Thinking about getting into medium format RF

Listening to what you said.....

Listening to what you said.....

You said Rangefinder (eliminates old folders)
You said Budget (Eliminates Mam 7 - over priced)
You said Good starter camera, which I take to mean good function, good rangefinder, good glass, and dependable:

FUJI rangefinders starting with:
Fuji GS645S (not the folder) w/60mm lens and full featured, accurate and great glass... $400 at the high end for a nice one.

Fujica G690Bl with the 100mm interchangable lens... $400-500 for a nice one w/all functions working including the blind for changing lenses. Then keep eyes open for the interchangable 65mm lens.

Fuji GW670/GW690 II or III which in nice condition with the 90mm lens will range from $600 to $1000. At $1000 the cameras are low shutter count (less than 1000 shutter actuations or 100 rolls of film) In fact a $1000 camera in these models would be Like New In The Box, most often.

Fuji GA645Zi (Zoom Autofocus 55 to 90mm). A nice low shutter count Zi will run $600 to $700.

The lightest of the lot is the first one I mention. Many consider them "plastic" but they are plastic over a steel frame. The lens on Fujica/Fuji cameras take NO backseat to anything listed in this post, including Hasselblad.

Here's a pic, and I do not have a GS645S in the pic. The small camera here is a Fuji Finepix e900. The GS645S is about halfway between the finepix and the Zi on the left for size:
 
Another vote for the Mamiya 7. About 50% of my shooting is with this camera. I use it just like a 35mm RF but the prints just look better.

However I have a friend that shoots with the recent vintage Fuji 6x7 RFs. They are less than half the price of the Mamiya 7 but the print quality seems to be the same to the eye.

FWIW, I tend the shoot the same number of rolls (2-4) in a half day no matter if I shooting 120 or 35mm. And I seem to have the same probability per roll of a real winner with both formats.

No need for MF is all you are going to do is post JPGs. But the difference in b&w prints is noticeable, even at 8x10.
 
Another great thread, this one. Excellent information The great thing about RFF is that you get to hear people's hands-on experiences.
 
I don't know which camera maker put the first coupled rangefinder on a medium format camera, but the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas debuted in the 1930s, so the comment about eliminating folders is in error.

I've read many good things about the Fuji cameras and handled one that belonged to a friend of mine. I thought it was unnecessarily big and the shutter was noisier that it needed to be. However, the images were very good.

Now, regarding folders, there are a lot of choices out there, and many will need to be restored.

As far as portability, a little Super Ikonta A with a Tessar (coated or uncoated) is a fine choice. The Super Ikonta B came in two different body styles with the later models based on a lighter-weight shell that it shared with the simpler zone-focus Ikontas and Nettars.

In 120, the Super Ikonta C is the king, although the Soviets attempted to copy it (sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much) with it Moskva series. A properly restored Super Ikonta C with a Tessar is a great camera with one weakness: The van Albada finder often is either too dark or too cloudy and often useless.

I also give high marks to the Agfa Isolette III (uncoupled rangefinder) with the Solinar and the Zeiss Ikonta Mess Ikontas (6x6 and 6x9).

Others have made rangefinder folders, but I have no experience with them, so I won't offer an opinion.
 
While I love MF film, you do need to ask yourself what you are going to do with it.

No problem if you develop it yourself and print in a wet darkroom.

If you develop it yourself and then scan, remember a real MF film scanner is around US$ 2K and hard to find. Lately some have been using the new flatbeds and like the result.

But if you don't develop and print yourself, your options are much more limited than in 35mm. While there is a good pro lab in every reasonable size city, it sure is not like labs that can do 35mm. This is reflected in the price.

Personally, I have never regretted biting the bullet and buying a real MF film scanner. But they are not for everyone.

If cost is a major factor, consider 4x5 instead. The cameras and lenses are cheaper. And a scanner that can do 4x5 justice is a lot less than needed for MF.
 
kuzano said:
You said Rangefinder (eliminates old folders)
Click to expand...

an uncommon mistake from you kuzano?

plenty of folding camera's with coupled rangefinder! even more without coupled rangefinders.

not excatly sure when the first coupled rangefinder in a folder appeared either, although the first with a single window for both rangefinder and viewing (1933-34) was on a Welta Solida with a Rodenstock built coupled rangefinder mounted, sold as a Clarovid II, the next year Welta improved on Rodenstocks rangefinder design significantly (with the Welta Weltur); among other things, increasing the viewfinder to an aceptable size large viewing/rangefinder window.

tiny little window to view through on the Clarovid II...once you can get your eye to look through the midget hole it works good enough though, a split image type rangefnder that looks much like the split image in SLR's, cost me about $40 or so from memory, interesting camera.
 
