Question about medium format folding cameras

[Helge]

Yep. Medium format doesn't get any smaller than a scale focus 645 folder -- though you get a slightly larger negative from a full frame 127, which is similar size if not a litttle smaller.

According to my calculations it’s actually the other way around. 4.5x5.6 = 25.2 vs 6x4 = 24.
The 16 frames and the AFAIK better lenses on the best half frame 120 cameras would make it the “winner”.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Nitpicking mode on: full frame 127 is nominally 4x6.5 cm = 26. That's why I have to mask the frame in my Baby Ikonta (half frame 127, shorthand as 4x3) when using recut 120; the 6x6 framing track is five millimeters short of correct spacing for 127. Nitpicking mode back to standby...

Sixteen frames is a good thing (though I get twelve with recut 120); better lenses is debatable. Depends on the camera. My Baby Ikonta has a Tessar. Not many 645 folders with better lenses than that, and all of them were post-War.

 

[Helge]

Nitpicking mode on: full frame 127 is nominally 4x6.5 cm = 26. That's why I have to mask the frame in my Baby Ikonta (half frame 127, shorthand as 4x3) when using recut 120; the 6x6 framing track is five millimeters short of correct spacing for 127. Nitpicking mode back to standby...

Sixteen frames is a good thing (though I get twelve with recut 120); better lenses is debatable. Depends on the camera. My Baby Ikonta has a Tessar. Not many 645 folders with better lenses than that, and all of them were post-War.

Thanks Donald.
Do you know of any 6.5x4 cameras with a good lens?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Based on the negatives I've seen, the Kodak Vest Pocket has a good lens. Not sure if it's a triplet or Tessar type, but this camera produced a lot of good negatives in the trenches of the Great War. Seems I recall reading that the Foth Derby had a competitive lens as well. I'd start by looking at the strut folder class in general.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Based on the negatives I've seen, the Kodak Vest Pocket has a good lens. Not sure if it's a triplet or Tessar type, but this camera produced a lot of good negatives in the trenches of the Great War. Seems I recall reading that the Foth Derby had a competitive lens as well. I'd start by looking at the strut folder class in general.

Most VP Kodaks have a simple meniscus lens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Most VP Kodaks have a simple meniscus lens.

The earlier ones, yes. Later, they got better lenses and shutters. Up to and including Tessar f/4.9, before the USA entered the Great War.

 

[Auer]

Thanks Donald.
Do you know of any 6.5x4 cameras with a good lens?

Bessa 46 with either the Skopar or the Heliar.
Tiny too.
Mine is from around 1938 according to the serial #

 

[Donald Qualls]

Bessa 46 with either the Tessar or the Heliar.
Tiny too.
Mine is from around 1938 according to the serial #

He was after 127 full frame, chasing my suggestion, not the 645 on 120 folders.

 

[Auer]

He was after 127 full frame, chasing my suggestion, not the 645 on 120 folders.

ah, my bad. Also changed the Tessar to Skopar as I typed too fast..

 

[Helge]

Seems this is a good place to start: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/what-is-a-good-127-film-camera.409852/

 

[takilmaboxer]

How much did you payed for the cameras?

In the $200.00 US range.
I also have three Zeiss 523/16s with coated Tessars that I bought for $20-$50. Two still work fine, although the shutters are slow by one half to a full stop. The third I cleaned the shutter myself with naptha. The shutter is consistent but a half stop slow.
The coated Tessars are very sharp, especially at f/8-f/16.

 

[nokia2010]

But I wonder how good are 1930-1950 "Compur" lenses. I want to know if it's worthing restoring the lenseses (they need to be cleaned) + repair the shutter mechanism.

 

[Dan Fromm]

But I wonder how good are 1930-1950 "Compur" lenses. I want to know if it's worthing restoring the lenseses (they need to be cleaned) + repair the shutter mechanism.

Compur is a brand of shutter. Many kinds of lenses, some good, others not-so-good, were mounted in Compur shutters. There is no such thing as a Compur lens. Compur shutters in good order are good, in not-so-good order usually respond well to a proper overhaul, also called Clean-Lubricate-Adjust (CLA).

