Tempted by 6x9 folder

[starvy]

<p>I have been shooting 6x6 for nearly 10 months and love the results from my uncoated lenses. The Ikonta is just lovely with Velvia and the size of the negatives are just wonderful. I am thinking of buying a pre-war Voightlander 6x9. Having not shot anything this big, I wonder if the size is just recommended for landscapes? Of course, I would want to shoot Velvia or maybe some Ektar!</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>I have an old Kodak 6x9 I'm rebuilding. It seems to shoot just fine, but the bellows are shot, and I can't seem to seal them up, no matter how much liquid electric tape I use...another hole pops up. I am ordering some replacement bellows from ebay, hopefully that will do the trick.</p>

<p>I'm finding the larger the format the better these days. I get into many more "hey that's a neat camera" conversations with people.</p>

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>I've gone through a few 6x9s, including an the oldest version of the Bessa, an Avus, a Moskva5, a few 6x9 box cameras, and a Crown Pacemaker 23. A few observations: Getting a nice one can be expensive. I love Voightlanders, but they can be expensive. 6x9 folders without ground glass focusing have VERY squinty viewfinders. Classic 6x9 rangefinders have some limitations. Old beam-splitters can be impossible to use in low light and tend to flare when it's bright. I love my Avus and Scopars are some of my favorite lenses. Unlike the Tessars, the older Skopars have barrels that are cemented together so it's almost impossible to get inside and clean the internal haze that the last 80 years have produced. My current favorite landscape camera is the Crown with an Ektar 105. It's a Heliar formula, and I could never afford a Voightlander Heliar. With careful searching, you can find a nice one for 1/4 the price of a Bessa II. the downside is that it's not a Voightlander, it's 5 times the size, and I miss the shift on the Avus. A few Voightlander photos. <br>

Original 1929 Bessa with the Voigtar: <br>

<img src="http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m137/Proteus617/29Bessa/img009a640x.jpg" alt="" width="427" height="640" /></p>

<p>Avus with Skopar in a dial-set Compur:<br>

<img src="http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m137/Proteus617/Avus/img002a640x-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Starvy, It is all I can do not to buy a newer Fuji folder, which leads me to want a less expensive Ikonta. But it would have to have good focusing and not zone focusing. I really love the 6x9 format.</p>

[LMar]

<p>I've got the first model Voigtlander Bessa (1930 or so) with the simplest lens. It takes very nice landscapes --- eight 6 x 9 images on 120 roll film. One of the nicest thing about them is that they fold into a very small package (smaller than my 6 x 9 Ikonta C).</p>

<p><img src="http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj291/Skopar/DesPlainesRiverSummer2009.jpg?t=1273630618" alt="" width="1023" height="709" /></p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Goodfellows....</p>

<p>I have far too many medium format folders. One of them is a Voightlander 6X9 with the Color Skopar four element lens. I found it to be a relatively poor performer. It looks very poor under the same conditions when compared to the cheaper model of the Rollei line, the Rolleicord V with the four element Xenar lens. Below please find directions to a Photonet area that I have posted the results of mostly medium format cameras. Notice that although they were scanned at a (true) 2900 ppi on a dedicated film scanner, the Voightlander has run out of resolution long before the scanner. I have posted some of the identical views in another area at 4000 ppi which increased definition on many of the examples, but not the Voightlander. I was disappointed in its performance, although the coating looked the best of any of the older folders and/or other medium format cameras, but gave lesser results than most. </p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=993663">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=993663</a> </p>

<p>Surprisingly, one of the sharper folder results came from an old uncoated, pre-World War II Kodak Vigilante Six-20 with a three element lens. All cameras were put on a heavy wooden tripod and the shutters were tripped with a mechanical remote. The results from the Voightlander all looked a little like camera shake, but of course was not. The result shown was the best of the roll in the Voightlander, which I believe was taken at f:11. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

[brett_rogers]

<p>Voig<strong>h</strong>tlanders may be expensive because they are said to be quite rare. Voigtlanders less so, perhaps?<br>

I acquired a mid 1930s Bessa with sticking shutter off ebay a couple of years ago. I got lucky because I paid only $32 including postage, the lens standard is good and bellows are great. The camera leatherette is scruffy, but it was easy to strip the front to clean the shutter and the lens. I've only put one or two rolls through it, but I think I will run a roll in it later this month. It has a Prontor shutter with 1/150 top speed and T & B settings, and the f/4.5 Voigtar lens. They're a good alternative to Kodaks because they take 120 not 620. I could not be bothered re-rolling 120 personally.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>The Voigtlander lenses, both the Skopar and Heliar are excellent lenses. The problem with the Bessas is the lens standard, which has far too much play, meaning that the lens and film are rarely parrallel in these old cameras.<br>

