Hello and question, please

[chuck_foreman1]

I'm glad John S brought up that British Monitor 620. I have used an Argus 40 which has a nice little 4,5 lens that looks like the cheap box camera TLR Argus 75. And for the sake of argument.. I have no problem respooling 120/620. The problem is a shortage of 620 spools.. so don't send them off to a lab if you can avoid it . Most labs will return the spool if specifically requested, but shooting B&W you develop yourself keeps the spools close to home.

[orsetto]

Did a random internet search for "6X9 camera" and turned up the Mamiya press camera (standard?) and the Mamiya Super 23.

 

I bought a first-gen silver bodied Universal Press last year and painstakingly acquired clean, functional copies of the three main silver lenses (65mm f/6.3, 100mm f/3.5, 150mm f/5.6), 6x9 back, 6x7 back, and reflex viewing back. It is an incredibly fun and challenging vintage system, battleship build quality, reasonably priced and less odd than the somewhat similar Koni-Omega system.

 

BUT.

 

It is HUGE and HEAVY and CLUMSY. Do not underestimate these factors: you started out by asking for folder recommendations, but the average complete folding 6x9 camera weighs less than just the Mamiya Press 6x9 film magazine (and is roughly the same size). The viewfinder is large, the bright frameline system similar to Leica. But the rangefinder patch is tiny and difficult to interpret, and the blue-tinted viewfinder optics tend to haze badly while being impossible to clean. The tilt back of the Super 23 is of extremely limited utility with any lens but the collapsible 100mm f/3.5, and it can't take the Polaroid back: the Universal is the better option of the two Mamiya cameras. None of the original-formula lenses could be called outstanding: they have a lot of charm and character, but they aren't Zeiss for Hasselblad by a long shot.

 

The 65mm is slow and really needs to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 for reasonable sharpness, but has very low distortion. The 100mm f/3.5 is simply OK: a typical Japanese Tessar clone. The 150mm is gorgeous: I like its rendering even more than my 150mm Hassy Sonnar. But its slow, and getting the body rangefinder and lens cam perfectly synced is a chore. The later black front lenses are significantly sharper, esp the superb 100mm f/2.8 which nearly equals the amazing Hasselblad 100mm. The excellent Schneider-inspired 50mm f/6.3 and 75mm f/5.6 wides arrived when Polaroid asked Mamiya to make their 600SE system.

 

If you just want an interesting 6x9 camera with a nice vintage 100mm lens, go with a folder or one of the 2x3 newspaper cameras Dan Fromm mentioned. Much easier to carry and handle. Or perhaps a solid-body Fuji "Texas Leica". The Mamiya and Koni-Omega press systems weigh like a sack of potatoes, and handle about as nicely: great fun when you're in the mood, but not the best daily drivers. In their day, they were niche systems primarily intended for flash, hyperfocal preset distances and small apertures (i.e., true press or wedding work).

Edited October 16, 2019 by orsetto

[AJG]

I bought a first-gen silver bodied Universal Press last year and painstakingly acquired clean, functional copies of the three main silver lenses (65mm f/6.3, 100mm f/3.5, 150mm f/5.6), 6x9 back, 6x7 back, and reflex viewing back. It is an incredibly fun and challenging vintage system, battleship build quality, reasonably priced and less odd than the somewhat similar Koni-Omega system.

 

BUT.

 

It is HUGE and HEAVY and CLUMSY. Do not underestimate these factors: you started out by asking for folder recommendations, but the average complete folding 6x9 camera weighs less than just the Mamiya Press 6x9 film magazine (and is roughly the same size). The viewfinder is large, the bright frameline system similar to Leica. But the rangefinder patch is tiny and difficult to interpret, and the blue-tinted viewfinder optics tend to haze badly while being impossible to clean. The tilt back of the Super 23 is of extremely limited utility with any lens but the collapsible 100mm f/3.5, and it can't take the Polaroid back: the Universal is the better option of the two Mamiya cameras. None of the original-formula lenses could be called outstanding: they have a lot of charm and character, but they aren't Zeiss for Hasselblad by a long shot.

