Agfa Isolette II vs Mamiya 6x6 folders

[ggray79]

I might be able to scrape up enough to buy one of these two types of 6x6s. A million different features, but my question is will the Mamiya have significantly better image quality?

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you're talking about the Mamiya Six, there are two ways it beats the Isolette. First, it has a better lens -- the Zuiko usually seen on those is (IIRC) a six-element design, while almost all Isolettes have triplets or Tessar type lenses -- pretty good, but not quite as good as the Zuiko. Second, the Isolette focuses by moving the front element, which works and is very simple and compact, but does very slightly compromise image quality. The Mamiya Six folder focuses by moving the film plane, which doesn't change the lens geometry.

Will you be able to see the difference in your negatives, scans, or prints? Very unlikely, IMO, especially if you don't make all your exposures on a tripod with a cable release.

On the other side of things, the Isolette will be lighter and likely cost a good bit less -- but it's scale focus compared to couple rangefinder, so overall (again, IMO) the Mamiya Six is a better user experience.

 

[Helge]

The Isolette is better build. That counts for a lot in folders. It will almost certainly need new bellows and de-crayoning of the helicoid.
But after that, it’s a superb camera.

The moving of the film plane, while interesting sounding, is fraught with problems.
The pantograph mechanism has to be exceptional to better a helocoid that travels millimeters on a machined track. And film will buckle and bulge when moved attached to two spools, unless it’s being clamped between two glass plates.
The Six is also quite a bulky and heavy camera.

 

[Oldwino]

The Mamiya Six folders, at least the later models, had 4 element Tessar-type lenses. Very sharp stopped down a bit. The Isolette has the same style lens (if it is a Solinar lens), but most of them at this point will need a new bellows, and replacement of the helicoid grease. I would recommend the Isolette III over the II, as it has a non-coupled rangefinder. If you buy an Agfa, make sure it has been CLA'd.

The film-plane focussing mechanism works very well on the Six - I do not believe @Helge has ever used one. It IS heavier than the Agfa, that is true. I wouldn't call it bulky. Neither camera has strap eyelets.

The Mamiya produces slightly sharper images than the Isolette (at least mine did), simply because of the superior film plane flatness. It has a special, slip-in pressure plate that holds the film very flat. It is integral to the focusing mechanism, and the camera will not focus without it. The shutter on mine, a Seikosha, blew apart and it is not worth fixing it. My Isolette III, on the other hand, keeps on going. Sometimes the simpler designs are the best.

 

[Oldwino]

Mamiya Six

This site is dedicated to folding cameras for 120 film. It's run by Reinhard Blanck

www.120folder.com

This a a good overview of the Mamiya Six.

 

[Helge]

The Mamiya Six folders, at least the later models, had 4 element Tessar-type lenses. Very sharp stopped down a bit. The Isolette has the same style lens (if it is a Solinar lens), but most of them at this point will need a new bellows, and replacement of the helicoid grease. I would recommend the Isolette III over the II, as it has a non-coupled rangefinder. If you buy an Agfa, make sure it has been CLA'd.

The film-plane focussing mechanism works very well on the Six - I do not believe @Helge has ever used one. It IS heavier than the Agfa, that is true. I wouldn't call it bulky. Neither camera has strap eyelets.

The Mamiya produces slightly sharper images than the Isolette (at least mine did), simply because of the superior film plane flatness. It has a special, slip-in pressure plate that holds the film very flat. It is integral to the focusing mechanism, and the camera will not focus without it. The shutter on mine, a Seikosha, blew apart and it is not worth fixing it. My Isolette III, on the other hand, keeps on going. Sometimes the simpler designs are the best.

I have used a Six. The film plane is not any kind particular extra flat.
One of the forces that keeps film flat in the simple film transport of a folder, is the tension of the spools. That can’t by necessity be quite as good with a film plane that has to move even a few millimeters.
There is good reason why other manufacturers didn’t throw themselves at similar ideas.
It’s very hard to do better then even simple front cell focusing.
Front cell focusing is unfairly maligned. Especially in folders. You have many other things to worry about in such a rickety setup, before looking at the minute effect at the extremes of the focus range, wide open, with FCF.

