Agfa Isolette II vs Mamiya 6x6 folders

[flavio81]

Thanks again for all the great comments! Assuming same film and decently stopped down, would it be fair to say that the larger negative from either camera would provide a big improvement in grain over even good 35mm cameras, e.g., my Nikon FE/Nikkor 50mm and my Retina IIIc? Same question as to sharpness. I used to shoot a manual Pentax 645 and I seem to remember improvement in both categories.

Ok, since you are caring for image quality.

Consider that 120 film has a bigger cost -- due to less exposures per roll.

I have bothered with many folder cameras (the agfas, the zeiss ones with novars, ensign selfix 820, zenobia, and others) and none of them, except one(*), had enough resolution and sharpness (mtf) to justify the increased cost of film.

If you're going to shoot medium format in the look for image quality, and justify the cost of film, go for a professional camera. You don't need 6x7 or 6x9; 6x4.5 already gives a big dramatic jump from 35mm, IF the camera and lens is good.

Otherwise use your Nikon FE with really good film like Acros 100 and be happy.

I mean, a 6x9 camera with a 4-element lens like the Agfa Rekord with the Solinar will, of course, give better results than 135 film; however the results will be inferior to a proper 6x9 camera; and only the latter would really justify the cost of the film.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) which I won't disclose in public

 

[flavio81]

Grain: Oh gosh yes because medium format typically gets magnified less to achieve the desired image size. IMO, the jump from 35 mm to 6x4.5 and larger can be substantial.

Sharpness: That's less straightforward. "Sharpness" is more of a subjective quality, whereas terms like resolving power can be quantified. And I've a hunch that my 55/2.8 AI-s Micro-Nikkor + Kodak Tmax film would handily out-resolve the Apotar lens on my Isolette at any aperture. And why wouldn't it: The Nikkor is a much newer and more complex optical design. A sense of "sharpness" can dialed back into a photo by increasing contrast, and acutance.

Sharpness is a real (measurable) thing if we're talking about MTF. High MTF = high perceived sharpness, even more so at low frequencies.

Total (system) MTF is a result of multiplying the MTF of the lens + the MTF of the film.

And MTF is limited by the film stock on 135 (and smaller) formats, where larger formats such as 4x5 have their MTF limited not by the film but by the lens. Norman Koren has excellent articles explaining this.

Your choice of TMAX (100, i guess) is good -- it has particularly high MTF. However, it might not be enough to better a stopped-down Apotar (3-element lens) on a 6x9 film with good flatness.

However, as I wrote above, using the Nikon makes much more financial sense.

 

[4season]

Sharpness is a real (measurable) thing if we're talking about MTF. High MTF = high perceived sharpness, even more so at low frequencies.

Nikon does not call it "sharpness"; they refer to it as resolving power and contrast:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...hat-is-a-lens-mtf-chart-how-do-i-read-it.html

I can probably guess which 120 rollfilm folding cameras would have the highest MTF, and at today's prices they all cost far more than the 50 USD that I paid for my Isolette III. Fuji GS645 was a nice performer -- when it worked. Not the most robust design.

 

[flavio81]

Nikon does not call it "sharpness"; they refer to it as resolving power and contrast:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...hat-is-a-lens-mtf-chart-how-do-i-read-it.html

If we want to get nit-picky, then MTF is neither resolving power nor contrast. It is, precisely, modulation at a certain frequency. I don't care what Nikon marketing writes there.

What I said is that MTF at low frequencies will give higher perceived sharpness and this is something that's generally agreed, see for example writings by Erwin Puts, etc.

 

[moggi1964]

I own and love an Agfa Isolette II with a Solinar F/3.5 75mm lens. It came to me in very good condition with just a little tension in the focusing mechanism. After a CLA it is smooth and reliable and gorgeous.

It is on my 'never part with' list alongside my Mamiya C3 and Yashica Minister 700.

I pay no attention to all these measurement debates, I shoot film, develop it and simply enjoy the experience and the output.

 

[Helge]

I have an Isolette III w/ the Apotar; after de-gunking the lens (took an hour in the oven, it was like epoxy and days of alcohol soak didn't dent it), de-gunking the RF focus knob (soldering iron), re-lubing and collimating (and a bit of Permatex black on the bellows), it's really a very nice camera, and the rehab wasn't difficult really. Stopped down a bit, the negs really are impressive for sharpness, lack of vignetting, corners, etc (only shot B&W with it).

That said, while it's cool and groovy and capable and one giant conversation starter out and about... I'll eventually sell it and try a Six. For my style and needs, the uncoupled RF is too slow and fiddly, I have to throw readers on to read the knobs, transferring the focus and so on - it's really quite a nice machine that just doesn't suit me that well. We're all different in our needs, but I want to meter, look, focus and shoot and be done with it.

