Looking for a medium format folder with a good viewfinder/rangefinder

[Helge]

As usual, Helge has hit all the relevant points (there should really be a sticky thread with all the MF folder info).

Almost all mid-century folders have terrible viewfinders. I've never had a Mamiya 6 but the later models seem to have a bigger viewfinder. The same goes for the Super Ikonta III, which I can report has a decent rangefinder (*if* the mirror is clean/good and *if* it it's been calibrated and the lens collimated).

Also there are a handful of different models of the Mamiya 6 folder, the earlier of which seem to have smaller viewfinders than the later ones: https://www.35mmc.com/16/08/2019/mamiya-6-iv-review/

Another one that at least has a larger viewfinder is the Welta 6x6 Weltur.

The penultimate VF and the only old folder with framelines is apparently the (very rare) Aires Viceroy: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Aires_Viceroy

That being said, I've used the Zeiss Ikonta 521/0 (that's the post-war 6x45) with the pop-up finder and it's honestly pretty good and imho beats all the contemporary reverse-galilean finders.

When in doubt about what you see in the VF, put the camera on a tripod and a focusing screen across the film gate and compare. Maybe use some kind of grid pattern or other target so see if the corners of what's on the film plane match up with the VF's field-of-view. Back in the day people painted crosshairs onto the front VF glass as a makeshift orientation. I put a black dot in the corner of the VF glass as a parallax correction "indicator" one one camera with particularly badly offset VF. You can work around these things once you get to know your camera and how it works.

Aren’t the flap finders also reverse-galilean? But that’s what you meant?

The Viceroy looks interesting. Pity and strange that it was only made in such small numbers.

To have a markedly better/more precise finder on a folder would probably require something like an SLR projection screen finder. Which would turn it into a foldable TLR. Something that does exist.

 

[guangong]

Konica Pearl has a tiny (~6mm diameter) viewfinder like a typical mid century folding 120 camera. Seems like only more recent and more expensive premium folders have a decent sized VF Makina 67/670, Fuji GF670/Bessa III. For the >$2000 price difference, I've been making do with tiny finders. 6x7 would be fun though...

That’s about it! For ruggedness of rangefinder and mechanism for erecting lens, nothing beats a Super Ikonta B, but viewfinder typical for 1950s. I use both Makina 67 and GF670 because I wanted a 67 camera easy to lug around. Current prices for these cameras are unreal.
Having a weakness for folders I also use Retinas and Z-I Contessa folder. While finders are not Leica M3 quality, I haven’t really found them to be a serious handicap. I suppose it’s what you are used to.

 

[henryvk]

Aren’t the flap finders also reverse-galilean? But that’s what you meant?

The Viceroy looks interesting. Pity and strange that it was only made in such small numbers.

To have a markedly better/more precise finder on a folder would probably require something like an SLR projection screen finder. Which would turn it into a foldable TLR. Something that does exist.

I sometimes get confused, but you are right. The ones I'm thinking have a lens as a front glass and eyepiece which gives a slightly de-magnified 75mm FOV:

This is called a telescopic or reverse-galilean finder and like I said, the pop-up ones are very bright (no mirrors) and pretty accurate for what they are. What I couldn't get used to was the shutter release being on the wrong side

There may have been Ikontas with plain sports/frame viewfinders? The Super Ikontas have either telescopic or Albada-type finders: https://www.petrakla.com/pages/albada-viewfinders

Albada finders are interesting and not too common, I think. The Ensign Selfix is the only other folding camera I could find that also has one.

Anyway, for completion's sake, here's all the different types of viewfinders: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Viewfinder#Newton_finder

And, yes, a folding camera is a trade-off. If you want a really accurate finder you probably want an SLR/TLR.

Oh, and another folding with projected framelines is the Pearl IV but that should really be it.

 

[lrlebron]

Thanks for all the info. I know there are parallax issues with a rangefinder but once you get used to a particular camera you learn to work around them. For precise close up work I can break out the dslr/slr cameras that I have. I just want a viewfinder that is usable with my eyeglasses and somewhat accurate.

 

[Helge]

I sometimes get confused, but you are right. The one's I'm thinking have a lens as a front glass and eyepiece which gives a slightly de-magnified 75mm FOV:

This is called a telescopic or reverse-galilean finder and like I said, the pop-up ones are very bright (no mirrors) and pretty accurate for what they are. What I couldn't get used to was the shutter release being on the wrong side

There may have been Ikontas with plain sports/frame viewfinders? The Super Ikontas have either telescopic or Albada-type finders: https://www.petrakla.com/pages/albada-viewfinders

Albada finders are interesting and not too common, I think. The Ensign Selfix is the only other folding camera I could find that also has one.