 

The 65mm is slow and really needs to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 for reasonable sharpness, but has very low distortion. The 100mm f/3.5 is simply OK: a typical Japanese Tessar clone. The 150mm is gorgeous: I like its rendering even more than my 150mm Hassy Sonnar. But its slow, and getting the body rangefinder and lens cam perfectly synced is a chore. The later black front lenses are significantly sharper, esp the superb 100mm f/2.8 which nearly equals the amazing Hasselblad 100mm. The excellent Schneider-inspired 50mm f/6.3 and 75mm f/5.6 wides arrived when Polaroid asked Mamiya to make their 600SE system.

 

If you just want an interesting 6x9 camera with a nice vintage 100mm lens, go with a folder or one of the 2x3 newspaper cameras Dan Fromm mentioned. Much easier to carry and handle. Or perhaps a solid-body Fuji "Texas Leica". The Mamiya and Koni-Omega press systems weigh like a sack of potatoes, and handle about as nicely: great fun when you're in the mood, but not the best daily drivers. In their day, they were niche systems primarily intended for flash, hyperfocal preset distances and small apertures (i.e., true press or wedding work).

+1 on the size, weight and complexity of the Mamiya Press system--I owned and used the same 65, 100 and 150 on a Mamiya Universal that I originally purchased as much for the availability of a Polaroid back as for anything else. Quick portrait negatives from Polaroid 655 were quite useable and after owning it for a while I also shot regular film with it with good results, but the Mamiya never "fit my hands" the way my Rollei TLRs do. It is a versatile camera system but not a light weight or convenient one.

[kmac]

Did a random internet search for "6X9 camera" and turned up the Mamiya press camera (standard?) and the Mamiya Super 23.

 

The Mamiya Press cameras are different animals altogether from the Zeiss Ikontas, that's obvious, but personally I like them. However and as Orsetto pointed out, each lens must be checked for focus against the rangefinder. The Press Standards had soft coatings on their rangefinder beam splitters and often heavily marked from cleaning attempts with cotton tips, the coating comes off, you won't know if the seller doesn't show it or it's not described

 

I kept buying Press parts cameras until I salvaged enough good parts for building one good camera which I then customized to how I wanted the camera to be, but I wouldn't recommend nor encourage anyone to do same, it was a long drawn-out process requiring a great deal of patience and dollars, only worth it from a pure hobby aspect. It has a mixture of Press Standard, Super 23, Graflex parts, and later better coated lenses, quite an exercise, but it's nearly finished and shaping up well.

 

A beam splitter still in good condition. A spoiled one will have white streaks on it as it's viewed through the viewfinder

 

This is a lighter camera than the Super 23 but still becomes a burden if carried around for some hours, so there are some considerations to take into account, build up your biceps for one, or go for the smaller, lighter Zeiss

[orsetto]

kmac, is your pic of the old Mamiya Press Standard rangefinder assembly the normal unmodified layout? If so, that is much simpler in design than the later Universal and Super 23. Your viewfinder optics at least look accessible for cleaning off the inevitable Mamiya haze buildup. The later bodies have easy access to (carefully) clean the rangefinder and beamsplitter, but the actual viewfinder optics are sealed with a ton of glue and baffles to the point that cleaning requires seriously invasive surgery. I was lucky: my first Universal kit had a cloudy VF but I was able to replace just the basic body with a very inexpensive crystal clear Universal from a Japanese eBay vendor.

 

The replacement body cost only $60, paying a local camera tech to clean the cloudy one would have cost me double that or more. Of course Mamiya being Mamiya, I had to recalibrate all my lens cams to the new body, which was tedious. Once sorted, the Press system is amazingly versatile, but as you said putting together a fully functional outfit can take time and money. The S-shaped 6x9 film backs seem to have vanished from everywhere but Japan, and prices are way up over a couple years ago even for very worn backs. Finding unhazed lenses that don't need an immediate shutter overhaul is a hassle, and nearly every Press body I see offered has a remarkably filthy viewfinder (because they're such a PITA to clean).

