Mihama 6 folder (6x6 and 6x4.5cm)
Photo Thanks to Sam Vinegar - photrama

Medium Format Folder Cameras
by Robert Monaghan

Q: Why are folder cameras so much fun to use?

There are lots of reasons. They are nifty examples of designs that look unusual to our modern eyes. They are often so cheap ($10 and up) that you can't get into medium format for less money nor have more fun for so few dollars spent. Folders force you to take full control over your photographic efforts, since there is usually no automation or electronics.

Q: Why are medium format folders a paradox?

Technically speaking, folders are a bit of a paradox. They fold up into a very compact form that can be conveniently slipped into a jacket pocket like a book. Folders are very lightweight, often weighing only a pound or two. Yet these smallest, lightest, and most compact of medium format cameras may take some of the biggest size images, often 6x9cm or 2 1/4" x 3 1/2" in size! Other medium format cameras for 6x9cm such as SLRs and TLRs are very much larger and more bulky.

Q: Describe classic medium format folder cameras

Classic folders include many collectible cameras from the first half of this century. A Voigtlander Bessa is a good example of this type, as is the Ensign 820 with its dual 6x6 and 6x9cm formats. The cold-war Soviet Moskva folders are also representative but more affordable 6x9cm folder copies of the Zeiss Ikonta folders.

The typical folder design incorporated a lens that could be extended out on a flexible bellows that should lock rigidly in place. The lenses could be very good, although most early pre-WWII examples are uncoated designs. Shutter speeds could be varied from a low around 1/250th second up to 1/10th second or so, plus bulb settings.

Most designs featured an external sighting device such as a small prism or sportsfinder you could look through. Lenses were fixed and non-removable, usually in the 80mm to 127mm range depending on format. The bellows and lens folded up, often to a small enough size so the entire camera could fit in a jacket pocket.

Q: How can I tell if this folder is a high or lower end model?

The easy way is to look it up in McKeown's Camera Guide (see below). If you have a rarer model, you will be able to tell by its price and description. Generally, if the lens says "Zeiss" or "Schneider" on it, there is a higher chance of it being a collectible camera than if it says "Kodak" or "ANSCO" or "AGFA" as found on many mass produced models.

Another rule of thumb is that the better folders have a full range of shutter speeds, from 1/250th down to 1 second and B (bulb) or T (time exposure). Lower cost folders will often have fewer shutter speed settings, such as 1/10th, 1/25th, 1/50th, and 1/100th second plus B. Another clue is a faster lens, such as f/4.5 maximum aperture rather than the f/6.3 or slower apertures often found on economy folders.

Finally, a rangefinder mechanism on a folder camera is usually a sign of a higher initial cost and quality camera, which is usually reflected in a higher value for both users and collectors.

Q: Which folder should I buy?

The answer depends on your needs and budget. The high end collectible folder cameras carry a price premium thanks to avid camera collectors (e.g., Zeiss camera collectors group). If you are looking for a folder camera for use, there are lots of candidates including many Japanese and American models. If you can't afford a collectible (and pricey) Super Ikonta folder, you may find that a Chinese or Russian clone or copy meets your needs at a much lower price. The postings below include many users recommendations of folder cameras they recommend to other users.

Q: What formats are found in medium format folders?

A variety of formats were offered, including 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, and 6x9cm as the most common. With 120 rollfilm, you generally get 12 exposures of 6x6cm, or 8 exposures of 6x9cm, and either 15 or 16 exposures of 6x4.5cm. In addition to these current formats, there are many obsolete film formats found with folders.

Q: How can one folder provide two different formats like 6x9cm and 6x4.5cm?

Some folders could be used with two different formats, most commonly 6x9cm and 6x4.5cm, or 6x6cm and 6x4.5cm. This trick was often done simply with a mask with the smaller 6x4.5cm cutout installed in the folder. Standard 120 rollfilm has a series of printed stripes with numbers on it in parallel tracks. On low cost folders, you simply look through a red window and advance the film until the next number (1,2,..) shows in the red window. Different red windows in the folder back show numbers for 6x4.5cm and 6x6cm or 6x9cm, depending on the model.

Rolfix Frauka 6x9cm Folder Camera + 6x6 mask
Photo thanks to Walter Hurtowy
wp-hurtowy@neiu.edu

This 6x9cm folder shows how the accessory mask could be used to mask out a 6x6cm image on 120 rollfilm. The user controls how far the film is advanced, using markings on the back of the paper of 120 rollfilm rolls. Different formats have different exposure number spacing tracks on the paper backing, with one set of numbers for 6x6cm (12 exposures on 120) and another track of numbers for 6x9cm (8 exposure) formats. Simple!

Q: Where can I find out basic information on my camera, such as when it was made, what kinds of film it takes, or how much it is worth?

McKeown's Price Guide to Antique and Classic Cameras is a pricey ($125+ US) reference book that you may find in many library reference sections. This book has over 10,000 older camera photos and/or paragraphs of information on the camera, types of film it used, and what the cost or value of the camera is (a range based on condition).

If you can't get access to McKeown's or similar books, try online resources. EBAY will often have similar cameras for sale, providing some useful information about film used and rough price and value ranges. Search engines can also turn up useful links.

Q: Why are so many folders so cheap on the used market?

Sad to say, but most folders were mass produced and modest cost cameras in their day. Most of the optics were inexpensive and uncoated lenses. Many folders use obsolete films such as 620, 116, 616, and so on. While most folders were decent performers for their day and are still capable of taking good pictures, they aren't as refined as today's medium format cameras and lenses. Only a handful of rarer or higher cost and top quality folders are considered to be collectibles today (e.g., some Zeiss folders etc.).

Q: What about recent modest cost medium format folders?

The Chinese still manufacture various Seagull folder (and TLR) cameras, which are often exported as modest cost ($50-125 US) folders. You can also find various Russian and Ukrainian produced folders, such as the Moskva 4 and Moskva 5 folders. Most of these cameras are close copies of no longer manufactured German folders (e.g., Moskva 5 as a Super Ikonta C clone).

Q: How can I find a manual for my folder camera?

See Manual Sources pages for a list of vendors; some such as John Craig have over 30,000+ camera manual photocopies for sale. You can also find somewhat similar folder camera manuals available online (e.g., Russian folders) which may give you the hints you need to use your camera too. Sometimes older camera manuals turn up on EBAY in their photo section under instruction related items.

Q: What kind of film should I use starting out?

You probably want to use a modest speed (say, ASA/ISO 100 to 200+) daylight color print film if you want color prints. If you have access to a darkroom or can develop your own film, you may prefer a roll of black and white film. Paradoxically, color print film is often cheaper to get processed than black and white in the pro medium format sized films. You can also use a mail order processor to save money, or if no lab is near you. The big advantage of print film is that you can have a pretty big error in exposure (2 or 3 stops over or under exposed) and the printer can still make a print for you.

Q: How do I open the folder camera?

Carefully - don't force anything! Look for a sliding release button or knob. Push it various ways, gently, until you feel the cover of the folder release or slightly pop up. Grasping the cover, gently open it up. The bellows should open up and the lens lock into place when properly extended.

Q: How do I close the folder camera?

You may need to putter with it, to locate the release. Usually, you have to press inwards or upwards or outwards on the sliding metal arms that lock the lens standard into place. This trick releases the lens from its rigid position to fold back carefully into the camera. Gently push the top of the camera in place. The cover release should pop into place, but it may need a bit of help in some older cameras.

Q: How can I check for light leaks in my folder camera bellows?

We check for light leaks by shining a flashlight or light inside the bellows in a dark room, looking for light leaks from worn places in the bellows. Start by opening the camera body and extending the bellows. Make sure the lens is closed (if set on B or T on shutter, it might be open; switch to shutter setting like 1/50 or 1/100). Open the back of the camera; usually a catch or sliding control on the sides opens up the back. Now you can shine a small flashlight into the body, with a towel or other cloth to prevent light from leaking around the sides. In a darkened room, let your eyes adjust to the darkness and open up so you can see faint light sources easily (3-10 minutes). Turn the flashlight on and examine the bellows. Can you see any holes or other pinpricks of light? Move the camera around 360 degrees and flex the bellows carefully. Still no light leaks? Congratulations!

Q: Oh Oh! I see a light leak, what can I do?

See tips on plugging light leaks with various tricks documented at our bellows fixes pages.

Q: How can I test the shutter?

If the shutter has been sitting around for years, the lubricants in the shutter may have gummed up. You may be able to get them working okay by simply cycling the shutter thru a few dozen or more shutter cycles.

Once again, open the back of the camera and point the lens at a bright light. Look through the back of the camera towards the lens. Set the opening or aperture control (marked f/6.3, f/8, f/11, f/16 or similarly) to the most open setting (smallest number, e.g., f/6.3 here). Set the shutter speed on one shutter speed setting such as 1/100th (may be marked 100 for 1/100th second, 50 for 1/50th second, 25 for 1/25th second, and so on). Be careful to not put the shutter on an inbetween speed but right on the index mark.

Now, while looking through the opened back of the camera towards the lens, click the shutter. You should see a brief circle of light appear as the shutter opens and closes for the desired time period. Now move the shutter speed setting to another setting (e.g., from 1/100th second to 1/50th second). Click again, looking through the camera as the same light source. You should see the light for a noticeably longer period of time, and it may appear a bit brighter too. Repeat this process for each shutter speed setting. If the shutter is working properly, each shutter speed setting get appropriately longer (or shorter). More importantly, the shutter should not hang up or fail to operate smoothly. It is also very desirable that the shutter should be consistent, delivering the same exposure each time. If the shutter is not consistent, you won't get consistent exposures either.

There may be a "B" for Bulb or "T" for time exposure setting on your lens shutter too. When set on B, the shutter should remain open for as long as you hold down the shutter release arm. When you release pressure on the shutter release arm, the shutter will instantly shut on the B setting. If you have a T setting, the first time you push the shutter release arm, the shutter will open and stay open until you press the T setting again. This way, you don't have to hold it open for long time exposures such as night time photos of the stars.

Q: What if there is a problem with the shutter?

Try "exercising" the shutter by shooting it (not forcing anything) a number of times. If you are lucky, the lubricants may loosen up and stop binding the shutter. If you aren't lucky, the oxidized lubricants and corrosion may have gummed up the shutter, requiring cleaning or repair.

The bad news is that it often costs more for minimum labor (at $75 US per hour) for camera repair techs than it is worth to fix a modest cost folder. It would be cheaper to buy another camera with a working shutter than fix your camera. If you have a low cost camera, of no value or emotional attachment, then you might consider trying to clean it. We have a page with some general tips and shutter cleaning tips. But be forewarned that the chances of success are maybe 50:50 at best.

Q: What is the rule of "sunny 16"?

The rule of "sunny 16" is that in bright daylight, with clear skies and dark shadows visible, you can set the camera aperture or f/stop to f/16. The shutter speed will be 1/(film ASA/ISO speed), so for ASA/ISO 100 film, the shutter speed will be 1/100 (ASA) or 1/100th of a second. If you don't have 1/100th second shutter speed, use the closest one you do have (e.g., 1/125th, 1/90th..). Now all you have to do is set the distance to the subject on the distance scale (usually 10 feet 20ft, 50ft, 100ft, infinity). Compose your photo using the viewfinder, and shoot the picture by tripping the shutter.

If the sky is slightly overcast, with indistinct shadows, you should probably "open up" one or more stops by shifting from f/16 to f/11 (+1) or even f/8 (+2 stops). If the sky is pretty dark, you may want to open up 3 or more stops, from f/16 to f/11 (+1) to f/8 (+2) to f/5.6 (+3 stops). For night-time shooting and other situations, consult our night-time exposure guides.

Q: How do I load the film?

Start by finding the lever or slide that opens the back of your camera. Look at the film winding knobs. You generally want the empty film takeup spool to be under the knob that you crank to advance the film. To make it easy to load, there may be round knobs at the bottom of the film chamber, making it easy to pull down the little spool holders so you can slide the film spool into place and the film takeup spool under the film winding knob.

The film usually goes over a metal roller, across the opening with the film paper backing up and away from the lens, and the film side pointing at the lens (so light can hit it and make an exposure). There is also usually a matching metal roller on the other side to go over, then wrap up onto the empty film takeup spool. Reset the round knobs on the bottom of the film spools. Check to see that turning the winding knob a little bit causes the film to advance and wrap on the empty film takeup spool. Now close the camera back.

[Ed. note: thanks to Ed Berns for providing a update to the above tips!]

Q: How do I know how far to advance the film for each shot?

On most economy folders, you will find a little red or ruby colored window on the back of the camera. The paper backing on the film has a series of lines and numbers on them. Simply turn the film winding crank until the "1" number printed on the back of the film shows on the red window. Note that some cameras have a little slide-over round window cover you can move to see the red window, and then move back to cover it up to prevent light leaks in bright light. After the first shot has been taken, look thru the red window again, turn the film winding crank slowly (so as not to miss the numbers) until the number "2" and so on show for each exposure. At the end, there won't be any more numbers and you simply wind up the film completely on the takeup spool.

If you have a more expensive or complex folder, there may be no ruby or red window to show you how far to advance. Most of these cameras use an index mark, usually marked in red, on one or both sides of the film track. As you wind up the film, with the camera open, a large (blue) arrow on the back of the film will appear. You line up this arrow with the marker or index dot. Now close the camera back, and advance the film until the camera stops winding film. Shoot the picture. Now you should be able to advance to the next shot, with the camera stopping automatically after the right amount of film has advanced each time.

Q: How do I unload the film?

Carefully unload the film, preferably in the shade or out of direct sunlight. The film should be tight around the takeup spool (if not, hold the end and tighten by rotating the film winding crank a bit). Take out the film, holding it so it can't unroll. You may need to pull out the round spool knobs on the bottom of the camera in some models to unload film too.

Q: How do I keep the exposed film from unrolling in my bag?

To keep the film from unrolling before it can be processed, you are supplied with a small piece of glued paper at the end of the rollfilm. One end of this piece of paper is already glued to the center of the paper backing on the film spool. The other end is free, and the inner surface is coated with glue (as on a postage stamp). As with a stamp, lick the glued surface to make it sticky and ready for use. Usually, you have to make a small fold about 1/2 to 1 inch or so in the free end of the paper backing so it fits snugly under the now wet glued end. Simply press the glued paper on the paper backing, and it will glue the paper backing so it won't unroll and stays tight. You can make notes on the paper backing to identify the roll, but use a felt tip pen rather than writing down hard with a pen or pencil (which could leave scratches or grooves in the underlying film).

Q: How do I compose the scene so I know how the final photo will look?

Many folders have a small prism and lens gizmo that you can look down into and roughly compose what the picture will look like. Many cameras have a small pop-up spring loaded guides that you can look through. What you see through the two holes, when lined up with your eye, is a pretty good guide to what will be on the film.

Q: How do I set the distance setting?

This setting may vary. In simpler cameras, you may have just a point and shoot setup. Just like a modern point and shoot camera, you don't have to worry about focusing.

But the majority of folders will have a lens ring or control you can turn to move the lens forward or backwards, thereby focusing it. You will usually find a distance scale (in feet in USA, meters in export models). Numbers like 10, 20, 50, 100 and inf. correspond to 10 feet, 20 ft., 50 ft., 100 ft., and infinity (distant subject like mountains). Simply set the distance to correspond to the main or most important subject in your photo (e.g., 10 feet if a portrait, infinity if a landscape photo).

In a number of folders, there may be no control on the lens itself. Instead, you will be able to move the lens and its mounting struts or lens standard back and forth on its mounting, thereby focusing it that way. There is usually a scale showing infinity (closest to film position) and other setting for closer subjects.

Some higher end folder cameras have a rangefinder mechanism to set distances. You look through a window, and as you turn a focusing control, two images of the subject appear to overlap in the viewfinder. At that point, the camera is in focus for that distance thanks to its rangefinder mechanism.

Q: Where can I find 120 rollfilm?

Many pro camera shops will stock 120 rollfilm for local pro photographers (who use it in the famous Hasselblad cameras and similar medium format cameras). So check with your local pro camera stores (or try 800# for Kodak or Fuji films to locate nearest sources).

You can also buy economically from mail order places like B&H; Photo Video an other advertisers in the back of photo magazines like Popular Photography or Shutterbug. You can find guides and links to rollfilm offerings at our medium format films pages.

Q: McKeown's guide says this Kodak camera takes 620 film! What do I do?

You can still get some kinds of 620 rollfilm from places like B&H; Photo Video mail order, among others. See rollfilm pages for tips on sources and prices. You will probably have to mail order, as few stores stock 620 films anymore.

Q: How can I respool cheap 120 rollfilm onto 620 spools to use in my 620 film camera?

See tips and Al Thompson's article at respooling film pages. As one tip, you may be able to just trim 1/4" from the rim of the 120 spools and have them fit your camera. Works for some folks! Or you may have to follow Al's tips on respooling 120 onto 620 spools and back again for processing.

Be sure to ask for return of your 620 spools from processors if you intend to respool onto them. You can respool again and again, so long as you have the 620 plastic spools.

Q: McKeown's says my folder uses 116 or 616 film, which has been obsolete for decades! What can I do?

See our Obsolete film pages and tips on building simple adapters to permit using 120 rollfilm in these older cameras. You can also respool 120 rollfilm onto the larger 116 or 616 spools, using a darkroom or changing bag.

Q: What is a postcard panoramic folder?

Our postcard panoramic folder camera pages describe how a low cost folder can be used to provide panoramic 6x12cm or larger format shots using these older and low cost 116 or 616 film cameras. Consider that the commercial 6x12cm cameras cost 100 times more, for just slightly better pictures. Now you can see why many of us on a budget are turning to folder cameras to provide some fun with panoramic photography too!

Q: How do I use colored filters with this folder?

You could just hold them up in front of the lens. Some used gear dealers will have older thread and series filters that will fit older folders. See our Filter FAQ for more details.

If your folder doesn't have filter threads on the lens, there may have been a press-on filter holder for it. Another trick is to find a standard filter for which you can get the needed filter types cheaply. Carefully break out the glass from a filter, and glue it to the front of the lens (use removable household cement if you contemplate resale). Now you can simply screw in and out the standard filters for that thread size (e.g., series V filters).

Q: How do I use a polarizer filter on my folder?

Start with a polarizer that fits and preferably has a ring which is marked in degrees or other tic marks. You hold the filter up to your eye. Now rotate the polarizer filter ring until you get the desired effect. Note the setting on the degree or tic mark scale. Now remount the filter on the folder so the settings match up again. The camera lens should now be seeing the same effects that you saw with your eye. Take the photo and enjoy. (If your polarizer doesn't have any scale markings, you can add some simply with a bit of white paint and a protractor.)

Q: How do I use 220 film in my folder?

Generally, you can't use 220 film in most folders, since it doesn't have a printed paper backing with frame numbers. For folders with a red window, so much light comes through that it will fog or destroy 220 film directly. Folders which don't have a red window are usually designed to work only with 120 film. So after the usual number of exposures (e.g., 12 exposures of 6x6cm size), the camera will refuse to take any more shots until you advance all the rest of the film and remove it (resetting the film counter mechanism). Even if you could use 220 in your folder (e.g., by blocking the red window and measuring how many turns per exposure), it would likely result in out of focus shots. The paper backing of 120 rollfilm is missing on 220 film (in the middle), so the film is not the required thickness needed to put it at the camera's film plane.

Q: How do I use a flash on this folder?

Mostly, you don't. Many older folders will lack any provision for flash use. Other folders have a flash connection, sometimes with an obsolete or non-PC style contacts, but for flashbulbs! There are a few 20 millisecond delay circuits and devices which can be used to convert from the flashbulb or M-synch to the electronic strobe or X-synch. Only the later folders will have an X-synch or electronic strobe connection using the standard PC connector.

Q: How can I change the lens to get wider shots?

Unfortunately, you can't just change the lens in most folders. However, you may find some front of the lens adapters to be helpful. One example is a 0.42X superwide adapter, which lets you get more of a scene into your photos. You simply mount or hold the adapter in front of the folder lens. The 0.42X adapter is the widest type without being a true fisheye lens, but even so it has a good bit of fisheye style distortion effects. Less extreme wide angle adapters such as the 0.5X or 0.6X feature less distortion, but also take in less wide areas in their photos. There are also some telephoto adapters (1.25X to 4X), but it is usually easier to just enlarge a section of the large folder negatives. Such adapters range in cost from $25-50 US and up.

Related Postings

[Ed. note: how to tell if your camera is 120 or 620 - x-rated!]
From: "Rick Rieger" rrieger@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Agfa folding 6x9
Date: 16 Apr 1999

...
620 spools have a skinny middle shaft or "axle" (I don't know the proper term). 620 spools have protruding drive slots at each end, 120 doesn't. To be more graphic at the risk of an "R" rating, 620 spools are male, and 120 are female.

The film and backing paper configuration of 120 and 620 are the same. 620 was an invention after 120 by Kodak in a effort to force consumers to use their film. I don't know if other major manufacturers ever made 620 film, but they all made 120.

RR

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com
[1] Re: Folding 120 - info wanted
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998

pember@swbell.net wrote:
>
> Does any one have any info on 120 folders?
> I'm interested in using them opposed to collecting. 
> Are there any good webpages?
>
> What makes are good and reasonably priced?
>
well the problem is the good ones are known as good and priced
acordingly..  voglanders with the color skopar and zeiss Ikonta's with
the tessar lenses are priced way too high. I have had good luck with
the folders with the ena werk lenses in particular the 75mm
enagon...the one I have is a 6X6 franka solida and is a solid user.. I
also have an old kodak duo sixtwenty that has an uncoated anstigmat
75mm lens that while flare prone and not real contrasty is very
sharp.. for B&W I just over develope the film a touch and get fine
pics with it..bitch is you have to respool the film but is a 6X4.5 and
very small.I got both of these for about $40 apiece..just have to look
around and try some. I've bought a few duds but I could by 8 of these
type and still not spend what a super ikonta brings...And kinda neat
having a pile of old cameras around instead of just one!

--


steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
skoontz@mindspring.com 

From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: People using old folders?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998

Does anyone else here use these handy folding MF camera's? I carry a 6X6 franka solida with an ena werk "enagon" 75mm 4.5 lens with me all the time and get wonderful pics with it.. It's almost as small as a 35mm P&S; and with color neg 400 asa can set it at f16 1/250, scale focus just kinda close and shoot away.. with the the big neg and modern color film get great 8X10's. Sure a TLR or blad is sharper but try putting a blad or a pentax 6X7 in your pocket and these folders are still sharper than any small 35mm camera is..... Just someting to think about if you "serious" guys are looking for something to carry around for grab shots.. Have a couple of 6X9 folders as well and a couple of my neatest shots came from them and hard to tell "that" much diff from a "great" camera.. And wouldn't have had it with me so wouldn't have gotten the shot period.. And people love to pose for these old camera's! --

steve's photography & Z car stuff
http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
skoontz@mindspring.com

From: "Steve Midgley" smidgley@sisna.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: People using old folders?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998

I've got an Ansco B2 Speedex 6x6 that lives under the seat of my car. That, a couple of rolls of HP5+ and a Weston Master V and I'm set. Paid $3 for the camera, if memory serves.

Steve Midgley
Utah Ducati
http://www.softsolutions.com/smidgley

From: "David Foy" nomail@this_address.please
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: People using old folders?

I've got a passel of' em, all bought on eBay for peanuts, and all with legendary lenses like Xenars and excellent shutters. I mean $12, $13 each. A Rolfix, a Minolta 1, an old Ihagee. A Rodenstock "Robra" with a Schneider Xenar lens (tell me that ain't a retrofit). But the one that is the most fun -- "fun" in the sense a photographer will understand -- is my wonderful old 1912 Vest Pocket Kodak. It takes 120 film. Put ASA 50 in it, treat it with respect for its limitations, don't try to enlarge the negatives, and it's a blast.

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: JJMcF JJMcF@aol.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic: Folding cameras

you write:

When not in use for a long time, how is the best way to
 guard a folding camera (like a Super Ikonta)?

   These cameras should stay opened or folded to maintain the
 bellows in good condition?

   Thanks for your attention.

Since most of these bellows have survived for around 60 years having been mostly stored folded, why change? I suspect that the increased exposure to atmospheric contaminants resulting from unfolded storage is worse than any compression damage from folding.

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998
From: "Noel H. Charchuk" nhcharch@calcna.ab.ca
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic: Folding cameras

Mario, I have read someplace, I believe it was in Ivor Manatale's book to always store a folder closed up. I seem to recall the reasoning was that the leather will not be exposed to light and air, and deterioration would be slowed down this way. Having handled many old folders, I tend to believe this. I have seen some that have been on shelves for a long time, opened up, in camera stores, and the leather is brittle, while ones that are stored folded are still supple. It will be interesting to see where this topic goes, because I am sure there will be differing opinions.

Noel Charchuk
Calgary, Alberta

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: People using old folders?
Date: 13 Apr 1998

steven T koontz (skoontz@mindspring.com) wrote:
> Does anyone else here use these handy folding MF camera's? I carry a
> 6X6 franka solida with an ena werk "enagon" 75mm 4.5 lens with me all
> the time and get wonderful pics with it..

Ah, another chance for me to sound off on the virtues of folders! I have several, from the mighty Bessa II with Heliar and massive Century Graphic with Ektar to more modest ones. I have to admit that my favourites are the more modest, non-rangefinder ones because of their compactness and because I don't have to worry about damaging them. Agfa/Anscos rate highly with me -- have two 6x6s and a 6x9 with Solinar. But my favourite is an Ansco Titan -- much better quality of finish than most Agfas. Agfa folders have tacky cloth coverings and the chrome/nickel plating brasses in a light breeze. The Ansco Titan has real leather and heavy chrome plating. More importantly, it has a really good 90mm f4.5 lens in a B, T 1/2-1/400th Ansco shutter, both presumably made by Wollensak. One hasn't come up on eBay for a while, but they usually go for less than $20 when they do.

My other fave is a Voigtlander Perkeo II. This little gem is the smallest 120 6x6 folder that I've ever used, and actually is about the same size as Voigtlander's Vito IIa folding 35. Superb construction and a wonderful 4 element coated Color-Skopar lens in Synchro-Compur shutter. It has an automatic frame counter that squeezes 13 shots on a roll of 120. Everyone should have one of these.

A fairly common folder that I have had good luck with is the Zenobia, with a three element coated 75mm f3.5 Hesper lens. Its Daichi 1 - 1/500 shutter is a Synchro-Compur copy. This chunky little beauty is a copy of the Zeiss Ikonta A and a great picture taker, although they often look a bit ratty due to the cheap fake morocco that Daichi put on them. Prices have increased on these by about 50% in the past few months, but they can still easily be found for less than $75 in near-mint condition.

Prices on old folders seem to have been rising rather remarkably in the last year, probably due to blabbermouths like us. But there are still plenty of good Agfas out there for less than $50, and a Perkeo II can still be found easily for less than $100 -- about half of that for the more modest Vaskar-lensed Perkeo 1. And the similar Voigtlander Bessa 66 can still be picked up for Agfa prices. Get one while you can. A sunny afternoon in the Gatineau Mountains on a fall day with a Perkeo loaded with Agfa Ultra 50 is my idea of photo-heaven.

Oops, forgot. These are really bad cameras that no one should own. If you'd like to get rid of yours, I'll take them off your hands.

Mark

From: Tony Doucet tdoucet@hydro.mb.ca
Subject: Response to where do I buy 6x9cm film?
Date: 1998-05-11

Just to add my two cents to the last response - it's true, plain old 120 film is all you need. The paper backing on 120 film is marked with frame numbers (actually it's marked in different places for a few different formats: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and maybe more that I don't know about) and there is a little window on the back of your Nettar which will show the frame numbers as you advance the film. My Nettar, and it's 6x6 "twin" (owned by a friend of mine) both have trap doors over the window opening. Both of these cameras are somewhat newer than yours - they date from the fifties - but both take excellent pictures. Sounds like you made a lucky find - enjoy!!!

From: "John Stewart" radiojon@means.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folder camera question
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998

It took me several years to find one, but a quality folder with good rangefinder is a wonderful camera.

Unfortunately, folders were made in 3 "classes" and the best class are the hardest to find.

The lowest class have cheap lenses and shutters with three or less speeds. They have guess focusing.

The mid-range usually have a 3 element lens and some moderate speeds. 25, 50, 100, 200. They are the most common and deliver reasonable, but not great quality.

The high grade versions have the Compur shutters (or equiv), the Tessar lenses (or equiv) and a full range of shutter speeds from 1 sec to 500. They also have a coupled or uncoupled rangefinder.

The best of these include Ikontas, which are very rigid and therefore remain in alignment. I have one with Tessar lens, Compur shutter and uncoupled rangefinder. I prefer it to the coupled versions, as it is more compact and less complex. Images are great.

If you are lucky, you'll find one. But the ratio of lesser quality models is MUCH higher, simply because more buyers in the 50's etc, did not choose to go first class.

Hope this helps.

John

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.com (Joe Berenbaum)
[1] Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: Sat May 23 1998

"John Stewart" radiojohn@email.msn.com wrote:
>A lot depends on whether you need rangefinder focusing.
>Folders tend to be made in 3 qualities:  cheapo lens and shutter,  mediocre
>lens and shutter and great lens, shutter and rangefinder.   The last is the
>hardest to find.  The mid range is plentiful, but full of 3 element lenses.
>John

This applies to the 6 x 6 format and to some extent- possibly a large extent- to the 6 x 9 format 120 folders also. There is a subset of the mid range that also have quality lenses- call them the upper mid-range if you like. For example, you can find Zeiss Ikontas with Tessar lenses, without rangefinders and sometimes with uncoupled rangefinders, but much cheaper than Super Ikontas. Also Agfa Isolette III with Solinar lens (that is a Tessar clone) and uncoupled rangefinder (6x6 format) and here in the UK there are the Ensign Selfix cameras with the Ross Xpres lens (another excellent lens). There are many other cameras in this category also. It may be helpful to have a look at McKeowns to see what cameras were made of this type, and Ivor Matanle's book "Collecting and using classic cameras" is full of useul information on the subject, particularly with reference to which old folders are still likely to be in usable condition today.

Joe B. (Please remove the ".com" from my address for email)

Date: Fri, 29 May 1998
From: "mackenz@sonic.net" mackenz@sonic.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Old lenses,Coating and Color Film

I have a Zeiss-Ikon Ikomat #520 with a CZJ Tessar 1:3.5 f = 7cm. The lens appears to be coated(as part of the coating is rubbed off) The serial # on the lens is Nr.1681940 and the serial # on the Compur - Rapid shutter is 4058009. Does this make it a 1940 model? I've shot color slide film in the Ikomat side by side with my Rolleiflex MX Type 2/Xenar 3.5,75mm and the color is quite good . When using these old cameras(lenses) I find that Fuji Vevia gives the best results, boosting contrast and saturation.

Thanks Marc and everyone for this list.
Mark Mac Kenzie

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?

Hi

Just about any folder with a 4.5 lens will work. Most of the US type cameras such as Kodak take 620 film. Getting this film is hard and expensive. Most German cameras are 120, so film is not a problem.

The biggest problem with folders is that the shutters usually have given out. Make sure all the shutter speeds are working. Repair is expensive. Your best bet is camera shows. You should be able to buy a good camera for $50 to $100. Larry

From: glewis4457@aol.com (GLewis4457)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: 21 May 1998

Actually 6x9's have closer to 10,5cm lenses. The 4,5's are usually 35mm folders. Both my Agfa Billy Record (6x9) and my Zeiss-Icon Nettar use 120 film.

Jerry in Houston'

Jerry Lewis
League City, TX., USA

From: steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998

I've had very good results with the "franka" camera's. They seem very well made. One way to determine how good the camera is by seeing how many speeds the shutter has. the good ones go down to 1/2 sec or 1 sec. Also I would make sure it has a coated lens as this means it is a fairly late camera (post WWII) and will be better for shooting color and in funky lighting.. Also will have more contrast. The radionar and enar lenses work well and ussually can be bought cheap compaired to the zeis tessar ect lensed camera's. I have a rollei with a xenar and can't really see much diff in it and these folders until you start getting real big enlargements.. And then the 6X9 negs size makes up for the unsharpness of the cheaper lens..

--

steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz

From: "John Stewart" radiojohn@email.msn.com
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998

A lot depends on whether you need rangefinder focusing.

Folders tend to be made in 3 qualities: cheapo lens and shutter, mediocre lens and shutter and great lens, shutter and rangefinder. The last is the hardest to find. The mid range is plentiful, but full of 3 element lenses.

John

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "David Foy" nomail@this_address.please
[1] Re: Modern lenses on old 6x9?
Date: Sun Jun 07 1998

I have an old Rodenstock folder with a Schneider Xenar lens, so I have to believe swapping lenses isn't unusual. Shutters have standard openings, so a lens that fits, for instance, and Copal 0 will fit a Compur of the same size. Lenses of the same focal length should fit any given Copal, Compur, or Prontor shutter and focus correctly (although you'll want to check by looking at distant tree limbs on a ground glass, or piece of waxed paper, held on the film plane).

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.com (Joe Berenbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Quality 3-element lenses- any experiences?
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998

I always assumed that in the realm of the 6 x 6 or 6 x 9 folder, one should be looking for Tessar-type lenses if quality optics is what one wants. I have recently noticed that not everybody believes this entirely. I have had email form someone who uses a few 3-element lenses for quite critical work, stopped down, with tripods, in both 35mm and medium format, and he maintains that a well-designed 3-element lens would have a smaller maximum aperture than the Tessar-type equivalent, but the performance would not be poorer. I find this totally fascinating. I can think of other examples of well-regarded three element lenses if I think really hard- the lens on the Olympus XA2 is very well regarded by several people who use it, and Leica redesigned the 90/f4 Elmar to have three elements. That's it. The medium format lenses I'm thinking of now are those such as the Vaskar, which I've been told is pretty good, and the Radionar. What I'd really like is to hear whether people can actually use negatives taken with such lenses to make 12 x 16 or larger prints that are full of detail and very sharp, say to the same standard as would be expected from a Tessar image, or whether there is a visible difference in quality from the results got with a Tesssar or Tessar-clone lens.

Any info or experiences appreciated.

Joe Berenbaum (remove ".com" for email).

From: rfung@uclink.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Quality 3-element lenses- any experiences?
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998

Hi,

I just got back a roll of Velvia film where I used an Agfa Isolette 6x6 on a table-top tripod and shot a room scene with a barbecue sitting outside the window. using a 10X loupe, I could read the writing on the barbecue wheels -weber. The three element lense was stopped down to f/16 at 1 second. This shot would rival a modern med format in the same condition. As mentioned in the other post, the lighting was just right here and I have the proof that three element lenses were designed well !

Richard

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.com (Joe Berenbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998

This applies to the 6 x 6 format and to some extent- possibly a large extent- to the 6 x 9 format 120 folders also. There is a subset of the mid range that also have quality lenses- call them the upper mid-range if you like. For example, you can find Zeiss Ikontas with Tessar lenses, without rangefinders and sometimes with uncoupled rangefinders, but much cheaper than Super Ikontas. Also Agfa Isolette III with Solinar lens (that is a Tessar clone) and uncoupled rangefinder (6x6 format) and here in the UK there are the Ensign Selfix cameras with the Ross Xpres lens (another excellent lens). There are many other cameras in this category also. It may be helpful to have a look at McKeowns to see what cameras were made of this type, and Ivor Matanle's book "Collecting and using classic cameras" is full of useul information on the subject, particularly with reference to which old folders are still likely to be in usable condition today.

Joe B. (Please remove the ".com" from my address for email)

From: eml@shell.clark.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: 25 May 1998

This is interesting...

I have a Franka Rollfix Jr in front of me right now which sort of violates Steve's quality code. It has a Vario 3-speed shutter (25,75,200) with unknown (I would assume M) synch. So far it sounds cheap, but it has a 105mm f:4.5 Schneider Radionar coated lens! Cheaper shutter with good glass!

Personally, I prefer the cheaper shutters as the greatest single cause of shutter problems is in gummed lubricant in the slow speed gears. As a result, I actually prefer these simpler and more reliable shutters. I have a Kodak Tourist with a similar shutter and a coated f:8.8 Anaston lens (also a Cooke triplet type) which I'd love to death if only I didn't have to deal with the 620 film mess. The lens is an absolute joy for sharpness.

I've got a few really nice "top of line" cameras here whose 7 and 9 speed Compurs need expensive work that I feel is beyond my resources and competence to repair. The cost of repair is several times the value of the cameras that they're on! Conclusion? To me at least, avoid the deluxe shutters but look for good glass!

My $.02
Ed Lukacs
Washington, DC

steven T koontz skoontz@mindspring.com wrote:
: Erynn/Lorax wrote:
:>
:> Having spent a year with my Rolleicord, I find myself wanting to try a 6x9
:> folder. Could I have a few recommendations for one that won't cost a 
fortune
:> but still deliver good results? I'd prefer one I can mount filters on, if
:> that's possible.
:>
: I've had very good results with the "franka" camera's. They seem very
: well made. One way to determine how good the camera is by seeing how
: many speeds the shutter has. the good ones go down to 1/2 sec or 1
: sec. Also I would make sure it has a coated lens as this means it is a
: fairly late camera (post WWII) and will be better for shooting color
: and in funky lighting.. Also will have more contrast. The radionar and
: enar lenses work well and ussually can be bought cheap compaired to
: the zeis tessar ect lensed camera's. I have a rollei with a xenar and
: can't really see much diff in it and these folders until you start
: getting real big enlargements.. And then the 6X9 negs size makes up
: for the unsharpness of the cheaper lens..

: --                     
: steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
: skoontz@mindspring.com  

Date: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: wcmarti@ibm.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?

Joseph Albert wrote:
>
> "John Stewart" radiojohn@email.msn.com wrote:
> >A lot depends on whether you need rangefinder focusing.
> >Folders tend to be made in 3 qualities:  cheapo lens and shutter,  mediocre
> >lens and shutter and great lens, shutter and rangefinder.   The last is the
> >hardest to find.  The mid range is plentiful, but full of 3 element lenses.
> >John       
>
> I can't say I fully agree with this.  Many folders were offered in
> two versions, 1 with coupled rangefinder, 1 with just scale focus,
> but the same shutters and optics in both models.  For instance:
>
> Zeiss Ikonta, Super Ikonta (645, 6x6, or 6x9)
> Agfa Isolette, Super Isolette (6x6 only)
> Ansco Speedex, Super Speedex (6x6 only)
>
> The Ansco and Agfa cameras were in fact the same camera, respectively, sold
> under both brand names.  I think Agfa made the lenses and Ansco made the
> bodies, and they manufactured them and marketed them under a cooperative
> agreement.  All of these cameras have shutters of reasonable quality,
> f3.5 Tessar lenses, and the models marked with "Super" also have coupled
> rangefinders.
>         
>
> You will pay a big premium for one of the above cameras if it has the Z-word
> on its case somewhere, particularly for the Super Ikontas, and the cleaner
> the camera, the bigger the gap in price.  That's typical of highlycollectible
> cameras, and also means that if you do choose to use it, every little ding
> and scratch will cost you significantly more in depreciation.  It is doubtful
> there will be any noticeable difference in image quality, though,particularly
> given the limitations of the folding bed design in regard to rigidity.
>
> These cameras are nice for street shooting or travel snapshots, although
> my personal preference would be for a TLR.
>
> j. albert 

Haven't seen any mention of one of the best: The Mamiya 6 folder. It came with a variety of lenses, the Zuiko Olympus 75mm f3.5 being a really good one. I can't speak for the others. The Olympus is apparently a Tessar knock-off, and mine's in a seikosha 1 - 500 shutter. I bought mine at an auction for $18, but that was a steal. I doubt you'd normally get a good one for less than $100, but compare it with the Super Ikonta and you'll see it's an excellent one to consider. I think the sharpness is attained largely by virtue of the fact that the film is held very flat via a slide-in pressure plate. That arrangement was necessary because focusing is done by moving the film plane rather than the lens elements. I believe this also makes for a more rigid front standard -- the old Mamiyas seem to be very rigid. Try it, you'll love it.

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My $15 medium format camera
Date: 28 Sep 1998

Sean Elkins (elkins@pop.mis.net) wrote:

> I just returned from a camera show (my first) with an old medium format
> folder that I paid aome old guy $15 for.
> It's an Ansco.

Sean,

I just have a couple of things to add to what Chuck and Robert have post ed. The old Agfa folders are remarkably good bargains, and one that has had its focus properly calibrated can be a very good performer indeed. Mike Roskin, writing in CameraShopper no. 77 (August 1997) wrote of the performance with an Agfa 6x9 with Agnar "And the results? Very fine, a crisp 11x14, my definition of excellent...In terms of enlargeability for the dollar...these cheaper Ansco/Agfas are hard to beat."

If your pictures don't come out as crisp as Mike Roskin might lead you to believe, calibrate the focus by removing the metal focus ring. Then, with your camera on a tripod pointed at something at least a half mile away, and a piece of ground glass (even tissue paper can do in a pinch) at the film plane, use a loupe to make sure that your lens is focussing perfectly on the distant object. Then, replace the focus ring so that it indicates infinity. Your focus will be fine, and the sharpness of the image will be much improved.

Once you get hooked on using this folder, start looking around for one with a four element lens. While the Agnar can be a good performer when stopped down, the performance of the four element Agfa lens -- the Solinar -- will knock your socks off. Ditto for similarly equipped cameras from Agfa competitors, such as the Tessars on Zeiss folders, Color Skopars on Voigtlanders or Ross Xpres on Ensigns. And, you can slip any of these cameras into your pocket. Try that with a Yashicamat.

Enjoy,

Mark

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My $15 medium format camera
Date: 29 Sep 1998

Christopher M. Perez (chrisper@vnd.tek.com) wrote:

> If one doesn't mind re-rolling 120 onto 620 spools, a $15 Kodak Special  Six20
> with the 100mm f/4.5 Anastigmat Special will return perhaps surprisingly sharp
> images.  Mine (and I have two of these lettle buggers) test as sharp as any lens
> made (approx 63 lines/mm).

The same 4 element Tessar-type lens can be found on the Kodak Monitor, which is built like a tank. If you don't like respooling 120 onto 620, try a Century Graphic with 6x9 roll film back with a Kodak Ektar lens. Ektars are great lenses, and the Century Graphic gives you a folding camera with both rangefinder and ground glass focussing, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 interchangable backs, and interchangable lenses. Few other folders can do this.

Mark

From Medium Format Digest:
From: norman trabulus ntrabulus@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Response to Opinions on "Old MF Folders"
Date: 1998-12-04

Favorite non-rangefinder: Voigtlander Perkeo II (6 x 6) with 80mm F3.5 Color Skopar and Synchro-Compur shutter. Why: excellent optics, incredible portability -- lighter and smaller than most 35's, film counter with double exposure prevention obviates need for utilizing the red window after the first exposure (window has baffle to prevent fogging), excellent construction. Of course, you have to be willing to use a hand-held meter - for someone like me who learned on a Leica IIIF and Weston Master II, this is no problem. I find composing with a rangefinder yields better results for me than with a reflex, though this kind of thing surely varies from person to person. I have heard that the color-skopar, which Voigtlander touted for its lack of lateral color fringing, actually meets the criteria currently used by some manufacturers for "Apo" glass -- all I know is the quality is excellent. Downside - If you get one, better make sure to have a case, because the camera has no lugs for straps. Filters are push-on (32.5mm I believe) and may be hard to come by.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Tony Doucet tdoucet@hydro.mb.ca
Subject: Response to Zeiss Ikonta C/Zeiss Nettar
Date: 1998-12-21

I have a 6x9 Nettar which I take out occasionally as a sort of "play" camera. The lens is surprisingly sharp and the exposure controls are accurate (although I did have it lubricated and adjusted after I found it at a garage sale). I don't think that I would want one of these as my main camera however, because I find the focusing to be a pain. There is no viewfinder-coupled focusing, and in some situations this will bite you - depth of field in the wrong place, etc.

That being said, it is fun to play with, and 6x9 negs or slides are a wonder to behold. If you want any more information feel free to e-mail me directly.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: dave johns dave_johns@bc.sympactico.ca
Subject: Response to Old folding 6x9 cameras question
Date: 1998-12-28

Hello Martin

Yes Zeiss Icontas are nice (expensive) folding cameras, but there are many others that would produce wonderful results.1st I'd say buying one from the 50's (or late 40's) would be a good idea. Some of the folders from the 1930's were made quickly and poorly (to satisfy the demand for them). Besides they are just old for serious photgraphy.

I've heard many great things about the Agfa Record cameras-from simple 3 element/3 speed models to the 4 element/1-500sec rangefinder models. Ensign Selfix(or Ranger models) are also very reliable and the Ross Xpress lens found on them is very sharp.Voitlander Bessa cameras are wonderful like the Bessa 1,the Bessa II(with Scopar lens) or the Bessa RF.Also Franka-Werks makes so lovely 6x9 folders called the Rolfix.

If you are looking for something very inexpensive then get a Agfa Billy Record (same as Ansco Viking) these cameras can produce first class results with a simple Agnar lens and a Vario speed shutter (1/25 to 1/200 +b). I just bought one for only 15$ ! But for a more versitile one you should get a Agfa record III or a Ensign 820 Special witch have rangefinders, very sharp 4 element lenses and speeds from 1sec. to 1/400(or so).cost for these ones would be 250$ max. Good luck! And happy shoot'n

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: photo66666@aol.com (Photo66666)
[1] Re: Voigtlander Bessa II lens comparison?
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999

Hi

I have done resolution testing with various folders including several Bessa 1's with Skopar lenses. I used techpan 120 film which will max out at about 125 l/mm total system resolution.

I have only one camera that will max out the film. It's a Kodak folder with a 101 Ektar 4.5 lens I purchased for $10 at a photo show. Everything else comes in between 60 and 100 l/mm center resolution.

What I did notice is that at least half of my 20 folder camera collection shows lots of resolution fall off from the center. Down around 25 l/mm

Larry

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
[1] Re: cheap medium format camera question
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999

JCPERE (jcpere@aol.com) wrote:

> >"Mark Blackwell" av8r1stop@scescape.net
>
> >t probably is very apparent, but I am very new to medium format.  Just
> >cruising through ebay there appears to be some very inexpensive  cameras out
> >there.  I have a Ziess Ikon the Nettar 515/2.  I would like to pick up one
> >of the real bargins that can use a flash.  I see no way to hook a  flash to
> >my Nettar and several others out there.  Any suggestions?  Mark
> >
> Try to get a newer camera.  I have an Agfa Isolette and Viking from the  50's
> and both have flash sync.  They are pretty cheap cameras with Agnar lenses,
> under $30.
> Chuck

The Isolette models and the Viking can be good values, but suffer from three maladies. The nickel plating is very thin and the camera will brass in a light breeze. Bellows are more fragile on these than other medium format cameras because Agfa used some sort of synthetic material. Also, the lubrication used hardens into a green viscous goop, so that frequently the focus ring becomes frozen. Liberal application of spray contact cleaner, a wrench and steady nerves can free it, but in general, use caution when buying a vintage Agfa. This advice comes from someone who has owned 4 Isolette IIIs at one time or another, a Record III, as well as an Agfa Ventura 69, which is identical to the Viking, so I know whereof I speak. A good Agfa can be a great camera, as the lenses are as good as those of any similar lenses made by competitors.

