Folding 6x9 recommendations.....

[Tom Cross]

Hi all
I've had a Mamiya RZ Pro II for about a year now. It's a lovely camera but not that portable, I've been using my Hasselblad 501cm the most. So today I bought a shoulder strap for the RZ in an effort to make it more usable. Well, it actually made it worse. The lugs are so far forward the camera wants to tilt upwards, and the strap gets in the way of the cocking lever. I've decided to sell it, it's not practical for what I want it for.

Once sold, I'd like to get a folding 6x9 rangefinder. Does anyone have any recommendations on something reliable?

Voigtlander seem popular, but I've heard some of the older lenses can be a bit soft.

 

[MattKing]

Attach the shoulder strap on the RZ so the camera hangs with the film back down and the lens up.

 

[Argenticien]

Someone here can probably pinpoint exactly what was the last non-Lomo folding 6x9 RF model ever produced, and when was the last year of its manufacture, but I'd hazard a guess it was at least 50 years ago. (Among newer folders, such as the 1970s Plaubel Makina and obviously the Fuji/Voigtlander ones still sold new, I can only think of 6x7.) If I've got that right, "reliable" is relative and repairs may be in order. I quite like my ca. 1937 Zeiss Super Ikonta C. It folds flat and compact (albeit heavy) for transport, while still having an excellent optic, large 6x9 negative, and surprisingly usable rangefinder. I had to do minor repairs myself (lens cleaning, bellows pinhole remediation) to render it usable. With that done, it now appears reliable for my occasional use. But I would not, for example, take it out for a critically important shoot in monsoon rain.

For something much newer and more reliable, you could look at the Fuji G(s)W690(II/II) cameras, but they are very non-foldable. I have never worked with one, but I vividly recall a few online references to their size as "clown camera."

N.B. -- If comfortably wearing the camera on a strap is important to you, beware that a lot of old folders do not have strap lugs, so you either need the original case on a strap (in usable condition), or could use one of those strap systems (Black Rapid, Peak Design, &c.) that involves attachment via the tripod screw ... which, with folders, may land you right back at the camera hanging in an unwieldy/imbalanced way.

--Dave

 

[Tom Cross]

Thanks Dave, I'm not overly bothered about a strap for something like that it can live in a coat pocket or bag pouch. It does seem you can get newer 6x7 cameras so maybe that will be an option. I did like the look of the Fuji GF670 (similar to Bessa III) but they are rarely for sale and they are expensive at around £1000.

 

[Alan9940]

I have been very happy with my Zeiss Mess Ikonta 524/2 with f/3.5 Opton Tessar lens. Apparently, it's verboten to say anything about desktop workflow here but really nice large prints are easily obtained.

 

[ic-racer]

I started using old Kodak folders, then newer ones like a few Tourist models. Continually looking for better shutters, viewfinders and focus. I get too frustrated with cheapo equipment and yearned for a 'precision instrument' 6x9 after falling in love with the huge negatives. I eventually wound up with this Horseman 6x9 outfit. Thing is, that if you went this route, you'd be back where you started in terms of size and weight.

 

[Tom Cross]

Don't the Kodak Tourists use 620 spools?

 

[MattKing]

Don't the Kodak Tourists use 620 spools?

Yes, although there are instructions out there for simple modifications that permit use of 120 film at least on the feed side.

Also, there are a wide variety of lenses and shutters distributed between the various iterations.

 

[Tom Cross]

Yes, although there are instructions out there for simple modifications that permit use of 120 film at least on the feed side.

Also, there are a wide variety of lenses and shutters distributed between the various iterations.

Ive read all about it but it looks a lot of hassle plus you run the risk of damaging or exposing the film. I bought some re-spooled 620 film for my dad to use in his Brownie. The problem is there is no real demand for it.

I might get a Bessa I.

 

[nosmok]

Any old folder can be fun. Coupled RFs add to the cost like crazy, an external rangefinder is pretty cheap and will only slow you down a little, if you must. I mostly use hyperlocal distance in the field, and will swear by any 6x9 Franka Solida as a great starter camera.

 

[Peltigera]

I find by Zeiss Ikon Netter 515/2 produces first class photos. I do not find a need for a rangefinder, estimating is quite accurate enough with a bit of practice. The folding viewfinder is also accurate enough with practice.

 

[ic-racer]

Re-spooling only takes a few minutes. Problems might arise removing and replacing the tape, but every time I did it the tape came off fine and stuck again.

 

[Tom Cross]

Re-spooling only takes a few minutes. Problems might arise removing and replacing the tape, but every time I did it the tape came off fine and stuck again.

Yes but from a practical point of view it would never be regular enough to get good at it! I don't know anyone who owns a brownie that uses it regularly or for important things. They are a novelty these days.

