Recommend small(ish) 120 film camera?

[richard_oleson]

Nearly all of your practical options will be either folders or TLRs, as you've noticed from the above posts. The Medalist, by the way, is hardly small - your Yashica TLR is lighter and at least as compact.

 

Here are some possibilities, some of which may have been mentioned already:

 

Among TLRs, the Argoflex is noticeably smaller than your Yashica, and it might be worth a look. Main drawbacks are a limited shutter (10-200) and a very dim finder. Lubitel and Voigtlander Focusing Brilliant are also similar.

 

The winner of the performance vs size contest has to be the Super Ikonta A. Sharp Tessar lens, Compur shutter, and a decent coupled rangefinder. Not good for quick grab shots, and you'll have to accept pretty bad cosmetics to get the price down out of the clouds, but I got a good user for under $100. Coated lenses are not necessary, especially if you shoot in black & white... in Super Ikontas there is a huge price penalty for postwar examples with coated lenses.

 

There is also one SLR that's compact, and it's also pretty cheap - the Kalimar Reflex is about the size and shape of a TLR but not quite as tall. It's not the most reliable thing in the world though, so don't depend on it to shoot a wedding.....

 

:)=

[mskovacs]

Richard is correct. I have a beaten Super Ikonta 530 with an uncoated Tessar and its smaller than my 35mm SLR.

 

Even slimmer yet is the Ikonta 520 - subtract the rangefinder mechanism. Also good are the Daichi Zenobia copies of the Ikonta 520. Affordable and very crisp, coated Hespar (Tessar copy) lenses.

[peter_naylor1]

Hi, Arfur I seem to recall that you mentioned the magic word "quid" somewhere in a previous post, so on the presumption that you're in the UK, why not consider one of the the later-type Agilux Agifolds? These have an uncoupled RF and although the f4.5 Agilux Anastigmat is only a triplet, it's not a bad performer. They don't usually go for a fortune, either.

 

My other recommendation would be for the AGFA Isolette 111, preferably with f3.5 Solinar and Synchro-Compur but they don't usually come cheap. However, the non-RF Isolette 11 can sometimes be found with the Solinar lens and doesn't usually fetch a huge price. With the savings compared to the Isolette 111's price, you could get yourself an accessory RF and still have $$$'s in hand. ~~PN~~

[mark_wilson4]

I'm going to be a bit tongue-in-cheek here...but half-seriously:

 

The Welta Perfekta is a folding Twin Lens reflex (it folds flat into a platypus shape) with Compur shutter. My Meyer Trioplan lenses perform well...other examples have higher spec Zeiss or Schneider lenses. Difficult to get filters and proxars, and the camera

is just so gorgeous that it is difficult to take it where it might get damaged. The negative is 6x6 cm on 120, ergonomics are good, but I think the tripod fitting may be poorly placed for modern tripods.

 

The Ihagee Parvola with compur shutter and tessar has a gorgeous double helix metal focussing mechanism. The negative size is 4x6.5 cm for one model. You are stuck with 127 film. You specified 120, but this is bigger than 120 half-frame. Also, my Parvola produces poor images...not sure what is the matter...probably specific to my example. It is tiny for that negative size.

[nickc1]

The smallest 6 x 9 folder I use is a Plaubel Makina II - quite small if you have the roll film back attached - but I sometimes carry the Rada back separately to make it even smaller.<div></div>

[nickc1]

Apologies - I uploaded the wrong picture - that is a Makina III - photo from the Classic Camera Website, but the II is similar.

[jeffpolaski]

I use a Perkeo II. Fits in my back pocket. I also use a Bessa 66, which is a hoot to use. Folks can't believe I get such good results from a camera with and open frame folding finder.

 

Don't underestimate folders.<div></div>

[a_e_daly]

Well, I'm now the happy owner of a Zeiss Nettar IIb. I didn't intend to make a purchase so soon, but there were so many recommendations for this camera and it just happened to be in my local used camera shop when I went in today (ostensibly to sell a lens, but really to drool over medium format gear). They also had a Super Ikonta which looked really good, but currently out of my price range. I did want a rangerfinder to help with focusing, but perhaps the Nettar is a good opportunity to refine my hopeless distance-estimation skills. From all I've read, it's a very forgiving camera as long as it's stopped down.

 

Thanks again for all the considered and helpful responses. This is a great forum. As I predicted, I've now acquired a huge wish list; having bought the Nettar and lingered over the Super Ikonta, I'll still be looking out for a Moskva 5, Isolette III, Ansco Speedex,

Perkeo, Ihagee Parvola and several others. As several posters said, the folders do win the day in this price bracket. Right, off to load some film.

[alex macphee]

You are going to have a lot of fun and sheer photographic pleasure with this. Since you don't get a folder for speed, the absense of a coupled rangefinder is not a noticeable omission. I simply got myself a couple of accessory shoe rangefinders at small cost, one a Voigtlander, the other a Photopia, which measure in metres and feet respectively. They were filthy and wildly out of alignment when I got them (guess where from), but were really easy to open, clean up and calibrate accurately. So now I have a rangefinder to suit whatever scale is on the lens of the folder I'm using at the time, feet for the Isolette, metres for the Nettar.

