Focus Your Old Folding Camera Accurately!

[russell_w_b]

The optics and mechanics of these simple rangefinders are simply not up to the job required for precise focus for a format as large as 6x6 (or any medium format).
.

They were fine for what the camera was intended to be used for: a negative to give a positive contact print for a photograph album or a wallet. What's happening now is that people are trying to squeeze as much as they can from cameras which, at the time, did precisely what they were meant to do at the price offered. In the 1950s anyone who bought a Mess-Baldix or a Franka Solida, say - which, in today's terms, would equate to about £500 - would be happy with the result: a contact-print of their subject. It's no good using today's mores and ideals and technology to berate a camera which did precisely what it set out to do. You have to go back sixty-six years and look at it from a contemporaneous point-of-view.

We have a saying over here which describes the process of squeezing what you can out of something not designed for the job: 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. I've had more fun with that little folder than I have with any amount of digital auto-this-auto-that cameras, and am perfectly satisfied with my images, which knock the socks off 35mm negs. But that's because I'm aware of its limitations, including R/F limitations (been there; done that; what you describe about consistency has happened to me!).
--

R.

 

[Helge]

They were fine for what the camera was intended to be used for: a negative to give a positive contact print for a photograph album or a wallet. What's happening now is that people are trying to squeeze as much as they can from cameras which, at the time, did precisely what they were meant to do at the price offered. In the 1950s anyone who bought a Mess-Baldix or a Franka Solida, say - which, in today's terms, would equate to about £500 - would be happy with the result: a contact-print of their subject. It's no good using today's mores and ideals and technology to berate a camera which did precisely what it set out to do. You have to go back sixty-six years and look at it from a contemporaneous point-of-view.

We have a saying over here which describes the process of squeezing what you can out of something not designed for the job: 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. I've had more fun with that little folder than I have with any amount of digital auto-this-auto-that cameras, and am perfectly satisfied with my images, which knock the socks off 35mm negs. But that's because I'm aware of its limitations, including R/F limitations (been there; done that; what you describe about consistency has happened to me!).
--

R.

No no, I’m not berating folders at all.
These folders, are from a time when contact prints were important as “what is on the roll at all”/“I just want some cheap photos to put in my wallet or put on my desk”, with full-blown use of enlargement for your favorites.

The original Brownies 6x9, 6x6 and other roll film formats, was clearly invented as a happy medium sub postcard size for contact printing, with enlargement as a distant possibility.

When we get up to Rolleiflex or 6x4.5, enlarging, projection and (stereo) magnifying slide viewers get more important and thus resolution and good focus.

Folders from the late thirties to sixties are not stretched beyond their ability all. They are used for exactly what they were meant.
The requirements are not that different from back then.
The last revival folders from the 80s and 00s might be able to pull out a few more lp/mm in the corners, but stopped down a great vintage folder from the last couple of decades of prime popularity, is about as good as it gets WRT IQ.

My point in this thread, is just that one should not put too much emphasis and trust on the build in rangefinder.
Sure, they where better than guessing for people with no sense of space and distance.
But, it’s much better to hone that skill.
It’s possible for just about anyone to learn.
Focus pullers on film shoots do it all the time.
Of course they also make use of pre-measured marks, which is another possibility for people photographing dynamic stuff. IE. measuring a mark and then waiting for the action to get to it.

BTW there is of course also quite good apps for distance measuring that work by triangulation and inclination.
For example: https://apps.apple.com/dk/app/easymeasure/id349530105?l=da
With a light meter app you have just about everything you need (including image preview ;-)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Old shoe mount rangefinder works for me. Mine is a “Widor,” which is easy to calibrate via two externally accessible screws. Yeah, the window is small, but I don’t need to see the whole image through it, just the focus point.

For super close portraits, I would set the lens to the near distance, match the rangefinder setting to the lens, focus by looking through the rangefinder and moving my head back and forth until the images line up, and snap. It’s very reliable.

 

[russell_w_b]

BTW there is of course also quite good apps for distance measuring that work by triangulation and inclination.
For example: https://apps.apple.com/dk/app/easymeasure/id349530105?l=da
With a light meter app you have just about everything you need (including image preview ;-)

That's interesting. Thanks. I thought for a moment after looking at it that my existing 'measure' app on my phone might do something but noooo... I do like my lightmeter app, though. I don't use it religiously and tend to set it 'for the duration', adjusting exposure according to varying light and shade. But it's useful to have. Everyone pulls out their phone and takes a pic. I pull out my phone, take a reading then pull out my folder and take a pic!
--

R.

 

[Helge]

That's interesting. Thanks. I thought for a moment after looking at it that my existing 'measure' app on my phone might do something but noooo... I do like my lightmeter app, though. I don't use it religiously and tend to set it 'for the duration', adjusting exposure according to varying light and shade. But it's useful to have. Everyone pulls out their phone and takes a pic. I pull out my phone, take a reading then pull out my folder and take a pic!
--

R.

I have to confess I actually sometimes use the phone as a preview tool to see how the scene will look pressed flat.
It would be brilliant if someone could do a real photo preview that simulated the exposure on film, DoF and film type.
Even better would be a flash meter simulator.
It should be fully possible with “open flash” metering.

 

[grat]

With my folder, I'm typically shooting at f/8, with 400 speed film. My antique Askania rangefinder agrees remarkably close to my antique Bessa I folder on distances, so, really, is a few inches one way or the other really going to matter? Anything over 25 feet, I'm probably just going to use the hyperfocal mark, anyway.

 

[JPD]

I use a Voigtländer accessory rangefinder with my Ercona II 6x9 folder. I'm good at guesstimating the distance, but I only do that with the lens well stopped down or with 35 mm folders.