If you do like Agfas, one real bargain is the Ansco Titan, which is based on the Agfa design. It uses real leather bellows, has better plating than the Agfas, and comes with a very sharp 90mm f4.5 lens in a 1/2 to 1/400th sec. shutter with a really neat depth-of-field gauge. It also substitutes morocco for the fabric body covering of the Agfa. These come with an ASA flash synch that will require a cheap ASA to PC adapter. Titans usually go for $20 to $50. They are harder to find than most Ansco/Agfas, but are worth seeking out. The Titan was Ansco's top folder in the late 1940s and is a first-class, no-frills instrument capable of performance similar to that of cameras costing many times more.

Mark

Mark Langer

Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: silverpoint silverpt@erols.com
[1] RE:Rectangular Format:
Date: Sun Mar 21 1999

Jim:

A kindred soul who likes the 6 x 9 format! I have been experimenting with a number of cameras with mixed results So far the top performer has been a Zeiss Super Ikonta with an uncoated Tessar. I paid $200 for it back in grad. school and although the camera is missing an iris leaf and is generally creaky, it takes great photos. I bought another dead Ikonta for parts and plan to have it rebuilt soon.

I also have used an old Bessa with a 4.5 Voigtar that works great. Paid $65, it needs a shutter CLA (about $35). It has no RF, so I have a pocket rangefinder on the way for it. Currently, I am trying out a Super Bessa that has a Heliar lens. The RF seems to be off, but once it's fixed it should be excellent. The lens is also uncoated. They are running in the $200-$300 range. The CLA for this camera is going to add $100-$200 to its cost, but dealers are asking in the $400 range for them and I plan to use it a lot.

If there are any "modern" cameras that will do the same things as these vintage pieces, I would love to know. I suspect not, which is why they have escalated in price.

-RA

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
[1] Re: Medium Format Folding cameras
Date: Thu Mar 25 1999

> "Paul Allen" pallen@grcc.ctc.edu
>
>Hi, I caught the end of a thread a while back that mentioned using older
>medium format folding cameras. I got the impression that they would work
>well as relatively inexpensive travel cameras, kind of a medium format
>snapshot camera.
>
>Although I like the looks of the Mamiya and Fuji medium format rangefinders,
>they are still a fair amount of money. Could anybody tell me which older
>cameras might be available that use 120 film? Which ones are good values and
>what is their relative performance? I assume, maybe incorrectly, that these
>might be in the vintage of speed graphics, only medium format. TIA.
>Paul Allen
>pallen@grcc.ctc.edu

I've been playing with an Agfa Isolette with the better Solinar lens. It can take very good 8x10's. The Solinar is a 4 element Tessar type and the best lens on the Agfa/Ansco folders. But price seems to be going up and they may be over $100 by now. Models with 3 element Apotar and Agnar lenses are much cheaper and easier to find. I also have an Isolette with Agnar and have no problems with good 8x10's. Slightly less corner sharpness then Solinar.

I also have a couple early Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 folders with 4 element Skopar lens. They also perform well and should cost $50-75 in user condition. The later Bessa 1 with coated Color-Skopar and flash sync would be better but seem to sell for more like $175-200.

I would look for a camera with coated Tessar type lens and shutter with flash sync. I'm really not sure about the choice between uncoated 4 element vs. coated 3 element lens other then the coated lens would be more likely to have flash sync.

Chuck

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
[1] Re: Medium Format Folding cameras
Date: Thu Mar 25 1999

Ah, my favourite topic. To the many good suggestions posted on this thread, I have a few more.

1) The Voigtlander Perkeo I or II with Color-Skopar in Synchro-Compur shutter. 6x6 doesn't get any more compact than this. Although it lacks a rangefinder, it is supremely pocketable and has an accessory shoe -- something that most folders lack. The Perkeo II has an automatic film counter that the I lacks, and you can squeeze an amazing 13 frames out of a roll of 120 film with this camera. Perkeo Is are still available for about $100, but Perkeo IIs have been going for around $200 on ebay recently, which is a distressing development. If uncoated optics and no flash synch is OK with you, the earlier Bessa 66 with Skopar has many of the best points of the Perkeo, and later models of these do come with the coated Color-Skopar.

2) Agfa Record III -- very nicely designed 6x9 folder with uncoupled rangefinder and wonderful Solinar lens. Also has an accessory shoe if you like to do flash work. Hard to find, but they tend to go for about $150, which is a real steal compared to the prices of a Bessa II or a Super Ikonta C.

3) The Mess-Ikontas are versions of the Super Ikonta III or C that were made in the early 50s. They come with coated Tessar lenses, but the rangefinders are uncoupled. Although the ergonomics of these aren't as good as the Agfas, they are made of more durable materials, and tend to be much cheaper than their coupled rangefinder Zeiss equivalents.

4) The Ansco Titan is one of the great sleepers. Based on the same design as the Isolette, it overcomes the weak points of the Isolette, which is prone to light leaks from the synthetic bellows material and brassing of the thin nickel plating. The Titan has heavily chromed metal and a leather bellows, as well as real leather instead of the cloth body material of the Isolette. The lens (an Ansco 90mm f4.5) is a coated gem, probably made by Wollensak, and the shutter has B, T and 1/2 to 1/400 with flash synch. The downside is that it only has rear window frame selection and lacks a rangefinder, but Titans tend to go for $20 to $50, when you can find them.

I haven't really had much experience with the Japanese folders, and few people post information about any except for the Mamiya 6. Has anyone had experience with folding Minoltas, Petris, Konicas, Olympii, Fujis, Semi-Leotaxes, etc, that they could pass on to us?

Mark

Mark Langer
Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca

[Ed. note: 127 sized folders (4x4cm film type 127 used]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mullin@selway.umt.edu
[1] Re: 127 size folders
Date: Thu Mar 25 1999

sjbeyers@trianglenet.net wrote:

> Were there any folding cameras made to use 127 size film?  If so what
> are some makes and models?

Kodak made a lot of very compact Vestpocket, or VP, Kodaks (and yes, in case you have a vest, they probably do fit!) The ones with a lens that pulls straight out are the earlier version. Unfortunately the shutter on these has only 1/25, 1/50, B and T. These were sold with a wide variety of lenses, a few of which were focusing. Later on, Kodak introduced the VP Series III cameras, with a 1/10 to 1/100 shutter on the better lenses. Less expensive versions had a lens with only waterhouse stops and a TBI shutter. These were a shrunken version of the ordinary folding Kodaks, with a bed that flips down, onto which you pull out the lens. Some of these were made in different colors for women, and are very collectable, especially those that came in kits with a matching compact and lipstick. The Boy Scout, Girl Scout and Campfire Girl variants of these are also highly collectable. But none of these are real great cameras to use. The bellows used on all these American Kodak VP have tended to deteriorate badly, and none of them have a satisfactory range of shutter speeds.

In Germany, Zeiss, Ica and the Nagel company that later became the German branch of Kodak are only a few of the brands that offered folding cameras taking 127 film and were fitted with Compur shutters. Somebody already mentioned the Kodak Vollenda, which made 16 exposures 3x4cm. On the same film size, but more expensive was the Vollenda, some of which were fitted with the same f3.5 50mm Elmar lenses that were on early Leicas. They are expensive now. There were many other cameras like that, and also many models taking 8 exposures 4x6cm. like the American VP cameras did. Between World War I and WWII there were literally dozens of different German camera makers, and most of them offered this kind of camera from time to time. You get what today is considered a medium-format negative, a scale-focusing lens (usually) and a camera that's as small as a small 35mm camera, with a lens that might be as fast as f2.9, and a shutter than might be 1 to 1/300 or even 1/500. There was also the Foth Derby, with a focal plane shutter, and in some variants a rangefinder. This was for 3x4 cm negatives. In the late 30's after 35mm cameras became popular, all these died out. I can't think offhand of a quality 127 folding camera made after WWII.

If you look on eBay doing a search for 127 (in the body of the listings) in the photo classifications, you can find 127 folders fairly frequently, though you will have to look through a bunch of box cameras and TLRs until you know what to avoid. If you are thinking of this as a camera for use, note that 127 film has a small diameter spool, and film flatness is likely to be a problem. Write with further questions --Chris

From: "Pj Heikkila" pj.heikkila@pp.inet.fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 127 size folders
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999

>Were there any folding cameras made to use 127 size film?  If so what
>are some makes and models?
>
>
>Steve

I have Nagel Vollenda 3x4 cm 127 size folder with Leitz Elmar lens (f=5cm 1:3,5) and Compur shutter. According to lens and shutter numbers it's from 1935. Later Kodak bought Nagel and all Retinas are from that factory. I just got a parcel from post-office and now I have my first packs of new 127 film (once I tried with a film that should developed before 1966 and you might just imagine the results).

Pekka H

P.S. that new 127-film is from a small German manufacturer Maco (Macophot UP 100). I don't know (yet) how it works.

P.P.S. Macophot is bw-film.

From: "ed davis" davise@mediaone.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format Folding cameras
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999

Here are a couple suggestions for good but cheaper:

Mamiya 6 (folder, not the new one) 6X6

Very good lens and shutter, coupled rangefinder, neat focusing where lens is stationary and film moves. Shutterbug once said it was the best folder. $150-$250 (guess)

Agfa Isolette

Many models over the years. Apotar is good lens. Red window film advance. Should be cheap but works.

Dante Stella wrote in message ...

I have had all of these, so here are some ideas. All take 120 and are in

(snip)

...

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Medium Format Folding cameras
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999

I have had all of these, so here are some ideas. All take 120 and are in order of price v. utility. If you are looking for ideas on 2x3 Graphics, email me.

Super Ikonta B (11 6x6 on 120) $150-350
+ Combined view/rangefinder
+ Mechanical counter
+ One-action folding - very compact
+ Best model is 80/2.8 Opton-Tessar (has x-synch)
+ 2d Best is 80/2.8 Jena Tessar coated (with X-synch)
+ The BX model shoots 12 per roll and has a selenium meter
- long minimum focus - 4'6"
- fewer shots per roll
- viewfinder is not so bright (all done with prisms, not mirrors)
- 37mm push-on filters are hard to find

Super Ikonta A (16 6x4.5 on 120) $ 150-750
Super Ikonta C (8 6x9, some models also do 16 6x4.5) $ 200-400
Moskva-4, 5 (Soviet copies; 8 6x9 or 12 6x6) $125-225     
+ decent performance, even with the cheaper Novar lens
+ folds up to a little bigger than a pack of cigarettes (A)
+ accurate, user-adjustable, and nearly indestructible rangefinder
+ easily adaptable to Series VI filters
+ Moskva-5 has a smooth chrome top with integral finder; also does 6x6
+ Zeiss and Moskva-4 has a folding albada or direct finder
+ Moskva-4 and -5 all have coated lenses and flash synch
- red-window counting
- screws rust, bulging the leather (Zeiss)
- difficult to find inexpensively with coated lenses and flash (Zeiss)
- viewfinder is separate from rangefinder

Postwar Zeiss Nettar 515/2
+ Cheap
+ Easy to find
+ Novar lenses good
+ Prontor SV shutter reliable, simple, x-synch    
- Scale focusing
+/- popup finder

------------
Dante Stella

Paul Allen wrote:

> Hi, I caught the end of a thread a while back that mentioned using older
> medium format folding cameras. I got the impression that they would work
> well as relatively inexpensive travel cameras, kind of a medium format
> snapshot camera.
>
> Although I like the looks of the Mamiya and Fuji medium format  rangefinders,
> they are still a fair amount of money. Could anybody tell me which older
> cameras might be available that use 120 film? Which ones are good  values and
> what is their relative performance? I assume, maybe incorrectly, that these   
> might be in the vintage of speed graphics, only medium format. TIA.
> Paul Allen
> pallen@grcc.ctc.edu 

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
[1] Re: 120 folding cameras vs TLRs
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999

ChipCurser (chipcurser@aol.com) wrote:

> Can anyone tell me what folding 120 format cameras and with what lenses  will
> take as good or better pictures than a Yashica 124G or better yet a  Mamiya 330
> with Mamiya lenses.

I'd stack up later Zeisses with Opton Tessars, Bessas with Color-Skopar or Heliar, and Agfas with coated Solinars against most 4 element TLR lenses on cameras like the Yashica, Minolta, Ricoh, etc. In fact, I've had spectacular results from even earlier uncoated Tessars, Xenars, etc. And don't forget the wonderful coated Ektar on a Century Graphic. I have no experience with the Mamiya 330 for comparison, although I expect that it would be more of a stretch for a vintage folder to compete with the later optics for Mamiya.

Mark

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the smallest medium format camera? (modern or 'used')
Date: 7 Apr 1999

Byron Marr, D.O. (buzzmarr@onramp.net) wrote:

> Do any of the Perkeo's have coupled ranged finders, or are they "guess"focus?

The scarce Perkeo E has an uncoupled rangefinder built into the top plate that adds about 1/2" to the height of the camera. It has the less desirable Prontor shutter as compared to the Synchro-Compur on the Perkeo II and is ridiculously expensive -- one just went for almost $500 on eBay. It seems to me that a Perkeo 1 or II with Color-Skopar and an accessory rangefinder would give you both equivalent performance and about $300 to spend on other things.

I have a couple of other suggestions for really compact folders. The Voigtlander Bessa 66. There are two models of this -- one with a rigid finder that is about the size of a Perkeo, and one with a collapsible finder that is even smaller than a Perkeo.

You might also consider the Welta Perle 4.5x6 with collapsible finder and f2.8 uncoated Xenar lens or the Ensign Selfix 16-20 with f3.5 Ross Xpres. Both of these are fine performers and very compact, although slightly larger and heavier than the Perkeo or Bessa 66. I believe that the collapsible finder Bessa 66 is the smallest high-quality camera taking 120 film.

Mark

From: William Robinson robinsons@rareamericana.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the smallest medium format camera? (modern or 'used')
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999

The Bessa 66, the Perkeo's predecessor, also can be found with the Color-Skopar - a coated tessar design. I'd name these two cameras as the smallest 120 cameras with quality lenses. All of them have front element focus which has a tendency to degrade image quality at closer range, but is equal to a good modern lens at distance. I had a Super Ikonta A for a while, but it was slightly bigger than the 66 and the compur shutter had such a strong spring that it shook the camera when you snapped the shutter.

William F. Robinson

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 folding cameras vs TLRs
Date: 7 Apr 1999

Joe B. (joe-b@dircon.co.uk.gov) wrote:

> A really good pocketable alternative to the TLR is a folder that has
> some of the same ergonomic advantages, like not having to watch for
> the film numbers in a red window. There are only a few folders that
> are like this, and the ones that know of are all 6 x 6 format. My
> favourite is the Agfa Super Isolette.

For some reason, the identical camera is cheaper under the name by which it was marketed in America, the Ansco Super Speedex. Slightly easier to find and considerably cheaper than either of these is the Soviet copy, the Iskra. I might add that the Super Ikonta B has all of the advantages of the Super Isolette, Super Speedex or Iskra -- flash shoe, auto film counting, coupled rangefinder combined with viewfinder, and is much, much easier to find.

Mark

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.gov (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 folding cameras vs TLRs
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999

I suppose it depends on where you are. The Super Isolette is a mid to late 50's camera with a coated lens and flash-synced shutter, and I got mine in near mint condition for GBP 200, and have since seen another two also in near mint conditon for GBP 145. The only Super Ikonta B's I have seen for these prices were rough condition pre-war cameras that I would not have considered using. To get a post-war one with coated lens and in near mint condition, at least from a dealer over here in the UK, costs about three times as much. This is all from dealers, due to serious health limitations I have not been able to attend camera fairs etc. Living in the UK, I would only buy this kind of camera from a UK dealer so that I would not have a problem returning it if I needed to.

I am still curious about the B Super Ikontas- I have used A and C Super Ikontas but not B. Do they have auto film sensing as well as auto frame spacing (not the same as auto spacing, it means it stops at the first frame automatically)? It was my impression that only the Super Isolette has this feature.

Joe B. (remove ".gov" for email)

From: "Pj Heikkila" pj.heikkila@pp.inet.fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moscow Folder Lens Design?
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999

William Robinson kirjoitti viestissd

>I read in someone's posting that the Industar 110 mm lenses on the
>Moscow 1 through 4 models are three element designs and that only the
>105mm lens on the Moscow 5 was a true 4 element Tessar design. Is this
>true? I always assumed they were all 4 element designs.
>Thanks in advance.
>William F. Robinson

I guess you are right. Industar is Tessar type (4 elements in 3 groups) design. According to Soviet Photography and Film technics encyclopedia (Estonian edition, Tallinn 1988) all Industar lenses are 4e/3g type. The roots of rumours about different designs may be based on different design numbers and maximum apertures of Industars in Moscow 1-4 (I-23, f/4.5) and in Moscow 5 (I-24, f/3.5).

Pekka H

From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What's the smallest medium format camera?
Date: 6 Apr 1999

A very small 6 x 6 folder is the Voigtlander Perkeo. The Perkeo II with the Color-Skopar is the most desirable as far as lens quality. These cameras are very small and light.

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.gov (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 folding cameras vs TLRs
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999

chipcurser@aol.com (ChipCurser) wrote:

>My original post was to get information on what quality could be gotten from
>older folding cameras as compared to some reasonably priced TLRs.
>Interchangeable lenses was not the concern.  I have some 16X16 prints taken
>with a Yashica 124G and Mamiya C330s  that I am very pleased.  I just wanted to
>know how if some of the older and more compact, easier to lug around   folding
>cameras would compare.
>It seems that some will compare at least as good, with Bessa II and Super
>Ikonta C and maybe a couple of others.  I will do more homework. Thanks

A really good pocketable alternative to the TLR is a folder that has some of the same ergonomic advantages, like not having to watch for the film numbers in a red window. There are only a few folders that are like this, and the ones that know of are all 6 x 6 format. My favourite is the Agfa Super Isolette. This is a very neat but scarce 6 x 6 folding camera, medium sized rather than small, it has a coupled rangefinder inside the viewfinder, auto film spacing, auto film start sensing (just like a Rolleiflex!), and is thus very fast and convenient to use compared to most MF folders. The lens is a coated Solinar, which is a Tessar clone of comparable quality. It has a thread for filters. There are two other cameras in the Isolette range that have, or can have, the Solinar lens; the Isolette III has an uncoupled rangefinder and the II has no rangefinder. Both of these can sometimes be found very cheaply whereas the Super Isolette tends to be expensive. The Super is more heavily built and has the various ergonomic advantages but the other two are considerably lighter, some way smaller and thus much more pocketable. Any of these should give outstanding results. Although the Super Isolette is bigger and heavier, it is so convenient to use that it is worth considering anyway, I think.

Also I would suggest the Voigtlander Perkeo II if you can find one- it is a compact 6 x 6 folder, it also has auto film spacing which you switch over to once you have wound on to the first frame, and this makes it fast to use after frame 1. It is scale focusing only but it is very small for what it is. It has a thread for filters. Mine has a coated Color Skopar (a high quality Tessar type lens) and a Synchro Compur (most have a Prontor shutter I think) and feels very solid; it is a very high quality camera. Very pocketable indeed. The Perkeo I is similar but has no auto film spacing.

Joe B. (remove ".gov" for email)

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999
From: wcmarti@ibm.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 folding cameras vs TLRs

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Mamiya 6 folder. With the 75mm Zuiko lens, it's great -- don't know about the other lenses. I think one reason for the sharpness of the negatives is that the focussing is done by moving the film plane, rather than the lens. This results in a VERY sturdy front strut system, and it requires the use of a separate pressure plate that moves with the film plane. I believe the pressure plate provides excellent film flatness -- my observations at least.

Bill Martin

From: "David..M" dmcm@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best 6x6 folder under $100?
Date: 25 Apr 1999

No contest.

Agfa Super Isolette (Solinar lens).
Ensign Selfix 12-20 (Ross-Xpress lens)
You will be very lucky to find one under $100.

From: Hugh Baunsgard hughbaun@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best 6x6 folder under $100?
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

Russ,

You can get an old Agfa Isolette or a Billy record with a Syncro-Compur shutter for close to the $100 range. Just make sure it has the Solinar lens and not the Apotar. A very competent camera for the price.

- Hugh

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.gov (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best 6x6 folder under $100?
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

I can think of two that are both quite small and very pocketable and prices will vary but I have seen them for that price occasionally;

Agfa Isolette III with Solinar lens (not Apotar) (uncoupled rangefinder). Amazingly small and light for what it is.

Voigtlander Perkeo II with Color Skopar (not Vaskar etc). With this one I cheated, it doesn't have a rangefinder at all- but it is such a good camera and so small and nice to use I thought I'd mention it anyway. And it has an accessory shoe (pretty unusual on folders) that is perfect for slotting in the Voigtlander Proximeter shoe-fitting rangefinder, which is how I like to use this camera in low light.

Joe B. (remove ".gov" for email)

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best 6x6 folder under $100?
Date: 26 Apr 1999

Russ,

Forget a coupled rangefinder under $100. The only thing that seems to be available for that money any more is the Mamiya 6, which seems to have dropped dramatically in value in the past couple of years and now go for around $100 in ratty condition on eBay. Otherwise, either pay significantly more than $100 or hope that you stumble upon a real steal.

Rangefinderless folders are generally more compact, and often quicker to use than those with rangefinders, so many don't really feel the loss. But many of the ones suggested are too expensive. Forget about getting a Perkeo II for under $100. EBay prices for these are now reliably about $200, and the dealers will have noted this.

For under $100, you can get the Agfas with Solinar that have been mentioned. You can also get a Certo Dolly Supersport with f2.8 Tessar or Xenar, a Welta Perle with the same glass (both in Compur or Compur-Rapid shutters). If flash synch is a consideration, you might keep an eye open for a clean Zenobia, which is a chunkier Ikonta A clone usually under $75. Ansco Titans are very cheap, but scarce, and offer good quality for under $50.

If you don't mind respooling 120 film onto 620 spools, several Kodaks, such as the Monitor or Duo 620, offer Tessar-type lenses in Compur shutters for $20-$50.

Mark

Mark Langer
Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca

From: bbaker@dmwgroup.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help!Best 6x6 folder update
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999

....
I have both versions of the Adox Golf that you refer to. I use the Cassar (f4.5) with decent results, but I never used the one with the Adoxar (I just took it apart for the heck of it). The Adox Golf was my first intro to medium format and I'm hooked! The Golf is decently built and easy to use. The real shortcoming is that its just a viewfinder camera, which has led to unfocused pic's for me (mostly when I'm taking close-ups and guessing at the distance).

Hope this helps,
Brad Baker

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
To: Russell Hippert riverspiritphoto@uswest.net
Subject: Re: Best 6x6 folder under $100?

I would look at the Moscow 4 ($100) or the Moscow 5($150). Both have coupled rangefinders. The 4 is a Zeiss Ikonta C copy and the 5 is an improved version with 6x6 and 6x9 capability, an improved viewfinder and other features. The lens on the 5 is supurb (and coated). Both can be readily purchased on the r.p.m or ebay. Typically on Zeiss or Moscow folders F11 and a small tripod (or tree, car, etc) are the rule. I have a very small tripod (1 lb) that I use for travelling light.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Jethro Beauhunc" beauhunc@hotmail.com
[1] Re: HOLGA Comments
Date: Wed Aug 11 1999

Older folders should work well, far better than the Diana with its inevitable light leaks. But be careful with old folders because the bellows can leak light too.

One easy check for light leaks in folders is to fire an electronic flash through the rear of the camera with the back open. Look along the ridges and corners on the outside of the bellows while manually firing the flash from the inside.

...

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: wmmutch@ee.cornell.edu (William Mutch)
[1] Re: Want to try MF; what do you recommend in used equipment
Date: Tue Oct 26 1999

>I don't want to spend much more than a couple hundred dollars and wouldn't
>be too concerned about the absolute best quality--I'm just wanting to  get an
>honest taste of the unique aspects of medium format.

Any rollieflex clone, yashica, rolliecord, minolta etc in *sound mechanical and optical condtion* is a good buy.

There were also a whole slew of 6x6 folders on the market late fourties and early fifties. They vary from junque to stuff like the Ikonta Bmx (coated lens and full flash sync.) One of the best money earning cameras I've ever had was an Agfa Ventura 6x6 folder from a second hand store for $12. Prontor shutter and NICE f4.5 anastigmat lens; made very clean pix for brokerage ads.

From: "Tyr Bergen" tyr@spamfree
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999

Just as there are mediocre lenses of a given formula, there can be excellent ones too!

I don't know first hand about the Moskva, but what I have read is that the quality was quite variable. You might readily get a gem or a lemon.

Some of the better folders certainly had better optics that Tessar-formula lenses. Some of the Olympus Chrome Six series folders had six-element in four group optics. More elements doesn't necessarily mean better performance, per se, but classically Tessars tended to be soft around the edges when *wide-open* but turned tack sharp when closed down mid-way (two or three stops).

Believe it or not, some triplets are excellent performers, although they tend to be slower than Tessars or more complex designs.

From: Dick Weld rpweld@weldcommunications.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999

The Moskva 5 with the Industar lens is excellent; many of the best values are the Agfas (or Ansco) with the Solinar lens. To my mind the absolute best performer is the Voigtlander Perkeo with the Color Skopar lens...not a 645 but extremely small overall size for a 6x6.

Dick Weld

....

Mark Massa-Lochridge wrote:

> I'm new to MF, and have caught the vintage folder bug.  I've started
> collecting lower end models, and would like one or two (a 6x9, 6x4.5)
> decent postwar folders as regular shooters.  I can't afford a EX+ Super
> Ikonta, and dont think I want to, if the clones and/or
> non-Zeiss/Voigtlander tessar-equivalent cameras are reasonably close in
> quality. To that end, can anyone comment on the Moskva's?  Also, I've
> come across a clean Petri Karoron, 75/3.5 Coated Orikon, and can't find
> diddly about this camera on the net).  In general, what's a good buy in
> the (a) 6x9 and (b) 6x4.5 arena?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark  

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: 20 Oct 1999

I have to echo Dick's recommendation. Among even more modestly priced folders, Agfa/Anscos are great performers -- the Apotars are very good triplets. One real sleeper is the Ansco lens (probably a Wollensak) on the Ansco Titan, a folder that generally avoids the usual Agfa bellows leaks and green tarry shutter lubricant.

I own many vintage folders -- high end Zeiss, Voigtlander, Welta, Certo, Agfa, etc. with Tessar, Xenar, Heliar, Solinar, etc. lenses. But the cameras that I most frequently reach for are the little Perkeo or Bessa 66. They are incredibly compact, and are great shooters. The Skopar or Color Skopar is THE classic folder lens, IMHO. If you can do without the bells and whistles of coupled rangefinder focussing, these should be your first choices in a folder.

Mark

Mark Langer

From: "Benno Jones" quix@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999

....

I love my Voigtlaender Bessa I with a Color-Skopar. I was lucky enough to get one with the 6x5.4 mask still present, although some say you can make one yourself if you want to. I also have an Agfa Record III with a Solinar and should be getting the first rolls I put through it back today.

I can't speak as to the Moskvas per se, but I have an Iskra, which is also a Krasnagorsk camera, and it takes great shots as well. Mine is worn, but very sturdily made and seems quite reliable.

I also agree with several other posts regarding the 6x6 cameras, I've had great results from a Voigtlaender Perkeo I with a Vaskar lens. I have not yet shot with my Perkeo II (Color-Skopar) as it needs an overhaul before it will be in good enough shape. I've had good results as well with Agfa Isolette and Agfa Speedex cameras with the Apotar lenses. Despite their reputations, I have had no problems so far with bellows pinholes.

Benno Jones

P.S. I knew Mark Langer was going to throw in his usual pitch for the Ansco Titan. ;-) I've got one, but the lens mount is loose, so I haven't tried it out yet.

From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: 20 Oct 1999

...

I have and love a Moskva 5. Quite durable, nice, sharp lens, and very compact when folded -- it fits in the back pocket of a cycling jersey. I have a bit of info on it on my web page, and link to more info.

--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: 21 Oct 1999

To the Kararon question, - have used one of them, though not extensively. It's an adequate 645 camera, but I wouldn't go out and spend a lot of money on it. My preferred folders ar the later Mamiya six folders with the Zuiko lenses (i belive the later ones had 5-6 element lensed.) The optics are good and the Mamiya idea of a movable film plane for focus works well. Be prepared to spend 2-300 dollars for one of the more recent models, but its a well build camera which will give good service. The other camera I favor is the Perkeo with the color skopar lens. the optics are superb. You will need to use zone focusing with this or put an auxilary range finder on the camera. the Perkeo II generally had a Color Skopar and they run between 125 and 200 in decent condition. I've also seen Color Skopars on Perkeo I's, but it's not all that common. I'm happy with the results from my Perkeo. For the rest of them, look around. there were smaller, less well known German manufacturers producing folders that used Schneider Xenar and Zeiss Tessar lenses. Sometimes these less famous maker cameras can be had for relatively low prices.

From: "Mark Bergman" mb50742@navix.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999

I agree about the 3.5 Tessar being much better than the 2.8, in fact I'm not convinced after trying many over the years that the Novar isn't better than the 2.8 Tessar.

I do have a Moskva 2 and a Moskva 5 and they are very good cameras. The lens is pretty good. Not as good as the 3.5 Tessar but a hell of a lot better than the Novar or 2.8 Tessars. With the 6x9 negative you get very very good results.

From: David M dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "high-end" folder clones: comments on Moskva's; other good buys?
Date: 21 Oct 1999

> I've had good luck with coated schnieder radionars and the
> enawerk enagon 3 element lenses.. Not as good as a nice zeiss
> tessar but not bad stopped down to f16 or so.. One of these
> $30-$50 folders will still blow away 35mm anything  :-)

Ennagon I believe is 4-element, Ennar is 3-element.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: ~David~M- dmcs@cyburban.com
[1] Re: 10 Best folding cameras
Date: Fri Dec 24 1999

The best I've seen is the Ensign Selfix 820. It has a 4-element Ross-Xpress lens and a coupled rangefinder.

Another good one is the Ihagee 6x9 with Zeiss Tessar and helical focussing.

Either of these will easily hold their own against a Super Ikonta.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: DV8 mammal1@hotmail.com
[1] Re: 10 Best folding cameras
Date: Fri Dec 24 1999

Lets not forget about my personal favorite folder, the Voigtlander Bessa II....

But, yeah the Super Ikonta III is my other favorite...

Rob

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Austin Franklin" austin@darkr99oom.com
[1] Re: 10 Best folding cameras
Date: Fri Dec 24 1999

> Lets not forget about my personal favorite folder, the Voigtlander Bessa
> II....

That doesn't have a coupled rangefinder, does it?

> But, yeah the Super Ikonta III is my other favorite...

Mine for real use is the IV....it's the same size as the III, exactly, yet has a built in meter...and damn, that thing is small for a 6x6!

From Leica User Group:
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: Mark Langer mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca
Subject: [Leica] What 6x9 Camera to Buy?

Wow! Way off topic, but notice how adroitly I'll get this thread back on Leica.

I'm an old folder fanatic, and have had experience with many models. If money is no object, I'd suggest the "Leica of folders" (there, I did it), which is the Voigtlander Bessa II with Heliar lens. One in good working order is about the finest quality folder that you can get, both in terms of performance and finish. That Voigtlander finish that other posters have been raving about is present in this model as well.

An underrated 6x9 is the Agfa Record III. Although it has an uncoupled rangefinder, it also has a great coated Solinar lens in a Synchro-Compur shutter. It is unusual among 6x9 folders in that it has a built-in accessory shoe. Beware of light leaks in the bellows in any Agfa and of the focus thread lubricant hardening into a thick green goo. A good one will set you back about 1/3rd the cost of a Bessa II w. Heliar.

A bit further down the list, I'd put the Zeiss Super Ikonta C and its Soviet imitator the Moskva. The Zeiss is well built, but I find it less convenient in use than the Bessa II or the Agfa Record III. Both the Zeiss and the Moskva offer the advantage of multiple formats - the Moskva can do 6x6 as well and many Super Ikonta Cs accept a 4.5x6 mask. The Zeiss will cost more than the Agfa Record III, the Moskva will cost less.

A real budget alternative would be an Ansco Viking with Pronto shutter and Agnar f4.5 or 6.3 lens. You'd be surprised at the quality of photos this camera can deliver, and good examples can be picked up for less than $25. If you just want to see what 6x9 folders are like, this would be something worth using as an experiment. The usual caveats about Agfa folders apply to this camera as well.

Less compact, but more versatile, is the Graflex Century Graphic. This camera was designed to use 2x3 sheet film (sort of a Mini-Me to the 4x5 Speed Graphic), but comes with interchangable 6x9, 6x6 or 6x7 roll film backs. Many modern Mamiya backs will fit. You can also use a variety of lenses on it, although the common Ektar in a Supermatic shutter (going up to 1/800th) is all you'd usually need. It is a wonderful lens. The Century Graphic offers ground glass AND rangefinder focussing too. And many of them come with grey leather bodies and burgundy bellows that are cool.

Easily the visual equal of any special edition M6. (He says, adroitly bringing in Leicas again.)

Almost any vintage folder will need to have its focus adjusted. But if it is properly set up, you will notice the difference that a larger negative can make, particularly beyond 8x10.

Hope that this is of some use.

Mark

From Leica User Group:
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: Gaifana@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] what 6x9 cm folding camera to buy?

Get a Moskva-5 and make sure to get the 6x6 mask for it. It's way heavier-duty than a Super Ikonta C, has coated lenses and X-synch (which would set you back $1300 with a Zeiss). They're under $200. The coated Industar-24 lens is sharper than the uncoated Tessars and Novars found on the affordable Super Ikonta Cs. Yes, I have owned them all.

From Leica User Group:
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: [Leica] re: which 6x9 folding camera to buy

My favorite MF folder is a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta, but the Baldas are excellent too. There are a couple of Voigtlanders with truly wonderful lenses. I usually stick with 6x6 in MF, though.

Once upon an age ago I used to shoot with my grandfather's beautiful Linhof Teknica 23. Superb Schneider lenses and a wonderful camera, but we're talking the high end press cameras there... !

Godfrey

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folder wows me
From: "John Stewart" readname@body.txt
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 99

One of the handling tricks with folders was to NEVER let the bed of the camera "snap" out under spring power. Always buffer it with your hand so it gently clicks into place. This helps keep the struts aligned. Also, when closing the bed, depress the latch button and and then release it after the camera is folded. This prevents wear on the catch.

Abuse of the open/close mechanism can put the struts out of alignment, which can result in focus errors.

Some amateurs liked to press the button on the top of their folders and watch it pop open with a great "snap!" These are the ones to be avoided used! The struts on some of the Japanese copies are not quite as sturdy as the German Ikontas, so it's important to watch for this. If the camera will not stay closed, or if the button to open it needs to be pressed hard, it may be a sign that the camera was opened and closed in a cavalier fashion for quite some time.

John radiojon@means.net

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Date: 24 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Russian copy of Super Ikonta C

Hi

I just purchased a "new in the box" Mockba 5 which I think is a direct copy of the Zeiss Super Ikonta C. I paid $125 for it. Does anyone know anything about these cameras. The date on the box is 1959. Do they make these cameras anymore. I found it interesting that the takeup reel is half wood half metal. The camera looks like it has never been used. No fingerprints or dirt. All the parts look bright. The leather case also looks like it was made yesterday.

Anyway, I did run a roll of tmax 100 in it with AF 1951 resolution targets. Although it didn't do as well as my Kodak folder with the 101 Ektar lens, not many cameras do, I did get about 80Vert lines and about 100Horz lines. The Kodak usually does about 120l/mm in both directions. The older Ikonta C I have does about 100 in both directions again using tmax 100 film.

My Hasselblad 80mm does about 90 l/mm in both directions. So it seems that this Russian copy does about as good as my Hasselblad but not as good as my $10 Kodak folder.

Larry

From: uablyfl@uab.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian copy of Super Ikonta C

>Hi
>
>I just purchased a "new in the box" Mockba 5 which I think is a direct copy of
>the Zeiss Super Ikonta C. I paid $125 for it.

This is a good deal these days. A year ago a good Moskva could be had for $60 on Ebay now they seem to start with reserves of $75.

>  Does anyone know anything about
>these cameras.  The date on the box is 1959.  Do they make these cameras
>anymore.

No, as far as I know the one you have is one of the last of them. THey continued production about 5 years after Zeiss stopped making the originals.

>Anyway, I did run a roll of tmax 100 in it with AF 1951 resolution targets.
>Although it didn't do as well as my Kodak folder with the 101 Ektar lens, not
>many cameras do,

Which folder is this? I wasn't aware that any Kodak folders had Ektars because most folders use front element focussing and the Ektars weren't made for this.

I assume you mean the 'anastigmat special' lenses used on some Senior, Vigilant and Monitor models? This is an outstanding lens, significantly underrated. One day someone will wise up to the fact that the best Kodak glass was every bit as good as the German product of the same period. I hope they wait until I've bought all I need though ;)

> I did get about 80Vert lines and about 100Horz lines.  The
>Kodak usually does about 120l/mm  in both directions.  The older Ikonta C I
>have does about 100 in both directions again using tmax 100 film.
>My Hasselblad 80mm does about 90 l/mm in both directions. So it seems that this
>Russian copy does about as good as my Hasselblad but not as good as my $10
>Kodak folder.

That's about right. The main differences are that the Russian lenses are f3.5 ( the Kodak lenses are f4.5) , the Russian shutters are flash synced (and many of the Kodaks aren't) and the Russian camera has a coupled rangefinder.

Lyndon

Date: 24 Jan 2000
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian copy of Super Ikonta C

Hi

The Kodak camera I am talking about is a Tourist with a Supermatic Rapid 800 shutter. A retired Kodak lens designer told me Kodak only put Ektars in those shutters. Ektar or not, I have never found a folder lens that will do better then the lens in that rapid 800 shutter. That is at least with resolution targets.

I know I paid a little more then normal but anytime you can get a new untouched camera in the box, it has to be worth something.

I do know the finish is not as good as the Ikontas. Since Good mint examples of Super Ikonta C's are now going for $1500, I think I will play with a copy for now.

Larry

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Date: 26 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding camera experiences

Hi

I buy and sell these types of cameras all the time. I work with 6x9 only. The best camera (sharpest image) is the Kodak Tourist camera with the Rapid 800 shutter.

I am told that Kodak used modified Ektar lenses in these 800 shutters. I have purchased several of them for about $10 each and both produce higher resolution readings then my Hasselblad.

Everything else is a pig in a poke. Some do well and some don't. Shutters seem to cause most of the problems. Some shutters move around during exposure and cause image motion in the negative. Edge resolution is also sometime a problem.

At a price of $10 to 25 each you can buy and test lots of cameras without going broke. What I do is buy something at $15, test it with resolution targets using Tmax 100 film and then sell it in my wifes antique shop for about $45. I have tested at least 100 cameras in the last 5 years.

Larry

Date: 7 Feb 2000
From: =David-M= dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding camera experiences

Mark Bergman wrote:

> I love old folders and have a huge collection of Agfa's, Ikonta's, Super
> Ikonta's, Russian Moska's, Bessa II, etc.  I have never had a problem with
> bellows.  I have noticed newer cameras, especially the Fuji folders, have
> major problems with pin holes.  I check them closely by putting a halogen
> flash light inside with the room lights off.

You have been exceedingly lucky! More than 50% of the many folders I have tested had leaking bellows.

By the way you are testing wrong. You need to put the light outside the bellows and check that it does not come in.

You also have to wait at least 5-10 mins for your eyes to adjust to the dark before you do the test.

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
From: DV8 mammal1@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 10 Best folding cameras

The Bessa II does indeed have a coupled rangefinder, 500th, 3.5, X-synch, AWESOME lens ( all three varieties), but it shoots 6X9, which is sweet for landscapes and travel....not to mention busting some 35mm to have 9mm panoramics.....

DV8 wrote:

> Lets not forget about my personal favorite folder, the Voigtlander Bessa
> II....
> But, yeah the Super Ikonta III is my other favorite...
> Rob
>
> ~David~M- wrote:
>
> > The best I've seen is the Ensign Selfix 820.
> > It has a 4-element Ross-Xpress lens and a coupled rangefinder.
> >
> > Another good one is the Ihagee 6x9 with Zeiss Tessar and helical
> > focussing.
> >
> > Either of these will easily hold their own against a Super Ikonta.

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
From: torx@nwrain.net (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 10 Best folding cameras

Two of the best are the Agfa/Ansco Super Speedex with coupled rangefinder and tessar lens, AND the Konica Pearl IV, another late one that seems to be difficult to find.

bob

Date: 26 Dec 1999
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 10 Best folding cameras

A must on such a list in the Mamiya 6 (late Model folder) with coupled film and shutter wind - and film plane focusing common to all of these models.

This being one of the latest models in this series came with a sharp Sekor lens and very flat film plane due to the slip in pressure plate.

I have done extensive photography with this camera and the results were always crisp and superb.

- S. Sherman

Date: 27 Dec 1999
From: hrphoto@aol.com (HRphoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 10 Best folding cameras

>Can you list 10 best folding cameras for the century?

One such camera would be the Plaubel Makina II. while not a folder in the true sense of the word, it collapses to a very small size, especially considering that it is a 6x9 camera. In addition to rangefinder focus, it also has groundglass focusing, interchangeable lenses and interchangeable backs, including 35mm backs and sheet film holders. In terms of versatility and overall size, nothing else comes close.

Heinz
HRphotography
http://hometown.aol.com/hrphoto/myhomepage/business.html

Date: 08 Dec 1999
From: wardcheese@aol.com (WardCheese)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Color pictures with old 6x6 folder

>I want to buy an old 6x6 folder with a Tessar design
>uncoated lens (Agfa Isolette with uncoated Solinar lens).
>Does anybody has experience using such an old lens for
>color photography?

I have a zeiss nettar with a 135mm tessar and a franka rollfix. The franka has a mask for shooting either 6x6 or 6x9. These cameras are great fun to use, and you will be surprised by the quality of the shots. Focus is very fine, and they are so portable compared to my bronica! they may be a little lacking in contrast, due to the lack of lens coating, but just be careful about any light falling on the front of the lens when you shoot.

Take them out and mess around! I love mine!

--ward

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999
From: "Benno Jones" quix@nospamhotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folders

The list would be too large to fit into a post. A quick answer would be any "A" Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta camera or any Japanese 120 camera with "Semi" in the name. Many 6x9 (and a few 6x6) cameras came with a mask to cut them down to 6x4.5, but these were often the first thing lost with such cameras (unless built-in in the form of hinged flaps). I am fortunate to have a Voigtlaender Bessa I with the 6x4.5 mask still extant. I also have an early Agfa Isolette with flap-style masks, as well as a Seagull 203-1 with the same. Native 6x4.5 cameras in my collection include a Semi-Leotax and a Semi-Kinka.

Do a search in Ebay for 6x4 (the ".5" won't read in Ebay's search engine) and see what you come up with. Even if you don't want to buy there, it's a great research tool at times.

Benno Jones

[Ed. note: Some useful points about folder quality...]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000
From: Bo Hultberg bo.hultberg@telia.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: new try

Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Variable shutter speeds on 6x9 folders?

I can't speak for the older Compur shutters, but changing to an intermediate speed in the "low" range (1 sec - 1/10 or 1/15) can produce intermediate speeds if the cut of the speed selection cam is a slope, but this depends on the speed combinations and the particular shutter. The opening time is determined by how much the slow escapement pin rises to meet the cam, at least on synchro compurs. The utility of doing this, and the lack of repeatability, makes this impractical.

Setting to an intermediate speed between low and high ranges will probably return 1/50 of a second. Not very smart.

Setting to an intermediate speed in the high range does nothing, and it probably does do harm here, since compurs have an extra spring for 1/500 and the other speeds are determined by mechanical stops.

The difference betwen 1/50 and 1/60 is negligible. You should really have the shutter tested to find out what all the speeds are really firing at.

Cheers

Dante Stella

Shinichi Hayakawa wrote:

> Dear Ted,
>
> You shouldn't set the speed adjustment dial of ANY mechanical leaf-shutter
> at intermediate settings.  You won't get intermediate speeds and
> manufacturers usually warn that doing that may damage the mechanism.
>
> The modern Compurs and Prontors are not exactly the same with older ones,
> but the principles are the same.  They won't work at in-between settings
> either.
>
> Regards,
> Shinichi

From: Gordito glp@panix.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 6x9 Folding Cameras.
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000

AndrTs andres@mrbit.es wrote:

>                 Hello from Spain:
>
>                 I bought two old folding cameras last week. Both in very good
> condition.
> One is a Franka Bonafix with a Shneider Radionar (2924707) lens with a
> Pronto shutter. The other is a Zeiss Ikon with a Nettar lens. Both 6x9. IYd
> like to use both for taking pictures, as far as they have brand new lenses.
> Now my questions for you:
>
> 1.- Could you tell me more about these cameras? Age, manuals, opinions?
> Experiences? Quality of the lenses?

I have a Franka Rolfix with a Schneider lens. My reading led me to believe that it would be very sharp but mine wasn't. Well, it was, sort of - it was sharp and hazy as distinct elements, unlike other old lenses that I have that have a more plastic feel.

The Netter lens doesn't have a good reputation but I have seen images from them that were very sharp. I get the feeling that there will be a lot of variability in quality.

The most important thing is to reduce glare/flare on the lens. The easiest way to do this is make sure that it's not being struck by direct light by using a lens shade.

> 2.- The leather of the bellows are a bit "wet"... what can I do about it?

Wet? A more usual problem is their being too dry. If they are wet, someone may have treated them. I'd gently wipe them to get off any extra oil and not worry about it.

> 3.- None of them has counters for the pictures. I guess I canYt use the 
> rear red windows with modern films... how can I charge and use these
> cameras that way? How many "turns" do I have to give in order to take the
> first picture? And for the rest?

The red windows are still usable. The paper back will protect the film but it's a good idea to not have direct sunlight hitting the window. If you still get flare you need to try to seal the top and bottom edges of the film.

> 4.- The shutter has B, 25, 50, 100 and 200 marks. How do these speeds
> compare with modern shutters?

They use the same units as modern shutters - 100 = 1/100 of a second. You just have to learn to read between the 1/60, 1/125, etc. marks on a light meter. The slower speeds are often too slow but faster speeds are usually good. Experience and keeping track of the correct exposure on the first test rolls you use will help.

> 5.- Excuse me for my poor english.

Su ingles es bueno!

>         I hope you can help me to take great "oldfashioned" pictures with
> these
> oldies. Thanks for your time.

My experience is that the best film to start with is 400asa B&W; film. Forgiving of exposure, and allows you to use smaller apertures so that you get sharper photos.

Enjoy. These old cameras are a lot of fun (and addictive.)

From: "Benno Jones" quix@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 6x9 Folding Cameras.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000

Both of the lenses on these cameras fall into the "good but not great" category. The Nettar in particular comes in for criticism by some because it's not a Tessar. To my understanding, the Nettar lenses were farmed out by Zeiss to other manufacturers for production and not made in-house. This means that some Nettar lenses are probably better than others, depending on who made it. Lack of sharpness on old folding cameras may also be the result of a poor mounting on the lens that is no longer holding the lens parallel to the film plane or at the correct distance from the film plane. If there is no problem with either of these potential problems, in terms of photos for personal pleasure you should not have too much to complain about with either the Nettar or the Radionar.

As others have posted, you should have no problem using modern films with the red window on the camera door. I've had only a few problems using my old folding cameras in this regard, and all were on extremely bright sunny days. If there is no door over the red window and you are concerned there might be a problem, try putting a piece of black tape over the window for when you're shooting, pulling it up to advance the film.

I personally prefer 100 and 200 ISO films in my old folding cameras. That way I can set the shutter speed to the film speed and adjust the apertures using the "Sunny 16" rule. This generally keeps me away from the slower shutter speeds that may be running slow.

I love the old folding cameras (I have about 30 of them) and have lots of fun shooting with them. As someone else noted, they are addictive!

