Which RF Folder

[hagen]

Hello,

I am looking for an old RF Folder, maybe like Bessa or ...

- Film Size 6/6 to 6/9,

- maybe a wide angle lens???

- rangefinder like leica m or mamiya 7

- good prize on ebay. Or can you tell me, where to buy?

Was a rangefinder for metering the distance usual at the old Folders like the Bessa models? Or should I estimate the distance?

thanks, hagen

 

[Roberto V.]

The old folders with a coupled rangefinder should be similar when it comes to focusing. You just match up the double image.
You could try getting something like a Moskva-5 (6x9) to see if you like it. If you don't, it's not much of an economic loss.

 

[Solinar]

Hello,

I am looking for

- Film Size 6/6 to 6/9,

- maybe a wide angle lens???

- rangefinder like leica m or mamiya 7

- good prize on ebay. Or can you tell me, where to buy?

thanks, hagen

A folder with a lens coupled RF gets expensive - if you want 6x9.

The all black, pre-WWII Bessa RF with an uncoated lens is still affordable.

Also, most 6x9 folders with a coupled RF require using a red window at the back of the camera when advancing the film to the next frame.

 

[oftheherd]

I only have one RF folder, a Moskva. It is OK. The rest of my folders require I estimate the distance and set it. I can do that, and don't mind doing it. I have been doing it since the late 50s with an old Welta Welti I used to own. Non RF folders will be cheaper and there are some good ones out there. Weltas can still be had at reasonalble prices, as well as Zeiss Ikons. Especially the 6x6, but even 6x9 aren't to expensive. Just be careful you are getting as good a one as possible, and expect to have to at a minumum, clean the shutter. But that usually isn't hard. Folders are easy to carry, and usually take great photos.

 

[hagen]

hi,

and which Folder will you recommend, if I would shoot only 6/6 or 6/7???

Maybe the 6/9 folders with rangefinder are too large and too expensive????

thanks, gerhard

 

[eli griggs]

I have an unmodified Iskra I like and a Zeiss Super Ikonta, (B), a great rangefinder, both are 6x6, with the Zeiss being considerably smaller than the Iskra * but both are quite nice to work with.

Look at threads to learn the ups and downs about both and find a proven working example from someone here; I suggest a post to the "wanted" section of the Classifieds and be patient.


See my correction below.

 

[oftheherd]

hi,

and which Folder will you recommend, if I would shoot only 6/6 or 6/7???

Maybe the 6/9 folders with rangefinder are too large and too expensive????

thanks, gerhard

I like the two Welta 6x6 folders I have. They are small and light, and have good lenses. I also like my Fuji 6x6. Still I tend to prefer my 6x9 Zeiss Ikon. It has a good lens, and I like the extra film real estate. None of them are RF. As I mentioned above, I can estimate distances without major problems. DOF is always a concern, but I don't find it a real problem. Normally you won't be at full aperture anyway.

Some of the 6x6 also have the option for 645 with a mask. If that is important, be sure the one you get has a mask. I am not crazy about 645 format, but some people really like it. 645 can save on film and still give a larger negative than 35mm. That is one draw back of the 6x9 Zeiss Ikon; only 8 photos at 120mm film prices isn't always fun.

So what would I recommend? Read the posts above, read other posts on the forums here about folders, and see if you can find any books that talk about them in a library of used book store. Don't be afraid to look in camera stores. They aren't all gone and I know Dominion Camera in Falls Church VA still has a lot of used gear, including some old folders. You may get lucky too.

And don't be afraid of ebay, just be very careful as mentioned here and in some other threads on folders and other old cameras. Also be prepared to try a couple of different folders before you find something you really like to use a lot.

 

[ZeissFan]

There were a couple with wide angle lenses, and you'll pay for that. The Brooks Veriwide sells for roughly $2,000.

A 6x9 photo already is fairly wide by nature, so you ought to try an inexpensive folder and see if that gives you a wide enough view before considering something much more expensive.

Personally, I think the 6x7 format is a waste of film. You only get 1 mm extra. You might as well shoot 6x6 and crop. Plus, there is no need to rotate the camera for a vertical if you're shooting 6x6.

 

[oftheherd]

...