YMMV as they say, but an uncoupled RF is better than guessing or having another bit of gear with you (again, that's an opinion!)

Problem is that the rangefinders in these cameras are not that good and often in dire need of professional calibration.

You learn the nearest distance with a bit of training (use your body or imagine a measuring stick), and further off a good guess is good enough even full open.

 

[Helge]

More than once in this thread the Mamiya Six was quoted having a 6 element Zuiko, which is not true. That is confusing it for the "6"'s Sekor.

Front element focusing on 4 element lenses is inferior to unit focusing, which is born out in test 80 years ago, it's a pretty well known optical property, and is the reason Mamiya used the unit focus design at the time. Front element focusing was dropped as film emulsions got better and range finders became more common.

Optimizing the optic for near infinity or near field is a design choice, Zeiss typically optimized all their lenses near infinity, even those on folder.

As most people have pointed out, at f/8~11, you really cannot tell the difference, but what is the point of a f/3.5 lens on an non-SLR if it is not useable there?

My Super Isolette was not more expensive than my Mamiya Six at the time I bought it, and the Super is a more comparable camera to the Six that the earlier Isolettes.

Do you have that in writing somewhere? Because that is not what I have experienced from actually shooting wide open. Also in online resources from retired service/repair men, I have read exactly what I paraphrased. Of course I didn’t bookmark it or am able to find it right now.

Also it makes absolutely no sense to optimize for infinity.

Of course unit focusing is superior, but if you view the camera as a whole system it makes sense.
UF is harder to make foldable and make rigid at the same time. It also weighs more and takes up more space.

 

[BMbikerider]

The original post asked:- Would the be a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Isolette and the Mamiya, and the short answer has to be NO.

That is if you are talking about a Isolette with a Solinar lens. They are both old cameras and the lenses are derived from an even older design. If you are going to consistently enlarge to 16x20, I would choose a Rollie with a Planar lens but as for the 'Significant' difference for what it may be used for absolutely not. I would have used the term splitting hairs but not in this case. Any difference may be down to coatings on the lens but after 70 years the difference is going to be virtually undetectable to the everyday user. Even down to the build quality, both cameras may have had flaws which will not improve with age, luckily there are repair engineers that can get them both back to new 'as new' working condition.
I used to own an Isolette which had a Solinar lens many years ago and it did what it was supposed to. I eventually sold it for a lot more than I paid for it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Mine does better than my Super Ikonta B, though there are confounding factors (the Ziess has front-element focusing and an uncoated f/2.8 Tessar which, IMO, was pushing the design a bit at that time). It's also a good bit lighter -- but my Mamiya Six is also an older version, red-window advance only.

 

[takilmaboxer]

A couple of posters here have made blanket statements about how folder lens designs were optimized for sharpness near the center, and the distance of the optimal sharpness point. I have heard these claims many times but nobody has ever quoted a source for their information. As a long time folder lover I would love to hear what your sources are, so that I can continue my education.
My own experience has been that if the user stops the lens down to f/8 or below and uses a tripod, such discussions quickly become academic.

 

[Helge]

A couple of posters here have made blanket statements about how folder lens designs were optimized for sharpness near the center, and the distance of the optimal sharpness point. I have heard these claims many times but nobody has ever quoted a source for their information. As a long time folder lover I would love to hear what your sources are, so that I can continue my education.
My own experience has been that if the user stops the lens down to f/8 or below and uses a tripod, such discussions quickly become academic.

That’s the trouble with information like that. Bookmarks get lost and badly categorized, or not even made, and only a long time off do you realize that the information was worth saving.

Same with books. It’s often very hard to retrieve the exact place in a book, without launching a daylong search.

But most of the information you request is easily deducted by mulling the subject a bit.

With simple lenses, that was necessitated by no, or poor lens coatings, you only had a limited amount of parameters to pull on to correct apparitions. So called “powers”.

Certain aspects of the lens was (wisely) deemed more important than others, and some aspects of the rendering had to give a bit.
With the triplet, via decades of trial and error, the compromise that was arrived at as “the best” resulted in the fifties folders lenses.

The optical math, science and history can be found with a simple search of for example “triplet vs Tessar”.

People in general are not that interested in what happens in the horizon. They are interested in stuff that is near to them. Focusing on a subject also makes, in general, for better photography.
It makes all the sense in the world to not optimize for infinity.

“f8 and be there” is fine as general practice but most machines is judged by their performance at the extremes and in edge cases, not when coasting with the flow.

Triplets holds their own to a surprising degree when compared with Tessar types.
Even open or stopped down to the max.
They might have been slightly cheaper but they have a lot of traits to recommend them.