 

[grat]

Compur is a shutter-- not a lens. Lenses from that era range from "decent" to "very good", although they tend to be uncoated, leading to potential issues with glare and contrast. Filters can help, but they slow down the effective speed a stop or two.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As for the lenses in those Compur shutters, I've got a 1940 Weltini with f/2 Xenon in the Compur-Rapid. No restoration needed, at least at my end; I bought the camera fully functional.

This lens is a significant step forward from the Tessar, but is near the limit (in terms of glass-air surfaces) for uncoated lenses.

I've also got a 150mm Componon (unknown age) in a Synchro-Compur. "That's an enlarging lens, you can't use that to make negatives!" -- to which I respond, just watch me.

 

[nokia2010]

Funny thing that one with enlarging
I think this is my camera.

 

[nokia2010]

So they are good?

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Bessa is one of the good ones. Like most folders of its day, there were multiple options in lens and shutter -- don't know if Voigtlander ever went as far down as a three-speed shutter, but the Voigtar-Anastigmat in that photo is a "humble" Cooke triplet -- which are perfectly fine lenses from f/8 to f/22 (in that focal length) and still pretty good outside that range. The Skopar and later Color Skopar were the best Voigtlander offered, but there was also the Heliar (Tessar clone?).

I've got a Voigtlander folder a few years older than that one; they called it a "Rollfilmkamera" because, as the only one in their catalog in 1927, it didn't need any other name. It has a Voigtlander Anastigmat 10.5 cm f/4.5, which is either a triplet or Tessar clone (I haven't tried to count reflections in it lately, and I've forgotten what I got when I did years ago) -- and it's my favorite 6x9 camera. Scale focus, all original leather, compact and fairly lightweight, and a nice dial-set Compur that's accurate at all speeds. Great for those days when I want to be sure I finish the roll...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Donald, so you'll know, the Heliar is a five elements in three groups lens. It is symmetrical. The central group is a biconcave singlet. Not a tessar type at all. Thought by many to be superior to the equivalent tessar type, but not in my tests of the 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type) and 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type). Less coverage and not as sharp.

Re Voigtlaender folders. I've had a Bessa 66, still have a Perkeo II, also 6x6 and, practically speaking, a Bessa 66. The Perkeo is a joy to use. Unfortunately mechanically complex and its Color Skopar is not as good as a tessar type should be. I've checked, it seems to be in collimation but I've never got a sharp shot from it. Good shots, yes, sharpness is overrated, but as sharp as they ought to have been, never.

 

[grat]

The Vaskar in my Bessa I is apparently a redesign of the Voigtar, and takes verra nice images stopped down. It's a bit "soft" in the corners, but the softness (in B&W) is actually the result of chromatic aberration-- different frequencies of light being slightly misaligned. That may be part of why Voigtlander suggested using a yellow filter whenever possible, to minimize the aberration.

 

[nokia2010]

Hope untill the summer I will have it repaired and take some sample pictures. I want to make eternal image memories of Bucharest.

 

[xya]

I had a bessa 6x9 rf with the famous heliar. nice lens, but not impressing for me http://www.120folder.com/voigtlander_bessa_rf.htm . I compared it to an agfa record III with an as famous solinar and a simple moskva-5. the moskva-5 won the competition seen the pictural results.

 

[nokia2010]

But can you use 70 m.m. cine film for 116/616 format film cameras?
I dond't understeand why the discontiuned this format.

 

[MattKing]

But can you use 70 m.m. cine film for 116/616 format film cameras?
I dond't understeand why the discontiuned this format.

No new cameras for decades.
Almost no one using the old cameras that were still around.
Film formats don't make sense for a manufacturer unless a lot of people are using them - the costs for things like spools and backing paper are huge!

 

[Donald Qualls]

But can you use 70 m.m. cine film for 116/616 format film cameras?
I dond't understeand why the discontiuned this format.

If you have or can improvise backing paper, you can, though you'll have sprockets intruding at the edges of your images.

"Why" is a question that almost always boils down to money. Sales dropped, likely because advances in film technology and the increasing prevalence of enlargement as a standard process allowed more compact (= lighter and less costly) cameras to produce similar images on smaller (= less costly) film that cost less to process (because it used up chemistry less rapidly). There came a point at which it no longer made good business sense to continue producing 116/616 (with the added expense of spools and backing paper), even though 70mm cine perf was still profitable (enough so that it's till produced on a special cutting basis).