Sharpest 120 Folder?

[xya]

No, there is no slightly curved film plane. I cannot confirm this https://www.120folder.com/agfa_record_III.htm

 

[Helge]

No, there is no slightly curved film plane. I cannot confirm this https://www.120folder.com/agfa_record_III.htm

How do you test this?
Tensioning of the film in folders is primitive and complex at the same time.
It’s roll to roll, but there is the interface between the rollers and the pressure plate in the film gate.

And then there is friction with the spools agains the spool holders, which is sometimes lacking with Fuji, Lomo and Foma film, resulting in the dreaded “soft” roll with edge light leaks.

All evidence points to folders using films curvature as a spring to keep it flat enough, to a larger degree than for example a TLR. Resulting in a slightly curved plane, especially with 6x9.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I have a Perkeo II and it's marvellous https://www.120folder.com/voigtlaender_perkeo_II.htm and I don't agree with the Skopar being a bad lens...

Hmm. I have a Perkeo II. On the one hand it is a delight to use. On the other, I never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with it. My late friend Charlie Barringer (co-author of the Zeiss-Ikon Compendium) had one too and had the same experience. And my friend Eric Beltrando (owner of dioptrique.info, visit the site) says that Color-Skopars are poor tessar types.

 

[retina_restoration]

Like anything else, one can always find an example to agree with one's beliefs. But anytime something is cherry-picked like that, it ignores the elephant in the room - in this case the fact that skill and technique are far more important than this lens or that lens.

That Skopar was probably fiddled with - maybe one of the elements was installed backwards.

Nope. I serviced this camera when I got it, including disassembly and cleaning of the lens elements, and this Skopar is a 4 element tessar type design and it cannot be assembled incorrectly: each piece of glass is mounted in its own ring and there's no way to "flip" one of the elements. Voigtlander undoubtedly made many versions of the Skopar, and on this particular camera, its a very mediocre lens. At anything less than f8 it's positively unusable.

 

[darinwc]

Now I need a Perkeo just to prove you all wrong
I have both a Bessa I and II with the color skopars.

Here is one from the Bessa I. I have been very pleased with the performance of the Color Skopar. Perhaps at closer ranges, the front-element focussing causes poor performance?

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="" title="Lower Bridge"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/4424/36681455070_1b662d1e54_z.jpg" width="640" height="386" alt="Lower Bridge"/></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[JPD]

Now I need a Perkeo just to prove you all wrong
I have both a Bessa I and II with the color skopars.

Here is one from the Bessa I. I have been very pleased with the performance of the Color Skopar. Perhaps at closer ranges, the front-element focussing causes poor performance?

Very nice photo. I don't think the performance is poor at closer ranges with front cell focusing lenses. Yes, they are a compromise, with the best results at around "group photo" ranges, but stopping down the lens a bit helps a lot. And at close ranges the subjects are almost always in the center of the photo.

The engineers at Zeiss Ikon were confident enough in the front cell focusing Tessar, Novar (and Triotar on some early models) to put them on their top of the line folders, the Super Ikontas.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

No, there is no slightly curved film plane. I cannot confirm this https://www.120folder.com/agfa_record_III.htm

These cameras vary with age and condition. My wife Melanie shot some of her best early work with a Record III — had a show in LA with that series (samples attached), and won a prize from Ilford for it. Fantastic camera — she could handhold it for one-second exposures and get razor-sharp images from corner to corner. Then she left it on the roof of her car, drove off, busted it, got another and it was mediocre in all respects.

 

[JPD]

These cameras vary with age and condition. My wife Melanie shot some of her best early work with a Record III — had a show in LA with that series (samples attached), and won a prize from Ilford for it. Fantastic camera — she could handhold it for one-second exposures and get razor-sharp images from corner to corner. Then she left it on the roof of her car, drove off, busted it, got another and it was mediocre in all respects.

The second photo is like a classic "When you see it..." meme.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Now I need a Perkeo just to prove you all wrong
I have both a Bessa I and II with the color skopars.

Here is one from the Bessa I. I have been very pleased with the performance of the Color Skopar. Perhaps at closer ranges, the front-element focussing causes poor performance?

Boy, do you print dark!

I can't tell anything about image quality on my screen.

 

[Axelwik]

So, your perspective is that "there is no such thing as a poor lens"??

