manfromh
I'm not there
So I decided that I need (yes, need) a nice folder.
My requirements are:
as cheap as possible
coupled rangefinder
must take 120 film, not 620
coated lens would be nice, but not essential
All formats are welcome, but I would prefer 6x9 or 6x4.5.
I would use it as a carry-along camera on trips and everyday life. I would probably shoot only b&w film with it.
I have a Yashicamat for 6x6, which is an excellent camera, but the compactness of a folder is attractive. I also have a Agfa Billy Compur, but its zone focus. You could also try to convince me that i realy dont need another camera.
Regards,
Matis
My requirements are:
as cheap as possible
coupled rangefinder
must take 120 film, not 620
coated lens would be nice, but not essential
All formats are welcome, but I would prefer 6x9 or 6x4.5.
I would use it as a carry-along camera on trips and everyday life. I would probably shoot only b&w film with it.
I have a Yashicamat for 6x6, which is an excellent camera, but the compactness of a folder is attractive. I also have a Agfa Billy Compur, but its zone focus. You could also try to convince me that i realy dont need another camera.
Regards,
Matis
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
How cheap? The Moskva 4 and 5 are pretty darn cheap 6x9 cameras. Probably the cheapest you'll find that meet most of those requirements, I would guess.
mh2000
Well-known
I would second the Moskva 4 or 5 if you really need a rangefinder, but I have found that my cheapo Franka Rolfix with modest German triplet is smaller and better... and since you will want to stop down anyway and can easily get away with shooting ISO 400 film in that format scale focusing is not a problem for me.
That said, I do have nice Moskva 5 w/ case and mask that works well (RF pretty accurate and no light leaks)... might sell it if you are interested.
That said, I do have nice Moskva 5 w/ case and mask that works well (RF pretty accurate and no light leaks)... might sell it if you are interested.
manfromh
I'm not there
Thanks for the replies! What would the best options be in the scale focus 6x4.5 land? I think scale focusing a 60mm lens is much easier than 105mm. I can probably find Moskvas locally. Will look into it.
oftheherd
Veteran
The Moskvas should be nice, but they are a little big and heavy (they are 6x9 after all). There were many 6x6/645 combos, but the only two I have are Welta and Fuji. Both are scale focus, but work quite well. Both give nice photos, and are compact. You might also want to consider Zeiss Ikons. I think they come in flavors of 645, 6x6, and 6x9. I have the latter with a Novar lens. I really nice camera. Lots of film real estate, light to carry, good lens, thin, but a little longer due to the 6x9 size.
You have lots of choices.
You have lots of choices.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Cheap as possible? Moskva 2.
Edit: Good luck finding one with a rangefinder that works right though.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
When it comes to older cameras, you get what you pay for, generally speaking.
Spending less often results in a camera with problems. Spending more means you'll probably get a better camera.
BUT -- when it comes to folders, you have to go in believing that the camera should be serviced before you use it, which means more money. And you could end up with a camera that's unrepairable -- regardless of the amount you spend.
Again, in general, medium format cameras with rangefinders were at the top of a camera maker's line and still cost more today.
I hear a lot about the Soviet Moskva and Iksra. I've never handled either, but they seem to be plentiful and inexpensive.
Spending less often results in a camera with problems. Spending more means you'll probably get a better camera.
BUT -- when it comes to folders, you have to go in believing that the camera should be serviced before you use it, which means more money. And you could end up with a camera that's unrepairable -- regardless of the amount you spend.
Again, in general, medium format cameras with rangefinders were at the top of a camera maker's line and still cost more today.
I hear a lot about the Soviet Moskva and Iksra. I've never handled either, but they seem to be plentiful and inexpensive.
literiter
Well-known
Congratulations or your decision to begin the seach for the Holy Grail of cameras.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cheap", but for certain my tastes are cheap and I like folding cameras.
I was patient and I managed a Super Ikonta "B" with the uncoated Opton lens for $145.00 on Ebay. The shutter had to be serviced and the glass cleaned but that should be done anyway.
Best bang for the buck, as it were, would have to be the inglorious Moskva 2 as mentioned by FallisPhoto. I bought two and they made one, eventually. One for $25.00 and the other $45.00.