 

[Helge]

The original post asked:- Would the be a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Isolette and the Mamiya, and the short answer has to be NO.

That is if you are talking about a Isolette with a Solinar lens. They are both old cameras and the lenses are derived from an even older design. If you are going to consistently enlarge to 16x20, I would choose a Rollie with a Planar lens but as for the 'Significant' difference for what it may be used for absolutely not. I would have used the term splitting hairs but not in this case. Any difference may be down to coatings on the lens but after 70 years the difference is going to be virtually undetectable to the everyday user. Even down to the build quality, both cameras may have had flaws which will not improve with age, luckily there are repair engineers that can get them both back to new 'as new' working condition.
I used to own an Isolette which had a Solinar lens many years ago and it did what it was supposed to. I eventually sold it for a lot more than I paid for it.

As said many times before on these pages, build quality and rigidity of folders, and also how hard a life they have had, means a tremendous amount.

It is also a matter of having a statistical high chance of finding a good body.
High production run cameras will have more well looked after, “good-production-day” models then relatively exotic cameras that had relatively low production runs.

 

[itsdoable]

Do you have that in writing somewhere? Because that is not what I have experienced from actually shooting wide open. Also in online resources from retired service/repair men, I have read exactly what I paraphrased. Of course I didn’t bookmark it or am able to find it right now.

Also it makes absolutely no sense to optimize for infinity.

Of course unit focusing is superior, but if you view the camera as a whole system it makes sense.
UF is harder to make foldable and make rigid at the same time. It also weighs more and takes up more space.

There were some published documents from Zeiss I read many years ago about lens design, but to not derail this thread too much, I'll leave that for people to look up themselves, or another thread. I was not in the habit of saving all the documents I read. Hasselblad also published a paper on their H-series lenses, stating that they were optimizing for studio distances (3M~6m) rather than infinity which was the practice on the V-series Zeiss lenses.

"...no sense to optimize for infinity" - depends on the use. Cameras were originally used to record scenic vistas, and not all people who used folders wanted portraits. Or group shots. If you look at your grand parents collection of folder prints, you'll probably find a lot of scenic shot at infinity. Prior to rangefinders being common, you were guaranteed to have correct focus at infinity, but not at close range. Thus optimizing near field was often lost due to incorrect focus. Again, we are talking about properties of the lens at large apertures. At smaller apertures, there was minimal difference.

Also, if I remember, the 40x focal length was a rule of thumb for 35mm? Because that would change for format size.

A couple of posters here have made blanket statements about how folder lens designs were optimized for sharpness near the center, and the distance of the optimal sharpness point. I have heard these claims many times but nobody has ever quoted a source for their information.....

Its an optical compromise to correct for a dozen+ aberration with 6.5 surfaces on 4 elements. If you take a sample of Tessar like lenses from different manufacturers, some are sharper in the center, some have a more uniform sharpness across the field. It's the designer's compromise. Including at what focus distance the lens is optimized.



As for the OP's question about a Mamiya Six and Isolette II, I'd pick the Mamiya, not because the lens is better (they should be equivalent if they are both Tessars), but because the Mamiya has a coupled rangefinder, which makes it a much more ergonomic camera to use. If you instead considered the Super Isolette, then I'd pick either. And I'd ignore all the detailed discourse in this thread about lens optimization, etc... because both folders have good lenses.

 

[BMbikerider]

I made a statement in post No 33 which I stand by. Build quality, coupled or uncoupled rangefinders 3, 4 or even 6 element lenses whatever, I feel do not make a significant difference to the original question. These cameras are bought now to use as and when to owner feels like using something different.

What absolute difference do the inclusion of certain features make? For the purpose they are going to be used I would suggest, it matters not one iota! For me a camera is a tool to help me make an end product i.e. a photograph. How many of those who own one of these cameras or anything similar use them as their main tool to create an image? How may of these owners will be making 20x16 prints day after day after day, as a tool from which they make their living? Owning and using one would be a personal preference and the ability to use what is almost an antique instrument to produce a photograph of good quality, not a way to earn your living. Do you not think that any of the minute detailed information given out here would make a difference to the end product that actually matters.

The material used to produce the picture, - film is the same for all cameras and at the end of it that is what dictates how good the end picture is. Grain is equal whatever camera/lens combination you use. Whatever developer/film combination you use will make no difference either.

Too much, largely personal information almost certainly gained from reading, is purveyed here without actual experience of using the instruments. I have owned and used the Agfa Isolette with the Solinar lens and it was good, actually very good. I didn't make 20x16 prints simply because I didn't have the space for dishes of that size, but they were more than capable of a damn good 12x16, or even a 12x16 using only a part of the negative which would have made a 20x16.

