Which RF Folder

[Mablo]

How about the cute 6x4.5 folders? I don't see people using them much. I wonder why. Which 6x4.5 folders should I look for?

 

[sevo]

Many people think 'Super Ikonta' when folding RF cameras are mentioned. IMO, they're one of many in the genre. Zeiss-Ikon A.G. didn't invent coupled-RF folding roll-film cameras,

... but they sold the first popular camera with the more afflicted among the two basic 120 film counter types - the variable tooth pitch take-up spool driven counter. Welta introduced a roller driven counter at about the same time.

Many other cameras and many other manufacturers followed, but if we go by the earliest adopters, "Super Ikonta" vs. "Welta" is the best designation for the two basic counter types.

Sevo

 

[ZeissFan]

The Agfa cameras are excellent cameras with the shortcomings of the hardened grease in the lens helicals and plastic-covered bellows. The Isolette III is much like the Zeiss Ikon Mess Ikonta in that it features an uncoupled rangefinder. I think the Agfa implementation is better than Zeiss Ikon.

Voigtlander had different cameras, some using the Voigtlander "focus by dial" system, which I find clunky to use. They tend to be made of lighter weight materials, and the lens yoke has been criticized as being made of metal that is too thin and too pliable.

Nagel made some very good cameras under the Kodak AG banner. The Duo 620 is an excellent camera, and there is a somewhat pricey version with a rangefinder. There's also a 6x6 Vollenda. The downside is that they're 620 cameras.

There's also the Certo Dollina and other excellent cameras. I have two Braun Paxinas -- one with a lens panel that extends from the front, and another with a collapsible lens.

Finally, Kodak's UK operation produced the Kodak 66 (a 120 camera and possibly Kodak's only 120 camera after it introduced 620 film), a nice little folding camera of modest specifications but alas without a rangefinder.

So, there are a lot of folding cameras out there. Zeiss Ikon gets mentioned frequently, but they certainly aren't the only cameras available today offering reasonable price and performance.

I occasionally will throw out the Zeiss Ikon vs. Carl Zeiss -- if for no other reason to help those who are new to photography know that Zeiss Ikon isn't the same as Carl Zeiss or Carl Zeiss Jena (East Germany). Even lenses branded as Zeiss Ikon or the Novar or Pantar weren't made by Zeiss Ikon. It's a somewhat complicated story, so I'll just stop it there.

 

[literiter]

I've tried the Super Ikonta C (531/2) a 6x9, the Super Ikonta B (532/16) and the Super Ikonta IV (534/16) as well as the various Moskvas. As mentioned, the winding and focus mechanisms are reasonably good, but lens sharpness is soft, wider than f8. I prefer f11 or f16. ( a nice one looks absolutely beautiful)

Lens hoods are really a necessity on these lenses but hard to attach firmly. A strong wind can easily dislodge them.

Like Chippy says, there are lots of SIs out there, many in good shape, and if you can overlook the typical shortcomings well worth owning.

The folder I like the most for lens sharpness, and contrast, however is my Certo Six. I'ts a 6x6 folder with a nice Jena, Tessar 2.8 lens. Wide open the lens is excellent and a lens hood can be firmly affixed. I cannot discern any difference between the results from my Rolleiflex and the Certo. It is the only folder I have with parallax compensation. It is a bit lighter than my Nikon F2!

The wind mechanism is crude, the focus mechanism is odd ( a lever), and the fact that you cannot close the camera when the shutter is cocked is a drag. But, if you can overlook these issues it is a great camera. I use mine quite a bit now when I go hiking in the backcountry.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

6x7 should be 56x72mm, Linhof's Ideal format andyes ...related to magazine formats. Often the 6x7 description isn't delivering that actual size, the new Fuji - Voigtländer folder is a good example: 56x56 + 56x68 mm formats. At 56x72 mm the aspect ratio is 1.29 not that far from the 1.33 of 645's 56x42mm, though actual sizes vary within the 645 description as well. The frames fit the traditional papers better than either 6x6 or 35mm do.

Some camera concepts do not lend themselves well to rectangle formats and the obvious choice is a square format then. Not just in 6x6 but also in 4x4 for baby Rollei etc and 24x24 mm for the Robots. Most 645 folder cameras have the portrait mode as the default which isn't considered the best choice if the lens doesn't have the right focal length.