Personally, I think the 6x7 format is a waste of film. You only get 1 mm extra. You might as well shoot 6x6 and crop. Plus, there is no need to rotate the camera for a vertical if you're shooting 6x6.

Did you mean 645 is a waste? If so, I agree 100%, unless as I mentioned, cost of film use is a consideration. Otherwise, you get 1 cm more of length, and don't waste as much film if you crop for rectangular, as most do. Somewhat of a moot point since there aren't that many 6x7 folders.

...

fwiw oftheherd, many of the 6x9 also will take a mask for 6x4.5 if you can scrounge them, my S/Ikonta 6x9 has a mask, not that i use it...only a few have the option of 6x6, welta belfoca and ensigns from memory..there are probably a few others but they dont come to mind atm

That's interesting chippy. It's what I love about this forum. Somebody with more knowledge will come in and post, and we all learn. I just didn't know there were 6x9 with 645 masks. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[ZeissFan]

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.

 

[Solinar]

A good point was made about not having to rotate the camera if it is a 6x6 for portraits.

I'll make another regarding 6x6. Many of the old front cell focusing Tessars on the 6x9 are rather soft in the corners unless you close down the aperture to f/11 or better yet f/16.

The Tessar-type lenses seem to do better on a 6x6 image. At f/8 the resolution in the corners should be crisp enough, but if you want to be obsessive then f/11.

I'm sure its a typo, but 6x7 has an extra cm rather than a mm over a 6x6 image. I know the average print has a 1.25:1 aspect ratio, but although I've tried - I'm not a big fan of the format. I still prefer 6x9 - even with the soft corners.

 

[kuzano]

Mamiya Automat six... late model

Mamiya Automat six... late model

It's a 6x6 and these are the points of interest:

Focus takes place at the film plane resulting in a very rigid front standard
Coupled (accurate) rangefinder
Very flat film holding due to the slide in film platen at the frame opening
Very nice coated Zuiko lens
Double shot prevention with simple manual over ride
Auto cocking of shutter (cock manually for double shot)
Film advance with film stop and counter (Only use ruby window on first frame)
Sturdy and reliable

Cons:
Make sure the example you get has not been damaged on the film count/stop gearing... this should only happen if the camera has fallen and landed on the Wind forward knob. Otherwise more durable film count mechanism than most.

I do not think you will find a camera repair person who will fix a film count mechanism on any old folder. I've had two Mamiya Six cameras fixed in the rangefinder area, and new bellows replaced, but have not been able to find a repair person who will tackle a film count mechanism on the Mamiya OR the Voigtlander Perkeo II.

The automats were made around 1954 - 1956. Very nice ones are found mostly at $300 to $500, but are exceptional and among the last folders made. I've owned three of the Automats, and the one I now have is one of the damaged (landed on the wind knob) examples and everything works very nicely, but I stripped out the damaged film count gears. The rangefinder works great (still coupled). Shutter cocking still works, but I have to watch the ruby window for film placement. That's actually not bad, because one of the weaknesses of most film count mechanisms is frame spacing becoming a problem. Using the ruby window takes care of that potential issue.

 

[Solinar]

Agfa Super Isolette / Ansco Super Speedex are another high-end choice for a RF coupled 6x6 with automat type film winding, but they aren't cheap. Sometimes they sell on the big auction site for between $150 and $200 USD.

I have both and I'm glad that I have them.

The Ansco Super Speedex is nothing more than an Agfa Super Isolette in North American livery.

 

[sevo]

I do not think you will find a camera repair person who will fix a film count mechanism on any old folder. I've had two Mamiya Six cameras fixed in the rangefinder area, and new bellows replaced, but have not been able to find a repair person who will tackle a film count mechanism on the Mamiya OR the Voigtlander Perkeo II.

Well, I can imagine why repair people shun film counters coupled to the takeup spool like on the Super Ikontas and Isolettes - their variable gearing is extraordinarily vulnerable and usually can't be fixed without original parts once it is worn or bent. But a Perkeo??? Its roller driven counter is very easy to fix, usually a cleaning, a drop of oil and roughening the sensor roller will get them going again.

 

[ethics_gradient]

I have an unmodified Iskra I like and a Zeiss Super Ikonta, (B), a great rangefinder, both are 6x6, with the Zeiss being considerably smaller than the Iskra but both are quite nice to work with.

