Medium Format RF

[Two23]

I'm looking at getting a 6x6 or 6x4.5 camera for "general" use, especially on trips/vacations. I want the following features for sure: coupled rangefinder, coated lens, folder, easy & quick to use, under five or six hundred $. Don't want a lot of plastic and prefer something classic, so I'm tentatively thinking of two cameras made at the end of the 1950s. The two cameras I seem to keep coming back to are (1) Fuji Super-6 (2) Mamiya 6 Automat. These are solid cameras with auto film indexing, coupled RF, coated lenses, great styling, fairly compact, and nice copies aren't terribly expensive. Both check all my boxes. Any thoughts on these two in actual use? Filter availability etc.? Lens performance (especially against flare.) Mechanics etc.


Kent in SD

 

[Paul Howell]

I have the Mamiya 6 folder, with 75mm 3.5 lens. Very sharp lens, never had issues with keeping the front standard in alinement . I think the moving back for focusing works well. The lens is coated, but not MC, a lens hood is a good idea. The only trouble I've had is one of the 2 knobs on the bottom that needs to be pulled out change film and move the empty spool from the loaded to unloaded compartments came off the screw came out, had to one made at a machine shop, cost $120, works but not a match the original. I've looked at the Fuji super, came to buying one, Fuji makes greats lens.

 

[mshchem]

I have a Mamiya 6mf my most favorite camera! These days the prices have gone crazy, very crazy. I would give it a look. Amazing portable pro grade camera.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm

 

[Paul Howell]

Do you have folder or the later model, I think OP is interested in the folder, saying that if had the money I would get a late 6. Great camera great lens. Only concern is if the 6 and follow on 6 are repairable.

 

[Two23]

Yeah, I'm avoiding cameras later than 1960s. Looking for something more classic and distinctive.


Kent in SD

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Mamiya 6mf my most favorite camera! These days the prices have gone crazy, very crazy. I would give it a look. Amazing portable pro grade camera.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm

Use several dump truck loads of salt when you read Ken Rockwell. He can make the deep end look very shallow.

 

[mshchem]

Do you have folder or the later model, I think OP is interested in the folder, saying that if had the money I would get a late 6. Great camera great lens. Only concern is if the 6 and follow on 6 are repairable.

No. Mine is the 6 MF, 1995 ish, this is NOT the beautiful classic folder. It does have a collapsible lens mount, with the normal 75mm lens you can secret it away under a coat. As far as repairable I have Hasselblads (Sirius Glass Approved!) and Fujis. I had a original 1950's era Mamiya 6, they are beautiful cameras, mine had been repaired, somewhat poorly, the winding knob fell off. A nice example would be a good choice of a classic rangefinder.

 

[gone]

The Super Ikontas are nice, either w/ Tessar or Novars, and both are available in 6x4.5 or 6x6. Very well made, the later ones even have a meter. These are probably my favorite cameras like you specify, For an every day folder, I prefer the scale focus models because they're a little lighter, a little smaller, and quicker to use. Assuming any knob wind camera can be considered quick to use.

 

[pmviewcam]

I have both Fujica Super Six and a Mamiya Six Automat, the later version (~1958). Initially had a later generation Fuji GS645Pro which IMO is the best of the three, but I couldn't live with the portrait orientation - turning on it s side for landscape. The Fujica Super Six is well built, the lens is very sharp, coated but not multi-coated as best as I could determine, bellows are a little fragile. It is also a little fiddly to use: shutter is cocked on the lens, release is on the body. A small lever has to be pressed to wind onto the next frame, although it does have an automatic stop. The earlier versions of the Mamiya Six Automat have a similiar approach, although it is just to get the film to exposure one. After that it is as usual. The internal focusing is easy to use and the results for me have been accurate.