 

[ggray79]

This is all very helpful information and I appreciate it very much. If I did a trial on a non-CLAd Isolette II and the focusing ring was smooth (i.e., no apparent helicoid grease problem) and a test roll showed the bellows had no leaks, I believe I could get a decent period of future use time. The CLA is just too expensive and so is the Isolette III. Aside from those two Isolette II issues I am not seeing anything here that would point that strongly to the Mamiya 6 folder. The Isolette II that I am seeing on eBay can be returned, so I think I may give it a try. That being said, the Isolette II has the Apotar lens - not the Agfa Solinar that is on the Isolette III. Is any image quality difference between the Apotar and the Solinar enough to warrant passing on the Isolette II?

 

[Helge]

This is all very helpful information and I appreciate it very much. If I did a trial on a non-CLAd Isolette II and the focusing ring was smooth (i.e., no apparent helicoid grease problem) and a test roll showed the bellows had no leaks, I believe I could get a decent period of future use time. The CLA is just too expensive and so is the Isolette III. Aside from those two Isolette II issues I am not seeing anything here that would point that strongly to the Mamiya 6 folder. The Isolette II that I am seeing on eBay can be returned, so I think I may give it a try. That being said, the Isolette II has the Apotar lens - not the Agfa Solinar that is on the Isolette III. Is any image quality difference between the Apotar and the Solinar enough to warrant passing on the Isolette II?

Be careful that it’s not just the front bezel ring rotating.
Some very rare Isolettes actually came with leather bellows.
And some rare helicoids are actually still moving (though it would be advisable to have the lubrication replaced).

If you are okay with the triplet (no reason not to really, especially if you are aware of the characteristics) lens you might as well broaden your search for many other fine folding cameras with triplets.

 

[jnamia]

I've never used the Agfa folder but I had a m-6 and must have shot 300 rolls of film with it before I made the mistake of packing it in a way that the wind knob sheered off, and I sent it to the certo6 guy for repair ( allegedly he is THE folder repair guy ) instead of replacing the tiny threaded screw that attaches the knob to the body he basically ruined the camera. I bought 2 others over the years and sold all 3 of them to loving homes. if you get the M6 make sure you learn the loading technique so the wind counter is accurate, I think there is a tutorial on the you tooobe, also make sure the insert is included with the camera ( it slices on the back of the film inside the camera to keep it flat, sometimes they are separated/lost from the camera, without it the camera is useless )

... have fun with whichever you purchase!

 

[4season]

I can't comment on Mamiya Six because I haven't used one.

Am only on my second roll of film with my Isolette III w/Apotar lens (Cooke triplet-type) and Pronto shutter. Impression of roll #1 with lens set at f/8: Not super-sharp, but not bad, seemed to have decent contrast. Remember when it was new, most people were not viewing magnified images on a large computer screen! I've since parked the aperture at around f/10, which coincides with a red dot - a suggestion from Agfa that ~f/10 is a good all-purpose aperture to use. Rather than wish for an upgrade to Solinar lens + Synchro-Compur shutter, I think I'll just play with what I've got and see what I can do with a triplet -- goodness knows I've already got more than a few 4-element Tessar-type lenses.

Isolette is an appealingly slender package which feels good in the hand - not surprised that Jurgen Kreckel mentions these cameras as favorites, despite other cameras offering more advanced features and higher-grade optics.

 

[Helge]

There is a tonne of psychological projection in seeing what you expect when testing and comparing lenses.

A triplet actually has the potential to be sharper than a Tessar in the center one third of the frame, especially when compared wide open.

Coma is the main problem often left not corrected in triplets, and is also what gives the characteristic bokeh.
It starts to go away as soon as you start to stop down.
Already at 5.6 it’s significantly improved, still with a wonderful sharp contrasty center.
And you should very often stop down when using a folder.
You can’t focus as precisely as you think in the near field, not even (perhaps especially) with a rangefinder.
And also because the focus plane is not as sure and well defined as on a more rigid camera it’s important to stop down to not have to center subjects all the time.

