MF folders - ultimate solution ?

[Matus Kalisky]

Hello,

I consider what would be the "optimal" solution to take a MF camera on a long (2 - 4 weeks) backpacking trip (tent not required). The subjet would be mostly landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes. I would be best suited with mild wide angle lens (like 35mm on small format), but "normal" length would also do. I do not really consider a 35mm format camera - I got used to MF and LF somehow and leave the small format for .. ehm .. digital (I said that word ! .. sorry.. sorry )

I considered that a minimal setup would consist of:
- MF camera - the lighter the better, multi-lens option not necessary
- small lightmeter (if the camera does not have any) like Digisix or so
- really small and light tripod (I can kneel down - I am engaged already)
- film (BW or color negative - not decided yet, but want to keep it simple)
- acc.

I am a happy user of a Rolleiflex T, but thought that it is no the heavy/bullky side a bit, as it weights cca 1kg - so I was wondering wheter it would make sense to opt for a 6x6 (or even 6x9) MF folder instead. I digged my nose into MF folders a bit already and I am aware of cameras like Certo Six, Agfa Isolette, and other folders mostly because of the www.certo6.com webpage. I never owned any MF folder, though I played with some at a local market.

Still - some questions of mine remain not answered:

1) What are the actual weights of these cameras?:
Certo Six, Dacora Royal, Agfa Super Isolette, Balda Super Baldax, Franka Solida, etc ..

2) What kind of performance one can expect?
- I do not doubt the quality of the lenses - but the folding design does bring a possible misalignments. The point is - will a MF folding camera with a good lens (tessar or so) that was fully CLAd give me a sharp 6x or 7x enlargement ? (now only via scanning, enlarger is planned)

3) Would a comparison of (for examaple) Certo Six and Rolleiflex T be fair?

4) Are there any MF (6x6 or 6x9) folders that would give a bit wider-than-normal view?

5) Classical question - what would be your choice and why ?
(it should have a rangefinder, although it does not have to be coupled)

6) Provocative question - would you rather opt for a Fuji Zi or Ga645?

7) and for the tripod - what would be the minimal solution? Max height of cca 120 cm would be probably enough.

thanks ..

 

[climbabout]

mf folder

In medium format folders, I have only owned the Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 with the 105mm 3.5 tessar. I am very happy with it and the prints from it are exceptionally sharp. I don't know the exact weight, but I do know it is very lightweight - between 1-1/2 and 2lbs. It has a coupled rangefinder as well - I believe it was built in the early 1950's. For a tripod, I use a small gitzo - I'm not sure of the model, but it folds down to about 18" and extends to about 4-1/2 ft - I have a small gitzo ball head - it's a very compact setup, although there are certainly lighter weight tripods available. Hope this helps you.
Tim

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've owned some very good folders, including a Voigtlander Bessa II with Heliar. A Voigtlander Perkeo II is my go-everywhere camera. These are fun lightweight cameras with the great tonality and DOF characteristics of medium format, but I think the biggest problem they have is film flatness, particularly at 6x9.

In your situation, I'd probably use an ultralight 4x5" camera like the Gowland PocketView (others are Toho Shimo and Ikeda Anba, and the new Chamonix is pretty light), and a few compact lenses. Kerry Thalmann has some good articles on his website about backpacking with LF.

My favorite lightweight tripod--Linhof Report with a small ballhead. The version I have was made in the 1950s, has no center column, and the three legs fold into a flat package, rather than in the usual configuration. Very quick to set up, because the bottom sections snap into place at full extension, and only the top legs have locking collars for adjustment.

 

[Ole]

My favorite folder is a Zeiss Ikonta, 645, with 75mm Tessar lens. Small, fits in a pocket, and sharp enough for at least 10x enlargement - that's as high as I go since I don't have larger trays.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a folding Mamyia 6, (not the curent model) with a 80mm lens, very compact and rugged, I use a monpod with it. I often take it along with 4X5 as it take up little space in my 4X5 case.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

- David -

Did you have film flatness problems with our Bessa or Perkeo?

Actually - I do have a rather light weight LX - Tachihara 4x5. But with 3 lenses, few film hoders, tripod etc the weight goes up quickly. That would not be a solution for me. I need also a camera which is ready to shoot relatively quickly as I will need to walk rather long distances and will have company.

- climbabout, Ole, Paul -

If you would find the time to approximately weight your cameras - would be great....