Benno Jones

.....

[Ed. note: Billboard size from older Bessa folder! ;-)]
From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" bcasselb@orednet.org
Subject: Re: Quality of very old lenses

on older, "mature", lenses ...

> ... Schneider Angulon 90mm f 6.8, which I am pretty sure dates
> back to the 1950s. It is in a Synchro-Compur shutter, and has a
> PC socket rather than a bi-pole, so it is at least post WWII.
>   ..... Wheatfield Willie

the 105mm f3.5 Color Skopar on my old Voigtlander Bessa II is also in a Synchro-Compur shutter. the camera dates from 1950, and I believe it has some sort of coating - in any case, it holds up well at 12x36 feet !8^D (billboards)

Bill

Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
bcasselb@orednet.org

From: "RoninUK" RoninUK@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question -

> >which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??

I can recommend the Ensign Selfix 820 Super which offers the option of 6x6 or 6x9 but be sure to get one with the Ross xpress lens which is first rate.

Ronin

From: "Austin Franklin" austin@dark88room.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

Super Ikonta C with the Zeiss Tessar lense.

Check out write-up on them here:

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/ikonc_e.htm

http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontc.htm

and a list of them here:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm

If you have the money, get the latest version with MX sync and Synchro Compur shutter. You will pay round $800 for a mint one. Well worth it.

Good luck!

From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

>Hi,
>
>I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
>also 6 x 6  which I have is much less than 6x9
>
>so,
>
>
>I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
>moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
>usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like  Voigtlander Bessa I
>
>or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
>
>Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question
>-
>which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
>
>what about the CRFs on them ?
>Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Marek Jastrzebski

Bessa II's seem pretty costly especially with the better? 5 element Heliar lens. If you can afford it this would be the one to get. Both the I and II have Color-Skopar lens (Tessar type). The cheaper I's will have the 3 element Vaskar lenses and probably should be avoided if you are looking for best quality. Look for a shutter with X sync and the lens should be coated. The earlier , much cheaper, Bessa's with Skopar lenses are Ok (I use two of them) but uncoated.

Zeiss Ikonta C with a Tessar would be cheaper than a Super Ikonta but no rangefinder. A late Super C with X sync would be nice.

Another camera I'd like is the Agfa Record II or III with a Solinar (Tessar type) lens. The III has an uncoupled RF. Even these would probably cost you $200.

If you can stand the size and cost, it may be better to look for a used Fuji 6x9. Should out perform any older folder with it's multicoated optics and cost not that much more than a high end folder.

Chuck

From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS
Date: 15 Aug 2000

You might consider and Agfa Isolette III with a Solinar lens. If you can find a later one (late 1950's) it will have a F3.5/75mm Solinar lens (which is about as good as Agfa lenses got) and a Syncho Compur shutter. Only 6x6 and the rangefinder is uncoupled - but otherwise good - and considerably cheaper than many better known classic models.

The Isolette III also came with other lenses/shutter - mainly the Apotar in a Prontor shutter. Not as good - but worth using.

I have more information on my web site if anybody is interested:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/

The Isolette III listed has now been repaired by myself (although its rangefinder is not yet perfectly adjusted) and the first roll of film gave very good results.

:-)

Roland.

Hello Marek,

I have a Bessa I (6x9) with the 6x4.4 insert in a Color-Skopar 105/3.5 to f22 and a Prontor-S shutter with speeds from 1s to 1/250 and B. At first, I thought that the absence of a Rangefinder like in the Bessa II would be a hinderance but since I use this camera for landscape, my focus is usually at Infinity. If I am at closer distances and the focus becomes more critical, I will insert a pocket rangefinder into the flash shoe and get a distance fix. I also like the fact that I can easily carry it in a jacket pocket and still get LARGE negatives and great large contacts. This gives you another advantage. I often use it at family functions and take pictures of all the children. I give their parents the contact sheet which they cut out and they have ready made wallet size pictures of their kids.

Anyway, it is a very solid camera with an Excellent lens.

Obviously, if you have the money, you might to go for the Bessa II with Heliar lens but you will be paying a premium for the lens at 5x in price compared to the Bessa I in Color-Skopar. By the way, the Bessa I also comes with a lesser quality lens, the Vaskar. For the difference, in price and quality, get the Skopar.

I would also recommend the Ensign Selfix 820 (6x9) if it has the Ross Xpres lens. I have the Selfix 16-20 with the Ross Xpres lens and it is very, very good. A Ross Xpres has quite reputation in the U.K. Any camera with a Ross Xpres lens is to be recommended.

With the Super Ikonta C, you are climbing into a higher rarified financial sphere. Great camera, I have the A and B but the C is out of my range.

The Moskva, especially the 2 is an exact copy of the Super Ikonta C but I could not say if the lens quality is comparable. Maybe some one else can give their opinion on that one.

Hope this helped.

Do Widzenia,
Bogdan

...

From: "richard evans" richard@katsika.clara.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

I use a pre-war Super Ikonta 531 all the time with Fuji E6 film. The results are superb and the Tessar is not coated. You must use a shade on the lens. The later models -- 531/2 for 6x9cm. -- with coated lenses and Synchro-Compur shutters are the most sought after but get very expensive. CRF is a must IMO, but check that you can live with the very small eyepiece, and check that the adjustment is spot-on.

A good Bessa II would be as good but also expensive unless you are lucky. If you find one with Apo-Lanthar you'll be competing with the collectors!

Date: 20 Aug 2000
From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

> I personally own a Agfa Billy with an uncoated Agfa Agnar 6.6/105
> lens...

I don't have this exact model - but am familiar with this type of camera:

> Does it have some value ?
> What was the manufacturing date ?

The Agfa Billy 1 with an Agnar 6.3/105 was around in the early 1950s. The Agnar lens is the cheapest Agfa lens and therefore this camera will probably be worth $5-$20 depending on shutter (Vario, Pronto) and where you sell it.

I must admit I assumed the lenses was coated - as other Agnar lenses I have from that period appear to be.

> It accepts plactic reels but I don't know whether I have to use 120 or
> 220 film

Should be 120. You should have a red window on the back which you wouldn't have for 220.

> I have some small holes at some bellows' angles; what can I use to seal

I'd used electricians black tape - although there are other suitable things.

If you are interested I have a section on repair Agfa folding cameras on my web site - along with some of the Agfa and Russian cameras my wife and I own:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/

Having said all that - I'd encourage you to try the camera. You might well be surprised at the results it produces. :-)

Hope that helps,

:-)

Roland.

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: "Mark Bergman" mb50742@navix.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

His Moskva 2 either has an element in the lens out of place or the lens is no longer parallel to the film plane. I have a number of Mockva's and they have been decent to very good performers. The coated lens in a later Mockva 5 is coated and much better than a pre-war Zeiss Super Ikonta Tessar. I would say the 5 is almost as good as a post-war Super Ikonta, equal at F8. (I also have the Super Ikonta C & A , pre and post war). I only shoot B&W; so am not sure about slides.

Date: 22 Aug 2000
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

Marek,

You've had a lot of good advice regarding higher end cameras. I have had experience with most of these, and prefer the Agfa Record III (w. uncoupled rangefinder) and the Bessa II w. Heliar to the others mentioned. I find that the separate range/viewfinder of the Super Ikontas A and C are not as convenient, and the Albada finders on these are prone to having their bright lines fade, suffer from flare and often are broken or missing.

Let me suggest that you begin with a budget folder, like one of the lesser Agfas with a coated Agnar or Apotar lens, or a Balda with an Enna lens. These can be surprisingly good stopped down, and your investment will be about $25 or so. If you like the results you can always get your money out of the camera and move up to one of the more premium ones.

If absolute compactness is not important to you, you might consider getting a Century Graphic. This is a great folder that is somewhat bulkier than the ones suggested, but offers rangefinder and scale focus, interhangable lenses, interchangable backs, different finders for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9, takes sheet film, limited tilts, ground glass focussing and all sorts of other nifty features. They are commonly available for less than a postwar Super Ikonta C or a Bessa II.

You might also look into a press camera such as the Mamiya Universal, although this is now taking us out of folder territory. But the Mamiya Universal offers a host of features and is worth considering.

Good luck and let us know what you wind up with.

Mark

....

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: "Mr. Know-it-all" bullwinkle@moose.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

....

I did not have good luck with inexpensive folders. I have a pair of Zeiss Nettar cameras for 6x9. One is incapable of a sharp picture at any aperture. The other is OK from f/8 or so. But, if I wanted to make a large print, I'd use the Rollei with 2.8 planar. Even if I could use the Nettar image full frame and had to crop the Rollei, I'd still have a sharper print. Also, remember that the bellows in these cameras do wear out. I purchased an (plain, no RF) Ikonta A with tessar that produce an outstanding first roll.

Six rolls later, the bellows had pinoles in the corner and were beyond hope. Perhaps, they had dried out (but looked fine) and could not withstand the opening and closing in use. And, from what I have seen at camera shows, the Agfa bellows don't seem to be the same quality as the Zeiss.

Date: 22 Aug 2000
From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

> and closing in use. And, from what I have seen at camera shows, the Agfa
> bellows don't seem to be the same quality as the Zeiss.

Post WarII Agfa bellows are made of a synthetic material which does tend to pinhole. However these pinholes are very easy to fix and the material does not perish or crumble at all.

The common Agfa shutter is the Prontor-S which tends to work fine - except the slow speeds (<1/50) and the self timer which tend to be sticky due to dirt.

The common Agfa lens - the Apotar - is a fairly basic 3 element coated design - but I've used it at full (F4.5) aperture - with no real problems.

If anybody is interested - I took an Agfa Isolette II to Egypt last year and ran off 8 rolls of film - no problem. Four of the rolls were Fuji velvia/provia and the metering was done with a Minolta 7000i SLR. The Prontor-S shutter must have been reasonably accurate at all speeds as I didn't have time to bracket exposures - but they came out fine. Only 2 really duff frames out of 96.

On this particular example unusually all the shutter speeds work fine - but there is some slippage in the self timer which causes the shutter blades to open slightly as the timer starts its run.

Having said that - whilst Agfas will not appeal to everybody - I would still recommend them to anybody thinking of trying MF on a budget - or looking to see if folding cameras are for them.

More details and some pictures from Egypt can be found at:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/

:-)

Roland.

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
From: sanking@clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) wrote:

> Hi
>
> We have several people on this newgroup that feel that actual resolution
> readings do not have any meaning and should not be posted.  That fuzzy sharp
> and sharpest are much better discriptions.

Hi Larry,

I encourage you to post your resolution tests. I have tested many lenses using the AF resolution charts, including a number of 6x9 folders, and my opinion is that these tests can tell us a lot about characteriscs of the the lens being tested.

However, resolution is only one of several factors that must be considered in evaluating the performance of a given lens. I suggest as further reading on the subject the following books.

Cox, Arthur. Photographic Optics. Focal Press, 1974, New York.

Ray, Sidney F. Ray. Applied Photographic Optics. Focal Press, 1988, London and New York.

Kingslake, Rudolph. Lenses in Photography. Garden City Book, 1951, New York.

Neblette, C. B. Photographic Lenses. Fountain Press, 1964, London.

Kingslake, Rudolph. A History of the Photographic Lens, Academic Press, 1989.

With careful reading you will find there is a lot more to lens performance than your concept of the three inputs to image quality, i.e. focal length, resolution, and distance.

Best,

Sandy King

Date: 26 Sep 2000
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

Hi

An example of where MTF values come into play is with Verichrome Pan Film and A Hasselblad camera.

What's interesting about Verichrome Pan is is high spike in MTF contrast at low resolution values. The reason for this is to increase the low contrast of single element lenses used in box cameras.

What's interesting about a Hasselblad lens is that they are desinged with this same contrast spike at low MTF resolution values. This is to give low magnification 5x5 and 10x10 prints a much much sharper look then any resolution value can describe.

Combine the two and you get a very very high quality 10x10 B&W; image even though the negative resolution value could be as low as 40l/mm.

Since I am now collecting 35 and 70mm motion picture projecters let me tell you about them.

If I project a 35mm wide screen Panavision motion picture image from 10 feet away I get a 1ft by 2.4 ft image. The image has high grain and soft to the look. Now take the projector back to 20 ft. The image improves alot with much less grain and a sharper image. Go back to 40 ft and better yet still.

This is the case where you have high resolution values with a poor low magnifaction image and a much better image at higher magnifactions.

MTF tests will confirm both conditions were simple resolution tests will not.

With simple 6x9 folders a simple test is called for and should not be discounted just because this test would not fully describe all photographic systems.

Larry

Date: 27 Sep 2000
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Question about Bessa folder lenses

Michael Gudzinowicz (bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:

> Scott Paris asparis@ix.netcom.com
> >Does anyone know what a "Helomar" is, and where it fits in the
> >line-up?
>
> Cooke-type triplets (3/3):    Voigtar, Vaskar, Lanthar, Helomar
>         Tessar-type (4/3):    Skopar, Color Skopar
>         Heliar-type (5/3):    Heliar, Color Heliar, Apo Lanthar
>
> The Apo Lanthar is the most desirable lens, followed by the Heliar and
> Skopar. The triplets bring up the bottom end, with the Helomar probably
> having an edge over the other triplets. I'm not sure if the "Color" lenses
> were used on the MF RFs.

Based on the performance of a Voigtar that I have on a Bessa 66, I wouldn't turn away from getting a camera with this. It is extraordinarily sharp, although without the contrast of my postwar Color Heliar and Color Skopar lenses. And yes, the postwar Bessa 66 and Perkeo II did come with the Color Skopar, as did the postwar Bessa II have a Color Heliar. There were no Heliars available for the 6x6 Voigtlander folders after the war.

By the way, I've found the Color Skopar and Color Heliar to be remarkable lenses, easily in the same league as the 101 Ektar on my Century Graphic.

Mark

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson)
Subject: Re: Folding cameras and image sharpness

john stafford@vax2.winona.msus.edu wrote:

> Just where can one get a lens shade for the 75mm Tessar?

I use a 531/2 105 mm.

For it, and many other lenses on other cameras, I use a "Voss Professional Gelatine Filter Holder". From Bogen Photo Corp.. It has 2 spring steel padded bands that you press to open and they grip the front lens ring of any lens up to about 70 mm diam. They take standard 3x3 gel filters and have 2 barn door flaps that are adjustable to function as a lens shade. Cost $42.40 locally. It also gets around carrying many different filter sizes for a collection of cameras and lenses. For my Ikonta, it does need to be put on after focusing to get the orientation right to function as a shade.

--
Mark Anderson
DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
From: Scott Paris asparis@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Question about Bessa folder lenses

Voigtlander folding cameras came with a number of different lenses. As far as I know, the line-up from "worst" to best is:

Voigtar ...... Prewar, (3 element ??)
Vaskar ...... Postwar (3 element ??)
Skopar ...... Tessar type (4 element??)
Heliar  .....    Supposed to be really good...never seen one

Are there any others?

Does anyone know what a "Helomar" is, and where it fits in the line-up?

Thanks,

Scott

Date: 24 Sep 2000
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Question about Bessa folder lenses

....

Cooke-type triplets (3/3):    Voigtar, Vaskar, Lanthar, Helomar
        Tessar-type (4/3):    Skopar, Color Skopar
        Heliar-type (5/3):    Heliar, Color Heliar, Apo Lanthar

The Apo Lanthar is the most desirable lens, followed by the Heliar and Skopar. The triplets bring up the bottom end, with the Helomar probably having an edge over the other triplets. I'm not sure if the "Color" lenses were used on the MF RFs.

Date: 24 Sep 2000
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

Hi

Some are good and some are bad. The best camera I have found is the Kodak Tourist with the Rapid 800 shutter and Ektar 101 lens.

I purchased one at a flea market for $25. Spoted another one on Ebay last year. I stopped bidding at $300. Someone else also knew how good they really are. Center resolution testing went to 100 l/mm using Fuji CN 100 film. About as good as you can get from any camera at any price.

Larry

From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

Hi

The Tourist does use the 620 film. I respool for 120, so film is not a problem. Yes the Kodak EKTAR really stands for EK TESSAR. [sic - see note below - Editor] I have a collection of about 25 folders and have found the Kodak Tourist 101 4.5 to be the best of the lot. The other camera that seems to do well is the older Zeiss Ikon with the NOVAR 110 4.5 lens. It's just about as sharp as the Tourist camera coming in at about 90 l/mm with Fuji CN100 film.

I like the wider angle of the 101 vs 110 lens but the Zeiss takes 120 film so I don't have to respool. I go from one to the other.

Larry

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
From: torx@nwrain.net (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

Ektar does NOT stand for Eastman Kodak Tessar. The Ektar includes 3 or 4 different designs including a copy of the Heliar. One thing Ektars have in common is that the whole lens moves as a unit to focus. If it has front element focusing, it is not an Ektar. I was not aware that the Ektar was offered on the tourist, because it does not have any provision for focusing except by turning the front cell. Kodak did offer a tessar copy with front element focusing, it was the Anastigmat Special.

bob

[Ed. note: see Ektar Lenses]

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
From: sanking@clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

"Mr. Know-it-all" nospam@nospam.net wrote:

> Wasn't the Ektar a licensed copy of the Tessar?

Most Ektars, but by no means all, were of the tessar design. Notable exceptions are the 203 f/7.7 Ektar and the 250mm Wide Field Ektar.

>Didn't  the
> Tourist use 620 film, or was it one of the few Kodaks that would take 120?

All of the tourists I have seen used 620 film.

> No contest, but the folders came with much less expensive lenses.
> Perhaps someone who has used a Super Ikonta C will add
> some insight here. One thing to keep in mind, check the
> mechanical rigidity of the struts very carefully.

Many of the folders, including the Bessar 11, Super Ikonta C, and yes, even the Russian imitation Mosco-4 and Moscow-5, have very good lenses. Used on a tripod at small apertures of f/16-22, and focused accurately, it is possible to make very sharp negatives with all of these cameras.

Unfortunatley several things work against us when using 6x9 folding cameras hand-held. First, the relatively long focal length of lenses on 6x9 folders (105 - 110mm) results in very little depth of field at the larger apertures typical of hand-held use. Then, accurate focusing is a real problem because the rangefinder of many of these cameras is not calibrated accurately. And finally, the folding mechanisms are rather flimsy and with time have become loose, which puts the lens out position.

I agree with an earlier post and believe that in general you will get better results with a 6x6cm TLR (even of the same period) than with the 6X9 folders, even the top of the line like the Bessa 11 and Ikonta C.

Sandy King

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
From: Jean Marc Becker jean-marc.becker@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

san

> Unfortunatley several things work against us when using 6x9 folding
> cameras hand-held. First, the relatively long focal length of lenses on
> 6x9 folders (105 - 110mm) results in very little depth of field at the
> larger apertures typical of hand-held use. Then, accurate focusing is a
> real problem because the rangefinder of many of these cameras is not
> calibrated accurately. And finally, the folding mechanisms are rather
> flimsy and with time have become loose, which puts the lens out position.

The rangefinder of my super Ikonta using 120 films is absolutely accurate. I can use it for ditance measuring up to 100 meters. And his color pictures are overhelming. Actually better than with the Mamiya 645.

An unexpected problem with that camera is the motion induced by the shutter. It must be firmly sealed on a heavy tripod.

JMB

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000
From: "Mark Bergman" mb50742@navix.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

I've owned and used the Super Ikonta C,B, & A, the Mockba 2 & 5 and the Bessa II, plus various other folders such as Agfa. They produce very good results. Even without a rangefinder one can estimate distances well enough given the depth of field. Since the 6x9 bodies are fairly wide they have highly accurate rangefinders. (plus checking a rangefinder is easy). The Super Ikonta and copy cat Mockba have struts that are very strong and self aligning. I have never seen one of these models that had a problem with maintaining the lens parallel to the film, even after decades of use and wear. The design of the Bessa however is more problematic and if you find one that has had heavy use play in the lens board can cause soft focus on one side of the negative. And last of all it is no harder to hold a 105mm lens on a folder than it is on any other medium format camera. The Zeiss and Voightlander lenses are great and the later coated ones will stand up to a modern Rollei or Hasselblad with no problems (at least up to 16x20, I don't think I have ever done anything larger). However the best bang for the buck is late model Mockba's. They have a decent Tessar coated lens and copy all the essential solid construction of the Super Ikonta's.

I also love Rollei's TLR and use them more than the folders. I've seen more old Rollei's that must have been hit on the front standard in their life and the lens is not parallel to the film plane anymore. Alas you can only tell when you get that first roll of film back. And unlike a rangefinder when someone has messed with the focusing screen of a TLR you won't know it's off until you start getting disappointed because all your pictures are soft when the lens is wide open.

....

Date: 25 Sep 2000
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

Hi

What I do is use AF 1951 high contrast targets and Fuji CN100 film. I have found that CN 100 film gives the best readings. Kodak 100 and old VPS are usually about half the resolution of CN 100 but that's another story.

The largest problm with 6x9 folders is not the lens but the movement of the lens. What happens, is the lens is way out there really somewhat unsupported. As a result the lens will move when the shutter is released causing a smeared image.

This happens to a high degree with lenses that have high shutter spring force. I can tell if the lens is going to move or not during exposure just by the amount of force the shutter takes to cock it.

Larry

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: sanking@clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

"Mark Bergman" mb50742@navix.net wrote:

> I've owned and used the Super Ikonta C,B, & A, the Mockba 2 & 5 and the
> Bessa II, plus various other folders such as Agfa.  They produce very good
> results.

I don't dispute the fact that one can get good results from some of the 6x9 folders. I too have owned and used a number of these cameras, including the top of the line Tourist, the Super Ikonta C and the Mockba- 4 and Mockba-5 cameras. However, there are several things that can work against getting good results with this equipment, either separately or in combination, and on the whole I am convinced that one can get consistently better results with a TLR of the period than with a 6x9 folder.

> The Zeiss
> and Voightlander lenses are great and the later coated ones will stand up to 
> a modern Rollei or Hasselblad with no problems (at least up to 16x20, I
> don't think I have ever done anything larger).

I can not comment on modern Rollei or Hasselblad equipment. However, I own and use the Fuji GS690 and the GSW690. In my personal opinion the optical system of these cameras is vastly superior to that of the Ikonta C and Mockba-5 and the difference in performance readily visible even on prints no larger than 8x10 or 11X14.

>  However the best bang for
> the buck is late model Mockba's.  They have a decent Tessar coated lens and
> copy all the essential solid construction of the Super Ikonta's.

I agree. The Mockba 4 is very much on a part with the Ikonta C, and the Mockba-5 is perhaps a tad better.

Sandy King

Date: 25 Sep 2000
From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Q: 6x9 folders

mb50742@navix.net (Mark Bergman) wrote:

> Interesting site.

:-) Thanks.

I'll just take this opportunity to make some general observations:

I must admit I'm fascinated by this 'folder' thread which seems to spring up every couple of weeks at the moment. I've chucked several dozen rolls of film through many different cheap folders (and TLRs for that matter). Quality is usually amazingly good - although light leaks and lack of depth of field are obvious problems.

Whether a folder is going to be of any good to individuals is going to depend on their expectations. Anybody used to Hasselblads may well be disappointed. People used to 35mm might well be pleasantly surprised. Even Hasselblad owners might be willing to trade off absolute quality against the sheer practicality of MF camera no bigger than a 35mm SLR body.

Either way - its a very low risk/cost experiment which may yield big rewards.

:-)

Roland.

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/

FRom Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Moscwa 4

I was in Eastern Washington a couple of weeks ago looking for fall color and took my Moscwa 4. I had was using it hand held at around f16, the light wasn't bad, but the shutter release linkage was a little stiff causing some movement during shutter release. Even so, the 8x10s weren't bad--but they weren't up to those from my Rolleis when those are used hand held (which was part of what I was trying to learn). I'd rate them as..."acceptable". I'm going to see if I can lube the (external) shutter linkage to see if it improves. I'm sure the camera would have done better on a tripod. Still a fun camera and certainly a bargain at the prices they are currently bringing.

bob

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: "Joshua L. Wein" Jayelwin@Home.Home.com.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Photos Taken with Moskva 5 Folder

If anyone is interested I posted some of my first color shots taken with my Moskva 5 folding 6x9 camera. It's a 1958 Soviet copy of the Zeiss Ikonta C with a copy of the Zeiss Tessar 4 element lens. Multicoated too! I was skeptical at first but I have been pleasantly surprised. The camera has turned into an easy to focus, very compact camera that shoots great tack sharp pictures onto huge pieces of film. I had the 6x6 mask in the camera, so these are from 6x6 negs (also a great feature). And you can't beat the $70 price tag. I metered using sunny 16. I shot them on Portra 160VC film and scanned the negs using my $250 Epson 1200U Photo scanner and Ed Hamrick's VueScan software (Definitely worth the $40!). I hope you enjoy.

http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: "Joshua L. Wein" Jayelwin@Home.Home.com.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photos Taken with Moskva 5 Folder

I got mine from "lemiu" on Ebay. He has 4 or 5 at all times up for bid, but I just emailed him and he sold me one outright for $70. He must buy them from the east for a song, but for us in the west $70 is pretty darn cheap - that's what I'd pay for 5 rolls and processing.

-Josh

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My Perkeo II

I am very pleased with my Perkeo II. The first shot I ever took with it I could feel the camera shake. I looked at the slide with an 8x lupe and sure enough there was a double image there. But all shots after that I supported the front lens by holding it between two fingers to soak up the jolt. After that it was fine. It even resolved the guy ropes on the cetral ariel on top of Euston Tower about a mile away. It did this in two shots. I couldn't have been happier considering it is such a convenient camera. More convenient than most SLRs.

I took most of the shots at 1/100th sec and could still feel the shock in the camera when the shutter was released. Have you taken any shots with ariels on the tops of rooves in them? It might be interesting if you checked for shake using a lupe.

I don't mind holding the lens when I take the shots if I get results as good as that.

Roland

Mark Langer wrote:

> Roland,
>
> The Color Skopar on the Perkeo II (and indeed, on some Perkeo 1 and Bessa
> 66 cameras) is about as good as they get.  I find that the rendition of
> colour with this is somewhat "cooler" than many vintage lenses, but with
> good balance and saturation.  It is one of my favourite lenses.
>
> If you like the Color Skopar on your Perkeo II, you should try the Color
> Heliar on the Bessa II.
>
> Your problem with the shutter may be related only to the top speeds.
> There is a considerable amount of tension for 1/500th on the
> Synchro-Compur, but I haven't encountered the problem that you describe
> with mine.
>
> Mark
>
> Roland (roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net) wrote:
> > I took my Voigtlander Perkeo II (a 6x6 pocket folder) out for a test run
> > last Saturday and got the results back today. This was color
> > transparency film (Provia F100). The results were utterly superb. When I
> > took the first shot I could tell I had shake (and indeed the photo
> > proved it giving a double image if you looked through a lupe). It is a
> > very vicious shutter mechanism and the spring is way too taught for what
> > it needs to do. Knowing this I took all the other shots supporting the
> > lens at the front. The results were incredible. I was on Tottenham Court
> > Road in London taking this test roll. I took a picture of Euston Tower a
> > mile away and on the transparency I could see all the ariel masts
> > clearly and even the guy ropes for the central mast. As clear as a bell.
> > Utterly superb. And the color rendition was perfect. What a wonderful
> > little camera (but be sure to support the lens when you take shots).
>
> > Roland

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: My Perkeo II

I took my Voigtlander Perkeo II (a 6x6 pocket folder) out for a test run last Saturday and got the results back today. This was color transparency film (Provia F100). The results were utterly superb. When I took the first shot I could tell I had shake (and indeed the photo proved it giving a double image if you looked through a lupe). It is a very vicious shutter mechanism and the spring is way too taught for what it needs to do. Knowing this I took all the other shots supporting the lens at the front. The results were incredible. I was on Tottenham Court Road in London taking this test roll. I took a picture of Euston Tower a mile away and on the transparency I could see all the ariel masts clearly and even the guy ropes for the central mast. As clear as a bell. Utterly superb. And the color rendition was perfect. What a wonderful little camera (but be sure to support the lens when you take shots).

Roland

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: fredfoto1@aol.com (Fred Warren)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001
[1] Re: Voigtlander MF cameras - hidden gems?

No one has ever picked out the print from my Percio ($10 at a yard sale) from the ones from my 6x7 Universal.

From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000
From: Kelvin Lee kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Metered prism finders for S2A?

http://www.craigcamera.com/access.htm

I think you may have this listed already, but this guy sells replacement bellows for old KOdak cameras like the 1a and the 3 from US$10. Great for restoration.

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
From: joe-b@kludgedircon.co.uk (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica vs Medium Format??

"don ferrario" don@ferrario.com wrote:

>Why not get a Mamiya-7 or Mamiya-6, and have
>the image quality of the Pentax 67, with nearly
>the small size of the Leica?  Especially with the
>Mamiya-6 and its collapsible lens mount.

[snip]

I like to use a Voigtlander Perkeo II for street photography sometimes. It is a very compact 6 x 6 folder with a very sharp coated Colour Skopar lens, Synchro Compur shutter and scale focusing. Obviously scale focusing has certain limitations but a lot can be done with it. The camera, when collapsed, is substantially smaller than a (Leica) M6 and will slip into a pocket easily. Unlike the majority of MF folders, it also allows winding on to the next frame without watching the numbers in a red window, so you can do it without looking.

Joe B.

From: napperwm@aol.com (NapperWm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 19 Jan 2001
Subject: Very old 6 x 9 folder!

Just purchased a delightful old folder. Anyone ever used a "Bee-Bee" camera? It is a 6x9 (actually it has an insert to be a 6x6 too) that was made in West Germany.

Has a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 1:4,5 f = 10,5 cm lens. in a compur shutter. B to 1/250 sec.

The thing uses sheet film but it has a roll film adapter so I shot a roll of FP4+. Focusing is by ground glass. I was shocked! It made some fine images! Just looked at the negatives. Will try to print this weekend.

Would like to know a little history if anyone has any to share. I usually use my Koni Omega or Mamaya 330 but I might just try a few 6x9's for a change!

Thanks,
Bill

How old is this thing?

From: jayelwin@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Ikonta/Moskva front standard stiffness.

> As we know, late models of the Moskva-4 are almost identical to the last
> models of the Super-Ikonta C, whereas the Mosckva-5 appeaers to be some
> kind of hybrid between late models of the Super Ikonta and the Voigtlander
> Bessar. I think the cloners missed a few details in the mix of the Super
> Ikonta and Bessa.
>
> Sandy King

Just curious. The Moskva 5 is a bit different than the M-4/Ikonta, but it seems to have a few advantages. I think it has a better finder setup - I prefer it over the flip up deal. And with the rangefinder windows further apart it seems that the accuracy of the finder would be better. I actually don't think it is like the Bessar at all, except for the squareness of the body. The bessa has a pivoting mirror focusing rather than the rotatin prism - this is fraught with problems due to the linkages needed to transfer movement into the body of the camera. If the Moskva 4 and 5 have the same lens and shutter, then to me I cannot see how they could be that much different. My Moskva 5 has a good front standard that is extremely parallel and very accurate focusing. What more could I ask for? (Well if I tried I guess I could think of a lot, like a shoe for my flash.) If I ran into a 4 though I'd probably buy it - it'd probably be really cheap.

-Josh

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000
From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: M or X sync, how can you tell???

Joshua L. Wein wrote:

> I have a 1958 model Moskva-5 camera (a copy of the Zeiss Ikonta-C) and it
> has a PC connector for a flash. How can I tell if the camera is synched for
> M or X flash? I actually acquired a Tilt-a-Mite and a few boxes of bulbs. I
> am interested in seeing if the camera is M synched since I would like to
> shoot the camera at handheld speeds, rather than the 1/30 needed for
> flashbulb use with an X synched camera. Unfortunately the camera is in no
> way marked as to the type of synch on it, in russian or english. Can I
> assume that in 1958 it would automatically be M synched? Did they have
> electronic flashes in russia in 1958? Thanks.
>
> -Joshua Wein

Try it out with an electronic flash at the highest shutter speed possible. If it takes pictures at the right exposure then it is electronic. This is because on "M" the flash is fired slightly before the shutter is fully open to give time for the bulbs to burn at their highest intensity and so with electronic flash it would have finished firing before the shutter was fully open.

If you can look through the lens by taking the back off the camera then that would be even easier.

Roland

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000
From: Jon Hart jonhart51@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Newbie - help me select an old Rolleiflex or Rolliecord TLR

Eric,

I agree that lenses being rated "best" or "worst" without consideration for application is meaningless. For instance, a low-contrast lens (for whatever reason it may be low-contrast) is useful for people pics and for other shots where the picture would look better than if taken with a modern, high-contrast lens. I have a Opton-Tessar on an Ikoflex that is sharp and contrasty, but is a liability in some situations with some films. I usually take more than two cameras when out and about, so it is not such a problem for me, since I carry my Rolleicord with Triotar most of the time.

Now, as for three-element lenses (or even doublets, for that matter), I have found that lots of folks seem to forget that those old, beautiful images made pre-1900 were made with lenses that were not only uncoated, but likely loaded with "cleaning marks" as well as being of two- or three-element construction. I have negs from a Brownie Hawkeye box camera (meniscus lens) that I contact-printed and, to my great surprise, were quite sharp and showed few flare problems, even in one shot of my grandmother on the beach at Atlantic City in 1926, made contre-jour. The biggest bugaboos were the wisdom of the day dictated over-exposure in the camera and over-development in the processing (dense negs). This also applies to an old neg (about 1915 or so) I printed to 5x7 of a bunch of hardy city-dwellers having a grand old time in the old milkman's buckboard complete with milk cans and horses, with the stern old man looking regal in his seat of command with his (very) young assistant cavorting about for the camera. The lenses being of uncoated and of less than four-element design did nothing to denigrate these particular photos.

My point is that it really doesn't make too much difference how many elements are in the lens IF attention is paid to what one is doing, which applies just as much for the modern, multicoated lenses as the uncoated, two-, three-, or four-element lenses of olden times.

BTW, I am a closet Agfa/Ansco Speedex user and collector, mostly of pre-1941 manufacture, although I have a number of post-war examples as well. When the lenses are clean and adjusted for infinity focus, look out! Very nice photos, but, as expected, prone to flare if used carelessly even with a lens hood.

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia

--- Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net wrote:

> I'm with you, Jon. First, comments about one lens
> being "better" or "worse"
> than another absent any context are meaningless and
> do nothing to further
> the useful discourse of shooting photographers.
> Second, clean uncoated
> lenses can give wonderful results and character;
> Adams wrote of choosing
> uncoated lenses at times well into the 60s and 70s
> as a means of controlling
> contrast and to capture the unique image character
> of a particular lens
> (such as his beloved Protars). Third, a nice Cooke
> Triplet (one of the most
> brilliant lens designs of all time BTW) such as the
> Triotar can give a nice
> variety of results... stopped down, it yields good
> resolution over most of
> the field; used open, it can help direct the
> creative photographer direct
> attention toward the middle of the composition. I
> regularly shoot a Stereo
> Realist with Ilex Paragon triplets and the results
> can be stunning even wide
> open (f/3.5)
> open (f/3.5)
>
> Eric Goldstein

From: "Joshua L. Wein" Jayelwin@Home.Home.com.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Ikonta/Moskva front standard stiffness.

I have a 1958 Moskva - 5 I purchased from the guy on Ebay who sells a lot of them (ebay name "lemiu," direct purchase though - $70US). When I open mine the pins track out in the slots, but once the standard reaches its outermost position it snaps open and clicks into place with a nice solid "snap" sound and is there for good - absolutely rock solid. My rails have two separate tracks on each side. The longer one the standards support pin rides out on. There is a shorter track closer to the camera that the little spring support arm tracks out in. This little arm is what "snaps" out onto a little etched rest at the very end of the track. And on order to close the camera you need to push down on the two support arms (one on each side) to unseat them from this little rest. The standard sits parallel to the film plane and is extremely solid - I'd be suspect of one that doesn't - it should not sit out there by spring tension alone. I'm amazed at the quality of construction on my camera. I do believe mine was a user - maybe the unused ones were a stockpile of rejects?

As to rangefinder accuracy, mine was dead on. I took a series of shots of newspaper at an angle to the camera while shooting wide open. I focused on a specific line of text and processed the film and examined the negs under a loupe. The depth of field was shallow enough that I could tell that the specific line that was in focus in the RF was the exact line in focus on the negative. I measured the speeds on the shutter - they are extremely precise from shot to shot - but they were a bit off. That's okay as long as you know what the speeds actually are. I mapped them onto the 1,2,4,8,15,30,60... we are all so used to rather than the 1,2,5,10,25,50... on the camera which is not compatible with my brain. Here they are:

1 = 1
2 = 2
5 = 4 open 1/3
10 = 8
25 = 30 close 2/3
50 = 60 close 2/3
100 = 125 close 2/3
250 = 125 close 1/3

As you can see the claim of 1/250 is a bold one - it's only a third stop faster than the 100 setting. Of course this is different from camera to camera.

If you'd like to see some shots I took with my Moskva check out http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin specifically in the folders labeled Moskva shots and More Moskva Shots. The More Moskva Shots folder is also my first experience with DiXactol developer from Barry Thornton. I have fallen in love with this little camera - maybe the best bargain and the best kept secret in medium format photography. I am going to Washington DC this coming week and I plan on getting some capitol city shots. I also built a flash bracket so I can use my Tilt-A-Mite flashbulb flash with it - a real authentic vintage look to the camera with a big silver dish and a flashbulb. Haven't actually used it with flashulbs yet though. It doesn't have M-sync so the fastest setting you can use with flashbulbs is 1/30 sec. Keep in touch.

-Joshua Wein

"Lyndon Fletcher" wrote in

> Just received a Moskva 5 direct from Moscow, Looks unused though the
> RF needs adjustment. One thing that worrys me  is the amount of
> forward/back  freeplay in the front standard. The Kodak cameras that I
> am most familiar with (Monitors and Vigilants) literally lock the
> front standard in place parallel to the film plane. There is
> absolutely no movement of the standard once the camera has been fully
> erected.
>
>  By contrast the Moskva has a small wheel which travels down a track
> on the right side (facing lens) of the camera. This wheel hitting a
> stop seems to determine the point where the camera is fully erected.
> However, it seems that only spring tension holds this wheel against
> the stop and not an interlock as with the Monitor. Is this true on the
> Ikonta as well? This arrangement makes it possible to rock the front
> standard backwards and forwards  with no real effort. At least one
> other person has mentioned this being a problem with the Moskva, I
> would be interested in comments as to how common this is with this
> design,
>
>
> The camera is a late model (1959) and thus assembled on jigs that have
> not been calibrated by ZI for a while. As the camera seems otherwise
> so perfect, and there is no sign of mishandling, I was wondering how
> common this was both with Moskva's and with the ZI Ikonta they are
> derived from?
>
> Lyndon

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Schneider Radionar question

I have a (pre Kodak takeover) Nagel 127 Vollenda with a Radionar. It has a very robust set of struts which sping open at the press of a button. It is front element focussing and gives good pictures stopped down. Very pretty tonally but not biting - I use it a lot. The Radionar was a cheaper lens option for this camera.

David Morris

IMRE KARAFIATH wrote:

>Hello rollei users,
>I have a pair of Nettars that produce 6 cm by 9 cm
>negatives. They're fun to use but not very sharp,
>even stopped down. I have noticed that some other
>folders, in particular the Franka Rollfix, were made
>with Schneider Radionar lenses. Can anyone confirm
>that the Radionar is a triplet,  like the Novar? Is it any
>sharper than the Novar, or does the condition of the
>lens and struts on one of these old (non-Tessar)
>folders totally eclipse any marginal difference in lens
>design?

David Morris (pbccon@gn.apc.org@gn.apc.org)

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] plate cameras

I have used a Voigtlander Avus a little. A very similar camera, a little lighter and without the interchangeable lenses of the Bergheil. I have a very old Rollex 6x9 back which fits the 9x12 format back - it works well. Concerning sheet film, you need to put a stiff card or similar behind the film to thicken it out and to take the pressure of the springs in the plate holder.

When you say that glass plates are hard to find and expensive - does that mean someone is actually making them somewhere?

David Morris

J Patric DahlTn wrote:

>Has anyone here used older plate cameras like the VoigtlSnder Bergheil, and
>does it work good with a rollfilm back? Glass plates are hard to find and
>are expensive, so maybe I can use an insert in the plate cassettes and
>ordinary sheet film. Orthochromatic films would be fun to try, and with a
>soft working developer one can get quite good results.
>
>/Patric

From Rollei Mailing List:
ate: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] plate cameras

....

Kodak makes a number of glass plates for scientific and special uses. Most are special purpose emulsions but T-Max 100 and Technical Pan are both available. I am not sure what sizes Kodak offers, certainly 4x5 and 8x10 but probably not others. Kodak also sells the glass plates and there is a spec sheet for them.

Data sheets for glass plates are on the Kodak web site, I don't have the exact URL, but if you search for "glass plate" you fill find them.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Schneider Radionar question

IMRE KARAFIATH wrote:

> Can anyone confirm
> that the Radionar is a triplet,  like the Novar?

It is!

> Is it any
> sharper than the Novar, or does the condition of the
> lens and struts on one of these old (non-Tessar)
> folders totally eclipse any marginal difference in lens
> design?

The later. If you have good parallelism and the correct lens to film plane distance, Novars, Triotars, Apotars and other good triplets do fine if used stopped down (at least in the center; to a lesser degree in the corners).

The problems with folders as you say is usually with the integrity of the camera itself and not the lens.

Eric Goldstein

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Schneider Radionar question

....

The Radionar is indeed a Triplet. The Novar is probably a front element focusing lens. Zeiss also made Triplet lenses under the Triotar name. This is a fixed lens and the one used on some Rolleicords.

I have no idea of the relative quality of Zeiss vs: Schneider Triplets other than the pre-WW-2 QC at Zeiss seems to have been very much better than at Schneider.

From memory the Nettar is a "guess focus" camera, i.e., focused by scale.

These can be quite sharp if focused by actually measuring the distance but guessed distances are often off quite bit. Most folders were used for photofinished contact prints and are sufficiently sharp for them.

Front element focusing lenses can have very respectible performance, particularly in the range of distances where the corrections hold up. The Zeiss Super Ikontas have a good reputation for sharpness despite the front element focusing Tessar, partly due to having excellent rangefinders insuring that the camera is actually focused. The excellent focusing means of the Rollei cameras is at least partially responsible for their reputation for sharpness. Equally good Tessars were used on guess-focus cameras, where IMHO, these lenses were mostly wasted.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

[Ed. note: tip on ID of Ikonta models ;-)]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: Austin Franklin austin@darkroom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Bronica 645 vs. Super Ikonta

I would consider the series the "B" series, and the "BX" is part of that series. Yes, technically, it is the "BX" model...but it's still a "B" in my book...denoting it being a 6x6, as opposed to an "A" which is 6x4.5, or "C" which is 6x9 or 6x4.5 with a mask...or even a "D", which is, well, huge (616) ;-)

> Arthur
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but Super Ikonta Bs never
> had a meter, only the BXs did.
>
> Jerry

[Ed. note: Thanks to Heavysteam for sharing this tip!]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2001
[1] Re: Best Kept MF secrets

I just finished three rolls of FP4+ I shot in New Orleans with a Franka 6x9 folder. Unbelievable prints! Even at 16 x20 they are fantastic! Cost me $50 on Ebay. Can there be a better MF deal that those old folders?

I also carry one in my bag, almost always loaded with a roll of PlusX. I think I paid about $25 for mine, and yes, it does a great job. Of course, with scale focusing and a limited shutter, it doesn't always work well, but you sure can't beat the value. I have shot in parallel with both my RZ and a Horseman technical camera and the Franka does not measure up, but then they won't fit in my back pocket, either.

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001
From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folder with v.good optics???

HypoBob wrote:

> I'm looking for a folding camera that uses 120 film so that I can carry
> around something less
> than a brick when I am on a non-photo outing.  Since I'm planning to 
> enlarge the negatives up to
> 11x14, mostly from Tri X, something with very good to excellent optics  would be a necessity.
> What would be some good candidates?

Anything with a Color-Skopar lens on the front. They are the best. Better than the Tessar or Ross-Xpres. In other words a Voigtlander (the original). I have a Perkeo II and two Bessa II's (not for sale). The Bessa's are rather heavy so the 6x6 Perkeo II would be best for you.

But I would add a very clear warning. You get shake due to the strong spring going off in contact with the lens and because the lens is not firmly fixed. This is true of all folders. You have to hold the lens tightly when you take shots to damp out the vibration or the shake will certainly show at 11x14 size. So long as you do this you will get wonderful performance from your Voigtlander.

Roland

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Folder with v.good optics???

A nice compact 6x6cm folder with good sharp optics is the Russian copy of the Agfa Super Isolette (Ansco Super Speedex). The originals would be better and if found could cost $250 or more.

The Russian model is called ISKRA and could cost $50 to $150.

Of course be careful to get an almost MINT version (they are out there) and avoid worn and modified cameras. The camera has a good coupled rangefinder and nice carrying case too.

From: charlesw99@aol.comNOSPAM (CharlesW99)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 29 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

Hey Patrick, if cost, sharpness and consistency, and 6 X 9 format is a concern; you might consider a Kodak Tourist with the Anastar lens and the 800 speed shutter. These take 620 film; you will need to come across 2 620 spindles (hopefully one will be in the camera). Using a changing bag, roll, tightly a 120 roll onto the 620 spindle, then "rewind" this onto another 620 spindle and "Viola" you have a roll of 620 (which has been out of production for over 20 years).

You can also consider a Kodak Medalist II which has an excellent lens (the camera is pretty clunky though) which is also 620 format.

Do not be tempted to alter these cameras with a Dremel tool to take the larger 120 spool. There is a place that will professionally alter the Medalist; but they charge hundreds of dollars for this.

Anyhow this is a simple folder with a very good, rigid bellows mechanism (focus is by estimating distance). The 4.5 lens has been declared as one of the sharpest lenses around (the only problem, is the shutter which may need a touch of solvent to clean out the dust or old lubricant).

The more easily found Tourist with the Anaston lens is also quite sharp at f11.

Finally, you can sometimes find a Mamiya Press camera; the Super 23 which has a fine lens (either the 90 or the 100 MM Mamiya). Hardly anyone uses these anymore, so I've seen them selling for around $100...

>Hi,
>
>I am looking for an inexpensive way to get into medium format, and i
>love the extra negative surface of 6X9. I saw a couple of russian
>Moskva-5 cameras on e-bay, and thougt that it might be just the way to
>get moderatly modern optics (those camera were made well into the
>60's...) on a budget-priced medium-format camera.
>Anyone with experience with those cameras ?

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: [Rollei] My New Autofocus Camera

At the last Buena Park camera sale I managed to aquire the ultimate camera. I don't have to worry about focusing it or about exposure. It is compact, very light, and has two reflex finders.

Shoots 6cm x 8cm on 120 film. Agfa Cadet B2.

Beats Hassy vs: Rollei, Nikon vs: Canon, Leica vs: Contax, Zeiss vs: Schneider, Chevy vs: Ford, Altec vs: JBL, Dodgers vs: Yankees, Blondes vs: Brunettes (I have a red-head). The ultimate Point and Shoot. Needs no batteries. Whoa!

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: "Paulo Moreira" paulomoreira@mida.pt
Subject: Re: [RF List] Help me find a folder!

Hi!

May I recommend another folder? I have a Voigtlander Bessa II with a 105/3,5 Heliar lens (5 element) that is an extraordinary camera. It produces the sharpest pictures that I have ever seen, and believe me I have used quite a lot of different machinery. It is a very compact camera and to me the rangefinder is essential and that camera has it all. It is small, very high quality and it produces stunning images. I bought mine 2 years ago for the princely sum of $40, and as you can imagine, it is not in mint condition but lens and viewfinder are A+. On the other hand I also have a very nice Super Ikonta with a non-coated Tessar that gives less than satisfactory results.