To the originator of this thread. Old cameras all have their idiosyncrasies so buy which one you prefer, give it a thorough CLA and enjoy using it.

 

[Helge]

I made a statement in post No 33 which I stand by. Build quality, coupled or uncoupled rangefinders 3, 4 or even 6 element lenses whatever, I feel do not make a significant difference to the original question. These cameras are bought now to use as and when to owner feels like using something different.

What absolute difference do the inclusion of certain features make? For the purpose they are going to be used I would suggest, it matters not one iota! For me a camera is a tool to help me make an end product i.e. a photograph. How many of those who own one of these cameras or anything similar use them as their main tool to create an image? How may of these owners will be making 20x16 prints day after day after day, as a tool from which they make their living? Owning and using one would be a personal preference and the ability to use what is almost an antique instrument to produce a photograph of good quality, not a way to earn your living. Do you not think that any of the minute detailed information given out here would make a difference to the end product that actually matters.

The material used to produce the picture, - film is the same for all cameras and at the end of it that is what dictates how good the end picture is. Grain is equal whatever camera/lens combination you use. Whatever developer/film combination you use will make no difference either.

Too much, largely personal information almost certainly gained from reading, is purveyed here without actual experience of using the instruments. I have owned and used the Agfa Isolette with the Solinar lens and it was good, actually very good. I didn't make 20x16 prints simply because I didn't have the space for dishes of that size, but they were more than capable of a damn good 12x16, or even a 12x16 using only a part of the negative which would have made a 20x16.

To the originator of this thread. Old cameras all have their idiosyncrasies so buy which one you prefer, give it a thorough CLA and enjoy using it.

If you’re alluding to me, I do have experience with both cameras.

If the OP is not willing to spend that much money, I would actually not recommend him buying either camera.
Get a Nettar or Ikonta instead.
The Novar is every bit as good as the Apotar.
And they are practically service free if well kept and not overused.

Only thing to really look out for in those, is reasonably even pressure plate, that is level and with good spring tension and non-bend rollers.

 

[4season]

A functioning camera beats a non-functional one every time When you purchase a camera which has been serviced or at least properly inspected, you can often get the benefits of someone else's skills cheaply or even free. But if you buy a non-functional camera and send it off for service, then you will pay full price, and the true price of a $70 Isolette will actually be closer to $300.

For better or worse, most of the As-Is or "Untested" cameras being sold on That Auction Site should be regarded as fix-it projects and valued accordingly.

 

[BMbikerider]

If you’re alluding to me, I do have experience with both cameras.

If the OP is not willing to spend that much money, I would actually not recommend him buying either camera.
Get a Nettar or Ikonta instead.
The Novar is every bit as good as the Apotar.
And they are practically service free if well kept and not overused.

Only thing to really look out for in those, is reasonably even pressure plate, that is level and with good spring tension and non-bend rollers.

A bit touchy are you not? We have a saying in UK 'if the cap fits wear it'.

But I was not making any pointed remarks about anyone in particular, but it is a trait on this forum when someone askes a perfectly simple question, the replies have a tendency go off on a tangent with quite a bit of pointless technical information which has little bearing on what was asked considering we don't know what subjects it is due to used for.

Apart from comparative build quality, or should we call it present day condition, which by now will have a few wear marks and possibly dents, the lens may have scratches, the shutter speeds not as accurate as you would wish, so a balanced reply cannot be made unless you know the condition of the cameras in question.

 

[Helge]

A bit touchy are you not? We have a saying in UK 'if the cap fits wear it'.

But I was not making any pointed remarks about anyone in particular, but it is a trait on this forum when someone askes a perfectly simple question, the replies have a tendency go off on a tangent with quite a bit of pointless technical information which has little bearing on what was asked considering we don't know what subjects it is due to used for.

Apart from comparative build quality, or should we call it present day condition, which by now will have a few wear marks and possibly dents, the lens may have scratches, the shutter speeds not as accurate as you would wish, so a balanced reply cannot be made unless you know the condition of the cameras in question.

I'm what now‽ I took a guess you where talking at/about me. Turns out I was right. How's that touchy?
You can't just accuse people of things and expect them not to reply.

Douglas Adams genius was not in coming up with the number 42, but in realising that very often we don't know the correct question until we've been through some turns of the hermeneutic spiral. And even then, the question might evolve and change or become meaningless altogether.

The guy obviously doesn't have a lot of money/is willing to spend much. We are helping him make the best choice. That involves setting the right expectations and clarifying things.

As per my previous reply, there is a higher chance of finding a good Isolette simply for statistical reasons.
So many more of them was made, and they are more numerous in the west.
Apart from the two usual hangups, it is a very very well build camera. It excudes sturdiness when you hold it. The flip out film holder is just one example of the care that went into the design.