The Agfa Isoly : 4x4 to the Fore

[rick_drawbridge]

Twenty four hours after admiring bruce_z._li2 's images from the Agfa Isola in last Friday's thread (https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/548514-film-camera-week-for-march-31/#comment-5785289), fate produced one of it's many quirks and I was offered a close relative of the Isola, the Agfa Isoly. Having had good results from my copy of the Isola, I was pleased to accept the Isoly in anticipation of it being a competent performer. And so it has proved to be. But first, a picture of the camera.

The Agfa Isoly was produced in several versions over the period 1960-71. The original Isoly was a simple medium format viewfinder camera that produced 16 4x4cm square images on a roll of 120 film. This camera is often stated to be the inspiration for Great Wall’s cheap Diana camera which would become more iconic and which in turn gave rise to the modern Lomo cameras. However, during the 1960s the Isolys progressed through several models with increasing degrees of complexity and finally arrived at this version, the Isoly III.

While the first Isoly was often considered to be a toy camera, the Isoly III is still a very simple camera but with a Gauthier Pronto-S shutter with speeds 1/30-1/250 +B, and a 60mm f/3.9 Agfa Color-Apotar len. I have a range of Agfa cameras with this lens and have found it to be a consistently good performer, given it's triplet construction. It rates a third place in the Agfa hierarchy, below the excellent Sologon and the very good Solinar.

The camera is constructed mainly of hard plastic, with a detachable back to allow film access. It has convenient swing-out spool holders, and very big and bright viewfinder which provides a reasonably accurate estimation of the image to be captured. There is a film/shutter interlock to prevent double exposures, and the film frame numbers are visible through the red window in the back. The shutter must be cocked prior to release, which is very smooth and sensitive via the small button on top of the camera. Focus is by front cell rotation, using guesstimation, and rather surprisingly the camera features a hotshoe.

It's a small camera with no strap lugs, and is obviously intended to be used clad in it's brown plastic case. For the sake of convenience I forewent this procedure and just carried it with a wrist strap screwed into the tripod socket, accompanied by my reliable little Gossens Sixtino light meter. The first film revealed a dramatic light leak, which I tracked down to a  tiny chip out of a corner of the detachable back. I loaded another film and taped over this damaged area, and the second film was flawless. I enjoyed using this back-to-basics little camera and I was impressed by the results; the Apotar delivered sharp and contrasty results, and below I'll feature a selection of some of the better ones. The film was either Ilford HP5 Plus or Kentmere 400 developed in PMK Pyro. I hope you find something to enjoy.

Afternoon

Bench

Neglect

Testing the Isoly #3

Nets

Weathered

Testing the Isoly #5

Pete's Place

Testing the Isoly #4

Down to the Lake

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by rick_drawbridge

[bruce_z._li2]

Hi Rick, what kind of coincidence! I'm glad the Agfa Isoly cousin is producing excellent photos, true to its family tradition. I can see lots of details and good contrast, from center to edge. And a very handsome camera to look at it as well. Does it have the pop out tube as well?

I'm really having fun with these simpler cameras. As a matter of fact, today before dinner I shot one roll of Pan F+ in the Fujipet, and one roll of Velvia 50 in the Isola. I might get a Goldeck in the future, but they tend to be much more expensive and less common.

[John Seaman]

Excellent work with the Isoly. I suppose these 4x4 on 120 cameras are the best way of getting that size negatives now that 127 film seems to be discontinued. I had a Bilora Bella DC4 but made the mistake of removing the 4x4 mask to see how much of the 6x6 frame the lens covered.  But I hadn't realised that the mask was also an important part of the light sealing:

 

[chuck_foreman1]

Wow.. really nice sharp and rich in contrast images!  I thought the 4x4 was only 127... Ok so another way to get 16 pics on a 120 Roll!!

