6x6 Camera Somewhere Between a Holga and a Hasselblad??

[Mike Kovacs]

Ikoflex TLRs are decent too. Rolleicord in terms of operation, but built like a tank. I've had two prewar Ikoflexes with uncoated Tessars and a postwar with a coated Novar. I keep getting them on trades for camera repair! (I'm really a diehard Rolleiflex man)

See here for a shot I just posted in another thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This here was a prewar Ikoflex II with lever focus and an uncoated CZJ Tessar 75/3.5. As good as my prewar Rolleiflex Automat in terms of results, cost under $100.

 

[DBP]

Rollei anything for under $100 used? Not if you want it to work (or I'm looking in the wrong places). The Flexarets look interesting and I may have to pick one up at some time, but that's after the current projects are finished. One of those is a very early Rolleiflex from somewhere around 1929 (I think), hopefully the optics aren't as trashed as the leather.

Microcord, Minoltacord, Minolta Autocord, and Beautycord, to name a few. Did I say Rollei?

 

[DBP]

Rollei anything for under $100 used? Not if you want it to work (or I'm looking in the wrong places). The Flexarets look interesting and I may have to pick one up at some time, but that's after the current projects are finished. One of those is a very early Rolleiflex from somewhere around 1929 (I think), hopefully the optics aren't as trashed as the leather.

You may want to update your data. Look at item 7624560634 for example, which is a Rolleicord V with Xenar that went for $84.10 Saturday, with a seven day guarantee. Prices have fallen for all medium format gear.

 

[Greg_E]

I've been keeping track, most of the good 'cords have been going for a little above $100. The one on Saturday I let slip past because I already had one decent one and one donor on the way, so I didn't bother to push the bid. Most of them seem to be up around $125, at least the last 2 or 3 weeks. I was kind of surprised that the early (and ugly) 'flex went so low, picked it up for under $50, but it needs work! I know it isn't one of the best versions, but it was very early, should be here next week.

Speaking of work, maybe you can help me find an answer. I'm looking for a Rollei service manual for the lenses, specifically the shutter mechanism and timer for the longer speeds. I'm going to put up a new thread about this so that this one doesn't get hijacked.

 

[ZorkiKat]

How about the Lubitel pseudo TLR? Not really a TLR since it doesn't really use a reflex finder in the sense that a Rollei or Seagull would. It's probably a step or two or three above the Holga but it can deliver really good results. Doesn't leak (most of the time anyway ) like the holga, really focuses great pictures through its real anastigmat lens, and has adjustable apertures and shutter speeds to boot. Costs about US$25.

Or for folders, there's the Moskwa (Moscow) 6x9.

My bias for FSU cameras shows, doesn't it?

 

[DBP]

How about the Lubitel pseudo TLR? Not really a TLR since it doesn't really use a reflex finder in the sense that a Rollei or Seagull would. It's probably a step or two or three above the Holga but it can deliver really good results. Doesn't leak (most of the time anyway ) like the holga, really focuses great pictures through its real anastigmat lens, and has adjustable apertures and shutter speeds to boot. Costs about US$25.

Or for folders, there's the Moskwa (Moscow) 6x9.

My bias for FSU cameras shows, doesn't it?

I would second the Moskva, which I have and use, although I find the ergonomics a bit challenging. Great lens! But I think the Ciroflex is a much better buy than the Lubitel at the same or sometimes lower price. Some models were actually used by professionals in the US before Franke and Heidecke recovered from the war.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Moskva can be a little hit and miss. E.g. mine had an inexcusible factory defect that prevented the shutter from reliably firing on B. Seems to fairly decent though (I've fully serviced a couple now) but definitely behind my Ikonta 523/2 in terms of lens rigidity.

The Industar lens (a Tessar copy) is pretty decent too but a little behind the Opton Tessar T on said Ikonta. (could be film flatness, lens rigidity more than the lens) I wholeheartedly recommend Zeiss Ikon folders - they are built like tanks and have excellent quality bellows.

6x9 is a nice format. Too bad my lab can't make colour prints from 6x9 negs. I either shoot colour transparencies or B&W, and handle the colour prints digitally.

 

[DBP]

Given the commonality of design with the Ikonta, I suspect the only difference is quality control. And I probably have been lucky with the two Moskva 5s I have handled (gave one as a graduation gift to a film student). If he is budget constrained, it's probably worth the risk.

Now that my lab has gone half digital, they probably can handle the 6x9. Will have to ask.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Rigidity in folding cameras

I would second the Moskva, which I have and use, although I find the ergonomics a bit challenging. Great lens! But I think the Ciroflex is a much better buy than the Lubitel at the same or sometimes lower price. Some models were actually used by professionals in the US before Franke and Heidecke recovered from the war.

My Moskwa-5 looks great and clean. But it has what looks to be a factory defect: the viewfinder won't show what the camera's lens is seeing. I tried to see if there was anything which could be tweaked there, but seems that there's none. It must be in the way the top plate's viewfinder window was stamped. Like Mike's Moskwa, its shutter sometimes won't hold at B. That must be the reason why my Moskwa looks so clean and pristine: the previous owner probably couldn't use it right so it was probably kept after it was used once

Folders really have a problem with keeping lens/film plane parallel. They might have been 100% close to it once, but the folding and opening process can fatigue the struts which hold the lens panel. I've seen old pictures which had the focus/non-focus effect attributable to alignment issues. And these pics where shot when those folders were new! Anyway, I don't think its really a problem as this 'defect' is often charming to see.

