Sharpest 120 Folder?

[Helge]

I got lucky on ebay, for £30 I picked up an Agfa Isolette II with a Solinar 75mm F/3.5 on the front. Bellows are relatively new so no leaks and the focus needs a little energy but not that I would say is tough to move. It is very smooth.

I ran a test roll of very expired Lomography 400 through it and only a few prints were any use. I have a roll of XP2 in there right now.

Are you sure it’s not just the front ring rotating and not the whole front element? I had that happen once.
Probably going to get chastised for this, but try A DROP of naphta or a cotton swap dipped in naphtha held to the crack of the helicoid, to let it wick in.
More than that will get into the lens and necessitate unscrewing of the front element.
This could help get the focus looser.
Let it evaporate over 24 hours after exercising it, and see if it helped.
If there is only some improvement try again.

 

[grat]

Probably going to get chastised for this, but try A DROP of naphta or a cotton swap dipped in naphtha held to the crack of the helicoid, to let it wick in.

Not going to chastise, because it's not a horrible idea, but ponder this:

When the naptha, alcohol, lighter fluid or whatever is used, it's more than capable of knocking junk loose that's been adhering because of oil, grease, sweat, grime, etc.. The question is, when it evaporates, where does the dislocated junk go? Keep in mind, anywhere it lands, that previously might have been OK because of lubricant, is now very much, un-lubricated (well, again-- where did the lubrication go? It might get broken down by the naptha, but it certainly didn't vanish from the face of the earth, or more importantly, the insides of the mechanical contraption it used to inhabit).

So I'm not saying it should never be used-- like WD-40, Duct Tape and Vice-Grips, they all have their uses-- but you need to be aware of the possible risks, and that it's no substitute for actual, careful, service.

 

[macfred]

That’s a great couple of shots. You’re good!

Thank you, Helge!

 

[moggi1964]

Are you sure it’s not just the front ring rotating and not the whole front element? I had that happen once.
It it’s good...:
Probably going to get chastised for this, but try A DROP of naphta or a cotton swap dipped in naphtha held to the crack of the helicoid, to let it wick in.
More than that will get into the lens and necessitate unscrewing of the front element.
This could help get the focus looser.
Let it evaporate over 24 hours after exercising it, and see if it helped.
If there is only some improvement try again.

It's definitely focusing Helga but I can appreciate it would be easy to make the mistake you describe. Thanks for pointing that out.

I recently used the naptha idea on a Helios 44-2 that was so tight in focus it would unscrew from the M42 adapter I am using. It has made a big difference. I couldn't get the lens to come apart so there was nothing to lose.

 

[Helge]

Not going to chastise, because it's not a horrible idea, but ponder this:

When the naptha, alcohol, lighter fluid or whatever is used, it's more than capable of knocking junk loose that's been adhering because of oil, grease, sweat, grime, etc.. The question is, when it evaporates, where does the dislocated junk go? Keep in mind, anywhere it lands, that previously might have been OK because of lubricant, is now very much, un-lubricated (well, again-- where did the lubrication go? It might get broken down by the naptha, but it certainly didn't vanish from the face of the earth, or more importantly, the insides of the mechanical contraption it used to inhabit).

So I'm not saying it should never be used-- like WD-40, Duct Tape and Vice-Grips, they all have their uses-- but you need to be aware of the possible risks, and that it's no substitute for actual, careful, service.

Naphtha being in the refined oil family of products, I always imagined it just thinning the grease.
I don’t know about Agfas Crayon stuff, is it oil based at all, or some radioactive, asbestos, strychnine based atomic age lubricant? Anyone ever found out?
It is true that stuff will come lose in the wrong places with too much naphtha.
That’s why it’s very important to not get over enthusiastic with a little success and just put more in.

Of course the best solution is unscrewing the front element and cleaning the helicoid completely, and apply new grease. But for that you are looking at at least a couple of hours of exacting work with all the right tools and condiments.
And you need to get the element screwed into the right thread opening again, which has gone wrong for a number of people who where completely sure about their own ability to do so.
Don’t mistake a clear view for a short distance.

 

[fs999]

I would say :

#1 Plaubel Makina 67 with a Nikon lens
#2 Suzuki Opt Co. Press Van with an Asahi Takumar lens
#3 Agfa Super Isolette with a Solinar lens, a variation of the Carl Zeiss Tessar
#4 Agfa Optima 1535 Ok it's not folding but it's a rangefinder miniature of the Plaubel Makina 67 and very sharp.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Are you sure it’s not just the front ring rotating and not the whole front element? I had that happen once.

Ditto. Tore my hair out with an Agfa Solina (a Silette sold by Montgomery Wards for $14.95). "Why can't this camera focus?" - not an easy question to answer for a 10 year old. Finally realized that the front element wasn't going in or out by more than a fraction of a millimeter while my Mother's Nettar had several millimeters of travel. Her camera felt smooth as it focused, mine felt scratchy. The front ring was rigid to the front element group, but the front element group was turning in the mounting threads, in the meantime the helical was sort of budging this way and that and as a result the camera would not focus on anything.