Last edited:
ZeissFan said:
I don't know which camera maker put the first coupled rangefinder on a medium format camera, but the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas debuted in the 1930s, so the comment about eliminating folders is in error.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected and rightfully so. I forgot about the Zeiss and Moskva. There are others in 6X6. I've had a lot of old folders, but never rangefinders. In fact, I really blew it because there were quite a few folders in the early to mid fifties with both uncoupled and coupled folders. I don't know what I was thingking.

I guess my reason is that whenever I saw an older folder with a rangefinder in very good condition, I could always justify the slight price increase to comtemporary cameras like the Fuji's with meters, and superbly coated lenses.

The color rendition from the EBC coating on Fuji lenses is very pleasant and flare resistant.
 
Last edited:
chippy said:
you often mention this Roger and it always puzzles me. i can only think that either you are extremely unlucky as I have any number of folders that produce excellent results.

Or, I dont know of course but if i try to put myself in your place (in time and experiance) then i sometimes think that maybe in the late 60's or 70's when Planar type and other lenses were more commonly available and at the fore front of better/sharper image quality. then comparing those to the old and more common 4 element tessar types, that are pretty much the best your are likely to find on most folders (there are exceptions); the image result would at least appear not as good, if not just diffferent, which back then may of been disapointing and not met with expectations by you.
Click to expand...

Dear Andrew,

Hmmm... I've always thought Tessars were overrated, too, and front-cell-focus Tessar-types are not as good as unit focus. The only Tessar I've ever REALLY liked was a 150/6.3. So maybe this is it. But equally, the Tessar-type on my MPP Microflex TLR was better than any Tessar-type I ever had on a folder.

Edit: And the Elmar on my IIIa seemed better than a Tessar-type on a Retina. I like the Elmar well enough (and was quite fond of the 90/4) but it must be that I prefer symmetrical types and judge all lenses my them. The only Sonnar I've ever fallen in love with was the current50/1,5, though the 85/2 Jupiter was nice in its way. Longer and slower Tessars certainly appeal more than 'standard' and faster ones (f/3.5).

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
You could get something like this (Welta Weltur, mine is with Xenar lens):
1458096239_8692b9b5b3_o.jpg


And it could produce pictures like this:
219674028_cd91ee4e82_o.jpg


255951141_6638a1d6dd_b.jpg


2289013586_e1651cb8c1.jpg
 
The Welta Weltur is a very pretty camera! Lovely photos too.

There's a lot of great classic gear out there. Some affordable, some very costly. Some in great quantity, and some a bit difficult to find.

Konica had the Pearl, a 120 rangefinder that's very pricey today. The Baby Pearl (127) is a zone focus camera. And Kodak had its Duo 620, Series III, with a rangefinder. You have to respool 120 because of Kodak's slavish devotion to the format.

If nothing else, you can have decades of fun trying various cameras.
 
Muggins said:
[tangent]
I belive the first coupled rangefinder was on a Kodak, though that's what I've read, I've never investigated it properly myself. If so, then I suspect that item no 12 on this list is the one:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13.shtml

So we're talking no later than 1917 for the introduction of a coupled rangefinder. Wow!



Adrian
Click to expand...

The No. 1A AUTOGRAPHIC KODAK Special w/coupled rangefinder, I think I have one of those around here somewhere, Duh, I should have known I had it for a reason! Thanks for the reminder and link Adrian
 
I have a Zeiss Ikonta (coupled RF) with coated Tessar, very smooth wide open but sharpness is better stopped down. There are alot of Folders with coupled RF out there.

Todd
 
My Zeiss Ikon (with Nettar) is NOT an RF, but it does give nice photos for anyone wondering about old folders. My RF is non-calibrated eyeballs or if I am worried, an aux rangfinder that will mount on a flash holder if it exists. Understand I don't scan nor post process well if at all. Focus was on the corn.

EDIT: I don't know what I was thinking. My Zeiss has the Novar lens, not the Nettar. The camera is called the Nettar 515/2. Whitecat, you are right, the Novar lens on these old folders is quite nice.
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss_FarmersMarketCorn.jpg
    Zeiss_FarmersMarketCorn.jpg
    98 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Not to highjack the thread, but to entice Chippy to look for and display that old RF camera ...

He liked the Zeiss' rendition of the roasted nats from the farmer's market, so I thought maybe he would like some goat's milk soap and lotion to go with the "nats."

Same Zeiss 6x9.
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss_6x9_GoatSoap.jpg
    Zeiss_6x9_GoatSoap.jpg
    81.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I have the Zeiss Super Ikonta B, later style 6x6, with the coated Opton lens. Easy to use, reliable and quite sharp side to side at full aperture, very sharp when stopped down.

Then there is the Certo 6. This thing, when in good repair, is fantastic. Sharp as my 80mm Hasselblad lens at full aperture.

The idea of no batteries appeals to me, so I often use these with a selenium Weston.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom