Sharpest 120 Folder?

[grain elevator]

Maybe there were lots of bad repairmen in the past. My statement is based on some observations I took with a recently acquired autocollimator from a forum member. After reading this thread I have been checking my cameras for focus accuracy at infinity, using the reflection of a collimated target off real loaded film (following these instructions: https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/NatCam-Auto-Collimators.pdf) and have been blown away by just how bad most of them are. They were so bad that it made me wonder if the autocollimator's calibration was off, but I tested it with a mirror and by testing the infinity focus of a lens in my DSLR (with a known good infinity, tested by taking a picture of a building a mile away right before the test), and that combination tested near perfectly. In comparison, my TLRs and folding cameras have been stupendously bad, returning focus error at infinity of an actual focal point around 30-50m. Why haven't I noticed this before? Well, infinity is well within the hyperfocal range at 50meters/f11 and I am guilty of racking the focus all the way to infinity rather than thinking about hyperfocal range most of the time. One of the more interesting tests was that several of the lenses I sing the most praise of on this forum (Hasselblad 60mm, Mamiya TLR 80mm) "just so happen" to have the best infinity calibration, and the lenses I have often said I "got a bad copy of" (Mamiya TLR 65mm, Perkeo II color skopar) are the most out of calibration...

Where did you assume the film plane to be? Many folders and some of the simpler TLRs have a rather wide film channel and it's up for debate (or rather testing) where the film rests. My guess is that right after winding, it should rest back against the pressure plate due to curl. But after a while, or through suction when opening a folder, the film could move forward. Correct infinity focus very much depends on this issue.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Have you considered that it might be quite on purpose and that you might have “fixed” something that shouldn’t be fixed?
Have you critically checked performance at closer ranges after the infinity adjust?

I had that thought as well (that I am adjusting something out of position), but I have two reasons for thinking that I am not:

1. Modern or "pro" cameras test with their infinity position very close to true infinity. A Fuji GS645W, a Hasselblad 500C/M and my Nikon D5500 both were right on the infinity mark, so I am not off calibration.
2. I was so surprised by these results I reached out to someone who repairs cameras for a living and he confirmed that most TLRs he sees have their infinity set wrong. He speculated that this may be intentional (partly confirming your suggestion!) because the original manufacturers surreptitiously thought a little bit of backfocus would increase the depth of field and make people more happy with their cameras. The question remains, should we rectify it? He said he sets real infinity when he performs his CLAs to bring them into congruence with modern standards. I will take your suggestion to do some critical close focus work and check to make sure the focus scale is still accurate at close distances, as I agree it could change.

Where did you assume the film plane to be? Many folders and some of the simpler TLRs have a rather wide film channel and it's up for debate (or rather testing) where the film rests. My guess is that right after winding, it should rest back against the pressure plate due to curl. But after a while, or through suction when opening a folder, the film could move forward. Correct infinity focus very much depends on this issue.

Yeah this is an interesting and important concern. I tested using the reflection off film loaded in the camera, per National Camera's instructions. I think this is the best thing to do because often in folding cameras the film does not sit on the pressure plate, or on the rails but rather somewhere in between. I did test for the open/close suction problem in my Ikonta 521/16 and it caused only a very very small change in the focal plane. Probably not enough for it to ever matter. I will test for it in other cameras as I go as I have always wondered if it is really a big deal or people are just imagining that it could be a problem. It will be interesting to know if it is mostly camera-specific or across the board a non-issue.

 

[takilmaboxer]

My experience leads me to believe that the "film suction" effect is a myth. However just to be sure I have a policy that advancing the film is the last step in the photo process. That way the film is at maximum flatness.
Re: infinity focus, I have always used the two camera method as an initial setting. Then I have always run a final test by loading the film in the camera and taking a series of shots of buildings across the valley, two miles away. The first shot is with the focus ring against the infinity stop, followed by a few shots with the ring set between the stop and the last distance marker on the ring. I use f/8 because I have noticed a bit of focus shift between wide open and f/8, which disappears below f/8. Examination of the negatives under high magnification quickly shows where the real infinity point lies. With cameras that are in excellent original condition, and those I've purchased from Certo6, infinity is precisely at the infinity stop. With beaters or cameras that have been messed with by prior users, not so, and sometimes the infinity is set a bit too close so that the image at infinity actually falls behind the film. And if the center lens element is not perfectly square then infinity can be different across the film plane. These things can happen when cameras are "repaired" by users.
Finally, just because infinity is accurately set doesn't mean that the distances on the focus ring are accurate too. I run a second set of film tests with the ring set to ten feet (3 meters) and find the "real" setting for that distance and use that from then on.
These factors can account for the variability users experience in how sharp the lens appears to be. Any errors, even tiny ones, and the image is soft. And we haven't even mentioned faulty folding mechanisms in folders!

 

[Helge]

I had that thought as well (that I am adjusting something out of position), but I have two reasons for thinking that I am not:

1. Modern or "pro" cameras test with their infinity position very close to true infinity. A Fuji GS645W, a Hasselblad 500C/M and my Nikon D5500 both were right on the infinity mark, so I am not off calibration.
2. I was so surprised by these results I reached out to someone who repairs cameras for a living and he confirmed that most TLRs he sees have their infinity set wrong. He speculated that this may be intentional (partly confirming your suggestion!) because the original manufacturers surreptitiously thought a little bit of backfocus would increase the depth of field and make people more happy with their cameras. The question remains, should we rectify it? He said he sets real infinity when he performs his CLAs to bring them into congruence with modern standards. I will take your suggestion to do some critical close focus work and check to make sure the focus scale is still accurate at close distances, as I agree it could change.



Yeah this is an interesting and important concern. I tested using the reflection off film loaded in the camera, per National Camera's instructions. I think this is the best thing to do because often in folding cameras the film does not sit on the pressure plate, or on the rails but rather somewhere in between. I did test for the open/close suction problem in my Ikonta 521/16 and it caused only a very very small change in the focal plane. Probably not enough for it to ever matter. I will test for it in other cameras as I go as I have always wondered if it is really a big deal or people are just imagining that it could be a problem. It will be interesting to know if it is mostly camera-specific or across the board a non-issue.

But folders are more often than not front cell focusing. And some TLRs are too (linked gear ones and Rollei Magic for example).

Front cell focusing has as mentioned a sweet spot zone, where they work best.
It would make sense to optimize for that.

When you take infinity shots, you more likely than not stop significantly down (and use a tripod or the build in stand), which would compensate for the intentional slight “misalignment”.

Most of these cameras, at least from reputable manufacturers, where carefully bench calibrated during assembly, with shims and body to lens matching.
There is clear evidence of that, when you have taken some of these apart.
Such calibration shouldn’t shift If the camera is otherwise in good condition.

Most of these bought in the fifties had a relatively short “career”, because 135 cameras and Instamatics came in the sixties and lured many owners away from them, with promises of better economy and ease of use.
They where then put in a box, or in the back of the drawer for decades.

 

[JPD]

But folders are more often than not front cell focusing. And some TLRs are too (linked gear ones and Rollei Magic for example).

Front cell focusing has as mentioned a sweet spot zone, where they work best.
It would make sense to optimize for that.

When you take infinity shots, you more likely than not stop significantly down (and use a tripod or the build in stand), which would compensate for the intentional slight “misalignment”.

For infinity shots, like landscapes, one trick is to set the focus ring slightly in front of infinity so your focus is at 20-30 meters and then stop down to 16 so that infinity is well within the depth of field. Then the lens is closer to its sweet spot, the corner sharpness will be at its best for most triplets and Tessar-type lenses, plus that more of the foreground will be in acceptable focus.

Most of these cameras, at least from reputable manufacturers, where carefully bench calibrated during assembly, with shims and body to lens matching.
There is clear evidence of that, when you have taken some of these apart.
Such calibration shouldn’t shift If the camera is otherwise in good condition.

Yes, and you can often remove the shim and still adjust the front element so it focus at infinity, but then you have shifted the sweet spot where the corrections are at their best, so that's not recommended.

 

[Helge]

For infinity shots, like landscapes, one trick is to set the focus ring slightly in front of infinity so your focus is at 20-30 meters and then stop down to 16 so that infinity is well within the depth of field. Then the lens is closer to its sweet spot, the corner sharpness will be at its best for most triplets and Tessar-type lenses, plus that more of the foreground will be in acceptable focus.



Yes, and you can often remove the shim and still adjust the front element so it focus at infinity, but then you have shifted the sweet spot where the corrections are at their best, so that's not recommended.

Exactly what I do. Halfway between 15m and infinity and f16 or higher does the job perfectly for a catch-all.
At night you might run into exposures of many minutes though.
A folder is deceptively simple. A lot of tacit knowledge went into these small wonders.
Don't assume you know better than the original designers, or can do a better job than a person who assembled thousands in the fifties.

 

[Helge]

By the by, the above is also a reason not to trust build in rangefinders and especially coupled ones.
The rangefinder might be reasonably precise in itself (or not), but the lens and coupling will most likely not be. And never can be.

This will only really be a problem close up, at full open aperture. But that is exactly where you need the rangfinder the most.
Beyond two meters it is not hard at all to judge distances accurately enough.

So don't shoot non closed down, close up, with a folder and expect a sharp result of a single precise subject.
Close down and bring an off camera flash and/or tripod.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

By the by, the above is also a reason not to trust build in rangefinders and especially coupled ones.
The rangefinder might be reasonably precise in itself (or not), but the lens and coupling will most likely not be. And never can be.

This will only really be a problem close up, at full open aperture. But that is exactly where you need the rangfinder the most.
Beyond two meters it is not hard at all to judge distances accurately enough.

So don't shoot non closed down, close up, with a folder and expect a sharp result of a single precise subject.
Close down and bring an off camera flash and/or tripod.

Maybe we should all just shoot pinhole cameras instead and have less to worry about

Seriously though, I think your advice is very good advice for how to get the sharpest pictures out of any folding camera. But that's not the question of this thread, the question of this thread is which folding camera is the sharpest. And of course, lens quality differences tend to only present themselves at wide apertures which one might use in low light, or at a close range...when a rangefinder would be used! So if your answer to the question "what is the sharpest 120 folder" is "none can be used for anything but long range stopped down shots" then the answer really is that there is no sharp 120 folder.

 

[Helge]

Maybe we should all just shoot pinhole cameras instead and have less to worry about

Seriously though, I think your advice is very good advice for how to get the sharpest pictures out of any folding camera. But that's not the question of this thread, the question of this thread is which folding camera is the sharpest. And of course, lens quality differences tend to only present themselves at wide apertures which one might use in low light, or at a close range...when a rangefinder would be used! So if your answer to the question "what is the sharpest 120 folder" is "none can be used for anything but long range stopped down shots" then the answer really is that there is no sharp 120 folder.

Not at all.
I’d say though, that if you think build-in coupled rangefinder and unit focusing lens per se, is necessary ingredients in a sharp folder, then you are mistaken.
And might I say, you don’t have much experience with actually shooting folders.

You should look for folders that has had a leisurely life. A folder that has not been “worked” on.
And a folder from the fifties with coating and the last generation of lenses.

Super Isolettes are good, sure! But scarce and expensive. Often you’ll have to pluck a lemon and send it off for service, for at least the price you payed for it.
It’s not 10x better than a Nettar 4.5.
In fact stopped down to f16 and probably even f8. I’d say you’ll have a very hard time telling the difference.
The Solinar on the Super is not perfect either.
It’s not better than the Tessars and clones in the sweet spot @ max aperture. It’s just as soft at the edges.

In fact I’d say the regular front cell Solinar is probably the best Tessar you can find, because there are so many of them and you can hunt down the perfect specimen.
And then send it off for service of bellows and helical.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I've had to replace bellows on two GS645 bodies. In each case I tested the outcome by placing the camera on a heavy tripod and shooting a freeway bridge made up of steel lattice from about a half mile away.; In both cases, the detailing of that lattice at about 40x was as clear as the film grain would allow. The fixed 75mm lens in the GS645 is shockingly sharp. Considering that the nature of the camera would dictate use without tripod, the lens is probably better than Fuji needed to use.

 

[wjlapier]

I've had to replace bellows on two GS645...The fixed 75mm lens in the GS645...the lens is probably better than Fuji needed to use.

Ain’t that the truth.

Sharpest lens in a folder I’ve used with the Perkeo II a very close second.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ain’t that the truth.

Sharpest lens in a folder I’ve used with the Perkeo II a very close second.

The perkeo II is a great mystery to me. The last time this thread came up, there were several people who said theirs was among their best cameras, and several who said it was among their worst. I have one in nice condition, and the only good picture I ever took with it was at f11 (though, it is among my favorite pictures I've taken: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132764966@N03/31636716768/in/dateposted-public/)

I finally took mine apart to clean the shutter and re-calibrate focus a few months ago, so I am curious to see how it will perform in the future without a slow shutter and missing infinity.

 

[wjlapier]

Re: Perkeo II--I need to get my counter fixed. I can fiddle with the little lever on the back and get the counter to go back to the beginning but it would be nice to not have to do that anymore.

One I like:

 

[neonthunderbird]

I also have a Balda Super Baldax folder which is a little on the heavy side, but not as much as the Certo. View attachment 266321

Looks very nice and sharp! Which lens do you have on your Balda? I have one with the Tessar style Ennit 80mm f/2.8. Very sharp in the center, but I've found it can be quite soft towards the edges, even stopped down a bit. Wondering if one of the triplet options might not be sharper or if variation between cameras is the greater factor. Still takes great pictures and I love everything about the camera other than the soft corners.