[paulh]

I see you may be coming round to the idea of a folder ;-)

 

My absolute favourite (I have more than one or two folders..) is the Iskra - great lens, coupled RF, & great VF - probably the best VF on an old folder. Unless you go for an Iskra II, you're not having to compete with collectors. I use mine all the time, and when living in Europe was my travel camera.

 

Just make sure you get one from someone that will confirm the film wind is working properly.

[bueh]

The Nettar is a great and often overlooked camera. I have a IIb and its Novar lens is ridiculously sharp and contrasty. But here my thoughts on the other folders you are looking for....

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Moskva 5

</i></blockquote><p>

Very big, very heavy, poor viewfinder, separate viewfinder and rangefinder windows, and -- this annoys me the most -- poor minimum focus distance (1.5m/5ft). But it's reasonable cheap.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Isolette III</i></blockquote><p>

Unless recently restored the bellows are bound to be shot and need to be replaced. Uncoupled rangefinder probably misaligned and less useful than a coupled one. Most came with a three-element lens. Too expensive for all the issues.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Ansco Speedex</i></blockquote><p>

A relabled Agfa Isolette II or III, so see above.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Perkeo</i></blockquote><p>

Very expensive (especially the Perkeo E) and no rangefinder (except Perkeo E). Very well built, but way overpriced and folders with similar features can be found for much less. But if you want the best, go for it.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Ihagee Parvola</i></blockquote><p>

Rare, expensive and 127 film.

 

<br> 

<p>

As many others, I recommend the Iskra folders, which really have -- as PC Headland said -- a exceptionally useful viewfinder. Their Tessar-clone is tack sharp and focuses down to 1m/3.3ft. It's pretty big and heavy for a folder, though (like all folders with a coupled rangefinder).

<p>

 

For critical focusing a vintage box-like SLR like the Kalimar Reflex, KW Pilot Super, Fujita 66 or Kowa 6 <i>might</i> be the best solution. These cameras are quite inexpensive, reasonably small (though not folding, of course), and are even better conversation pieces than the folders.

[a._t._burke]

Hello...

 

Want to know what the different folder lenses do on the film? I've posted at:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=730969

 

A small cut of a bus taken at about 180 yards with several folder cameras. It is a VERY small part of the center of the film . I first cut out a 24x36 piece of the center of the 6x6-6x9 film exposure so I could scan in the Coolscan.

 

I've also included two fixed lens camera cuts for comparison. First tap on the word "details" to see which cut comes from which camera. Then tap on the bus to see a pixel for pixel scan done on a Nikon Collscan IV at 2900 PPI. No Ice, sharpen or ROC was used. They are as they came out off the scanner having been saved first as a .tiff then as a .jpg level 1 (best) as the Photo.net doesn't do well with .tiffs. Shots were taken on different days with different light levels.

 

Tom

[bueh]

Tom, that comparison says more about the condition of the individual camera than it's true potential. Folders often have alignment problems, so it's no wonder they produce inferior image results when compared to a fixed-lens camera of similar vintage. In fact, without a recent <abbr title="clean, lube, adjust">CLA</abbr> folders often rate poorly against almost-professional <abbr title="twin-lens reflex cameras">TLRs</abbr> like the Rollei, which naturally have much fewer lens, front standard and film flatness issues. For example, if a folder was stored folded <i>for decades</i> with its lens extended to minimum focus, there is like a 100% chance that it's going to produce out-of-focus images at any setting. So while I like the folder concept in theory, like the original poster I try to avoid them, although I have and use my fair share of them.

[dennis_w3]

Voigtlander Perkeo 1 or 2. Fantastic cameras. I have both, the Vaskar is only slightly less of a performer than the Skopar (IMO), but the camera is tiny, very well-engineered, and a joy to use, especially when you see the results. Get an independant rangefinder and you're all set. Watch the auctions, sometimes they go for less than you would expect.

 

I have a bunch of Isolettes, Adox Sports (another sleeper), and a Franka. Of the whole lot, the Perkeo is my winner.

[a._t._burke]

Bueh B... No, it does not say more about the condition of the individual camera.

 

I've done my best to eliminate camera condition problems in the samples that I left. All of the included folders were fairly recent purchases from Jurgen Kreckel known as "Certo6" on scamBay. He CLAs every camera and aligns the lenses. I also have some reasonable equipment that checks shutter test speeds and lens alignment. His stuff is usually pretty right on. Everything I've bought from him has checked out in spec.

 

Before computerization, there was a fair amount of quality difference in individual lenses on the same camera. I've had or worked with several models of the same camera, in proper alignment. For instance, I have two Rolleicord Vs. Both are decent lenses, but one is a little better than the other. It was just the luck of the draw. BTW, for those others reading my comment, it was the sharper of the two Rolleicords that I posted, but they were fairly close.