 

[ChuckP]

Since I got a Fuji 645Zi I don't use my folders that often. The zoom lens gives options I find hard to give up. Makes nice 11x14 prints and probably bigger. Good metering so you will not need a separate meter. Will cost more than a folder. Plus needs batteries although mine seem to last forever. Has a flash option if you need it. I find the auto forcus OK. Guess I'd rather go manual but you get used to it and build up trust. I doubt even a 6x9 Tessar lens folder will produce better results. I find it an equal to my 2x3 Century Graphic with modern Sironar lens.

 

[Colin Graham]

My Solida III with an 2.9 80mm radionar weighs about 625g. Fits in the belt pocket on my backpack. Great camera. The rangefinder is uncoupled, but very accurate. Helical focusing. I also have a Zeiss Super Ikomat 645 that's a 100g lighter, has coupled rangefinder with a 3.5 70mm Jena, but it much more awkward to use. Ingenious camera, but my hands are much too gnarled for it.

The only thing I don't like about folders is the inability to do even marginal close-up work. Mine will only focus to a meter or so.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I have Super Ikonta (6x9, and 6x6) as well as a Certo 6 (6x6). I have no issues with film flatness or sharpness that I've noticed.
I try to always use a tripod but have gotten acceptable results handheld.

The Super Ikonta C (6x9) weighs in at just under 2 pounds or about .9kg. The Super Ikonta B (6x6) is just a tad heavier. The Certo 6 is about the same weight as well, .9kg. This was with no film and no case. (For interest, I have a Moskva 5, which weighs .8kg. )

The Certo seems to have the edge as far as lens quality. It may be as good as my 80mm Hasselblad, or no difference to my eyes.

You won't really care, of course, but the Super Ikontas have it all over anything else I've got just for their sheer beauty. To see one of these things, set up on a tripod is worth a photo just by itself.

The Telka III will give you a wider shot for a 6x9 camera.

 

[climbabout]

- David -

Did you have film flatness problems with our Bessa or Perkeo?

Actually - I do have a rather light weight LX - Tachihara 4x5. But with 3 lenses, few film hoders, tripod etc the weight goes up quickly. That would not be a solution for me. I need also a camera which is ready to shoot relatively quickly as I will need to walk rather long distances and will have company.

- climbabout, Ole, Paul -

If you would find the time to approximately weight your cameras - would be great....

My Super Ikonta weighs 31oz. Never had a problem with film flatness - I've read that the action of opening the camera can cause the film to shift due to the suction action of the bellows. To conteract this (if it actually happens at all) I open tha camera, compose and make all settings and then I advance the film just before exposing it.
Climbabout

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The film flatness with the Perkeo II is acceptable, if not as good as a solid rollfilm back on a sturdier camera, but it's 6x6, so it's not as much of a challenge as 6x9 for film flatness.

I was less happy with the Bessa II in this regard, but I probably would have lived with it if I had liked the ergonomics of the camera for handheld use. In the end it was too left-handed for me, so I sold it.

Film flatness problems are hard to detect, unless you have something to compare them to, like a Linhof Super-Rollex back, which by itself weighs at least as much as a Bessa II. People who say that they don't have film flatness problems with lightweight folders--which even at the high end are essentially tourist cameras--are probably getting sharp results, as opposed to SHARP results. The same could be said of open negative carriers and glass carriers in the enlarger.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Easier to control film flatness on a 645 than an old folder 6x9. I discovered a weird aspect on a couple of my 6x9 folders after doing a bellows replacement. When you pushed the button to open the cover door, and just let it spring quickly into place, there was enough suction to pull the film partially into the film chamber past the guide rails. The solution is to open the camera slowly, controlling the motion of the cover door on the folder camera.

I recently used my 1937 AGFA Jsollette to photograph an auto show. Besides having 16 shots available on a roll, I think the small size of the camera helped moving around cars and people. An interesting thing is that when people see you using such an old camera, they tend to give you plenty of room to get whatever shot you want. Compare that to showing up with something more modern, and people constantly stepping in front of you (because you are just another person with a camera).

I do cheat a little with my folder cameras, because I take along a modern Sekonic L-358 light meter. The main reason is that I shoot transparency films, and a bit more accuracy is needed. The results can be quite good, even with old uncoated lenses, like in this shot with that same 70 years old camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Thanks for all your answers. I have to admit that I was surprized that many of the cameras you have mentioned weight close to 1 kg. That would be very little weight saving compared to my Rolleiflex.

