6x9: Good classic folder versus Fuji Rangefinder

[max_de_hertelendy]

I've been searching and found lots of praise and info on performance

of Tessar formula coated lenses on late folding cameras, like the

Color Skopar on the Bessa II. Also there's a huge number of fans of

6x9 Fuji rangefinders. But I'd like to know if someone has some hands-

on experience on both cameras. If the folding camera is properly

adjusted in every aspect, how would a 105/3.5 Color Skopar compare

against the normal 100/3.5 of the older GL690 Fuji rangefinders (or

the newer fuji normal lenses, for that matter)?

There seems to be a cult following on these classic folders as user

cameras, but I want to know if they can perform on par with modern

medium format cameras or is just a fasion thing.

[mike_elek]

Max,

 

I haven't used the modern-day Fuji cameras, and I have no doubt they are fine cameras. I use several pre-WWII Zeiss-Ikon folders, and I'm almost always impressed by the Tessar lens's ability to render fine detail.

 

This camera is simply amazing for landscapes. The particular camera I use is a zone-focus Tessar (still working on the Super Ikonta), so I either carry a separate handheld rangefinder or guess on distance to subject.

 

Here's an example of an infinity shot:

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm

 

I chose this shot because of the number of different things in the photo. I also selected different areas of the photo to show that this camera does an excellent job at keeping the film flat.

 

Author Ivor Mantanle dated the camera to 1937. Not bad performance for an uncoated lens that is 63 years old.

[albert_yang]

I bought a used Moskva 5 (Zeiss Super Ikonta Russian knockoff) from evilbay. Well, it was compact, but the red window leaked, (even with heavy black electrical tape) and the shutters weren't all that accurate. The lens was a bit fogged, and it was uncoated. The bellowed seemed to leak, but I couldn't find it. I finally sold it, for a big loss. They are fun to have, but not that great of users I have personally found. If you find one in excellent condition, great! But that's the big "If".

[mike_elek]

Albert, sorry to hear about your experience with the Soviet camera. I've read that the quality of Soviet cameras varies widely from horrible to good. I think it goes to show that even if you have all of the camera-manufacturing equipment, if the workers don't take pride in their work, it means nothing.

 

If you ever get a chance, pick up a Zeiss-Ikon camera. They cost more money, but you'll see why. Zeiss-Ikon cameras were made to last for generations.

[richard_srienz]

It depends. They can perform on par if the folder is in perfect working condition. If the lens is free of haze, scratches, cleaning marks. If you have perfect lightning conditions (older lenses tend to flare - single coated). If you stop down to f11. If the shutter does not move when you release it. If the rangefinder works perfect....

 

I love folders and use some from time to time (Perkeo, Bessa II, Super Isolette). So to get excellent results constantly, get a modern rangefinder.

[david_goldfarb]

I have a Perkeo II with the 75/3.5 Color-Skopar, and while I love the smooth look of that lens and the compactness of the camera, there is some noticable loss of image quality in the corners compared to a modern lens, so I try to keep important detail a bit closer to the lens axis.

[brian_stein1]

Performance: I have several Tessar lensed folders (1 x 69 2 x 66), and they can indeed take very nice pictures. I think you do need to expect to do some work on them (bellows, shutter)yourself, unless you buy from someone who has CLAd them (eg certo6 on ebay).

I find the performance is not up to that of a friends GSW690III, particularly in edge sharpness, and most especially wide open (although stopping down to f8-11 improves that noticably: a well known issue with tessar types).

There is a significant price differential (depending on which generation of Fuji you buy)of course.

 

Handling: there is a significant size differential! THe fujis are noticeably heavier(~1500g vs ~900g)and of course dont fold: my moskva will go into a big coat pocket: no chance with the fuji! The fuji lens seems to stick out a looong way, making it quite a big camera. Once in use, i do find the fuji smoother to focus, with a brighter viewfinder and the standard lever with automatic frame selection beats a winding knob and red window hands down.

 

For me: the performance is not as good, and the handling is inferior, but for medium format in my pocket the folders meet my needs, and can take most acceptable pictures. I think it is this medium format-to-go aspect that explains some of the popularity of folders.

[Andrew in Austin]

Comparing a 70's Pro MF rangefinder with a 50's MF folder whose design is a carry over from the 1930's isn't really going to be an even match.

 

I don't own one, but a Fuji G690 in decent shape, should be the better camera.

 

The normal lens on the original G690 is a Tessar type lens formulation with the shutter built into the barrel. The images should compare at least as well if not better than to any of the 50's folders in top condition that used a unit focusing Tessar type lens. With regards to the newer GW690III with a fixed 90mm that's better color corrected, hmmm.................