 

I also double-check focus before shooting tests by using focusing glass at the film rails set back enough to equal the depth of the emulsion in the film. This is done to make sure the lens-to-film distance has not altered, even in the short time I've had them. Not doing this would be pretty sloppy work.

 

In most of the shots, the bus is 3-4mm long on the film. On a 6X9 piece of film, that is 1/30th of the width, or about 3%. The letters on the school name on the side of the bus are about 1/10th of a mm high. The lines in the writing are less than 1/100th of a mm thick. Having any detail in that small dimension of the film means that none of the lenses except the Welta Tessar are really poor. The comparison lens shown, the Fuji GW670III, is generally thought to be one of the sharpest medium format lenses going. I got it from a scientifically oriented friend who was able to test several 670s before settling on this one. I have a number of Carl Zeiss prime lenses, as well as some of the better Mamiya medium format lenses, obviously on other camera systems. The comparison 670 is extremely sharp, period. The Solinar 4.5 on the Agfa Isolette is doing damn good to get anywhere close, as far as sharpness goes. Consider also that the included lenses range from a low of 75mm to a high of 105mm and were all taken from the same distance. I was hoping a reasonably astute photo enthusiast would realize the image in something like a 90mm lens (Fuji) would be different than a 75mm lens in the size image it place on the film.

 

I'm not implying that all the lenses I'm showing are contemporaries to one another. The Welta is an uncoated pre-war lens that I would guess to be produced in about 1936. In the middle of the time span, the Rolleicord, according to the serial number, was produced in about 1956. The Fuji GW690III was probably sometime after 1996.

 

One other large variation might be that the Ercona II is a post-war Soviet-blok product. I only have taken pictures with this one example, but I bet there's a lot of variation in quality control. Is the one I have one of the better, or one of the worst, who knows?

 

I simply posted the images as representative samples of what a GOOD CONDITION, WELL-ALIGNED representative lens of the various models would do. I did this to help assist the fellow who asked about folders. I was not meaning to say the lenses were either sharp or soft, per se.

 

The Rolleicord is not their professional model. The five-element-lensed Rolleiflex is. It gives results like the 670 and sweet ones are even a little better. I know some of my photographic superiors snicker at folders, but I must say, that Agfa with the Solinar that was a 4.5, not even their better 3.5, did fairly well against the Rolleicords.

 

Sometimes when I leave carefully thought out comments in answer to legitimate inquiries on this board, I get some pretty poorly thought out and assumptive comments from others than the original inquirer. It makes me remember the words of my Irish grandfather: "You cannot teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and just annoys the pig."

 

Sometimes comments to my postings make me wonder if I'm not giving singing lessons. I have to remember that I try to post as an answer to reasonable people, but that anybody can read it and make comments, whether thoughtful and incisive or assumptive and ignorant. Still, I do try not to give singing lessons.

 

Mr. Daly.....

 

I really did try to post well-thought-out representative samples of lenses you might come across when looking for a folder. I've seen a lot of folders and spoken with folder enthusiasts. Although you will find variations in the lenses themselves, as well as alignment and positioning of the lens in an individual camera, I really do believe what was posted fairly represents the potential of old folders. The pictures you'll get, when compared with a 35mm, only have to be enlarged between about 50 and 60% to get the same size print. Unless you get a dog, and it can happen, you'll probably be happy with the results of the camera that can fit in your pocket.

 

If you're concerned about folder lens misalignment, although not quite as small as a folder, the medium format Braun Gloria uses a pull-out, push-in tube to make the camera more pocketable. The f2.9/75mm Praxanar lens found on most of them has three elements. They usually aren't too bad if stopped down to f11 and 16. There is one on scamBay now listed by Certo6. If you go to it, you can at least see what they look like and guestimate if it's small enough to fit in your pocket.

 

 

 

[profhlynnjones]

You might want to consider a Kodak Chevron, 2 1/4 square, RF focus, Synchro Rapid 800 shutter, 620 film (possibly it could be converted to 120). They are a little pricey at $250-$350, but the lens is excellent (Ektar f 3.5, 78mm), the camera fairly small but excellent. I had one for awhile but somebody offered me more money than it was worth - the story of my life.

 

Lynn

[patrick j dempsey]

"I had one for awhile but somebody offered me more money than it was worth - the story of my life."

 

- I need those kinds of problems. ;)

[phil_sutcliffe]

The Super Baldax I have has a 2,8 Ennit coated lens,MX Synchro Compur with delayed action timer,double exposure prevention interlock (no frame counter though,just red window), combined view/rangefinder window, a very smooth and quick focus action. And it comes with 1 frame per roll more and 300gms less weight than a Super Ikonta 533. It' much lower price than a 533 should make it a very attractive candidate.

[Luis B.]

The best lens I have owned on a 6 x 9 folder was on a Ercona II . Wish I still had that

camera... I now use a 6 x 6 Franka Solida II that has a uncoupled rangefinder. Pretty good

performer, also got that one from certo6. I also have a Norita 66 which isnt light but fun and

easy to use. Folder's go anywhere and slow down the process a bit, which makes the trip

worth while. Glad you did your research and choose that option. You will find it a enjoyable

one.