The advantages are; easy to work on, 6x9, suprisingly good lenses, excellent shutters and very good viewfinders and, in my case, good rangefinders and bellows. Images can be good when the lens is stopped down to f8 or so.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cheap", but for certain my tastes are cheap and I like folding cameras.
I was patient and I managed a Super Ikonta "B" with the uncoated Opton lens for $145.00 on Ebay. The shutter had to be serviced and the glass cleaned but that should be done anyway.
Best bang for the buck, as it were, would have to be the inglorious Moskva 2 as mentioned by FallisPhoto. I bought two and they made one, eventually. One for $25.00 and the other $45.00.
The advantages are; easy to work on, 6x9, suprisingly good lenses, excellent shutters and very good viewfinders and, in my case, good rangefinders and bellows. Images can be good when the lens is stopped down to f8 or so.
kievman
Kievman
I have a iskra 6x6cm) and I love it. Very sharp coated lens from F5.6 down. great rangefinder and viewfinder, very bright and contrasty, and easy to focus. My had a problem with light leaks as most seems to do, but some well placed gaffers tape took care of that. I picked up a very clean one on the bay for 100 US . and I have been very happy with it. -Michael
chippy
foo was here
well one of the James Bond themes songs says something like Never say Never...but i cant think of any 6x4.5 folders in lanscape, they are all in portrait (without tipping the camera on its end, which personaly i find anoying in 6x4.5 not that i like the format much at all) , they have to be in portait because the film is wound from one side to side to other, with the long edge to the negative being across the width of the film (which is bottom to top on the camera). also the lens will be 75mm or 80mm, i cant think of ever seeing any with 60mm. scale focusing a 35mm lens is no easier or more dificult than scale focusing a 105mm or other lens, it the distance you are guessing--you get it right or you get it wrong.
mcgrattan
Well-known
I have a Moskva-2 [which is for sale, incidentally]. Coated lens, CRF, etc.
The only problem I've ever found with it, is that if you hold it in 'portrait' orientation and aren't careful unfolding it, you get a tiny amount of bellows sag - so that the very edge of the frame is slightly off straight [there's a little 'shading' from the bellows at the frame edge].
The quality of photograph is very good, but, as other commentators have said, they are fairly big and heavy. You could only fit it in a fairly large coat pocket.
The only problem I've ever found with it, is that if you hold it in 'portrait' orientation and aren't careful unfolding it, you get a tiny amount of bellows sag - so that the very edge of the frame is slightly off straight [there's a little 'shading' from the bellows at the frame edge].
The quality of photograph is very good, but, as other commentators have said, they are fairly big and heavy. You could only fit it in a fairly large coat pocket.
mcgrattan
Well-known
See the top left. The image is super sharp though. On the full-size scan the red text on the back of the waistcoat is sharp.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Portable Folder
Portable Folder
You are putting a lot of limitations on choice with these criteria. 6x9 folders are a bit on the large and heavy side for "carry-along and everyday life". You're using 6x6 now but the Yashicamat is too bulky and heavy to meet the same criteria. Why not stay with a format you're familiar with? One of the most pocketable 6x6 folders around, and cheap, is the Voigtlander Perkeo I. They're selling on EBay right now for $50 USD or less. I have two. The 3.5 Color Skopar lens is more sought after but the 4.5 Vaskar produces more than satisfactory results. I've owned mine since new in 1957! The only drawback with my Vaskar-equipped Perkeo is that the Pronto shutter has limited speeds (1/25 to 1/200) and the higher spec cameras have a wider range of speeds. The Pronto was the cheapest shutter/lens combination offered but the lens was common to all the Perkeo I range.
There were some produced fitted with Prontor-S or Prontor-SV shutters and they have a range from 1 sec to 1/300. So look for these shutters rather than the simpler Pronto.
The Color Skopar 3.5 lens was only fitted to the Perkeo II as far as I know. It has a better shutter but they are hard to find and cost more.
As for the rangefinder - nice if you can get it - rare to find one that's coupled in a 'cheap' folder, but an accessory rangefinder in the shoe will do just as well as you still have to transfer the setting to the lens anyway.