I have a Super Ikonta and was thinking about an Iskra because it looked smaller/lighter in pictures, thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[eli griggs]

Actually, I just made a trip into the darkroom and compared the two cameras, the 532/16 vs. Iskra and I am in error when I state the Zeiss is "...considerably smaller than the Iskra..." ; it is the general impression that the two cameras have made upon me, not reality based fact.

A quick side-by-side examination (my first!) shows that the cameras are about the same length and thickness, however the Iskra is a bit taller than the Zeiss. I have not weighed them and carry them differently, the Iskra in its leather case and the Zeiss without, factors which contributed to my mistake.

I suggest that before you rule out the Iskra, you should handle both, together and take a decision on the basis of your own experience, the only one that counts.

Eli

 

[ethics_gradient]

Actually, I just made a trip into the darkroom and compared the two cameras, the 532/16 vs. Iskra and I am in error when I state the Zeiss is "...considerably smaller than the Iskra..." ; it is the general impression that the two cameras have made upon me, not reality based fact.

A quick side-by-side examination (my first!) shows that the cameras are about the same length and thickness, however the Iskra is a bit taller than the Zeiss. I have not weighed them and carry them differently, the Iskra in its leather case and the Zeiss without, factors which contributed to my mistake.

I suggest that before you rule out the Iskra, you should handle both, together and take a decision on the basis of your own experience, the only one that counts.

Eli

Heck if I've ever seen an Iskra in the flesh (leatherette?), or will be likely to anytime soon :-\ The Zeiss's size didn't bother me excessively, although the weight was surprising. On one hand I like the incredibly solid feel it has, but on the other I'm a lot less likely to casually drop it into my small RF kit bag as it seems to nearly double the weight! That's the price we pay for quality, I suppose.

At the moment my medium-format folder foray is on hold, I had to return the Super Ikonta because of a light leak, and I bought a "project Ikonta" as a replacement that it seems like I'm never going to find replacement screws for (need the three tiny ones that secure the RF alignment ring to the front). Even if I don't get that particular example working again, I think my next folder is likely to be another Super Ikonta. Although I've seen some nice images out of the Iskra, I like the f/2.8 lens on the Zeiss and it seems like the film advance mechanism is a bit more reliable as well.

 

[ZeissFan]

i get what you mean, but just for clarity i believe you meant to say 1cm , which is actually 10mm ,just under half an inch to you imperialist's 😉

Yes, you're right. 1 centimeter. But still so close to 6x6 that it didn't seem to be worth creating another format.

 

[ZeissFan]

There were three Super Ikonta body styles, so it's mildly important to note which one you have.

The first style is the 530/16 and the 532/16, which began as a prewar camera and returned after World War II These give 11 shots on 120. It's a thick, mostly all-black body except for a satin chrome top plate. The lens bed covers the rangefinder window when closed.

The next is the 533/16, which is the 532/16 with a meter on the satin chrome top deck. It's a very large camera. This has a small tab that extends from the back door. It has a new film advance system that gives 12 shots.

The third body style is the Super Ikonta III and IV, which share the same body as the late Ikontas and Nettars. This camera was introduced in the mid-1950s. The body is made of lighter allow, and the III doesn't have a meter, while the IV does. This also gives 12 shots.

And as always, it's a Zeiss Ikon and not a Zeiss. Zeiss Ikon made cameras but not lenses. Carl Zeiss makes lenses but not cameras.

 

[sevo]

I've read here that film advance systems on 120 RF folders are delicate.

YMMV. The 1930's design Super Ikontas are quite solid in that domain, being made from a cast chassis and heavy duty components throughout (which however makes them a folder the weight of a Hasselblad). Apart from a inevitably tight spacing caused by the different 120 film cover paper we use today, they rarely have problems with their transport that can't be fixed by cleaning. Later incarnations of the variable gear counter type on riveted sheet metal bodies (e.g. on the Super Ikonta III/IV or on counting Plaubel/Rada film holders) are much more feeble and have often been bent and twisted beyond repair.

The less widespread tracking roller counters used e.g. in Weltas or the Bessa 66/Perkeo have no problems at all which a modern camera can't have as well.

And purely visual (red window) cameras are the most reliable thing possible transport wise.

Sevo