Thinnest folder?

[c.w.]

Are there any folders that are less than 1 1/2 inches (about 4cm) thick? I was thinking about keeping one with me at work, but the cubby i can keep it in is fairly thin. I was hoping an old 6x9 would fit - i don't think i'd need a rangefinder or meter or such, so hopefully i can keep the budget fairly low.

Thanks!

 

[Ian Grant]

KW Etui, 6x9 or 9x12, I have 2 9x12's and with a roll film back . . .

The 9x12 is next to Crown Graphic and a 645 Ikonta 521 I think. The 6x9 is even smaller, well worth looking for but can occasionally be pricey. Remember the 9x12 is only a touch smaller than 5"x4" and look at the enormous size difference . . . . .

Ian

 

[pschauss]

My Super Ikonta 530 A is about 1 1/8" thick. I believe that my Moskva 2 is about the same.

 

[Ian Grant]

My Super Ikonta 530 A is about 1 1/8" thick. I believe that my Moskva 2 is about the same.

Should be they stole the Zeiss tooling

Just corrected, the Ikonta's a 521, the Etui is about 2mm thicker despite being 4 x the film area.

I don't know how much smaller the 6x9 version is, but it will be. There are at least or 3 owners on APUG

Ian

 

[fotch]

I think my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B 533/16 is about that. Will have to measure when I get the time.

 

[DWThomas]

I have a Perkeo II (6x6 format) that's a little over 1 5/8 inches at the thickest (the bumped-out door for lens and bellows) but less than 1 1/4 inches otherwise. They made it about as tight as they could, you can't close it up with a filter in place.

DaveT

 

[sanking]

My Voigtlander Bessa II, 6X9cm with 105mm lens, is 1 3/4" thick.

Sandy King

 

[BetterSense]

I just measured my Isolette II and it's exactly 1.5 inches at the thick part where it folds. The rest is thinner.

 

[ntenny]

KW Etui[...] The 6x9 is even smaller, well worth looking for but can occasionally be pricey.

It may be of interest to note that there's one on eBay at this moment at quite a reasonable price. (I hesitate to post a link, but if you search for "etui" it should come right up.)

I just measured my Wirgin folder (I think it's an Auta) and it's a tad over 1.25" thick; my early Bessa is just about 1.325". Admittedly I'm using my son's toy tape measure for these numbers, so don't take them too seriously; but both cameras are definitely under 1.5". They're fairly typical of prewar German 6x9 folders, I think.

-NT

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Certo Dolly Super Sport with a f/2.8 75mm Zeiss lens is 1 5/8" thick. It is 6x6 or 645. It came with the mask for 645 and the viewfinder/rangefinder has an adjustment for the fov for both sizes.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

My experience is that smaller, thinner lighter isn't always better, the more mass the easier to use hand held. I have a few 9x12 camera's and while the Etui has major advantages in terms of size & weight it's harder to hold steady.

It was the size & lack of mass that made the Disc camera and 110 so useless, and luckily also hammers low end digital

Sandy King's got a lot of experience with using these camera's and I think a camera like his Bessa II is the bets option, unless you can afford a new one

Ian

 

[c.w.]

OK so far there's the:

KW Etui
Ikonta (bunch of models)
Moskva 2
Perkeo II (i might be able to sneak another 1/8th if i bow the cubbie lid)
Isolette II
Wirgin Auta
Bessa (early one)
Certo Dolly Super Sport (assuming it's like the Perkeo)

Sandy King's got a lot of experience with using these camera's and I think a camera like his Bessa II is the bets option, unless you can afford a new one

While i'd love to get a Bessa II, there's problems with using it at work like i'm planning. It probably won't fit the one place i can put it, it's going to take a lot of abuse in the form of vibration and general bouncing around, and it's expensive enough that when something happens to it it won't be so easy to just write off.

The Etui looks cool, but i don't think sheet film will work out too well at work. If i say 6x9 only, that leaves the Ikonta, Moskva, and Wirgin. (Not that i ONLY want 6x9, i just have a sweet spot for the format.)

The Moskvas look nice to me because they're not terribly expensive (even for the later version with the rangefinder) from what i can see on eBay (although if someone on APUG has one i'd much rather buy from them) and have enough features that i can play around with - the only thing is i'm not terribly sure about is the quality of the lens.