Portable Folder
You are putting a lot of limitations on choice with these criteria. 6x9 folders are a bit on the large and heavy side for "carry-along and everyday life". You're using 6x6 now but the Yashicamat is too bulky and heavy to meet the same criteria. Why not stay with a format you're familiar with? One of the most pocketable 6x6 folders around, and cheap, is the Voigtlander Perkeo I. They're selling on EBay right now for $50 USD or less. I have two. The 3.5 Color Skopar lens is more sought after but the 4.5 Vaskar produces more than satisfactory results. I've owned mine since new in 1957! The only drawback with my Vaskar-equipped Perkeo is that the Pronto shutter has limited speeds (1/25 to 1/200) and the higher spec cameras have a wider range of speeds. The Pronto was the cheapest shutter/lens combination offered but the lens was common to all the Perkeo I range.
There were some produced fitted with Prontor-S or Prontor-SV shutters and they have a range from 1 sec to 1/300. So look for these shutters rather than the simpler Pronto.
The Color Skopar 3.5 lens was only fitted to the Perkeo II as far as I know. It has a better shutter but they are hard to find and cost more.
As for the rangefinder - nice if you can get it - rare to find one that's coupled in a 'cheap' folder, but an accessory rangefinder in the shoe will do just as well as you still have to transfer the setting to the lens anyway.
chippy
foo was here
The Perkeo 1 was also produced with the c/skopar lens, they are not as common Leigh but still pop up semi regularly. for obvious reasons they always fetch more money
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Scale focusing a 60mm lens on a 6x9 would be much easier than a 105mm. But the difference between 75mm on a 6x4.5 camera and 105 on a 6x9 is not that big (the 75 is even a bit longer relative to the format) and gets negligible if you want to enlarge to the same final size. And nothing like a 60mm 6x9 folder (or even 6x45 folder) does exist - the closest would be a Makina with 7.3cm Orthar, but that's rather beyond what most would consider a "folder".
Sevo
Muggins
Junk magnet
I'm mildly surprised to see 6x9 folders described as heavy - I take my Moskva-4 hill-walking in my map pocket (though it only fits in the map pocket, because it is big)! Without weighing it, I couldn't tell you whether it's lighter than, say, an OM10 but it is certainly much lighter than a Nikon SLR, and of course it packs flat.
I gather they tend to suffer from Friday afternoon/Monday morning after a weekend on the vodka syndrome - but a good one can be very good, given that the lens is a Tessar clone.
McG, if you took that pic on a Tuesday lunchtime, my bike was probably on the bike rack just out of shot...
Adrian
I gather they tend to suffer from Friday afternoon/Monday morning after a weekend on the vodka syndrome - but a good one can be very good, given that the lens is a Tessar clone.
McG, if you took that pic on a Tuesday lunchtime, my bike was probably on the bike rack just out of shot...
Adrian
NickTrop
Veteran
sleepyhead
Well-known
I have a Zeiss Super Ikonta B that I'm very happy with. It's quite portable as it fits into a large coat pocket when folded. The lens is excellent, even at f/2.8, although I rarely use it wide opne because the depth of field can be TOO shallow. I got mine and worked all the shutter speeds several times and they all work fine with no CLA. The camera is very well built.
An example photo at f/4:
An example photo at f/4:
mcgrattan
Well-known
Adrian, I've no idea. It was a couple of years back during some piece of filming or other. A film, iirc, rather than 'Lewis' or one of the other regulars.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Let me echo some important considerations mentioned by Leigh, Kievman and Zeissfan.
My own view is that a late 1940's Ikonta C with a fold down viewfinder will take photos that equal to its RF siblings provided that it is properly focused and more importantly it is much more easy to restore to a like new conditon.
6x9 120 film cameras were at the height of their before WWII. By the 1950's, 6x9 made up a very small market niche that was in decline. Many, but not all offerings from the 1950's were essentially carry overs from the 1930's with updated shutter/lens combos and in some cases with an added uncoupled rangefinder.
When I take apart and refurbish a post-war 6x9 folder with an RF - that claims to be a all-new model - I often find its prewar predecessor underneath.
The Zeiss Ikon, 524/2 Mess-Ikonta is a perfect example of updating the Ikonta C with a new top cover to house an added un-coupled RF. Agfa's Record III is another example. You'd be lucky to pick up a working example of either for under $200 USD these days and when looking beyond the Moskvas, these are next level of affordable 6x9 RF folders.