There can be poor examples of any lens, but that doesn't prove anything. A sample of one doesn't prove anything other than an isolated manufacturing defect or poor service. Yes, some lenses are better than others, but in the grand scheme of things it's usually operator error that makes a bigger difference.

 

[Dan Fromm]

in the grand scheme of things it's usually operator error that makes a bigger difference.

I agree with you on this. Almost. Every time I see poor image quality in one of my shots I check the gear. It almost always passes test. Operator (me) error with no room for doubt.

But and however I've had lenses that failed to pass acceptance testing. Zoom lenses that weren't parfocal. Prime lenses that were unacceptably flary or, after more testing to check for operator (me again) error, far from sharp enough.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

There can be poor examples of any lens, but that doesn't prove anything. A sample of one doesn't prove anything other than an isolated manufacturing defect or poor service. Yes, some lenses are better than others, but in the grand scheme of things it's usually operator error that makes a bigger difference.

With a folder, the lens is being moved into and out of the light path. The struts are susceptible to damage that likely moves the lens out of its intended place. With a regular camera, it is much harder to misalign the lens to the focal plane.

Twenty years ago, I searched for lenses that created visible abnormalities for use in portraiture. I found that even primitive lenses like triplets and rapid rectilinears rendered surprisingly modern images. You have to go back to meniscus lenses to start to get visibly different looks. My guess is that the Skopars on those Perkeos are fine lenses, that got a bad rap because of the camera’s rickety mount.

 

[BrianShaw]

.... I found that even primitive lenses like triplets and rapid rectilinears rendered surprisingly modern images. You have to go back to meniscus lenses to start to get visibly different looks. ...

For me this has been true with both B&W and color film.

 

[retina_restoration]

There can be poor examples of any lens, but that doesn't prove anything. A sample of one doesn't prove anything other than an isolated manufacturing defect or poor service. Yes, some lenses are better than others, but in the grand scheme of things it's usually operator error that makes a bigger difference.

What it does tell us, though, is that if someone buys one of these old folders and after rigorous, careful testing* it gives poor results, there's a good possibility that they have a bad example of that lens and need not blame themselves for the poor results. It's unhelpful to suggest that there is no such thing as a bad example of any particular lens, and that poor results are always the result of "user error".

*put the camera on a tripod, use a cable release, and stop down to a middle aperture. Use a slower film.

 

[DWThomas]

I'm too lazy to scroll back to my earlier posts, but I have a Perkeo II with Color Skopar that I have been pretty impressed with. But then if I feel the compulsion to photograph test charts, I could use my Bronica gear! (The gallery linked has examples and links to other examples. There are examples in my gallery here too.)

 

[GregY]

I only read the first 4 pages. Is anyone using a Voightlander Perkeo? I had ordered one about 6 years ago, but porch pirates got it. I've been wondering if I was missing out ever since.

I love my Perkeo II. After i got it i sold my Plaubel, It's such a perfect tiny 6x6 that travels well alongside a Leica. The Color Skopar lens is a gem. Photo @ minimum focus off the test roll & the Pll alongside the Leica.

 

[xya]

How do you test this?
Tensioning of the film in folders is primitive and complex at the same time.
It’s roll to roll, but there is the interface between the rollers and the pressure plate in the film gate.

And then there is friction with the spools agains the spool holders, which is sometimes lacking with Fuji, Lomo and Foma film, resulting in the dreaded “soft” roll with edge light leaks.

All evidence points to folders using films curvature as a spring to keep it flat enough, to a larger degree than for example a TLR. Resulting in a slightly curved plane, especially with 6x9.

That's pretty simple, put a ruler on the frame and see if it lies flat. As I understand it, there is the frame and a pressure plate pressing the film onto the frame. For a curved film plane frame and pressure plate are curved. This is not the case, the pressure plate is perfectly flat.

An example of an extremely curved film plane https://www.oddcameras.com/noblex_135.htm, but simple plastic cameras with meniskus lenses often also have one https://www.plastikcam.com/mini_style_focus_free.htm, there are more on the site.

If the film curves after leaving the film plane, that's not a curved film plane...

 

[henryvk]

With a folder, the lens is being moved into and out of the light path. The struts are susceptible to damage that likely moves the lens out of its intended place. With a regular camera, it is much harder to misalign the lens to the focal plane.