 

Over several months, I think I racked up a tab of approx $550 for a perfect body, two backs, three lenses and reflex housing. Thats still pretty cheap considering a perfect Zeiss or similar folder can run $300 or more (the tradeoff is portability vs versatility). For my work I don't need portable MF: I use 35mm or digital for that. My MF systems are all big guns (Hasselblad, Mamiya TLR, Mamiya Press). But if I had $1600 to spend all on one "dream" portable MF camera, I'd go with a Makina 67 with Nikkor, or the recent Fuji/Voigtlander Bessa update. Ricochetrider, if you haven't already seen it I recommend you check out ben_hutcherson's recent thread re his search for a good folder:

 

Folding Rangefinders

Edited October 17, 2019 by orsetto

[kmac]

kmac, is your pic of the old Mamiya Press Standard rangefinder assembly the normal unmodified layout? If so, that is much simpler in design than the later Universal and Super 23. Your viewfinder optics at least look accessible for cleaning off the inevitable Mamiya haze buildup.

 

Yep, what you see is how it is, factory stock standard rangefinder. The horizontal is more difficult to adjust on the Press Standard than the Super 23 though. The Super 23 can be a pain to clean, there's a little lens in a tube that must be cleaned to keep the rangefinder patch bright. The piddling size of that tube is why the patch is so small. The beam splitter in the Super 23 has a harder coating, not so easy to mark but still they should be treated with respect. The face closest to the eye cup is the coated side.

 

I have a 23 rangefinder left over from my parts cameras. You can see a few things in these pics ...

[Ricochetrider]

Hey thanks so much guys. Busy busy currently, I’m checking in on the fly here so may have missed something. Excellent intel on the Mamiya Press cameras, system. Thanks for that.

 

to the poster who said I spoke about coated lenses, that was actually me responding to another person,

 

I think aesthetically, the Zeiss still looms large. The versatility, tilt shift er al, of the Suoer 23 is imoressive although I admit I’m not up for deconstructing one to clean/fix/CLA it.

 

I’ll go back thru this thread in more depth ASAP and will check out Mr Hutchinsons thread, thank you very much!

 

cheers to all, really appreciate the commentary, expertise and info.

[orsetto]

I wouldn't want to completely dissuade you from the Mamiya Press system if it appeals to you, Ricochetrider: since you already own a Hasselblad and other MF gear, at least you have some idea of the weight involved and wouldn't be completely blindsided. Handling and weight is roughly similar to the Hasselblad with a prism and side grip attached, but a bit heavier and all the weight is cantilevered off the right hand grip (the left hand focusing the lens isn't as stable as with the Hassy). Cocking the shutter and advancing the film are separate actions (as on many folders).

 

The rangefinder and viewfinder issues may or may not be a problem for you: depends on the specific camera. The RF had a rep for going out of alignment under hard use or shipping, but I haven't had any accuracy issues with the four Universal bodies that passed thru my hands (if necessary, the adjustment points are easily accessed by removing a couple screws and popping the top cover off). The key to understanding the Mamiya RF system is its optimization for the common 100mm f/3.5 lens: you need one of those as a reference, because its the only lens with a fixed, non-adjustable, continuous rangefinder coupling ridge that is (ordinarily) fully compatible with every Mamiya Press body. Any 100mm lens should show accurate focus in the RF patch at infinity: if it does, the body is in relative alignment and all you might need to do is adjust the cams on wide or tele lenses (tedious, but totally DIY simple).

