Can any mid century folder match a TLR?

[choiliefan]

The design of the front standard and struts on the Voigtlander folders are supposed to be the achilles heel of these cameras.
Ivor Matanle goes into it in his book "collecting and using classic cameras".

 

[EdSawyer]

I have a Bessa II heliar and various Rolleis (3.5F, 2.8F, etc.) - overall I think the Rolleis are better. The Bessa suffers from occasional corner softness (likely due to the pressure plate or the standards being non-parallel with film plane, possibly), and focus can be hit or miss even with a calibrated rangefinder. At it's best, it probably equals the Rollei in sharpness in the center, though the Rolleis are usually higher contrast. The Bessa has a far bigger negative of course.

 

[Saganich]

I have an Agfa Super Isolette with Solinar lens (2nd from the best available) overhauled by JC and it is as close as you can get in similar price range. It's never been disappointing when used for portability compared to either Series V for Rolleiflex.

 

[Toasty]

I've got a Franka Solida IIIe and it's an amazing little folder. The rangefinder isn't coupled but it is very accurate and easy to use. I have a Super Baldax with a coupled RF but I don't like it as much.

These are with the "lesser" f/2.9 Radionar too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

First of all a 120 folder will make your pocket very heavy and may pull your pants down to reveal your butt crack . I had one with a Ziess lens and it was very sharp. But folders have their good and bad points and so do TLRs. The question is which do you prefer using.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I've got a Franka Solida IIIe and it's an amazing little folder...

Nice photos!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I've got a Franka Solida IIIe and it's an amazing little folder. The rangefinder isn't coupled but it is very accurate and easy to use. I have a Super Baldax with a coupled RF but I don't like it as much.



These are with the "lesser" f/2.9 Radionar too.

Wow that's terrific! Is it a unit-focuser or a front-cell-focusing lens?

 

[Nodda Duma]

I carry my Zeiss Icon 515/16 with its Novar Anastogmat far more often than my Yashica Mat TLR.

A Bessa I with Color-Skopar or Bessa II with Color-Skopar, Color-Heliar, or (win the lottery) Apo-Lanthar will give any TLR a run for its money.

Same with the Zeiss Super Ikontas.

Basically high-end folders are all on par with high-end TLR’s. They just aren’t as hip today.

 

[Toasty]

Wow that's terrific! Is it a unit-focuser or a front-cell-focusing lens?

Thanks!

The Franka is the front cell focusing version btw.

 

[JPD]

A Bessa I with Color-Skopar [...] will give any TLR a run for its money.

I had one of those and compared it to my Ercona II with Tessar, Agfa Billy Record III with Solinar and Voigtländer RF-Bessa with Heliar. The Color-Skopar, Tessar and Solinar performed the same. Pretty sharp and big 6x9 negatives. But cropped to 6x6 the Tessar, Xenar and even Triotar on Rollei's win. The folders have front cell focusing lenses. The Heliar is unit focusing but not as sharp as the other ones, but it's not meant to be. It has its own qualities.

The Color-Skopar on the Voigtländer Perkeo is very well liked. It's probably not exactly as sharp as the Tessar or Xenar on a Rollei, though. But not everyone compares prints from different cameras/lenses side by side.

 

[BAC1967]

I much prefer focusing with my Rolleiflex but my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 531/2 is better for packing around.

I have never heard of problems with front cell focusing, what's the issue? Loss of image quality?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As you change the position of the front cell, the focus changes but so does the amount of abberations that can be corrected. So it may end up well corrected at infinity, but be rather uncorrected close up. I've actually heard that some folders were optimized for "family photos" so were designed to be sharpest at 10 ft, so infinity landscapes end up being their weakest point. That is total hearsay though.

I'd be interested in learning if unit focusing affects the correction more for tessar or triplet style lenses. For some reason it seems that on folders, the tessars are only a little bit better than the triplets, while on other cameras they blow triplets out of the water. Perhaps front-cell focusing has to do with this.

