Smallest Medium Format Rig

[DWThomas]

Would be awesome if there was a digital back with a large high resolution sensor for these Perkeo IIs.

Sounds kinda silly to me -- I have a Canon G15 and an EOS M5 when I want to electrocute bits! A digital back on a folder seems like unnecessary complications for my taste.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

The Perkeo II is about the smallest 6x6 folder there is, at least amongst those listed on the 120folder.com site (not an exhaustive list, but a long one). It’s also among the lightest, weighing less than all except the Foitzik Foinix, Lomo LC-A 120, and Bessa 66. Actually, the Perkeo II weighs less than any of the 6x4.5 folders listed. Its Synchro-Compur has a wider range of shutter speeds than those three, and some other features I like a lot (frame counter and lock so you only need to use the red window for the first frame, double-exposure lock). It fits in a pocket and I carry it in a small chest pack under my parka when I’m skiing.

Like DWThomas, I also use an Ercona II. It’s significantly bigger and heavier so doesn't come close to being the lightest-weight MF folder. But with the 6x6 insert it's a 6x6 with a 105mm lens, which is sometimes a nice thing, and doesn’t use film any faster than the Perkeo. The challenge is finding the insert.

Having used both, I prefer the size of the Perkeo for skiing, but carry the Ercona when walking around. The Perkeo is truly small.

 

[Cholentpot]

Does 127 count as medium format? If so those things are tiny.

 

[eli griggs]

Does 127 count as medium format? If so those things are tiny.

Yes, 4cm x 4 cm is medium format, and it's 127 roll film was for many years the most popular type, until 135 overtook it.

I suspect that if you attended an open air camera fair, you could not throw a brick in any random direction and not find a 127/4cm x 4cm camera on the walk to pick it back up, except, perhaps, in the digital ghetto, where you must have a memory card to gain access to.

 

[freecitizen]

I'm with Steve .... Perkeo II. It does truly " fit in a pocket " and the color skopar lens is an excellent tessar design.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, 4cm x 4 cm is medium format, and it's 127 roll film was for many years the most popular type, until 135 overtook it.

I suspect that if you attended an open air camera fair, you could not throw a brick in any random direction and not find a 127/4cm x 4cm camera on the walk to pick it back up, except, perhaps, in the digital ghetto, where you must have a memory card to gain access to.

Right. So help me find the smallest 4x4 127 camera? I love the format, been looking for a tiny brownie for some time. Right now I'm shooting on the Ricoh 44 and Yashica 44. They're really small compared to a Rollieflex and almost as small as some of the 120 folders I've seen on this thread. I find it a fun format that can get some great results.

 

[blee1996]

The smallest 4x4 camera I ever used was the Adox Adoxette, which is even smaller than the petite 35mm camera Lomo LC-A. And the triplet lens can produce decent results. But it does have its operational challenges of being a top loader.

 

[Donald Qualls]

4cm x 4 cm is medium format, and it's 127 roll film was for many years the most popular type, until 135 overtook it.

Well, not to quibble, but when these terms were initiated, 120 and its close relatives were medium format, but 127 and 129 were "small format" while 35 mm was "miniature" (with "subminiature" meaning anything narrower than 35 mm or smaller than the Leica/Kodak "double" frame). I've also never seen a 4x4 folder; I have some tiny cameras in 4x6.5 and 4x3 (a Zeiss Baby Ikonta or Nagel Vollenda is comparable in size to a Minox 35 and a full frame Vest Pocket Kodak barely bigger), but they aren't properly medium format.

I think the smallest true medium format cameras would be one of the 6x4.5 folders like the Daiichi Zenobia or Konica Pearl line.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, not to quibble, but when these terms were initiated, 120 and its close relatives were medium format, but 127 and 129 were "small format" while 35 mm was "miniature" (with "subminiature" meaning anything narrower than 35 mm or smaller than the Leica/Kodak "double" frame). I've also never seen a 4x4 folder; I have some tiny cameras in 4x6.5 and 4x3 (a Zeiss Baby Ikonta or Nagel Vollenda is comparable in size to a Minox 35 and a full frame Vest Pocket Kodak barely bigger), but they aren't properly medium format.