 

One thing to keep in mind is compared to a Bessa II or a prewar Super Ikonta, the original Fuji 6 x9 used interchangeable lenses and it is going to be a heavy beast. If your pockets are deep enough, having those interchangeable lenses is big plus in my book.

 

I use an Agfa Super Isolette about once or twice a month. As you probably know isn't a 6 by 9. The coated unit focused Solinar delivers superb images.

 

The Super Isolette is an outstanding MF camera for what I paid for it. Yet, I'm sure that a low mileage GW690 III on my tripod would be a measureable improvement over a 50 year design.

[jerry_friedman]

I love folders because of the obvious reasons and I have owned

a great many and have taken very fine pictures with almost all of

them.....but not consistently. If you want consistently good

pictures go with a modern camera. I have found that older

cameras and older lenses work fine on tests and I have a wall of

fine 11x14 pictures taken even with a 105mm Radionar. But,

without a high contrast scene, many older lenses

produce......muddy images. Not exactly unsharp, and not exactly

lacking in contrast....but lacking something. (Please do not start

on bokeh....) All the Fuji lenses I have owned have been very

sharp, contrasty AND always gave excellent results. Is it the lens

coatings? Is it computer designed optics? Is it better newer

glass? I really do not know. But I do know that after using

perhaps every model folding camera that you can buy on ebay,

that the older ones take GOOD pictures but modern cameras

are capable of GREAT pictures.

 

You know the one classic camera that still produces very very

fine results for me? NOT TO LAUGH!! The Olympus half frame

Pen FT slr, (with TAMX 100), has excellent resolution and

contrasty optics. Indeed, this is the camera that I use to

photograph what goes on ebay....over 1500 times.

 

I WISH folders were better than they are....but, more than an

11x14 from the full frame is really difficult. On the other hand, I

have produced excellent, sharp and contrasty 11x14

enlargements from heavily heavilt cropped 6x7 Fuji and Plaubel

Makina negatives.

 

If the Fuji cameras are not now discontinued, they will be soon

enough. There are many excellent used MF Fuji cameras around

and they are simple to repair. I hate it but future camera

technology is going be pixel based. Maybe that will work out but

right now a big negative is wonderful but folders will not give you

that last ounce of oomph. When i have gotten really good results

with folders, I have always wondered what the picture would

have looked like with a Fuji or Plaubel making the negative.

 

Jerry

[paul_.]

If you're shooting color there's no contest, the Fuji will win every time, BUT, you can't fold it up and put it in your jacket pocket. (Some people may like that old time low contrast color look, though.) The real problem is that so many of the old folders are not in great shape. I've had a couple of nice ones, but many with problems I couldn't easily fix. A top of the line one (Bessa II, SIc, Ventura 69 w/the good lens) with good bellows, true struts, clean single-coated lens and an adjusted rangefinder is fun and will make a good neg. And BTW, the Fujis are still available and will be repairable for some time, EXCEPT the G/GL you mention.

[richard_srienz]

I want to add, I fully agree with Andrew Yue. I have a Perkeo II, a Bessa II (with Heliar), a Zeiss Super Ikonta III and an Agfa Super Isolette, and of all folders I had, the Agfa Super Isolette with the excellent Color Solinar was performance wise the best and the most constant camera of all.

[jonathan_bundick]

I asked almost the same question several years ago, and I concluded that a modern Fuji rangefinder would produced images with better technical quality, but at a cost of limiting my equipment options. (Money wise that is.) I bought a Moskva 5, which by the way does have a single coated lens, and fixed it up. Stiffened the presure plate, blocked a light leak from the red window, and gave it a general cleaning. It does great for what it is, and I have been able to go to 16x20 with great results. YMMV! Sample quality can and does vary quite a bit.

 

It is the cheapest way to get into a 6x9 coupled rangefinder, which is a nice thing to have, even if it can't compete with modern glass at the edge of technical quality.

[ilkka]

As a rule, a modern high quality lens is always better than an old one. There are very few exceptions when an old lens approaches the quality of a modern one. Zeiss Biogon comes to mind. And even that has improved from the addition of multi layer coating. But an old lens can certainly be good enough, or even 'better' for some uses such as portraits.

[classcamera]

Well, what else could I say, that hasn't already been said. <P>

 

Weather you use a vintage folder, or a modern range finder will depend on what you plan on getting out of photography in general. If you want to shoot for fun and get lots of "you can still get film for that" comments--get the folder (I personally would recomend a Zeiss Super Ikonta B, C, with uncoated optics if you plan on shooting mainly color, and coated for B/W). If you plan on shooting as a pro' and need interchangable lens', complete reliability, factory service, then get the range finder.