 

[gone]

Bessa RF w/ a Heliar. Much cheaper than a Bessa II w/ the same lens, and while it will be uncoated, it will rival any 6x9 camera, folding or not. If you don't want to pay that much ($275-$400), you could look for one w/ a Skopar lens. It's a little sharper than the Heliar, but won't have that same 3-D look. Agfa made a much less expensive Record w/ Apotar lenses, or there's also the Zeiss lenses w/ Tessars. As mentioned, even the Nettars take sharp pics. None are in the same league as the Voigtlander Bessa RF though. If you can swing the cost of a Bessa II you will get one of the best 6x9 cameras ever made in terms of build quailty.

Most folders can be hung on a shoulder strap from their strap rings on the end.

 

[MattKing]

Ive read all about it but it looks a lot of hassle plus you run the risk of damaging or exposing the film. I bought some re-spooled 620 film for my dad to use in his Brownie. The problem is there is no real demand for it.

I might get a Bessa I.

I was referring to one time modifications of the cameras.

 

[canvassy]

I have a Kodak Vigilant Six-20 folder that does 6x9 on 620 film. There was a little metal bracket inside that I took out and it fits a 120 spool now. The other spool I had to trim down to 620 width to fit. Something like that might be an option.

 

[Saganich]

I would recommend an Afga Billy Record III with Solinar lens as best in class for the price. Solinar is a beautiful lens and there is a built in non-coupled rangefinder. Check out Certo6 current and past sales on Ebay to get a good idea of whats available out there. And buy from a reliable source, boy have I made that mistake with folders.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Voigtlander Bessa II with a Heliar lens.

The Kodak Medalist is not a folder, but 6x9 and a great lens. 620, though.

 

[Argenticien]

Bessa RF w/ a Heliar. Much cheaper than a Bessa II w/ the same lens, and while it will be uncoated, it will rival any 6x9 camera, folding or not. If you don't want to pay that much ($275-$400), you could look for one w/ a Skopar lens. It's a little sharper than the Heliar, but won't have that same 3-D look.

I have one of those Bessa RFs as well -- even cheaper because it's got the Helomar triplet. Even that is a pretty good lens, but the camera's rangefinder ocular is very small with bad eye relief; I wear spectacles and have trouble with it. The RF size/design is certainly common to all examples of this camera; my RF is also very dim, which might just be mine needing cleaning. The RF of the ZI that I mentioned above is miles better. The Bessa RF's film advance is also not very smooth; I'm not sure how much that's unique to my example vs. down to the design of the camera.

--Dave


Overview by Argenticien, on Flickr

 

[02Pilot]

I have two 6x9 folders (well three, if you count the 1920s Kodak Brownie No.2A, but it's not really in the same league): an early 1930s Super Ikonta C and a post-war Bessa II. Both are quite capable, but very different to use. I tend to prefer the uncoated Zeiss Tessar to the Color Skopar in this application, but that's more personal rendering preference than any comment on the technical capabilities of either.

More detailed thoughts are here: https://filmosaur.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/meet-the-camera-zeiss-super-ikonta-c-5302/

 

[Lee Rust]

Here's another vote for the Zeiss Nettar 515/2. As long as you don't need to focus closer than about 6 feet, it's completely sufficient, even with the 6.3 Novar lens and 3 speed Vario shutter. I like the way it pops open, ready to go.

 

[hsandler]

I have a Kodak Tourist and a Rodenstock Clarovid. The Tourist, despite costing me all of $10, is in perfect condition and is very solidly built and braced. There were many versions, some with cheap Kodet meniscus lenses and one shutter speed, and the top of the line with a 4-element coated Anastar lens. Mine is the middle of the line with 3-element coated Anaston f6.3 lens. Modification for 120 film requires a grinding tool like a Dremel, which I don't have, because the area around the spool is solid metal. So I respool onto 620 spools, which is not too difficult. The Tourist is front-element scale focus, but the viewfinder is relatively big for a folder. There is a shoe (not the right sized shoe to hold a flash) that was designed to hold an accessory Kodak rangefinder. I generally only use it stopped down to f16 and it's quite sharp there. The camera has strap lugs and is comfortable about the neck. So, don't be afraid of respooling; it's just time-consuming.

The Rodenstock is much older, circa 1931 and shows it's age, although someone cleaned the Compur shutter at some point and it works perfectly. It has a coupled rangefinder and unit focusing. The 4-element Ysar lens is really good, but uncoated. The folding mechanism is delicate and after I dropped the camera, the front standard is not in plane, and I have to push on it to have focus across the frame. It springs light leaks just by looking at it. The viewfinder and rangefinder windows are very tiny. It's very satisfying to use though--when it works.

I consider both of my folders as toys, and for more serious work I generally use a modern 6x6 Bronica. I think coming from an RZ you may be disappointed by the limitations of old folders and their lenses. You should consider a modern non-folding 6x9 rangefinder like the Fuji "Texas Leicas".

