Medium Format Folder suggestions

[runswithsizzers]

A +1/2 or +1 diopter filter and a tape measure (plus a little diopter math if you won't want to work at precisely 2 or 1 meter, depending on the filter) will make portraits with most folders. Finding a filter that will fit is a challenge left as an exercise...

Can you please go into a little more detail about how that would work -- or point to a refererence site that explains the process?

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I have had focus issues from day one of owning the camera.
I think, perhaps, hope! that it is an intermittent issue with the focus wheel slipping on the shaft that connects to the film
back/ pressure plate.

My Mamiya 6 is one of the last ones made , hence my persistence to keep it usable!
I dont believe there is another folder that is so easy to operate.
With the film pressure plate ! focus there is no other old folder so fool proof; my example excluded!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can you please go into a little more detail about how that would work -- or point to a refererence site that explains the process?

Let's use a +1/2 diopter filter as a workable example.

If you set the lens focus to infinity (assuming scale focus here, like what I used making macro images with a Pony 135 back around 1972), the +1/2 diopter will bring your focus distance in to 2 meters (1/diopter = focus distance in meters). If you now set your lens focus to 2 m, the lens is running at +1/2 diopter from its infinity setting, to which you add the +1/2 of the filter and the resulting +1 diopter over infinity sets your focus at 1 m. Now, bring your lens focus to its closest setting, say 1 m (most scale focus 35 mm cameras can get close to this figure, and it simplifies the arithmetic). That's +1 set on the lens, and +1/2 filter means +3/2 total and a focal distance of 2/3 meter or just under two feet.

Now if you use a +1 filter instead of +1/2, those same focus scale settings will give 2/3 meter when set at 2 m, and 1/2 meter when set at 1 m.

On my Pony 135, which would focus to 1 m without a filter, I used two stacked closeup filters, backed out the diopter strength from the scale Kodak printed inside the lid of each filter box, and was able to focus to under 4 inches, giving close to 1/2 real size images on the 35 mm film. After getting 3x5 prints back from the camera store, my print images were significantly larger than the actual flower, and about 2/3 of them were dead sharp (good distance measurement is a must when focusing this close).

 

[runswithsizzers]

@Donald Qualls, thanks for your examples. I am looking at medium format folders; unlike the OP, I am not interested in portraits, but I do sometimes photograph still-life type objects at similar working distances. From your post, I can see how these old folders might be focused at my desired working distances. I expect selecting an aperture which gives plenty of depth-of-field is necessary for success when scale focusing?

But I am still concerned about getting predictable framing due to parallax errors. Using a TLR at a distance of about 1-meter, I have had some unpleasant suprises after estimating where the edges of my frame would be.

I have never used a rangefinder camera -- can anyone say if parallax errors are more, or less, of a problem at moderate distances (about 1 meter) compared to TLRs?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Stopping down for DOF certainly won't hurt when you're focused to portrait or closer distances. Parallax, there isn't really a good way around on anything other than an SLR. A rangefinder still has the viewfinder offset from the lens, so you'll still have to correct. In general, you can do this by framing the same number of inches off in the same direction as the offset -- so, for instance, with my Moskva 5 I'd frame about 2 inches right and an inch and a half high, to compensate for the lens axis being that far below and left from the viewfinder. It's not really a big deal unless you're trying for very precise framing or working very close.

When I was doing this stuff with my Pony 135 I completely ignored the viewfinder, because at the close distances I was focused the flower that was the subject was barely in the window at all.

A few 35 mm rangefinders, from the 1960s and later, have parallax compensating frame lines in the viewfinder, but those are only right when you're using the unmodified lens with the rangefinder. You could try mounting a parallax compensating viewfinder attachment on an accessory shoe, but then the direction and amount of offset are set for the brand/model of camera the VF was made for -- which was likely a compact 35 mm like a Leica or Contax.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I was just thinking that at least the parallax error with a TLR is a simple vertical one (and you can get a tripod-mount device to correct it if you like).

My Century Graphic is technically a folder; it folds; but I know it's not what was meant by a folder. Anyhow, because the film's in a removeable back, you can use it as a view camera if the focus or parallax are that sensitive.
Used as a rangefinder, the coupling is a bit basic; it's only correctly coupled for one lens at any time; takes about half an hour with a screwdriver to adjust for a different lens. also, there's a limit to how long a lens the RF will couple to - I forget what it is. The Kalart RF instructions give approximate settings for four different standard lenses for the 2x3 Graflexes. I know I wasn't able to set it up for a 24cm Tele-Xenar, but I wasn't surprised by that. It might serve a moderate portrait-length lens.
It's still not what I'd choose for portraits, if an SLR was available.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's still not what I'd choose for portraits, if an SLR was available.