Anyway, for completion's sake, here's all the different types of viewfinders: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Viewfinder#Newton_finder

And, yes, a folding camera is a trade-off. If you want a really accurate finder you probably want an SLR/TLR.

Oh, and another folding with projected framelines is the Pearl IV but that should really be it.

Albada always irritated me. The effect is indeed neat. In daylight. At night or in contrasty light it’s like having sunglasses on.

 

[blee1996]

I have in front of me a Retina II (type 011) and a late Mamiya Six Automat folder. Both CLA'd and in their best shape possible.

To me, the Mamiya Six Automat folder (with the rectangular eyepiece and square rangefinder patch) is a bit bigger and clearer, and the RF patch more contrast. But the Retina II is totally usable with my not so great eyesight. They are slightly smaller and more squinty than most 60-70s compact 35mm rangefinders such as Olympus RC or Yashica Electro 35.

@Helge : I did not quite get your point about "The Mamiya 6 unit focus assumes thicker backing paper." The film emulsion side is always facing the lens and pressed against the film gate, regardless the thickness of the backing paper. When I do RF adjustment, I focus on the emulsion. Therefore, the film thickness should have no bearing on the focusing accuracy once the RF alignment is properly adjusted. If you meant frame spacing, then that's an entirely different story.

P.S. I did the CLA on Mamiya Six Automat myself, by replacing the half silver mirror and adjusting vertical/horizontal alignment. The Retina II (type 011) was CLA'd by Paul Barden.

 

[Helge]

I have in front of me a Retina II (type 011) and a late Mamiya Six Automat folder. Both CLA'd and in their best shape possible.

To me, the Mamiya Six Automat folder (with the rectangular eyepiece and square rangefinder patch) is a bit bigger and clearer, and the RF patch more contrast. But the Retina II is totally usable with my not so great eyesight. They are slightly smaller and more squinty than most 60-70s compact 35mm rangefinders such as Olympus RC or Yashica Electro 35.

@Helge : I did not quite get your point about "The Mamiya 6 unit focus assumes thicker backing paper." The film emulsion side is always facing the lens and pressed against the film gate, regardless the thickness of the backing paper. When I do RF adjustment, I focus on the emulsion. Therefore, the film thickness should have no bearing on the focusing accuracy once the RF alignment is properly adjusted. If you meant frame spacing, then that's an entirely different story.

P.S. I did the CLA on Mamiya Six Automat myself, by replacing the half silver mirror and adjusting vertical/horizontal alignment. The Retina II (type 011) was CLA'd by Paul Barden.

I meant the spring tension in the movable back assumes stiffer and thicker paper and perhaps also film.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I've been using a Moskva V lately and viewfinder is quite decent. Larger that a normal folder, but not by much and quite portable. Rangefinder is quite decent.

 

[MattKing]

I did not quite get your point about "The Mamiya 6 unit focus assumes thicker backing paper." The film emulsion side is always facing the lens and pressed against the film gate, regardless the thickness of the backing paper. When I do RF adjustment, I focus on the emulsion. Therefore, the film thickness should have no bearing on the focusing accuracy once the RF alignment is properly adjusted. If you meant frame spacing, then that's an entirely different story.

The older Mamiya 6 folders are somewhat unique in that they focus by moving the film transport, rather than the lens.
So focus calibration with these cameras actually is affected by the thickness of the backing paper.

 

[blee1996]

The Mamiya Six Automat also focus by the entire film transport, and once the focus is calibrated it works as it should with modern film. Here is a test shot for focus accuracy. But in general I don't use medium format folders for close-up shots.

Strong foundation - img001 by Zheng, on Flickr

 

[lrlebron]

I have in front of me a Retina II (type 011) and a late Mamiya Six Automat folder. Both CLA'd and in their best shape possible.

To me, the Mamiya Six Automat folder (with the rectangular eyepiece and square rangefinder patch) is a bit bigger and clearer, and the RF patch more contrast. But the Retina II is totally usable with my not so great eyesight. They are slightly smaller and more squinty than most 60-70s compact 35mm rangefinders such as Olympus RC or Yashica Electro 35.

