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.
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...
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 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.
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 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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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
I got mine from eBay Japan like most people.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?
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.
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?