The 6x9 folder probably did become popular for more reasons than the square CMs of film area. Wide enough for landscape and with the 645 insert + the fixed 95-105mm lens a good portrait format too. Something that a straight 645 folder doesn't have or its lens is a compromise in focal length. No wonder Fuji had a range of 645 cameras with different fixed focal lengths, the ZI a follow up on that. The variation between the actual 6x9 sizes exists as well though. The Bessa I that I have is 56x88 mm, with an aspect ratio of 1.57 wider than 35mm frames. I can get that on my V700 scanner but not on the Nikon 8000 that crops at 83mm. Some 6x9's do not go beyond 56x80 mm and most are at 82-83 mm width. Like my Monitor 620 and Agfa Record II. Reason enough to call them 6x8 instead. The aspect ratio at 1.46 close enough to 35mm.
It wouldn't surprise me if the early appearence of 35mm cameras + the 6x6 TLRs in Europe kept the 6x9 format popular as well, a better alternative to the two formats than the 645 folder would be and compact enough in the folder model. Building on the old European glass plate format of 6,5x9 = 63x88,9 mm or on the American cut film size 57x82 mm.
The Japanese camera industry was later on the market and faced the 35mm revolution much earlier in its growth. Add to that the appeal of compact in Japanese culture and 645 folders fit them better.

Ernst Dinkla

 

[oftheherd]

I had never seen the Minolta, much less owned one. I know that when I was young, the Japanese reputation for anything, prewar, or immediately postwar, was of cheap immitation. If you managed to get a good one dave61, good for you. I am happy for you.

I just cannot believe that there was an immitation that was better than the Weltas. I do own several Weltas, both 120 folders and 35mm folders. I cut my teeth on a Welta Welti. It had been liberated from a German soldier, was sold to my father, and later I used it in Vietnam. Weltas are just good. I don't say they are the only good folder cameras. Indeed not.

I wonder if you didn't luck out and get a camera made especially for someone important, and therefore extra attention was paid to it. Not unlike stories one hears of some FSU cameras being followed through the production line for an important official. Anyway, I am happy you are happy with your camera. I would encourage you to look for another Welta that is better. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Krosya]

its beyond a joke that you even make the statement let alone dignifying it with answering it, you obviously have a lot to learn...the lens on your weltur sounds like it is a Cassar f2.9 (3 element triplet lens only) sometimes sold/offered (customer choice)on the early units instead of the more expensive Tessar or Xenar, paired with just the compur shutter instead of the more expensive compur rapid (so, it was a base offering for someones household), the very large percentage of Weltur were sold with f2.8 Tessar (4 element) or the f2.8 xenar (5 element lens) both of these are much higher performers (and faster) than the 3.5 Promar

Ok, lets put this Welta vs Minolta argument on hold. (BTW, as some of you know I have and love Weltas, but never owned a Minolta folder, so cant compare these two). But I have a question about the above statement in regard to lenses that go on Welta. I always thought that Xenar and Tessar were pretty much the same thing (formula). My Welta has a Xenar and it performs very well. While I did hear that Xenar is 5 element and Tessar is 4 element lenses, but is there actual info that confirms that? When I did a CLA on my Welta I took my Xenar lens apart and best I remember it looked to be a 4 element one. Did I miss something? What about Xenar vs Tessar in Rolleiflex cameras? any info on those?

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

--Tne Xenar was a four-element Tessar type lens. The Xenon was a 5-element lens. Marketing can be the prime mover. If a new design needs to tack on an old name for sales purposes, I'm sure that happens. I read that the Xenar-S was a new design, not tessar-type at all. I think the S came from the Gauss-type front element.

There have been discussions on that subject before and Chippy is correct in my opinion:

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00BeZf

More deviations to 5 elements exist for the Tessar design: Heliar designs by Voigtländer and Kodak. Cox mentions 5 elements used by other companies to overcome Tessar patents, among them a Ross Xpres. The rear element split to 3 cemented elements.

The Xenon is linked to assymetrical Gauss designs like the Planar which most of the time didn't have less than 6 elements exceptions of 5 elements Planars exist but are rare. A 5 element Xenon isn't mentioned anywhere.

The early Ernostar>Sonnar developments from the Tessar are typically 5 element designs. Fewer elements and more groups to get faster lenses in a time lens coating wasn't available yet. Later on the number of elements increased in Sonnar designs like they did in assymetrical Gauss designs.


Ernst Dinkla

 

[Krosya]

I have two miracles than! :

😛

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

I re-checked the Schneider Optics website. According to the manufacturer "... Xenar lenses were a 4-element 'Tessar type', first introduced in 1919 ...". Nowhere is there a mention of a 5 element "Tessar-type" lens. Why would Schneider tell us its Xenar lens only had 4 elements if it was a 5 element lens?

