Solinar vs. Skopar, or Billy Record II vs. Bessa I

Has anyone used both of these 6x9 cameras, or can anyone comment on

which lens is better? Does one perform better, optically or

otherwise? What differences could I expect from these cameras? Thanks.

 

Garvey

Skopar is a far better lens. The Bessa 1 is a fine camera.

I'm a huge fan of the color skopar but, in defense of the Agfa, it may have the edge as far as film flatness and lens rigidity. They're both four element tessar designs with very good reputations so, I would suggest going with the camera that's in the best shape.

Aaaah, the Bessa I; I started out with it; before messing it up... it IS a fine camera.

I have a few of each of these cameras in my collection, so I just pulled them out and checked them with a ground glass. The Solinar beats the Scopar but it could be because of lens alignment. Every Bessa I that I have had suffers from lens standard tilt. I think that this happens when the cam wears out. The front element focus Scopar is not as good a lens as the whole lens focus (as on the Bessa II).

Just expect to have to replace the bellows on the Billy Record.

As others have said, I think there are other factors that will

ultimately determine what you get on film with these old folders.

Both lenses are with the best of this type but as mentioned, they

are both front-element focus so image quality does suffer the

closer you focus.

 

Film flatness, lens alignment and play in the front standard

are the main issues to deal with. I have a Bessa I with Vaskar

(3 element lens), Moskow 5 with 4-element tessar 'Industar',

and a Agfa Billy Record II with 4-element Solinar.

 

I like the Body on the Bessa, but 3-element lens and lens alignment

problems put it on the shelf. The Moskow works ok with some help

to increase the film plate pressure, a shim to improve lens alignment,

and another issue to deal with on this one: The lens moves at the

moment the shutter triggers, leaving you with a blurred double image!

This is not due to the shutter itself, but the linkage that triggers

it. Using the self timer gets around this issue. A cable release will

work only if it plugs directly into the lens/shutter body. No such

thing on this one!

 

Given all this trouble with the Moskow 5, I finally did get a roll

of film through it that came out quite well! Some nice 11X14 prints

from Delta 400.

 

 

One other comment on the Moskow: I much prefer the smaller lighter

Bessa and Billy bodies. The Moskow is a tank in comparison.

The whole idea here with folders is small and light. Otherwise, why

put up with all the quirks using them?

 

Now for the Billy Record II...

This one came in looking fairly good on lens alignment and focus

accuracy. The lens appears to be a bit sharper than the Moskow 5.

The problem on this one again was at the film pressure plate and

film flatness issues. An examination of the 'design' here showed a

slot wide enough to drive a truck though! (120 film + paper is .018")

After a brief thoughtful repose, (in which no damage to the camera

resulted) I solved this problem by lining the pressure plate with a

Teflon tape that just happened to be very close to the required

thinkness. MUCH better film flatness and focus accuracy in the Billy

after this 'fix'! OK, now for those bellows pinholes on the Billy!

(The Billy is the only folder I have that has this problem)

 

 

It appears these cameras were designed to produce nice 4X6 prints.

 

Not to discourage you here, just a warning on what you are working

with. You will need a ground glass to check focus accuracy, a method

to check lens alignment. (carefully use of a level will work well

enough....don't be too supprised at how bad it is!)

Hopefully it will 'lock' in place consistently. ...Creativity in

dealing with film flatness problems....

 

In comparison, the lens quality is very good on these 4-element

lenses. They are at their best in the f/16-32 range. I suspect this

is mostly due to mechanical alignment rather than lens optical issues.

 

Good luck and have fun with your folder adventure!

I have a pre-war Zeiss 530/20 with an uncoated Tessar lens 1:3.8, 105mm focal length. It's 6 x 9 format. It's okay for landscape (though you'll really wreck a film or two getting the hang of cameras of this period - did I wind on?) but really comes into its own for portraits, which have a kind of glow. It's very difficult to describe and I'm sure more expert photographers here will be able to give the phenomenon a technical description.

As others have said, it often isn't the lens quality that determines the results with old folders. From my experience with a dozen or so folders, the real trick is to find a sound camera with preferrably a coated 4 element lens in excellent condition, and then have it gone through and set back to spec. I liked the teflon tape tip from of the above posters, as I have noticed the pressure plates do not seem to work that well on many of the cameras--are the current films thinner on their paper and emulsions I wonder?

 

Back to your question--either camera should be capable of excellent 16X20 prints under good shooting circumstances as long as the front standards are solid, the shutter release is smooth, and the lenses are clean and calibrated to the film plane.

 

I finally found a good solid Bessa II that was worth having Mr Umbach clean up and set back to spec, and it is the first 6X9 camera I have used where I am getting 8 sharp images on a roll regardless of the distance of the subject. By the way, this repair man (who advertises in the back of Shutterbug) actually uses a collimator to set the focus up through the lens right off the film emulsion instead of a ground glass, and the results have been very good--even images taken 3 or 4 feet away are focused where the split image said they would be. The Color Skopar is a good lens even by today's standards.