Tessars are also soft when shot wide open. They are just soft more evenly all over. They can also have worse problems with contrast and ghosting, even if it should be the reverse.
Perhaps the cement used to join the back cell develops impurities and very slight separations or air bubbles over the decades?

 

[Paul Howell]

As noted the Mamiya 6's Zuiko 75mm is a 6 element lens, well coated, but due to the additional elements benefits from a lens hood. My example Zuiko is as sharp perhaps sharper than my Kowa 80mm 2.8 or Yashica 4 element on my 124 and D.

 

[itsdoable]

There is some confusion in this thread, mixing up different cameras with the same name.

Mamiya Six: 1940 ~ 1955
This is the original folding 6x6 Mamiya, which came in various flavours (cosmetic and range / view finder designs), often with a Zuiko 4 element (Tessar), but was available with a Sekor 4 element lens. All version used focal plane focusing via a thumb wheel on the back of the camera. There was never a 6-element lens for this camera.

Mamiya 6: 1989 ~ 1995
This was an electronic interchangeable lens leaf shutter camera that would collapse (not fold). The lens set was 50mm, 75mm and 150mm. The 75mm Sekor was a 6-element planar design.

Agfa Isolette(s) 1935 ~ 1960
Agfa produced many version of this, I, II, III, V, L, etc... ending with the Super Isolette. The best lens was a 4 element Solinar (Tessar), and on the final "super" version, it was unit focus coupled to the range finder (with leather bellows).


On Tessar type lenses:
They are typically all equivalent, the optical designer can tweak the formula to be sharper at the center at the cost of the edge, or more uniform sharpness across the image circle at the cost of center sharpness. Early Tessars were used for people photography, and a sharper center was typically by design. Lenses for landscapes were optimized to be more uniformly sharp across the field. The OM Olympus Zuikos were typically optimized to be more uniform across the field compared to, say, Nikkors and Canons, which gave them a reputation of not being as sharp, but I'm not sure if that design philosophy was used in the earlier Zuikos used in the folders.

On unit / front-element focus
Front element focus changes the optical focal length of the lens by moving the front element away from the rest (basically zooming). 3 or 4 element lenses were not good zooms, so as you zoom, the lens loses performance. Typically the lens was optimized near infinity, and as you focused closer (zoom to a shorter focal length), the lens got softer.
Unit focus usually performs better away from the optimized focus point, so if the lens was optimized near infinity, the performance at close focus did not loose as much as a front element focusing system.

Mamiya Six's film plan focus was a way to maintain the unit focus quality without complicating the somewhat unstable lens board of a folding system.

Agfa and Mamiya's (Zuiko or Sekkor) 4 element Tessars are similar in performance, within the tweaks of optical design optimization mentioned above.

Mamiya 6's 6-element Sekor is far superior to the previous 4-element lenses, it should be. It was designed and produced 30 years later, uses a precise helicoid, and cost many time more.

I use/own a Mamiya Six (Zuiko version) and an Agfa Super Isolette (Solinar). The Six and the Super Isolette are similar in optical performance, but the Super has a thinner body, as it does not have to house the film plan focusing mechanism. But both work well, are nice to use, as long as you service any of the issues 60+ year old cameras have.

I also have the Mamiya 6, which is much better, but it's bigger, heavier, uses batteries, has automatic exposure, interchangeable lenses, younger, etc... - not the same class of cameras.

 

[reddesert]

On a folding camera of this age I think condition is #1 (physical rigidity, bellows, shutter working, lens is clear and not hazy). #2 is that the Mamiya Six is a rangefinder and the Isolette II is scale focus. If you are going to be shooting medium format at say f/5.6 or wider open, then you need to be real precise at estimating distance. Most people are worse at this than they think (including myself). You can try an external RF or a focusing aid (such as the cards people make that work by comparing parallax, or a person's apparent height).

If you stop down the lens to f/8 most of the time to get your focus nailed then lens quality is really not as big of an issue as it might seem.

With any camera but especially an old folding camera I think it's wise to do a focus test when you start using it, to be sure it focuses where you expect, front standard isn't crooked, etc.