This can be a problem with 6x9 folders of all makes, but the Ikontas are really quite solid, as are the Nagel Kodak folders. Remember that even a lowly three element lens can give very sharp results is everything is straight, particularly true of the Zeiss Novar.</p>

[gabor_szabo3]

<p>Folders are compact, but you may fight a losing battle trying to acquire one in tip-top shape. Film flatness is an issue along with the already mentioned bellows and wobbly lens standard issues.<br>

Your best bang for the buck would be a baby Crown Graphic. Relatively compact, interchangeable lenses, some lens movements, rollfilm backs of different sizes, .... what's not to like ?<br>

Don't pass up Post-War 6x9 folders. Shutters will more than likely have flash synch, more speeds, and coupled film advanced / cocking on somoe models. A Bessa I with Vaskar is my walk-around 6x9.... but i often use the 645 mask to squeeze out more frames per roll ;o)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>A Voigtlander Bessa is nice, but my favorite folder, similar in most respects, is a Kodak Monitor Six-20. It's a lovely camera, solidly built, with a tack-sharp lens.</p>

[k5083]

<p>My first folder was a 6x9 Bessa I with Skopar from Jurgen Kreckel. A bit pricey but it has always given me great pictures. Now I have several Zeiss-Ikons, a Mess-Ikonta (uncoupled rangefinder) and several Nettars (guess focusing). All have Novars and were bought off ebay so were much cheaper but have also performed well. Get one with a f/4.5 or f/3.5 Novar, not the f/6.3. Also, the Kodaks are a good deal once you learn which ones are the high-end models with the good bellows and 4-element lenses. It is true that both the Zeisses and Kodaks had stouter struts than the Voigts. The other issue is film flatness. Cinch the takeup knob tight just before shooting and you'll be fine. Yes they are fine landscape cameras.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I truly love the even bigger BIGGER negative! I used to love the square format before the "children" break I took from classics! Now I am often disappointed with the 6x6. Like Gabor mentioned the 645 format is a good way to squeeze more out of a 120 roll and it gives that magic "rule of thirds ratio" too So I have really converted to 6x9. As a few mentioned the Graflex SPeed is a good way to enjoy multiple backs and different lenses. It's a better investement longterm. A short tryout though is the direction you are headed as there are plenty of 6x9 folders and the pre-war Voigtlaender is not the worse. The bellows from the Ikontas is generally very good, and the better Kodak models also have decent bellows. Get your feet wet! Pick up an inexpensive model and see if you don'T begin to LIKE the format ! I sure do now.

[fred_haeseker]

<p>I really like the 6 x 9 format. A Moskva 5 (Industar 105/3.5) was my first 6 x 9 camera, nice results. Then I found a rollfilm holder for my Pacemaker Crown Graphic 23 (Raptar 101/4.5), which has unit focusing instead of the front-element focusing on the Moskva 5. The best lens, a Kodak Ektar 127/4.5, is on my latest, an RB Graflex 23 SLR.<br>

They're all fun to shoot and can be found for reasonable prices. Needless to say they do attract attention on the street!</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>You might also consider a Kodak Medalist II. It's not exactly a folder, but the excellent five element Ektar lens does collapse.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Some excellent suggestions above. Since I have been shooting 6x6 for nearly a year and not new to the folder format, I don't mind experimenting.</p>

[Two23]

<p>My 1937 model Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 is my favorite film camera. It's very compact and I like the option of the waist level finder. I bought one that was in near mint condition and am very happy with it. I always use a short cable release to fire it, not the awkward built in lever. I also have a 1914 Kodak Special No. 1 with a Cooke anatigmat lens and Optimo shutter that I really like too. For landscapes, you might try finding a Voigtlander Bergheil with a 6x9 back (such as Rada.) That way you can focus on a ground glass, and the camera is a little sturdier. I would take the trouble to get a Heliar lens. There is nothing like them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>In the UK you may be lucky to get an Ensign Selfix 820 or similar, with a Ross Xpress lens, for a reasonable amount. An Autorange with coupled rangefinder would be even nicer. Another potentially cheap 6x9 folder with a good Anaston lens is the Kodak Sterling 2, if you don't mind respooling film - its 620 only. Here's something I did on it for Photo.net: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XnUn<br>

Kodak Monitors often need new bellows, and I second the remark about the looseness of the Bessa lens locking system.</p>

[steve_renwick]

<p>I got one last year and tried it out in Acadia National Park and in Yosemite with a couple of rolls of Velvia. Scanning the transparencies produced some pretty nice 11x14 prints. For black and white, Kodak 400Tmax is a good companion. Get one in good shape and play with it; I predict you won't be disappointed.</p>

[gene_woods]

<p>I have A RH/8 for my Crown Graphic 4X5 and as soon as I get a lens board I'll have a 75mm to go with it</p>