It really pales when compared with the Voigtlander, it is like comparing a compact 35 mm zoom camera with a Leica 35/2 Asph. I know that the camera has some problems, but just to say that I am not very enthusiastic about Ikontas.

Paulo
Portugal

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: Benno Jones bennoj@qwest.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Help me find a folder!

Another ex-Soviet choice is the Iskra. In general the lens is better than that on the Moskva cameras, but the film counter is a weak link that in some cases has been replaced by a red window in the back. It's a copy of the Agfa Super Isolette/Ansco Super Speedex and a lot more easy to find. The aforementioned Agfa/Ansco camera is a good one too if you can get one for a reasonable price (not likely). The Solinar-lensed Agfa/Ansco cameras are good performers. The original Mamiya-6 is also one to keep an eye out for, especially one with a Zukio lens.

Benno Jones

...

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
From: Robert Marvin marvbej@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Filter adapter for Moskva 5

Steve Greene at stevegreene@mindspring.com wrote:

> What type of filter setups are available/compatible with the Moskva 5?
>
> Steve Greene

I use a 1 5/8"-41 mm Kodak Series VI push-on adapter ring. It works fine and a Series VI shade doesn't block the V/F or R/F. These things are widely available at camera shows, in junk boxes @ older camera shops and on eBay.

Bob Marvin

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: "Richard Coutant" richardcoutant@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium Format Folder?

Jay - I use a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C, with a Tessar lens, which produces fine results. If you're not looking for collector-grade cosmetics, they're not all that expensive on ebay (I bought one that orks fine for around $125.) I also have a couple of Vouigtlander Bessa RF 6x9 folders, but I think the Super Ikonta is a better camera, particularly in terms of the rigidity of the front standard. I haven't used the later Bessa II, which is way out of my price range...

In any case, May in Italy is going to be splendid. Have a wonderful time.

Richard

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23-Jan-2001
From: drayton cooper dc3@ioa.com
Subject: RE: Medium Format Folder?

Just recently, Jay, there have been three Voightlander Perkeo folders on eBay (one is on its way to me right now). The Perkeo I sold for around $50, the II was significantly higher although still not unreasonably so. Both cameras were built in the 50's through 60's, as I understand. The major difference between the two is that one is a scale focuser, the other is a coupled rangefinder model.

What I found interesting about them is the name. Perkeo means (in German, I suppose) "pygmy". They are supposedly very compact. There are two pages on Perkeos on the English translation site of the Japanese classic camera site (together with photographs taken with the cameras). I also saw one or two listed for sale at Vintage Cameras in London.

Drayton Cooper

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: Chandos cmbrow@wm.edu
Subject: RE: [RF List] Medium Format Folder?

I have a lot of fun with the Russian Moskva V, a knock off of the Super Ikonta. It's inexpensive (check eBay), comparatively well built, and versatile (be sure to find one with the 6x6 mask). Great, cheap shooter.

CHandos

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: "Benno Jones"bennoj@jps.net
Subject: RE: [RF List] Medium Format Folder?

Both the Perkeo and Perkeo II are viewfinder "guess focus" cameras. The only member of the Perkeo family with a rangefinder is the rarer Perkeo E. The main advantages of the Perkeo II is a better lens (Color-Skopar) and an auto frame counting system. The Color-Skopar is a great lens (as with all old folders, make sure your standards are in register with the film plane or no matter how good the lens you'll get bad results). If all you're going to use the folder for is landscapes and other shots where you're mostly either focused on infinity or at the hyperfocal, a good non-rf will be more affordable. A good condition Perkeo II, an Ikonta in the format you want, or an Agfa Isolette/Ansco Speedex with a Solinar lens would all be good choices.

Benno Jones

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: "Ken Iisaka" ken@iisaka.org
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium Format Folder?

I have been using a Mamiya 6 with 50mm and 75 mm lenses. The extremely sharp lenses are excellent, although perhaps a little cold and almost harsh. It folds (or collapses) into a package no bigger than most AF 35mm cameras, and it is immensely portable.

Mine is at Mamiya right now for a regular maintenance, but I am considering selling the kit.

....

From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Question about Bessa folder lenses

To the mix add,

Color Skopar (Coated, Post War)
Color Heliar (Coated, Post War)
APO Lanthar (Rare Earth, Rare Lens, Expensive)

Bessas used Voigtar, Vaskar, Skopar, Heliar, and APO Lanthar Lenses (Latter on Bessa II)

Brilliants used Voigtar, Vaskar (?) Skopar, and Heliar lenses.

Perkeos used Vaskar and Skopar lenses.

Superbs used Skopar and Heliar lenses. Mine has a Helomar viewfinder lense.

The Avus used Skopar with the posher version like the Berheil using Heliar.

There were other cameras like the earliaer Perkeos and the Inos, etc but I'm not sure exactly which lenses they used. Hoe theis helps a little.

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
From: "Malcolm Stewart" malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Question about Bessa folder lenses

FWIW, many years ago I carried out tests on a Color Skopar as compared to a Carl Zeiss Tessar. The Tessar had a distinctly curved field with very high central resolution, whilst the Color Skopar had a flat field with lower resolution. Both lenses were fitted to 35mm cameras so the results might not carry across to roll-film. (It was the poor performance on architecture that got me testing the Tessar.)

M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK

Michael Gudzinowicz bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

> Scott Paris asparis@ix.netcom.com>
>
> >Voigtlander folding cameras came with a number of different lenses.
> >As far as I know, the line-up from "worst" to best is:
> >
> >Voigtar ...... Prewar, (3 element ??)
> >Vaskar ...... Postwar (3 element ??)
> >Skopar ...... Tessar type (4 element??)
> >Heliar  .....    Supposed to be really good...never seen one
> >
> >Are there any others?
> >Does anyone know what a "Helomar" is, and where it fits in the
> >line-up?

> Cooke-type triplets (3/3):    Voigtar, Vaskar, Lanthar, Helomar
>         Tessar-type (4/3):    Skopar, Color Skopar
>         Heliar-type (5/3):    Heliar, Color Heliar, Apo Lanthar
>
> The Apo Lanthar is the most desirable lens, followed by the Heliar and
> Skopar. The triplets bring up the bottom end, with the Helomar probably
> having an edge over the other triplets. I'm not sure if the "Color"  lenses
> were used on the MF RFs.

From: "Mark Bergman" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Moskva 5 - coupled rangefinder? Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000

I didn't mean to imply that the Bessa has film plane problems. It will if it's been well used and/or abused. The Ikonta struts are just more rigid. In actual use they are all good for casual use. Other the tripod bushing on the Bessa II is on the end of the body (not in the middle) and seems much flimsier than the Ikonta or Moskva on a tripod.

And yes the Bessa II has a much better lens. But if your shooting either B&W; or color prints (as opposed to slides) and stick to 11x14 prints you'll never notice.

"Joshua L. Wein" Jayelwin@Home.Home.com.com wrote

> That is good to hear. I was very interested in a Bessa II based on all  the
> good things I've heard about the Color Skopar. It does command a premium
> price, you should get nearly $500 for yours if it is in good condition.  It
> is interesting that the Bessa has film plane problems, I guess from the lack
> of cross strut support.
>
> It does seem that the Bessa has more "up to your face and shoot" casual use
> appeal, while the Super Ikonta C (and then the Moskva as a copy) is more of
> a put it on a tripod and go slow. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to have
> the Moskva be a good casual shooter, quick to focus and shoot.
>
> I hope I'm happy with the Industar lens. I've gotten reports from both
> extremes. Some people have totally panned it, while others were pretty
> impressed with it. I guess I'll have to see for myself. I was pretty  darn
> impressed with the 3 element cooke design Schneider Radionar on the  first
> 620 folder I used. I'm hoping the 4 element tessar design Industar is  even
> better.
>
> -Josh

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
From: dfstein@earthlink.net (WS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva 5 - coupled rangefinder?

Good comments. You have to be realistic about ANY camera 40 or more years old. It may take 2 or 3 to get a super one but this is a very economical way to get a large image and is less obstrusive than carrying around a Fuji RF or Mamiya Press/Universal-both outstanding cameras. The only relatively compact, modern camera that surpasses in this respect would be something like the Plaubel Makina with the Nikor lens-but then you have 6x7 versus 6x9 and parts may be difficult to acquire. When it comes to VF and RFs, I think the Fuji cameras win out in terms of brilliance, true double parallax correction, and overall viefinder magnification and percent of image shown in viewfinder-the last two items better than the Mamiya 7.

Make or allow the camera to do what it can do best and you will have fun and rewarding photography with any of them-here are some images done with this camera:

http://members.aol.com/onelucent/STREET/MOSKVA/MOSKVA.html

From: fshadoan@aol.com (Fshadoan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 19 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: 6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS

I have experience with several Super Ikonta(s) and Bessa II(s) (Color Stopar & Heliar lenses.) The Super Ikonta Bs with Tessar 2.8 lenses produced great images, the SI C's equally so; the SI 3 with Novar lens was not great, the SI IV with 3.5 Tessar that I now have is in the process of evaluation, is incredibly small and convenient, lens said to be good, but first set of transparencies seem less than spectacular to me. The Bessa II with Heliar was tremendously sharp; now I have one with a Colar Stopar that is supposed to be just as good unless you are doing an MTF, but I can't say from my personal use to date. I think that the Super Ikonta Cs are not as easy to use as the Bs and the Bessas. In all, these cameras are tremendously portable and provide some great images if you are willing to do your own thinking and setting of mechanisms.

George Shadoan

Date: 20 Nov 2000
From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New to Medium format - any suggestions?

Roland (roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net) wrote:

> You could always get a 6x6 folding camera. Those made from 1955 onwards
> tended to have color-corrected lenses so they will be fine for color
> film. They have an alleged tendency for lens shake but so long as you
> support the lens when you take the shot any shake should be minimized.
> Most 6x6 folders will fit comfortably into your pocket though they can
> be rather heavy for their size. You should be able to get a good quality
> one for $150 or less.

Hugh,

Almost any uncoated vintage lens will give you decent colour. The need for all parts of the spectrum to focus at the same place is as important in b&w; as it is in colour. Post war coating of lenses helped to reduce flare, not correct for colour. And flare is not a big problem with a triplet or Tessar-type four element lens. If in doubt, use a lens hood (which you should use anyway.) I'm a motion picture person myself, and I use old folders all the time. For rock-bottom budget cameras, you can't beat the old Agfas with an Agnar or Apotar lens. These are triplets. Beware of bellows problems or hardened lubricant problems with these. A somewhat better bet is the 6x6 Ansco Titan, which is basically an Agfa with a great Wollensak lens and better bellows. The Agfas should be available for less than $30 and the Titan for less than $60.

For a bit more, you can pick up a prewar Certo Supersport or Welta Perle. These often come with uncoated f2.8 Tessar or Xenar lenses of very high quality. You shouldn't have to pay more than $100 and usually they go for substantially less.

All of these fold up conveniently to pocket size. Give one of these a try, and if you find that medium format is for you, there are cameras with more bells and whistles that you can buy for more money. But any of these cheap cameras will give you very high quality results. And take a look at Robert Monaghan's Medium Format website. It has a page on medium format on a budget that will give you much more thorough information than you'll get here.

Mark

Mark Langer
Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001
From: "Wojciech Plonka" plonkaw@fqspl.com.pl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginner needs help, first time learning books from the 50s?

"Frank" no.email@all.com wrote

> Hello,
> I recently inherit my first camera ever, a VoigtlSnder Perkeo I. It's

Congratulations!

> in excellent condition, like new, and I was thrilled to discover that
> it used something called 120 film and that this meant I still could
> use it. I know it's not exactly the most advanced camera ever but, I
> thought it would  be a perfect beginners camera for me.

Yes, you have an excellent chance to learn photography, not just "taking pictures"

>   Now, I've never used a camera before, with exception of one or two
> Polaroid cameras of course, and  when I started to search for a
> beginners book I ran into trouble. It seems like no modern beginners
> books even slightly talks about these old folder cameras. My idea now
> is to try and find a used beginners book from around the time when the
> Perkeo was manufactured: 1951-54.

Please keep in mind that EXCEPT detailed data on how to:

- load your camera with film
- advance film and cock shutter
- set exposure time and aperture value.
- use the viewfinder (rangefinder, maybe, I don't know your particular camera)

The rest you need to know is photography related, not equipment related.

You will probably need a handheld exposure meter, it will usually come with a manual, or the person who sells one to you will be able to tell you how to use it. But for your first roll you migth use the "sunny 16" rule on bright sunny day. Just set aperture to 16, and shutter time to be near 1/(film speed) so for 100 ASA film use 1/100 or 1/125 of a second (this will usually be marked as 100 or 125 on the shutter time ring), and the way you go!

From the very beginning pay attention to the composition of your photographs, look for some books on that (It's becoming Off Topic in this group:)) If you want, I can give you a reference on a good book on this topic, but I have it at home.

If you have any particular questions, just ask. Feel free to mail me priv.

Good luck!

BTW Few days ago I shot a roll of film using a pre-World War II folder camera. The pictures are great!

Best wishes from Poland

Wojtek

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: "Alf Jacob Munthe" meccano@online.no
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format or fine grain 35mm

Yes, I would expect it to be. Those old quality-cameras are really something. It is a blessing that the old 120 film is still around and will be for years and years..

Alf

"gordito" glp@panix.com skrev

> I shot a couple of rolls of APX 25 out in the mountains above
> Palm Springs a couple of years ago using a 6x9 Super Ikonta C
> with a Zeiss Tessar lens, a red filter, and a cable release.
>
> Amazing.

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Camera recommendations

Tony Polson wrote:

> Medium format will not solve your problems.  It may only add to them.
> Work with your Olympus.  It wasn't a cult camera for no reason.

Perhaps he's talking about cult cameras like the Semi Olympus Model I, or Model II, or perhaps the Olympus Six, Olympus Chrome Six Model I, II, IIIa and IIIb, Olympus Chrome Six Model IV, V and RII? Or one of the Olympusflex (A3.5, A2.8, A3.5II, BII) or Eyeflex A and B model) TLR camera models? All medium format...

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001
From: Andy-J andy-j1959@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

I have some experiences with the Iskras (kinda succeeded the Moskva 5, but really the same era, quality, factory, etc.), and in researching it I also looked into the Moskvas (5's only) and a few others. NO direct experience with the Moskva, but here is a brief summary of my experience with the Iskra and what I have read about all of them.

GOOD LUCK! That's it.

Seriously, though, I think they are generally good quality cameras--but buying a folder sight-unseen is risky unless you are buying from someone reputable. The first Iskra I had took outstanding pictures, and the front standard was solid. The focus was so tight it hurt my fingers to use it. The second one didn't have that problem, but was a little more loose. Still, I think the Isrkra is an outstanding camera.

Everything I saw on the Moskva was about the same. People who got examples in good shape swore by them. Others swore AT them.

For good optics at a cheap price, I think your batting average on ebay would be a lot higher with a TLR like the Yashica D which is a Rolleicord copy, very functional, light and decent optics. (Please distingish this from the 125G which has only slightly better optics but an insane price). It can be had for less that the price of most Moskva 5's, but it is 6x6. Press cameras cost more, but do not suffer the inherent problems that folders have (leaking bellows that are EXPENSIVE to replace; jack-in-the-box lens--what more needs to be said).

Also, I'm not totally sure, but I don't think they were still making the Moskva line in the 1960s. Certainly the Iskras were, but I think the Moskva line bit the dust in the very late 50s.

Bottom line: I would quote a poster whose name I can't remember but who summed up buying folders sight-unseen. It's a pig in a poke.

Good luck.

Patrick Van Hove wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am looking for an inexpensive way to get into medium format, and i
> love the extra negative surface of 6X9. I saw a couple of russian
> Moskva-5 cameras on e-bay, and thougt that it might be just the way to
> get moderatly modern optics (those camera were made well into the
> 60's...) on a budget-priced medium-format camera.
> Anyone with experience with those cameras ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Patrick Van Hove

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001
From: fotoralf@gmx.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

Andy-J andy-j1959@home.com wrote:

> Please distingish this
> from the 125G which has only slightly better optics but an insane
> price

...as could be expected from a camera which has never officially existed. ;)

But, to get back on topic, I've had a Moskva 5 and was quite unimpressed. Mediocre sharpness, a strong tendency to flare... nothing to write home about.

Having said this, I've also owned a total of three Mat 124G (the more common version of the 125G ). One of them was outstandingly sharp while the other two were decent but clearly less so than the first one. Still, much better than the Moskva, though.

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage at: http://www.free-photons.de

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001
From: patvanhove@hotmail.com ( Patrick Van Hove)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: French Pontiac 6X9 camera

Hi,

I'm looking for information about a cmera a friend of mine gave me :

Pontiac 6X9 folding camera.

The lens is a 105 mm 1:4.5 pontiac anastigmat with serial #33134

The shutter has speeds 150,100,50,25,P,T, and the aperture can be set from 4.5 to 32 (on a strange scale with a 6.3 and a 23 !)

On the back cover, inside the camera there is the following text :

Cet appareil emploie des bobines 6X9
du type "a joues normales"
fabriquT par "La manufacture frantaise
d'appareils photographiques"
174-168 Quai de jemmapes
Paris

in the lower corner it is written "aluvac" and "3524"

You can see pictures at the following adress :

http:\\agora.ulaval.ca\~aag852

Thanks

Patrick Van Hove

Date: 28 Apr 2001
From: pbackman@algonet.se (Per Backman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: French Pontiac 6X9 camera

> Pontiac 6X9 folding camera.

It looks like a Bloc Metal 41;

http://as.halgand.free.fr/Pontiac2.html

http://clicclac.free.fr/Appareils_francais/Pontiac/Bloc_metal_41.htm

Per B.

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001
From: "Joshua L. Wein" jayelwin@home.home.com.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

I have a moskva-5 which I love. It takes very sharp pictures - and does a decent job with color. I love the 6x9 sized negatives too. Check out some of my photos using the Moskva at:

http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin

My buddy bought one too - his was awful - half the speeds didn't work and the rangefinder double image moved UP AND DOWN! (and never converged I might add). His lens wasn't aprallel to the film plane either. He had to return it - I've heard he got another one which he says is better except for the film plane problem, but I haven't seen it.

-Josh

" Patrick Van Hove" wrote

> Hi,
>
> I am looking for an inexpensive way to get into medium format, and i
> love the extra negative surface of 6X9. I saw a couple of russian
> Moskva-5 cameras on e-bay, and thougt that it might be just the way to
> get moderatly modern optics (those camera were made well into the
> 60's...) on a budget-priced medium-format camera.
> Anyone with experience with those cameras ?
>
> Thanks

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: uablyfl@uab.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

Which lens? There is an Anastar 4 element and an Anaston 3 element lens, both of which are f4.5. The Anaston needs to be closed down quite a way to be sharp at the corners.

If the lens was mounted in a Kodamatic shutter it was an Anaston.

Lyndon

torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters) wrote:

>I tried a tourist with the 4.5 lens.   I'll allow that it was sharp in
>the center, but not across the image.  It isn't even  "adequate" in my
>book.
>                       bob
>
>charlesw99@aol.com (CharlesW99)
>wrote:
>
>>Hey Patrick, if cost, sharpness and consistency, and 6 X 9 format is a concern;
>>you might consider a Kodak Tourist with the Anastar lens and the 800  speed
>>shutter. These take 620 film; you will need to come across 2 620  spindles
>>(hopefully one will be in the camera). Using a changing bag, roll,  tightly a
>>120 roll onto the 620 spindle, then "rewind" this onto another 620  spindle and
>>"Viola" you have a roll of 620 (which has been out of production for  over 20
>>years).
>>
>>The more easily found Tourist with the Anaston lens is also quite sharp  at f11.

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: uablyfl@uab.ericsson.se (Lyndon Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moskva-5 6X9 camera

torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters) wrote:

>This was an Anaston, and it wasn't sharp to the edges at f11.
>               bob

Well Charles was recommending the rarer and more capable AnaSTAR lens. Anastons are so-so performers.

Like most Kodak folding cameras the Tourist came with a variety of lenses. However it was the last US folder and replaced 3 distinct model ranges that went from simple point-and-shoots through to cameras aimed at the serious amateur (vigilant junior/vigilant/monitor.)

Consequently the Tourist's simple plastic and steel body hosted a wider range of lens than any previous model as Kodak tried to make the same camera fill the gaps left by the discontinued models. Tourists went from the Kodet miniscus lens in "Flash Kordon" shutter (always LOVED that name) to the the Anastar in a Supermatic syncro-800.

Of these only the Anastar is outstanding being the coated development of the Anastigmat Special.... kind of ironic that the Syncro-800 is probably Kodak's least reliable shutter....

Lyndon

From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Uncoated lenses vs. high or low contrast subjects
Date: 21 Aug 2001

I've had a fair bit of experience in shooting with medium format folders
with both coated and uncoated lenses. I have to say that my experience is
that individual lens variation seems to make more of a difference than
whether or not a lens is coated. Most of the ones that I use have
Tessars, Xenars, Skopars and Color-Skopars. With only 4 elements (two of
them cemented) there aren't really a lot of air to glass surfaces, and
coating doesn't seem to be as critical an issue as other factors. My
suggestion is that you make sure that the glass surfaces are clean (both
inside and out), that the focus is properly calibrated (a real
consideration with an old folder) and THEN judge the results as to which
camera is better for what effects.

Mark

From: _ <yourname@your.com>
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie needs opinion on 6x9
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001

Here is the answer for a cost effective alternative-

4x5 Crown Graphic Graflock with a 6x9 back (approx $400 w/o lens)
Modern lenses mounted off center on Crown boards - total movement will
now be approx 1.5 in.

Set up is fast. Will accomidate lenses as short as 47mm.

For more movement-
Cambo Explorer with custom bag bellows. Accomodates lenses 45-210mm.
Uses 6x9 backs via Graflock. Altough this is a 4x5 you can mount less
expensive 6x9 lenses and have great control.

for more info contact
javd at cris dot com

http://sfhost.com/sale/sale.htm 

From: Stephe <ms_stephe@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6x9 folders
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001

John Blodgett wrote:

> I've been looking for a good 6x9 folder, and have considered both ends of
> the spectrum (Kodak Monitor, Zeiss Super Ikonta C). Without going into the
> Russian cameras, are there others I should consider?

I have a wirgin and a balda 6X9 with the schnieder f 4.5 105 radionar and
stopped down to f11-f22 and cropped to 6X7 they work great and can be had
for $30-$40. Look for the ones with a red triangle on the lens front as
opposed to a white one as those have coated lenses.

--

Stephe

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Chinese TLR was Re: So much for the "China" being sought after!
From: "John Stewart  <crema@frother.gov.invalid>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001

> I have RB's and View Cameras up to 8x10 but I would love to find a
> folding 120 (6x7 or 6x9) with super optics just to see what can be
> done with it. It's interesting! :-)

The biggest problem with the folders, aside from most having been sold with
the "medium price" lens and shutter (as opposed to the best lens and Compur)
is the alignment. The best folders, such as the Ikontas, had superb systems
to keep the lens flat and parallel to the film. Cheaper knock-offs cut
corners.

But even the best Ikonta can be screwed or skewed by the user pressing the
button to open the camera and letting it pop open with alacrity.

The proper thing was to press the button and cushion the opening "door" with
your hand. Similarly, snapping the front shut was not as careful as
depressing the button and gently closing the door.

If a folder has a loose door that doesn't always stay shut, you can be
pretty sure the idiot owner let the thing snap open like a switchblade.

Even though I lived in some metro areas, it took me several years to find my
Super Ikonta III in exc+ shape. I don't know wjhat they cost now, but they
are a superb camera for travel. My standard "kit" when going somewhere new
is a quality digital (I write for some mags) and the Ikonta tucked away with
a few rolls of film. If it's worth shooting on film, I use MF.

John 

From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Voightlander Bessa II 6 X 9 Folder
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 

Stephe Thayer wrote:
> 
> Tom Bloomer wrote:
> 
> >
> > I might begin saving up for a Fuji GSW 690 III to carry along on trail
> > rides
> > for scenery shots.  I've heard that the 65mm is an awesome lens and equal
> > to
> > the 90mm in quality.
> 
> It is.
> 
> One thing I didn't see you mention but I have no personal experience with
> is the color skopar model. I've heard they are REAL good but again not sure
> if they would equal the fuji.

I can vouch for the Color Skopar. I took a test roll once using a Perkeo
II and I was amazed to see the guy ropes for a radio mast on a tall
building at least a mile away all show up on the photo. I couldn't even
see those ropes with the naked eye. And what is also good is the color
saturation you get.


Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 
From: Todd Belcher todd_belcher@telus.net>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Dynar lens?

I had two Bessa IIs at one point. One with Heliar and one with Skopar. I
decided to see what these lenses could do and what the difference between
them were. First I checked the lenses to see if they were in good shape, and
indeed they were both in perfect condition.

I then went into the studio and set one of the cameras up on a tripod and
focused on a table top set up with ground glass so that the rangefinder would
not be an issue. I loaded a roll of film and shot away using flash. Then I
did the same with the other camera. The table top set up included the table
covered with newspaper, several colourful objects, a Kodak greyscale and a
Kodak colour strip.

The results were interesting. The Heliar was warm casted and had an unusual
ever-so slight softness about it. Sharp, yet soft. The Skopar was tack sharp
in the conventional sense and was neutral. I was surprised at the results
because I had always heard that the Heliar was such a spectacular lens - and
I suppose it is if you want to shoot portraits. Yet I had never heard mention
about the 'softness' of the Heliar. It was only last week I was looking at a
copy of View Camera Magazine - and there in an ad by The Lens and
Reproduction Equipment Corp. under Soft Focus/Portrait lenses was their
listing of Heliar lenses.

todd

J Patric Dahl=E9n wrote:

> >From: Eric Goldstein Pretty cool stuff... especially considering much of
> >this work was done
> >around 100 years ago (such as the design of the Tessar, the Triplet, the
> >Heliar) and these lens designs are still considered top flight (within
> >their
> >specification parameters) today!
>
> I agree! I hope I will receive my Bergheil with Heliar next week. I hope I
> don't get a bad example of that lens. That would be typical, huh? :-/
>
> /Patric
>


From: Mike melek@fptoday.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 cameras with great lenses???
Date: 27 Oct 2001 

"Austin Franklin" austin@dar9k9room.com> wrote 

> Anyone recommend a 6x9 camera with a great lense?  I have Super Ikontas
> even with the coated Tessar, and I'm just not happy...they aren't
> sharp.  I am wondering if there is anything later, besides the Fuji
> 6x9s...that anyone here has used and can recommend.
> 
> 

I'm very surprised. Maybe the film isn't being held flat. I've found that 
at f/8 and smaller, the Ikonta 6X9 I have is very sharp. See this sample:

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm
the two main photos are about 80k each.

-- 
* * *
Mike Elek
[Remove 'NOSPAM' from the e-mail address]
Read about the Voigtlander Bessa-R camera
http://host.fptoday.com/melek/bessa-r.html



From: "Vincent Becker" NObecker.vincentSPAM@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 cameras with great lenses???
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 

"Mike" melek@fptoday.com> a Tcrit..
> "Austin Franklin" austin@dar9k9room.com> wrote 
>
> I'm very surprised. Maybe the film isn't being held flat. I've found
that
> at f/8 and smaller, the Ikonta 6X9 I have is very sharp. See this
sample:
>

I concur! I've found that on my early 6x9 super-ikonta, the pictures
could suffer a tremendous loss of sharpness but this is due to the
elasticity of the folding which allow the lens to move slightly when
releasing the shutter. The lens seems just great to me. On older or
different designs this flaw was corrected. I have recently bought a 6x6
Super Ikonta with a 2.8 Tessar, I hope I won't be too disappointed. I
understand it is not as good as the 3.5 Tessar, but is it that bad? (I
know: I should see by myself, but I jus't can't wait ;-)
--
Regards,
>From France,
Vincent
Photography and old cameras (in french) :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vincent.becker/sitephoto/galerie/index.htm
(remove NO SPAM to answer by e-mail)



From: "Jim Read" jrbham@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 cameras with great lenses???
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 

Why not have a go at making your own, you could try a variety of lenses
then!

http://www.btinternet.com/~jrbham/6X6/index.html

On reflection it does seem strange that the Tessar is not sharp, I wonder if
it was factory coated or one that has been coated as a 'modification' one
hears stories of lenses ruined after being coated by people who did not know
what they were doing.

I use an uncoated Xenar made in 1935 and its very sharp.

Jim Read

"Austin Franklin" austin@dar9k9room.com> wrote 
> Anyone recommend a 6x9 camera with a great lense?  I have Super Ikontas
even
> with the coated Tessar, and I'm just not happy...they aren't sharp.  I am
> wondering if there is anything later, besides the Fuji 6x9s...that anyone
> here has used and can recommend.


From: Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: l/mm for for Ikonta's Tessar 3.5/70
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 

Andrew wrote:

> What resolution ( l/mm or MTF better ) for Super Iconta's Tessar 3.5/70?


I can give you a subjective evaluation. I had a 2.8/75 tessar and the 
coated 75/3.5 opton tessar is much better. I have several med fomat 
camera's of older vintage and place it above the xenar 75 3.5 on my 
rolleicord and below the 75 3.5 rokkor on my minoltacord. For the size of 
the camera, at f8 - f11 it's an amazing tool. The only problems I've had 
was frame spacing problems which turned out to be an adjustment causing the 
counter clutch to clip. If you find a clean later example you should be 
happy with it.
-- 
 
  Stephe


From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about old, old uncoated lenses
Date: 19 Nov 2001 

photoassistant@hotmail.com (WL) wrote
 
> I have a bunch of old lenses (everything from daguerrotype lenses to
> older uncoated aerial lenses from WWII) and wonder if I should put a
> yellow filter on them. What advantages/disadvantages will result from
> not using a filter on these older lenses? Basically, I am just
> wondering if it is worth the trouble to put yellow gels on these
> lenses. I am just shooting b&w; obviously.
 
If you don't want to test the lenses, you might want to consider their
original purpose, the materials for which they were optimized, and
the differences between the intended use and that which you might
cotemplate.
 
The oldest lenses (daguerrotype lenses) were used with blue-sensitive
materials, and weren't well corrected for color. Often, there was a
marked difference in blue focus, compared to that of visible light
(the eye responds well to green). The discrepancy led to the term
"chemical focus" referring to the blue focus shift when using
blue sensitive materials compared to focus on the GG by eye.
 
When those lenses were used with ortho materials (blue and green
sensitive), a yellow filter would block the blue component. The
use of the filter supressed blue light, so the focus shift due
to plate sensitivity was minimized. Also, chromatic aberrations were 
decreased since the plate would primarily respond to green light.
 
With modern panchromatic materials, the contributions from red light
require consideration. With simple old lenses, I often use a green
filter to supress blue and red to some degree.
 
Later lens designs corrected the blue and green components for use with 
ortho films. Generally, a yellow filter was recommended to partially 
restore spectral balance, and darken skies. The use of graduated yellow 
filters became popular. Red focus and chromatic aberrations were corrected 
to varying degrees, but they were not that important since ortho plates 
and films didn't respond to well to red. With panchromatic one would 
expect that green and yellow-green filters might provide better results 
with poorly corrected lenses, and that is often the case. 
 
The next step in color correction was the inclusion of red and other
wavelengths which led to APO lenses and "modern color" lenses. Although
color materials had been around in one form or another from around 1900,
well corrected lenses were primarily process lenses. The popularity
of consumer films led to design and manufacturing refinements. Generally,
with modern lenses filter selection should be determined by the effect 
desired.
 
Aerial lenses present another set of problems simce many were designed for 
use with infrared film or red filters to maximize shadow contrast. If you 
don't know the materials for which the lens was designed, red or yellow 
filters might help.
 
Personally, I tend to use filters _all_ of the time. With modern lenses 
and pan film, the standard rcommendation is a yellow filter. Although the 
frequently cited reason for that selection is restoration of color 
balance, outdoors the filter has the advantage of supressing blue skylight 
or fill light. The blue attenuation usually increases local contrast, and 
appearance of sharpness or texture. A yellow-green filter has a similar 
effect. Those selections are modified depending upon specific subject
tones and relationships, and lighting. 
 
I'd suggest that you run a comparison of your lenses with and without
a filter to see the effects, if any. Consider focusing with the filter
in place, and use film manufacturers' filter factors.


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about old, old uncoated lenses
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 

photoassistant@hotmail.com (WL) wrote:

>I have a bunch of old lenses (everything from daguerrotype lenses to
>older uncoated aerial lenses from WWII) and wonder if I should put a
>yellow filter on them. What advantages/disadvantages will result from
>not using a filter on these older lenses? Basically, I am just
>wondering if it is worth the trouble to put yellow gels on these
>lenses. I am just shooting b&w; obviously.
>
>thanks,
>
>William

  I will only add a little to Mike Gudzinowicz excellent respons. 

  Filters do not take the place of coatings. The purpose of a lens
coating is to reduce the reflection from glass-air surfaces, which is
due to the discontinuity of index of refraction. The coating improves
the "match" between the glass and air. Single coatings work best at a
single wavelength, multiple coatings are used to broaden out the
spectrum over which the coating works. 

  The use of an external filter does nothing to help reduce
reflections. In fact, if the filter is not coated, it simply adds two
more reflecting surfaces. 

  The amount of flare light from a lens depends on the number of
glass-air surfaces in it, the more surfaces the more flare. Since the
light gets bounced around between surfaces (like looking into facing
mirrors) the rate of increase in flare with surfaces is not linear.
For instance, the amount of flare as a percentage of transmitted light
(for average glass) for six surfaces (Tessar or Triplet) is 2.5%, for
eight surfaces it becomes 4%. 

  So, if you want to use filters make sure they are coated and use
them for color correction rather than to try to reduce flare. 
  
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji G690
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 

Roland wrote:

> If you want to get into 6x9 inexpensively then get an old folding camera
> with a decent lens in it like a Tessar, Color Skopar, 

Just a note, I have an ikonta C with a tessar and just got a color skopar 
voigtlander. These are supposed to be the best of the 6X9 folders. I've 
been doing some lens testing with my folders and the kiev-60 stuff I just 
got and was amazed how bad these "classic" folder lenses compared to the 
80mm russian normal lens that came with my kiev in sharpness and contrast, 
especially in the corners.

BTW I focused the folders with a ground glass on the film plane before I 
loaded them with film on a tripod so this is better than you'd get actually 
using them. I tested them at all f-stops and they really were sad between 
f4-f11. At f16-f22 they were just OK at best over the whole frame. The 6X6 
center was pretty good but the stuff beyond that was getting soft.

In use they would probably be OK but don't expect ANYTHING close to what 
say a 6X9 fuji would deliver. I know my GSW690 would blow away the kiev 
glass! I did only pay $100 for the color skopar bessa 1 so for the money 
they aren't too bad.
-- 
 
  Stephe


From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cut film plate
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 

>From: David Morris

>Dear Patric,  What film have you got in 9x12?  So far I've only found
>Classic 400 (which I haven't yet tried).  I need it for a lovely
>Voigtlander Avus which I plan to use.  Did you get the film on the net?


I bought Fortepan 200 (Same as Efke PL100), Tri-X Professional and Efke OP12
lithfilm from a company here in Sweden. 9x12 sheet film is easier to find
here in Europe than in the U.S. because of the use of the metric system here
in sheet film. You can buy 4x5" film and cut the sheets to fit the film
holders.

I bought an Avus this spring and bought the sheet film just to be able to
try that camera. It has a soft Skopar lens that isn't especially sharp, but
good for portraits and I can take nice close ups with the Avus. I wish to
buy an Avus with the Heliar lens, or maybe a Bergheil someday. Fun classic
cameras to have to use as well as a jewel on the shelf!

/Patric


Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 
From: wcmarti@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 folders

Gee, quit telling people about these cameras. They're the best buy on the MF
market. Do you wanna screw that up? :>)

"John Stewart see REAL email address in message." wrote:

>  > I've been looking for a good 6x9 folder, and have considered both ends of
>  > the spectrum (Kodak Monitor, Zeiss Super Ikonta C). Without going into
> the
>  > Russian cameras, are there others I should consider?
>
> If size is not your most important factor, consider a 2x3 Graphic with a
> roll back.  They are cheap right now, and you can find one with a good
> German lens and shutter, coupled rangefinder, ground glass for critical work
> PLUS the ability to accept 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 backs.  Just avoid the "spring
> back" models, as they do not accept backs.
>
> I have one here with 6x7 and 6x9 backs, Xenar lens, etc, and it fits into a
> small camera bag.  Not as small as my Ikonta, but a lot cheaper and it does
> more.
>
> John


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Ultra Cheap 6 x 9 Camera
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 

Just a couple of thoughts about modifying the old Kodak Tourist 6 x 9
folding cameras:

1. There is enough room in the filmbays to step up this camera to 120
rollfilm. Eight cast centering ridges (two sets top, two sets bottom)
need to be shaved off flush with the body casting.

2. The wind key has to be enlarged for the 120 spool. This detail is
covered in Rick Oleson's mod of the Kodak Monitor:

http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson/

3. The "Flash Kodon Shutter" and Kodet f/12.5 lens is removed from the
back - three small screws. When this lens/shutter combo is removed,
the Kodon shutter plate falls out. Secured to the front bellows plate is
a grey shutter "adapter" - lift the tab and rotate to the left. Your new
shutter/lens combination is attached to this "adapter", which is then
rotated onto the camera. I had a spare "Flash Kodamatic" shutter with 
a 105mm f/4.5 coated Kodak Antistigmat fitted, and this was a perfect
fit. It may be possible to fit other lens/shutter combinations to this
grey adapter plate and have field switchable lenses.

Please remember that these Tourist cameras are available on the
used/garage sale market for $1.00 - 3.00USD each and can provide an
interesting starting point for a good 6 x 9.

Regards,

Marv


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A bit on lenses and shutters and such...
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 

Roland wrote:
>>
>> Then I've been wondering why I can't seem to find a 105mm f/2.8 Schneider
>> Xenotar mentioned anywhere on the 'net - it's not even on the Schneider
>> vintage lens pages! I mean, there's a 100 and a 150, but no 105 ...
> 
> Schneider didn't make cameras, as far as I know. They only made lenses.
> And they still make lenses to this day. But since nobody asked them to
> make a 105mm lens to go on a 6x9 folder then they quite sensibly never
> made one.

Well they did make them, just not a xenotar f2.8 that I've seen. I have 
several 6X9 folders with 105mm radionar lenses made by schneider and they 
are pretty good for a 3 element lens. I also had a 105 mm xenar on another 
REAL old 6X9 folder using a variable length bellows setup that was uncoated 
but VERY sharp.

-- 
 
  Stephe


From: Benno Jones quix@nospam.hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Agfa Solinar vs. Apotar
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 

I have taken some very nice pictures with Apotar-lensed cameras from
both Agfa and Ansco.  But if I had a choice and could afford either, I'd
take the Solinar.  But carefully inspect both cameras to be sure that
the bellows are in good shape, the lens mount square to the body, and
that the lens focus is not frozen.  Then make your descision.  The
Solinar won't be worth anything if the camera is not in good enough
shape to take the pictures.

BTW, the best images I've taken with any Agfa camera were with an
Isolette-L with a Color-Apotar lens.  I don't know what coatings or
radioactives they used in that lens, but they work!

Benno Jones

Don James wrote:
> 
> I realize that the Agfa Solinar is superior to the Apotar overall.
> But, does the Apotar perform well enough stopped-down that it becomes
> hard to differentiate between the two? Put another way, if you were
> offered an Isolette III/Apotar for $25 vs. an Isolette III/Solinar for
> $100, both in very good condition, which would you choose? (yes, I am
> on a budget, so C:Super Ikonta is not a valid selection :~)).
> 
> Thanks for your opinions and advice.
> 
> Don


From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Agfa Solinar vs. Apotar
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 

donjames@adelphia.net.spamless (Don James) wrote:


> I realize that the Agfa Solinar is superior to the Apotar overall.
> But, does the Apotar perform well enough stopped-down that it becomes
> hard to differentiate between the two? Put another way, if you were
> offered an Isolette III/Apotar for $25 vs. an Isolette III/Solinar for
> $100, both in very good condition, which would you choose? (yes, I am
> on a budget, so C:Super Ikonta is not a valid selection :~)).

Hi again Don :-)

I wouldn't pay $100 for any Isolette III if I could help it - though the 
Solinar/Synchro-Compur version does apparently sell for this nowadays.

They do come up much cheaper at cameras fair in the UK where Agfa is 
really not that well respected. This may be true for other parts of the 
world too.

$25 is fine for an Apotar one though - and to be quite honest IMVHO the 
Apotar lens is fine - even wide open. However I generally take slides and 
my prints rarely go above 5x5" - so my photographic standards are quite a 
lot lower than many other peoples.

Another point to note is that the standard Isolette (as opposed to the 
Super Isolette) uses front cell focusing. This does nothing for the 
corrective properties of the lens and therefore cameras using this 
mechanism will never achieve the overall level of quality that other 
cameras with apparently equivalent lenses will. However its also worth 
noting that front cell focusing is not only used by Agfa - but actually on 
most folding cameras from this period. The Super Isolette (and the Iskra 
clone) being noticeable exceptions (as indeed the Agfa Solinette (35mm 
only though)). The most surprising omission to my mind is the Zeiss Ikon 
Super Ikonta which is directly equivalent to the Super Isolette and yet 
only has front cell focusing.

At the end of the day the Apotar is fine if all you want to do is take 
nice pictures. If you are going to blow them all up to 10x10" and put a 
lupe against them - then the Solinar would be a safer bet. ;-)

Hope that helps :-)

Also at the risk of boring regular readers - more info on most of the 
above cameras and lots more can be found at:

www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk

:-)

Roland.


From: Milt & Pat Harker milth@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How do I insert a film in my Zeiss Ikon Nettar
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 

The empty spool goes on the side with the winding knob.  The new spool
with the film on it goes on the other side.  The full spool should be
positioned so that when you start to onroll the film the black side of the
paper is toward the lens side of the camera.  Pull the paper across to the
empty spool and thread it into the slot in the spool.  Make sure the paper
is centered in the spool and turn the winding knob a little to make sure
the take-up spool is pulling the paper ok.  Next, close the back of the
camera and looking through the window on the back, wind until number one
appears.  Take picture and repeat until all pictures are taken.  After the
last picture, wind the film until the end of the paper passes by the
window.  Then you may open the back of the camera, take out the now full
spool , seal the paper around the roll with the tape supplied and its
ready to process.  The now empty spool is used for the new take-up spool.

Have fun with your old camera.

Milt

spycoy2k wrote:

> I have a wonderful old Zeiss Ikon Nettar camera from my grandpa, but I
> don't know yet how to insert an film, though I never had an
> medium-format camera before. The camera has a knob on the left for the
> film transport and an empty spindle inside. Does the film go from the
> left to the right or from the right to the left? And how do I get the
> film back on the original spindle after exposure? Thanx for your help
> spycoy2k



From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Beautiful coated Tessar shots
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 

I just got some slide roll films back that I shot with a Super Ikonta Mk IV
with the coated Tessar lens and the results are wonderful. I don't rate the
Tessar at apertures wider than f11 so I keep to f11 or f16 mostly or don't
shoot at all. I could do some scans and post them to a binaries newsgroup if
anybody is interested. I have only a cheap flatbed film scanner so I doubt
the scans would do them justice. There is so much detail on the film in any
case that if I could capture it all the jpeg might end up a few megabytes if
I did.

I have seen a few articles knocking these old lenses and extolling the
virtue of modern lenses. I would throw down the challenge that hand-held
shots at f16 made with these Tessars and good derivatives (such as the
Color-Skopar) would be the equal to any modern lens at that same aperture.
Maybe it would even beat some, as I feel modern lenses with their
capabilities for wider apertures might be "detuned" away from the infinity
focussing f16 landscape work that I mostly do, to enable them to perform
better at these wider apertures.


On a negative note, on one of the frames the sky looked purple and rinsed
away on one half. What would cause this? I was shooting away from the sun.



Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: slighty OT Planar 2.8/80 patent issues

you wrote:
>Marc James Small wrote:
>
>> Folders use front-cell focusing designs almost exclusively, Eric.  The TLR
>> lenses are unit-focusing.
>
>
>Marc-
>
>I'm wondering about modern, non-folding MF rangefinders from Fuji (GW 67 III
>w/90 mm f/3.5), Mamiya (6 and 7) and Alpa (which I think uses view camera
>lenses and accessory finders?)... and I don't think the modern Fuji 645
>folders use front cell focusing lenses but not sure...
>
>BTW I don't think all of your sainted g> Voigtlander MF folders used
>front-cell focusers...
>
>
>Eric Goldstein

  I'm pretty sure the Bessa, especially the Bessa II used unit focusing. I
think Voigtlander made advertising hay of this since front element focusing
compromises the correction of a lens. 

  It is possible to make a lens which focuses by changing element spacing
and retains correction but it becomes effectively a zoom lens so is more
complicated. Such a design might be justified for an auto-focus camera.

  BTW, front element focusing lenses have the interesting property of
having constant angle of view at all distances. For this reason a simple
viewfinder is accurate at all distances (other than parallax) when used
with such a lens. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old folder lens question
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 

Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote:

>Tan wrote:
>
>> I've just received a Kodak Monitor Six-16 in reasonable shape with a good
>> lens and a poor bellows.
>> 
>> I am thinking of using the lens on a view camera with a rollfilm back for
>> the time being - until I can get someone to sell me a new bellows for the
>> camera that is.
>> 
>
>No idea on your other question but I'd shoot some 4X5 film and see what it 
>covers so I'd have an idea on what kind of coverage it has..
>
>-- 
> 
>  Stephe
  
   A couple of different lenses came on these cameras. The Anastar
(also sold as the Kodak Anastigmat Special) is a good quality Tessar
type, the Aniston (or Kodak Anastigmat) is a triplet. Either will work
as you deseribe for roll film but will probably not cover 4x5.

  Bellows are available from several sources, I suggest contacting
them directly to find out if they will supply a bellows for the Kodak
camera. 

  Getting the bellows installed is another matter. If you don't want
to try it yourself I would suggest contacting one of the repair people
who specialize in old cameras, like Photography on Bald Mountain. None
will be cheap and I'm not certain the camera is worth the cost. 

  One problem is that the bellows maker may need the old bellows as a
pattern. You might have to send the whole camera. 

 Here is a list of bellows makers. The first is the only one who seems
willing to make leather bellows, the others use synthetic material
exclusively. 