I think the smallest true medium format cameras would be one of the 6x4.5 folders like the Daiichi Zenobia or Konica Pearl line.

I guess that terms evolve. 35mm is now full frame. 120 is medium and 4x5 is large. 4x5 used to be standard with everything else being small format.

The smallest 4x4 camera I ever used was the Adox Adoxette, which is even smaller than the petite 35mm camera Lomo LC-A. And the triplet lens can produce decent results. But it does have its operational challenges of being a top loader.

I don't think one of these is going to pop up in the wild for me. Interesting camera though.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Baby Ikontas and Vollendas are out there. If you don't mind a slow triplet in a 2-speed + B shutter, you can still find a Zeiss 4x3 for around $100 (a faster Tessar in a better shutter will cost more, of course) with working shutter and good (or pretty good) bellows. There are overlaps if you recut 120 and use the 120 backing, but if you pay for proper 127, they work perfectly fine.

 

[blee1996]

I would rather have a smallish camera using 120 all day, instead of an even smaller 127 camera (too much fiddle with film).

I'm using a Mamiya Six Automat 6x6 folder, as well as a Franka Rolfix (super light/compact 6x9 folder with 6x6 mask). Neither are the smallest, but small enough for everyday carry.

 

[xya]

You have some nice shots from the Pereko ii. Is it that smallest MF folder there is?

AFAIK it's the smallest 6x6, but not a rangefinder. A nice camera indeed.

The Pearl III is (again AFAIK) the smallest rangefinder. There are smaller 6x4.5 folders, but they are no rangefinders.

I'm the owner of 120folder.com. Thanks for your appriciation...

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'm the owner of 120folder.com. Thanks for your appriciation.

I have used your site more than a few times -- thank you for making it available to us. I still get a giggle that you've listed the Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 on the site. I have one with the original finder. If only it did not vignette significantly, I would have shot it to death.

 

[Cholentpot]

I would rather have a smallish camera using 120 all day, instead of an even smaller 127 camera (too much fiddle with film).

I'm using a Mamiya Six Automat 6x6 folder, as well as a Franka Rolfix (super light/compact 6x9 folder with 6x6 mask). Neither are the smallest, but small enough for everyday carry.

You're right about how fiddly the film is. It can be a pain.

 

[xya]

I have used your site more than a few times -- thank you for making it available to us. I still get a giggle that you've listed the Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide 100 on the site. I have one with the original finder. If only it did not vignette significantly, I would have shot it to death.

Did you ever use a center filter with it? That makes an enormous difference. You won't see any vignetting anymore. It's really a different camera. Center filters are expensive, but they are worth every $. Excuse me if I'm reponsible for the death of your camera...

I did not have a center filter for the 1:8 Super Angulon. But as I have a filter for my three 1:5.6 Super Angulons on different cameras (Yes, I adore wide angles), I adapted this filter to the Plaubel Brooks. That's why there was the enourmous step-up ring on mine, with 2 step-downs to the 52mm of my filter it sat in the right place.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Did you ever use a center filter with it? That makes an enormous difference. You won't see any vignetting anymore. It's really a different camera. Center filters are expensive, but they are worth every $. Excuse me if I'm reponsible for the death of your camera...

I did not have a center filter for the 1:8 Super Angulon. But as I have a filter for my three 1:5.6 Super Angulons on different cameras (Yes, I adore wide angles), I adapted this filter to the Plaubel Brooks. That's why there was the enourmous step-up ring on mine, with 2 step-downs to the 52mm of my filter it sat in the right place.

I tried to locate one years ago and had no luck. Can you recommend one? I've found that when I'm working toward a digital negative for a kallitype, I can usually rebalance the exposure in Affinity Photo (I refuse to feed the Adobe subscription machine) and get a reasonably good result. But obviously it would be better and easier to get it right on the original negative in the first instance.

 

[eli griggs]

Right. So help me find the smallest 4x4 127 camera? I love the format, been looking for a tiny brownie for some time. Right now I'm shooting on the Ricoh 44 and Yashica 44. They're really small compared to a Rollieflex and almost as small as some of the 120 folders I've seen on this thread. I find it a fun format that can get some great results.