I guess this is also a good time for me to ask about 3.5 (e.g. most triplets) vs 4.5 triplets (Voigtlander Vaskar). I suspect that the 4.5 ones will be sharper at f8 but who knows. Anyone have experience on it?

 

[Steve Goldstein]

The issue of front-cell versus unit focusing would be a good question for Jason, our resident professional lens designer. He chimed in earlier, let's hope he keeps watching this thread.

FWIW, I carry a Perkeo II (80mm Color Skopar) when skiing because it fits easily into a minimal chest pack. I recently printed a couple of black-and-white images at 11x14 and it's hard for me to imagine that my Mamiya 7 could have done much better. We'll see how these negs hold up at 16x20, which I know the Mamiya can easily handle. Film was Acros or FP4+, I forget which, and I'm not where the film is right now so can't check it.

 

[KN4SMF]

The problem with the Rolleis and Hasselblads and all the rest, is that they are "look down into" cameras. And in the case of the Rolleicords, they are particularly dark, especially when the hot bright sun is overhead. You can't see ZILCH. Try that when taking people pictures especially. You look up to see if everybody has their eyes open, then you look down, only to discover you have to re-position. So you look up again, then down. At one point you decide to just go ahead and shoot. And hope. So now you have a square negative. But all the paper sizes are rectangular. So you crop. Now you've got a 645 negative, at best. Not a fun camera at all. Not to mention that the Germans saw fit to lock the f/stop dial and shutter speed together. so that is fiddly, slow, and annoying. Did I mention how dadgum dark it is looking down into that thing?

 

[neilt3]

No need to crop your negatives .
If you composed square , print square .

Most formats aren't an exact mach for the paper you print on , use the full negative on the print , and mount & frame to suite .

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem with the Rolleis and Hasselblads and all the rest, is that they are "look down into" cameras. And in the case of the Rolleicords, they are particularly dark, especially when the hot bright sun is overhead. You can't see ZILCH. Try that when taking people pictures especially. You look up to see if everybody has their eyes open, then you look down, only to discover you have to re-position. So you look up again, then down. At one point you decide to just go ahead and shoot. And hope. So now you have a square negative. But all the paper sizes are rectangular. So you crop. Now you've got a 645 negative, at best. Not a fun camera at all. Not to mention that the Germans saw fit to lock the f/stop dial and shutter speed together. so that is fiddly, slow, and annoying. Did I mention how dadgum dark it is looking down into that thing?

Actual Rolleis and Hasselblad have a option for a prism. I have never used the waist level finder on my Hasselblad, I purchased a 45 degree prism finder will built in light meter and that is the only way I have used it.

 

[JPD]

The problem with the Rolleis and Hasselblads and all the rest, is that they are "look down into" cameras. And in the case of the Rolleicords, they are particularly dark, especially when the hot bright sun is overhead. You can't see ZILCH. Try that when taking people pictures especially. You look up to see if everybody has their eyes open, then you look down, only to discover you have to re-position. So you look up again, then down. At one point you decide to just go ahead and shoot. And hope. So now you have a square negative. But all the paper sizes are rectangular. So you crop. Now you've got a 645 negative, at best. Not a fun camera at all. Not to mention that the Germans saw fit to lock the f/stop dial and shutter speed together. so that is fiddly, slow, and annoying. Did I mention how dadgum dark it is looking down into that thing?

You can use a prism on some Rollei's and there is this extention hood: https://secure38.securewebsession.com/frendakfurnari.com/ebaypics/rectaflex/rolleileatherhood-1.jpg And you can also use the sportsfinder. I like the EVS-system that locks the shutter speed and aperture together. It makes it quick to change shutter speed if needed, and the correct aperture is set at the same time. And I don't feel that pressing the button on one of the wheels when changing the settings slow me down.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

On the 2.8D, among others, you can choose whether aperture and shutter speed are locked together or disengaged. As shown here, the alignment marks are perpendicular, which means I have the settings disengaged.

 

[Nodda Duma]

As you change the position of the front cell, the focus changes but so does the amount of abberations that can be corrected. So it may end up well corrected at infinity, but be rather uncorrected close up. I've actually heard that some folders were optimized for "family photos" so were designed to be sharpest at 10 ft, so infinity landscapes end up being their weakest point. That is total hearsay though.

I'd be interested in learning if unit focusing affects the correction more for tessar or triplet style lenses. For some reason it seems that on folders, the tessars are only a little bit better than the triplets, while on other cameras they blow triplets out of the water. Perhaps front-cell focusing has to do with this.

Don’t try to use a non-macro lens as a macro lens and you’ll be ok.

f/3.5 vs f/4.5 in general is no indicator of performance at f/8. It comes down to the individual design itself.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Right now my lightest and most compact medium format camera is a Rolleicord. It's around a pound and a half and while small by medium format standards, it is not necessarily svelte. Enter stage left, the medium format folder. The promise is a medium format camera that can be fit into a jeans pocket. But for me, to make it worth the hassle of carrying a medium format camera, the image quality must be good. It must surpass not only my Rolleicord but also my autofocus Nikon 35mm setup (in other words, the best 35mm has to offer).

So are there any cameras out there that can meet my requirements? It should be lighter than 850 grams, fit into a pocket and match or surpass the image quality of a Rolleicord. Bonus points if it has a rangefinder. Is it possible?

my 1954 MF folder has a 80mm f/2.8 Schneider Kreuznach lens, which produces excellent image quality, although it's a bit toufgh to focus correctly; in my setup ,the lightest way to go MF.

 

[mrosenlof]

I think my Super Ikonta IV (?) with a 75mm (I think) f/3.5 tessar could probably match a Rolleicord with a 3.5 Tessar.

Let's see if I can link to my photo on rangefinderforum.com

Super Ikonta IV, Ilford Delta 3200, hand held, wide open, probably 1/15.

 

[wahiba]

I have a Baldax with a Baldinar lens and to honest I cannot tell the difference from my Rolliecord Vb.

My first TLR was a Rolliecord 2 bought in 1965. One day thinking I needed a portable 120 I went for folder, a Zeiss Nettar. Great thing about folders is that they do go in a large pocket.

Unless you have a need for mega enlargements from pan F then really any of the reputable makes will probably have a lens equal to a Rolliecord, a Rollieflex I could not say.
Top one digital of actual camera, below a cross section of pictures. Camera was bought in 2018 from West Yorkshire Cameras, Leeds as a 71st Birthday present from Lisa, my wife.

 

[removed account4]

Hi GT
Good luck finding a camera that suites your needs ( both aesthetic image quality and size ).
There are good and bad points about all cameras and sometimes you have to decide what you can live with. I too
had one of those vintage post war Mamiya folders and it was a great camera. It didn't fit in my jeans though, but a
canvas field coat's pockets. At present there is a Zeiss in the classy fides, they have the rep of being good performers
( not sure if that model is a zonie or rf ) and its Eastern Europe and Ruskie counterparts are great too ( and sometimes are sold
for less on that big electronic multi national yardsale) .

 

[Arbitrarium]

Another vote for Super Ikonta III. Excellent build and rangefinder, excellent quality Tessar.

Or there's the Perkeo. You'd need a shoe rangefinder but the image quality is crazy good for the form factor/weight of the camera. Basically the same size as a Kodak Retina.

 

[guangong]

As far as I know, Zeiss more successfully solved problem of keeping lens parallel to film plane than most other folders.
I have never had a problem with sun making TLR or Hasselblad focusing screen difficult to see. I simply flip up the magnifier; viewing eye blocks out any sun light. Eye also blocks sun with Hassy chimney finder. I sometimes use prism finders, but not because of sunlight.
There are many elements that make a good photograph: subject, composition, how depth of field is used, etc. Lens quality is only one element among many. At some point, all lenses are better than all other lenses. We all have our prejudices about what is the “best”.
And size of photographer can play a part in camera choice. Sometimes short people may prefer an eye level finder and tall people a waist level finder for a desired viewing angle.
There is no perfect camera design. That’s why so many different cameras were made.