Vintage 120 Folders: Is there still a market for them?

[4season]

I also think most of these old cameras haven't been regarded as fashionable for decades, let alone as objects of desire. Today's shoppers seem to be much more willing to take their chances with more modern marvels like Fujifilm's GA645zi: Great camera when it was new, but I was dealing with brittle plastics 20 years ago, and can't imagine they've improved with age.

 

[kingbuzzie]

I also think most of these old cameras haven't been regarded as fashionable for decades, let alone as objects of desire. Today's shoppers seem to be much more willing to take their chances with more modern marvels like Fujifilm's GA645zi: Great camera when it was new, but I was dealing with brittle plastics 20 years ago, and can't imagine they've improved with age.

My ga645 (not the zoom) is holding up great. Nothing brittle about mine at least. I will be sad when the electronics die.

 

[Ian Grant]

Folders are niche because an old folding medium format camera won't necessarily give you more detailed pictures than a 35mm film camera from this millenium. So people who use them tend to like something else about them to make up for the higher cost of film, longer time to load, more frequent film loading, higher amount of flare, problems with misalignment, inability to change focal length, etc. etc. etc. In addition there were more total 35mm cameras made, and more of them that have been stored in good shape, which makes them more affordable.

I think that medium format folders made a lot more sense in the times of grainier film of lower resolution. I do like to use mine now and then, but from a technical image quality standpoint, I can't justify them. They're good when you have a pants pocket and don't want to carry around any sort of camera bag. Or when you really want to go for a vintage look in the image.

I have to disagree, even a 6x4.4 folder will give finer grain and definition compared to a 35mm camera, provided it has a decent lens.

Personally I mainly shoot to exhibit, and predominantly use LF, 5x4 & 10x8, I used to also shoot some 35mm as well, but found that the 35mm prints just didn't work alongside despite being high quality in terms of fine grain etc. I bought a Yashicamat 124, I found that MF prints did work alongside LF, I also have 2 Rolleiflex cameras.

Now my Rolleiflex Automat MX has an Opton Tessar, the YAshicamat (now sold) as Yashinon - also a Tessar type lens.

Many of the better folding cameras mentioned in this thread are also often fitted with Tessar or type lenses, like the Skopar/Color Skopar, or in the case of my Super Ikonta 533/16 an Opton Tessar.

The only other comment I'd make is ideally personally I prefer a coated lens.

Ian

 

[loccdor]

The bellows I needed to replace were a Horseman 970, which has thinner bellows than most other cameras because they need to compress more. With folding cameras that have less extension it shouldn't be as much of an issue.

 

[loccdor]

I have to disagree, even a 6x4.4 folder will give finer grain and definition compared to a 35mm camera, provided it has a decent lens.

I'm comparing it to lenses primarily made for digital cameras, but which can be used on 35mm film, with a higher than average resolution film being used. My highest resolution folder is a Voigtlander RF 6x9 with Heliar, and even at f/16 it can't give me more detail than my Canon Elan 7E with a good 2010's lens. But it can come reasonably close.

 

[runswithsizzers]

At least in my experience, bellows have not been a big issue. A well kept camera from makers like Voigtlander and Zeiss typically have high quality leather bellows that can last very long. And like @loccdor said, you can tell when you handle it in hand. And even if there are a couple of pinholes, you can patch up with liquid black fabric paint.

The main trouble with bellows are Agfa folders and some later Kodak folders, which seem to be synthetic and degrade rather easily. So I never pay too much for those folders, unless they already have bellows replaced.

Thanks. Good to know.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm comparing it to lenses primarily made for digital cameras, but which can be used on 35mm film, with a higher than average resolution film being used. My highest resolution folder is a Voigtlander RF 6x9 with Heliar, and even at f/16 it can't give me more detail than my Canon Elan 7E with a good 2010's lens. But it can come reasonably close.

Your argument is rather like when Tech Pan was released in 35mm and people said we can make LF quality images with a 35mm camera, as an LF user you could counter that with so . . . . . . we can shoot 5x4 Tech Pan so . . . . . . ..

As soon as you say "35mm film, with a higher than average resolution film being used." that raises red flags, like Tech Pan or Micro films it's a trade-off against other qualities like tonality.

I've been there got the T-shirts, EFKE Kb14 (DIN name, later renamed Kb25 ISO_in a Pentax Spotmatic F, or Agfa AP/APX25 in an M3 and Summicron. both superb films, extremely fine grain, exceptional sharpness but normal tonality, and no special processing.

But hey, I still have some EFKE Pl25 left in 5x4, and two boxes of 10x8.

My point is you have to make a fair comparison, same film in 35mm, 120, or larger, then you can pick and choose.

Ian

 

[loccdor]

My point is you have to make a fair comparison, same film in 35mm, 120, or larger, then you can pick and choose.

You definitely can get more detailed results in medium format compared to 35mm, but in my experience folding cameras don't really deliver that when put up against recently made lenses that cover the 35mm format. These lenses are designed for digital cameras pushing near 100 megapixels. You can use the same film on the larger format if you want. They will be nice pictures but they won't have quite as much total detail. Whether that matters to you is down to preference, but it seems to be most of the reason that people step up to larger formats and carry bigger cameras around in the first place.

Medium format folders can make charming images that look like they come from another time, don't get me wrong.

 

[kingbuzzie]

You definitely can get more detailed results in medium format compared to 35mm, but in my experience folding cameras don't really deliver that when put up against recently made lenses that cover the 35mm format. These lenses are designed for digital cameras pushing near 100 megapixels. You can use the same film on the larger format if you want. They will be nice pictures but they won't have quite as much total detail. Whether that matters to you is down to preference, but it seems to be most of the reason that people step up to larger formats and carry bigger cameras around in the first place.

Medium format folders can make charming images that look like they come from another time, don't get me wrong.

So are you saying stick to cheap grainy b&w film because I'm not doing myself any favors by using the expensive stuff in a folder? I would love to step up to something larger than 120 but the expense is too great to justify. I also love my durst 606 in my tiny darkroom, so I would be relegated to scanning only.

 

[loccdor]

So are you saying stick to cheap grainy b&w film because I'm not doing myself any favors by using the expensive stuff in a folder? I would love to step up to something larger than 120 but the expense is too great to justify. I also love my durst 606 in my tiny darkroom, so I would be relegated to scanning only.

It's down to preference, but I find classic 400 speed films to have very reasonable grain in medium format, even when pushed. Kentmere 400 is my go-to for medium format.

If you use Delta 3200 on 6x9 at box speed, you get a grain similar to 400 speed in 35mm.

 

[BrianShaw]

For another perspective... I only use fine grain film in folders, Portra 160 and FP-4+ with great results... both 35mm and 120.

 

[Alan9940]

For another perspective... I only use fine grain film in folders, Portra 160 and FP-4+ with great results... both 35mm and 120.

Same here. Acros 100 or Delta 100 in my 120 folders and EFKE 25 or Delta 100 in my Kodak Retina IIa.

 

[loccdor]

I use Acros in them for long exposures, but they're typically cameras I choose when I don't want to bring along a tripod.

 

[Ian Grant]

So are you saying stick to cheap grainy b&w film because I'm not doing myself any favors by using the expensive stuff in a folder? I would love to step up to something larger than 120 but the expense is too great to justify. I also love my durst 606 in my tiny darkroom, so I would be relegated to scanning only.

I find it difficult to comprehend what he's saying, as it contradicts reality. Used carefully your Folders can outperform a 35mm camera even with modern lens.

That's from experience, Delta or Tmax 100 will give you amazing results, and you have folding cameras with excellent lenses.

Ian