My dedicated 4"x4" TLR is the Sawyers Primo Jr., which can fit into my coat pockets nicely, but this is about folders and, off hand, I don't know if I have a semi-modern, (1930's, forward) but I'll guess there were Kodak, Zeiss, models, plus a slew of others.

 

[lxdude]

when these terms were initiated, 120 and its close relatives were medium format, but 127 and 129 were "small format" while 35 mm was "miniature" (with "subminiature" meaning anything narrower than 35 mm or smaller than the Leica/Kodak "double" frame).

Yep. Modern Photography magazine originally was dedicated to the 35mm format and was named Minicam, then renamed to Minicam Photography, and later, to Modern Photography.

 

[xya]

I tried to locate one years ago and had no luck. Can you recommend one? I've found that when I'm working toward a digital negative for a kallitype, I can usually rebalance the exposure in Affinity Photo (I refuse to feed the Adobe subscription machine) and get a reasonably good result. But obviously it would be better and easier to get it right on the original negative in the first instance.

I have a center filter for the 5.6 47mm Super Angolon which is 52mm. I do not have the Veriwide any more. I remember that I had a 58mm step up on the Veriwide and used 2 step downs to get the filter further away. It was a bit of hit and miss in the first go, but it worked. I think that any center filter for a similar lens with 47mm focal will at least be a great help, maybe not a perfect one.

But let us not spoil this thread...

 

[Cholentpot]

My dedicated 4"x4" TLR is the Sawyers Primo Jr., which can fit into my coat pockets nicely, but this is about folders and, off hand, I don't know if I have a semi-modern, (1930's, forward) but I'll guess there were Kodak, Zeiss, models, plus a slew of others.

Sawyers is on my hunting list. It's amazing how tiny 127 TLRs are.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My understanding was, that 127 came out so that more surface can be fitted in 35 mm projectors.

I very much don't think that's the case. First, 127 is 46 mm wide, so it won't even fit in motion picture projectors built for 35 mm; second, it's only a coincidence that a 4x4 frame will still fit the 2x2 inch mounts used for 35 mm slides -- since 4x4 didn't exist until the 1950s.

 

[eli griggs]

I very much don't think that's the case. First, 127 is 46 mm wide, so it won't even fit in motion picture projectors built for 35 mm; second, it's only a coincidence that a 4x4 frame will still fit the 2x2 inch mounts used for 35 mm slides -- since 4x4 didn't exist until the 1950s.

127 (4x4cm) roll film was first put out by Kodak in 1912 and was very popular in many maker's cameras.

The 4x4cm "super slide" should fit into dedicated slide mounts and normal 35mm projectors, IIRC.

Cheers to All.

 

[Donald Qualls]

127 (4x4cm) roll film was first put out by Kodak in 1912 and was very popular in many maker's cameras.

The 4x4cm "super slide" should fit into dedicated slide mounts and normal 35mm projectors, IIRC.

Cheers to All.

The 4x4 frame on 127, however, wasn't introduced until after WWII -- around 1952, as I recall. Up through the 1940s, 127 cameras came in full frame (8 on a roll, 4x6.5 cm) and half frame (16 on, 4x3ish) -- and the backing paper didn't have a framing track for 4x4 until cameras were designed for that frame.

 

[loccdor]

I have two 6x9 Voigtlander Bessas. They fit in the pocket of my shorts. Normal shorts, not cargo shorts or anything. I took one of them to the Mediterranean and liked that I could be out-and-about with it, not being burdened by any sort of camera bag. The downside is that when you do want to pull it out to use it, there is the initial delay of getting it unfolded, focused, shutter cocked - which my 35mms do not have. So while it was a "take anywhere" camera, it was also a "take your time" camera. Not necessarily a bad thing, depends what you are doing. It is also a nice camera to take when you are hiking.

For me the point of a folder is about fitting it in your pocket, so sooner than switch to 6x4.5, I would try to buy a bigger pocket.

 

[Donald Qualls]

sooner than switch to 6x4.5, I would try to buy a bigger pocket.

I won't argue. I've got a couple 6x9 folders that will fit in a suit coat pocket (or would, last time I wore a suit). Their other advantage is that the huge (for roll film) negative makes it easy to use faster films to increase DOF and minimize motion blur, because grain shows less, even with "3200" films.