 

If the 100mm does not line up at infinity in the RF patch, the body is out of alignment and the RF needs calibration: this is trickier and may require a good tech to resolve (it is almost impossible for the 100mm lens itself to be misaligned, due to the cam design). If the viewfinder is otherwise very clear, the RF service should be affordable and worthwhile. But if the VF is cloudy or hazy, you might want to just look for a replacement body (no grip or back mount plate) with a cleaner finder and more accurate RF. Strangely, the Universal or Super 23 body by itself is the most plentiful, cheap piece of the system (they often sell for the same or less than a back mount plate or grip). So it sometimes makes sense to buy a complete body/plate/back/grip/lens outfit for a good price, and just swap out the body if it has any VF issues.

 

The tilt back of the Super 23 really isn't as useful as it appears to be, and you lose a lot of versatility if you opt for it. The bellows and tilt / extension rods are often damaged. The tilt back can only be used at normal or infinity distances with the 100mm f/3.5, which was designed to collapse and change its back focus to sync with the tilt feature. With all other lenses, the tilt only works for extreme closeups, or functions as a straight-up macro bellows. Using it effectively requires you remove the film back to use the reflex viewing back for composition/focus, then replace the film back to take the picture.

 

With the standard M-mount back system, this is incredibly fussy to do and will almost certainly disturb your composition and focus by the time you get the damned thing re-attached. The less common Graflok "G" back mount is much easier, but few Super 23 bodies are available with G mount (I believe kmac may have hacked his). The Super 23 cannot accept the standard Polaroid back and is not easily modified to accept the newfangled Instax and Impossible instant backs. For practical photography the Universal is the best option: back mount is interchangeable so you can choose M, G or Polaroid, and lack of tilt bellows means the body is near bulletproof. M mount is for the most common S-shaped film backs which hold film very flat compared to Hassy or TLR. G mount is for Graflok film backs made by Graflex, and similar backs used by Mamiya RB67 and Horseman (if modified). The Universal with no mount plate attached can accept a Polaroid back (P mount built in) or be hacked for experimental use.

 

Given how difficult it is to re-attach the M film backs and reflex viewers in the official way, perhaps the nicest thing about the Universal is ability to just buy extra M mounts for each film back and viewing accessory. It is much much easier to remove or replace the entire M mount from the body (with attached film back) than to remove/replace the film back from the M mount. The Super 23 usually has a permanently attached M mount, which prevents this workaround (perverse, because the Super 23 actually needs it more than the Universal). Note the 65mm wide angle (on my Universal below) is a pancake lens, and all the wides (50-65-75) require a large accessory viewfinder. Fun fun camera, but a definite handful: the door of the film magazine weighs more than my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by orsetto

[Ricochetrider]

I usually limit my 620 "exploits" to cameras that can at least take a 120 spool on the supply side. There are quite a few in this category, including earlier versions of the ubiquitous Brownie Hawkeye(which is basically a 1950s Holga without the light leaks). These make the 620 situation a lot more bearable since you're effectively letting the camera respool the film for you. With that said, even a lot of those are only worth burning an expired roll of B&W if I REALLY feel a pressing need to take 1950s-looking happy snaps.

 

I go back and forth on 6x9. On one hand, the film area is appealing, but you'll end up cropping a lot of it down to roughly the equivalent of 6x7 for most of the common print sizes(8x10 and larger), so in effect you're just wasting two frames per roll of film. Some folks like to call 6x7 the "ideal format" because it prints to so many common sizes with minimal cropping, but you also get into a lot of larger, newer, and typically more expensive/pro oriented cameras to shoot it. From what I've seen, the Koni-Omega line is probably the most affordable entry into the format, but it's a heavy and to me sort of awkward beast. I consider the Mamiya RB67 probably the best all around value since it's a comprehensive system with mostly excellent lenses that is also fairly affordable(some of the newest K/L lenses, the oddballs, and things like Pro-SD backs still hold their value well, while the rest is a fraction of its Hasselblad equivalent) but you pay a significant size/weight penalty on it.