I first came across the Automat on Martin Henson's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSdp7piOb-t9AnfHK_Y_Qwg/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0). He has two versions, and has some videos using them in quite testing conditions. I thoroughly enjoy using the Mamiya, it is quite portable, and will fit into a (fairly large) jacket pocket. Downside is no eyelets for a carrying strap (although there are Chinese leather half cases available for some versions of the camera). Uses ~35mm slip-on filters; they come up on eBay/Etsy occasionally. In good condition highly recommended; prices have gone up in recent times, so value for money can be questionable.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have both a Super Ikonta B (532/16 -- very early post-War with uncoated 80/2.8 Tessar) and a Mamiya 6 folder with Zuiko 75/3.5 (not the Automat with auto film counter, but one of the models with captive format masks to shoot 6x6 and 6x4.5 in the same camera) Of the two, the Mamiya is the better camera, IMO. The Zuiko lens is, IMO, better than the Tessar on the 532/16 (not one of Zeiss's best, f/2.8 may have pushed the design a little), the camera is significantly lighter and a bit smaller, and I like the ease of focusing with a knurled knob edge on the back instead of having to turn the lens bezel. I'd expect one of the later models with frame counter would be the best. They're fairly reasonable, too; around $200 plus shipping from Japan last i looked. Another alternative is the Ensign Commando; this "just missed the war" British camera uses the same film plane focus setup as the Mamiya 6 folders (actually, had it first), includes format masks, and the last version had frame counter advance, but they're much harder to find and more expensive.

I'd suggest a Konica Pearl III as a fine alternative. It's a 6x4.5 folder with single window coupled RF and auto-stop film advance, very likely the smallest and lightest medium format folder with your requested features. A little harder to find than a Mamiya 6, even if you're limiting yourself to the Automat model, but if you're not mainly a square shooter, the 6x4.5 format may suit your eye better (as well as getting a third more frames on a roll). YouTuber Steve O'Nions got one about a year ago and posted a full video on his first outing with it. Spoiler alert: he likes it a lot.

 

[Helge]

Don’t be so dead set in your requirements.
Rangefinders on folders are often more bother than they are worth.
They are slow to use, and often not very precise and/or in need of calibration.

I won’t say that the Japanese folders are bad or badly made in general, but they as a group more often have problems and have tattered cosmetics.
Whether that is down to usage patterns, or manufacture is hard to say definitely.
It’s just risky buying a camera without being able to see it.

You can use your outstretched arm and upper body to measure the critical near distance far more precisely and quickly than a rangefinder. And you can learn to estimate from two meters and out as precisely as a rangefinder (RF precision recedes with distance).

Indexing in vintage folders is often off. Either calibrated for a different film thickness or drifts through the roll so that you are lucky to get non overlapping frames.

 

[mshchem]

Why no strap eyelets? Obviously trying to promote cases.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don’t be so dead set in your requirements.
Rangefinders on folders are often more bother than they are worth.
They are slow to use, and often not very precise and/or in need of calibration.

I won’t say that the Japanese folders are bad or badly made in general, but they as a group more often have problems and have tattered cosmetics.
Whether that is down to usage patterns, or manufacture is hard to say definitely.
It’s just risky buying a camera without being able to see it.

You can use your outstretched arm and upper body to measure the critical near distance far more precisely and quickly than a rangefinder. And you can learn to guess from two meters and out as precisely as a rangefinder (RF precision recedes with distance).

Indexing in vintage folders is often off. Either calibrated for a different film thickness or drifts through the roll so that you are lucky to get non overlapping frames.

I had a Certo Super Dolly folding camera with a superb Zeiss lens, but I found out when I used it for street photography that unfolding and setting up took a fair amount of time so I went back to using the Hasselblad and sold the folder.

 

[Donald Qualls]

While everything @Helge warns about is worth consideration, I've never had a problem with rangefinder precision or calibration, and as a bottom-feeder for price I've still had very good results with function (price often seems to reflect mainly cosmetics). And yes, opening a folder, cocking the shutter, setting exposure, focusing and framing take some time, the same is true for any all-manual camera (though a solid body SLR or RF will be a little quicker at focusing and doesn't require unfolding).