On the same site, Schneider describes the Xenon as either 5 elements-4 groups or 6 elements-4 groups (aparently depending on focal length and max. aperture).

As far as Ross is concerned, they had a mutually lucrative contract with Carl Zeiss to manufacture and sell Zeiss lenses with the Ross name on them, under license. So did Bausch and Lomb in Rochester, NY. Why would either of these two have any need to circumvent Zeiss patents for lenses they were already mass producing? At any rate, the design was commonplace. Everybody made a "Tessar-type" lens. Why go to the expense of "overcoming" a patent whose rights were cheap and obtainable?


The 5 element Xenar is the exception not the rule, we never wrote the last. Quite possible that nobody at the Schneider works these days is aware of a prewar design with 5 elements. I gave you a link to the illustration of a 5 element Xenar. Send that to Schneider if you think it is a fake. Meanwhile give a link to the Schneider texts you got your information from.

Who claims the rights were cheap? In which period?
The Tessar design patent dates back to 1902 it ended roughly in 1920 and the Allies didn't make an effort to protect CZ's patents during the Great War either. Schneider started the Xenar production in 1919-1920, so did Leitz with the Elmar. Who didn't then?

Quote: >Some variation were produced which allowed companies to bypass the copyright. One in which the lens is turned around so the cemented doublet is in front, and the airspaced element behind was made by several manufacturers. Another was using a cemented triplet in the rear instead of a doublet. <

Which you can find here:

http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm

Rudolph Kingslake in A History of the Photographic Lens (1989)says: "It is certain that the Tessar was not a modified Triplet, as the series of steps followed by Rudolph in going from the Anastigmat to the Tessar are well established, but for some of the later designs it is not always clear whether they should be regarded as modified Tessars or modified Triplets." About the Xpres: "The Tessar was such an excellent design that other workers would have liked to copy it but were prevented from doing so by patent limitations. The simplest way out was to use a cemented triplet in the rear instead of a doublet. Several designs of this type appeared in 1913, including the Ross Xpres by J. Stuart and J. W. Hasselkus..."

Berthiot's Olor design had that rear triplet too.

1913, before WW I. After 1920 all the lens manufacturers had a Tessar clone in the catalogue, no license needed anymore. Ross abandoned the rear triplet then as well.


Ernst Dinkla

 

[P C Headland]

I thought this was a thread on folders, but it appears I'm mistaken. It seems to be a debate on the size of one's appendage.....

 

[sevo]

I re-checked the Schneider Optics website. According to the manufacturer "... Xenar lenses were a 4-element 'Tessar type', first introduced in 1919 ...". Nowhere is there a mention of a 5 element "Tessar-type" lens. Why would Schneider tell us its Xenar lens only had 4 elements if it was a 5 element lens?

Zeiss had come up with a sharp f/2.8 Tessar by the early thirties (the old 2.8 was soft indeed). Schneider obviously could not replicate that feat directly without violating their patents, and research was not that fast in the pre computer age. They eventually arrived at their own, different fast Tessar type themselves. But up to that point, they had to stomach the losses and deliver a more complex (and expensive to produce) lens branded and priced as a Xenar, or risk losing relevant parts of their customer base.

Sevo

 

[Mael]

It is like this wars begin...

 

[FallisPhoto]

The Zeiss Ikon 6x9 cameras with two windows on the back can use a small mask that's inserted into the film chamber that convert it to shoot 6x4.5.

I think the 6x7 format is a waste of film. One extra millimeter is insignificant. That's my opinion, and I know that it's not shared by many people.

Centimeter, not millimeter. The format was invented because it is closer to the proportions of standard sheets of 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 -- and etcetera -- paper than 6x6 (square format) or 6x9 (postcard format). It allows you to print, using the whole sheet of paper, without cropping as much.

 

[jmkelly]

I've tried the... the Super Ikonta B (532/16)... but lens sharpness is soft, wider than f8. I prefer f11 or f16.

The folder I like the most for lens sharpness, and contrast, however is my Certo Six. I'ts a 6x6 folder with a nice Jena, Tessar 2.8 lens. Wide open the lens is excellent and a lens hood can be firmly affixed. I cannot discern any difference between the results from my Rolleiflex and the Certo.

Isn't the CZJ Tessar 8cm 2.8 the same lens on the 6x6 532/16 as on the Certo Six and Rolleiflex 2.8A?

I have always understood that the 6x4.5 format was developed to frame without cropping for magazine cover layout and to save film, and that 6x7 was popular for having the same ratio as 8x10 prints (as FallisPhoto notes). Are these stories apocryphal?