Camera Bellows
Unit 3-5
St. Pauls Road
Balsall Heath
Birmingham
B12 8NG
http://www.camerabellows.com/
Tel: +44 (0) 121 440 1695
Fax  +44 (0) 121 440 0972

Flexible Products Co.
14504 60th St. N.
Clearwater, FL 33760
(727) 536-3142
(800) 551-3766
Fax: (727) 535-1295
http://www.flexproducts.com
info@flexproducts.com

Joe Merry
Turner Bellows Inc.
526 Child Street
Rochester NY, 14606
(716) 235-4456 x202
jmerry@turnerbellows.com
http://www.turnerbellows.com


Universal Bellows
25 Hanse Avenue
Freeport, NY 11520
tel. 516-378-1264

Western Bellows Company  
9340 7th Street, Suite G, 
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730    
909-980-0606 


---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old folder lens question
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 

Tan kahhengNOSPAM@pacific.net.sg> wrote:

>dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) said
>this on the Internet:
>
>>   A couple of different lenses came on these cameras. The Anastar
>>(also sold as the Kodak Anastigmat Special) is a good quality Tessar
>>type, the Aniston (or Kodak Anastigmat) is a triplet. Either will work
>>as you deseribe for roll film but will probably not cover 4x5.
>>  Bellows are available from several sources, I suggest contacting
>>them directly to find out if they will supply a bellows for the Kodak
>>camera. 
>>  Getting the bellows installed is another matter. If you don't want
>>to try it yourself I would suggest contacting one of the repair people
>>who specialize in old cameras, like Photography on Bald Mountain. None
>>will be cheap and I'm not certain the camera is worth the cost. 
>
>Dick
>
>Thanks for the list of rich resources for replacement bellows. As usual, you're
>a treasure trove of information.
>
>I have discovered that the Anastigmat on my Six-16 Monitor is indeed a triplet
>(I looked at the reflection of a point light source and counted 6 reflections.
>
>The lens has cleaned up amazingly well. It's nearly pristine. Which is the nice
>thing about uncoated lenses. They almost always clean up nicely - no coating to
>scratch.
>
>Now, I am just wondering if you know what kind of aberrations I'd introduce if
>I'd set the focussing on the scale focus lens to less than infinity and then use
>the bellows movement to focus it to infinity?
>
>Thanks
>Tan

  Sounds like a front element focuser. I don't have a lot of info on
the design of this type. The corrrections are probably somewhat
compromised to be acceptable across the focusing range of the lens.

According to Kingslake the usual philosophy is to make the lenses well
corrected toward infinity focus because the user expects better fine
detail there than in close-ups. 

  I don't understand why you would want to focus it beyond infinity.
This would shorten its focal length. The corrections would probably be
upset but I can't predict which would become the worst. My guess is
that setting the lens at infinity focus would get the best overall
peformance from it when using a bellows to focus it. 

  The 616 format is too small to expect lenses for it to cover 4x5 but
they would certainly cover any 120 film format using a roll adapter. 

  I think this is one of those cases where you just have to try things
out. 

  I also go along with the idea that repairing the camera would cost
more than its worth. These are not rare and 616 film is long
discontinued. It can be had from a couple of specialty film houses but
is too expensive for the camera to be practical. 

  Kodak has a list of discontinued roll film sizes on its web site
somewhere showing the dates they were introductd and discontinued. At
one time there must have been nearly one hundred of them. All gone now
except for 120. 616, 620, etc., were introduced by Kodak in the early
1930's to allow for thinner cameras. 

  Some of the roll sizes were pretty big. Most photofinishing for
snapshots was printed by contact so large negatives were required for
reasonably size prints. Enlargements could be had on special order but
were expensive (they still are) double size prints didn't start to be
common until the 1950's. 

  The lenses used in box cameras and cheap folders were never intended
to produce images better than were needed for contact prints although
some of them were actually pretty good. 

  BTW, I recently put a roll of Verichrome Pan through an old Agfa
Cadet box camera (c.1938). Never printed the negatives, they were so
awful looking. Folding cameras had better lenses. Your camera is
probably capable of quite good quality. 

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
Subject: [Rollei] Re: LF Film cassettes (was: light leaks, black chord
From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

Gene Johnson wrote:

> They are also front
> cell focus lenses which is a plus if you ask me.  If you leave it in
> it's infinity focused position it is at optimum correction

Doing this from memory Gene but I think Kingslake has it that typically the
front cell focusers go from over-corrected spherical up close to
under-corrected spherical at infinity. If I'm remembering correctly, the
thinking is that close up you're typically shooting heads at wide apertures
and the over-correction won't be objectionable (or possibly useful!) and at
infinity the lens is typically stopped down and so the spherical gets taken
care of...


Eric Goldstein


Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
From: Gene Johnson genej2@home.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: LF Film cassettes (was: light leaks, black chord

Interesting,

Thanks for the Kingslake reference. I really have to get his book one
day. I don't know where I got that the correction was optimised for
infinity, it may have just been an assumption on my part.  I used the
101mm version of this quite a bit for a while and I was pretty impressed
by it.  For that matter, I ran several rolls through a Kodak Reflex with
an Anastar which is a front cell focuser too, and I saw no difference in
sharpness between it and my Ikoflex IIA. These 4 element Kodaks from the
late 40's and early 50's are very nice to my eyes anyway.

Gene

Eric Goldstein wrote:
> 
> Gene Johnson wrote:
> 
> > They are also front
> > cell focus lenses which is a plus if you ask me.  If you leave it in
> > it's infinity focused position it is at optimum correction
> 
> Doing this from memory Gene but I think Kingslake has it that typically the
> front cell focusers go from over-corrected spherical up close to
> under-corrected spherical at infinity. If I'm remembering correctly, the
> thinking is that close up you're typically shooting heads at wide apertures
> and the over-correction won't be objectionable (or possibly useful!) and at
> infinity the lens is typically stopped down and so the spherical gets taken
> care of...
> 
> Eric Goldstein


From: dilbertdroid2@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 29 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy

>>But I'm not in that situation. For me, playing with old cameras and
lenses is just a lot of fun. They're just toys, not a means of livelihood. 

I happen to collect old cameras and have shot with them many times, and on
professional shoots.    I once shot a whole session for an antique car
collector with prewar cameras.   Why?  Because the collector wanted shots that
looked like period shots taken with period cameras.    Best shots were of his
Dusenberg (Sic?) and Cadillacs taken at Meadowbrook Hall in Michigan with a
Steinheil Plate camera and a Eastman No. 2 Cartridge Brownie adapted to a
rollfilm back.    I also shot MF in color.    I used tri-X and ND filters to
optimize the exposures.   The client was ecstatic---  the results looked
exactly like the vintage photos he had collected of these old cars.   The color
MF shots were spectacular, but I have to admit the B&W; shots were really unique
and fun to look at.  I would suggest that you should start buying old equipment
not simply because it is cheap, but to investigate what it can do for your
photography and the unique qualities these old lenses add to your images.    A
portrait taken with a lens that has some special qualities (Leica Summar comes
to mind) can be just as sellable and sometimes more sellable than one taken
with modern equipment.


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Beautiful coated Tessar shots
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 

Roland wrote:

> I just got some slide roll films back that I shot with a Super Ikonta Mk
> IV with the coated Tessar lens and the results are wonderful. 

These are REALLY good lenses (I'm assuming you have the f3.5 version?) I 
have two of them (one with a rangefinder and one not) with the coated 75mm 
f3.5 opton tessar lens and have gotten wonderful results with them. 


> I would throw down the challenge that hand-held
> shots at f16 made with these Tessars and good derivatives (such as the
> Color-Skopar) would be the equal to any modern lens at that same aperture.
>

Maybe, maybe not. I've recently done some lens tests with some of my medium 
format stuff and was disapointed in the performance of a color skopar 105mm 
on 6X9 compared to an 80mm Arsat on 6X6 at any f-stop. Wide open the Arsat 
was much sharper and had much better contrast than the color skopar did at 
it's best setting and the Arsat is WAY better when stopped down to f5.6 and 
smaller. I also had an f2.8 tessar Ikonta and it wasn't THAT great either.  
Just because it says "tessar" doesn't mean that version is a great lens

I do agree the 75mm f3.5 opton tessar on 6x6 is a killer lens and as good 
as anything out there at f11-f16 if shaded correctly. It's not going to 
compete with a good MC lens in a flare prone condition though.
-- 
 
  Stephe


From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what do you use to take protraits?
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 

>I am new to MF photography and I want to buy a camera.  
>I am taking a poll of what is used, popular, and worthwhile.
>
>What is your camera setup?
>Why is your setup the way it is?

Lessee: I own a few MF cameras... 

I use either of a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta A or B, a Rolleiflex 3.5MX, or a
Fuji GA645. All of these are fixed lens cameras and all of them have
lenses in the 60-80mm focal length range. I like the perspective and field
of view from a working distance of about 4-8 feet in portraits. Examples:

1938 Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B, Tessar 80/2.8 (uncoated):
 http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/MF/crop0003.jpg
 http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/MF/crop0004.jpg

1995 Fuji GA645:
 http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/MF/crop0007.jpg
 http://homepage.mac.com/godders/PhotoAlbum11.html

I don't have a Super Ikonta A or Rolleiflex portrait handy to show, but
they are somewhat in the middle between the above two in imaging
character. It's obvious that the Fuji has a much more modern lens, but the
imaging character of even the ancient Zeiss Tessar is excellent, both B&W;
and color work looks great with it. 

So ... Why? 

Well, I learned photography with my grandfather's old '47 Rolleiflex
Automat and I've always kinda liked them for that reason, a bit of
nostalgia. They have great lenses and are very flexible shooters. 

The Super Ikontas are neat because they are truly amongst the elite
cameras of their day, beautiful designs and detailing, and they fold up
nice and compact (particularly the A, which is a 645 format camera). I
like 645 in general for portraits as there is very little film and paper
wastage. 

The GA645 was something that intrigued me ... a modern camera with AF, AE,
full manual operation as well as motorized film transport. The Fuji lenses
are VERY good. Kinda like an oversized point and shoot with professional
capabilities. 

I used to have a Mamiya 1000S 645 format SLR. It was a great shooter but
bulky, awkward to carry, heavy and noisy. I went back to the Rolleiflex
and folders after a while, then was out of MF for many years. 

I got back into MF recently. This particular Rolleiflex I bought for under
$200 a few years back, had it cleaned and a new focus screen put in so
it's now like a new camera. The Super Ikontas were modestly priced ...
$200 for the B, $300 for the A ... and need a service. But they're still
turning great negatives, I'll have them cleaned soon. The Fuji cost me a
lot, comparatively ($550 for the camera, $130 for its fancy accessory
flash, plus $40 for the lens hood). So price is another reason ... All the
SLR kits cost a mint. 

For a starting point in MF at a great price, you can't go wrong with a
good Rolleiflex 3.5MX. I often see them at swap meets in good working
condition and with clean optics for $200 or less. Beyond that, look at and
handle a lot of cameras, see what fits you.

Godfrey


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 
From: "Kenith Ryan" kryan@wireco.net
Subject: Re: Re: was 120 film irritation, now Bessa 66

I have a Welmy 6 folder that I found on eBay. I paid $21.10, including
shipping. The only thing that was wrong was it would not focus. This took
only a few minutes to fix. No problem with the bellows (although a friend
of mine has an older Welmy 6 that he bought at a local camera store for
about $30 and he had to do extensive patching on the bellows,so much that
he can't fold it without damaging the patches). I don't know how image
quality from my Welmy 6 compares to that of your Bessa 66 but it is a
great start into medium format for me. To put this back on topic, I just
won an auction for a Minolta Autocord for $58. It is missing some leather,
won't focus, and the shutter only works in bulb but I am looking forward
to trying to fix it up.

Kenith Ryan

>Its a folder, so you need to make sure that the bellows is in good shape.


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 
From: "Charles Sorkin" cdsorkin@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: Re: was 120 film irritation, now Bessa 66

Alex said:

"How did you find his len's quality ?

I'm not sure I understand how to focus with this beast. Does it have some
kind of mat screen or something ?"

No screen.  It has a pop-up square guide, sort of like what you see on the
Leica O-type replica that it is currently being marketed.  You hold the
camera about 8 inches in front of your face, and you get approximately
what your feld of view will be on the film.  The lens is in good shape,
without any major flare issues.  However, I don't use it in challenging
situations, such as with brightly backlit subjects, or subjects that are
moving quickly. It is more suited to landscapes and portraits.  So in
other words, I'd say that the lens is really good by 1935 standards.  And
I use it in conjuction with a handheld light meter, so most pictures are
planned and posed somehow.

As for focusing, the guide ring on the end of the lens is marked in feet,
and you set it by estimating the distance between you and the subject, and
adjusting the ring accordingly.  You just need to make sure that even if
you are inaccurate, the depth of field will be large enough to compensate.

Regards,

Charles


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa pshinkaw@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Re: Link to many pics with "Russian" cameras

Bob:

won't vouch for the quality of these photos, but this
is a list of URL's I've accumulated for Mockba
pictures. Most are pedestrian, a few are quite good.

Photos taken with a Moskva (Mockba)

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hd9f-segs/lensInduster24-moskva-1.htm

http://photos.yahoo.com/jayelwin

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/moskva/moskva_index.htm

http://members.aol.com/forgeniuses/MOCKBA/Mockba.html

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/mosc_e.htm

http://www.yamabuki.sakura.ne.jp/~fcg/top_l.html

-Paul


from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 
From: "friedaandbrandy" pnaylor@iinet.net.au
Subject: Re: folders, 120->620 etc./ Agilux Stuff

Thanks, Rob, for that information on respooling 120 onto 620 - I
think I'll try the "nibbling" with the nail cutters to reduce the
spool diameter method first, before I move on to the hands-in-the-
dark stuff.   I have downloaded a hell of a lot of useful stuff from
your MF Site before, but for some reason missed this subject.   I did
send you some pix of an Agilux Agifold 6 X 6 folder last year, for
your MF classic listings, but it's never appeared so I guess you
never got it.   Actually, , since then I've acquired a couple more
Agifolds plus an Agiflex 3 so, if you're interested, I can try again
and send you some pix.  What the hell, after all the good stuff I've
got from your site I should try and put something back!    

Pete in Oz


from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 
From: "friedaandbrandy" pnaylor@iinet.net.au
Subject: Re: Closing a Moskva 4 or 5/Memories of Melbourne

-Hi, Mike     -     

Well, I have to admit that "collecting dust in
the display cabinet" was a terminological inexactitude.   I do quite
often take them out just to admire them, wind on the shutter a couple
of times - then put them back!   (My Exaktas are also a favourite for
this treatment - love to hear all that whirring and clicking!)   BTW -
 taking pix with folders in 2002?   Rob Monagahan has posted a link
to his MF website for suggestions how to respool 120 onto 620, or if
you're all fingers and thumbs in the dark like me, even a
simple "nibble away the excess" trick to get the larger plastic 120
spool diameter down to that of the smaller 620 job.  I can't find any
excuse not to try that one, on one of my Kodak Duo-620s.

       Thanks for the link to the solution on yellowing of Takumar
lenses from the 70s.   Crude, but effective!   Reminds me of that old
story about the guys who advertised a 100% remedy in the 30s for
getting rid of locusts and other pests for "only $10 to PO Box +++"
pparently you got 2 pieces of wood for your 10 bucks, with written
instructions to the effect "place locust or other pest on one piece
of wood, then hit it smartly with the other piece".   Several
thousand suckers apparently did actually send off their 10 bucks, too!
I guess the lens problem must have been something to do with
the "rare earth" elements that were being touted from the late 50s
on, as the latest thing in lens developement.   Not just by Pentax of
course, I've seen the same claim by Minolta and Miranda in a 1959
magazine.   I actually have a couple of Spotmatics, an early original
one with a Super-Takumar 1.4 and a later Spotmatic F with an SMC
Takumar 1.4, and thankfully neither has any yellowish tendencies -
yet..   I'll be watching carefully from now on, though ..

       Regarding the guy who sells CLA'd AGFA Isolettes and Records
with the new red bellows, well  actually he also apparently does
yellow, green and blue ones too - in fact, anything but black!
(Where are you, Henry Ford, when we need you?)   I did buy something
from him last year, but it wasn't a reconditioned AGFA from memory,
probably a Miranda, one of my other special weaknesses!

        BTW on your vignetting problem with the S Ikonta, if it isn't
a bellows leak or worn/twisted struts misalignment, then even a
slightly misfolded/sagging bellows compounded with a comparatively
long focal length setup combined with a large piece of glass at the
other end, may be the cause.   Even if the sagging/misfolded section
of the bellows isn't actually in the direct light path, it may be
close enough to be deflecting some stray beams around.   Has anybody
read any theories on this?   I know Exakta redesigned the interiors
of their 35mm SLRs at one stage, just to minimise stray light
deflections.   Just how matt is a section of slightly folded,
sagging  black leather?   I know Kodak changed from maroon to black
bellows around 1911 on their folders, but whether that was for
aesthetic or technical reasons - ????    

Hmmmm, regards from a

Perplexed Pete in Perth



From: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Voigtlander MF cameras - hidden gems?
Date: 22 Jan 2001

Vick Ko (vick.ko@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> Are Voigtlander MF cameras hidden gems?

Vick,

They are hardly hidden.  The Voigtlander and Zeiss folders are the best
known of their type, and were considered la creme de la creme of folders
in their day.  I'd consider Ensigns, Weltas, Certos, the Ansco Titan, or some
lesser-known Japanese cameras like the Zenobia to be hidden gems, as they
are top performers available at a fraction of the price of the
Voigtlanders.

The Bessa 1 and II are cameras with well-known virtues that account for
the relatively high prices these cameras obtain.  On the down side, one
thing that you should look for on any Bessa you buy is that the front
standard holding the lens/shutter assembly is rigid when the camera is
opened.  On some Bessas, this has some play, which will adversely affect
performance.  All cameras have their design flaws, and this is the one
that you are most likely to encounter with a Bessa.


The Bessa II is one of the few 6x9 folders that focusses by moving the
entire lens/shutter assembly back and forth, rather than use the more
common front cell focussing method.  Many people consider this to be an
advantage in obtaining higher quality images.  I haven't observed any
consistent results in comparing front cell focussing cameras with unit
focussing cameras, and I believe that individual sample variation is a
bigger factor here.  But others disagree.

Mark
Email address: mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca



From: "C.L.Zeni" SpineyNorman@hedge.hog
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras ??
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001


Andy-J wrote:

> 1.  Iskra:  I have actually already purchased one, but awaiting
> delivery.  Though a Russian copy, it seems the consensus is that this is
> a fine camera on its own and the Industar lens stands up to just about
> any other.  Any truly weak points to note?

Copy of Agfa Super Silette/Ansco something-I-forget.  The Agfas are
notorious for failed bellows; the Anscos are said to have better bellows
material.  I'd like to have an Iskra myself but the ones I find are a
bit dear for me.

> 3.  Perkeo II - Seems like people really like this camera for the Color
> Skopar lens.  Anything else good about it?  Never had a camera without a
> coupled rangefinder--or actually without a rangefinder at all.  Does
> this hamper much, or do you get really used to zone focusing?

If you wear glasses, the lack of eye relief in these old RFs can be a
drag, plus the metal rims will scratch the bejeezus out of your plastic
eyeglass lenses.  Perkeo IIs seem to have gone high dollar recently...

> 4.  Moskva 5 - I have heard raves and foul language about this
> one--though the foul language was usually due to a unit that was not
> functioning properly rather than one that was but just producing bad
> images.  I know the Iskra is probably an improvement, but this camera is
> also a 6x9 (I usually shoot 6x6, but a change now and again is always
> nice), and almost always sells for under $100.

If you get a good one (I did) you will find it does very nicely when
stopped down.  I always smile at the size and quality of negative this
relatively small camera will produce.

> BTW--I am using and testing these--not with resolution targets--just
> general use.  For that reason, I am not going to spend a grand on a
> newer camera.  Someone usually suggests forgetting these old folders and
> get a _______.  Probably good advice, but not my objective.  Somehow, I
> think it is possible to find a good folder that performs every bit as
> good as my Nikon or Mamiya equipment (though perhaps not with the same
> flexibility), so that is why I am testing.


Another alternative:  Ansco Titan.  Ansco 90/4.5 Anastigmat with shutter
speeds 400/200/100/50/25/10/5/2/B/T and flash terminal.  Zone focus
6x6.  Takes really nice pictures, well made, can be had fairly cheap.

More guano on folders:  http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/folder.html
--
           Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
                http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
              http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html




From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras ??
Date: 22 Jan 2001

andyj38@my-deja.com (Andy-J)
wrote:

> 1.  Iskra:  I have actually already purchased one, but awaiting
> delivery.  Though a Russian copy, it seems the consensus is that this is
> a fine camera on its own and the Industar lens stands up to just about
> any other.  Any truly weak points to note?

I've just recently acquired one - and certainly they are very impressive
looking cameras. Due to time and poor weather - I've not had a chance to
run a proper film through it - but I've tested the mechanism with a old
film.

Being a great fan of the original Agfa Isolette - I thought the Iskra
would be perfect for me. Everything the Isolette is - plus a coupled
rangefinder and various other refinements. However compared - its quite
big and heavy - and I'm not convinced it will stand up to hard use. There
is far too much going on under the hood for my liking - and it wouldn't
take much (even a little dirt) to stop it working. I'd be interested in
knowing what other Iskra owners think?

The Agfa Isolette is usually considered the very poor cousin - even
against other folding cameras. However the Isolette III with uncoupled
rangefinder, F3.5 Solinar and Synchro Compur is a fine camera and dirt
cheap compared to most other makes.

Most Isolettes are the cheaper Isolette II with Apotar/Prontor fittings -
but even so produce fine pictures at very little money (about $20).

Much is said about the quality of Agfa/Ansco bellows - but whilst I have
seen 1 or 2 too far gone to repair - most are actually just fine - or can
be fixed in a few minutes with a *small* amount of black plastic
electrician's tape. Only noticeable on close examination.


Lots more info and pictures about everything mentioned at:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/

:-)

Roland.



From: Dick Weld rpweld@weldcommunications.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras ??
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001


I've owned all of these but the Iskra... my Mamiya 6 was an old one, but
it had a small dingy viewfinder... practically impossible to use with
glasses.  The Moskva 5 is excellent but heavy. The Perkeo is my flat-out
favorite of any folder...however, I have a Perkeo I with the Color
Skopar lens.  They may not have made many of these, but they are
cheaper.  The Agfa/Ansco with the Solinar lens is the real sleeper...
excellent and cheap.

Dick Weld


Andy-J wrote:
>
> This question is far from concise, but----
>
> 2.   Mamiya 6 Folder - The general opinion is that the Zuiko lens is a
> great lens and the back focusing keeps the film flat.  Bascially,
> everyone seems to say this is a good camera, but I don't really hear
> anyone going on and on about it like the Perkeo II or the Besa II.  Why
> is that?  Is it really just kind of middle-of-the-road?  (I have a
> Mamiya TLR, so I am already impressed with Mamiya--but a C330 really
> postdates the folders and I wonder if the folder was intended to be a
> pro camera like the C-series cameras were.  Hmmmm?
>
> 3.  Perkeo II - Seems like people really like this camera for the Color
> Skopar lens.  Anything else good about it?  Never had a camera without a
> coupled rangefinder--or actually without a rangefinder at all.  Does
> this hamper much, or do you get really used to zone focusing?
>
> 4.  Moskva 5 - I have heard raves and foul language about this
> one--though the foul language was usually due to a unit that was not
> functioning properly rather than one that was but just producing bad
> images.  I know the Iskra is probably an improvement, but this camera is
> also a 6x9 (I usually shoot 6x6, but a change now and again is always
> nice), and almost always sells for under $100.
>
> BTW--I am using and testing these--not with resolution targets--just
> general use.  For that reason, I am not going to spend a grand on a
> newer camera.  Someone usually suggests forgetting these old folders and
> get a _______.  Probably good advice, but not my objective.  Somehow, I
> think it is possible to find a good folder that performs every bit as
> good as my Nikon or Mamiya equipment (though perhaps not with the same
> flexibility), so that is why I am testing.
>
> Thoughts?
>



From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF and Hiking
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 


If the lightness of the camera is all-important the have you considered
taking a medium format folding camera with you? These are very light and can
be picked up quite cheaply. You would be well advised to get one with a four
element Tessar type of lens or better. You can get many Zeiss Ikon's on ebay
with a Tessar lens. These cameras tend to be very well made with a very
rigid mounting for the lens when extended. Also there are the Agfa's with
the Solinar lens (rather than the Apotar or Agnar lens). These are also well
made in the sense of the rigid lens mounting when extended. Even sharper
lenses are to be found on the rather heavier Bessa II folding camera in the
form of the Color-Skopar lens and the even better 5 element Color-Heliar.
But these Voigtlanders, although they look beautiful, tend to be poorly made
in the sense that on nearly all examples the lens is mounted loosely and
very prone to shake. You can still use them but you need to hold the shutter
and lens assembly between finger and thumb to damp out all the vibrations.
But these folders have fixed lenses so you won't be able to do any wide
angle shots. The only similarly light medium format camera I know of capable
of wide angle shots is the Envoy Wide Angle - a British box camera. This has
a Cooke triplet lens and is not focussable. They are hard to find and can be
very expensive.

Going up in weight then I suppose there is nothing to beat a Rolleiflex for
its weight with the Planar or Xenotar lens. But again you won't be able to
do wide angle shots with these.

Going up in weight even more (and expense) then there is the Mamiya 7 with
its interchangeable lenses.

Roland

"kauai82" kauai82@earthlink.net wrote ...
> I have been trying out different cameras in Medium Format for the last
> couple of months. I am concentrating on the TLR because of price and have
> bought several on ebay. My first camera was a Seagull 105-A and after
> shooting a few rolls I decided that I needed a camera that had a better  lens
> and focus system. I got a Yashica D and liked the feel of the camera and the
> weight. I do a lot of hiking and my sole reason for going into Medium Format
> is to enlarge some landscape shots up to the 20X30 inches. I had the chance
> and purchased a Mamiya C33 that takes good pics but is heavy as hell. I use
> a tripod on my hikes, but in the next few months I will be doing a lot of
> hiking in the Sierra Nevada in California up to 9,000 to 13,500 feet
> elevation. Is there a camera that is light like the Yashica D that has a
> great lens that is really sharp details and is about the same weight ? I
> just can't see me lugging the C33 on these longer hikes. Thanks, Matt



From: "Jim Hand" JimHand32@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras and 120 film
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


Lyndon,

Look here for a fairly complete list of medium format cameras:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html

I have always had trouble with old folding cameras.  The bellows is usually
bad on them, leaking light and ruining pictures.  I did have luck taping the
bellows on one camera with black plastic tape, but it made the bellows very
stiff and hard to fold.  A replacement bellows costs over $100, so that
route is out of you want a cheap camera.  Also, most had poorly operating
shutter mechanisms due to age.


My recommendation is that you buy a non-folding camera without a bellows.
If you really want one, be prepared to buy about 10 or more before you get
one that works well enough to use (and even then you will probably have to
tape the corners of the bellows). The good ones (Zeiss Ikon, for example)
with high-quality lenses and shutters are usually very expensive,
considering they still usually need a $100 shutter tune-up before you can
use them.

BTW, the one 120 folding camera I did have luck with was an Adox Golf, very
cheesy, but relatively simple to work on and the three-speed shutter (25,
50, 200 +Bulb) works.  Cost me $30 plus $20 for the spanner tool needed to
take off the lens(to be able to remove the bellows for taping) plus a few
dollars for 2-inch wide black plastic tape.  It's ugly, but it works.

If you can find one, an Agfa Isola is a 120 camera with a collapsable lens
(no bellows).  Not the best quality lens, but if you find the one with the
two speed shutter it will have a better lens than the one-speed shutter
model that I have.  Similar to a Holga but with much better quality
construction.

The best cheap 120 camera around is the Ciro-Flex (AKA Graflex 22 AKA Dejur
Reflex).  A Twin-Lens Reflex camera, usually less than $50 with case,
 make sure it is a flash sync model before you buy it (many aren't).  The
ones with Alphax shutters are very easy to work on yourself, the ones with
Rapax shutters would need professional attention (but the Rapax shutter is
better).

If you want to spend about $300 on a 120 camera, buy a Kiev 60 from
www.kievcamera.com.  Not the best, but a very good amateur camera for the
money.

Good luck,

Jim
...




Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: metcalf@attglobal.net
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] F/8, 40 bucks, and be there

No, 616 (and 116) film is 70mm, vs. 120 (and 620)'s  60mm.  620 spools are
slightly smaller in diameter than are 120 spools.  It's possible to replace
the 620 fittings in some folders with 120 fittings and that being all the
conversion needed.

Alternatively you can respool 120 film onto 620 spools or buy already
re-spooled film from B&H;, etc.

    Since you ask about 100mm lens and Medallists I presume you're interested
in 6 by 9 cm format.  There are a number of good folders in that format, most
of which are expensive (particularly Zeiss Super Ikonta C's and
Voigtlanders).  If you're willing to sacrifice coupled rangefinders, quality
shutters and quality lenses you can get some folders at much lower prices.

    Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO

From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital or MF???
Date: 15 Feb 2002 


antispam@ftc.gov wrote 
> Please tell me as well. It took me YEARS to find an Ikonta with an uncouple
> rangefinder, Tessar lens and good shutter.

Why would you wan an uncoupled rangefinder? Regarding the Zeiss
folders, check out the images. One sample:

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/ikontac_sk2_e.htm

Peruse his site for more. There is a certain something that works,
even the rather bad coma.

Sharpness is not everything.



From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: My new gripe about Voigtlander folders
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002


All the Voigtlander folders I have have some play in the lens standard. This
will almost certainly result in picture blur unless the lens and shutter
assembly is held between the fingers when you take the shot. In contrast,
the Zeiss cameras I have have a toally rigid mounting for the lens. Do you
others out there find the same?




Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: Joe B. joe-b@clara.co.uk
Subject: Re: My new gripe about Voigtlander folders
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

 Roland wrote

> All the Voigtlander folders I have have some play in the lens standard. This
> will almost certainly result in picture blur unless the lens and shutter
> assembly is held between the fingers when you take the shot. In contrast,
> the Zeiss cameras I have have a toally rigid mounting for the lens. Do you
> others out there find the same?

Almost the same- every Bessa II I've seen (which is not many) had SOME degree
of play at the front end, in most cases a lot- I have one now that is almost
rigid- you have to know where to twiddle to get any movement and I think
maybe this is as good as they get. I haven't used it yet though so I don't
know if there will be any visible effect. I've also got a Perkeo II which
seems totally rigid. But the Ikontas are better- the design is really good
and so far I've never seen an Ikonta with any wobble at all. The Agfa folders
seem rigid too, but I've only seen/used Isolettes in various incarnations,
not the 6 x 9 Agfas.

--
Joe B.


From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What Agfa folder is this?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002

roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net (Roland) wrote:

> I have an Agfa 6x9 folder and would like to know exactly what model it
> is and approximately the year it was made. The only wording on the
> camera outside is "Agfa" and "Made in Germany". It has both a prism and
> flip-up finder. There is no accessory shoe. The lens is an uncoated
> Solinar. There is no rangefinder. The red window at the back has a

I think I've got a virtually identical one here. Only difference to your
description is that shutter release is on the shutter itself. There is a
small button on the right hand side of the camera but this just releases
the front allowing the camera to be unfolded.

It is indeed an Agfa Billy Compur - though not marked as such and dates
from the mid to late 1930s. Curiously at least in the UK it was marketed
as the Agfa Speedex (along with various other Agfa Billy cameras). In
advertising special note was made of the top speed of 1/400. After the war
I don't think a speed of 1/400 featured on any Agfa fitted Compurs -
though as has already been said the lack of flash sync (and for that
matter the lack of lens coating) points to a prewar model.

Anyway - hope that helps,

:-)

Roland G.
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/
(for lots of Agfa and other old camera stuff)



From: Tan kahheng@pacific.net.sg
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Unjamming a Bessa 6x9 with a stucked door
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002


I have a Bessa 6x9 model with a coupled rangefinder and an uncoated Skopar (all
black, possibly prewar model).

I loaned it to a potential buyer to try out and it came back with a jammed door
Apparently he fiddled with the focussing knob when the lens door was closed.

Now, the door only partially opens about 5mm and remains well stucked. Turning
the focussing knob causes the door to open and close within that 5mm gap -
indicating that it's the focussing assembling that's causing the problem.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can solve this problem.

It's a very dear camera.



From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Unjamming a Bessa 6x9 with a stucked door
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002


Oh, sh*t! This has caused significant damage. That rangefinder knob should
never be turned on a coupled rangefinder with the front door shut. What
happens is a thin chromed plate (in this case) is pushing and has nowhere to
go and so it bends out of shape. It bends both up and down and when it is up
it gets in the way of the door opening. Even if you get it open, the chrome
plate will look bad. You will need to get it disassembled and straightened
out. This is a high priced repair - expecially since chromed impact rivets
are involved. It may not even be worth the money to do unless the camera has
sentimental value.

What I would suggest, to get the door to open properly, and bear in mind
that this might possibly worsen an already bad situation, is to turn the
knob back to the infinity position (which is where it should have stayed
with the front door closed) to see if that can straighten the plate out a
bit. Then if you can get the door to open more then see if you can bend out
those kinks in the plate with your fingers and hopefully the door will fully
open. Try your best, then, to straighten out that plate and get it as best
as you can. Unfortunately, you might find some scratches on the chrome if
you have tried to force the door open.

I was very sorry to hear this. I fear your camera has suffered significant
damage.



From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002

mm-elek@prodigy.net (Mike Elek) wrote:

> I have an Agfa Isolette III with uncoupled rangefinder (bought for
> $75). I think the lens is only so-so with color film. I also have a

Maybe so - but looking at your web page - your Isolette III has only the
mid range Apotar lens and not the better Solinar which has been talked
about here.

Agfa - like most similar manufacturers sold a variety of lens and shutters
on the same body, and whilst its possible to get a decent lens
(Solinar) and decent shutter (Compur) on say an Isolette II, its also
possible to get an average lens (Apotar) and shutter (Pronto) on a
supposedly better camera like the Isolette III. Having said that I'm happy
with the images I get from Apotar lenses.

The best sort of Isolette III to find can be seen at:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/isoletteiii.html

Though just remember 'Solinar' when it comes to Agfa and you can't go far
wrong.

:-)

Roland.
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/




From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: stiffening the pressure plate on 6x9 folders
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 


I have some 6x9 folders - some of them with very good lenses, but the
pressure plate is way too slack and it looks to have been made that way.
Does anyone have a good method for stiffening these in such a way that it
will stay stiffened but without changing the look of the camera? I thought
of putting draft excluding tape behind the pressure plate (it comes off
easily enough) but then that would compact down in time.



From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 29 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: stiffening the pressure plate on 6x9 folders


I once took the coil spring out of the bottom of a cheap flashlight and rolled
it around one of the posts at the back of the pressure plate.

Or just compressed it and slid it in. This worked.

Or use some rubber-like foam material and slide it in.

- Sam Sherman




From: william martin wcmarti@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 


The best one I've found is the old Mamiya six. They came with a variety of
lenses and shutters, so I'm not sure if they're all good. Mine's a 4-element
Olympus Zuiko, mounted in a Seikosha shutter that works very well
and makes excellent pictures. One thing I do like about these cameras is that
the front standard is rigid, and the film plane actually moves to focus. I
think this alleviates one of the problems often found in old front-
focussing folders: the front end tends to become sloppy after years of use.
Mine also has a very good rangefinder, and because of the way the camera
focusses, the pressure plate isn't attached to the back, but fits
into slots immediately behind the film gate, and is spring loaded to keep it
tight. I believe this arrangement gives excellent film flatness. Of course, you
have to be careful not to lose the pressure plate :>)

 robmurr@aol.com (ROBMURR) wrote:
> I would like anyones input on what brands to look at in these older
> cameras. Not sure if any took 120 and 220 rolls..I had a Zeiss Nettar
> long ago but looking now for something sharper. Not afraid to work on
> them. I have a good repairman that can repair any damage I can do!
> Any good inexpensive ones out there? I have used a Yashicamat 124G
> So that is about the picture quality I am looking for or better.
> I found the Yashicamat too bulky thats why I am looking for a folder.
> 6x6 or 645 so it will fit my enlarger. Black and white some color would be
> shot.
> Thanks, Rob


From: "Vincent Becker" becker.vincent@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002

"ROBMURR" robmurr@aol.com wrote ...
> I would like anyones input on what brands to look at in these older
> cameras. Not sure if any took 120 and 220 rolls..

The Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 533/16 is what you're looking for. Post-war
versions had a Sychro-Compur with speeds from 1s to 1/500 s, excellent
coated Tessar (either f/2.8 or f/3.5), rangefinder and built-in
lightmeter (which is sometimes still working well enough for negative
film). It is very rigid. It takes 120 roll. Click here for a picture:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/vincent.becker/newsite/foldings_zeiss6x6.htm

It's in french, but the picture is international ;-)
--
Regards,
>From France,
Vincent Becker


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: 25 Mar 2002


I have been (and am) using some of the german 6x6 folders. I started
with an Agfa Isolette III with Apotar lens and Prontor SV shutter
(1-1/300sec, self timer). Like most Prontor shutters slow speeds were
sluggish, and like most Agfa Isolettes, the bellow had leaks. After
cleaning the shutter and replacing the bellow (which is quite
straightforward if you have a source for new bellows) it was a good
performer. As long as you do not use the lens at full aperture it is
very useable.

I recently bought an east german 6x6 folder with coupled rangefinder,
a Certo Six. This is surely a high-end folder, with a 4-element f2.8
80mm Tessar lens (needless to say anything more). Some come with a
west german Prontor or even Compur shutter, some (probably for the
domestic market) have a Tempor shutter which works nice on my camera
but has no self timer. Mine needed quite a bit of repair, and if you
get one, check whether the rangefinder mirrors aren't faded and
whether the frame counter still works. The Certo Six is a heavy
mother, approx. 900 gr (or 2 lbs.), but a very solid die-cast design
(the Isolettes have a sheet metal body). There is a czech guy selling
overhauled ones on US ebay from time to time.

To enter into the 6x4.5 format I bought another east german folder, a
Weltax with Meyer Trioplan lens (no rangefinder). This three-element
lens performed surprisingly well, just a bit blurry in the corners
when used at f/4 at 6x4.5. When buying one, it should have the Meyer
Trioplan (or even a Zeiss Tessar) lens, there is a version with a very
mediocre Ludwig Meritar lens. Also beware of the Junior shutter, a
rattling and unreliable three-speed thing. Usually it comes with the
Prontor or Tempor shutter (see above). On most items the 6x4.5 mask is
missing. I designed my own from two brackets of thin brass sheet,
attached to the film screen by some screws which sit around the film
screen very suitably. The Weltax is a bit heavy, too, due to its
rugged die-cast design. Since it's from the early 50s, it lacks a
double exposure latch.

Winfried from Germany


From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 16 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?

In addition to the later model Mamiya 6 folder, I have had excellent results from these
6x6cm folders-

ISKRA - Russian folder copy of Agfa Super Isolette - many still around get as
close to a Mint one as possible - has coupled rangefinder and auto film stop
(should be working- don't buy otherwise).

SEAGULL 203 - Early chrome models of this Chinese 6x6cm folder with Coupled Rangefinder,
rapid wind (but red window) - can be capable of sharp results if a good one like I have.

- Sam Sherman



Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002
From: "Mike Elek" mm-elek@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?


I have an Agfa Isolette III with uncoupled rangefinder (bought for $75). I
think the lens is only so-so with color film. I also have a pre-war Super
Ikonta 6x6 ($150) -- excellent uncoated Tessar lens, but the camera weighs
is unbelievably heavy -- like a brick, really.

You can sometimes get a good deal on a Rolleiflex (I have bought two
Automats in the past year for about $200 -- one for a friend and one for
me). But they aren't folding cameras.

If you want to jump to 6x9 (great for panoramas), the folding Super Ikonta
520/2 are excellent choices. I'd try to stick with the Tessar ... I think
the Novar isn't as good (personal experience -- not a Zeiss bias).

Another excellent camera is the Kodak/Nagel Duo 620. Some of them have a
Tessar lens. The only downside is that it uses 620 film, so that means
you'll have to respool your film. It's not terribly difficult, just
inconvenient. They fold to an extremely compact size. I sold one about two
months ago.

Take a look here at a couple of the cameras:
http://host.fptoday.com/melek/pages/cameras-1.html

The Agfa Isolette and Kodak/Nagel Duo 620 are on the first page. The Super
Ikonta 6x9 is on the second page. I haven't put up a photo yet of the Super
Ikonta 6x6.

-Mike


From: Steve Bell steve@sb-technical.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002

"ROBMURR"  wrote:

> I would like anyones input on what brands to look at in these older
> cameras. Not sure if any took 120 and 220 rolls..I had a Zeiss Nettar
> long ago but looking now for something sharper. Not afraid to work on
> them. I have a good repairman that can repair any damage I can do!
> Any good inexpensive ones out there? I have used a Yashicamat 124G
> So that is about the picture quality I am looking for or better.
> I found the Yashicamat too bulky thats why I am looking for a folder.
> 6x6 or 645 so it will fit my enlarger. Black and white some color would be
> shot.
> Thanks, Rob

I have previously used a Yashicamat 124G until the wind blew it over on the
tripod, sadly it didn't survive. Excellent camera.

I still have a Ross Ensign Selfix 12-20 folding camera. It uses a Ross
Xpress 75mm f3.5 lens, and has a Epsilon synchro shutter to 1/300 sec. It
took excellent B&W;, but I haven't used it for some years now. It was my
fathers from new, he replaced it with a Zenith 35mm when they came out. It
was my first serious camera. The only Ensign info I have is their 1917 green
booklet, but this camera is much newer than that. The non coupled
rangefinder packed in around 1965, but that doesn't stop it from being used.
This thread reminded me of it, I'll have to put a film through it this
weekend and see if it's still working OK. It's well worth while checking one
of these out, but I don't know if they were ever sold outside the UK where
they were made.

Steve Bell


From: "Vincent Becker" becker.vincent@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What did people do before X synch?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002


"Tom Lee" tlee@maplesoft.com a Tcrit 
> I'm currently looking into getting a Super Ikonta 6x9 folder. Many of these
> older cameras do not have X synch for flashes. What did people do before X
> to take flash pictures? Or is there a way to take reasonable flash pictures
> with a non-X camera?

I also have a super ikonta 6x9 with M synch. I use a very simple
electronic device that postpones the electronic flash just the right
amount of time needed by the shutter to open completely. It's made of a
transistor, a resistor and a condensator (with a small adjustable
resistor to tune it once and for all). It'll cost about $1 to do it
yourself. If you have an eletronic-wise friend, it will be a great help!
--
Regards,
From France,
Vincent Becker


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: folding 6x6 cameras?
Date: 29 Mar 2002


Manh Le manhhle@austin.rr.com wrote
> For a long long time I heard about German
> mechanical precision and not quite understand what it meant. Until I got
> and used this camera I now know what German mechanical precision is about.

But not all german folding cameras are like this. Many were cheaply
made, and were rather 'consumers grade cameras' which allowed to make
cheap contact prints instead of enlargements, and quite a few were
equipped with mediocre lenses and shutters.

The Certo cameras, however, were among the best ones made in the 30s.
If you ever run aross a (24x36) Certo Super Dollina you will know what
a rangefinder can be. The older Certo cameras were continued in East
Germany until the early 50s, but then they stopped making quality
cameras and made a couple of el-cheapo cameras.

Winfried (from Germany)


From: "Chris Eve" someone@somewhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Kodak Folding Cameras made in France
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002


I'm currently trying to put together a reasonably comprehensive listing of
all the 620-film folding cameras produced by Kodak Pathe in France during
the late 1940's and early 1950's. These are aften described as a "Pliant",
but are usually defined by a nameplate including the word "modele" on the
camera, such as "Modele 42" or "Modele B 11"

If you have one of these that's not included on my page at
http://user.itl.net/~kypfer/kodak_pathe.htm , or have extra details on any
of the cameras I do have listed there, I'd be pleased to hear. My e-mail
address is at the bottom of the page.

TIA
Chris Eve



From: "Vincent Becker" becker.vincent@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji 690 or Mamiya 7II?
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 

"Bill Hilton" bhilton665@aol.comedy a Tcrit
> A friend who is visiting England next month asked if I wanted him to pick up
> any photo gear for me while he was over there ... I checked and one of the
> Mamiya 7 lenses I was eyeing that goes for $2,600 at B&H; is about $1,400 at
> Robert White's.  Incredible.

I also noticed that MF folders (such as Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta) are
much more expensive in America than in Europe. Fortunately I'm on the
right side of the ocean ;-)
Does anyone have an explanation for this difference?
--
Regards,
>From France,
Vincent Becker


From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Suer Iknta C vs Besa II
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002

....

Yes, the engineering on Voigtlander folders is very poor in the sense that
the lens and shutter are seldom rigidly held in place when the camera is
opened. You have to compensate for this by holding it firmly between finger
and thumb when you take the photo. Zeiss engineering is much better in this
regard. But so long as you know this and your technique is good then you
should be able to absorb any movement. If you compare the image from a
Color-Heliar to a Tessar at near full aperture then the difference is
obvious. The Color-Heliar is far better. But at small apertures there may
not be much difference and it is possible that the Tessar will be better.

As for 35mm prime lenses, then the standard lens on modern 35mm SLR cameras
tend to be a five or six element gauss type of design - the equivalent of a
Planar, I think. These will easily outperform a Tessar type lens, no matter
how well the Tessar is made. The only reason a medium format camera with a
Tessar will outperform a 35mm camera is because of the extra detail that the
larger film format can hold and the reduction in the significance of film
grain.


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Suer Iknta C vs Besa II
Date: 7 Apr 2002



Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com wrote 
> roland.rashleigh-berry wrote:
>
>
> >
> > As for 35mm prime lenses, then the standard lens on modern 35mm SLR
> > cameras tend to be a five or six element gauss type of design - the
> > equivalent of a Planar, I think. These will easily outperform a Tessar
> > type lens, no matter how well the Tessar is made.
>
> This hasn't been my experience.. The later 35mm primes are faster but at
> f5.6 you'd be hard pressed to see much if any difference in a f3.5 tessar
> and other 35mm lenses.

5-, 6- or 7-element lenses will perform better at f/2.8, f/2 and maybe
f/1.4 since it is not possible to reach such apertures with 4-element
lenses without severe downgrading image quality. The highest aperture
ever reached with a Tessar lens was f/2.4 but it was never sold since
image quality was not as good as people might expect from a Tessar.

And at f/5.6 and below, it's hard to tell the difference even between
a rather simple three-element lens and a 5 to 7 element lens. I showed
some 6x4.5 slides taken with an east german folder to a colleague who
otherwise is a Hasselblad fanatic, and I heard a friendly 'hm, hm'
when he examined them with his loupe. The camera I used actually had a
three-element east german Meyer Trioplan lens. Most shots were made on
a sunny winter day at f/8 and f/11.

Winfried


[Ed. note: another contra-viewpoint...]
From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 with movements?
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002


I've got a Houghton Butcher 6x9 with shift using a Ross Xpres lens. I have
my doubts whether the lens is capable beyond its normal focus plane though.
Major doubts.

Watch out for the 6x9 format. It's a quality trap. The early models were, of
course, piss poor compared to modern day photography. The later 6x9 cameras
were not well made even though the lens might be good. Zeiss cameras were
okay (not Russian copies) but many others had poor film flatness and poor
construction. Even Classics like the Voigtlander Bessa II tended to be of
poor quality. The only ones I would recommend are the much later 6x9 Fuji
cameras. And you'll get no movement with them.

If you've got any sense, you'll steer clear of 6x9, unless its with the
Fuji. But I'll be doing some work with an Envoy Wide-Angle box camera soon
and it looks hopeful. I managed to fit the ground glass back (after much
hammering) and check it outside. And that wide-angle Taylor, Taylor and
Hobson triplet was as sharp as a razor.


"Ken Smith" aldenphoto@aol.com wrotep...
> Is there such a thing as a 6x9 with movements, and a rangefider as
> well as a ground glass? Interchangeable lenses and backs? If so I'll
> trade everything I've got, and make this the final entry.


From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: I did a check on a Color-Skopar
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002


I had a Perkeo II fixed and did some shots on the Tottenham Court Road in
London and could see the guy ropes clearly at the top of Euston Tower. I was
back there today to see how easily it is to see those guy ropes with naked
vision or vision enhanced with spectacles. It ISN'T possible to see them
properly.