I got hold of my Father's jewelers screwdrivers and went to work. Took a few tries to get it right. Can't remember what I used as a lube after getting the 'devil snot' out of the helical. Eventually lost all the little setscrews that held the focusing ring on - solved that with some epoxy. Thank goodness I had it dialed in at that point.

 

[Helge]

What’s the thoughts on the difference between true folders and strut erectors.
Which is the most stable and true mechanism?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

What’s the thoughts on the difference between true folders and strut erectors.

I'll bite: What is a "strut erector?" Something like the back of a Mamiya Press 23?

 

[Helge]

I'll bite: What is a "strut erector?" Something like the back of a Mamiya Press 23?

It’s a straight pullout thingy, pantograph mechanism like the Makina 67.
Some of the early ones has much play in them.
A folder that clicks into place at least gives the illusion of being absolute.
Obviously the pullout pantograph has the advantage of making unit focusing simpler (and putting a lot more “stuff” in the shutter and lens)
But is even a tenth of a millimeter of play can significantly affect ultimate sharpness full open, close up.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

[QUOTE="Helge, post: 2390852, member: 87684" ]A folder that clicks into place at least gives the illusion of being absolute. But even a tenth of a millimeter of play can significantly affect ultimate sharpness full open, close up.[/QUOTE]

The Zeiss Nettars I have are very, very rigid when opened. As to alignment, I have never experienced any focusing errors. But they don't focus close up and the lenses are rather slow - f/4.5 to f/6.8. But a good whack the to front of any camera will throw things out of alignment.

Apart from the Makina, the only other pantograph cameras that come to mind are the Vest Pocket Kodak (127 film and not much of a lens) and the Agfa Karat (35mm and decent lenses). Agfa Karat's are pretty sturdy and did come with f/2.0 lenses; I have no experience with the other two.

 

[pbromaghin]

The sharpest folder is the one that's on a tripod.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The sharpest folder is the one that's on a tripod.

Seconded.

I did some experiments taking pictures of resolution targets, hand holding an M5 Leica with a Summicron and a $15 Agfa Solina with a 'Color Apotar'. There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference in the results. When zone focusing, using a slow shutter speed and taking the picture while approaching the target, as one would do for street photography, there was no difference; it was a toss up. Now as to the corner resolution of the Agfa ... Well, as Marcy Merrill points out 'Focus is so overrated."

 

[mgb74]

The BYOB 7 does fit my 3.5E without meter, but it is a bit snug. I need to unclip the strap. There is enough room to park my Gossen Luna Pro SBC on top of the camera. Filters fit in the zippered pocket. A Leica M is another suitable occupant.

A friend sent me this little 7. Nice little padded bag. Checking online, I was surprised how expensive they are. Really, it is not sophisticated technology or sewing.

Lots of inexpensive inserts on ebay; especially if you are willing to wait for shipment from China. I like using them for storage as well. When I want to use, I plop the insert into a unpadded messenger bag. But I like having enough room in the insert for a meter and a few rolls of film.

 

[macfred]

Update: No, do not try to fit a F model in this BYOB 7 bag. The plastic meter cover will be vulnerable to any external impact. Look at how snug the focus knob is on my 3.5E 'flex without a meter.

Decades ago, the Rollei case for my former 3.5F had a rigid leather cover for the meter. When I traveled, I just chucked the camera and case in a backpack, and it was more than adequately protected. Sometimes, I wrapped it with some clothing, as well.

View attachment 266542

I ended up with another one - it does fit the 3.5F and an additional, filters and hood. It's a perfect insert for my Domke F6 https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00L8MQK3A/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

 

[macfred]

On topic again ...
My father-in-law used a

Perkeo with Vaskar 75mm f/4.5 with a stunning image quality. I did some scanning from some of his old negatives and was surprised.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@macfred, those pictures are so fun to look at, from another time. The image quality truly is quite stunning. It makes me wonder why none of the preserved folders of today -- even ones that are spec'd higher than the humble Vaskar do not look nearly as good. My guess is shutters are all about a stop slower than we think they are, so most people are taking pictures at 1/50th when they think they are using 1/125. And the rangefinders have gone out of alignment. But perhaps the lenses are better than we think they are? It really makes me question what I think I know about folders from that era.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One thing is people used to stop down and hold steady, instead of trying for razor-thin depth of field. You can hold steady at 1/25 a lot better than you can nail focus at five or six feet with a one inch DOF.

 

[moggi1964]

On topic again ...
My father-in-law used a View attachment 267950 Perkeo with Vaskar 75mm f/4.5 with a stunning image quality. I did some scanning from some of his old negatives and was surprised.

View attachment 267952 View attachment 267953 View attachment 267954

Fabulous, beautiful images very well scanned.