<P>

Should you decide to get a folder, here is my advice: Make sure it has a Compur shutter, they are the best. Get a tessar lens or copy, they will give good sharpness and some speed. Avoid the Russian products since they are not consistent in quality. <P>

Hope this helps with your decision,

<P>

Mark

[robert_byrd1]

I get excellent b&w and glowing color shots from a Super Ikonta B. It is soft wide open, but superb at f8 and f11. The only problem is the viewfinder, which is dim. Except in strong light, I can't see to focus/frame. BTW, it folds up compactly, and has a quiet shutter.

[mike_elek]

The Super Ikonta B cameras, particularly the 530/16 and 532/16, are very heavy. Actually, the same is true of the C cameras, especially the Super Ikontas.

 

I've had very good luck with the uncoated Tessar lenses on the Ikonta medium-format cameras. They've all been very sharp, especially when stopped down to f/8 or smaller.

 

If you want to have some fun, you can't go wrong. Just make sure the camera is in good shape, because most are at least 50 years old and likely will require some service before they're usable.

[roger krueger]

From a slightly different perspective-I have a Mamiya Universal, with both a 100/3.5 Tessar and a 100/2.8 Planar. The Planar is much, much better than the Tessar wide open, but by f11 they're pretty similar. Stopped down Tessars are pretty good, and really, that's usually where you're shooting a camera like this anyway. Again, from my Mamiya experience, keeping an old rangefinder adjusted accurately enough to focus at 2.8 consistently is a (very worthwhile) battle, anyway.

[ernst_dinkla]

Without any doubt the Fuji will be better than any folder (including Fuji's folders) but the Makina with the Nikon lens. I don't have any experience with both.

 

The folders that I have used are the Bessa I with Color Skopar 105/3.5

I'm not impressed by that camera and its lens, red window light leaks and not the sharpness of the other folders, the film transport control with the red window isn't what I like either. The Color Skopar may perform better on the Bessa II as it doesn't have to rely on the front cell focusing but I have once looked through the rangefinder of a Bessa II and that isn't my taste either. The Ensign Autorange 820 would be my choice in "expensive" coupled rangefinder 6x9s. Best quality I found so far was a Russian made Iskra that I like a lot,it needed some repair and cleaning but it isn't difficult to DIY. The rangefinder is perfect, film transport with a counter etc etc. Could even be better than the Agfa it imitated, $ 72.- on a fair. Next I bought a Kodak Monitor with an Anastigmat Special 101/4.5, changed it from 620 to 120 film, cleaned the shutter and lenses (have to thank the late S.K. Grimes for the info at his pages), changed the shutter link between body and lens, adjusted the focus with a groundglass and gave the filmplate springs more tension. Didn't leak any light from the start and the first rolls of colour negative film are promising. It has a counter for film transport and a lens that has a reputation though not everyone is convinced of that. You have to adjust the lens distance though as I'm sure the bellows shrink partly in aging and pull the lens towards the filmplane. The film size fits the Nikon 8000 scanner precisely unlike the Bessa that has 88 mm length frames. The transfer of analogue to digital is an important factor in using old 120 folders, the optical quality may not be that good but square inches of film count in scanning. There's a lot of information there that can be used in sharpening without showing the artifacts of sharpening, colour is good anyway. I'm busy to make a panorama folder 6x14 of a Polaroid 120 and lens and other parts of a Polaroid 110A. Well constructed cameras with a real 60's American look that I try to keep while the interior is made into a long rollfilm camera. Not a pocket folder but for its size still very handholdable. With the original instant film press rolls removed etc the weight is a lot less.

 

Ernst

[dante_stella]

The rigid-mounted 100/3.5 Fujinon annihilates the Skopar. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I've seen it myself. In terms of what is resolved on film, the MF Fujinons approach the

sharpness of good 35mm lenses, which is light years ahead of 1950s folders. When

you consider that you enlarge MF negs much less, the Fujis are pretty much world-

beaters.

 

I think someone mentioned the Plaubel, but if I recall, that was a 6x7.

[dante_stella]

A couple of other quick notes - the Fuji is a much-faster handling camera that

basically works like a giant Leica (one vf/rf window), can't be knocked out of

alignment (a big issue with folders), takes 220 film too, and it keeps the film a lot

flatter (which may contribute to its lenses' sharpness).

 

If you are fixated on a 6x9 folder, consider that a gentleman in Australia converts

Polaroid 110Bs to use with 120 film. It costs about $400 (and $90 for the camera),

but the 110B architecture, while not self-erecting like a Super Ikonta or Bessa, is

much more rigid. The 127mm Ysarex is a 3.25"x4.25" lens, and it is a killer optic,

especially when you are only using the middle 6x9cm part.

