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

[lrlebron]

I have recently acquired a Kodak Retina iia. It has a usable but not great rangefinder/viewfinder. I am looking at possible getting a medium folder but I would like, if possible, one with a better rangefinder than the Retina. How would the Mamiya 6 folder or Konica Pearl viewfinders compare to the Retina?

thanks,

Luis

 

[grantb]

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...

 

[lrlebron]

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...

Is it worse that the Retina?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Mamiya 6, I would call the rangefinder fair. Although not a rangefinder the Kodak Tourist has a good viewfinder. I use it landscapes usually at infinity so not an issue for me. Downside is it takes 620 film so I have to rewind.

 

[grantb]

Is it worse that the Retina?

I don't have a Retina, but I imagine the experience is similar with that little hole.

 

[lrlebron]

I have a Mamiya 6, I would call the rangefinder fair. Although not a rangefinder the Kodak Tourist has a good viewfinder. I use it landscapes usually at infinity so not an issue for me. Downside is it takes 620 film so I have to rewind.

Mamiya 6 folder?

 

[Alan9940]

Truth of the matter is that most (all?) of the mid-19th century rangefinders are going to have small and possibly hard to see viewfinder/rangefinders. I, too, have a Retina IIa and a couple of MF folders and I would say that none stand out above the other as having a great viewfinder/rangefinder. Usable? Yes. Nice as a Leica M6? No where even close.

 

[lrlebron]

Truth of the matter is that most (all?) of the mid-19th century rangefinders are going to have small and possibly hard to see viewfinder/rangefinders. I, too, have a Retina IIa and a couple of MF folders and I would say that none stand out above the other as having a great viewfinder/rangefinder. Usable? Yes. Nice as a Leica M6? No where even close.

thanks. As long as they are not worse than the Retina I think it would work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a Certo SuperDolly camera. It was a folding 6x6 with an insert for shooting 645. No rangefinder, but a good viewfinder, however it had a wonderfully sharp Zeiss lens that took great photographs. The problem with taking 645 with the camera is that none of the modern films had the numbering for 645 line up with the window. So no practical 645, but I wanted 6x6.

At the Los Angeles Union Station, I walked through the tunnel to the tracks. On the far end looking up I saw this half dome window. I took a light reading and guessed the distance. When I printed a 24"x24" print, I could clearly see that what looked like dirt on a much smaller print was actually glass etching, and different etching one each piece of glass.

 

[lrlebron]

I had a Certo SuperDolly camera. It was a folding 6x6 with an insert for shooting 645. No rangefinder, but a good viewfinder, however it had a wonderfully sharp Zeiss lens that took great photographs. The problem with taking 645 with the camera is that none of the modern films had the numbering for 645 line up with the window. So no practical 645, but I wanted 6x6.

At the Los Angeles Union Station, I walked through the tunnel to the tracks. On the far end looking up I saw this half dome window. I took a light reading and guessed the distance. When I printed a 24"x24" print, I could clearly see that what looked like dirt on a much smaller print was actually glass etching, and different etching one each piece of glass.

View attachment 341151

thanks

 

[OAPOli]

I have a Retina IIa and a Konica Pearl III. While the VF on the Pearl isn't fantastic, but much better than the Retina. It's almost full FOV with eyeglasses. The Retina presents a signigicant crop and has yellowed.

 

[nosmok]

Pearl IV was the only Konica Pearl with a coupled RF, but not a large one-- such small camera bodies kinda preclude them. I have always been intrigued by the Fuji GS645, looks like it has a nice big VF, but most versions IIRC have an electronic shutter/meter that may be disqualifying for you and/or need service.

Rather unfortunately, the best VF/RF's on medium format folders that I have ever used have been on really exotic/rare cameras-- Ensign Autorange 820, Vidax press camera, Takane Minesix, Plaubel Makina III. It's for that reason that I've given up on medium format rangefinders generally (did keep the Plaubel outfit-- it has a really distinctive flavor to the negatives) and mostly go scale focus these days.

 

[lrlebron]

I have a Retina IIa and a Konica Pearl III. While the VF on the Pearl isn't fantastic, but much better than the Retina. It's almost full FOV with eyeglasses. The Retina presents a signigicant crop and has yellowed.

Thank. This is helpful.

 

[Helge]

The best viewfinders for folders is the flap up like finders like on the 521.
They are clear and big and precise enough.
I’ve learned to not bother with build in rangefinders for MF folders for a number of good and interconnected reasons.