That Color-Skopar beats the coated Tessar any time !


From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital or MF???
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002


"Godfrey DiGiorgi" ramarren@bayarea.net wrote
> I shoot with everything from Minox subminiature to 6x6 in film, and bought
> a digital camera recently. Each camera/format has its place.
>
> The digicam is amazing me with the fidelity, ease of use, how much just
> raw FUN it is to work with. It can do things that i cannot do in film. The
> convenience is fantastic, the pictures are wonderful, and the ease of
> getting them into the computer and on my website is just great.
>
> On the other hand, the sweetness of photos taken with the Super Ikonta B
> and Rolleiflex, the crisp detailing of the Fuji GA645 ... Can't beat them
> when I'm going to make big prints and need to express the tonal range with
> superb fidelity.
>
> Picking one or the other is a mistake, really, unless you simply can't
> afford more than one camera. Then it's tough.


But you can *always* afford medium format. Always, always! The Zeiss folders
are usually of good quality - both the lens and the rigidity. You can pick
up Nettars (I think that is their bottom-of-the-range folder) for about $30
in near perfect condition. And so long as you take shots at f11 or smaller
they can give extremely pleasing results. And so long as you use slide film
and just get it sleeved when developed then even the film and processing is
cheaper than 35mm. Of course, you get less shots, but you will find that
your percentage of "keepers" is usually higher than 50%, maybe even higher
than 75%, whereas for 35mm and the "point and shoot" mentality then you are
lucky to have one "keeper" per roll on average. So anyone can afford it and
it works out better value for money.


A little bit "up" from the Nettars you can get Zeiss Ikonta folders with
coated Tessar lenses for about $60. They give better results. About as high
as you can go with folders is the Voigtlander Perkeo II with its
Color-Skopar lens - but the build of the camera can let down the lens since
the standard on which the lens is mounted can be loose.

What lets it down, of course, is the range of lenses available. If you go in
for wide-angle lenses in medium format then the only cheap way to do it is
go for the Mamiya TLR's with their interchangeable lenses. Other than that
you will be paying a fortune. And even then the Mamiya TLRs are heavy brutes
to lug around and a tripod is nearly essential. So when I travel it is
35mm - but there is always a medium format folder in my camera bag somewhere
for the shots that really count.

As for digital, then whatever you buy is going to be worth very little in a
few years time. And if it is quality you want, you would be better off with
a disposable camera. But then, in five years time, that will all have
changed.



From: "Roland" roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zeiss ikon super ikonta, how old is mine?
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002


It was made in the early fifties. Take a look at this page:
http://homes.jcu.edu.au/~zlraa/Campix/Zeissikon.htm

It is worth maybe $200 in good condition and should be able to take very
good photographs.
...
> The camera is a Zeiss Ikon 531/2 Super Ikonta with a Zeiss-Opton f3.5 lens
> and Compur Rapid shutter. It takes 6 x 9 negatives and 120 roll film. Is
> there anyway that I can trace the fabrication date of it?
>
> The lens serial is 36152 and the body has a number P8362



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: "Paulo Moreira" paulomoreira@mida.pt
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6X9 folder needed, any opinion

Hi Franka,

I have a Voigtlander Bessa II with the 105/3,5 Heliar lens. It is a jewel,
the lens is on par with many modern medium format lenses. The camera is
simple to manipulate, has a range finder for accurate focusing and it isnYt
too heavy. Down sides? It has no meter, the shutter needs to be cocked
manually becuse it is not conected to the transport mechanism. There is
always the danger of shooting twice on the same frame. If you know what you
are doing, then it is an excellent camera!

All the best

Paulo Moreira
Portugal


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: Dale Dickerson vze2g2z8@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6X9 folder needed, any opinion


Hi,

I recommend the Moskva 4 with an Industar-25 4.5/110mm. A good example
of this lens will perform on the same level as a Rollei Tessar or Xenar
lens of the same time period. The cost is less then $100. It should have
a 6x6 mask. The camera fold nice and small. I recommend buying from ebay
id: cupog. His cameras are always in great shape and checked for problems.

The Moskva 5 has a different lens and I have not tried it. (All Moskva's
lens are Tessar type designs.) The late model 4 and all model 5 cameras
have a different RF. I am told it is easier for using glasses. I have
glasses and not had problems with the early 4 model.

Regards,

Dale


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: "Merritt, Robert (ING)" MerrittR1@ING-AFS.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] 6X9 folder needed, any opinion


The Moskva 5 is a great choice -- a fine lens and a very sturdy camera.
Make sure you can get a 6x6 mask too.  You should be able to get one in
decent condition for well under $100 US.

Nick
...


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: DFStein@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6X9 folder needed, any opinion


http://members.aol.com/forgeniuses/MOCKBA/Mockba.html



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: "dante@umich.edu" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] 6X9 folder needed, any opinion


A really nice one with the mask and box and case is a lot more.  I think
mine was $175 from the Ukraine.  I would pick the nicest one your budget
allows.  Compared the  $1,300 synched-and-coated Super Ikonta C with Tessar,
they would probably even be steals at $400.

> The Moskva 5 is a great choice -- a fine lens and a very sturdy camera.
> Make sure you can get a 6x6 mask too.  You should be able to get one in
> decent condition for well under $100 US.
>
> Nick


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
From: "Per Backman" pbackman@algonet.se
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium format folders.


Ron Schwarz wrote:

>you wrote:
>
>I inherited his Minota Auto-Semi, which is a 16 exp. 120 rangefinder
>folder, with a semi-auto advance (you line up to first frame, then the
>transport handles the rest). The only problem is, the film it was designed
>for must have had the frame numbers printed in a different location from
>the window, so it's necessary to start from an imaginary point (I should
>mark it) and then turn the knob several times to get to the first frame.

My Semflex expects me to wind until I see the | which is in the very beginning
of the film in one of the red windows (the other one is for 828 film), then to
turn on the counter
and wind on to 1. There is a | and a + right where the film is taped to the
backing paper. On Kodak films there are lots of | it looks like II|IIII|IIII|II
more or less. On VoigtlSnder
Perkeo, Ikoflex and older Yashica TLR's you wind until 1 is seen in the red
window, then turn on the counter, which should be also at 1.

I have never heard of 120 film with different printing than now. Of course the
printing for 6X6 and 4,5X6 was not there in the beginning, for 6X6 117 film was
used and for 4,5X6
there were two windows, first wind to the first one, take a picture, then to
the next one (like most 3X4 cameras on 127 film). 120 film had also only 6
exposures 6X9 until the
mid 30's.

Per B.
The mailinglist for users and collectors of Chinese Cameras;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chinesecameras


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium format folders.

 you wrote:
>Same thing on my Yashica TLR.
>
>> You loaded
>> and wound until the two opposing black arrows on the back of the films
>> paper lined up with these dots or scribes then closed the back and
advanced
>> the film until it stopped

That's how most semi-autos load, but some of the older ones (like the
Minolta) are designed to have you line up the first frame with the red
window, then set the counter to 1, and then you close the window and forget
about it.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] Medium format folders.


>Some Rolleis have a different system, the film is passed through two
>rollers which meter the film length as its advanced, but you have to
>keep the rollers clean or they scratch tghe emulsion.

As far as I'm aware, the rollers are only used to sense the start of the
film, and they snap open (and start the counter mechanism) when they hit
the place where the film is taped to the paper backing.  All the Rolleis,
Yashicas, Mamiyas, etc. I've seen have a toothed wheel on a swing axle
(which presses against either the takeup or supply spool) that measures
actual film travel distance, to provide accurate measurement regardless of
film thickness.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
From: DFStein@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium format folders.


Some of the old 6x6 folders, I believe Welta was one, maybe even Super
Ikonta, had a dual system.  If you went by "automatic" wind you get 11
images; if you line up numbers in the red window each exposure, you get 12
images.  Don't overlook the Weltas and Frankas, etc.  Pre-war Burke & James
had every folder imaginable in its catalog: folding plate cameras, 6x6 and
645 folders, 127 folders and the 35mm folders were coming on.  You could even
get a Kalart RF retrofitted to a folding plate camera.



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Flash Bulb Help -- Thanks

Jerry,

The best 620's ( and I bet dad Lehrer would have had the best) had
Supermatic's with 4 element Special Anastigmats on them.  I have a several
of these.  Most of them have functional shutters.  The lesser Kodak shutters
are even more reliable, being a lot simpler and having fewer speeds.  I
really like some of the better Kodak cameras.  The Tourist, for example, is
a really handsome well made device.  I have one I converted to 120, and used
it for a while.  It made me mad once because the pictures I shot with it
were sharper than the ones I was getting from an Ikoflex IIA.  I later
figured out I was moving the IIA when I released the shutter. Still, the
triplet (Anaston) in the Tourist was very nice when used with a hood and
stopped well down.

Gene


From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Flash Bulb Help -- Thanks

you wrote:
>Richard
>
>Right, even the Flash Kodamatic Shutter in my Kodak Reflex II is spot on.
>
>Every Supermatic that I have played with at camera shows has been right
>on.
>
>I wonder what shutter Kodak put on my fathers Super Kodak  6-Twenty?
>(or was it Six-20?).
>
>Jerry Lehrer

 The Super Kodak Six-20 is an unusual camera. Its supposed to be the first
ever automatic exposure camera, with the diaphragm operated by a photo-cell.

  The shutter is an 8 speed shutter but the camera pre-dates the
Supermatic. The lens is an Anastigmat Special. This lens is a front element
focusing Tessar but with the order of power of the cemented rear elements
reversed. Kingslake states that this is advantageous when high index glass
is used.

  McKeown's gives the dates of manufacture as 1938 through 1944.

  The camera also had an elaborate coupled rangefinder of the same general
type as used on the Ektra and Medalist cameras. The rangefinder and
viewfinder windows are adjacent, one above the other, so that shifing the
eye is enough to switch from one to the other. The camera also has a unique
art-deco clamshell case. They are now valuable collector's items.

  I wish I could find a source for Supermatic main springs. I find some
shutters run slow at the highest speeds due to weakened springs. They are
plane coil springs. Somewhere someone must make stock springs which would
work.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Super Ikonta C VS Bessa II
From: antispam@ftc.gov
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 


 > The Color-Heliar on the Bessa II will easily outperform the Tessar (or the
 > Opton-Tessar) on the Super Ikonta. The trouble is with Bessa II's is that
 > the lens is not held rigidly and will shake when you take the photo. You
 > have to learn how to hold the lens and shutter steady. Also check the chrome
 > arm that pushes out the lens when you use the rangefinder is not bent or
 > buckled at all.

So the lens is better, but the entire support structure is weak?  I'll take
an Ikonta any day.  (But not for the price the guy was offered!)


Sadly, many know-nothing users of folders used to "snap" the front of the
camera open with a flourish, like an umbrella.  This quickly messed up the
alignement.  Cushion the front end with your hand.

John


From: lihfamily@cs.com (Lih Family)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Apr 2002 
Subject: Re: Super Ikonta C VS Bessa II


Most  easy found Super Ikonta C carries the Tessar lens, normally uncoated. I
believe the reasonable price for it should be around $200 or $300.  But if you
can find the Super Ikonta C that carries the coated lens and IS NOT a Tessar
(sorry I forget the lens name), that should be much more valuable. I guess the
price can be as high as $3000.

I happen to have both a  Super Ikonta C with 105/3.5 Tessar and a Bessa II with
Heliar, and I've compared many Bessa II and the Super Ikonta C similar to
mines. I'd not be shy to tell you that the Super Ikonta C is far better than
the Bessa II.

>From the spec and the design concept, Bessa II is supposed to be the better
one. Heliar is supposed to have the more advanced lens equation, it's 5-element
in 3-group vs. Tessar's 4-element in 3-group. The Bessar II also has the
supposedly better range-finder/view-finder, because the view finder and the
focusing windows are in one while the Supoer Ikonta C seperated them. Super
Ikonta C's view finder usually would be much dimmer due to the aging.


However, when you come to the picture quality, Bessa II is like a dog. Bessa II
is also much fragile. I believe the Bessa II was never been built with high
engineering quality. Among all old Germany cameras, my impression is
Voightlander has never been among the high quality brands.

Due to the hisrorical reason, somehow Bessa II is still worth to keep. But if
you want to get a usible classical 6x9, Supoer Ikont C would be the better
choice.

If you want to get the best buy for a 6x9, I'd recommend Fuji's 6x9, or better
yet, a Graflex with a 6x9 roll film back.



From rollei mailing list:

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 
From: Dan Kalish kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Anyone heard of a KW Patent Etui 6x9 Folding

My 2 cents worth:

Folding cameras, usually  bellows, were the popular cameras of that era,
just as TLRs were the popular cameras of the 50's and 35mm of the 70s.

I think your biggest problem is finding one that takes film you can get and
process nowadays.

y Voigtlander Avus fits into that category.  It was designed as 9x12 but
I'm using it with  120 adapter, so its now 6x9.  Cameras like this sell on
eBay for about $25; with a useful adapter, $75-$125.

You might also consider a 2x3 field camera.  Those are more recent and
usable yet still simple.  Of course, they're more expensive.  A Linhof
Technika III would run you $500-$750 used.  See
http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/23view.html

Dan
...


[Ed. note: why it is worth checking a few frames on strobe flash, might work... ;-)]
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 
From: jjmcf@aol.com
Subject: Re: electronic sync with M shutter

ardvarrk@attbi.com writes:
> A HREF="mailto:ardvarrk@attbi.com" ardvarrk@attbi.com  
> John,
>
>     Yes, you are slightly misinformed.
>     The older shutters were set to start the flash bulb as the shutter just
> started to open. That allowed the bulb to reach full brightness as the
> shutter reached full open. That is M sync.
>     With X sync the shutter reaches full open when the switch makes
> contact.
> This is due to the extremely fast speed of electronic flash.
>     If you use electronic flash on M sync the flash will go off just as the
> shutter is opening and the film will receive little or no exposure from the
> flash.
>
> Bryant


You are correct in describing M and X synchronization; however the question
that was raised was whether older cameras (those with no M-X switch but just
a single flash contact) could be used with electronic flash.  The fact is
that they can be, since the older flash contacts provided X-synch (and
X-synch only).  This seems strange since in the 1940s, the era we are talking
about, electronic flash was in its infancy.  However, if you look at the
innards of a Compur shutter with a single flash contact (no m-x switch as in
the later Synchro-Compur) you can easily see that the flash contact is
energized just as the shutter is fully open, which is the definition of
x-synch.  In order to use this contact with a flashbulb, to quote an old
version of the "Rolleiflex Guide,"  "This [x-synch] may be used with flash
bulbs with short firing delay (4-6milliseconds) with the shutter set to 1/60.
 With other bulbs, the fastest usable speed is 1/30 sec."

I've used 1940s cameras with a single flash contact (Rolleiflex and Super
Ikontas, among others) for many years with electronic flash, with excellent
results at all shutter speeds.

John McFadden


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 
From: lindsay  melwin lindsaymelwin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Iskra folder


The Iskra seems to have a failure-prone frame counter/film advance. It's
not uncommon to find these retrofitted with ruby windows where a
previous owner had given up entirely on repairing the original
mechanism.

Check the Yahoo Russina camera list - there is discussion on this topic
there from time to time.



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz w-buechsenschuetz@gmx.de
Subject: RE: Iskra folder

Al Bond wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm thinking of getting an RF 6x6 folder.  My initial thought was to
> look for an Agfa Isolette III with a 75mm Solinar lens but it sounds
> like the Russian Iskra might worth considering, especially as it has a
> coupled RF.

The chinese Seagull203 is a very close copy of the Agfa Super Isolette.
Both have coupled rangefinders, the Seagull has a bright frame
viewfinder and dual format (6x6, 6x4.5). However, the workmanship of the
Seagull is much worse than any of the Agfas.

When buying an Agfa/Ansco folder, make sure that the bellows has no
leaks. If there are any superficial cracks visible at the edges, it is
almost sure that it has (or will have) leaks.

I am currently restoring an east-german Certosix which has a coupled
rangefinder, too. The design of the frame counter is somewhat weak (as
with many 6x6 folders) but it seems to be a very solid camera.



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 
From: Peter Evans peter@despammed.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] Iskra folder

We read that the Iskra is
> practically worthless (bad craftsmanship, faulty materials, etc.)

(and Polish). Perhaps we'd better inform Alfred Klomp
http://home.planet.nl/~ucklomp/iskra2/ and Mikhail Ziganshin
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/iskra.html , who both suggest that
it's distinctly worth using (and Soviet).

I've never examined or used an Iskra myself, so I can't and don't judge.

Peter Evans peter@despammed.com


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: wide angle folder?
From: antispam@ftc.gov
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002

 >  Should have remembered the problem from fitting
 > wides and telephotos to my graflex.

BTW, it is possible to get a wider view on a bellows camera with GG back by
simply using a +1 or +2 diopter and refocusing.

John


[Ed. note: why so many folders have odd-ball lenses and shutters from WWII period..]
From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 May 2002 
Subject: Re: Looking for Mamiya Six info


That's a pretty neat idea - sort of mail a lense and shutter to Mamiya over
there in Occupied Japan and they cusomize it to a camera for you, but I don't
really think it plays.  It is, howver known that Mamiya did use whatever
existing stocks of lenses were available from various Japanese manufacturers to
get cameras on the market after the war and, while production was low or
curtailed in many areas due to the war damage, they procured lenses from a
number of manufacturers.

Most of the non Japanese customizations I have seen would have been considered
upgrades of Japanese shutters by using Kodak or compur shutters and lens
upgrades using Xenar and Xenotar.  (I imagine there are probably some Tessar
and maybe even Ektar equipped Mamiya sixes out there.

The purpose of the modification would have been the grand old art of upgrading
one's equipment by modification or lens hacking.  Certaininly, the upgrades
I've mentioned would have been an improvement over some of the glass and
shutters being used on the earlier Mamiya 6 cameras, though not the later ones.



From: "Shinichi Hayakawa" shaya@plum.plala.or.jp
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Looking for Mamiya Six info
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002


"KFritch" kfritch@aol.com wrote...
> That's a pretty neat idea - sort of mail a lense and shutter to Mamiya over
> there in Occupied Japan and they cusomize it to a camera for you, but I don't
> really think it plays.

Hard to imagine now, but Mamiya actually did that--although not in Occupied
Japan, but in Empire of Japan.

I have read an article on the chronology of Mamiya cameras in a Japanese
camera book written by a Mr. Suzuki who was with Mamiya from 1953 to 1995.
According to Mr. Suzuki, Mamiya custom-fitted lenses and shutters supplied
by customers on request during WW2.  (I have posted a message somewhere in
this thread saying this service was done in " post-WW2 era," but I was
mistaken.  Sorry.)


That was possible because 1)labor was dirt cheap then, and 2)Mamiya Six
rangefinder mechanism was very easy to modify for nonstandard focal-length
lenses.

Shinichi


From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Wide-angle folder
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002

If you don't mind venturing into hand-builts, it's feasible to mate a 47mm
Super Angulon to an early folder such as the Ikomat 6x6 or 6x9. I've seen it
done. Maybe I'll do one this winter.



From: "Bill D. Casselberry" bcasselb@orednet.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bessa II Color Skopar vs. modern MF lenses?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002


 Thomas wrote ...

>  While reading the thread "which Pentax 67 lens to buy" I jumped over
> to Bill D. Casselberry's web site.  While enjoying the wonderful
> photos there I noticed the link to the Bessa II page.
>  So tell us Bill, how does the 105mm Color-Skopar lense compare
> against the 105mm for the Pentax 67?
>  Since you have both cameras/lenses, I would like to hear your opinion
> about the performance of the older lens compared to the newer multi-
> coated optics.  Also interested to know if the Color-Skopar has a
> nice boke.

        Well, it's a "normal" for 6x9, so AOV is more like the 90mm for
        the 6x7. And being a rangefinder w/ untested (by me) accuracy, I
        haven't done too much close-in shooting w/ the Bessa. That said,
        for scenics w/ proper attention to aperture selection, it does
        quite nicely - elsewhere on my site you will find a billboard
        for a local resort which was done from a Bessa neg (Kodak Gold 100)
        which was then made into a 6x9inch transparancy by the billboard
  people. The overlaid text edges are more blurred than the image,
        which is really quite sharp even at 12feet high!

        It would be an unfair comparison against the 6x7 105mm, as the
        TTL focusing makes for such more precise results. As to color
        rendition, the Bessa stands in good company. I rigged a hood from
        my 28mm Takumar for use on the Bessa and w/o direct light on the
        lens, flare is no problem (there are not that many lens elements ;^)
        Due to difficulty dealing w/ the format here locally, I haven't shot
        it much after a flurry when I found it, though it does come out for
        special needs every so often. Can't recall any situations where bokeh
        was involved - I didn't do any portraiture w/ it due to iffyness of
        ability to critically focus at close distance/wide aperture.


        Bill
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
bcasselb@orednet.org


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My dream
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 


Jefro wrote:

>> You can pick up good medium format equipment with Zeiss Tessar lenses
>> very cheaply. "Not having enough money" to get into medium format does
>> not work as an excuse.
>
> Ah, but:
>
> - which equipment
> - where to pick it up
> - what qualifies as "enough money"?

A 520 or 521 Ikonta can be had for $40-$60 with an uncoated tessar. These
were a 6X4.5 scale focus folder and the two I have are real sharp at
f8-f16. I bought a tower reflex a few weeks ago that came with a coated
fujitar lens that works well for about $45.


I also posted a week or so ago about a tower Box camera that works pretty
good that can be had for $10 or less. Most box camera's are real soft focus
so look that post up and find one that looks JUST like the one pictured.

I've bought most of my vintage cameras on ebay but some needed a
cleanup/shutter lube before they worked really well.  It's not complex to
fix these types of cameras.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Viewfinder for 6x9 folding camera
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002


Dennis Cass wrote:

> My question is two-fold: Will the non-optical viewfinder give
> approximately accurate results?

Yes and while it does feel "chinsy", it works fine.

> And is there a way to salvage, attach and calibrate a prism-type
> viewfinder?

It's really not worth it. I have one of these and while the radionar isn't
too bad, it's not what I'd call a stellar performer, at least in the
corners. Cropped to 6x7 it's fairly good at f11-f22. If you like this style
of camera (I love em!) a bessa 1 or an ikonta with their high end lenses
would be what I'd invest in. The franka line was basically just a cheap
camera. Remember I did say I own several of their camera's!!

They do work pretty good, just not really worth spending time and money
upgrading the viewing system. That fold down finder is one of the things
that makes them so small. It is too bad they didn't use a fold down optical
finder like the ikonta 521's or the duo 620's have.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: How to get sharp-focused pic on Folder cameras?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002


spica wrote:

> Folders work great when the distance is set at infinity.
> i have been using folder cameras recently to take pictures at close
> distances (~5 feet to 30 feet). the picture taken are sometimes
> out-of-focus.
> most old folders do not  have a coupled rangefinder or even uncoupled
> rangefinder.
> What are the best ways to get a sharp picture using the old folders?

I never set the camera to infinity for any shot. Most landscapes work best
with good DOF and I normally use f11-f16 with the lens set to the
hyperfocal distance or to the setting that includes everything in the scene
in focus.  Many folders have a DOF scale and I've found if you use the
scale one stop larger than what you're using, it turns out good. (i.e.
shooting at f16 use the DOF scale for f11). They were too generous with
their calculations for anything larger than a proof sized image.  Most
folder lenses are rather poor at f8 and larger, even the better tessar
style ones, so use smaller fstops, the DOF scale and good guess work and
you should do fine. If you're trying to do selective focus portrait style
stuff, an SLR/TLR is much better and you'll not have really good luck doing
this with a folder IMHO
--

Stacey


From: donjames@spamless.adelphia.net (Don James)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to get sharp-focused pic on Folder cameras?
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002


You should also check the accuracy of the distance scale on your lens.
If it was ever taken apart for cleaning, it's possible that the focus
ring wasn't put back in the right orientation. Select a short distance
that's explicitly marked on the focus ring (most will have a mark at
10 feet or 3 meters), and place the camera so it's that distance away
from an object that's easy to focus on. Open the back of the camera
and place some Scotch Magic tape across the rollers so it's in the
same plane as the film would be. Set the focus ring to the chosen
distance and see if the image projected on the tape is in focus. If
not, adjust focus until it's sharp, then loosen and re-orient the
focus ring so it's accurate.


This is most easily done on a sunny day, using a towel to shade your
eyes and the back of the camera to make the image easier to see. It
also helps to be very nearsighted. :~)



From: spicaofla@yahoo.com (spica)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002

"kauai82" kauai82@earthlink.net wrote:
>Just bought a AGFA folding camera and am having fun with it. Are there any
>folding cameras that have multi-coated lens and a coupled rangefinder for
>focusing ? Any that use different type of filters. I do a lot of hiking and
>like the light weight of the folding cameras. Thanks

copied from photo.net:

To answer your last question first, most lenses from the era of the
folding 120 format camera (1930s-50s) is going to compare to current
lenses as the science of lens construction and coatings has advanced.
Which is, of course, not to say that you can't get some great results
from those older lenses.

Generally speaking, you're going to get the best results from the
later models of cameras with more advanced lenses, and that's going to
set you back anywhere from $200 to $500. The lenses I'd recommend
looking for are the Zeiss Tessar, Voigtlaender Color-Skopar or Heliar,
and the Agfa Solinar.

I don't believe there are any folding cameras out there in 6x7 format,
aside perhaps from the Plaubel Makina (I think I've seen those in 6x7,
but I may be wrong). If you really want to spend over $1000 on a
camera for light use, that's your business. In general, these cameras
come in 6x9, 6x6 or 6x4.5. Some 6x9s come with some sort of masking to
let you do one of the smaller formats as well.

You don't say whether a coupled rangefinder is important to you, so
I'll list some CRF cameras first, then some without.

The Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta (available in 6x9, 6x6 and 6x4.5 formats)
is generally considered top of the line in this category. Remember to
look for a Tessar lens for best performance, Novar for lesser
performance. The Soviet copies (Moskva 4 & 5) are a good substitute,
although quality control was spotty. The Industar lens is in general a
good performer.

The Voigtlaender Bessa II (6x9 with a 6x4.5 mask) in a Heliar will
really drain the bank account, but is by all accounts a marvelous
performer. With the Color-Skopar it will be less pricy, but the
results will still be excellent.

The Agfa Super Isolette and Ansco Super Speedex are available with a
Solinar lens in 6x6 format. This camera is generally considered the
best of the Isolette/Speedex line, and is on the rare side. Prices
will be high. Again there is a good Soviet counterpart, the Iskra.

Also keep in mind the Mamiya 6 folding camera (not to be confused with
the modern Mamiya 6 rangefinder), the later models with Zukio lenses
are reputed to be quite good. Again, rather pricy.


Non-Rangefinders:

The Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta series, as with the Super Ikontas, the Tessar
models are going to run more than the Novar models.

The Voigtlaender Perkeo II with Color-Skopar in 6x6 and the Bessa I
with Color-Skopar in 6x9 with a 6x6 mask are very nice cameras. I'm
not sure if either of these cameras is available with a Heliar, but if
so be prepared to plunk down a big piece of change.

The Agfa Record III (6x9) has a non-coupled rangefinder and can be
found with a Solinar. The Agfa Isolette and the Ansco Speedex (6x6)
can be found with Solinars, but Agnars and Apotars are more common.
The Apotar can be a good performer, but the Agnar is rather average.

Zeiss Tessar lenses can also be found on non-Zeiss cameras, so keep
your eyes open.

The following links might also be of help to you:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/folder.html
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/2786/camera.htm

Good Luck!

Benno Jones

-- Benno Jones

PS. Also this http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/index_e.html Japanese site
(in English).



From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 


kauai82 wrote:

> Just bought a AGFA folding camera and am having fun with it. Are there any
> folding cameras that have multi-coated lens and a coupled rangefinder for
> focusing ?

I doubt any will have multicoated lenses like modern lenses have as these
were never made into the years multicoating was used. That said, many do
have coated lenses which provide 90% of the advantage a multicoated lens
has. Also given that the most complex lenses used on most folders only has
3 air to glass surfaces, I'd be shocked if you could see the difference
between a single coating and multicoating in most conditions.

On the rangefinder, several models have coupled rangefinders but these tend
to be the really heavy models. I've found that a viewfinder model with a
clip on rngefinder is much smaller and lighter and then you can use the
rangefinder on any camera you buy.  I like the ones that have the flip up
optical viewfinders.

Also given the years these were made, sample to sample variations of the
lenses were probably wider than modern lenses so you might want to try
severl samples and test to see which one is best. I've found in doing this
testing some of the more beat up looking samples were the best performers,
even when the glass had some cleaning marks or other visible defects. Seems
the ones that worked realy well got used more.


>Any that use different type of filters.

The filters are a whole nuther thing! There was no standard at all and each
camera uses it's own type. Some use a slip on style, others need a slip on
holder. Others use odd sized filters you won't be able to find new easily.
Best bet is to find some used camera store or a camera show and look though
the boxes of old stuff.

>I do a lot of hiking
> and like the light weight of the folding cameras.

I do too and have found them to be good performers. I've also had better
luck with the 6x6 and 6X4.5 versions. I'm not sure if it's a film flatness
issue or an optical one but the 6X9 folders just don't seem as sharp. Also
be prepared to use f8-f16 as the other setting normally produce sub
standard results.

--
Stacey


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Just got wet (was Taking the MF plunge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002


Jefro wrote:

>
> So, now I have a medium format camera, probably with a very soft lens,
> probably that will not keep the film flat...but it works!  I'm going on
> a film hunt later today.
>


You  might be surprised. If you compose to crop to 6X4.5 (8X10 format) you
will be chopping off the corners, which is where 3 element lenses suffer.
Shoot it at f11-f22 on a tripod and I bet they will look better than
anything you've shot with 35mm! I have an old tower box camera with one
shutter speed and two fstops (holes drilled in a plate that slides back and
forth), with a single element lens and it works pretty good! Just make sure
the lens is clean, even if you have to unscrew the rear element to clean
the insides of the glass. Any fogging between the elements will kill
contrast which will make it appear soft.
--
Stacey


From: tw406@aol.com (TW406)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 May 2002 
Subject: Re: Just got wet (was Taking the MF plunge)


I just got some contact sheets back from shooting in abandoned buildings with
my '30s German folder. Though limited in abilities (won't focus closer than 7
ft, no slow shutter speeds except bulb, normal lens, jerry-rigged filters) the
results can be pretty impressive. Images sometimes soft (I suspect its from
judging the distance wrong, not the lens), but these I shot all at f32, 2 to 30
seconds on a tripod and they look sharp and crisp on the contacts.

Cost was $40. on ebay; I have other 120 cameras I've gotten there as cheap as
$12; one I use has only 2 settings, f11 and f8, but asa 50 film in daylight
it's killer. Square format, very sharp, focus with a foot scale.

I just had the pleasure of seeing a friend's mother's photo albums which he
just inherited, filled with family snapshots taken with these type of cameras
dating back to the early 40s. There's a warmth and honesty to the images that
seems lost by modern, multicoated lenses and auto exposure (and color too, but
that's another story). I have an RB and I love it, but use a lot of this funky
stuff just for the challenge and fun of it and the images have a timeless
quality that is hard to describe.

The Holgas can be fun, but frustrating; I've taken some great pics but the
cameras don't seem to last long before the problems become insurmountable.

Search "120 film" on ebay, you'll find all sorts of wonderful and unwanted
gems. If you know the basics of exposure you'll do fine. I have my eye on
another one right now, hopefully the price won't go too high!

T


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle 120 Folder?
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002

"Godfrey DiGiorgi" ramarren@bayarea.net wrote:
> Plaubel Makina 67W. Somewhat rare and expensive.
> The Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is available with a wide lens, but it doesn't fold.

That Fuji is available in three models: GSW670III (outside Japan), GSW680III
(Japan only: closest to A-series proportions (1:1.414)), and GSW690III.

And the Fuji GS645W, GA645W, and GA645Wi,  which don't fold either...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: chrisplatt@aol.com (ChrisPlatt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras


The GS645 folder incorporates coupled rangefinder,
an accurate coupled meter, takes 120 and 220 film,
and has a terrific Fuji lens.

It folds to a very small, *pocketable* size.

For those used to 35mm SLRs, it is ergonomically excellent.
Unlike 35mm, when holding the camera normally,
orientation of 6 x 4.5 cm image is vertical/portrait.

Filters are problematic.

Most are 15-20 years old and may have worn out bellows.
Replacement is available but not cheap.
What is in medium format?

Because of its unique combination of features
this camera has a high resale value.
Expect to pay $500-600 for a good working copy.

-Chris-



Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 
From: "Mike Elek" melek@fptoday.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: An interesting article.


The Super Ikonta B (530/16) is an extremely heavy camera. Great lens and
great photos, but wow -- heavy!

Godfrey has taken some very nice photos with his Super Ikonta. And I imagine
he's become very muscular from carrying it around!

The Ikonta/Super Ikonta C cameras with the Tessar lenses are terrific too.
They give you a very large 6x9 negative -- just eight shots per roll. But
wow.

Here's a sample page to give you an idea of the resolution from this camera.
http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm


I love these old folders. You also might want to check out the Old Folder
Forum, started by Stephe -- also a fan of the medium format camera.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/oldfolder/start

-Mike
...



From: "Pat Perez" patrickdperez@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Looking for an URL
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002

I think this may be what you're looking for. I got it from this group a few
weeks back.

http://www.cleanimages.info/articles/MediumFormatInYourPocket/folders.htm

Pat  
"Suibu Liu" suibuliu@yahoo.com wrote 
> I am looking for a web page, in which the author shows one of his/her
> B/W pictures taken either by a Agfa or an Voigtlander 6x9 folder. I
> remember the main picture has a bird-eye perspective, showing a 3 or 4
> floor building and its sourounding fields. The picture was taken from
> an even higher building, thus the bird-eye perspective. And I remember
> there are 4 or 5 smaller pictures showing enlargements of sections of
> the main picture.
>
> I remember I was very impressed by the sharpness of the vintage lens,
> but I lost the URL.
>
> Anyone have the URL?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Suibu 



From: "Pat Perez" patrickdperez@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Looking for an URL
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 

Let me try again. I am pretty sure *this* is the page you were looking for.
I had a brain fade and confused the link I previously sent with this one (I
had to search my history file for it).

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm

Pat  

"Suibu Liu" suibuliu@yahoo.com wrote...
> I am looking for a web page, in which the author shows one of his/her
> B/W pictures taken either by a Agfa or an Voigtlander 6x9 folder. I
> remember the main picture has a bird-eye perspective, showing a 3 or 4
> floor building and its sourounding fields. The picture was taken from
> an even higher building, thus the bird-eye perspective. And I remember
> there are 4 or 5 smaller pictures showing enlargements of sections of
> the main picture.
>
> I remember I was very impressed by the sharpness of the vintage lens,
> but I lost the URL.
>
> Anyone have the URL?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Suibu 



From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist 2-1/4x3-1/4 --- Any good?
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002


"Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com wrote 
> Are the late 40's to mid-50's Kodak Tourist folding cameras good or better
> picture takers?
>
> Ooops. BTW,   should mention that they only take 620 (discontinued) size
> film, unless you re-spool from 120 loads or pay super-premium prices for
> someone else to do it for you.
>
> Although all seem to have unit (front element) focusing lenses, I was hoping
> the large-ish medium format negs might overcome this design's inherent
> short-comings...not to mention guestimating distances thrown into the mix.
>
> The cameras seems to have been offered with at least 4 Kodak-branded lenses
> ranging in max aperture through the range of F4.5, F6.3, F8.8 & F12.5
>
> Are any of these lenses stellar performers?  or dogs?


Take a read of this: http://www.rit.edu/~rckpph/faq/20.02.html

At small apertures with a distant subject the difference between an
"amateur" lens and a "professional quality" lens in folders of the same make
might not be as great as you think. I think if it is fitted with a Kodar or
a Kodet lens then you might as well bin it, though, going solely on what I
read on that page.

I wouldn't touch 620 myself since we have so many good 120 folders to choose
from over here in the UK but I am sure you will have fun with them. You will
soon learn to "guestimate" distances well enough and at smaller apertures
the depth of field will save you. The moving front cell shouldn't bother you
except you will notice the shortcomings of the lens for subjects at close
distance. Stick to distant objects on bright days and you will get a lot of
satisfaction out of folding cameras.

...


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist 2-1/4x3-1/4 --- Any good?
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002

...(quoting above)

Agreed - speaking as someone who modified a Kodak Tourist (with the good
lens and shutter) to take 120 film. Great fun, nice pix, almost zero
cost. Not too shabby.

Regards,

Marv


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist 2-1/4x3-1/4 --- Any good?
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 

...
> Marv, what modifications did you do to accomidate 120 in your Kodak Tourist?
>
> Alan Tippett

The aluminum casting was cut away in both filmbays with a Dremel tool
and ball cutter until a 120 spool fit. The floors of the filmbays were
shimmed up 1/8" so the 120 spool would center in each side.  A piece of
aluminum was epoxied into the wind key to engage the larger 120 spool.
These mods of course render the camera worthless to the collector and
are not reversable.  I have several of the Tourists each purchased for
#3.00 USD at garage sales.  Great fun, slips into a jacket pocket.


Regards,

Marv


From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist 2-1/4x3-1/4 --- Any good?


> "Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com

>The cameras seems to have been offered with at least 4 Kodak-branded lenses
>ranging in max aperture through the range of F4.5, F6.3, F8.8 & F12.5
>
>Are any of these lenses stellar performers?  or dogs?

The Anastar is the top lens.  A Tessar design like the older Anastigmat
Special.  This would be followed by the Anaston and the Kodet.  Not sure what
the fourth lens you mentioned would be.  The Anastar model may be costly.
IMHO, in folders, lens character is more important than lens sharpness.  If you
need sharp better to go modern.

Chuck


From: donjames@spamless.adelphia.net (Don James)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Introduction Camera
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002

 fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:

>If you have the extra $60-$80 it would cost, I'd "step up" to a version
>with a tessar lens. Even the older uncoated ones work fine and these simple
>lenses only have a few glass to air surfaces and are less prone to cleaning
>marks and coating problems as well.  A 520/521 6X4.5 with a tessar is a
>great little camera capable of really good results, at f8-f16 as good as
>some of the modern lenses!
>  Stacey

I'll second that suggestion. An old camera with superior optics isn't
very expensive. A Zeiss Ikonta with Tessar is one good choice; others
are:

Agfa Isolette (or Ansco Speedex) with Solinar
Voigtlander Perkeo I with Color-Skopar

If you shoot a lot of color, the Perkeo with the coated Color-Skopar
might be the best choice, but you'll be pleasantly suprised by the
results from any of these cameras. Make sure you get one that is fully
functional; you'll want to spend your time shooting, not learning how
to CLA a slow shutter.



From: melek@fptoday.com (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Introduction Camera
Date: 4 Jul 2002 

"Henricus" henricvz@netscape.net wrote
> I was shocked at
> the cost of the cameras and frankly I am starting to think I can't afford
> it.  Yet I am intrigued and will continue to research this subject.

Henry,

I would recommend a Rolleiflex Automat with either the Tessar or Xenar
lens. These cameras are durable, usually in very good condition and in
plentiful supply, so they often run from $150 to $300 on eBay. I
bought a second Rolleiflex recently for $125. When you step up to the
letter models, the cost begins to bump into the $500+ range, so that
might be more than you want to spend. I'd probably go for a Rolleiflex
Automat and then spend a couple hundred on a decent light meter.
Sekonics and Gossens come highly recommended.

For starters, check out an older zone focus Ikonta with the Tessar
lens. These run in price on eBay between $50 and $150.


Here's a sample page from a 1937 Ikonta with a Tessar lens. It cost me
$50 or so.
http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm

Here's a sample from a Rolleiflex Automat with the Xenar lens:
http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/photos/images/Ba_Da_Ling.jpg

Both are sort of inexpensive -- although that's a relative term.

-Mike


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The antique 2,8 GX/FX

Well,

I checked out some shots Jerry took with his  late teens/early 1920's Kodak
Anastigmat the other day, and I wouldn't have known they weren't taken with
a modern lens.  They were color too.  Maybe just a little less saturated,
maybe just a little less contrasty than a top drawer "modern" lens, but just
right for portraiture. The optics WERE pretty good in those days.  All that
being said though, the view camera has given me my first opportunity to use
some first rate modern optics other than 35mm .  The sharpness is expected,
it's the color saturation that just amazes me.  I can see a clear difference
between a coated 135mm Xenar from the 50's I guess, and a multicoated
Grandagon N from the 80's or 90's.  To be honest with you, the first time I
saw a 4x5 slide taken with the Grandagon, it almost looked weird.  I'm very
accustomed to how the same film looks from my Rollei or my Kiev 60. The
color from the Grandagon looks much more intense, like I said, almost
weird..  The 135 Xenar is very nice, much like my Rolleis and doesn't have
the ultracolor of the Grandagon N.  I wonder if this is mostly a function of
the coatings? Customers seem to really like the vivid colors, so for paid
slide film gigs, I'll be going for that look.  For my real love, black and
white, I love the classic lenses.  The first time I got a look at the
skintones rendered at f4.5 with the Tessar on my Rollei, I was hooked.

Gene


Gene----- Original Message -----
From: "J Patric DahlTn" jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The antique 2,8 GX/FX

> >From: Gene Johnson
> >Yes on the large format camera.  My current model monorail is seen as an
> >"antique" by many.
>
> If you had shown those people some photos taken with that camera they would
> probably say "Oh my! They really had better optics in those days!"
>
> When I showed my "new" VoigtlSnder Bergheil to member in the Photo Club here
> he said "Oh, I got one like that to play with from my Grandmother when I was
> a child!" I asked him if it really was a professional plate camera or just a
> cheap camera with bellows, like the Isolette, and he just "Uuuuh?".
>
> /Patric


From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 
From: jenspatricdahlen@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The antique 2,8 GX/FX

>From: Gene Johnson
>(snip)The optics WERE pretty good in those days.
(snip)
>For my real love, black and
>white, I love the classic lenses.  The first time I got a look at the
>skintones rendered at f4.5 with the Tessar on my Rollei, I was hooked.


Yes, and yes! What I meant was that "ordinary people" don't understand that
the film format helps a lot when it comes to sharpness and fine grain. Even
photos taken with a Rolleicord equipped with a three element Triotar are
sharper than the ones I get with my Olympus with Zuiko 1,8/50.

Even the old photos taken with box cameras with meniscus lenses are sharp.
6x9 negatives that are contact printed. "Ooooh, the old optics were sooo
good". Not really, but how many had the negatives enlarged to 24x30cm?

I once showed my Zeiss Contina with the simple Novar lens to a guy at a
photo store and he said "Ooooh, the optics are so good on these old
cameras". I said that it had a Novar lens, not even made by Zeiss, and he
didn't understand what I meant and said "Ooooh" again. :-)

/Patric




From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Folding Cameras ?
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002

http://www.cleanimages.com/articles/MediumFormatInYourPocket/

Godfrey

 "Matt Williams" kauai82@earthlink.net wrote:

>There was a nice article on folding cameras and a gentleman that restored
>them awhile back. I bookmarked the site, but my other computer got a virus
>and wiped out the hard drive so I lost it. Could someone give me the URL so
>I can get back in touch with this guy ? Thanks, Matt


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002


Gannet wrote:

> I'm looking for my first folder, a 6x9.  I've been offered the
> following 4 cameras, all in nice shape:
>
> mid-30s Zeiss Nettar, f3.5 Nettar in Compur Rapid, US$48
>
> Zeiss Ikonta 105mm Tessar f4.5 in Compur, US$110
>
> Voigtlander Bessa, 105mm Skopar f3.5, includes 4.5x6 adapter and mask,
> US$145
>
> circa 1954 Ferrania Falco-S, 105mm Officine Galileo f4.5 in Prontor-S,
> speeds to 250, US$85
>
> Gotta love those Italian names. :)
>
> Anyway, I want this camera for use, not collecting.  Primary interest
> in landscapes.  The price isn't all that important, but, like anyone,
> bargains are always nice.

I've personally used a bessa with the 105 skopar and an ikonta with the 105
tessar and the tessar IMHO was the better optic. Both were coated samples
and the tessar was shaper and mainly had better contrast at the fstops I
use (f11-f22). I also feel the ikonta is built better and will have less
problems. I've also used a nettar and it was below either of these. No idea
on the last one but I know the tessar ikonta is a nice camera.
--

  Stacey

Postscript: 

I should have mentioned the skopar lensed model I have is a color skopar
which is the coated version. A plain skopar is uncoated and would be even
worse. The coated tessar (if it's labeled opton tessar it is definately
coated but other can be as well) I have outperformed the color skopar I
have by a fairly large margin. I've used uncoated tessars on 6X6 and found
them to be good performers as well if you keep the lens shaded and don't
shoot backlit subjects.
--


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?
Date: 8 Aug 2002


The only one which might be a dog is the Ferrania camera. I have no
prejudice against non-german cameras but many of the old three-element
lens have mediocre performance. The Prontor shutters are not as
reliable as the Compur shutters. But once they are cleaned and
overhauled (if necessary) they perform quite well.

The Zeiss Nettar lens is a three-element lens. It might be a bit soft,
especially near the edges, when used at full aperture. I did not try
my Ikonta 521/2 yet. A friend tested a couple of cameras at f/8. The
Zeiss Nettar (on a Contina camera) outperformed many more 'advanced'
and newer lenses.

The Zeiss Tessar, especially if it's a post-war (coated) version does
not show any weaknesses. I have a 6x6 east german (post-war) folder
with a Tessar lens. The pics are tack sharp. If you have the
opportunity (and funds) to buy a camera with a Tessar lens this should
be your choice.

The Voigtlaender Skopar is a design very similar to the Tessar - and
very similar in performance, too. The Voigtlaender Bessas are a bit
overpriced. Of course the 6x4.5 mask is a plus - I like this format
allowing 16 shots on a roll of 120 film and still MUCH bigger than a
35mm slide.

Winfried


Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002
From: "Mike Elek" melek@fptoday.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?

Gannet gannet@jtel.net wrote...

> I'm looking for my first folder, a 6x9.  I've been offered the
> following 4 cameras, all in nice shape:
>
> mid-30s Zeiss Nettar, f3.5 Nettar in Compur Rapid, US$48

These used Rodenstock Novar lenses. Decent performer but can be soft in the
corners.

> Zeiss Ikonta 105mm Tessar f4.5 in Compur, US$110

THIS IS THE ONE I WOULD BUY (but I'm a Zeiss-Ikon fan). The Tessar is a
great lens, especially at f/8 or smaller.
Sample page (sorry to keep repeating this):

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm

> Voigtlander Bessa, 105mm Skopar f3.5, includes 4.5x6 adapter and mask, US$145

A classic camera. I've read that you need to ensure that lens standard is
rigid and doesn't have any play in it. I haven't used this, but I've heard
very nice things about this camera and lens. It has the mask, and that's a
big plus.

> circa 1954 Ferrania Falco-S, 105mm Officine Galileo f4.5 in Prontor-S,
> speeds to 250, US$85
This sounds interesting. I'd probably buy this just to see what it's like.
The Prontor shutters (because of their design) seemed to collect more dust
and debris than a Compur shutter. It's fairly easy to service them, but make
sure the slow speeds work.

The 6x9 is great for landscapes ... and portraits and street shooting too.
Anyway, that's my two cents.

--
Mike Elek


From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which Folder to Buy ?
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002

...
> I have a Solinette (well, two actually) with a Solinar -- it's a
> decent lens but not spectacular. Not a knock against Agfa, but they
> just couldn't compete with Zeiss (or Voigtlander) when it came to lens
> quality.