In the menatime I also realized that 20 films (format 120) weight 0.5kg (25g per one). That would favor to get more pictures on 120 film

Also - the choice of a tripod seems a delicate one. I have yet to find a tripod that allows the use of a TLR (120 cm extension needed) that is light and sturdy enough. maybe one of the Velbon models Ultra Luxi SF (Ultra Maxi SF) or Slick 614 CF would do the job.

 

[DBP]

As a general rule, the folders with rangefinders are not going to be lighter than a TLR, just easier to slide into a pocket. Somewhere around here is a post where I weighed a bunch. When I am really trying to save weight I carry either a Bessa I or an Ansco Speedex, and then guess at both distance and exposure. Or if I don't feel like guessing I carry a cheap plastic rangefinder (around 30g) and a notecard with exposure tables.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wot? My Perkeo II with an auxiliary RF attached is as heavy as my Ansco Automatic Reflex? Give me a break!

 

[ricksplace]

I have a Rolleiflex T and a few folders that I can comment on. My super Baldax has a 80/2.9 radionar which is razor sharp at f11-f16, but the camera is heavy, weighing almost the same as my Rolleiflex. I have an Agfa Ilsollette with an 85/4.5 Solinar (4 element) that is razor sharp from 5.6 to 16. It weighs about half of the weight of the Super Baldax. The agfa is my carry around med format. I don't bother with a case, I just throw it in a pocket. When the conditions are right, the Agfa is almost as sharp as the Rollei. If you can't find a Solinar, the Apotar is good too, but it has to be stopped down like all three element lenses.

 

[DWThomas]

This very day I shot my first roll with a Perkeo II that just arrived from certo6 yesterday. It looks like it should work for my "traveling light" MF camera. I just now put it on my dig***l kitchen scale and it says 544g (1lb 3 1/4oz) with a roll of film. I think it's partly due to its compact size, but it feels like a brick compared with some of the latest generation of plastic stuff. It's manual enough that I'll probably want to "practice" a little more before I travel, but it looks like a fairly capable beastie.

DaveT

 

[elekm]

I have used an Ikonta 6x9 and a Super Ikonta 6x9 -- both with the Tessar lens.

The Ikonta weighs a bit less, because it is zone-focus camera. However, for landscapes, that won't be a problem.

If you want to know how sharp the Tessar is, check out this page and click on the two Zoomify links.

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/ikonta520-2.htm

 

[ChrisC]

This is an interesting idea.

I myself am looking for a MF camera for a 3 week backpacking trip in Nepal I'm going on later in the year. It needs to be pretty portable and fast to use too. I had originally thought of picking up a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and a monopod for when I'm using slightly slower shutter speeds (I really don't want to have the extra bulk of a tripod at altitude if I don't need it), but the thought of an old folder is an interesting one too. I'm still a long way from decided too though.

 

[P C Headland]

There is a fair amount of variation in the weight of my coupled rangefinder folders. The lightest 6x6 (without putting them on the scales) would probably be the Super Ikonta III, with the Super Ikonta 532/16 being the heaviest.

When travelling around while living in Europe, I always had the Iskra with me. Sure, it is not much lighter, if at all, than the YashicaMat, but it is easier to lug around all day.

The other I'd carry all day is my Certo Six, which has a very sharp lens (f2.8 Tessar). It has the advantage of a relatively common 40.5mm filter thread size.

 

[mcgrattan]

I have a Moskva 2. The pictures are acceptably sharp [although they can be a little soft at the frame edges, which I presume is a film flatness issue].

However, I don't find it much more convenient than a TLR. It's heavy, and it's only pocketable if you have BIG pockets. It'll go in the outside pocket of an overcoat, but that's about it. So, if I'm bringing a bag, it's just as convenient to take my Fuji GS645S [smaller film format but the incredible lens compensates] or a TLR. The built-in meter and lighter weight for the Fuji and the many more shots per roll more than compensates for the smaller format [for me].

 

[Matus Kalisky]

I am really impressed by all your answers. Thanks a lot. It seems that there really are some light folders. Indeed the folders are much less bulky to caary around. I will be considering this option seriusly. The fuji 645 rangefinders have their advantages (available also as a wider version), but the old rangefinders have their charm.

Indeed - if I decide to get a folder - I will contact Jurgen as to get a 60 year old camera without a proper CLA makes limited sense - I guess.

- Chris -
yes - for such a trip a tripod as an evil. I still consider to take only my little Manfrotto table-top tripod which weights less than 200 g, but holds an TLR or SLR easily - a heavy fuji 6x9 rangefinder would be at the limit I guess. It is very low (~ 10cm) but also very stable. I can fully recommend it. I carry it allways along.