 

[mnemosyne]

I agree with the more cautious voices here. These old folders have limitations and it is in most cases not only the lenses that limit the possible image quality, but also the mechanical design. To be fair, there are some quite capable 35mm and 6x6 folding cameras (I do like my Agfa Isolette III and use it to shoot pretty 6x6 slides when I hike in the mountains), but when it gets to 6x9 it seems that the design inherent problems with film flatness, rigidness, lens sharpness, lack of stabilizing weight, quirky shutter releases, front cell focusing etc. get out of control.

I had various Bessas (I, II, RF) and the cameras and lenses from a technical standpoint more or less sucked (Color-Skopar coated, Heliar uncoated, Heliar coated ...) --- even after careful collimation. I still have a Agfa Record and its Solinar lens is much more capable than any of the Bessa lenses I have used, but it has some issues with film flatness (or was it parallelity of the front lens?). The last cm or so of the negative on the left side is always soft. Which reminds me that the film flatness on my Bessa I owned tended to be "all over the place", despite applying all the usual countermeasure like winding the film immediately before shooting etc. I think the Ikontas have the best build quality and probably come closest to being a precision instrument. But we have to keep in mind that these cameras where sold to amateurs and negatives were mostly contact printed at the time, so the results where not viewed with the same scrutiny that we apply nowadays.

If you need to have a 6x9 negative that meets modern standards in a hand holdable camera, one of the Fuji 690 rangefinders or (for wide angle shots) something like a Brooks Veriwide or even a Horseman VH-R as pictured above (rather heavy, but perfectly handholdable with the grip and solenoid shutter) are much better options IMO.

 

[02Pilot]

I agree with the more cautious voices here. These old folders have limitations and it is in most cases not only the lenses that limit the possible image quality, but also the mechanical design. To be fair, there are some quite capable 35mm and 6x6 folding cameras (I do like my Agfa Isolette III and use it to shoot pretty 6x6 slides when I hike in the mountains), but when it gets to 6x9 it seems that the design inherent problems with film flatness, rigidness, lens sharpness, lack of stabilizing weight, quirky shutter releases, front cell focusing etc. get out of control.

I had various Bessas (I, II, RF) and the cameras and lenses from a technical standpoint more or less sucked (Color-Skopar coated, Heliar uncoated, Heliar coated ...) --- even after careful collimation. I still have a Agfa Record and its Solinar lens is much more capable than any of the Bessa lenses I have used, but it has some issues with film flatness (or was it parallelity of the front lens?). The last cm or so of the negative on the left side is always soft. Which reminds me that the film flatness on my Bessa I owned tended to be "all over the place", despite applying all the usual countermeasure like winding the film immediately before shooting etc. I think the Ikontas have the best build quality and probably come closest to being a precision instrument. But we have to keep in mind that these cameras where sold to amateurs and negatives were mostly contact printed at the time, so the results where not viewed with the same scrutiny that we apply nowadays..

The issue you saw with the Voigtländer folders and uneven focus across the negative mirrors my own experience. In every case I've seen, the issue has invariably been the lens standard being out of parallel with the film plane. The construction of the Voigtländers is mechanically elegant but not as robust as the Zeiss equivalents. It is not at all difficult to tweak the lens standard square - remove the shutter assembly and using a plunge micrometer, take measurements at multiple points (measuring the depth against the pressure plate) and simply bend the standard (yes, you can do it by hand, which explains why many of them are out of square at this point) until the measurements match up. All of my Voigtländers are now quite sharp across the frame as a result of this procedure.

 

[Alan9940]

The issue you saw with the Voigtländer folders and uneven focus across the negative mirrors my own experience. In every case I've seen, the issue has invariably been the lens standard being out of parallel with the film plane. The construction of the Voigtländers is mechanically elegant but not as robust as the Zeiss equivalents. It is not at all difficult to tweak the lens standard square - remove the shutter assembly and using a plunge micrometer, take measurements at multiple points (measuring the depth against the pressure plate) and simply bend the standard (yes, you can do it by hand, which explains why many of them are out of square at this point) until the measurements match up. All of my Voigtländers are now quite sharp across the frame as a result of this procedure.

FWIW, many of these issues can, of course, happen with Zeiss folders, too. When I first got my Super Ikonta III, I noticed that the plane of sharp focus wasn't where I put it. My first thought was that the rangefinder was simply out of adjustment. I adjusted it several times all to no avail. So, I sent it off to Photography On Bald Mountain and, after looking at it, Ken told me the front lens was twisted in relation to the film plane! Urgh!! Just got it back, yesterday, but haven't tested it, yet. I'm hoping for good things because I really like this folder. I like my Agfa Isolette III, too, but having the coupled rangefinder is nice.