 

[gone]

I'd get the Isolette because they're usually dirt cheap, built really well, and the ones that don't have the shiny bellows normally have no problems in that regard. Never had a folder w/ lens alignment issues or anything like that, most if not nearly all of them are darned sturdy in that regard. It's almost impossible to bend anything on the Isolette front standard, they come down and lock like a drawbridge. Sturdiest front standards of any of the folders.

Will the Mamiya have better IQ? I doubt it, the lenses on the Isolettes are excellent, even the bottom of the line Agnars. The Solinar is a bit better on the II, and you can buy a lot of film for the price difference between an Isolette and a Mamiya. I've owned all of the Isolettes models over the years, even the big 'ol Super Isolette. I like the Agnars, I'm a 3 element kind of guy w/ folders.

Be sure to ask about the lens focus on the Isolettes. They get gummed up and freeze the focus. There's lots of info on the web on cleaning them, it's a pretty simple thing to do.

 

[Helge]

There is some confusion in this thread, mixing up different cameras with the same name.

Mamiya Six: 1940 ~ 1955
This is the original folding 6x6 Mamiya, which came in various flavours (cosmetic and range / view finder designs), often with a Zuiko 4 element (Tessar), but was available with a Sekor 4 element lens. All version used focal plane focusing via a thumb wheel on the back of the camera. There was never a 6-element lens for this camera.

Mamiya 6: 1989 ~ 1995
This was an electronic interchangeable lens leaf shutter camera that would collapse (not fold). The lens set was 50mm, 75mm and 150mm. The 75mm Sekor was a 6-element planar design.

Agfa Isolette(s) 1935 ~ 1960
Agfa produced many version of this, I, II, III, V, L, etc... ending with the Super Isolette. The best lens was a 4 element Solinar (Tessar), and on the final "super" version, it was unit focus coupled to the range finder (with leather bellows).


On Tessar type lenses:
They are typically all equivalent, the optical designer can tweak the formula to be sharper at the center at the cost of the edge, or more uniform sharpness across the image circle at the cost of center sharpness. Early Tessars were used for people photography, and a sharper center was typically by design. Lenses for landscapes were optimized to be more uniformly sharp across the field. The OM Olympus Zuikos were typically optimized to be more uniform across the field compared to, say, Nikkors and Canons, which gave them a reputation of not being as sharp, but I'm not sure if that design philosophy was used in the earlier Zuikos used in the folders.

On unit / front-element focus
Front element focus changes the optical focal length of the lens by moving the front element away from the rest (basically zooming). 3 or 4 element lenses were not good zooms, so as you zoom, the lens loses performance. Typically the lens was optimized near infinity, and as you focused closer (zoom to a shorter focal length), the lens got softer.
Unit focus usually performs better away from the optimized focus point, so if the lens was optimized near infinity, the performance at close focus did not loose as much as a front element focusing system.

Mamiya Six's film plan focus was a way to maintain the unit focus quality without complicating the somewhat unstable lens board of a folding system.

Agfa and Mamiya's (Zuiko or Sekkor) 4 element Tessars are similar in performance, within the tweaks of optical design optimization mentioned above.

Mamiya 6's 6-element Sekor is far superior to the previous 4-element lenses, it should be. It was designed and produced 30 years later, uses a precise helicoid, and cost many time more.

I use/own a Mamiya Six (Zuiko version) and an Agfa Super Isolette (Solinar). The Six and the Super Isolette are similar in optical performance, but the Super has a thinner body, as it does not have to house the film plan focusing mechanism. But both work well, are nice to use, as long as you service any of the issues 60+ year old cameras have.

I also have the Mamiya 6, which is much better, but it's bigger, heavier, uses batteries, has automatic exposure, interchangeable lenses, younger, etc... - not the same class of cameras.

No confusion. Unless you are not paying attention there is little indication that the OP is ready to splash on a 6. It’s a trillion times more expensive, complex and rare.

FCF is, contrary to popular myth, not optimized for infinity.

It’s optimized for near field, where 90 percent of all interest lies.
Grand landscapes was not in the usual customer demographic for consumer folders.

The optimization point is usually 40x the focal length, which leaves plenty of near optimal range on either side.

Just take landscapes stopped down on a tripod, as you should and you are more than good.