[max_de_hertelendy]

I want to thak you all for the answers. I was trying to figure what would using the Bessa feel like. As the thread was going I received one I bought and sent for a CLA. I've tryed it now, and I have to say I'm extremely happy with the results. I don't want to start an argument, but it performs really great. I shot some Agfa Scala pushed at 800ASA, and sharpness and contrast are far better than my Mamiya c330 with 55mm (it's not a fair comparison being that a wide angle). Being completely objective, I shot Scala some days ago with my Konica Auto S2, if you now that one, you know it's sharp. In the comparison, the skopar comes ot fine, I admit that's shooting in the best conditions posible. Translating that to a 6x9 slide, is something worth seeing. I really don't see how could I get much more from a slide.

So the lens is great. I must say that I shot in daylight over f/16, at moderately high speeds, but all shots were handheld. I'm sure i'd be much more confident on a solid rangefinder to do the job, and loose all the distance guessing stuff (which is extremely critical if trying to use maximum apertures, impossible to do those portraits). But I'm no pro, and use to take a lot of time, so the camera suits me fine, and being able to put it in a pocket when you're done is nice too. Great for landscapes (image proportions are wider than other 6x9s I used)

[max_de_hertelendy]

I posted a piture taken with the Bessa/Skopar combo, shot on Agfa Scala at 800ASA. Anyone finding anything unusual/interesting to say about quality, I'd like to hear comments. The print was made in a Fuji Frontier digital minilab, then scanned in a cheap scanner, the slide has far more detail, no aparent enlargement limits so far. The picture is at http://www.photo.net/photo/1576129

I find Agfa Scala pushed two stops very pleasing in formats larger than 35mm, because you get added contrast and some kind of sharpness perception that comes from grain not really showing as separate dots but giving that crisp look to contrasty lines, while retaining creamy middle tone shifts (I'm not very good at explaining that, though).

[davecollopy]

This is a little late but I use old folders and have been thinking about getting a Fuji gw690 for some time. The reason I use several folders and plate cameras has more to do with price considerations and scanner considerations than it does with "fun" factor or some sort of fashion thing. Considering the workflow and ergonomics of folders I don�t think the word fun would be the first one I would use. But for $50 or less there are many 6x9 cameras that are capable of recording more information than most expensive 35mm systems. Introduce the scanning process into the equation this difference becomes all the more pronounced. My Scanmaker 5 delivers excellent results from my 6x9 and 4x5 negatives. I don�t even bother scanning 35mm anymore on it. As previously mentioned in this thread the folder drawbacks include consistency of results, workflow, and constraints inherent in the technology such as: most of these lenses are a struggle below f/8. But the biggest drawback with old folders, or with anything used purchased sight unseen(read ebay) is that in the best case scenario they require extensive fine tuning to make them usable, the worst they don�t even qualify as a decent parts camera. The reason I limit myself to $50 is because this particular problem doesn�t seem to decrease with an increase in purchase price.

 

The good news is many of these cameras were designed to be repaired and built to last. Only time will tell how Fuji�s rangefinder compares in this respect. The fact that it has a disposable shutter isn�t very inspiring. It has to be professionally replaced $250 every 500 rolls of film according to the literature. I doubt I�d attempt that myself. The Fuji won�t fit in my pocket, but many of my folders will. My 1920�s Ica $25 has replaced my OlympusXA as the camera which I keep on me all the time. It also has a waist level finder which I find essential for street photography. The Fuji doesn�t. A Voightlander Avus $30 I own has double extension bellows for close-up and ground glass back for critical focusing. The Fuji doesn�t.

 

Still I lust after a Fuji gw690 for its rangefinder, its consistency and all around excellent ergonomics. Moskva5 $30 has a very accurate rangefinder but its a separate window and the viewfinder is very tiny. Kodak Reflex $15 has a big bright fresnel finder with a built in loupe but it�s 6x6. My scanner only has film trays for 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10.

 

The lenses on my cameras are extremely usable above f/8: Kodak Anastar, Anastigmat Special, Ektar Zeiss and B&L Tessars, Schneider Xenar, Wollensak Raptar, Optar etc. I�m sure the Fuji lens is sharper, but whatever gains that might be made in detail would likely be lost in my particular scanning process. Where detail is critical I�ll use my 4x5 Speed Graphic anyway $150 which will give me much more scan detail than the Fuji ever could. But after my experience with old folders, given the choice between say a top end 6x9 Super Ikonta C or Bessa w/ color Heliar @ $500 and an earlier Fuji gw690 @ $700, I would go the extra $200 and get the Fuji. For the time being I think I�ll stick with the older less expensive cameras, save my money, and wait for that 20 megapixel pocket digital to come out.