@Helge : I did not quite get your point about "The Mamiya 6 unit focus assumes thicker backing paper." The film emulsion side is always facing the lens and pressed against the film gate, regardless the thickness of the backing paper. When I do RF adjustment, I focus on the emulsion. Therefore, the film thickness should have no bearing on the focusing accuracy once the RF alignment is properly adjusted. If you meant frame spacing, then that's an entirely different story.

P.S. I did the CLA on Mamiya Six Automat myself, by replacing the half silver mirror and adjusting vertical/horizontal alignment. The Retina II (type 011) was CLA'd by Paul Barden.

Thanks for the info

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I'm not so sure the thickness of the backing paper has much to do with it. The film's emulsion rides on the rails, and it is the rail to to lens distance that counts. The backing paper is pressed by the pressure plate, and it in turn presses the film against the rails.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not so sure the thickness of the backing paper has much to do with it. The film's emulsion rides on the rails, and it is the rail to to lens distance that counts. The backing paper is pressed by the pressure plate, and it in turn presses the film against the rails.

With the old Mamiya 6, the film rides on the pressure plate, and the camera focuses by moving the pressure plate.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Having a fondness for folders, I now own or have owned many of the cameras discussed here. The Retina IIa was my "first". It's rangefinder is adequate to focus the lens, but the viewfinder is of the dim, squinty class common to most 35mm cameras of the 1950s. Generally, the Zeiss Ikotna/Super Ikonta viewfinders lack by comparison, and their front cell focus is optically inferior at closer distances. They are also over priced as a user. I've owned two Mamiya 6 folders. They tend to suffer from coating failures in the lenses, giving low contrast or clouded images. They are very heavy for what they are, but have decent viewfinders. A recently serviced one at a good price is clearly a choice, but stay away from the ones with the Olympus lenses. The Konica Pearl III has a very good Tessar copy lens and good, simple mechanics, however if you have the price, a Konica Pearl IV in very good shape is a completely different camera (except for the lens/shutter), and it is a joy to use. You are going to pay a "collectible" surcharge for the Pearl IV. The Voigtlander Super Isolette may be the model of the perfect MF folder, but having never use one, I'll leave it there. The lesser Isolette models suffer from triplet optics, which as a common user should be avoided unless your budget is small. The Isolette III was offered with the superb Tessar copy lens/shutter on the Super Isolette, but they are extremely rare and expensive for what you otherwise get. All of the foregoing use 4-element Tessar copy lenses, which are more than adequate for the format and its modern uses. However, if you want the best optics in a relatively modern MF folder, the Fuji GS645 is in a class by itself. It has well deserved issues over its original bellows, so if you shop one, either have the seller produce proof that the bellows has been replaced or deduct about $125 from the price of a good one to pay for your inevitable repair. I'll skip the 1950s era 6x9 cm folders. The modern GF670 Fuji (6x7/6x6 formats) or its Cosina/Voigtlander equal is out there, somewhat overpriced. It seems to be showing some problems as it ages, which would exclude it from my consideration. If you want the bigger format and your wallet will take the chance.....

 

[MattKing]

I like the finder on my scale focusing, 620 requiring Kodak Tourist, but I don't think the camera meets the OP's other requirements.

 

[henryvk]

Generally, the Zeiss Ikotna/Super Ikonta viewfinders lack by comparison, and their front cell focus is optically inferior at closer distances. They are also over priced as a user.

Which one, though? The pop-up telescopic finder or the housed telescopic-finder, or the pop-up albada? With or without rangefinder? And compared to which other 30s, 40s, or 50s folding camera?

Front-cell focusing may be inferior wide-open at closer distances but in the case of the Super Ikonta it's a deliberate trade-off:

The bellows don't need to expand and the lens standard doesn't need to move, meaning fewer moving parts and a stiffer, more rigid and precise self-erecting mechanism. It also allows for the camera to be lighter and more compact, i.e. flatter. Not to put too fine a point to it but what good is unit-focusing when the lens can't be kept reliably parallel to the film plane?

I think people tend to worry too much about the method by which focus is achieved. Shooting wide-open at close-range is not what older folding cameras are good at. Most need to be collimated and calibrated before you can start to worry about anything else. Work with DOF (that's why cameras used to have a table printed on the back), stop down, use hyperfocal (red dot) distance, use a tripod, get to know your camera.