The Mamiya 6 folder and Konica Pearl III are a couple of the faster folders, because they're single-window RF -- that is, the rangefinder uses a patch in the main viewfinder (like most fixed-lens 35mm RFs from the 1960s and 1970s) rather than a separate window like a Super Ikonta B or Moskva 5. Those do take a little extra time -- but aren't any slower, in my experience, than setting distance on a scale, and don't require taking my attention completely away from the subject to focus (with a moving subject, likely to require starting over).

Yes, rangefinders aren't perfect, especially at close-up distances (few focus inside 1.5 meters anyway) -- and yes, they all give up precision as range increases, but then you need it less for a more distant subject even if shooting wide open.

 

[Two23]

I've also been looking at the Konica Pearl IV. I like the size. I'm in no hurry to buy, no trips planned for several months. Meanwhile I'm shooting 4x5 Chamonix and a 9x12cm Patent Etui. When it warms enough I mostly do wet plate with 5x7 or 8x10. Still, it's fun to use a small folding camera when walking around and exploring.


Kent in SD

 

[Helge]

For a moving target, folder rangefinders are hopeless. You need to estimate distance well and fast, and then do “trap focus”. IE Wait for you subject to enter the distance.

For busy subjects with no clear singular contrast edges (clothes, leaves, thin end branches, near horizontal lines. wall textures, water, fire, smoke etc.) an RF can be treacherous.
For low light, at night or indoors vintage rangefinders can be difficult.

For close ranges most people will be able to use their arms to estimate or get a calibration fresh in mind on how long two meters or 1.2 meters (or feet of course) is.
Measure your outstretched arms probably between 170cm to 2m.
And measure your outstretched arm to the opposite armpit or shoulder. That is probably very close to 1.2 meters. As close as an old RF will be able to measure.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use my Mamiya 6 as a companion when shooting 4X5 and want something that will fit in my 4X5 case. Last year I got a Kodak Tourist, later model with 4 element tessar lens, coated, it's 6X9 but scale focus. The scale focus is not problem when shooting landscape, in the desert wide vistas I shoot at infinity. The real hassle is rewinding 120 film onto 620 spools or paying more for rewound 620 from B&H.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While everything @Helge warns about is worth consideration, I've never had a problem with rangefinder precision or calibration, and as a bottom-feeder for price I've still had very good results with function (price often seems to reflect mainly cosmetics).

I never had a problem with a rangefinder precision or calibration.

 

[Helge]

I never had a problem with a rangefinder precision or calibration.

Sure you didn't.
You sold your camera.

There is a huge difference from on one hand the type of rangefinder with a simple cam pushing a lever, put into the tiny top of a MF folder (worse still, is the complication of having it coupled), than on the other hand a precise RF in a rigid 135 body.

Even a folder in 135 form, the awesome Retina IIIc, has problems with the linkage of the rangefinder often.

Plus MF has much higher requirements on precision on top of the aforementioned, for a given DoF. And has less DoF for a given shutter speed.

 

[Donald Qualls]

But [folders] are not great for "general use" or "travel".

I think that's a matter of opinion.

I routinely carry three folders (Moskva 5, Mamiya 6, and Daiichi Zenobia -- the last isn't rangefinder equipped, but a Konica Pearl or Super Zenobia is barely bigger) in a bag too thin to accommodate my Reflex II TLR, never mind my RB67 (with WLF and only a single lens and film back, without left hand grip, i.e. stripped down as far as possible). Still room for a dozen rolls of film, too, as well as a small stack of filters, if I had some for those cameras.

I'd happily carry that bag for the little traveling I do; even if one (60-70 year old) camera fails, I have two backups, and two of them (Moskva 5 and Mamiya 6) can mask down to a smaller format if needed. The only inconvenience is that it's harder to find 120 film to buy locally than consumer color 135 -- but that just means I have to plan ahead, and that would be true with any medium format, no matter how bulky, heavy, and expensive.

