Recommend a light, affordable and decent quality 6x7 or 6x9 camera?

[moto-uno]

 

[moto-uno]

^ For those that think the Iskra is junk, wellll maybe they got a bad one ? Possibly others might post a picture or two
to give the OP a chance to better judge reality instead of opinions ? Just a suggestion . Peter

 

[moto-uno]

An example from a Mockva-5 from a few years ago . Peter

 

[wjlapier]

From the Bessa I ( XP-2 ):

 

[yurihuta]

Interesting how many folks miss these sentences isn't it?

I did not miss those sentences, but sometimes it can be helpful to give other options that people may not be aware of, forgotten about. I don't have experience with the 6x6 or larger folders nor with the Mamiya TLRs, but have a GW690 that I enjoy using.

 

[Moopheus]

Have a look on eBay, cajiji, etc. for a Mamiya RB67. They can be found in the $300 range. Great images, reliable and mechanical.

Also, easily twice the size and weight of a C220.

 

[SalveSlog]

Of what I actually own, my Ercona II, a 6x9 folder with a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar would be my thought. That's an early 1950s East German Zeiss Ikonta that is a purely mechanical and simple beast -- no metering, no rangefinder, red window film positioning.
.....

I've had some bad luck purchases of old cameras, but I too had very good luck with one of these! Bought it on ebay for EUR 34,- plus postage. Along with its case and in practically mint condition! Maybe it was bought in the 50ies by someone who, a year or two later, jumped on the 35mm-trend and it landed on the shelf rather young?

At first the Tempor shutter seemed in need of cla, but after some firing it settled on these times:

1/1 is 1/0.9
1/2 is 1/1.6
1/5 is 1/3.8
1/10 is 1/14
1/25 is 1/22
1/50 is 1/44
1/100 is 1/83
1/250 is 1/179

I believe this is not far from what it did as new. With the aperture rather open I also think the actual exposure at 1/250 is closer to nominal than my test method gives.

I see this camera often on ebay, at least from Europe, and at low prices. If you can live with an acessory rangefinder and of course a separate lightmeter, you may get a good buy too. The shutter is OK while the lens is first class.

 

[StrangestStranger]

The only light, affordable 6x9 somewhat suitable for portraits I'm aware of are Moskva-2 and 4 (5 is junk, Iskra is x3 junk).







You could still ditch them all and get compact, real compact 645.

The only light, affordable 6x9 somewhat suitable for portraits I'm aware of are Moskva-2 and 4 (5 is junk, Iskra is x3 junk).







You could still ditch them all and get compact, real compact 645.

+1 for the Moskva 2
https://flic.kr/p/Ez57SH

 

[moto-uno]

^ If I got pictures like that from a Mockva-5 I'd agree with you !( But I didn't .) Cheers Peter

 

[chris77]

voigtländer perkeo II. fantastic and very capable folder
..

 

[DWThomas]

voigtländer perkeo II. fantastic and very capable folder
..

Agreed -- I own and use one of those also, but the OP seemed more interested in a 6x7 or 6x9 format.

 

[Pioneer]

With an old folding camera it is condition, condition, condition. Brand really means nothing. Some camera brands have a reputation for common problems but they may have been overhauled. Some cameras have a reputation for robustness and good images but have been dreadfully abused. Unless you buy from someone who has checked it and repaired it then you are subject to many potential problems.

Is it still in proper alignment?

Is the bellows still light tight?

Is the shutter firing at anywhere near the proper speeds?

Is the lens still in good condition?

Is the lens coated or not?

Do you have a lens shade?

Is the lubricant still working and is it where it belongs?

Finally, folders are not quick cameras to use. They require some setup and input from the operator so tend to be slower in response.

 

[darinwc]

While I am a big fan of folding cameras, I think a Fuji gw690iii is a better camera. The body had a lot of plastic, so it is pretty light weight, though large.

 

[moto-uno]

^ For fear that these remarks of plastic may lead "newbies" to think these cameras are made of plastic is a bit misleading at best.
They have a die-cast body and metal door . The "plastic"on these cameras are the outer grip areas . And yes it is plastic that your hand
touches , but then , how many cameras are bare metal bodies without a vulcanite(sp) or leatherette covering ? Peter

 

[pbromaghin]

Many of the cameras mentioned are double the OP's budget.

 

[moto-uno]

^ Details ! (I agree) , Peter

 

[mrosenlof]

I would expect any medium format solution that's cheaper than a 65 or 55 for the C220 would not be any wider than the 80 you've got now. The Fuji rangefinders are your next step up in price, and may or may not fit your definition of affordable for this project. One of the Fujis is about as bulky as the c220, just a different shape.