Simple RFs are often less than precise enough when you use them in the wild.
They need your eye to be absolutely perpendicular. That is probably the reason for the small finders.
They tend to drift over the range, being worst close up, where they are most needed.
They often develop all sorts of long gestation problems over time, and have often been tampered with by people who didn’t have the right tools and knowledge.

When shooting MF folders you should almost always stop down as much as you possibly can,
because:
- Alignment of all components is almost always lacking.
- The bellows will sometimes intrude into the lens projection, resulting in soft edges. Only real cure is to stop down. It’s very hard and not really worth it to replace an otherwise perfectly functioning vintage leather bellows that has a slight bow inwards.
- Stopping down alleviates most mild focus errors.

It forces you to become a better photographer since you have to remove clutter from the frame and you can’t rely on the modern kludge of just going close and using short DoF to separate subject and background.
You have to think fast and move around and reframe for living subjects.

For stationary scenes, you have all the time in the world to use a laser RF, external RF or measure with a tape from your tripod.
Then you can use the shallow DoF and really think about the composition, while being mindful of the aforementioned gotchas.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have a Mamiya-Six folder and I love it! The rangefinder works really well, and the internal focusing is pretty cool. I'll be taking it with me back to Japan this summer...

 

[Jojje]

Mamiya 6 gets my vote, not perfect finder but at least better than Ikonta.

 

[abruzzi]

Pearl IV was the only Konica Pearl with a coupled RF, but not a large one-- such small camera bodies kinda preclude them.

The Pearl III also has a coupled rangefinder. I believe the Pearl II did as well, but I've never used one. I do have a Pearl IIIL that I use regularly.

 

[lrlebron]

The best viewfinders for folders is the flap up like finders like on the 521.
They are clear and big and precise enough.
I’ve learned to not bother with build in rangefinders for MF folders for a number of good and interconnected reasons.

Simple RFs are often less than precise enough when you use them in the wild.
They need your eye to be absolutely perpendicular. That is probably the reason for the small finders.
They tend to drift over the range, being worst close up, where they are most needed.
They often develop all sorts of long gestation problems over time, and have often been tampered with by people who didn’t have the right tools and knowledge.

When shooting MF folders you should almost always stop down as much as you possibly can,
because:
- Alignment of all components is almost always lacking.
- The bellows will sometimes intrude into the lens projection, resulting in soft edges. Only real cure is to stop down. It’s very hard and not really worth it to replace an otherwise perfectly functioning vintage leather bellows that has a slight bow inwards.
- Stopping down alleviates most mild focus errors.

It forces you to become a better photographer since you have to remove clutter from the frame and you can’t rely on the modern kludge of just going close and using short DoF to separate subject and background.
You have to think fast and move around and reframe for living subjects.

For stationary scenes, you have all the time in the world to use a laser RF, external RF or measure with a tape from your tripod.
Then you can use the shallow DoF and really think about the composition, while being mindful of the aforementioned gotchas.

Thanks. Unless I am focusing on something that is less than ten feet I rely on the DOF scale on the lens. Set the aperture to f11 or 16 and use the hyperfocal scale.

 

[lrlebron]

I have a Mamiya-Six folder and I love it! The rangefinder works really well, and the internal focusing is pretty cool. I'll be taking it with me back to Japan this summer...

thanks

 

[lrlebron]

Mamiya 6 gets my vote, not perfect finder but at least better than Ikonta.

thanks

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks. Unless I am focusing on something that is less than ten feet I really on the DOF scale on the lens. Set the aperture to f11 or 16 and use the hyperfocal scale.

Hyperfocus is your friend!

 

[Helge]

Thanks. Unless I am focusing on something that is less than ten feet I really on the DOF scale on the lens. Set the aperture to f11 or 16 and use the hyperfocal scale.

With 400 film and good light or flash it’s fairly easy to always be able to hit f11 - 22 @ 1/50 - 1/100.
You will still get a noticeably different DoF with MF than equivalent 135 settings.

You can hit 1.2m with a margin of 25cm quite easily with a bit of training.

 

[beemermark]

Iskra or the AGFA Super Isolette with the better (Solinar? Tessar Copy) lens if you can afford it.

 

[Helge]

All of the mentioned cameras come with their own set of problems and possible fail points.

For example: There is a high probability that someone forced the folding on the Pearl without focus at infinity.
The Mamiya 6 unit focus assumes thicker backing paper.
And one of the hardest things in a folder is keeping the film plane plane, because of the direct roll to roll film transport. You think that is going to improve by having it “flapping in the breeze” in the movable film gate?
Isolettes almost always needs a bellows change and a deep clean of the focus helicoid.

 

[henryvk]

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.