 

[rick_drawbridge]

@bruce_z._li2 No, the Isoly does not have the retractable lens. Good luck with finding a Goldammer Goldeck; they do seem to have crept up in price and are rarely available, especially the model with the Steiner f/2.9 lens. You may have found it but I posted some stuff on the camera some years ago:

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/468496-going-for-gold/

 

[bruce_z._li2]

3 hours ago, rick_drawbridge said:

@bruce_z._li2 No, the Isoly does not have the retractable lens. Good luck with finding a Goldammer Goldeck; they do seem to have crept up in price and are rarely available, especially the model with the Steiner f/2.9 lens. You may have found it but I posted some stuff on the camera some years ago:

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/468496-going-for-gold/

 

@rick_drawbridge Yes I have seen that thread. Your article made the GAS a bit more acute. :-)

[kmac]

Excellent write up Rick. Nice and sharp pic of the soccer nets, was that handheld or do you use a tripod for old cameras with slow shutter speeds? Although, 1/250sec is not too bad. Just lately, I've had to contend with slower top speeds than that with some older viewfinder cameras.

I was baffled by that metal bracket that's hanging down from the bottom of the Isoly in photo No3 ... durr, obviously it's the "swing out spool holder" you mentioned. So many different designs for achieving that purpose, but that one looks to be one of the best for 120 spools.

 

[rick_drawbridge]

kmac said "...was that handheld or do you use a tripod for old cameras with slow shutter speeds?

All handheld, mostly with a shutter speed of 1/250th, though a few would have been at 1/125. For such a basic camera it has a very light and precise shutter release.

[John Seaman]

10 hours ago, rick_drawbridge said:

Good luck with finding a Goldammer Goldeck

The Braun Paxina is very similar to the Goldeck and is often fitted with a Steiner f/2.9 lens. I've bought a few over the years, often for just a few quid.

Edited April 7, 2023 by John Seaman

[gary green]

Beautiful camera and nice images, Rick.  The 4x4 format on 120 film seems a bit strange.  There must be considerable wasted real estate on the roll considering you can fit 16 6x4.5 images in the same space.  Do you know the history or reasoning behind this format for 120 film?

[rick_drawbridge]

gary green said: "Do you know the history or reasoning behind this format for 120 film?"

No, I haven't found much information regarding the rationale behind this format. One possibility relates to the popularity of the 4x4 "Super Slides" of the era, usually shot on 127 film and capable of being shown with a 35mm projector. Most 127 cameras were fairly basic and perhaps Agfa pitched this camera at photographers requiring a little more control over their 4x4 transparencies.

 

[rick_drawbridge]

Another possibility that springs to mind is that, for the Super Slide enthusiasts, there may have been a greater range or emulsions available in the 120 format, as compared to the 127.

[ljherrero]

I recently acquired an Agfa Isoly Mat that allows automatic exposure using a photosensitive cell located under the objective (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Isoly#Isoly-Mat). It is not clear to me from reading the camera manuals whether the indicative number on the back of the 120 film corresponds to 4x4 Or a more common 6x6 format; It is manual only indicates that reaching number 1 the camera is ready (for 4.5x6 the numbering of 6x9 is usually used in repeated windows in rolls of 120). Is there a way independent of the numbering control on the 120 roll to control the film advance for the 4x4 format? Could it be coincident with the deactivation of the double exposure prevention signal?

[ljherrero]

...after writing the post I have verified that, indeed, in the camera window appear the numbers from 1 to 16 (4x4 format)

[ljherrero]

...but I insist that this numbering corresponds to the 4.5x6 format, so 0.5 cm is wasted in each frame (which multiplied by 16 makes a total of 8M; two more theoretical frames)

(actual sizes may differ slightly)

name		nominal size	frames
cm	in	mm	on 120	on 220
6 × 4.5		56 × 44	15 or 16	32
6 × 6	2¼ × 2¼	56 × 56	12	25
6 × 7		56 × 70	10	20
6 × 8		56 × 75	9	19
6 × 9	2¼ × 3¼	56 × 84	8	17
6 × 10		56 × 93	7

[chuck_foreman1]

Coming in at the end.. perhaps exposing my ignorance but could it be that 4x4 (127) film has the proper numbering? I never have done anything in this format. If your testing shows this is the number of exposures, than indeed, you would lose (waste) some valueable film. Maybe you could find a system to recoup the space usin a wind technique?