I'd suggest that if you find a folder too slow to operate, either you're not familiar enough with your folder, or you're trying to do a kind of photography that won't be much improved by using an RB67 or Hasselblad (sports, for instance, where you might want to bang off three or four frames in as many seconds). IMO, the main advantage of the SLRs is the interchangeable lenses and viewfinders, traded off against expense, weight, and bulk.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Two23 it feels wrong to side-track your thread, but I was precisely in your shoes last year, I would side with Helge. I was convinced that a folder is the best MF travel camera, but it's not. Mine was a modern design and I seriously doubt that older classics are better. Sure, they're compact, but they are by far the slowest cameras to use and the focus precision... let's just say it is not the best platform for a rangefinder.

Consider a lightweight TLR instead. They fit into camera bags meant for small mirrorless, and often are quite happy being carried around in their own leather cases.

I have nothing against folders. I still own two, because they're cool as fuck. But they are not great for "general use" or "travel". They feel like tiny large format cameras

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Donald Qualls My experience is primarily with Fuji GF670 and Moskva-5 - we have that one in common. The elephant in the room is - in my opinion - that it's dangerous to walk around with an unfolded folder. When I am on location I will run circles around/under/over subjects (my hopes of improving compositional skills refuse to die, hehe) and you need both hands to securely hold them, and definitely can't have them hanging on a strap, when extended, if you're climbing a small rock to get higher. So you fold/unfold for every shot, I couldn't avoid it.

In contrast, even a Hasselblad comfortably hangs on a across-the-chest strap by itself while I'm running around. Ready to shoot. A TLR is even better/faster. Something like Rollei 3.5F is almost a 35mm camera in terms of portability.

I like to hold the Hasselblad in my hand when I walk to keep it from bouncing around. In fact I do that with any of my cameras.

 

[Auer]

Konishiroku Pearl

I have a Pearl II and it is capable of taking great images and fits just about in any pocket.



City Frame-318 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Two23]

I have and use a Rolleiflex MX (1954) several times a year, and also have a Deco Rolleicord. Beautiful cameras, but a bit bigger than what I'm looking for. I'm pretty used to folders--use a 1937 Bessa RF (Heliar!) and a Retina IIa. Also have a "thing" for fancy1920s folding cameras such as 1930 Bergheil 6.5x9, 1928 Cocartte Luxus, 1934 Patent Etui 9x12cm, 1933 Orionwerk Rio Tropen 9x12, Zeiss 9x12 Adoro Tropen. Also use a 1904 Brownie from time to time as I like the look of the images. Considering this weekend the only camera I used was a Chamonix 4x5, something like a 6x6 folder RF would not be too slow in comparison. I think I'm leaning toward either a very late Mamiya 6 automat or a Pearl IV. For me a big part of it is the experience of successfully using obsolete technology, I don't mind slow work flow--I've been avidly shooting wet plate for the past two years. Also, I'm not after technical perfection. When that matters I do have a Nikon D850 with first class lenses.


Kent in SD

 

[Deleted member 88956]

To all the naysayers here, with input that is largely theoretical and somewhat rational, to say that RF folder is hardly any good for travel is just plain bad advice. I can understand some of the concerns expressed, but they do NOT amount to changing one important fact: so long as chosen folder/RF is in proper working condition and fine optically, they are very rewarding cameras. It is up to the user as to what they can be.

There is not a single camera that does it all well and a folder is certainly not one that is as versatile and swift to use as one that is not (a folder). Yet travel photography can mean all kinds of things, and for the more specific type of shooting that complements folder's shortcomings, they are plain great cameras and a joy to use, let alone the feeling of doing it all with a classic can be priceless.

The great choices have already been given, so I just second all of them. And don't let the negatives sway you away from one. Just do best you can to get one not needing repairs, and there are still plenty of those.