 

[Mark Antony]

I have a Bessa I with a Vaskar (3 Element) lens
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/07/voigtlander-bessa-1-folding-camera.html
It's dimensions are 34mm deep (1.5") 92mm high (3.75") and 150mm wide (6.25") that is when folded. It cost me about $30 your money.
I can't see why a Bessa II would be considered too expensive, one with a Skopar (about £200 here) should be no more than a Super Ikonta of the same vintage sure the Heliar version is a bit much, a Bessa 3 is a different matter....
Mark

 

[sanking]

I have a Bessa I with a Vaskar (3 Element) lens
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2009/07/voigtlander-bessa-1-folding-camera.html
It's dimensions are 34mm deep (1.5") 92mm high (3.75") and 150mm wide (6.25") that is when folded. It cost me about $30 your money.
I can't see why a Bessa II would be considered too expensive, one with a Skopar (about £200 here) should be no more than a Super Ikonta of the same vintage sure the Heliar version is a bit much, a Bessa 3 is a different matter....
Mark

Based on my experience I think the Bessa II should cost more because it is a better performer. I have compared several Super Ikonta Cs with a couple of Bessa IIs, and the Bessas were better in terms of sharpness. Perhaps my experience is different from that of others, but it is what it is. One significant difference is that the Bessa II focuses by moving the entire lens, as with a view camera. The Super Ikonta C focuses by moving only the front element. I believe the former is a better system.

However, because of film flatness issues none of the old folders measure up to a modern 6X9cm camera like the various Fuji 690 models, especially at the wider apertures. But if you stop down the lens of the Bessa II to f/11 or f16 and use it on a tripod you might be surprised with the performance.

Sandy King

 

[c.w.]

I'm basically trying to keep it around or below 50 USD because between the dust, vibration and general torture it will take, i'm almost sure it'll break between 6 and 18 months from whenever i start using it as planned.

 

[sanking]

I'm basically trying to keep it around or below 50 USD because between the dust, vibration and general torture it will take, i'm almost sure it'll break between 6 and 18 months from whenever i start using it as planned.

If $50 USD is your limit, 6X9 folders like the Bessa II and Super Ikonta C are out of the question. These models, in VG condition, generally sell for $500 USD and up. Look for older Bessa I models, or even some of the Mockba-3/4/5 re-incarnations of the Super Ikonta C. Some of the Russian models are almost as good as the original, and often available for around $100 USD.

Sandy

 

[Dave Pritchard]

Try a Foldex 20. Thickness is 1.375" (1 3/8"). Negative size is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4". They're cheap (no Zeiss lens). No meter. No focus problems.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/pdf_files/foldex_20.pdf

 

[elekm]

Some of Kodak's early 620 folders were thin, specifically the Kodak/Nagel Vollenda 620 (6x9 version).

 

[ntenny]

Try a Foldex 20. Thickness is 1.375" (1 3/8"). Negative size is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4". They're cheap (no Zeiss lens). No meter. No focus problems.

Um...I have one and love it, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it for anything resembling serious use. Fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed, fixed focus, and a meniscus lens that may well be made of expired lunchmeat...On the plus side, the build quality is fantastic!

A 6x9 Nettar would be worth looking at; they tend to vignette, but with that proviso, the Novar lenses are usually pretty good (as compared to other triplets, which in the US$50 price range is what you're going to get). I don't have one to measure; my 6x6 Nettar is about 1 5/8" thick, but that's because of the bulging "barn door", and I think the 6x9 models fold up flush.

-NT

 

[nsurit]

http://www.shopgoodwill.com/auctions/AGFA-Ansco-Readyset-Special-Folding-Camera-w-Box-5174728.html

Probably under $50. Bill Barber

 

[salihonba]

How about this? wide angle 6x9 in pocket.
http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/search/label/WA 6x9 folders

 

[Ian Grant]

Some of Kodak's early 620 folders were thin, specifically the Kodak/Nagel Vollenda 620 (6x9 version).

Yes but you have the problem that film's discontinued, & you need to respool 120.

Ian

 

[c.w.]

Some of Kodak's early 620 folders were thin, specifically the Kodak/Nagel Vollenda 620 (6x9 version).

Yes but you have the problem that film's discontinued, & you need to respool 120.

Actually, after looking around a bit i'm sort of considering getting a Kodak Tourist since they seem to go for very little and hacking on it a bit so 120 fits. From what i can find on flickr the lens is fairly good, especially the f4.5 versions, and they've pretty much got all the features that i really want(actual shutter speeds, apertures, and a focus scale in a real unit).

Granted, i have no idea how hard a job it would be to get 120 working in the thing, or if they're even all that good. They are cheap though.

 

[elekm]

Yes but you have the problem that film's discontinued, & you need to respool 120.

Ian

Exactly -- respooling is a necessary pain. But they are among the thinnest folding cameras. The only ones that are thinner, I think are some of the VP 127 folders.

 

[Toffle]

I just got a lovely Kodak Six-16 (Dakar No. 1) with a 128mm 6.3 lens. I think this was called the "Senior" Six-16. Not the thinnest, but nice and compact at 1.5 in. I'm not sure if I could respool 120 for this format or not, so for now I've got it all buffed up and gleaming on a shelf taunting me.

Cheers,