 

[Chrismat]

The lens on my Balda is a Schneider-Kreuznach 80mm 2.9.

 

[richyd]

My first folder was a Super Balda with the Ennit, tessar type lens. Sharp. But the sharpest I have is a Franka Solida, front cell focusing with a Xenar. Those Xenars are outstanding and the image quality is extraordinary from such a simple camera and matched that of an Agfa Super Isolette.

 

[gone]

The sharpest folder in my experience was a Retina !a w/ a silver nose Kodak Ektar 50 3.5 lens. That thing was almost too sharp. The Xenars were my favorite lens on the tiny Retina cameras. Not as clinically sharp as the Ektar, but excellent IQ. More like a Leica lens of that period.

For MF folders, the sharpest and best folder lens was on an ancient scale focus Voigtlander 6x9 camera w/ an uncoated Heliar and a neat folding wire viewfinder. It made negatives that were sharp and had more of a 3-D look. I never should have sold that camera. They're very hard to find these nowadays w/ that lens/camera combination.

 

[Radost]

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

Funny. The leaf shutter on a metal body. Back in the 50sthe acceptable handheld shutter speed for a folder was 15.

 

[lobitar]

The sharpest folder in my experience was a Retina !a w/ a silver nose Kodak Ektar 50 3.5 lens. That thing was almost too sharp. The Xenars were my favorite lens on the tiny Retina cameras. Not as clinically sharp as the Ektar, but excellent IQ. More like a Leica lens of that period.

For MF folders, the sharpest and best folder lens was on an ancient scale focus Voigtlander 6x9 camera w/ an uncoated Heliar and a neat folding wire viewfinder. It made negatives that were sharp and had more of a 3-D look. I never should have sold that camera. They're very hard to find these nowadays w/ that lens/camera combination.

Agree to what you said abt. the Voigtlander 6x9, except mine has an uncoated Skopar lens, and I didn't sell it!

 

[henryvk]

I also have the pre-war Voigtländer Bessa with Skopar but I feel like it's prone to shake. Or it's my slight tremor...

My other folder is a much heavier Rodenstock 6x9 and I shoot it handheld with much more confidence. Maybe using the wire release also cuts down on shake. I've used it with a (light) tripod and I can't tell a difference between that and shooting 1/50 or 1/100 handheld.

 

[Radost]

Breath out and hold before you shoot. Like with a sniper riffle.

 

[henryvk]

I read somewhere that people back in the day held their folders upside down, back pressed against the forehead, in order to stabilise them. I'm not sure whether that was a joke or real advice.

 

[wiltw]

This objective measurement test very recently conducted and posted to the web. https://www.arnecroell.com/mf-lenstest.pdf

1. The best folder optic appears to be КМЗ Искра (KMZ Iskra) Индустар-58 (Industar-58) 75mm f/3.5
2. The next best appears to be Olympus Six RIIa D. Zuiko F.C. 75mm f/3.5
3. And if you could tolerate always stopping down to f/8 or f/11 in order to get best lens performance:Shanghai Camera Seagull 203 S-111-02 75mm f/3.5

And the best lens at wide open aperture is Olympus Six RIIa D. Zuiko F.C. 75mm f/3.5

The TLR lenses outdo the folders.
Mamiya 6x7 lens assortment outdoes them all.

 

[cliveh]

Breath out and hold before you shoot. Like with a sniper riffle.

No, breath in and squeeze the shutter.

 

[wiltw]

No, breath in and squeeze the shutter.

Rifle marksmanship techniques regarding breath...

One technique teaches:

"Control Your Breathing: Your breathing can move the firearm just enough to throw off your shot. These tips will help you to adopt the correct technique more easily.

• When you’re ready to shoot, draw a deep breath and exhale about half of it.
• Hold your breath as you squeeze the trigger.
• Bear in mind that if you hold your breath too long, your heart beats faster, which increases your pulse and causes the firearm to move. If you notice this happening, take another breath and start over."

An Army markmanship training methods manual...

Teaches to press the trigger at the respiratory pause during end expiration

• "When it comes time to take the shot, the sniper will "fire on a respiratory pause," Capt. Greg Elgort, the company commander at the sniper school at Fort Benning, explained to BI. "He is naturally going to stop breathing before he pulls the trigger."

A British Master Sniper...

Teaches to press the trigger at the respiratory pause during end expiration with emphasis not to hold breath for too long​