 

[Kyle M.]

People can say whatever they want about folder rangefinders not being accurate, but I call B.S. It's highly unlikely that my Moskva 5 has ever been serviced, and the rangefinder is dead on even up close wide open at F3.5. I've tested this on a tripod over multiple rolls with multiple minimum focus wide open shots, and varying shots at longer distance and smaller apertures mixed on the same roll. I've never had an out of focus image. I've printed photos from this camera at f5.6 and smaller up to 11x14 and the lens on my example out performs the 3.5 Tessar on the Super Ikonta that I sold. Why did I sell the Ikonta and keep the Moskva? Becuase the Moskva feels more substantial and higher quality. There seems to be this B.S. theory that the soviets couldn't make quality items because "Communism!" As if that somehow effects the quality attainable, as I understand it Moskva used Zeiss equipment, some Zeiss parts, and had Zeiss engineers and some other lower ranking employees. I've seen multiple references saying Zeiss glass was still being used in Soviet cameras and lenses in the late 80's because so much of it was pre made and the Soviets received it along with everything else as war reparations.

I've also owned several recently serviced and unserviced Zeiss folders, of all the problems I've come across an inaccurate RF is not one of them. But I also don't go around beating on or dropping my cameras which I imagine would be detrimental to even the best rangefinder mechanism.

 

[Helge]

People can say whatever they want about folder rangefinders not being accurate, but I call B.S. It's highly unlikely that my Moskva 5 has ever been serviced, and the rangefinder is dead on even up close wide open at F3.5. I've tested this on a tripod over multiple rolls with multiple minimum focus wide open shots, and varying shots at longer distance and smaller apertures mixed on the same roll. I've never had an out of focus image. I've printed photos from this camera at f5.6 and smaller up to 11x14 and the lens on my example out performs the 3.5 Tessar on the Super Ikonta that I sold. Why did I sell the Ikonta and keep the Moskva? Becuase the Moskva feels more substantial and higher quality. There seems to be this B.S. theory that the soviets couldn't make quality items because "Communism!" As if that somehow effects the quality attainable, as I understand it Moskva used Zeiss equipment, some Zeiss parts, and had Zeiss engineers and some other lower ranking employees. I've seen multiple references saying Zeiss glass was still being used in Soviet cameras and lenses in the late 80's because so much of it was pre made and the Soviets received it along with everything else as war reparations.

I've also owned several recently serviced and unserviced Zeiss folders, of all the problems I've come across an inaccurate RF is not one of them. But I also don't go around beating on or dropping my cameras which I imagine would be detrimental to even the best rangefinder mechanism.

The Soviets vary in quality within the same model.
They where often made with prison labor. And they were made on commission, and by people with changing ambitions and time allotted.

There is technical and physical limits to how precise you can make a rangefinder with a given base length and magnification.
Listen to Leica heads (who arguable have access to the best build in photo rangefinder mass produced).
Even they question the precision wide open, of even a modest 2.0 at close range.

I’m not saying you a lying or you are sweetening the truth (of course “objectively” there is the possibility) but there can be a range of factors determining the luck you had.
For example, if there isn’t a critical focus point (like an eye or exact detail) it’s easy to do after the fact rationalization, like “that was the part I meant to focus on” without realizing it.
Or you might have been just plain lucky of course.
At 1.2 meters the DoF of sharp focus @ 3.5 on 6x6 with a normal lens is 4 cm.
That will take an unusually good rangefinder to hit exactly.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Whatever the quality of the camera, old rangefinders can get out of calibration over time due to vibration, exposure to different temperatures, adhesives shrinking, and such. If you test with film and it works perfectly, that's great, but if not, it wouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Helge]

Even when it’s perfect (as can be) it’s not precise enough.
That was my point.

If you need/want to shoot wide open within one or two meters, you better break out the measuring tape or laser RF to not waste your time.

Already at f8 at one meter, you have about 20 cm in focus, which is easy to hit with a bit of practice at that distance.
It only gets easier the further away focus needs to be, as DoF grows.

There is good reason why TLRs became so popular, despite the drawbacks of size, weight and complexity.

I know that to some this will sound like a strong case of relativism.
But I assure you this is from much use and testing of various folders and other medium format cameras.
I have heard and read others with the same experiences.

 

[ic-racer]

About 15 years ago I was exploring some folders I was gifted in a box. The lenses were fantastic (mostly Kodak Tourist and the like). As Helge points out in this thread, I agree focus was a limiting factor. When used with a tripod and accurate focus, I was making fantastic 16x20 enlargements.

What I wound up doing, however, was to move to the Horseman 6x9 system to allow ground glass focus and a modern rangefinder (in addition to a range of adjustable lenses and movements).

 

[Helge]

Without hopefully sounding self important, let me make clear that I’m not saying optical rangefinders cannot categorically be precise, and at close range too.
It’s only the magnification, spacing, optical and mechanical quality of the rangefinders in pretty much any folder that leaves something to be desired.
They could be an aid to someone new to photography when stopped down to f8 or more.

After having checked a couple of RFless folders for bad lens alignment after using them with aux RF. And been thrown off by others with RF that turned out not to be the safety blanket you’d think, I looked and asked around for people with similar experiences, and came to my conclusions.

It’s pretty easy to test out yourself. And even easier if to verify if you have a laser RF.
Set the rangefinder at a close target and move it back and forth until you see a clear difference. Write the span down.
Turn the knob a few times back and forth and try again.
Then compare against the laser.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used a 6x6 folder that I bought after I started using the Hasselblad. I always estimated the focus and I never had a focus problem with it. It has a wonderful Zeiss lens. I enjoyed using it.