 

[literiter]

Isn't the CZJ Tessar 8cm 2.8 the same lens on the 6x6 532/16 as on the Certo Six and Rolleiflex 2.8A?

My 532/16 has a front cell focusing Opton Tessar. made in Germany. It may be a similar lens in some ways to the Jena Tessar but I don't know this. (Someone here will.)

The Certo Six and the Rolleiflex focus the whole lens assembly, which appears to be better. My Certo has a great CZJ Tessar which is likely as good in many instances as my Hasselblad 80mm CF lens.

Personally I find the 532/16 in good nick, a really nice camera. If the lens is soft a wider apertures, and I'm sure it is, it still It is a great camera. My Certo Six is much sharper wide open at F2.8.

-It's advisable not to mention 532/16 where I see it because I like to post a picture of it when I can.

 

[jmkelly]

That 532/16 IS a lovely bit of kit! - has the 80mm Opton-Tessar in the Synchro-Compur - nice. IIRC the first examples of the model from 1937 had a Jena Tessar in the Compur-Rapid shutter, and only stopped down to f11 - like the contemporary uncoated Jena Sonnar for the Contax II.

I do recall reading somewhere that the Tessar design could be mounted so the front cell alone moved to focus the image. I did not realize that this method of focus would degrade optical performance to the degree that only f8 or smaller would give acceptably sharp images. Does anyone know what distance the front-element focus Tessars were optimized for?

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Isn't the CZJ Tessar 8cm 2.8 the same lens on the 6x6 532/16 as on the Certo Six and Rolleiflex 2.8A?

I have always understood that the 6x4.5 format was developed to frame without cropping for magazine cover layout and to save film, and that 6x7 was popular for having the same ratio as 8x10 prints (as FallisPhoto notes). Are these stories apocryphal?

The range of actual sizes that the 7 and 4.5 represent overlap one another quite well as I explained before. If the width on 120 film is set on 56 mm you will see 56x68 to 56x73mm for 6x7. That gives 1.21 to 1.30 aspect ratios. For 645 it can be 56x44 to 56x41,2 mm, That gives aspect ratios of 1.27 to 1.36. That is for modern cameras, what 645 was on folders, folder masks, etc is another thing. I have no data for that.

10x8 has the aspect ratio of 1.25. Close to the overlap in ratio between the two formats. A4 sizes have a ratio of 1.41.


Ernst Dinkla

 

[oftheherd]

Thank you FallisPhoto and jmkelly. I came back to this thread expecting to do battle. 😀 Everyone before has been putting down the 6x7 format. I hadn't seen such bashing since I bashed 645. 😀

It is indeed best for the print size FallisPhoto mentioned, since there is little to no waste. We seem to usually see in rectangles. Some people so see "square" and my hat is off to them. It just isn't the norm. It is why I haven't been able to really get excited about TLRs since I got my 6x7 Super Press 23. Of course, I do like my 6x6 folders, but more because they are folders. Go figure.

 

[FallisPhoto]

hope i didnt give you that impression OTH...i dont mind the format per say, and for some things it is ideal, just as the others are ..i was trying to relay how odd it was [to me, being used to 6x6 folders coming from years of hasselblad use], and took some getting used to in a folding camera (which there arnt really very many of 😉 ) I havnt used the 6x7 format much outside of a studio or purpose set shots outdoors and using it in a folder for the first time, as a walk around camera was, kinda odd, in comparison to other folders which are much smaller, even the larger format 6x9 folders are smaller..

so only my experiance using the 6x7 folder was i comenting on, particularly how weird it felt for the first time..framing and finding some pics in the 6x7 while 'walking around' was at times well suited (when i can get a few scanned i'll put some up) but at other times it just didnt fit what i wanted and it was quite frustrating. while doing so, i was at times thinking i wish i had it set for 6x6 (or would rather have a smaller 6x6 folder) or instead had a 6x9 folder at hand because the 6x7 just could not frame it.....grass is always greener scenario perhaps!

i guess another way i look at it is, in a studio i can relate to how one might wish to opt for an RB or RZ Mamiya against a blad, the huge difference in size doesn't matter as much in a studio (different story if you want to walk around with a Blad or RZ though), but in a folder, hmm, size matters, its kinda the reason you have a folding camera...still it is nice to have the choices 🙂

Heck, Andrew, I don't do it often, but I've been known to walk around all day with a 4x5 monorail in a 40-pound case almost the size of a trunk. You just do what you have to do to get what you want. No offense, but once you've done that a few times, you find yourself looking at anyone complaining about the weight of an RZ, or (god help them) a metal-framed small format camera, as being kind of whiny and sissy.