I think both Schneider and Rodenstock made excellent lenses that were on a
par with Zeiss and Voigtlander but you didn't get those lenses in folding
cameras as far as I know. Unless it was fold-away 35mm cameras (Retinas).
Steinheil as well made some stunning lenses They even made some for the
Custom Stereo Realist that could resolve 120 line pairs per millimeter if I
remember correctly. Those were the glory days of camera and lenses. What an
incredible contribution that country made to photography.

...

> By the way, once you start collecting folding cameras, you might get
> hooked and become a full-fledged collector/photographer! There are
> worse things in life, though.

I love those old cameras and have many of them. I've now taken to buying and
selling to try to get my hobby to pay for itself as well as promoting the
best of these cameras perhaps to a new generation who will hopefully learn
to appreciate their qualities.


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002

Ted Battye wrote:

> And how would you compare the Zeiss Opton Tessar-equipped Ikontas with
> both the Solinar 75mm 3.5/85mm 4.5 Agfa Isolette IIIs? Are the Zeiss
> optics a little better or are we talking a quantum leap in difference
> which will be visible on film?

What you'll find is that most of these, even the cheaper ones, have good
resolution in the center of the frame but have problems with the
edges/corners. All need to be used from f11-f22 to have a chance at good
corner sharpness. If you get a 6X4.5 folder, the optics are less critical.
a 6X9 folder needs good optics to use all of the film. I also think having
coated optics isn't THAT critical if you're careful. These are simple
lenses with very few air to glass surfaces and I've gotten great results
from a 520 ikonta A (6x4.5) with an uncoated tessar and these can be found
for $50-$60.
--
  Stacey


From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002


Have a look at:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/zeiss.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontb.htm
http://www.amdmacpherson.com/classiccameras/zeiss/zeissindex.html

Some of these are on the Super Ikonta which is also an option over the
simpler Ikonta

Meryl
...


From: Gannet gannet@jtel.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which 6x9 Folder?
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 

Ted Battye ted.battye@sympatico.ca wrote:

>Could someone please post any relevant URLs regarding using these types
>of cameras hopefully for the MF newby?

Here are a few I found useful.  A Google search on "folding camera"
will get a lot more.

http://www.cleanimages.com/articles/MediumFormatInYourPocket/folders.htm

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/folder.html

http://homes.jcu.edu.au/~zlraa/Campix/folders.htm

http://www.foldingcamerasrestoration.com/

Here are some sample images from the same type of camera I just agreed
to purchase for $110 ("average" price, no super-bargain):

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm

I don't know about you, but they're plenty sharp enough for me for
$110. :)

I can't *wait* to see what 6x9 transparencies look like!

Good luck.

Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida USA
gannet@jtel.net



From: "Henricus" henricvz@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap 120 format camera?
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002

...

Try a Zeiss Nettar or a Afga Isolette.  You can get them for under $50.00
bucks and you'll be hooked on this format.  Check this out
http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Nettar.html  make sure you look at the photos
this camera took.  Even though they are black and white, you can see what
great pictures this camera takes.  I have one and I wish my scanner was
working so I could show you what my $40.00 camera can do to transparency
film.  WOW, this format is great!

Henry Chavez


From: drsmithhm@hotmail.com (drsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap 120 format camera?
Date: 5 Sep 2002

...

I'll offer up my 2c.  I was somewhat interested in getting into MF
recently, so I called my mom and asked her if she had any of the old
roll film cameras lying around.  Next time I saw her, she gave me 3
of them - a Kodak Brownie, an Ansco, and another I've yet to clean up.
None of them have focus, shutter speed controls, or f-stops - it's
just the basics.  I believe the original film was 100 speed as these
were mostly intended for direct sunlight style pictures.

After some inspection, I could see they only take 620 roll film which
hasn't been made in quite a few years.  After some googling, I found
filmforclassics.com where I could order film re-spooled onto 620
rolls or I could re-roll my own 120 film onto the 620 spools in
my upstairs bedroom where it gets pitch black at night.  I chose to
re-roll my own.  Please note that this procedure takes some patience
and the ability to figure out what's wrong mid-procedure as though
you were blind - you only have your sense of touch to work with, so
it might not be for everyone.

Over a couple of weeks, I slowly burned through the roll in the Ansco
camera.  It took that long because the situations in which I could use
it were limited to direct sunlight shots.  I got several of the sun
rising over Lake Ontario(sun was behind the clouds with godrays all
over the lake and a fairly strong wind was whipping up 4-5 foot swells),
some landscapes, and a few from Letchworth State Park.

I turned in the film with *explicit* instructions that I have to get
the roll back since I didn't take the time to re-roll the film back onto
a 120 spool.  The lab returned it no problems.

I now have a 11x13 enlargment of one of the sunrise shots hanging on
the wall and a Bronica ETRSi on the way.  The added detail from the
larger negative is, IMHO, very much worth the time/expense.  I'm sure
others could repeat a similar story.

--drsmith

ps - I'm hoping the off-topic Nazi's are taking a break.  After all,
      35mm is somewhat like a gateway drug when you realize MF is
      what you really need for those poster-sized enlargements, but
      I would have never considered MF without getting my experience
      from 35mm first.



From: haijack@nospam.onr.com (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modifying folders?
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002


What type folder is it? The Agfa/Ansco folders used a green-colored
grease that eventually sets up like glue. The focusing ring locks to
the lens when this happens, and if you force it, you may end up
turning the entire front lens assy, rather than the focus ring. You'll
still only be able to turn it one turn or so, and it might feel as
though you're focusing, but in fact, the lens mount threads are a much
finer pitch than the focus ring threads. So, turning the lens rather
than the ring doesn't provide the range of focus indicated by the
printing on the ring.

There are a number of sites on the Web that describe this problem and
shows the steps to correct it. I don't know that this is the reason
your camera won't focus, but if it is, relubricating the focus ring
will be much simpler than modifying the camera.

JL

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:

>Can one modify a folding camera that doesn't focus to focus?  I figured
>I could place a piece of wax paper or ground glass at the back and just
>mark off the distances.  Assuming of course I can modify said camera.
>Has anyone tried this?


From: haijack@nospam.onr.com (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Modifying folders?
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002

That's a dangerous place for acetone. I'd be worried splatters might
damage the lens coating. My own technique is to remove the entire
assembly and soak in naptha for a few days (I use an all-metal Altoids
cannister). Then I use a combination of rubber grips, vise-grips, heat
from a soldering iron, and brute force as required to break the focus
ring loose from the lens barrel. If the camera hasn't been handled in
a number of years, it can be a real bear.

JL

 "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com wrote:
>I use an emulsion cleaner to loosen the grease. It smells like acetone and I
>think it might be acetone.
...


rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: ruco9091@aol.com (Ruco9091)
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002
[1] Re: Before moving to medium format....

>If you're testing the waters, you could try an older folding camera, a
>Yashica or Rolleiflex/Rolleicord.

Excellent advice.  Even a 50 year old camera is capable of absolutely stunning
photos.  I have a Hassy, but use an old Zeiss folder for much of my outdoor
scenic work.

--Ruco


From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Shutter release cable for old folder?
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 

Winfried Buechsenschuetz at w-buechsenschuetz@web.de wrote:

> I can't help you with a cable release. But check the shutter assembly
> - at least on most old german shutters there should be a little
> threaded hole where you can fit a standard cable release.

Winfried is right - and sometimes the cable release hole is closed with a
small screw. Just remove the screw. It's a mystery to me but two of my
folders had such a screw in place when I got them.




From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 620 to 120 conversions Kodak Tourist
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002


KFritch wrote:
>
> Picked up an old Tourist with the front cell focussing coated Anastar (which I
> understand is basically the same critter as the commercial Ektar used in the 6
> x 9 Graphics but designed to front cell focus and rebadged) in flash supermatic
> 800 shutter.  Respooled some 120 onto 620 to test it and found it was actually
> pretty good.  However spooling and respooling film is a pain.  I understand
> that someone out there in cameraland used to do conversions on these.  Anyone
> know who and how much?

I've done a couple of the Tourists.  Basically, you go into the film
bays with a specimen 120 spool and a Dremel and remove anything you need
to make the 120 spool fit and work. It's about three hours work. Fun
camera to use though.

Regards,

Marv


From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 roll film camera
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002


Another voice for a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta. I have a '38 B model (6x6)
with uncoated Zeiss Tessar 80/2.8 as well as a '50 A model (6x4.5) with
a coated Schneider Xenar 75/2.8. The first was an excellent Ebay
bargain .. Buy It Now price at $175 which I snapped up immediately. The
latter was a bit of a rarity and ran another hundred dollars or so.

Both are in good working condition and take a great photo. I'll likely
have both of them overhauled soon as I will feel more comfortable
relying upon them then. That will cost likely as much as the purchase
price but is still a bargain considering what new medium format cameras
cost these days.

godfrey


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: FORMAT 4.5 X 6
Date: 20 Oct 2002


steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote 
> OK, OK, I've been set straight.  But were most of these cameras designed
> for 645 or are we just talking a 645 mask?

There have been a few 120 film cameras designed for 6x4.5cm only, I
have seen a japanese one on ebay recently. It is correct that many
pre-war cameras designed for 6x4.5 only accept 127 film.

Quite a few 6x6 folders (and some 6x9 folders as well) have viewfinder
masks, film masks and a separate 'red window' for 6x4.5cm.
Unfortunately on most of them the 6x4.5cm mask got lost over time -
and it is not very easy to make your own. The chinese Seagull folder
has flaps on either side of the film screen which are permanenty
attached and thus won't get lost.

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to compile a list of all
6x4.5cm cameras since data in camera catalogues such as McKeown,
german Kadlubek or french Princelle do not always mention this
feature.

Winfried


Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: FORMAT 4.5 X 6

Winfried Buechsenschuetz wrote:

> . . . Quite a few 6x6 folders (and some 6x9 folders as well) have viewfinder
> masks, film masks and a separate 'red window' for 6x4.5cm.
> Unfortunately on most of them the 6x4.5cm mask got lost over time -
> and it is not very easy to make your own. The chinese Seagull folder
> has flaps on either side of the film screen which are permanenty
> attached and thus won't get lost.

There are also some AGFA (and Ansco) folders with flaps to mask 6 by 4.5. I am
not sure of which models.

> It will be difficult, if not impossible, to compile a list of all
> 6x4.5cm cameras since data in camera catalogues such as McKeown,
> german Kadlubek or french Princelle do not always mention this
> feature.

The catalogues are a bit frustrating, but they are fairly large already. I
recently acquired an AGFA 6 by 9, and have started researching these a bit
more.

It seems that you can tell on some models what formats they handle by the red
windows on the back. When held horizontally, one lower right window for 6 by 9,
one centre window for 6 by 6, or one slightly higher and left for 6 by 4.5.
Having a combination of two or three windows would give multiple formats.
However, this is just initial casual observation, and I could be off a bit on
this.


Also, I have read that Paul Huf started with an AGFA 6 by 9. I have found very
little information on him through Google (or any other search engine), and no
books so far. If anyone knows where several of his images are posted on the
internet, I would really enjoy seeing more. Thanks in advance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html



All of the following are made for 6x4.5 without a mask:

- Zeiss Ikonta 'A' (models 520, 521)
- Zeiss Super Ikonta 'A' (rangefinder models 530? etc.)
- Ensign Selfix 16-20 (best with Ross Xpres lens)
- Lots of Japanese copies of the Ikonta, including the Daiichi Zenobia
- Voigtlander Bessa 46? (rare and expensive)


"0320231433" dam.mad@free.fr wrote 
> QUELQU UN PEUT IL ME DIRE OU JE POURRAIS TROUVER LA LISTE DES MARQUES
> APPAREILS ANCIENS AU FORMAT 4.5 X  6 ?
>
> MERCI


From: "rlhunter" rlhunter@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: What do I have?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002

I just bought a Voightlander Bessa11 with a 105mm/f3.5 color skopar lens and
compur rapid shutter.  The shutter is in desperate need of a CLA (set it on
1 sec. and it stays open 2.5-3 sec.) other than that it seems to be in
excellent condition, bellows doesn't leak light, folding and focusing
mechanism is tight and operates smoothly, rangefinder is bright and works,
and only a few minor scuff marks on the case. The thing that puzzles me is
that it has what appears to be a PC socket for a flash but what I've been
able to find out about this camera indicates that the compur rapid shutter
didn't have a flash sync. There isn't any marking on the shutter speed dial
to indicate a flash setting either. The socket appears to be factory
installed but could have been done by a really professional repairman.Can
anyone tell me more about this and recommend a good shop to send it to to
fix the shutter I really don't want to take it apart and not be able to get
it back together again. This is my first medium format camera and I'm
looking forward to using it.

Thanks
R.L. Hunter




From: "Lyle Gordon" lyle@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What do I have?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 


Jurgen Krekel is an excellent repairman of folding mf cameras he can be
found at:

certo6@epix.net
http://www.cleanimages.com/home.htm
http://www.cleanimages.com/home.htm

...


From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What do I have?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002


Some Compur-Rapid's had flash sync. Others not. If the sync socket is on the
shutter assembly and it is a neat job then it was built in. I assume it is
for electronic flash. There will be no shutter speed corresponding to the
flash since for electronic flash it will be synchronised at all shutter
speeds for a leaf shutter. They are fully open when the flash is triggered.
The only reason it is marked at 1/60th sec for focal plane shutters is to
ensure the shutter is fully open when the flash is triggered. At high
shutter speeds you have a slot moving across the focal plane for curtain
shutters and if the flash fired then you would get an illuminated slot which
is not what you want. Leaf shutters do not have this restriction.

Compur shutters need a service from time to time and you will not be able to
fix it yourself. They are for professionals only.

Additionally, check the arm that moves the lens when the rangefinder knob is
turned. Some people mistakenly play with this knob when the camera door is
closed and it buckles this arm and thereby shortens it. If this is the case
then you will need to get the lens reset to the correct focal distance. You
should check this in any case.

...



Subject: Cheapo classic camera homepage
From: Karen Nakamura karen@gpsy.invalid
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002


I'm starting to build a home page around my cheapo (<$100) classic
camera collection. I'm collecting data on each camera. Right now I
don't have photos for all of them, but I think I'll spend a day taking
them with a digital camera and uploading them. Until then, enjoy!

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/

There's also info on how to test vintage cameras, recommendations, etc.
Here's the list so far:

My Classic Camera Collection (Built; Purchased; Purchase Price)

Agfa Isolette (19xx; 2002)
Ansco Viking (1946; 2002)
Bolsey C22 (1950-56; 2002.11; $70)
Canon Canonet 28 (1971; 2002.06; $15)
Kodak No. 2C Autographic Junior (1914; 1994; $25)
Kuribayashi Petri 35MX (1956; 2002.10; $19)
Miranda Sensorex (1967; 2002)
Polaroid Pronto Sonar One Step ($1)
Polaroid Automatic 250 Land Camera (1967; 2000; $5)
Polaroid SX-70 (1977; 2002; $15)
Ricoh 500 Rangefinder (1957; 2002.10; $40)
Spartus "35F" Model 400 (1950s?; 2002; $15)
VoigtlSnder Bessa (1931-49; 2002)
VoigtlSnder Bessamatic (1959-62; 2002; $120)*
Yashica Electro 35 GSN (1973; 2002.03; $175)*
Yashica Yashicamat 124 (1968; 2001)
Zeiss Ikon Contaflex IV (1957-59; 2002.06; $55)
Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex I/II (1939-51; 2002.10; $40)
Zero Image Zero 2000 6x6 Pinhole Camera (2000; 2000; $85)


From: Vincent Becker pasdepubbecker.vincent@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: English version of my website
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002

Hello,

After days of hard work here comes the English version of my website:

http://www.lumieresenboite.com/eng_index.php

It is dedicated to classic cameras, including MF folders and TLRs.

Please excuse my bad English as I had to translate it myself and am no
professional. Please also let me know if it is really too bad!

My English links section:
http://www.lumieresenboite.com/eng_liens.php
is still quite short, so I you have anything to suggest you're welcome!

I wish you a good visit.

--
Regards,
Vincent Becker
Photography and classic cameras :
URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com/
(remove "pasdepub" to answer by e-mail)


From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: Kodak Supermatic Flash Shutters


>Pretty neat - my total investment in
>this pockatable 6 x 9 is $2.00.

FYI: That $2 Supermatic 800 Tourister II with Anastar lens will go for over
$300 on Ebay. Big reason is, that camera out performs in image quality just
about any other 6x9 folder made, German or otherwise.  It even out does my
Hasselblad.

Larry



From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...

You have limited options in this price range.  You could get a reasonable
quality folder.  (Make sure the struts are tight and not bent, with no play and
that the lens locks in place parallel to the film plane).  Cameras with a
coupled rangefinder will be more expensive than those without.  You could also
get a 6 x 9 baby graphic.  Get one with a graflok back and use roll film
adapters which come in 6 x 9, 6 x 6, and 6 x 7 sizes.  The standard lens on
mine is the 101mm Ektar which is a resonably decent lens.  At minimum cost, I
then also mated lenses ranging from 80mm to 170mm.  I have yet to reach $300 in
expenditures on the system but I've been patient and lucky in my buys.



From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 

russell holroyd wrote:
>
> You have the right idea here but the Isolette is a 6x6 format and the ZI is
> probably 35mm. I learned photography with a medium format camera when I was
> eight years old - with a Brownie box camera! 6x9 folders were popular from
> the 1930s to the late 1950s. If you are considering buying one of these,
> check the bellows for holes, this is MOST important. Holes can make a good
> camera useless. Check inside - if the inside looks cheap, then it is
> probably a poorer quality camera. Generally, the more shutter speeds, the
> better the shutter. Check that it has a flash connection. The usual focal
> length lens on a 6x9 camera is 105mm. I hope this is of use to you if you
> decide to try a cheap camera. Don't he influenced by fashionable names, many
> excellent folders were made by small manufacturers. Above all, fave fun!!

The price of a user-condition 6x9 folder shouldn't be above 100 euros,
except the collector items. A 85mm lens on a 6x9 camera might be
possible, and worth 80 euros as a curiosity, since the typical lens was
longer, 4.5/110mm or (later) 3.5/105mm. The price should include a
Cleaning-Lubrication-Adjustment job of around 20 euros. At least the
shutter speeds will be off the mark without CLA.

The cameras have three parts: lens, shutter, and body. There were a
zillion body builders, who bought the shutter and the lens from someone
else. There were many legendary lens makers, like Meyer, Rodenstock,
Schneider, Steinheil, VoigtlSnder, and Zeiss, in Germany alone. But
there are about two shutters that are famous: Prontor and Compur.

The cameras came in three price levels. As a rule, the lowest isn't
interesting as a user camera any more. The medium price cameras usually
had a Prontor and a triplet lens, and the high priced ones a Compur and
a Tessar or its copy. The flagship models even had a coupled
rangefinder, like the Zeiss Super-Ikonta.

Then there is Agfa, who made cameras in all price and quality classes.
Don't remember the names any more...

And then there is Moskva, the Soviet copy of Zeiss Super-Ikonta. I got
mine for 75 euros from a street shop, including six month warranty. So
far I've had no complaints. The outside is a bit battered, but the
optics are excellent and the rangefinder is accurate. A good Moskva
gives the best performance for money, but there are also lemons called
Moskva. Not all units were made well, and even the well made ones have
been in use for half a century.

They are fun. They fit in a pocket, and draw attention when folded open
in a leasurely way (especially the semaphore of the rangefinder). But
they are not good for action photography...

-- Lassi



Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...


Actually, looking for an AGFA Record, or Billy Record may be a more likely 6
by 9 find. The 85 mm lens would have been more normal on a 6 by 6 AGFA. The
easiest way to tell is to look at the back of the camera. A 6 by 9 should
have the film advance (red) window along the edge, and off centre. If the
window is exactly in the centre, then it is probably a 6 by 6. There are not
many 645 old AGFA cameras (Isorette would be one), but some with two windows
on the back are dual format, with one being 645, and the other as 6 by 9, or
6 by 6.

I have an Ansco Viking made be AGFA. It was very cheap, and not working when
I got it. With seemingly nothing more that I could do to damage it, I pulled
it apart and cleaned and adjusted everything. Then I got an accessory
rangefinder, to help my focus guessing. Armed with my Sekonic L-358 light
meter, I have shot a few rolls of film with this camera. The results are
simply amazing, and I would not believe they could be that good, until I
checked some Kodak E200 under a 10x loupe on a light table.

Now before you think these are a great idea, I should qualify that these are
not easy to use. You could get away with shooting print film, and guessing
exposure, and perhaps get good results. Since you only have eight shots per
roll, this is a camera that will slow down your picture taking. The guess
the distance focusing can be helped with an accessory rangefinder, but they
are tough to find in good condition, and can cost more than the camera. If
you want to shoot transparency film, I highly recommend an accurate light
meter. The framing viewfinder is intended to be accurate beyond 3 m
distance, so some framing guessing is necessary.

Other than that, the lens hoods are somewhat rare, but could be helpful for
some shots. Some of these allow you to mount filters. Some sort of filter
mount could be really helpful, since some shooting situations will bring
unavoidable flare into your shots.

I think this is a great way to go, though you should have more than one for
reliable shooting, and extra parts. If you stick with one brand family, like
AGFA/Ansco, then many parts can be swapped. Some of the Balda line uses
similar parts for shutters, or lens threading. The shutter mounts should be
the same, and many of the lens elements can be interchanged. Try to get at
least a 1/200 fastest shutter speed, which should help your shooting a bit.
Try to get a version that has a built in accessory shoe. Also, try to get
the later versions that have a flash sync post, since flash shooting expands
your available uses for these cameras.

Learn how to repair, or at least clean some parts. If you were paying
someone to do this, it could cost too much in the long run. Plan on shooting
a test roll, or two. Also, plan on regular checks of the bellows between
rolls, since this is the greatest wearing part.

Check some of the older threads on this group. There are some great
resources on these cameras. The Zeiss and VoigtlSnder choices can run much
higher in price, and are more collectable, but you may not notice much
difference (if any) in the final images. Choose a price you are comfortable
spending, then try to get two somewhat identical cameras. You may get two
nice working cameras, but you should be able to get at least one really nice
example from two donors.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
...


Subject: Agfa 6x6 folder scans online
From: Angry Angel angry.angel@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


I've just uploaded three scans of HP5+ shot with my new Agfa Jsolette. They
look 'flat' and have strange tonal curves because the bellows were leaking
(have now successfully 'plugged' the holes using black silicone sealer-
worked very well). Photoshop was able to pull some contrast back out of
them.

http://phoenix.jr2.ox.ac.uk/angryangel/folder.html



From: "Mike Elek" melek@fptoday.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002

You could also try an old folder. The zone-focus Zeiss-Ikon Ikontas with
simple frame viewfinder fit in that budget. Get the one with the Tessar,
rather than the Novar.

The Super Ikontas are nicer cameras and use a rangefinder to focus
accurately. But these often cost more than $300, unless you get lucky.

Here's a 6x9 shot from a 1937 Ikonta with the Tessar. I bought this camera
for about $50 on eBay. Shot on Ektachrome 200 in September.

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Cameras/Jinshanling(full).jpg
(200k)

--
Mike Elek


From: "Leon Mlakar" leon.mlakar@k2.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 6x9 folder followup and some more questions
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 

Yesterday I finally got back the first roll (well, the very first still had
light leaks, so it doesn't count :-) I've put though the 6x9 folder I've
recently got fixed. One with Compur shutter and Tessar 10.5cm f/4.5 lens.
I've chosen to use reversal film so that I can judge the exposure directly.
After placing the slides on the light table and grabbing the loupe ...

Firstly, the exposure was spot on - my compliments to the guy who fixed
aperture blades and cleaned and recalibrated the shutter.

Secondly - WOW, WOW, and WOW. To somebody being used to 35mm slides, to look
at 6x9 slides is, well, fascinating. And that's an understatement. I feel
I'm falling in love. And I don't mind one frame with double exposure (forgot
to wind), and one way overexposed (forgot to move aperture lever after
focusing). I mostly used f/8 and f/11 and at this aperture it's SHARP. The
small scratch in the front of the lens seems to have no observable effect
(true, I have no reference, but can it  get better?).

I've also got a strike of good omen: the lab I'm using for film processing
is expanding to digital. They said they'll get a 6x9 mask for their film 
scanner, if I wanted them to. Assuming of course I can make photographs
worth scanning, but that's another issue.

I plan the field test of the new toy at the hot air balloon festival at the
beginning of February. Let's see how folder (and me) handles -15 or more.

Now to some questions and a plea for answers:

1. included in the package is also something called 1.5 diopter, that
attaches in the front of the lens. In 35mm world, I've seen two uses of term
"diopter": i) it is sometimes used for close-up lens that allows closer
focus, and ii) is sometimes used to refer to teleconverter. With bellows
that extend for another focal lenght, I can hardly imagine the need for
closeup lens. Also, if I put it on, I can still focus to infinity. So i) is
probably out of question. As for teleconverters, in 35mm world they usually
attach between the body and the lens rather than in front of the lens.
Although I'm inclined to belive that this probably is a "teleconverter" for
portratiture, well, what do you folks reckon this is?

2. How do you usually focus your bellows cameras? Do you always use ground
glass or, once calibrated, do you judge the distance and put your trust into
scale and stopped down DOF? Ground glass is fine, but it's a kind of dark
(yes, I remember pictures of photographers with dark cloth over head) and
the provided shade is really not enough if the sun's behind you. It's
usefull for composition but difficult to judge the sharpness (yes, much more
difficult than autofocus 25mm SLR)

3. Is there any way to use hyperfocal focusing? With the aperture scale on
the shutter and distance scale next to rails I belive the answer is no. Is
there any need to?

4. Where one could get filters for 70 years old camera? Yellow filter at
least would come handy. The lens has no threaded ring for screw-on type of
filters, so that's out of question, even if I could get filters this small. 
Cheers,

Leon 


From: "Bob Fowler" saxman@superlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 folder followup and some more questions
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002

"Leon Mlakar" leon.mlakar@k2.net wrote 
{snip}
> 4. Where one could get filters for 70 years old camera? Yellow filter at
> least would come handy. The lens has no threaded ring for screw-on type of
> filters, so that's out of question, even if I could get filters this small.

Measure the outside diameter of your lens and start searching for a series
VI slip on filter holder to fit.  Ebay is a good start.  While you're at it,
look for a series VI shade.  Series VI filters are plentiful, you just have
to look.  I made an adapter (actually combinded a bunch of adapters) to use
49mm filters on some of my lenses that use slip-on filter holders.  I used a
Series VI to Series VII stepping ring, then epoxied a blank 49mm filter ring
into a series VII retaining ring - viola!  Instant (sort of) filter holder
to use my large collection of 49's from my 35mm gear.

--
Bob Fowler  
saxman@superlink.net 


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Folder lens Skopar VS Solinar?


The uncoupled rangefinder is barely more functional than an accessory
shoe rangefinder. The accessory shoe rangefinder is barely more
functional than a non clip-on rangefinder. Basically, the focusing,
whether through a device, or guesstimate, just slows you down a little.
I think that other issues about the cameras may affect your shooting
choices more, like aperture settings, and available shutter settings.

I have several folders that I use for both B/W and colour transparency
shots. All of them are triplet (three element) lenses. The results are
very sharp, maybe too sharp. The lack of a really wide aperture limits
defocus highlights to close range shooting. At close range, your chance
for focus error is greater, especially under 2m distance.

Of the AGFA examples I have, the best results have been from a 1937
Jsolette, with both 6x4.5 and 6x6 capability. The greatest limitations
on this one are the 1/125 fastest shutter, and no flash sync. The most
versatile so far is the 6x9 (c.1950's), which has flash sync at all
shutter speeds, and a faster top shutter speed.

One interesting thing is that the shutter mechanisms are interchangeable
between many of the AGFA (and Ansco) folders. The lens elements will
thread into any of the shutter mechanisms. However, the distance of the
front standard from the film plane limits interchange of lenses, so the
105 mm of the 6x9 cannot be used on the 6x4.5.

A couple of tips for your search. The built in rangefinder cameras sell
for more than the versions without rangefinder. An accessory shoe
rangefinder is much cheaper than the cost difference, and they are often
easier to adjust correctly. Try to get a couple versions of the same
camera, perhaps with different shutters, since this will give you spare
parts and backup shutters and lenses. The late 1930's cameras have
bellows that are better made, and may be easier to repair, though the
cameras made after WW2 have better shutter mechanisms. Many of the AGFA
and Balda parts will interchange as well. Expect almost any folder you
buy to have pinholes in the bellows, and a frozen focus ring, since
these are common problems (though there are exceptions).

If you are willing to spend the money on a Zeiss or VoigtlSnder folder,
these are better built. The versions with coupled rangefinder will be
much easier for taking photos. I know a couple people with various
examples of these. While they are just slightly easier to use, it is
tough to tell the difference in the final images, when compared to shots
from lower priced AGFA folders.

Using a hand held light meter, and ISO 200 or 400 film should give you a
wide option on photo choices, and lighting choices. If you like shooting
flash shots, having a sync cord hook-up can be a nice feature. Some
older lenses are flare prone. Adapting filters or lens hoods to some of
the folders is not very easy, and the old parts are tough to find.

Anyway, hope that helps a bit. There were some really good threads just
a few months ago about fixing bellows, and other repair issues. There
are also some great repair and information sites on the internet about
various folding cameras. Enjoy your photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

ROBMURR wrote:

> I have read lots of archive posts here on MF folders like the
> Perkeo II and the Agfa Isolette I,II,III cameras...
> I am looking for input as to which lens is sharpest
> the Skopar or the Solinar on these bodies....
> I think these are both 4 element Tessar style...
> I want to B&W; and color slides/prints with this camera...
> So far I am leaning towards the Isolette III with uncoupled
> rangefinder..heck may as well pickup a Perkeo too...
> Any comments welcome...
> Rob


From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Folder lens Skopar VS Solinar?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003


The Perkeo II has the Color-Skopar, rather than the Skopar. The Color-Skopar
is extremely sharp right out to the edges. Agfa always did make cheap tat.
Take shots with detail in focus at the edges and compare the two. I think
you will find that the Color-Skopar is much sharper.

Fix the bellows on the Agfa before you do the comparison shots or the
Voigtlander will have an obvious advantage with contrast. A Maglite with
bared bulb run along the bellows edges will show up all the holes. Fix by
smearing on black silicone sealant.
...


From: rellimkm@yahoo.com (matt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Isolette vs Iskra - opinions needed
Date: 3 Feb 2003


I have put a couple of rolls through the Isolette II (apotar lens)
that I ended up buying.  I am very happy with the negatives.  Printed
to the equivalent of 11x14, the prints were nice and sharp. Not as
good as my Mamiya.  But I can't fit my Mamiya in the outside pocket of
my laptop bag.

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> a better answer might be that the range of Q/C and variability in optics
> and original construction, compounded by differences in use and abuse over
> some large number of years, means that no one can really predict which of
> two cameras will be "better" or "sharper" without actually testing the
> actual cameras.
>
> even worse, my own tests of pro mf gear suggest that the differences are
> often so large that good examples of a lens may be the best tested (e.g.,
> Bronica s2a nikkor), while a bad example of the same pro lens may be
> among the worst (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html) tested,
> and that so-so cheapy lenses may perform as well as lenses costing rather
> more originally.
>
> hth bobm


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


"Rabbitbert" rabbitbert@aol.com wrote:
> Hey, this is just a little off the topic of this thread but I want to ask. Is
> there a particularly strong reason or reasons why a person should seek out a
> 6x9 camera rather than a more common 6x7 camera?

If you are printing to the A/B series format (1:1.414 aspect ratio), 6x9
gives you 33% more film area than 6x7, and if you like the wider aspect
ratio 6x9 gives, it's better. Otherwise, as you've noticed, 6x7 is a lot of
film.

But I think the idea is that the old 6x9 folders were neat cameras. Compact
when folded, and decent performance at f/8 or f/11, they put a lot of
information on the film. More a matter of bang for the weight than bang for
the buck. And pulling out a 50 year old camera and claiming (correctly*!)
that it's equivalent to a 100 Megapixel digital camera has it's own
amuzement value{g}.

*: Actually, I think that 6x9 is only worth about 50 megapixels. But that's
still four times the 1Ds {g}.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist II Gloat


>The Anastar on the Tourist is a Tessar formula. Anastigmat "Specials",
>found on the Kodak Monitor and some Vigilants, are also Tessars.

I have several Monitor "Specials" and image resolution is much lower then the
tourist 101mm Anastar.  I am not really sure why this is the case.  In fact, I
have ever come across a 6x9 Folder of any type sharper then that Tourist II
with the 101 Anastar or any camera for that matter.

I tested this camera with Ektar 25 and Techpan and both films came out at about
150 l/mm.   Bench 1000:1 center aerial resolution at f-8 is over 250 l/mm with
edges not far behind at 200 l/mm.  My Hasselblad doesn't even do that.

Best combo I have found is CN100 which easly does 100 l/mm all over the frame
at f-8 @ 400 of a second sunlight exposure.

Larry


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: olympus folder
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003


Stacey wrote:

> I thought it was cool it still has the original case and the 6X4.5
> mask...

It's an Olympus Chrome Six Model IIIA, made from 1951 until 1954. So it
isn't a 1940's model, as was claimed in the description.
The Model IIIA differs from the Model IIIB in that the B-model has the f/2.8
75 mm Zuiko lens.
This "Chrome Six" series started in 1948 in the form and shape of the Chrome
Six Model I, an inprovement on the earlier (1946-1948) Six. It (Chrome Six)
was die cast instead of being assembled from several pressed steel plates,
improving accuracy. It takes it "Chrome" name from being (guess...?)
chrome-plated. It further differs from the "Six" in that it has a
Newton-finder in a closed housing (the original Six had an 'open' finder:
two frames), and a fixed accessory shoe beside the finder.

The Chrome Six Model I had the f/3.5 75mmlens in Copal shutter. The Model II
had a f/2.8 75 mm lens in Copal.

As a Hasselblad-copy adept (which, for some odd reason that escapes me,
seems to make you a fervent anti-Hasselbladian ;-)) you will be interested
to know that one of the innovations in this camera that set the Chrome Six
Model III apart from the Chrome Six Model II was a friction brake on the
film feed spool, serving to put tension on the film, helping it to keep
flat(ter). This 1951 Olympus innovation reappeared some 30 years later in
Hasselblad film backs... ;-)



From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best way to store a folder?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003


Store them _closed_. Period. One would think you have never seen bellows
cameras that were stored open. Closed retains the bellows' shape, keeps
the creases sharp, and also helps protect it from environmental
circumstances that degrade the bellows.


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Info on Balda folder
Date: 2 Mar 2003 

Angry Angel angry.angel@NOSPAMntlworld.com wrote 
> It will be interesting to see if I can tell the difference between this
> Baldanar lens and the Solinar in my Agfa folder.

I think this will be no problem. If the Baldanar performs similar to
the Enna lens on the rebranded version it will be more than soft wide
open. Even the three-element Agfa Apotar is much better (and it's
wisely limited to f/4.5). Some three-element lenses come close to the
performance of Tessar-type four-element lenses like the Soliar but
don't equal them. Even when they are stopped down several stops the
four-element lenses are a tad better.

Winfried


From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Isolette vs Iskra - opinions needed
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003
rellimkm@yahoo.com (matt) wrote:

> Anyone who has ever ***used both of these cameras*** have an opinion
> on the better one?...lens quality, build quality, usability

I have used both of these cameras.

The Iskra is basically a Super Isolette clone. However the Isolette and
Super Isolette have no common parts and are very different cameras.
Therefore by implication the Iskra is very different from the Isolette.

The Iskra / Super Isolette is also several times more expensive than an
ordinary Isolette so its difficult to directly compare one with the other.

To a certain extent - you get what you pay for - and its not surprising
that the Iskra / Super Isolette are more impressive items of kit than the
ordinary Isolette.

Details of all three cameras can be found on my website along with
pictures and in the case of the Isolette - repair info:

http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/

:-)

Roland.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: RE: [RF List] Hierarchy of Fixed Rangefinder Lenses

Greg Harris wrote:
>Marc;
>
>Which version were you talking about.  I was just surfing around a bit
>and there are lots of Vitos and even several Vito Bs!  Are you refering
>to the Color-Skopar f3.5 lens in particular?

The Color-Skopar is a killer lens, one of the most satisfactory clones of
the basic Tessar formula.  (After all, part of the reason why the Zeiss
Foundation bought VoigtlSnder was to get their lens designers.  When they
closed Zeiss Ikon and sold off its remnants and those of VoigtlSnder to
Franke & Heidecke, Zeiss retained the optical scientists.)


Marc
msmall@infi.net


From: rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Nettar 518/16
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 

4742@locator.com (Smeghead) wrote:


> I have the opportunity to purchase one of two Nettar cameras for AU$20.
> One has a f4.5 75mm Novar lens and the other has a f6.3 75mm Novar lens.

One point that may be worth noting. Its many people believe that these
lenses work better when stopped down to F8 or so. At F8, the F6.3 may be
better the F4.5 - as the lens design won't have been stretched so much to
achieve the lesser maximum aperture.

Personally though I would chose the F4.5 (all other things being equal) as
I have often shot F4.5 lenses at F4.5 on old folders and have not been
disappointed with the results.

:-)

Roland.
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/


From: "Sean" sean@ecurb.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Nettar 518/16
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003

I agree with Roland. I have been shooting with Nettars and Isolettes for
about twenty years, and the is a huge difference between f8 and everything
else.

Make sure the film door closes nice and tight. Many have bent frames or
corroded latches that make them more work than they are worth.

For the money, you get nice juicy negs, become good friends with your light
meter and become especially good at judging distances.

As for distances, I trick I was turned on to by an old-old timer:

Set some objects at various distances from the camera and you (5' to 20'
guesstimate), jot down what you think the distances are and then measure
them out to see how you did. After repeating this excersise a fews times you
will get close enough for f8.

Good luck.

Sean

rgivan@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote
> 4742@locator.com (Smeghead) wrote:
>
>
> > I have the opportunity to purchase one of two Nettar cameras for AU$20.
> > One has a f4.5 75mm Novar lens and the other has a f6.3 75mm Novar lens.
>
> One point that may be worth noting. Its many people believe that these
> lenses work better when stopped down to F8 or so. At F8, the F6.3 may be
> better the F4.5 - as the lens design won't have been stretched so much to
> achieve the lesser maximum aperture.
>
> Personally though I would chose the F4.5 (all other things being equal) as
> I have often shot F4.5 lenses at F4.5 on old folders and have not been
> disappointed with the results.
>
> :-)
> Roland.
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Image size versus resolution and contrast
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 

"Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> 35mm only _begins_ to
>rival Medium Format if the camera is focussed very critically, and it is
>stuck on a massive tripod and the mirror locked up, etc. - the MF shooter
>can snap handheld with autofocus and produce a similar result.
>

Exactly, I can zone focus an old folder, guess exposure, shoot
handheld at 1/100 and still look better than a PERFECT 35mm shot with
no effort.

Stacey


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF folding cameras again...
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

ROBMURR wrote:

> Ok, still trying to decide on a good folder for MF...from what I read the
> following are good ones to try: Any opinions welcome...
> Voigtlander Perkeo I (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Voigtlander Perkeo II (Color Skopar prefered lens)

Personally I don't find the color skopar to be that great a lens. The few
samples I've used were good but not stelar performers.

>
> I understand most Agfas will need new bellows,

Yep poor quality bellows and most are trashed by now.

> but voigtlander bellows
> last a long time.

They have problems with the lens standard becoming loose and that is very
hard to fix.

> I can do minor repairs if needed...
> Only ones I can find locally are the Ikonta's....
>

I'm a big fan of the 6X6 and 6X4.5 ikontas. IMHO the 105mm tessar/skopar
isn't that great and the 6X9 folders suffer from film flatness issues. The
last version of the super ikonta with a coated opton tessar is a great
camera but are heavy and don't sell for cheap either. Next to that, an
ikonta A (6X4.5) with an uncoated tessar works almost as well and most are
under $100 if you look around. These are real light, have a folding optical
finder and are as small as many 35mm P&S;'s.

There are a few other good folders, the olympus and mamiya 6 were both good
users but fairly heavy. If you're just starting out even the 3 element
versions work pretty good and I've always liked my franka with it's enagon
lens.

Yes, this can be addicting as I own probably 2-3 dozen of these now! :-)
Just found a minolta semi II and can't wait to see how well it works.
--

Stacey


Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF folding cameras again...

ROBMURR wrote:

> Ok, still trying to decide on a good folder for MF...from what I read the
> following are good ones to try: Any opinions welcome...
> Voigtlander Perkeo I (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Voigtlander Perkeo II (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Voigtlander Bessa I or II (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Agfa Isolette II or III (Solinar prefered lens) Alias = Ansco Speedex
> Agfa Record II or III (Solinar prefered lens) Alias = Ansco Viking
> Zeiss Ikonta B (Tessar prefered lens) not sure if they were all coated lenses.

In general, there is a slight difference in build quality if you want to spend
more, but all these are quite old, and condition will depend more upon storage
than original build.

The AGFA bellows do seem quite fragile, though strangely enough the few pre
W.W.II I have seen, and one that I own, survived quite well. It seems that the
real leather bellows may be more easily repaired than the later materials.

> I understand most Agfas will need new bellows, but voigtlander bellows
> last a long time. I can do minor repairs if needed...

I found that screen printing ink adheres to the cloth interior of the bellows
very nicely, and works extremely well for pinhole repairs. It is also thin and
flexible, allowing you to still fold the camera.

>
> Only ones I can find locally are the Ikonta's....

Might not be a bad option, since you are inspecting it locally. Buying from a
distance, it is tough to tell condition, and might mean buying several cameras to
make one good working example.

>
> I am looking for the best bang for the buck.
> Thanks in advance!

The AGFA and Ansco choices are numerous and cheap. All these lenses will produce
somewhat soft images (compared to modern gear), though that can be flattering for
portrait photography. Do not get too hung up on differences in lens quality,
since even the three element lenses can give you pleasing results. Getting a more
open aperture may give you more lighting situations in which you can take photos,
though it might mean more focus errors in your images.

The best useful feature seems to be a wide range of shutter speeds. Some of the
later shutters have a flash sync allowing you to use some modern lighting gear,
making these very useful under many lighting conditions. The self timers are less
useful, and sometimes do not work very reliably. The slow shutter speeds on some
shutters may be unreliable even after cleaning and adjusting, though it seems the
faster speeds remain somewhat consistent after cleaning and adjusting.

You can buy a separate rangefinder that in practice can be just as useful as an
uncoupled rangefinder. You will spend quite a bit less to get one of those, than
a camera with one built in. The coupled rangefinders are another option, though
the prices for many of those non-working cameras starts approaching some newer
gear. Kodak, Leica, PrSzisa, and a few others are good names in separate
rangefinders, with many easily repairable units available at low cost.

You may also want to look into finding a Balda, or a Kodak in 120 film size.
Converting a Polaroid is another option, though some can get a bit expensive.
Several of the old folders use similar parts, with some interchangeable items.
Some lens and shutter units from one camera can fit other companies camera
bodies. If you find a nice lens and shutter assembly of the same focal length,
you may be able to use it on another body, so something else to look into.

Be careful, because these can be addicting. When you start, try to stick with one
brand, or family of parts. You will likely find that you have several, some for
parts, and some that work reliably. My last recommendation is to use a hand held
light meter, since this allows you to better explore to abilities of these old
cameras. Enjoy yourself.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Replacing ruby windows?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

Dave Madsen wrote:
> Sorry if this question is answered elsewhere. I have an inexpensive
> folder camera from the 50's with
> a missing ruby window. Can I replace it with something for not very many
> $?

Yep, seems like I've seen transparent red tape for patching tailights at the
auto parts store.. the original red window wasn't anything special.
--
Stacey


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Replacing ruby windows?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

Dave Madsen wrote
> Sorry if this question is answered elsewhere. I have an
> inexpensive folder camera from the 50's with a missing ruby window.

With panchromatic film a red window doesn't afford much protection, a
dark window of any color will work just as well.

Rubylith and red tape will attenuate light and are easy to obtain. It may
take two thickness' to cut the light down enough.

The red window usually needs to be stiff to prevent one's thumb
from going through. To that end, red tape applied to plastic
bubble-pack (the sort of stuff cakes and such like come in)
may work well.

Another alternative is to see if your town has a plastics distributor.
A visit to the service counter may solicit a piece of just the right stuff.

A good thing to have on hand is a Rosco filter sample booklet.
They used to be free, but since the samples just fit a Vivtar
28x flash, they now charge $3. The booklets have filters of
all sorts and include the transmission curve of the filter.
They are available at theatrical supply stores, some pro photo
stores, and as a last resort from Edmund Scientific - who will
bless your house with several pounds of catalogs each year for
ever more.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


From: "Chris Fynn" chris_fynn%20@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Replacing ruby windows?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 
...
Cover the window with some transparent plastic and stick some ruby-tape over
it.

Printers suppliers will sell you rolls of transparent ruby tape which is
designed to mask areas of negative in photo-lithography and this is exactly
the right color. You could probably persuade almost any offset-printer give
you a piece of this tape long enough to cover the window on your camera.
Most will also have big sheets of "ruby-lith" - an adhesive transparent ruby
colored film which comes attached to a layer of clear plastic and can be
peeled off. (Very useful in B&W; printing on orthochromatic papers too).
- Chris



From: bmattock@earthlink.net (The Bill Mattocks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: queries on using a classic 6x9
Date: 4 May 2003 

Jouni Filip Maho jouni.maho@african.gu.R.E.M.O.V.E.se wrote 
> I got my 6x9 negatives (no prints) back and they did indeed turn out good.
> Exposure looks non-faulty to me. The sharpness, from what I can see by
> inspecting the negatives, is enough to astound me (being a 35mm user).

Jouni, I'm having a *lot* of fun with my vintage Fuji G690, so I know
what you mean about those awesome 6x9 negs!

> There is however a slight light leakage which I'll have to fix. I think I
> managed to find the place where it is, so I'll shoot another roll to test it.

The scourge of all vintage folding cameras, I'm afraid.

> Perhaps I'll go medium-format for good after this experience. The size of the
> negatives is awesome.

I am finding I still have plenty of uses for 35mm, especially after
toting a 5 pound camera around in 90 degree (f) heat and 80 percent
humidity all day!

> Does anyone here have any good advice with regard to a medium format scanner?
> Preferably non-professional, which I gather would be too expensive for me. The
> cheapest ones I can find are "Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro" and "Nikon
> SuperCoolscan 8000 ED". Does anyone here have experiences with these?

I have an Epson Perfection 2400 PHOTO flatbed scanner, which I
purchased recently for around $200 USD. This will scan 35mm negs and
slides as it is, but I also ordered the Epson accessory kit, which has
a 4x5 and 120 adapter, as well as a 'light hood' that covers these
sizes. It was around $100 USD. So, for about $300 USD, I have a unit
that I am very pleased with. I will warn you, it is slow, but worth
the wait.

Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: ultra cheap polaroid test camera tip Re: polaroid & Max HQ
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 

Bob Monaghan wrote:
> most camera repairers can move the contacts in the shutter so as to
> convert from M or FP synch flashbulbs to X synch (instantaneous) easily
> enough, though at a modest fee. It is worth trying the connector anyway,
> since some camera lenses work on xsynch (at least at some speeds).