That depends. I can shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 with my Century, and use the ground glass to focus for any of those. And it's LOTS lighter than my RB67, the only MF SLR I own (or am likely to). My Century and carbon fiber tripod together barely outweigh my RB67 with prism finder...

 

[Romanko]

Schneider Radonar 2.8/80

I believe it is Radionar - an excellent triplet by a famous lens maker. The bokeh is a bit swirly but rather nice.

That's not to say it can't be done, and done well, but it's more of a challenge.

Once you figure out how to measure/estimate distance to your subject and get a feel for the depth of field you are pretty much done.

With my folders I use builders' laser measuring tool for distances up to 5-8 metres but for obvious reasons you can't use this method for portraiture.

 

[Donald Qualls]

With my folders I use builders' laser measuring tool for distances up to 5-8 metres but for obvious reasons you can't use this method for portraiture.

The classic portraiture focus aid is a knotted string (non-stretchy, please). Establish critical focus distance via ground glass and loupe, set your string length (attached to the front standard or bed) from that, and then ensure the focus target on the subject's face (usually the near eye, but occasionally another feature) is at that distance as exactly as possible.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I've been using an Agfa Isolette as my travel camera, and the results have been good. It's quite compact, enough that it can stay with me in my carry-on backpack, and it's light enough that I won't regret carrying it around. The lens is a triplet, and it's good enough for 8x10 prints.

I found myself a push-on yellow filter, and use a Weston III light meter or just guess exposure.

All folders were more or less designed as snapshot cameras: it mattered more to have it around, than to extract maximum performance/versatility. You want to do portrait? Just crop. You don't want to chase focus? Use the hyperfocal.

Use a film/developer combo that will work across lighting situations and that can tolerate some errors, like HP5+ or 400TX in XTOL/D-76 to cover the bases.

 

[Donald Qualls]

All folders were more or less designed as snapshot cameras: it mattered more to have it around, than to extract maximum performance/versatility. You want to do portrait? Just crop. You don't want to chase focus? Use the hyperfocal.

Use a film/developer combo that will work across lighting situations and that can tolerate some errors, like HP5+ or 400TX in XTOL/D-76 to cover the bases.

While this is all true, many folders can do much better than just "the camera you have with you". First, you get a big negative in a highly portable camera; you give up the ability to change lenses (compared to a baby press camera like my Century Graphic) for lightness and compactness -- but the lenses needn't be any lesser type than the Ektar my Century came to me with. Second, you get pretty easy operation (aperture and shutter speed are right by the lens). Third, you can stop down enough to use fast film in full sun (f/22 at 1/250 will cover Tri-X or HP5+), and still shoot that fast film in a well lit interior or under streetlights if you have a steady hand (this is the one place I'd use the brilliant finder, to be able to hold the camera low with both hands for steadiness at 1/25 or 1/10).

These are the reasons my everyday carry camera is a 97 year old Voigtlander...

 

[Romanko]

The classic portraiture focus aid is a knotted string (non-stretchy, please).

A more advanced version would probably look like a chalk line reel that can be attached you your belt with distances marked on the line in metres or feet.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A more advanced version would probably look like a chalk line reel that can be attached you your belt with distances marked on the line in metres or feet.

It might, but commercial portraitists work at a fixed distance to control framing as well as focus, so a single distance (or at most two or three knots in the string for different lenses or framing with preset focus stops) are all they need. Less opportunity for error (that you won't catch until you examine the developed negatives).

 

[bimmey]

There is an Iskra group in Flickr that shows some examples of portraits taken on the Iskra folder. It's a handy MF folder with a very good lens.https://flic.kr/p/2e7Vznr

 

[xya]

There is an Iskra group in Flickr that shows some examples of portraits taken on the Iskra folder. It's a handy MF folder with a very good lens.https://flic.kr/p/2e7Vznr

Yes, they are fabulous cameras. There is even a metered one https://www.120folder.com/iskra_2.htm

 

[Romanko]

Yes, they are fabulous cameras.

Film advance mechanism is known to be unreliable on Iskras. I don't have one but I saw a few examples where the red window was added to "repair" the failed film advance. Other than that Iskra is a nice camera. And so is Agfa Super Isolette that inspired its design. About 38000 Iskra and 6000 Iskra II cameras (with the exposure meter) were produced so they are somewhat rare (and could be hard to source these days).