Back in the day when folders were new, a built in RF added 10 to 20 dollars to the price of 50 to 60 dollar camera. While today one it usually doubles the price of a particular camera.
Many people are happy with cameras that were originally designed in the 1930's - but they are significantly slower to shoot with than a modern medium format camera. It's a case of learning to exploit what you have by altering your shooting strategy to fit the use of a red window to wind the film and front cell focusing by guessing the distance.
If you limit your search to 6x9 and 645 with an RF - it will mean passing up on some significant improvements in camera design that made their way into 6x6 folders of the mid to late 1950's.
Nearly everyone of the "all new" post war designs were 6x6. The Zeiss Ikonta Super Ikonta 3, Mamiya Six and Agfa Super Isolette - along with its Iskra copy cat offer modern ergonomics. Compared to their predecessors that were designed in the 1930's they offer modern accouterments, hence they are more convenient to use.
Of the three mentioned, the Iskra is the most affordable.
The improvements Iskra offers over older designs are:
* Automat stye film winding - if working properly
* Coupled RF design that is set by focusing the lens itself
* A larger than average viewfinder and a wider RF base.
* a Unit Focus Lens which is uniformly sharp through its range unlike the typical front cell focusing lenses of the period.
The exceptions to all of the above the Ensign Autorange 6x9'er and Konica Pearl IV 645'er. Both of which have modern RF viewfinders with bright lines, coupled-RF focusing and are naturally both whorish-ly expensive today.
As for 6x9 - I understand the attraction. Each frame has about 4 times the real estate of the more popular 35mm format. Also, the classic 105 mm lens signature along with the greater tonality of a print made from a 6x9 neg would be very difficult to duplicate using 35mm film. It's a very different look.
My own view is that a late 1940's Ikonta C with a fold down viewfinder will take photos that equal to its RF siblings provided that it is properly focused and more importantly it is much more easy to restore to a like new conditon.
6x9 120 film cameras were at the height of their before WWII. By the 1950's, 6x9 made up a very small market niche that was in decline. Many, but not all offerings from the 1950's were essentially carry overs from the 1930's with updated shutter/lens combos and in some cases with an added uncoupled rangefinder.
When I take apart and refurbish a post-war 6x9 folder with an RF - that claims to be a all-new model - I often find its prewar predecessor underneath.
The Zeiss Ikon, 524/2 Mess-Ikonta is a perfect example of updating the Ikonta C with a new top cover to house an added un-coupled RF. Agfa's Record III is another example. You'd be lucky to pick up a working example of either for under $200 USD these days and when looking beyond the Moskvas, these are next level of affordable 6x9 RF folders.
Back in the day when folders were new, a built in RF added 10 to 20 dollars to the price of 50 to 60 dollar camera. While today one it usually doubles the price of a particular camera.
Many people are happy with cameras that were originally designed in the 1930's - but they are significantly slower to shoot with than a modern medium format camera. It's a case of learning to exploit what you have by altering your shooting strategy to fit the use of a red window to wind the film and front cell focusing by guessing the distance.
If you limit your search to 6x9 and 645 with an RF - it will mean passing up on some significant improvements in camera design that made their way into 6x6 folders of the mid to late 1950's.
Nearly everyone of the "all new" post war designs were 6x6. The Zeiss Ikonta Super Ikonta 3, Mamiya Six and Agfa Super Isolette - along with its Iskra copy cat offer modern ergonomics. Compared to their predecessors that were designed in the 1930's they offer modern accouterments, hence they are more convenient to use.
Of the three mentioned, the Iskra is the most affordable.
The improvements Iskra offers over older designs are:
* Automat stye film winding - if working properly
* Coupled RF design that is set by focusing the lens itself
* A larger than average viewfinder and a wider RF base.
* a Unit Focus Lens which is uniformly sharp through its range unlike the typical front cell focusing lenses of the period.
The exceptions to all of the above the Ensign Autorange 6x9'er and Konica Pearl IV 645'er. Both of which have modern RF viewfinders with bright lines, coupled-RF focusing and are naturally both whorish-ly expensive today.
As for 6x9 - I understand the attraction. Each frame has about 4 times the real estate of the more popular 35mm format. Also, the classic 105 mm lens signature along with the greater tonality of a print made from a 6x9 neg would be very difficult to duplicate using 35mm film. It's a very different look.