my newly acquired folder to Mark Hansen, who (if you search RFF and photo.net on his name) you'll find well recommended. I'll report back in about October on how that goes. (His backlog is 4 wks.) He is somewhat famed for doing vicarious estimates based on reading an eBay listing, then (if you bid and win) letting you have the eBay seller ship straight to him (although I didn't do these 2 steps with him), and then letting you pay only after he has sent your camera back to you and you're satisfied. I find this much less dicey than Juergen. Mark will indeed do Super Ikontas, Voigtlanders, and other such wonky RF folders.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Go to Jurgen's website and look at the cameras. You can take what he says about the three element lenses with a rather large grain of salt, and I would never buy a camera from him, but all of the cameras with 4+ element lenses he's showing there are pretty good models. Of the three element lenses, the best are, I think, the Steinheil Cassars, Zeiss Novars and Agfa/Ansco Apotars -- if properly calibrated. Many of the other three-element lenses, to put it mildly, were somewhat variable in quality, and so you'd be taking a pretty big risk, this in spite of his praises of them. Anyway, here is a link to Jurgen's website:
http://www.certo6.com/index.html
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
The most important aspects of a folding camera:
1) No physical damage. I wouldn't buy a camera with a dent, because there's always a chance that it's knocked the lens standard out of parallel.
2) No light leaks. That's the bellows. Agfas are notorious for having pinholes in their plastic-covered bellows. That's a shame, because the Agfa folding cameras are very nice. Older Agfa cameras will have leather bellows. And it's simple to replace the bellows in an Agfa camera. Not so with others. Also check to make sure that the back closes cleanly. If not, that might be a sign that the camera was dropped or abused. It's a shame how some photographers treat their gear.
3) No lens damage. Haze and dirt can be removed. Scratches cannot (not easily). And fungus and/or mold is a case-by-case affair. Sometimes, it can be removed nondestructively. At other times, it will have etched the glass.
4) The shutter works. This generally is the easiest to correct, unless someone has forced the shutter to fire or has been poking around in its innards without actually knowing what to do. Most shutters can be revived through a general cleaning and lubrication. A leaf shutter rarely needs to be readjusted -- just cleaned and relubricated in a couple of spots.
A properly designed triplet can be a very good lens, especially when stopped down.
Note: I should add that I'm generally speaking of Zeiss Ikon cameras.
1) No physical damage. I wouldn't buy a camera with a dent, because there's always a chance that it's knocked the lens standard out of parallel.
2) No light leaks. That's the bellows. Agfas are notorious for having pinholes in their plastic-covered bellows. That's a shame, because the Agfa folding cameras are very nice. Older Agfa cameras will have leather bellows. And it's simple to replace the bellows in an Agfa camera. Not so with others. Also check to make sure that the back closes cleanly. If not, that might be a sign that the camera was dropped or abused. It's a shame how some photographers treat their gear.
3) No lens damage. Haze and dirt can be removed. Scratches cannot (not easily). And fungus and/or mold is a case-by-case affair. Sometimes, it can be removed nondestructively. At other times, it will have etched the glass.
4) The shutter works. This generally is the easiest to correct, unless someone has forced the shutter to fire or has been poking around in its innards without actually knowing what to do. Most shutters can be revived through a general cleaning and lubrication. A leaf shutter rarely needs to be readjusted -- just cleaned and relubricated in a couple of spots.
A properly designed triplet can be a very good lens, especially when stopped down.
Note: I should add that I'm generally speaking of Zeiss Ikon cameras.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Kodak 6x9 replacement bellows are still avaialable from several sources and are still cheap. In most Kodaks they are easy to replace. In addition, there are a few Kodak 620 cameras that are easy to convert to 120 film -- the Monitor you mentioned is one of them. The things to look out for in Kodaks are the shutters and the lenses. You should avoid Kodet shutters like the plague, because they will jam at the drop of a hat. They were not always honest in labelling their lenses either. Their best has always been the Commercial Ektar, but there have been half a dozen different lenses labled Ektars over the years.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
Here's another infinity shot with the zone-focus Ikonta 520/2.
On this particular camera, the bellows slightly intrude on one side, so I end up with 6 x 8.8 or so.
On this particular camera, the bellows slightly intrude on one side, so I end up with 6 x 8.8 or so.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Is that with a Novar or a Tessar?
ZeissFan
Veteran
That's the Tessar with this sample. For the most part, I've stopped buying cameras with Novars. They aren't bad lenses, but if you're going to buy a camera, I think it's worth the extra money to buy the Tessar.
I've taken this camera all over the place, although these days I use its bigger sibling, a prewar Super Ikonta C.
HOWEVER, I have quite a few Agfa 35mm cameras with Apotars (triplets), and some of them are very nice.
My experience with the Novar is that it's a decent lens but can be soft in the corners up to f/8. Beyond that, it seems to be sharp. The Novar was made by several different lens makers.
I have a Super Ikonta C with a Triotar, but it needs some work. Plus, I have to find out where I put it! But I'm curious to see how well it works at various distances. My experience with the Triotar is that it's a well-designed triplet with very good performance. But I haven't used it beyond 6x6.