 

[Greg Kriss]

#3 Agfa Super Isolette with a Solinar lens, a variation of the Carl Zeiss Tessar

Have owned a couple of them over the years. If you're not going to be enlarging to over 8x10 or 10x10 you can save a good bit of money by getting one with an 85mm f/4.5 Agnar lens. Only if enlarging to 11x14 or larger will you see the difference between the Agnar and the Solinar, and you will have to look hard to see the difference. I am not familiar with the 85mm f/4.5 Apotar. Having a rangefinder (Isolette III) is nice to have but was never a deal buster for me. I've owned probably 10 of them over the years and not one of their bellows ever leaked. Focusing can become stiff from non-use but loosens up quickly. The late model production run of the Isolette III (Mark II) with its Solinar 75mm /3.5 is worth paying a premium price for, but not the ridiculous 1K plus prices that people put them up for auction at.

 

[Auer]

@macfred, those pictures are so fun to look at, from another time. The image quality truly is quite stunning. It makes me wonder why none of the preserved folders of today -- even ones that are spec'd higher than the humble Vaskar do not look nearly as good. My guess is shutters are all about a stop slower than we think they are, so most people are taking pictures at 1/50th when they think they are using 1/125. And the rangefinders have gone out of alignment. But perhaps the lenses are better than we think they are? It really makes me question what I think I know about folders from that era.

I'd guess a lot of the reasons were seeing less than optimal IQ from these folders today is simply down to operators.
A guy who uses the same folder for 10-25 years is more likely to have it down than someone who causally shoots one or two rolls a year after picking one up on eBay..

Photrio in general has very decent images taken with these folders simply because there is more interest and effort here.

The net is full of 120 film images shot in the recent two decades by bored hipsters that have less than stellar IQ.

 

[fs999]

Have owned a couple of them over the years. If you're not going to be enlarging to over 8x10 or 10x10 you can save a good bit of money by getting one with an 85mm f/4.5 Agnar lens. Only if enlarging to 11x14 or larger will you see the difference between the Agnar and the Solinar, and you will have to look hard to see the difference. I am not familiar with the 85mm f/4.5 Apotar. Having a rangefinder (Isolette III) is nice to have but was never a deal buster for me. I've owned probably 10 of them over the years and not one of their bellows ever leaked. Focusing can become stiff from non-use but loosens up quickly. The late model production run of the Isolette III (Mark II) with its Solinar 75mm /3.5 is worth paying a premium price for, but not the ridiculous 1K plus prices that people put them up for auction at.

Super Isolette was delivered only with the Solinar 75mm F3.5
As OP asked for a rangefinder, only Super Isolette has a rangefinder...

 

[xya]

there was a (non-coupled) rangefinder isolette III with various lenses, up to the solinar. a lot cheaper than the super isolette, but with the solinar you have optically the same performance.

 

[takilmaboxer]

This is AFAIK a misunderstanding. The optimal focal distance for front cell focusing is set to 40x focal length.
So for a 75mm that’s about three meters.
The problems with front cell focusing only really becomes visible at close range though. About one meter for medium format. Which corresponds with the MFD of most folders.
Closer and you use diopters.
Zeiss and others used front cell because it’s easier to make precise, small and light in a folding mechanism.

Many unit focusing folders use weird workarounds to have the coveted feature. The Certo with its sliding bed, and the Mamiya 6 with its moving pressure plate. Or as with the Konica Pearl a big optical block that has to be retracted when you fold or else the camera is borked.

The 135 Retinas has a locking mechanism to prevent folding with the optical block extended. But that would probably become too fragile with the distances spanned in a MF folder.

Rarely was unit focusing really worth it though on MF folders.
You’d have a simpler, more robust camera and most likely also actually better image quality with front cell focus.

This is not the first time that I have heard the claim that front cell focus lenses were designed for greatest sharpness at the hyperfocal point, but I have never been able to find any proof that this is true. I've been using folders since 1965 and I frequently use the red dot (hyperfocal) setting and get great results, so the point is a bit academic anyway.
The OP shouldn't forget the Mess Ikontas, which had uncoupled rangefinders; they were made in the 1950s and have beautiful coated lenses. I have a 524/16 (6X6, $200 purchase) and a 524/2 (6X9), $300 restored by Certo6). Both have Novars and both take great pictures.

 

[Helge]

This is not the first time that I have heard the claim that front cell focus lenses were designed for greatest sharpness at the hyperfocal point, but I have never been able to find any proof that this is true. I've been using folders since 1965 and I frequently use the red dot (hyperfocal) setting and get great results, so the point is a bit academic anyway.
The OP shouldn't forget the Mess Ikontas, which had uncoupled rangefinders; they were made in the 1950s and have beautiful coated lenses. I have a 524/16 (6X6, $200 purchase) and a 524/2 (6X9), $300 restored by Certo6). Both have Novars and both take great pictures.

It is my understanding, that in the same way that a lens where the focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film is easiest and cheapest to design, it also has a focus distance that it “likes” the best, that also corresponds with a multiple the focal length.

I don’t know the reason for this, or can give you the math, but that’s what I read “somewhere”.