When testing I've found =ALL= my old folders have Xsync. I think it was
easier/cheaper to use xsync and then tell people to use slower speeds for
flash in the manual?
--
Stacey


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad on a budget?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

> I always knew I "wanted" a Hasselblad [after spending $$$$ on cameras,
> cameras and more cameras] what I found out was that I don't like
> square negatives and no longer feel the desire to get me a Hasselblad :-)

To have this experience on a budget just pick up a Zeiss 'Signal' Nettar on
ebay et. al: $15; focusing triplet lens; 25-200 shutter; folds up nice, fits
in a cargo pocket and it has a Zeiss lens, just like a Hassy!
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.



From: "Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Replacing ruby windows?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

My first camera (almost 60 years ago) suffered the same fate - a missing
ruby window. A helpful man at the photo store showed be how to tape a
couple of layers of dark red cellophane over the hole to get the same effect
as the window. Rubylith tape may be a better idea, but it's not the only
way.

Older cameras use the window to position the frame when advancing the film.
There were no fancy counters and advance mechanisms on roll film cameras in
those days. The camera construction and film backing paper kept the light
out. But I remember a warning that was packed with a roll of Kodak
ultra-high-speed film (Super-XX, ASA 100) that warned the user to cover the
red window with black paper when not advancing the film, and to always
advance the film in subdued light.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com> wrote 
> Dave Madsen wrote
>
> > Sorry if this question is answered elsewhere. I have an
> > inexpensive folder camera from the 50's with a missing ruby window.
>
> With panchromatic film a red window doesn't afford much protection, a
> dark window of any color will work just as well.
>
> Rubylith and red tape will attenuate light and are easy to obtain. It may
> take two thickness' to cut the light down enough.
>
> The red window usually needs to be stiff to prevent one's thumb
> from going through. To that end, red tape applied to plastic
> bubble-pack (the sort of stuff cakes and such like come in)
> may work well.
>
> Another alternative is to see if your town has a plastics distributor.
> A visit to the service counter may solicit a piece of just the right stuff.
>
> A good thing to have on hand is a Rosco filter sample booklet.
> They used to be free, but since the samples just fit a Vivtar
> 28x flash, they now charge $3. The booklets have filters of
> all sorts and include the transmission curve of the filter.
> They are available at theatrical supply stores, some pro photo
> stores, and as a last resort from Edmund Scientific - who will
> bless your house with several pounds of catalogs each year for
> ever more.
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
> Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 
From: Bill Martin wcmartin@vnet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF folding cameras again...

I don't know what physical size you're looking for, but as a folder, the
"baby" ( 6x9 ) crown or century graphic are the best values on the MF
market, folder or not. Interchangeable lenses, ground glass/optical/wire
frame viewing, roll film backs( be sure to get this )for 6x6, 5x7, 6x9
formats -- all those things are options. Takes any lens new or old, that
you can mount on a lens board. You can even use a barrel lens, if your
willing to use a hat or lens cap as a shutter :>). VERY hardy camera, it
was built to be used by working photographers, easy to wotk on. Mine are
great. I picked up my bare-bones century with lens and ground glass fo
$102. I use it as a field camera -- no rangefinder or optical finder,
but a grafloc back ( standard on the century, so you can use roll film
holders ).

ROBMURR wrote:
> Ok, still trying to decide on a good folder for MF...from what I read the
> following are good ones to try: Any opinions welcome...
> Voigtlander Perkeo I (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Voigtlander Perkeo II (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Voigtlander Bessa I or II (Color Skopar prefered lens)
> Agfa Isolette II or III (Solinar prefered lens) Alias = Ansco Speedex
> Agfa Record II or III (Solinar prefered lens) Alias = Ansco Viking
> Zeiss Ikonta B (Tessar prefered lens) not sure if they were all coated lenses.
>
> I understand most Agfas will need new bellows, but voigtlander bellows
> last a long time. I can do minor repairs if needed...
> Only ones I can find locally are the Ikonta's....
> I am looking for the best bang for the buck.
> Thanks in advance! 




[Ed. note: thanks to Ed Burns for this update and correction! ]
From: Ed Berns [edberns@griffinhealth.org] 
Sent: Wed 7/16/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Comment re: Medium Format Folder Page


Hi Bob, 
While reviewing your excellent site (for the umteenth time, I enjoy it so much), the following caught my eye in the 
How do I load the film? section. 
"The film often goes under a metal roller, across the opening with the film paper backing up and away from the lens, and 
the film side pointing at the lens (so light can hit it and make an exposure). There is also usually a matching metal roller on 
the other side to go under . . ."
Note the key word, "under". This tweaked my curiosity as it didn't sit well with me. So, I checked all the manuals 
I have of my folder's (Zeiss Super Ikonta B, Voigtlander Perkeo II) as well as your site's link to other manuals 
(Richard Urmonas' Folder Manuals etc. http://richard.urmonas.com/ - Agfa Isolette II, IV, c.f., Page six of each, sample @
 http://rurmonas.cust.nearlyfreespeech.net/manuals/isoletteV/isoletteV-6.jpg) and none of all of these manuals show the 
film being wound under the film-plane rollers. Rather they all are shown with the leader going over the rollers; essentially 
direct from load to take-up.
I'd hate to see this great resource have incorrect information -- especially to the newcomers.
I hope you do not take this as a negative (no pun intended) comment. I'm a big fan!

Best regards,
Ed Berns


Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 
From: Jordan Wosnick jwosnick@mitpants.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Old folders with apotar/solinar lenses

6x9 is great fun. The size of the negs/transparencies is "shocking"! I
use a Moskva 5 and get a kick out of it every time I get a roll back.

A word of advice -- some 6x9 folders have problems with keeping the film
flat. A friend advised me to only wind the film on just before making an
exposure. This keeps tension in the film right before the shot and
presumably helps to keep it flat.

Good luck and put some scans up when you get going.

Jordan

ROBMURR wrote:

> I have recently gotten an AGFA Isolette II with Apotar lens 6x6 and on the
> way is a AGFA Record II with Solinar lens 6x9. I have shutter prob with the
> Isolette so I have not shot it yet...I am having fun fixing up these old
> cameras
> since they are so simple and cheap to find unrestored. I see lots of Agnar
> lens cameras, fewer Apotars, scarcer Solinars..It will be a few weeks before I
> have them up and running well so I have not shot them yet.
>
> I figure I would use the Apotar with B&W; film and slides/color with the Solinar
> lens since B&W; is easy to print in 6x6 format and I can scan the 6x9 slides or
> maybe crop down to a 6x7 size.
> I will use my Canon EOS camera as a basis for metering the exposures...
>
> I have never made a negative as big as a 6x9 and I hear the
> Solinar is very good...so I hope it blows my socks off. Last MF stuff I had
> was a Yashicamat 124G ten years ago which was good but it never went
> anywhere due to its size, these cameras I can slip in a pocket!
> Any users comments on films that they like to use with these things
> are most welcome..or lens comparisons or advice welcome too! 
> I am well aware now of the lens elements that stick together and the
> bellows problems these may have, luckly the Isolette has a good bellows.
> Rob



From: "dan" dancytronatyahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bessa I and light leaking.
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 

I had that problem with a Record one. The way I solved it was to load the
film, set it on picture 1, and then I put Gaffer's tape over the red window.

I then advance the film by turning the knob 2x. The spacing isn't perfect,
but they have to hand cut 6x9 anyway so it doesn't matter.

I use 400 and 800 color print film, so I figure (although I am not sure)
that the red window will always give me trouble, so I just tape over it.
Where I use it, getting out of the sun just to advance the film really isn't
an easy option.

"Max" maxhert@bol.com.br wrote 
> jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE) wrote 
> > >"Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
> > >
> > >These cameras were designed at a time when film was black and white and not
> > >red-sensitive.It has all changed now so follow the above precautions.
> >
> > It would seem like by the 50's, when the Color Skopar was in use, that B&W; film
> > was panchromatic. I use my late 40's Agfa Isolette with Ilford D3200 and have
> > no problems. And this camera has no cover on the red window. Maybe he needs
> > to replace the window material.
> > Chuck
>
> Thanks Chuck, I do have an Isolette too, and I think it has a huge advantage
> in the red window position, centered in the film, so it's much more
> difficult for stray light to reach the backing border, while in 6x9 the
> window is closer to the border. I believe this makes a world of difference.



From: kiyu_@worldnet.att.net (Kiyu)
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo,rec.photo.help
Subject: Re: 1917 Kodak No. 2 Folding Cartridge Premo Aperture Question
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 

Grant grant@fullfx.com wrote:
>I have recently come across a Kodak No 2 Folding Cartridge Premo camera
>from 1917. It takes 120 film and shoots a 6x9 cm negative. It has
>shutter speeds of 1/25, 1/50, B and T. The aperture settings are 1, 2, 3
>and 4 with 1 being the largest opening. I am hoping that there is
>someone out there who knows the relative aperture of this camera. I
>would like to be able to get out of having to run tests in order to
>reliably shoot with this camera. I appreciate any help you guys can
>offer, I have scoured the net for this info and you guys are my last
>hope before testing.
>
>Thanks.
>grant.

Grant,

Try this outstanding site;
http://members.aol.com/Chuck02178/brownie.htm

Click on f stops and shutter speeds.
This is for the Brownie folders but I think it is accurate for all the old
folding Kodaks.
This is one of the best old camera sites I have found and it is easy to spend an
awful lot of time nosing around there.

Kiyu


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: unloved folders, hacking autoexp. MF lenses Re: Polaroid 110a
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 

You are missing the Kodak Tourists (both I and II). Some versions have
fine Kodak Anastar lenses in Flash Kodamatic shutters and will produce
brilliant 6 x 9 photos on 120 film (after you respool it or rework the
camera to take it directly). No rangefinder, but you can slip the camera
into a jacket pocket. Well made and lots made.

Regards,

Marv

Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Yes, you can find some old folders which may have some nice lenses etc.
> But most don't have replacement bellows available, and so I feel the
> better later polaroid bellows material is a pretty big plus. The
> rodenstock is a rather decent lens too, more modern design and
> construction, and certainly worth the $75 price by itself (esp. with flash
> synch) that the cameras usually fetch.
>
> you can find some older folders (Kodak #3a etc.) which can be used for
> 6x12cm or even 6x14cm work, see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/postcard.html
> But you have an older bellows, an older and not as sharp lens, and older
> flash connections etc.
>
> As Marv has noted, it is relatively easy to do the polaroid 110a/b
> conversion with a 120 rollfilm back and some epoxy and hacking ;-)
>
> re: where have all the new folders gone?
>
> I am a bit perplexed myself, but more as to why we don't have more compact
> folders with decent optics. As you probably know, the Fuji RF/folder
> series are now being discontinued. The russian and ukrainian stuff is old
> stock, AFAIK those lines are long shutdown.
>
> Other than the Ikonta series (and clones), the vast majority of old
> folders are unloved. Folders for obsolete film, whether polaroid 110
> series or 122 or 116/616 and so on are very low $$. Yet the plaubel makina
> continues to command high prices, and I suspect the fuji folders and RF
> will do so soon too?
>
> So it is basically a roll your own situation ;-) That's why I think the
> polaroid 110 conversion to 120 isn't surprising, at least to me. It would
> be worth it just to get the very superior polaroid bellows material - I
> have lots of polaroid bellows, all are in much better shape than the
> average or better cloth folder from most older classic folders.
>
> That alone is a big worry and problem with older folders, and the lack of
> replacement bellows and their high cost for custom built ones makes the
> option of a polaroid bellows based camera attractive to many hackers ;-)
>
> Polaroid also has a reputation for very sharp lenses, as does rodenstock -
> pretty hard to find a relatively fast 127mm f/4.5 rodenstock in prontor
> shutter or its equivalent for much under $75 used price of the polaroid
> 110a too - and it is strobe synch'd, and not with 75 year old oddball
> connections either. the lens is also coated IIRC, and in a reliable
> prontor shutter with speeds from 1 sec to 1/300th etc. - pretty useful.
>
> why not convert to polaroid current pack film? You can, as folks have
> done, but it sounds easier to do a 120 conversion. And polaroid film is
> costly per shot, and you can't shoot color negative materials in it, just
> p/n 655 B&W; etc. Some folks may be worried about future availability of
> polaroid and fuji materials for a polaroid pack film converted model too.
> Yet my point about 4-designs conversion is that folks are willing to do
> such a conversion, at high cost, because the resulting tool is worth it!
>
> re: hacking an auto-exposure lens with electronics for MF/LF use?
>
> I'm something of a fan of the polaroids as a source of lenses for various
> projects, and for a potential auto exposure shutter in MF and LF
> dimensions, depending on the camera. The basic $5 garage sale polaroid is
> a stunning camera for p/n prints and negative work in B&W; - almost a LF
> folder on steroids with rangefinder and auto exposure that folds into a 2
> lb package ;-) Try to imagine what Linhof would ask for an equiv. LF rig!
>
> my latest intriguing idea is making an auto-exposure lens for LF & medium
> format cameras (esp. portraiture) using the lens and shutter and
> electronics guts from a polaroid 250 and hacking it onto something like a
> bronica or norita, dual cable release etc. or a cambo passport shell (like
> the walker titan..) with a 4x5" film holder (and polaroid back option ;-)
>
> I'm also looking for an oddball portrait telephoto polaroid body which was
> a less stellar lens, but had the electronics shutter and a 200mm ish lens.
> I am sure that there are lots of other polaroid items which are now being
> surplused as obsolete with their bankruptcy, but which could see new life
> in some fun lens hacked projects ;-)
>
> grins bobm


From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu] 
Sent: Sun 7/6/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: unloved folders, hacking autoexp. MF lenses Re: Polaroid 110a

Hi Dan,

Yes, you can find some old folders which may have some nice lenses etc.
But most don't have replacement bellows available, and so I feel the
better later polaroid bellows material is a pretty big plus. The
rodenstock is a rather decent lens too, more modern design and
construction, and certainly worth the $75 price by itself (esp. with flash
synch) that the cameras usually fetch.

you can find some older folders (Kodak #3a etc.) which can be used for
6x12cm or even 6x14cm work, see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/postcard.html
But you have an older bellows, an older and not as sharp lens, and older
flash connections etc.

As Marv has noted, it is relatively easy to do the polaroid 110a/b
conversion with a 120 rollfilm back and some epoxy and hacking ;-)

re: where have all the new folders gone?

I am a bit perplexed myself, but more as to why we don't have more compact
folders with decent optics. As you probably know, the Fuji RF/folder
series are now being discontinued. The russian and ukrainian stuff is old
stock, AFAIK those lines are long shutdown.

Other than the Ikonta series (and clones), the vast majority of old
folders are unloved. Folders for obsolete film, whether polaroid 110
series or 122 or 116/616 and so on are very low $$. Yet the plaubel makina
continues to command high prices, and I suspect the fuji folders and RF
will do so soon too?

So it is basically a roll your own situation ;-) That's why I think the
polaroid 110 conversion to 120 isn't surprising, at least to me. It would
be worth it just to get the very superior polaroid bellows material - I
have lots of polaroid bellows, all are in much better shape than the
average or better cloth folder from most older classic folders.

That alone is a big worry and problem with older folders, and the lack of
replacement bellows and their high cost for custom built ones makes the
option of a polaroid bellows based camera attractive to many hackers ;-)

Polaroid also has a reputation for very sharp lenses, as does rodenstock -
pretty hard to find a relatively fast 127mm f/4.5 rodenstock in prontor
shutter or its equivalent for much under $75 used price of the polaroid
110a too - and it is strobe synch'd, and not with 75 year old oddball
connections either. the lens is also coated IIRC, and in a reliable
prontor shutter with speeds from 1 sec to 1/300th etc. - pretty useful.

why not convert to polaroid current pack film? You can, as folks have
done, but it sounds easier to do a 120 conversion. And polaroid film is
costly per shot, and you can't shoot color negative materials in it, just
p/n 655 B&W; etc. Some folks may be worried about future availability of
polaroid and fuji materials for a polaroid pack film converted model too.
Yet my point about 4-designs conversion is that folks are willing to do
such a conversion, at high cost, because the resulting tool is worth it!

re: hacking an auto-exposure lens with electronics for MF/LF use?

I'm something of a fan of the polaroids as a source of lenses for various
projects, and for a potential auto exposure shutter in MF and LF
dimensions, depending on the camera. The basic $5 garage sale polaroid is
a stunning camera for p/n prints and negative work in B&W; - almost a LF
folder on steroids with rangefinder and auto exposure that folds into a 2
lb package ;-) Try to imagine what Linhof would ask for an equiv. LF rig!

my latest intriguing idea is making an auto-exposure lens for LF & medium
format cameras (esp. portraiture) using the lens and shutter and
electronics guts from a polaroid 250 and hacking it onto something like a
bronica or norita, dual cable release etc. or a cambo passport shell (like
the walker titan..) with a 4x5" film holder (and polaroid back option ;-)

I'm also looking for an oddball portrait telephoto polaroid body which was
a less stellar lens, but had the electronics shutter and a 200mm ish lens.
I am sure that there are lots of other polaroid items which are now being
surplused as obsolete with their bankruptcy, but which could see new life
in some fun lens hacked projects ;-)

grins bobm



From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 18 Aug 2003 
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?

>I've had excellent results shooting landscapes with the Tessar at f/11 or
>smaller. The Novar at f/11 was soft in the corners.

After running resolution targets on at least 100 folders of all types, I have
found out about 80% of the lenses are soft in the corners regardless of lens
manufacture. 

Best seem to be the Kodak Tourist Rapid 400 shuttered 101mm lens plusI have
found several lowly Novar f4.5's not far behind.

Larry


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 

Hemi4268 wrote:

>>Now that we have your attention Larry do tell, for I the untaught. Where
>>do I procure one of these resolution targets, and just how far should I
>>put it to gain a telling result? Would one target suffice for all my
>>lenses and cameras? Would placement vary with focal length of the lens?
>>
>
> Edmond scientific has these targets. Most folder lenses have their best
> performance at about 1:100 to 1:1000 ratio. So, 20 to 200 feet will do
> with any lens from 1 inch to maybe 5 inch focal length.

Most 3 element folder lenses have their best performance from 20 to 50 ft in
the center of their lens hence my position that shooting a test chart using
the center of the lens to compare a novar and a tessar is a useless test.

--
Stacey


From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?

>I guess if you're main interest is shooting small objects at medium
>distances in the center of the frame then your test proves cheap lenses are
>as good as the more expencive versions.

It seems to me, I never said anything about edge sharpness. I just said I
found several Novars that did a good job. 

I do test for both center and edge sharpness. All you need is more then one
target and I do have more then one target.

Out of the 100 or so folders I have tested,
80% really have no edge sharpness at all regardless of lens design. Just good
for 1:1 prints you see in most old albums. About another 15% have at least
some edge sharpness for an 3x blowup to 8x12.

Last, about 5% have enough edge sharpness to go 16x24 which includes several
Novars I have tested plus just about every Kodak Tourist camera with the 101
lens.

Larry


From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 

I have two Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas: a 1938 Super Ikonta B with
uncoated Tessar (6x6) and a 1950 Super Ikonta A with coated Schneider
(6x4.5). Both are superb cameras, beautifully made and with excellent
lenses. The A is a very pocketable camera with so-so rangefinder
performance; the B is a bit larger but still quite handy.

I shoot B&W; film in them exclusively and either use a small hand held
meter or guesstimate exposure. I also scale focus them most of the time
(Tessars are best stopped down to f/11 or so, you have a good deal of
depth of field). I would recommend finding a later model with coated
Tessar lens if you want to shoot color film.

Here are a couple of portraits made with the Super Ikonta B last year:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/ZI/MF2.htm

Godfrey

okidac slike@post.hinet.hr wrote:
> I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6 or
> 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
> color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
> Any expierence?
> Thanx,
> g.



From: "Mike Elek" melek @ fptoday . com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 

"okidac" slike@post.hinet.hr wrote
> I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6 or
> 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
> color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
> Any expierence?
> Thanx,
> g.

If it's 6x9, then it also will shoot 6x4.5, provided you have the mask that
is inserted into the camera. You can't switch midroll between 6x9 and 6x4.5.
I don't think you can shoot 6x6 with this camera, if it shoots 6x9. 6x6
cameras were never convertible to any other format.

Anyway, the Tessar lens is better than the pedestrian Novar lens. And the
Tessar lens performs marvelously at f/8 or smaller. B/W film in this camera
has a surprising amount of latitude, so minor exposure errors aren't a
problem.

The bigger problem, if your camera lacks a rangefinder, is properly focusing
the camera for portraits. You can either buy a little handheld rangefinder,
use another camera to focus and then read the distance and transfer to the
Zeiss-Ikon or simply guess.

Truthfully, like any camera, it will only take you as far as your own
creativity. The Zeiss-Ikons remain very sturdy and usable cameras, as long
as they haven't been abused.


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zeiss ikonta for shooting?
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 
okidac wrote:
> I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6
> or 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
> color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?

I use them quite a bit and the tessar samples are realy good. Also I've
found the 6X9's suffer from film flatness and or corner sharpness and think
the 6X6 and/or 6X4.5's work better. Also the 6X9's are pretty big and kinda
kills their "portable" nature. The non-rangefinder models with the fold
down finders are really light and compact. For a rangefinder, look at the
model IV which has the rangefinder window built into the body itself. Of
the lenses the 75mm f3.5 opton tessar is the best of the lot.

Another really good 6X4.5 is the kodak duo620 but you have to deal with
respooling film. The ikonta is much easier to use from this standpoint. I'm
not a big fan of the voightlanders as they suffer from lens standard
shakyness and the color skopar lens isn't any better than a coated tessar.
--
Stacey



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 
From: "Max" maxhert@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Me too!!! RE: Homebuilt X-Pan type camera...

I've done some great 6x12cm images using an old Kodak bellows camera
that was originally for 130 film. The 130 frame was 9x12cm, and I
made a mask to use it with 120 film. The Anastigmat lenses are very
good (very sharp!). The one I have is a 140mm, which isnYt exactly a
wide lens, but it can shoot extremely pleasing panoramics. It's very
much an upscale in size/downscale in price of the 35mm panoramic
thing (these cameras go for 40$ in good shape). One of the great
things is you don't even have to modify the Autographic Kodak
cameras, because those come with a window to write on the film
backing, and can be used to count the frames (obviously, to get the
12cm images you use the odd numbers for 6x6, quite easy).
The slides can be scanned in a drum scanner. And you can bet if the
camera is properly aligned a 35mm version won't come nowhere near in
picture quality.

...



Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 
From: Bruce Feist bfeist@flock.org
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] which medium format
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com

Jacob wrote:

>I keep thinking that gee, wouldn't it be nice to shoot medium format? This
>overlooks the fact that my film scanner only does 35mm. But ignoring that,
>which camera to buy? It looks like ~$50 would get me into an Iskra, Moskva,
>or flexaret. Which would be the best to start with? Or should I go down the
>kiev route?

Well, I have each of the above and have used them all, so I'll list my
experiences.

Iskra: Well designed and compact. My Iskra II is broken (jammed) at
the moment; I don't know if this is indicative of a general problem with
reliability.

Moskva: Biggest negative of the lot -- if you're going MF, you might as
well go all the way! Most retro in design, which can be either good or
bad depending on your personal preferences. Like other folding cameras,
susceptable to alignment problems. I have two Moskva-5s, and I've never
gotten one of them to focus right -- but the other takes great pictures.

Flexaret: I have two, with two more on the way. I find TLRs generally
to be a difficult style to work with, and so far I've only shot one roll
of film with my Flexaret IVa. The results were disappointing; maybe my
expectations, based on the good things I've heard about the cameras,
were too high, or maybe mine isn't a good one.

Kiev: Different class from the others; a system camera with
interchangable lenses. I have two Kiev 6Cs. One of them has a frame
alignment problem that I haven't been able to correct; the other takes
great photos. Handles like a 35mm camera, if you happen to be a 12'
tall left-handed ogre .

Of the above, the one I use the most is my working Kiev 6C. Second
place probably goes to the Moskva-5. Once I get the Iskra II fixed,
I'll probably use it regularly as well, although probably still less
often than the Moskva-5... if I want 6x6 format I'm more likely to use
the Kiev.

And, there's one FSU MF camera that I have that I have used more often
than any of the above. It's a TLR, not known for particularly great
quality, prone to light leaks and flare, and with the worst focusing
I've ever seen in a TLR... the Sputnik. But, that's just me .

Bruce Feist



From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Ebay really draws out the fools (and their money) 
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 

"Sean Elkins" sean_elkins@yahoo.com wrote
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2950629288&category;=11717 
> Unbelievable! You could buy a brand new complete system for that! 
That is quite a believable price. The cheapest lens for the Bessa II was the 
Color-Skopar, a Tessar design and an extremely good implementation of it. 
These go for about $500-$650. Next up was the one with a Color-Heliar which 
is, I think, a five element lens and is a Dynar design rather than a Heliar. 
It is noticeably better than the Color-Skopar at wider apertures (I have 
both). These go for about $750-$1000. The lens up from that was the 
Apo-Lanthar and one in very good condition will go for $2000 upwards. The 
Apo-Lanthar is supposedly better than the Color-Heliar but I have read 
conflicting reports. The Bessa II has got to the the most beautiful and 
luxurious folder 6x9 camera ever made and some people are more than willing 
to pay big money for the finest of that make. 



From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Dec 2003 
Subject: Re: Best of Kodak Six-16 range

The Monitors were well built cameras which were not all that low end. The
Anastigmat Specials used on them were fairly good quality lenses.



From: Stacey  
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format 
Subject: Re: HOW TO TAKE LENSES OFF A COMPUR-P SHUTTER? 
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 

Radio913 wrote: 
> Thanks Richard, i finally got it off with an old bicycle inner tube and a 
> channel-lock! 
> 
> I'll let you know how the cleaning and lube goes... 
http://stephe_2.tripod.com/shuttercla.htm 
Works on most folder shutters.. 
-- 
Stacey 


Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 
From: Wayne Cornell zorki1c@yahoo.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Moskva - Ruby isn?t red enough
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com

I think the original concept of the ruby window was for orthochromatic film
that couldn't "see" anything red. Panchromatic films, however, are sensitive
to all parts of the spectrum, not to mention being a lot more sensitive
(higher ISO) than the early films



From zeiss interest group mailing list:
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 
From: "Peter Wallage" leighamvale44@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: Serial # index 

--- In ZICG@yahoogroups.com, Top top_easy@y... wrote: 
> When my computer crashed I lost all the camera data I 
> had gathered, including links. One in particular was 
> an index of Z-I lens serial #s cross-referenced by 
> (approx) date. It was part of a law firms' website, 
> located in the Texas/Louisiana area. Anyone who can 
> point me in the right direction will earn my most 
> profound thanks. 
> 
> Mark P. 

I think the site you are looking for is 
http://home.sprynet.com/~stspring/Zeiss%20Ikon.html 

Peter 


From: David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak folding No. 1
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 

Nelkahn spake thus:

> I recently dug out one of my parents old caremas. A kodak No.1 pocket
> folding with a Kodex shutter No.0 (T B 25 50). Obviously the manual has
> been lost in the distant past. The proble I have is working out the
> f-stop equivalents to the shutters (1 2 3 4) positions.

So far as the f-stops go, it's not completely abstract. I have a similar
camera, a No. 2A Folding Cartridge Hawkeye Model B, which took No. 116 film
(basically today's 70mm film). (I've got the new! improved! Kodex No. 1
shutter, but with the same speeds as yours.) It too has 4 aperture settings,
but they're actually marked with f-numbers:

8 16 32 64

(Even though the aperture is capable of being fully opened, Kodak "stopped"
the aperture at f/8, since with no focusing system other than a scale, there's
no need for a faster opening.)

Looking at yours, you can probably pretty well guess what the apertures are.
The minimum one (the smallest opening) will be somewhere around
f/32-f/45-f/64. The largest one is likely no larger than f/8, like mine is.
(On mine, the numbers start around the center of the scale, so it's obvious
the aperture could open wider if not blocked.) For the middle ones, just
interpolate.

And have fun. I love shooting with these old folders.


From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak folding No. 1
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 

"Nelkahn" nelkahn@hotmail.com wrote
> I recently dug out one of my parents old caremas.
> A kodak No.1 pocket folding with a Kodex shutter
> No.0 [with speeds of] (T B 25 50) [and f-stops of]
> (1 2 3 4).
>
> I made a trial run with a roll of 400 ASA film ... most
> of the pictures turned out suprisingly well.
>
> I would simply like to be guessing [at exposure settings]
> a little bit less.

Exposure meters are a recent invention.
Their widespread use dates only from the 1960's. For
photography's first 130 years exposures were set by guess,
luck and experience. Exposure guides were the most reliable
method of setting exposure. Kodak provided a guide with
every roll of film and they still do with some films.

A good guide, judiciously used, can produce better
results than a meter as it doesn't get fooled
by all the errors one can make with a meter:
getting the sun in the photocell; using old batteries;
setting the wrong ASA; metering a portion of the subject
that is not average; really messing up with the zone system,
such as metering an important shadow, _closing down_
three stops to place the shadow in Zone 2 and wondering why
the negative is clear.

A large majority of the really great photographs were made
without a meter: Early (and some say the best) Ansel Adams;
Edward Weston; Julia Cameron; Dorethea Lange; Cartier-Bresson;
Walker Evans; Nadir ... the list goes on and on and on.

You are getting good shots, so what's the problem? Use the
camera authentically: guess. When in doubt, overexpose.
Take notes and create your own exposure guide.

BTW: to get an approximation of the equivalent f-stops place
a ruler across the front of the lens and measure the effective
aperture using one eye. Then measure the focal length: take
the distance from the diaphragm (just guess where it is) to
the film plane (ditto). Being off by a quarter inch in this
measurement will have no effect on the outcome. Divide the
aperture by the focal length to get the f-stop.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.


Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Website with detailed photo's,tips on repair of old foldup cameras

Bill Mcdonald wrote:

> http://www.davidrichert.com/camera_rebuilds.htm
>
> I came across this site in my websearching.
>
> I wish I'd seen this before trying to repair an old Voightlander 6 by
> 6, maybe then I'd have not screwed it up resulting in a major temper
> tantrum and a camera reduced to junk:-(
>
> They say confession is good for the soul..........
>
> Bill Mcdonald(definitely not a camera repairman) in Joshua Tree

Nice site. About the only thing I take issue with is the use of hose
clamps. I have done several camera repairs, and found a slightly better
method, though it may take some more time and effort. What I use is
rubber (or Sorbethane) blocks for gripping the elements. Combined with
100% pure alcohol as a mild solvent to loosen the old dried lube, the
rubber blocks are great grip pieces, and allow for unscrewing lens
elements without damage.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com



From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Got my "like new" Agfa Isolette I this week
Date: 8 Feb 2004 

Christian Kolinski usenet1@blafh.de wrote 
> Yes, but the bellow of my Zeiss-Ikon isn't real leather either
> but looks much better than most of the Agfa ones I've seen.
>
> And real leather has to be greased regularly to survive 50+
> years.

Hardly any of the classic folder cameras has a bellows made of
leather. Usually the bellows are made of two or three layers. In most
cases, there is a rubber-coated fabric inner layer (with the rubber
coat not visible), strips of cardboard to keep the folds in shape and
an outer layer of thin black synthetic material. Most bellows of the
cameras I own (the oldest dating back to 1931) still have their
original bellows and no leaks.

However, Agfa choose a special material (or manufacturer) for most of
their bellows. These bellows have a shiny surface without any embossed
stripes and are very prone to cracks. Fortunately it is not very
difficult to replace on the Isolettes and Billy Records.

Winfried


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"
Date: 7 Feb 2004 

I never had problems related to film flatness on 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9
folders. Just recently I started to wind the film just BEFORE
shooting. Some of my 6x9 have a double exposure latch, but most don't
have one. I noticed that the amount of dust (visible as unexposed
spots) on the negs was much less when winding the film just before
shooting, obviously less dust from the bellows fabric accumulates on
the film.

I tried to remove dust from the bellows with tiny brushes but this did
not really help, so I got one of those miniature vacuum cleaners used
for cleaning dust off computer keyboards etc. Let's see how this works
on cameras.

Winfried



[Ed. note: special thanks to Jason Tay for sharing this nifty tip on folder fixes..]
From: Jason Tay [shutay@tm.net.my] 
Sent: Fri 2/6/2004 
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Welta Weltur - Fujifilm Problem solved

Hi Bob,

I've finally gotten round to trying Fujifilm in my Welta Weltur folder
again. If you remember, I had spooling problems with Fujifilm on my
Welta - for some reason only Fujifilm 120 rollfilm would not properly
wind onto the take-up spool in the Weltur. I ripped off a short strip of
the paper band seal that holds the 120 rollfilm leader tightly wound
when you unpack it and squeezed it between the rollfilm feed spool and
the spindles. That did the trick. I can now go back to shooting Fujifilm
on my Weltur. :)

Jason



From: "Glendon" nothere@nowhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004

"Nick Zentena" zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote 
> Glendon nothere@nowhere.com wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm, I probably should have come clean. I am fooling around with
> > 6x12...obtained by running 120 film in an old 616 Kodak. Oddball I know, but
> > interesting.
> I've been thinking of doing something similar. Just using respooled 70mm
> film. What has been holding me back is the worries about the lenses on those
> old 116/616 cameras. Just how good/bad are they?
>
> Nick

I think they vary quite a bit, with some of the basic cameras having some
basic lenses. This site has some useful info on Kodak lenses:
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~b-wallen/BN_Photo/Kodak_index2.htm
The general consensus on that and similar sites is that the better Kodak
lenses are surprisingly good.

I have a late model Monitor 616....it was probably at the top of the 616
line....the Regent might have been a better Kodak camera of the time, with a
German lens, but I don't think it was made in 616 format. My Monitor has a 4
element ,uncoated Anastigmat lens...just don't know how good it is at the
moment...will be in a better position to comment when I have run a few rolls
through....but I'm hopeful!

In contrast, some of the Junior 616 models look to have some pretty basic
lenses.

I thought about 70mm film...but where do you get backing paper and spools?
Also, I generally have a variety of 120 film on hand at any time and can
pick what I want to load....respooling 70mm means a bulk supply of film of
the one specification, no?



From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 
From: Leigh Solland solland@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Folding camera lens questions

Jon Hart wrote:
> --- Alan Myers AMfoto1@aol.com wrote:
> > The Collectors Guide to Japanese Cameras lists this camera with a
> > 13.5cm "R.R." lens. Does anyone know what "R.R." means?
>
> Alan,
> R.R. generally refers to Rapid Rectilinear. I
> can't remember exactly how the group/element ratio
> goes, but it is symmetrical in design, can't deliver
> decent performance at apertures wider than about f/8,
> and was one of the first lens designs to really
> attempt (and succeed somewhat) to eliminate
> astigmatism and other lens abberations. The somewhat
> later Tessar design blew it out of the water, of
> course, as well as many Cooke-type triplets,
> especially in the ability to be used at wider
> apertures than the R.R. could achieve.

Guys,

I found the following notes from Richard Knoppow in the alt-photo-process archives.
It seems to cover it well, so I will reproduce it here to save Richard some typing:


The Rapid-Rectilinear is a symmetrical lens with two
cemented elements in each cell. The type was invented
simultaneously and independantly by Steinheil (as the
Aplanat) and Dallmeyer (as the Rapid Rectilinear) in 1866.
It quickly became the most commonly used lens. R-R type
lenses were made by practically all lens makers under a
great variety of names. They continued to be made up to the
early 1930's for use in inexpensive folding cameras. Bausch
& Lomb built millions of them for Kodak. I can't even guess
the date of this lens, the mounting probably would give some
clue.

The R-R is not an anastigmat, it was designed before the
high index low dispersion glass of Schott of Jena was
developed. Some backward curving field curvature is used to
average out the astigmatism. The lens must be used at fairly
small stops for the corners to be sharp.

Well designed R-R lenses can be quite sharp and quite
usable lenses. Both names refer to the lack of geometrical
distortion, a feature of symmetrical lenses.

R-R lenses were made as standard and wide angle types. The
coverage is partly a matter of the choice of glass. The
length of the barrel for a given focal length is a clue. The
longer the barrel the more limited the coverage but the
better the image.

I have no idea of the value of the lens as a collector's
item. At a guess, there were too many R-R lenses made for
the type to have any special value although very old lenses
may have value simply due to age. It is probably more
valuable as a usable lens.


From: "Hartmut Krafft" hk_spamkuebel@mail.ru
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Ikon 517/16 information needed
Date: 18 Mar 2004 

Christian Kolinski usenet1@blafh.de wrote:
> m II ohmworkLEOPARD@spots.ca wrote:
> > I've picked up this camera recently.
>
> > 1:6.3
> > F 75mm
> > 120 film
> > Novar Anastigmat lens
> > Vario shutter
>
> > How is the glass in these cameras? Any idea as to age? It seems to work
> > well and I'll be getting film tomorrow for it. I have to find the light
> > meter first....
>
>
> The Novar is a typical 3-element design. Very soft open, can be
> very sharp when stopped down to f/11 or f/16.
> The "F 75mm" reveals it as a post-WWII model (would read 7,5cm on earlyer
> models), the /16 says it's a 6x6 model. It's one with the satin chrome
> top, right?
> Production? Between 1948 and the
> mid 50s I guess.
>
> I own a 517/2 (the 6x9 Version) which bellow is perfectly ligh-tight.

I've got a 'Nettar' 515/2, 1:4,5/f=11cm Nettar-Anastigmat, which seems to
be from the late thirties, and the bellow still is perfect, too. So I
wouldn't expect a problem there. The lens is sharp, but soft, and very
sensitive to flare (not so well suited for backlight photographs); other
than that, the results are very usable (and if you know about it, the
softness can be used to enhance certain moods very nicely). Although the
lens surely wasn't designed for color film, I usually use slide fim which
works very well.

Only thing that my camera lacks is the albada viewfinder, which was already
missing when I got it; so I'll have to rely on the crude double-frame
finder on top of the body.

One thing to check, several to keep in mind: The folder design makes these
cameras somewhat sensible to hits and bumps (when unfolded). Before
starting to use film, check the infintiy focus using a piece of matte
plastic film (I use the covering the developed slide films are returned in
from the lab) that you taped very exactly to the film plane; with open
shutter and diaphragm, check that the focus reading matches what you see on
the plastic 'ground screen' (use a loupe!); if it doesn't, you'll have to
find out (by turning the focussing ring) in which direction you'll have to
gently ease the lens carrier to realign it with the film plane. (Usually,
the alignment is correct, but it's better to check first. Misalignments
will usually show in bent levers, too, if you look carefully.)

And the things to keep in mind: I find it very hard to relase the shutter
without moving the camera accidentally while releasing; to work around, I
attach a short cable release and now can release without the lever effect
caused by the shutter release lever...

And always advance the film after taking a photo: there's no double
exposure lock, so it's up to you to maintain consitency here.
Also, i'ts advisable to protect the red window in the back form direct sun
and too much light in general.

Have fun with the folder.

Hartmut



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 

Sean Elkins wrote:
> I own several pretty decent 6X6 folders and have never seen film
> flatness problems with any of them. I've only shot one roll from the
> $15 Agfa Viking 6X9 folder I picked up at a camera show, so I really
> can't comment on 6X9.

6X9's are the only ones that seem to have these problems. When they were
being sold, people shot 6X9 to have contact prints made. Very few would
ever enlarge them and this IMHO is why most 6X9's don't peform that great.


Sure there are some exceptions but I really feel looking at 8X10
enlargements the 6X4.5-6X6 folders perform as well if not better than the
6X9 folders in every area except visible grain. Given how much smaller the
cameras are and less film used, I much prefer a 6x4.5-6X6 to any of the
others. As far as film flatness, the lenses on these also didn't perform
that well at large f-stops and the focusing normally isn't that accurate so
most get shot at f11-f16 where small film flatness issues are that big a
deal anyway.
--
Stacey



Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 
From: Sean Elkins sean_elkins@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"

jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE) wrote:
> >"Glendon" nothere@nowhere.com
> >"Stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote ...
> >> Bill Mcdonald wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have to figure out an easy way to handle the film advance, I keep
> >> > forgetting it.

For myself I have finally settled on winding after each shot so I'm
ready to go next time. This is the technique most people use when
shooting a manual-wind 35, so having the film already wound is
something people are just used to,

I don't typically cock the shutter because I hat the thought of leaving
a 50 year-old spring under tension for what may be months between
shots. This has posed a problem in the past when I have pressed the
shutter release on my Speedex "R", which has double exposure
prevention. You just can't cock the shutter and try again without
resetting the DE prevention by winding the film!

There is a workaround because you can still fire the shutter with a
cable release, si I always made sure I had a cable release in my bag
even if I didn't have a tripod.

I own several pretty decent 6X6 folders and have never seen film
flatness problems with any of them. I've only shot one roll from the
$15 Agfa Viking 6X9 folder I picked up at a camera show, so I really
can't comment on 6X9.

--
Sean Elkins RKBA


From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 07 Feb 2004 
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I

...
>Hmm, what about film flatness? Bellows camera suggests.... open bellows,
>then wind just before shoot to give best flatness? Just asking as I have
>just bought one of these old folders myself.

I've found less dust problems with my folders if I wind after opening the
camera and setting up the picture. Try it if you're having dust problems.

Chuck


From: "Glendon" nothere@nowhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 

...
Hmmm, I probably should have come clean. I am fooling around with
6x12...obtained by running 120 film in an old 616 Kodak. Oddball I know, but
interesting.

As 120 film doesn't fit the much wider 616 film gate, flatness is an issue.
In addressing the issue I was interested to find much advice on the web (eg
Bob Monaghan's site) to the effect that one should wind just before shooting
when using any folder, irrespective of format. The expectation being that
the tension on the film will help keep it flat for the duration of the shot.
If one winds immediately after the shot, any subsequent jarring of the
camera before the next shot, opening of the bellows, etc., could loosen the
film supply spool just a little, relasing the tension on the film. Seems
logical to me, but I am just a beginner in all this.

But I must say that before this Kodak, I have used a Rolleicord and a Franka
6X6 folder without noticing any problems.

With my Kodak, I have helped things along by putting a couple of springs in
to add tension to the film supply spool. And I wind just before shooting. I
am still on my first roll of film...so will have to wait to see if it works
or not. If there are problems, I will experiment with a glass
insert....sandwiching the film between the glass and the normal back. (This
approach has been used by Rollei and Hasselblad, amongst others)

Great fun, these old folders.



From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zeiss Vs. Leica
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 

William Graham wrote:
> Yeah....Many years ago my dad had some Zeis Icon folding cameras in 120
> format....They were quite small....No interchangeable lenses though....I
> didn't know these were still made.

They aren't still made. And yes no interchangable lenses. I've found a
normal lens works well for lots of "normal" shooting! :-)

> Occasionally I see one in a second hand
> store, but they are always so rotten that I hesitate to buy them. I don't
> know the names of anyone who fixes/replaces the bellows...

If they have been taken care of, the bellows hold up fine. I have 3
different samples of these and all work great. The "nice" ones are the
latest 6x6 models that have a rangefinder build into the top part of the
camera and have a coated "opton tessar" 75mm f3.5. These ussually sell for
$300 or so, still a great deal for a compact camera. Most people bought the
cheap version with the "novar" lens that wasn't that great. ALso the 6X9
versions aren't that great, film flatness issues.
--
Stacey


From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zeiss Vs. Leica
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 

William Graham wrote:
>> > Except you then give up speed....I've noticed that 35mm lenses are the
>> > fastest for most any given focal length....As someone else on this
>> > forum says...."There's no such thing as a free lunch.
>>
>> Sure there is. 800asa print film on MF looks better than 100asa on 35mm and
>> the MF lenses aren't 3 stop slower..
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
> Yes....But the equipment size and cost is greater, and the lens selection smaller.....

Yea yea yea, maybe? :-) But lens speed and DOF isn't the big issue many
people make it out to be. Some MF camera are actually smaller than 35mm
cameras and the MF SLR I use has zeiss lenses that are way cheaper than any
that the 35mm camera use.

> If I were making 16 x 20
> blow ups and selling them, I would go MF, but for the kind of snapshot
> shooting that I do, it isn't worth the extra trouble and/or expense.

I rarely make prints larger than 8X10's and the difference is obvious. But I
still use 35mm at times for certain applications.

Something you might consider is playing with a medformat folder like an
ikonta with a zeiss tessar? These can be had fairly cheap in the older non
rangefinder models ($100), are light, compact and produce great results.
One of these is MUCH smaller than most 35mm cameras! Sure you are stuck
with one lens but is a fun camera to use. The older rollei TLRs are fun
too.
--
Stacey


From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zeiss Vs. Leica
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 

William Graham wrote:
> "Lourens Smak" smak@wanadoo.nl wrote
>> Which is pretty easy if you go medium-format for half the price.
>> Lourens
>
> Except you then give up speed....I've noticed that 35mm lenses are the
> fastest for most any given focal length....As someone else on this forum
> says...."There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Sure there is. 800asa print film on MF looks better than 100asa on 35mm and
the MF lenses aren't 3 stop slower..
--
Stacey


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Overlap frames on Zeis Ikon
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 

Bruceh wrote:
> I dusted off my father's old Zeiss Ikon camera and shot a roll
> of Fuji Provia. However the frames were overlapping around
> a quarter inch.
>
> Is there something I did wrong or has something changed
> with the spools from 30 years ago (the last time it was used).

Where on the roll of film is the first frame located in relation to the
numbers on the film? If it's really close to the start of the roll, wind
more film onto the takeup spool before you close the back by maybe half a
frame (or more?) and try that. Another "solution" is to add some tape or a
piece of backing paper into the start of the takeup spool when loading to
increase it's diameter slightly. What probably going on is the winder needs
a CLA but these tricks can make it useable. The spools haven't changed but
modern film is slightly thinner than these were designed for. With my
Ikonta winding the start line about a half a frame past the red dot is
enough to get good spacing and still get 12 shots on a roll.
--
Stacey



From Zeiss Interest Group
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 
From: "Peter Wallage" leighamvale44@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Lens performance

Hi all,

I've enjoyed the discussion on Super Ikonta and Tessar performance
and I'd like to add a couple of points which seem to have been
overlooked.

One is film flatness. This can sometimes be a problem with MF
folding cameras. Either the film retains a 'memory' of its curl
round the spool, or sometimes the fast opening of a self erecting
mechanism causes a suction which can curve the film out of the film
plane. I can remember these points being used as arguments for using
glass plates and sheet film years ago.

The second is that any Ikonta, super or otherwise, is now getting on
a bit in years. Zeiss Ikon made one of, if not THE best of self-
erecting mechanisms, but by now these cameras must have been opened
and closed quite a few times. With an alignment which depends on
rivets, moving joints, bent metal stops and hinges, as well as
original production tolerances, I think it's reasonable to suppose
that by now the alignment of the lens standard on different examples
may well vary by a few thousandths of a millimetre.

Lastly, someone mentioned MTF curves. In my view these are lens
designers' tools which were seized on by camera magazine journalists
as an objective way of comparing lenses and, possibly un-
necessarily, entered the amateur photographer's vocabulary. For a
photographer, the only way to judge a camera and its lens should be
by the various qualities of the thing it was made to produce - a
picture, a real picture not a shot of a lens test chart. And that
must always be a subjective judgement.

Peter 



From: Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where does the film exactly start?
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 

Marek mjam[usunto]@poczta.onet.pl wrote:
> On which mark does the film really start? What does the arrows exactly mean?

I measured a few backing papers from fuji, kodak, agfa, forte and
macophot. It varies a bit with brand, but the film starts between
7 and 7 1/2 inches after the arrow. The tape which attaches the film
covers up the first little bit, so if you were designing a film
counting mechanism, you wouldn't want to count on starting any closer
than 8 inches from the start arrow.

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net





End of Page