That so many insisted on FCF when initially unit focusing does not seem that much more difficult, at least from a naive stand point, is telling.
Certo 6, Konica Pearl and Mamiya Six doesn’t produce better results overall than FCF folders.
Not in tests and not empirically.

Super Isolette might, but that is and was an overall much more expensive camera with much more prestige put into everything. Including grinding the lens.

 

[ggray79]

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

Both will see a marked improvement.
But you are also more susceptible to effects of handshake and focus errors, that might decimate the resolution/sharpness advantage back to nothing.
Going larger in format is a theoretical advantage, but without careful technique you "only" get the fine grain. And maybe not even that, if you push, or develop badly.
That's why large format photographers are so anal about focus and tripods and wind.

Another thing about medium format that surprised a recent member (Old Gregg IIRC) was that medium format is generally more light hungry. That is, the lenses are slower, they benefit from being stopped down, and you can stop down more without bad effects.
That is also worth considering.

Lastly a much discussed topic is whether there is something special about larger formats compared to 135 Barnack 36x24, when other factors are removed.
Especially whether the DoF is different.
I'd say yes, absolutely. It's subtle but noticeable.
The 36x24 format coincidentally (or not) is roughly the same as the human retina, and our lens and visual system combined, is anywhere between a slight long tele and ultra wide (the fovea centralis combined with the with the middle best of the lens or the whole of the visual field). Even if we adjust focus all the time, we are still instinctively familiar with DoF when we have to focus on something in the near field and can still see the background.
That lends itself to a certain shape or rollout of the DoF that is not dissimilar from what at 135 camera sees.
It's not so much the amount of blur, but more to do with where it starts and its progression away from the PoV.
Medium format is a giants eye.

 

[4season]

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.

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.

 

[ggray79]

"A sense of "sharpness" can dialed back into a photo by increasing contrast, and acutance."

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.

"A sense of "sharpness" can dialed back into a photo by increasing contrast, and acutance."
So, will the larger negative's better grain performance offset the increased grain caused by increasing the contrast? With some superior grain performance left over such that I still get better grain with the acceptable sense of sharpness? Probably not a fair question, but any rules of thumb would be appreciated!

 

[itsdoable]

No confusion. Unless you are not paying attention there is little indication that the OP is ready to splash on a 6. It’s a trillion times more expensive, complex and rare.

FCF is, contrary to popular myth, not optimized for infinity.

It’s optimized for near field, where 90 percent of all interest lies.
Grand landscapes was not in the usual customer demographic for consumer folders.

The optimization point is usually 40x the focal length, which leaves plenty of near optimal range on either side.

Just take landscapes stopped down on a tripod, as you should and you are more than good.

That so many insisted on FCF when initially unit focusing does not seem that much more difficult, at least from a naive stand point, is telling.
Certo 6, Konica Pearl and Mamiya Six doesn’t produce better results overall than FCF folders.
Not in tests and not empirically.

Super Isolette might, but that is and was an overall much more expensive camera with much more prestige put into everything. Including grinding the lens.

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.

 

[M Carter]

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!)

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

I agree. Coupled RF makes a huge difference in usability vs uncoupled. Honestly, I'd about as soon just scale focus as use an uncoupled RF. I've got a lot of practice at it and don't shoot wide open much, however.

 

[4season]

"A sense of "sharpness" can dialed back into a photo by increasing contrast, and acutance."
So, will the larger negative's better grain performance offset the increased grain caused by increasing the contrast? With some superior grain performance left over such that I still get better grain with the acceptable sense of sharpness? Probably not a fair question, but any rules of thumb would be appreciated!

The rule of thumb here is that there's no rule of thumb! You need to try stuff out for yourself and see what satisfies and what doesn't. Sometimes film grain can be used to your advantage, and particularly with b&w film, you have some control over the qualities of that grain, which is why some people still use developers like Rodinal.

 

[flavio81]

If you're talking about the Mamiya Six, there are two ways it beats the Isolette. First, it has a better lens -- the Zuiko usually seen on those is (IIRC) a six-element design,

Only four. And i suspect the film flatness on the Mamiya Six being not optimal due to the movable film plane.

Source: I own one.