I also have the Ciroflex- a model "D", I think with an Alphax shutter. Its big and roomy inside- just like any American device made in that period I've seen (comparing it to an old Zenith TV, an Dormeyer kitchen mixer or GE ref). It's my "American Lubitel". Built like a tank too. I don't like much the way its shutter release lever is designed. The way it's tripped jerks the camera, making sharp exposures even at 1/25 quite tricky. The longer 85mm lens accounts for its apparent better optical perfromance the Lubitel's 75mm triplet. Aside from focusing as a unit (Lubitels use front cell focusing), the longer focal length ensures that only the central, 'sweeter' portions of the focused image is used.

Jay

 

[DBP]

The viewfinders on old folders can be pretty iffy. Are you sure the little prism that switches from 6x6 to 6x9 is completely in position?

Seems everything back then was roomier. A neighbor used to have a 58 Mercedes. There was enough room under the hood for two suitcases, or maybe small children. And the old Checker cabs sat six in the back seat.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Given the commonality of design with the Ikonta, I suspect the only difference is quality control. And I probably have been lucky with the two Moskva 5s I have handled (gave one as a graduation gift to a film student). If he is budget constrained, it's probably worth the risk.

Now that my lab has gone half digital, they probably can handle the 6x9. Will have to ask.

Do you own these two cameras? In terms of build quality the postwar Ikonta vs Moskva is more akin to Leica vs FED than Contax vs Kiev. The Moskva 5 is pretty rough in places. From a repairman's perspective (I've restored various folders), the Ikonta (various flavours) is probably the most overengineered folder. The differences go way past quality control.

Although I don't own a 6x9 Super Ikonta, I do own a 6x6 Super Ikonta and it blows the Soviet stuff away in quality. That's not to say that they cannot be used effectively - a properly operating Moskva 5 is an excellent camera.

Also, the Moskva 5 has very difficult ergonomics for me. The viewfinder is way off to the right side. Being a left-eyed shooter, I cannot steady the camera at all with my face shooting horizontally and its compounded by the left hand shutter release.

 

[DBP]

Do you own these two cameras? In terms of build quality the postwar Ikonta vs Moskva is more akin to Leica vs FED than Contax vs Kiev. The Moskva 5 is pretty rough in places. From a repairman's perspective (I've restored various folders), the Ikonta (various flavours) is probably the most overengineered folder. The differences go way past quality control.

Although I don't own a 6x9 Super Ikonta, I do own a 6x6 Super Ikonta and it blows the Soviet stuff away in quality. That's not to say that they cannot be used effectively - a properly operating Moskva 5 is an excellent camera.

Also, the Moskva 5 has very difficult ergonomics for me. The viewfinder is way off to the right side. Being a left-eyed shooter, I cannot steady the camera at all with my face shooting horizontally and its compounded by the left hand shutter release.

I don't own the Ikonta, but will agree about the quality, as I believe that is the point I originally made. Even the late Kievs don't match their Contax progenitors for fit and finish. Presumably the early ones are closer. And I am right eyed and right handed and find the ergonomics of the Moskva difficult, though in my case it is the placement of the shutter release relative to the left rangefinder window that gives me the most trouble. But I do find it one of the best 6x0 picture taking machines for the money. Unless Ikonta prices have collapsed along with all the rest, in which case I may have a chance to compare soon.

Why is it that anytime I say something nice about a camera that is a cheaper and perhaps shabbier alternative to something built by Zeiss or Rollei, someone thinks I insulted their mother? I knew Leica people were like this, but does it apply to all German cameras?

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Why is it that anytime I say something nice about a camera that is a cheaper and perhaps shabbier alternative to something built by Zeiss or Rollei, someone thinks I insulted their mother? I knew Leica people were like this, but does it apply to all German cameras?

"a properly operating Moskva 5 is an excellent camera"

Now where was I denigrating this cheaper camera?

 

[DBP]

"Do you own these two cameras? In terms of build quality the postwar Ikonta vs Moskva is more akin to Leica vs FED than Contax vs Kiev. The Moskva 5 is pretty rough in places."

 

[Mike Kovacs]

whatever...

 

[ZorkiKat]

The viewfinders on old folders can be pretty iffy. Are you sure the little prism that switches from 6x6 to 6x9 is completely in position?

Seems everything back then was roomier. A neighbor used to have a 58 Mercedes. There was enough room under the hood for two suitcases, or maybe small children. And the old Checker cabs sat six in the back seat.

Between the front window and eyepiece lens elements, there's just a little aluminium(?) frame which masks the field for 6x6. Nothing else in there which allows any adjustment or repositioning. No prism there.

 

[mediumformatphoto]

Can't go wrong with Mamiya TLR or Rolleicord

I agree with prior comments on Mamiya TLR or Rolleicord (assuming condition is good, but consider getting a CLA to get everything up to snuff). IMO the Mamiya TLR lenses are really under-rated. In my practical use, including studio, the standard length 80/2.8 yields superb sharpness. Attached are a couple of examples.

For SLR, also consider a Kowa 6MM (the MM model has the desirable mirror lock-up). These cameras have fantastic lenses, on par with the best, again IMO.

R.J.

 

[Ed_Davor]

My choice was Seagull 109

It was about $280, so it's pretty cheap, though many would say you should get an old TLR for that money instead.