 

[nsurit]

I'm thinking perhaps a VOIGTLANDER BESSA RF made from 1936 to 1951 or there abouts. In fact it has me thinking about taking mine to Spain next month. Bill Barber

 

[Sepia Hawk]

Thank you all for your kind words! It is nice to see there are so many interesting options.
I do not mean to offend anyone and I know I am biased, but I've had some bad experience with Soviet cameras and binoculars in the past, so I am not going to pick up another one. I realize some models are much better than others, but quality control can be hit and miss on these.
Many of your suggestions exceed my current budget and I still need to spend a lot of money on film, some filters, some outfit for my Canon F-1, etc.
One of fellow members offered his Kodak Medalist for a reasonable price and since I've always wanted a 6x9 this is the best option. I realize it is a bit bulky, but I really like the design and the sample photos I've seen are simply amazing... You can see some examples here: Dead Link Removed

 

[removed account4]

Kodak Medalist

hi sepia hawk
not sure if all the medalists were 620 film
or if there were some that were originally 120
from personal experience using 120 in a 620 camera
its a pain, or you re-spool the film on a smaller film spool
or if you are lucky the camera was converted 620>>120 by ken ruth !
they are great cameras but the 620-thing has always kept me at arms length..

have a nice trip !
john
ps. i'd 2nd the ikon's in a heartbeat.

 

[Sepia Hawk]

Hi John,
You are right, I'll have to re-spool. All Medalists were 620, but some had been modified to accept 120. One of the reasons why Medalists are so affordable is the film format...

 

[paul ron]

YUP you cant get any better for size n weight. I love these!
I just got a 9x12 AVUS... all I can say is amazingly light and WHAT A BEAUTIFUL NEGATIVE!
Now I have to find extra film holders for it.

 

[M Carter]

I wouldn't be surprised if my next camera is an Arax'd Kiev 60. Pretty interesting to me to get a new 6x7 SLR that's been gone over and upgraded, with a wide range of glass available. It'll be that or one of the Fuji RF's, but I'd prefer around a 65mm lens for my next MF. I have a quite an RB rig, but thinking of something for travel with built-in metering.

 

[Alan Gales]

Ok. This is my opinion. The first camera that comes to mind is a Mamiya 7. It's out of your budget so how about a Fuji rangefinder? The 6x7's are hard to find but the 6x8's and 6x9's are plentiful. Of course you are stuck with one lens and are they really less bulky than your C220?

I'd stick with your C220. I own a C220f. It weighs the same as my old Hasselblad 500cm. Bulk is about the same too. The lenses are a little lighter. If you want a wider lens then invest in a 55mm instead of a new camera.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you all for your kind words! It is nice to see there are so many interesting options.
I do not mean to offend anyone and I know I am biased, but I've had some bad experience with Soviet cameras and binoculars in the past, so I am not going to pick up another one. I realize some models are much better than others, but quality control can be hit and miss on these.
Many of your suggestions exceed my current budget and I still need to spend a lot of money on film, some filters, some outfit for my Canon F-1, etc.
One of fellow members offered his Kodak Medalist for a reasonable price and since I've always wanted a 6x9 this is the best option. I realize it is a bit bulky, but I really like the design and the sample photos I've seen are simply amazing... You can see some examples here: Dead Link Removed

I have owned several Kodak Medalist and still own three. They are quirky cameras for somebody not well trained in their operation. The timing of the shutter cocking, film advance and counter is all controlled by a film roller with teeth. Don't turn this roller or you will throw it out of time. Your camera will have that warning sticker on the inside near that roller. This was a professional camera made for a professional thinking mind and not some haphazard snap-shooter. I'm sure you'll be just fine with it and the results will not disappoint you if your camera is working properly. One thing I have found when using mine is that the leather tends to be slippery and makes the heavy camera hard to grip. I always keep it in its eveready case when out shooting, which helps the handholding part. Now, to the respooling part. Practice makes perfect in this department. I'd use and old roll of film to practice with and do it until I had "NO" film buckle between the backing paper and film itself. Many folks on these forums have their own technique and I have mine. You will have to try several and see what you like. Do a search and you'll get all the help you want or need. My very best advice is to respool some film and burn it before you go just to make sure you and the camera are doing things right. Nothing worse than getting home and looking at a beautiful shot of a church only to see it all distorted from a bulge/ripple in the film from improper spooling. Do everything right and you have one of the best cameras ever made and one of the best optics ever made. You will be the weakest link in the chain.