 

About two months ago, I got the itch for a smaller/semi-pocketable medium format camera, and ended up with a Super Ikonta 532/16. These can still hold their value decently well as they have some fairly desirable features not present in a lot of lower end cameras of the period, including a combined coupled rangefinder(so you know it's correctly focused as long as the rangefinder calibration is correct) and automatic frame indexing once you hit the first frame. The downsides are that it's designed to only give 11 frames on a roll as a safeguard to prevent overlap(some people can finesse a 12th frame on theirs-I only end up with half a frame when I try on mine). Also, IMO f/2.8 is probably stretching things a bit for a medium format Tessar, and I don't like to use mine any wider than f/4, and preferably at f/5.6 or f/8. That's true of pretty much all Tessar and Tessar type lenses, though, including the stupidly expensive F mount one Nikon came out with in ~2000. In addition, Tessars are often okay uncoated, but for an f/2.8 I want a coated lens, and this model camera came both ways.

 

Ben thanks,

I just breezed through your thread on this over in MF forum. Since I already have a Hassy 500CM, Ive been thinking about the 6X9 and after much thought on the matter, decided a folder is probably amore realistic "carry" than a massive, well... anything else really. I've also, thanks to your thread, looked at Certo6's site and perused his current eBay sales items... There is what appears to be a VERY nice Ikonta 6X9, CLD'd, in immaculate condition, as close to "as new" as one could ever hope to find in a 1940s camera, on eBay now. Of course the seller's not giving it away... (sigh) so I'm trying to figure out what my budget is for this!

[tomspielman]

I was given an early 40's 6X6 folder a few years ago along with a bunch of other cameras. I didn't pay much attention to it until this Spring when I decided to fix it up and sell it. But what ended up happening is that I fell in love with the concept of a medium format camera that can slip into a pocket.

 

That particular one was a pretty simple camera: Scale focusing, fairly slow lens, only about 4 shutter speeds to choose from, and a red window film advance. I did get it working again, but it was slow for me to use in practice so I went searching for something more modern with a coupled rangefinder, etc.

 

Couldn't find one I liked within my budget so I expanded my search to include some non-folding 6X9 cameras like the Fujica "Texas Leica's". Came close to buying one but never pulled the trigger. Ended up with a smaller folder but I still have an interest in a 6X9 camera that I may have to indulge someday.

 

Curious to see what you end up with.

[kmac]

For a 6x9 without a rangefinder, simply buy one of the many accessory rangefinders on ebay. This is the best of the five different brands I have. The wheel with the red ring is the horizontal adjustment, the most important adjustment, right at your fingertips if and when it's needed.

 

 

If you settle on an old Zeiss 6x9 folder, watch for worn chrome side struts, they must click and seat properly with no gaps between the ends of the struts' slots and the chrome rivets on the lens standard (the bracket the lens is attached to). If you get a camera from an online site and the struts don't seat solidly and not described as such in the listing, immediately return it because it's a major repair job requiring replacement of the struts with an unworn pair, if you can locate them.

[steve_gallimore1]

Agree on the clip-on rangefinder. Don't stress about finding a folder with a coupled rangefinder, examples with the same lens but no rf are cheaper and far simpler. If it's not there, it can't jam or break.

 

Use an accessory rf, a tape measure, or the focus readout on your digital camera.

[doug grosjean]

I have taken a 1950s 6x9 Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta with me in a Pelican box on some big whitewater trips through Grand Canyon. It can do quite well.

 

 

[doug grosjean]

Amother sample shot.

Same camera.

[doug grosjean]

Regarding 620 cameras:

I have a Medalist and a Panoram.

Respooling isn't hard.

.

On vacation, I'll use a changing bag and do a couple in the morning before getting out.

.

The nicest thing about 620 is that cameras that take 620 are often underpriced, because most buyers don't want the bother.

[doug grosjean]

Medalist photo.

Circa 2006, 2007.

 

[doug grosjean]

Panoram D photo.

July 2007.