I think folders, especially 6x9, are more prone to shake and vibration from the shutter mechanism itself.

I had a pre-war Bessa 1 and I simply found it hard to handhold. It's a fairly light camera to begin with and with the shutter release on the (for me) awkward left side *and* on the door, I felt like I was always pulling the camera down and to the left when taking a shot.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think folders, especially 6x9, are more prone to shake and vibration from the shutter mechanism itself.

I had a pre-war Bessa 1 and I simply found it hard to handhold. It's a fairly light camera to begin with and with the shutter release on the (for me) awkward left side *and* on the door, I felt like I was always pulling the camera down and to the left when taking a shot.

The Agfa 6x9s do not present this problem -- their shutter release button is on the top plate. I photographed Melanie once when she was shooting a long exposure at the end of the day. That woman is a human tripod.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I think folders, especially 6x9, are more prone to shake and vibration from the shutter mechanism itself.

I had a pre-war Bessa 1 and I simply found it hard to handhold. It's a fairly light camera to begin with and with the shutter release on the (for me) awkward left side *and* on the door, I felt like I was always pulling the camera down and to the left when taking a shot.

I don't think cock-and-release shutters give me any worry about shaking the camera, unless as you say the release is badly located. Everset shutters, where you tension the shutter as you press the release, are intrinsically prone to shaking as the mech finally gives way and the shutter fires.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

All evidence points to folders using films curvature as a spring to keep it flat enough, to a larger degree than for example a TLR. Resulting in a slightly curved plane, especially with 6x9.

'All evidence' seems a bit sweeping.
..but it's true that on most roll-film cameras, not just folders, the film is free to curve a tiny bit in the narrow channel between the gate and the pressure plate. I assume the camera makers knew their business, the good ones anyhow. Some of my Ensign folders have that 'film registration device', where the cover over the red-window is combined with a lever that applies the pressure plate with extra force (you cannot wind the film while it's on). I have no evidence that it improves the pictures, but I like the unusualness of it. Ensign spent a little money patenting it, so I guess they believed in it.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I once cut my finger on a Seagull 120 folder, the edge of the door was very sharp!

In your sense, my sharpest folder is an Ensign Selfix 16-20, which has a double-exposure prevention mech, including a spike which pricks your finger if you try for a second exposure.

 

[henryvk]

The Agfa 6x9s do not present this problem -- their shutter release button is on the top plate. I photographed Melanie once when she was shooting a long exposure at the end of the day. That woman is a human tripod.

It’s the obvious place for sure and post-war Bessas have the shutter release on the top plate, right side.

I *do* have an ever-so-slight tremor so I envy people who can do long exposures like that.

The shot of the boy in the bus is amazing, it has so much atmosphere. And, given the inaccuracy and parallax error of the viewfinder, the framing alone is no small feat.

I don't think cock-and-release shutters give me any worry about shaking the camera, unless as you say the release is badly located. Everset shutters, where you tension the shutter as you press the release, are intrinsically prone to shaking as the mech finally gives way and the shutter fires.

For me, the location combined with the long pull make things awkward.

I had another 6x9 folder which was much heavier and that had a cable release mounted on the right hand side. Never had any issues with shaky-looking pictures with that one.

You never know, I guess.

 

[Axelwik]

What it does tell us, though, is that if someone buys one of these old folders and after rigorous, careful testing* it gives poor results, there's a good possibility that they have a bad example of that lens and need not blame themselves for the poor results. It's unhelpful to suggest that there is no such thing as a bad example of any particular lens, and that poor results are always the result of "user error".

*put the camera on a tripod, use a cable release, and stop down to a middle aperture. Use a slower film.

I don't think you understand what I said. One example doesn't prove a trend. A sample of one does not prove anything.

 

[Axelwik]

With a folder, the lens is being moved into and out of the light path. The struts are susceptible to damage that likely moves the lens out of its intended place. With a regular camera, it is much harder to misalign the lens to the focal plane.

Twenty years ago, I searched for lenses that created visible abnormalities for use in portraiture. I found that even primitive lenses like triplets and rapid rectilinears rendered surprisingly modern images. You have to go back to meniscus lenses to start to get visibly different looks. My guess is that the Skopars on those Perkeos are fine lenses, that got a bad rap because of the camera’s rickety mount.

Correct. Some things simply wear out or get damaged and have to be repaired or replaced.