 

[lrlebron]

From the replies I have received I think that a Konica Pearl III may be exactly what I am looking for. Decent viewfinder and a reasonable price. The Pearl IV is a bit on the expensive side. I have read that there may be issues with the semi-automatic advance due to differences in modern film thickness. Can any Pearl III owners comment on the accuracy of the film advance.

Thanks

 

[abruzzi]

Advance has been spot on with my Pearl III. It’s a little weird—like a wart on the bottom, but it actually works great—and I hate red windows, so I’m thankful to have it.

I’ve shot Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Kentmere. I haven’t shot any Fuji in it, and Fuji has the thinnest backing paper, so maybe that can be an issue.

 

[lrlebron]

Advance has been spot on with my Pearl III. It’s a little weird—like a wart on the bottom, but it actually works great—and I hate red windows, so I’m thankful to have it.

I’ve shot Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Kentmere. I haven’t shot any Fuji in it, and Fuji has the thinnest backing paper, so maybe that can be an issue.

Thanks for the info. Any quirks I should know about the Pearl III?

 

[OAPOli]

I only shot one roll on the Pearl III. Film advance was fine. (But the bellows not so much and the RF was out of adjustment). A potential quirk is trying to get your hands on the super-thin "Koni" filters (30.5mm).

 

[abruzzi]

the main quirk is I haven't found anyone that can replace the bellows. Mine are still light tight, but pretty old and worn, so I'd like to refresh them.

The other thing to know is it has not interlocks--something most 35mm shooters are used to. So after advancing to a new frame, to shoot you have to cock the shutter first. Then you can trigger the shutter release to take the picture. Normally youd then advance the film, but if you forget and cock the shutter again you can take as many shots as you like on the same frame of film.

Its not bad but you have to have a pattern you always follow. For instance I always advance immediately after every shot then fold it back up. So I know when I pick the camera up and open it, I know its on a blank frame. If you're not careful about it, you may end up with double exposed or empty frames.

There are 3 version of the Pearl III. The difference is in the shutter/aperture mechanism. Mine is a IIIL (not labed IIIL, thats just what is called). It has a Seikosha MXL shuter which you can seeon the front of the shutter. It can use a light value system, where you set a light value then turn the shutter dial and the aperture will move with it, keeping the same exposure. I like this, but some do not. You don't need to use the LV, instead you can set shutter speed then aperture, but still moving the shutter dial will move the aperture as well. So always set the shutter first.

The original Pearl III has a Konirapid shutter, and the IIIMX has a Seikosha MX shutter. Neither of them link the shutter and aperture dial.

 

[cliveh]

Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 532/16 with Tessar 8cm F/2.8 Lens

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The Mamiya Six Automat also focus by the entire film transport, and once the focus is calibrated it works as it should with modern film. Here is a test shot for focus accuracy. But in general I don't use medium format folders for close-up shots.

Strong foundation - img001 by Zheng, on Flickr

That's a quite nice result from a Mamiya 6 folder. I've found most of the Zuiko lenses on these to have developed an uncleanable haze, or had their coating eaten and etched on by a fungus. How did you find one that was in good shape?

 

[blee1996]

That's a quite nice result from a Mamiya 6 folder. I've found most of the Zuiko lenses on these to have developed an uncleanable haze, or had their coating eaten and etched on by a fungus. How did you find one that was in good shape?

I got mine from eBay Japan like most people. It had problems like dim/dirty VF/RF, weak frame counter return spring, and bad leatherette. So I actually did quite a lot of work on it.

But the saving grace is that the F.C. Zuiko lens is in very good shape, and the shutter is reasonably accurate. I guess we need to find an honest seller, and ask a lot of detailed questions about the lens condition...

 

[henryvk]

Advance has been spot on with my Pearl III. It’s a little weird—like a wart on the bottom, but it actually works great—and I hate red windows, so I’m thankful to have it.

I’ve shot Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Kentmere. I haven’t shot any Fuji in it, and Fuji has the thinnest backing paper, so maybe that can be an issue.

I have a Super Ikonta III which has a similar auto advance. I've shot some Fuji Provia and what I do when loading is advance the arrow on the backing paper ten or so centimeters past the indicator in the film gate that you're supposed to line it up with. This supposedly adds enough thickness to the takeup-spool to compensate for the thinner backing paper. Some people recommend taping a strip of paper to the beginning of the roll (or around the takeup-spool) to compensate, but modern 120 rolls are apparently a bit longer so you can still get 12 frames even if you don't line up the arrow.