What's always impressed me with this camera is the Tessar's resolving power. If you look at spot No. 4 and think about how far that is from the camera, it's amazing that you're able to count the number of portals on each side of the tower, although the shadow side is a bit difficult.
If I recall, this was shot at f/8. Remember that I thought I was shooting APX 100, so when compensating for the filter, I shot at 1/50 at f/8. Or possibly 1/100 at f/5.6. But I think it was 1/50 at f/8 on a monopod leaned up against another section of the wall.
And even though it looks like late afternoon, it was only 11:30 a.m.
The woman who was with me probably thought I was nutty hauling three cameras up the Wall. Yeah, I probably was.
NEW COMMENTS
Furthermore, look at the photo. And then think about the size of a 6x9 negative. Then look at each of the four sections and consider how small those are on the actual transparency.
I added an inset showing what is approximately the real size of a 6x9 negative.
Now, that's an impressive lens!
I've taken this camera all over the place, although these days I use its bigger sibling, a prewar Super Ikonta C.
HOWEVER, I have quite a few Agfa 35mm cameras with Apotars (triplets), and some of them are very nice.
My experience with the Novar is that it's a decent lens but can be soft in the corners up to f/8. Beyond that, it seems to be sharp. The Novar was made by several different lens makers.
I have a Super Ikonta C with a Triotar, but it needs some work. Plus, I have to find out where I put it! But I'm curious to see how well it works at various distances. My experience with the Triotar is that it's a well-designed triplet with very good performance. But I haven't used it beyond 6x6.
What's always impressed me with this camera is the Tessar's resolving power. If you look at spot No. 4 and think about how far that is from the camera, it's amazing that you're able to count the number of portals on each side of the tower, although the shadow side is a bit difficult.
If I recall, this was shot at f/8. Remember that I thought I was shooting APX 100, so when compensating for the filter, I shot at 1/50 at f/8. Or possibly 1/100 at f/5.6. But I think it was 1/50 at f/8 on a monopod leaned up against another section of the wall.
And even though it looks like late afternoon, it was only 11:30 a.m.
The woman who was with me probably thought I was nutty hauling three cameras up the Wall. Yeah, I probably was.
* * *
NEW COMMENTS
Furthermore, look at the photo. And then think about the size of a 6x9 negative. Then look at each of the four sections and consider how small those are on the actual transparency.
I added an inset showing what is approximately the real size of a 6x9 negative.
Now, that's an impressive lens!
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
Finally, here's a photo of my brother-in-law. Taken with the Super Ikonta C (Tessar), using Arista EDU 400. I can't recall the exposure information, but it was a sunny summer day (obviously). I was very close to him -- maybe four feet.
View photo
I don't want to put the photo here, because it's rather wide, and that always messes up the page.
View photo
I don't want to put the photo here, because it's rather wide, and that always messes up the page.
Last edited:
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
There are some very good suggestions here. My personal favorite is the Bessa RF. Like its newer sibling the Bessa II (which is too expensive), it's a very good camera with a built-in rangefinder. Try to find a model with the Skopar (4 elements) or Heliar (5 elements) lens and you will have the best folder you can get at a still affordable price. If you do a little shopping around, you should be able to get one for $100-250, depending on the lens fitted and the condition of the camera, which is less money than a comparable Super-Ikonta.
The lens on the Bessa RF is unit focusing and even the 4 element Skopar yields better results over the whole focusing range than a front focusing Tessar on a Super Ikonta. I also find the viewfinder much easier easier to use on the Bessa, Super-Ikonta Albada viewfinders usually having aged badly.
Last but not least, I find the Bessa RF one of the prettiest camera ever made:
Cheers!
Abbazz
The lens on the Bessa RF is unit focusing and even the 4 element Skopar yields better results over the whole focusing range than a front focusing Tessar on a Super Ikonta. I also find the viewfinder much easier easier to use on the Bessa, Super-Ikonta Albada viewfinders usually having aged badly.
Last but not least, I find the Bessa RF one of the prettiest camera ever made:
Cheers!
Abbazz
itf
itchy trigger finger
Wow, lots's of info, thanks everyone. I probably would've made the wrong decision without this. I don't think I'm up for re-spooling film, so no kodak. A bit more research to be done.
Krosya
Konicaze
There are some very good suggestions here. My personal favorite is the Bessa RF. Like its newer sibling the Bessa II (which is too expensive), it's a very good camera with a built-in rangefinder. Try to find a model with the Skopar (4 elements) or Heliar (5 elements) lens and you will have the best folder you can get at a still affordable price. If you do a little shopping around, you should be able to get one for $100-250, depending on the lens fitted and the condition of the camera, which is less money than a comparable Super-Ikonta.
The lens on the Bessa RF is unit focusing and even the 4 element Skopar yields better results over the whole focusing range than a front focusing Tessar on a Super Ikonta. I also find the viewfinder much easier easier to use on the Bessa, Super-Ikonta Albada viewfinders usually having aged badly.
Last but not least, I find the Bessa RF one of the prettiest camera ever made:
Cheers!
Abbazz
I had one of these a while back. It's a good camera that can deliver nice pics. I just found it's VF a bit too squinty and focusing on was not that comfortable - being on a top left. But I did get some good results from it - mine was a Skopar too:
