Sam21
Allowing Ads
I'm still using folders these days. Zeiss Super Ikontas are beyond doubt, if you can live without a rangefinder, a Perkeo II is wonderful. I love my Iskras as well and for the older ones a Certo Super Sport Dolly with rangefinder is a marvel. If 4.5x6 is an option, a Pearl III could be THE pocketable solution. Have a look at my comparison page https://www.120folder.com/compa.htm if you want...
Curious if you ever experienced issues with frame spacing on the Pearl III. Those auto spacing systems are curious in older cameras, though I suppose similar systems continued to be used well past the 50s. Such a tiny little camera that I would definitely look to if wanting 4.5x6.
I've been attracted to medium format folders for decades, and I have owned most of them, so my quick opinions:
1. A 6x6 is a 645 which you do not have to rotate 90 degrees to take a portrait format. Consider the 645.
2. The Super Ikontas are heavy and clumsy. They are durable. Front cell focusing is a negative. Very over-priced.
3. Mamiya 6. Bulky, very heavy (owing to its focusing system), Lens is average, except those with Olympus lenses, which should be avoided. The lenses sold to Mamiya by Oly used bad coating material. Many have failed, now clouded, and are unrepairable at any cost.
4. Agfa Isolettes. Cheaply made tin cans with budget shutters and lenses. At best, a starter which will be quickly replaced.
(Not the Super Isolette, which a totally different camera, collectible, overpriced, yet very cool.
5. In terms of optical performance and convenience of use, the Fuji GS645 must be the best option. However, it is came with a poor bellows, so require proof of replacement if purchased now, or assume an additioanl $150 overhed. Also, it's a pain to use with filters, which can only be mounted in a special lens shade.
Consider: Konica Pearl III. 645 format, great lens (Tessar copy). My personal favorite is the Konica Pearl IV, but its relative rarity imposes a price tag most folks will never pay for a user.
I've been attracted to medium format folders for decades, and I have owned most of them, so my quick opinions:
1. A 6x6 is a 645 which you do not have to rotate 90 degrees to take a portrait format. Consider the 645.
2. The Super Ikontas are heavy and clumsy. They are durable. Front cell focusing is a negative. Very over-priced.
3. Mamiya 6. Bulky, very heavy (owing to its focusing system), Lens is average, except those with Olympus lenses, which should be avoided. The lenses sold to Mamiya by Oly used bad coating material. Many have failed, now clouded, and are unrepairable at any cost.
4. Agfa Isolettes. Cheaply made tin cans with budget shutters and lenses. At best, a starter which will be quickly replaced.
(Not the Super Isolette, which a totally different camera, collectible, overpriced, yet very cool.
5. In terms of optical performance and convenience of use, the Fuji GS645 must be the best option. However, it is came with a poor bellows, so require proof of replacement if purchased now, or assume an additioanl $150 overhed. Also, it's a pain to use with filters, which can only be mounted in a special lens shade.
Consider: Konica Pearl III. 645 format, great lens (Tessar copy). My personal favorite is the Konica Pearl IV, but its relative rarity imposes a price tag most folks will never pay for a user.
I have owned two Certo Six cameras and both I replaced the front surface mirror in the rangefinder. Nice cameras, a tad heavy and bulky, but still worth getting if you find one that works properly. I still own five Super Ikonta cameras from 645 to 6X9 and they can be a little fiddly, but I still love the design and results from them. If I gad to pick my most "rock solid" folder it would certainly be the 6X6 Zeiss Super Ikonta B or BX camera. I bought a B from a friend in the mid-70's that had the uncoated Tessar lens. It was my very first real medium format camera and I loved the results from that cameras lens. I later sold it to help purchase a Bronica S2a for weddings. About a year ago I purchased a mint Super Ikonta B that needed a little winder spacing work. It works great now and it's coated Opton Tessar are first rate, but I'd be just as happy with the uncoated Tessar. I will not sell this one like I did the first one for sure. This is my vote for the most rugged and capable medium format folder of all time. Oh. they are a little heavy, but that's what makes them so rugged I guess.I've got more than a dozen folders, 6x6 and 6x9, and none of them have any alignment issues. None have any problems with the bellows either.
I've got an older Mamiya Six with a "Neocon" lens, that lens performs fine. I don't find it too bulky or heavy. It's not as small as the Super Ikonta III though. The Super Fujica 6 is worth a look, it's pretty well made, unit focus lens, auto film counter and not too heavy.
Of all of them though, if you are looking for maximum solidity, the Certo Six would get my vote. The lens standard / folding mechanism is rock solid, Parallax corrected (lens, not viewfinder), lever film winder, and a f2.8 Tessar with 40.5mm filter threads. Its only negative is the viewfinder is not the biggest or brightest, and most will need the rangefinder to have been replaced.
Question to the folder owners: Arent you concerned about the accuracy of focus (distance between lens and film) as the folding mechanism can never be 100% accurate?
Especially as most folders are 50 years or older.
Dont know how describe it best, but the folding mechanism should open to a perfect 90 degree....even a 89.999999999 angle would mean that some of the photo area would be out of focus.
Even if the front end (holding the lens) is fixed on some "rails", its upper end is not.
Wouldnt a "fixed body camera" (for want of a better word) deliver more consistency in sharpness?
Sometimes we tend to worry when it isn't necessary. Yes, some folders were not design to be rigid enough in the front lens standard area, but most were more than adequate. The problem of front lens standard being parallel with the film plane is usually not a camera related problem, but an operator related problem. Most folders that aren't aligned properly anymore are most likely due to the user not knowing how to fold it properly. Then. using excessive force to close it back up when they haven't followed the proper sequence.. I have noticed the Zeiss and the more expensive series of Kodak folders (Monitors etc.) have very stout front standards while some of the cheaper Japanese folders were a little lacking in that department.Dont know how describe it best, but the folding mechanism should open to a perfect 90 degree....even a 89.999999999 angle would mean that some of the photo area would be out of focus.
Even if the front end (holding the lens) is fixed on some "rails", its upper end is not.
And the strut folders like the ancient Plaubels, have even more joints to be out of tune.
Wouldnt a "fixed body camera" (for want of a better word) deliver more consistency in sharpness?
Also, theoretically, unit focus like the Perl III/IV cameras are "better" than front cell focus cameras like the Zeiss folders. However, practically this is rarely a problem for most actual usage of the cameras. Folders were designed to be (relatively) small, light, easy to carry cameras that produced excellent negatives when handled correctly. I don't find the limitations burdensome but I also don't use a folder for rapid street photography or macro close ups, or other types of photography that may be better handled with my Hasselblad or Mamiya SLRs or (god forfend) digital. Horses for courses, as they say.Sometimes we tend to worry when it isn't necessary. Yes, some folders were not design to be rigid enough in the front lens standard area, but most were more than adequate. The problem of front lens standard being parallel with the film plane is usually not a camera related problem, but an operator related problem. Most folders that aren't aligned properly anymore are most likely due to the user not knowing how to fold it properly. Then. using excessive force to close it back up when they haven't followed the proper sequence.. I have noticed the Zeiss and the more expensive series of Kodak folders (Monitors etc.) have very stout front standards while some of the cheaper Japanese folders were a little lacking in that department.
I really think you're over thinking this. First of all, don't conflate "the whole MF advantage" with medium format folders -- the principal advantage of MF is in negative size. I would argue that tolerances in a Hasselblad are on a par with those of a Leica, and that my Rolleiflexes produce sharper photos than my folders can, but sometimes a compact folder is more than enough for what I want.Yeah but its not about the handling. If sharpness / focus is - by design - a weak(er) point (compared to rigid body cameras) doesn't that somehow question the whole MF advantage?
If a camera design might lead to photos that are not sharp, how would the advantage of MF then come into play?
Question to the folder owners: Arent you concerned about the accuracy of focus (distance between lens and film) as the folding mechanism can never be 100% accurate?
Especially as most folders are 50 years or older.
If a camera design might lead to photos that are not sharp, how would the advantage of MF then come into play?
Yeah but its not about the handling. If sharpness / focus is - by design - a weak(er) point (compared to rigid body cameras) doesn't that somehow question the whole MF advantage?
If a camera design might lead to photos that are not sharp, how would the advantage of MF then come into play?
For many MF folders, "medium format" film was all there was at the time these cameras were made. Also, the biggest aperture of many older MF folders is such that DoF should help mitigate any theoretical unparallelism.
I use a vintage Kodak (Nagel) folder and have never thought twice about any sharpness issues. No problem on the negatives I've made, especially when using a monopod/tripod. Incidentally, I have the same experience with vintage 35mm folding cameras.
[not my site/photos, but demonstrate my point]:
Yeah but its not about the handling. If sharpness / focus is - by design - a weak(er) point (compared to rigid body cameras) doesn't that somehow question the whole MF advantage?
If a camera design might lead to photos that are not sharp, how would the advantage of MF then come into play?
If I am reading your post correctly, you first make a case that a bigger negative (4x5) does not make a difference, but then in the 2nd paragraph it does.How big do you print?
I regularly shoot 645 and 6x6 medium format in an old but well maintained Agfa Jsolette with a very clean Solinar lens. I also use a 4x5 field camera with a Graflex 6x9 film holder using a 135mm SK Symmar. There is no doubt in my mind that the field camera can produce sharper negatives but until I have enlarged and printed those negatives to 16x20 or larger I cannot see enough difference to cause any problems. Even then my enlarger has to be set up very carefully and I have to study the resulting print very closely, not from normal viewing distances. There is some loss of sharpness but most of that loss is around the borders. If you need to have ultimate sharpness you should be using different equipment.
One other thing is even more important for me. I feel that the tonality produced by that little 85mm Agfa Solinar (Tessar design) lens on the Agfa is better than what I get from that SK Symmar. Sharpness is NOT my most important criteria. Bigger negatives, even 645 ones, make a big difference in image quality, so I am willing to bet that even an inexpensive but well maintained medium format folder will provide better prints than you will be able to get from most 35mm negatives.
If you need better you might need a Hassie but it will cost you a LOT more money.
If I am reading your post correctly, you first make a case that a bigger negative (4x5) does not make a difference, but then in the 2nd paragraph it does.
What about a 35mm hi res film with a modern lens? Shouldnt that produce better results than an Agfa Isolette (The "J" is an "I" in sans-serif fonts).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?