KenR
Well-known
I bought an Zeiss Ercona from Certo6 earlier this year. Clean with all of the speeds working well. Seems fairly sharp at f/11-22, but obviously it is not the same as my FujiGSW690.
SteveM
Established
Watch out for a Zeiss Ikon Ercona I or II (made by east-german zeiss ikon Dresden). Many of them come with a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar (razor sharp at f5.6/ f 8 !!!) f3.5/105mm lens and a tempor (east-german compur) shutter (with b-1/250th sec). You can get it for 25-50 € (30-60 $). Mine is a pure joy to shoot and sharp as hell
Completely agree with this. I have an Ercona II with Tessar lens. It is very sharp. Colour images tend to have a more pastel look than modern lenses, which I also like. I also have a Franka Solida IIIe which has a 3 element lens, and the Tessar on the Ercona is far superior with higher contrast and sharpness. Used for more distant subjects the viewfinder is fine, but it has no rangefinder or parallax correction, so framing closer subjects can be challenging.
Steve
GaryLH
Mentor
There were other brands that I thought also initially jumped on the 620 band wagon for a short time, but I cannot remember which ones...
On the other hand, respooling 620 is not that hard. I do about for at a time the night before I intend to use a camera w/ 620. About 3-4 minutes per spool..
Cheers
Gary
GaryLH
Mentor
6x9 folders I like are the ones from Voitlander. The Bessa II is my favorite. The Zeiss w/ tessar are really good. Both these have been recommended by others in this thread.
Check out this site - it has some 6x9 folders with some photo examples from the camera.
http://arukucamera.net/folders.html
Good luck
Gary
Check out this site - it has some 6x9 folders with some photo examples from the camera.
http://arukucamera.net/folders.html
Good luck
Gary
graywolf
Well-known
Check out the Show Your Photos thread here, and you will be surprised at how well those old folders do. It will make you realize that most of the "Only Expensive Lenses are Worth Having" crap, is exactly that, crap. Yes, you do get something for your money. Those expensive lenses give better images wide open and close up than the cheaper ones do. At f/8 or f/11, and beyond 10 feet or so, you will have a hard time telling the difference from a cheap 3-element lens.
graywolf
Well-known
Agfa and Nagel, labeled for PB20 film. (Actually, I think they invented the stuff, but Kodak was the main user of it, as far as I have been able to find out the Nagel camera that became the Kodak Duo 620 was the first, but it was developed a couple of years before Kodak bought out Nagel.) Also, a lot of American snapshot cameras, especially the plastic ones from the 1950's, were 620.
oftheherd
Mentor
I think I read in one of the threads here on RFF that Kodak created the 620 format in an attempt to lock up the MF format and squeeze others out of it.
Wasn't Nagle the German company Kodak coupled with for several of their cameras? Nagle produced some of their 9x12 cameras, such as the Recomar IIRC.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Lots of good info here, gentlemen. It looks like I'm going to go for a basic one in working condition, or bite the bullet and get one with a rangefinder.
So how hard is scale focusing, anyway?
So how hard is scale focusing, anyway?
nosmok
Established
I'm better with scale focusing than I am with a rangefinder! Seriously, by the time I've found something with a decent edge in a complex shot to focus on, I'd have been better off guessing. And if you want to do anything in low light, most RF's are borderline useless. There is one vintage 6x9 folder with a great view/rangefinder that I know of, and it's rare and expensive (Ensign Autorange 820).
That said, I always plunk for the Welta Weltur in these threads-- great lens, pretty good rf/vf, well built and not as expensive as the other rf 6x9 alternatives.
If you want to scale focus, get a Kodak monitor with the Anastigmat Special lens, and respool. Or put a new filmholder on the supply side and ask for your 620 take up spool back from the lab if you use a lab. That lens will give any non-unit focusing lens a run for its money.
That said, I always plunk for the Welta Weltur in these threads-- great lens, pretty good rf/vf, well built and not as expensive as the other rf 6x9 alternatives.
If you want to scale focus, get a Kodak monitor with the Anastigmat Special lens, and respool. Or put a new filmholder on the supply side and ask for your 620 take up spool back from the lab if you use a lab. That lens will give any non-unit focusing lens a run for its money.
Argenticien
Dave
As some have touched on above, the middle ground (as is often the case) may be best: uncoupled rangefinder. These tend to sell for much less than coupled RF models as there is no hype surrounding them. I lucked into a coupled RF model, a Zeiss Ikon 531/2 for USD 80 last year; you conceivably could too with patience. Mine needed some cleaning and a bellows pinhole fix, but nothing major. Pristine examples of these sell for more than you've budgeted. Coupled RF or not, folders are great. As I write, I'm readying kit for an outing where I'll have very little carrying space, so the Bronica S2 (beautiful, but very boxy) stays behind; the aforementioned 531/2 (and a Vitessa for 35 mm) get the nod.
--Dave
--Dave
graywolf
Well-known
That is the conventional wisdom. Actually, 620 & 616 were developed to make more compact cameras possible. Originally they were to hold 6 exposures but by the time they hit the market thinner film bases were available so they were able to put 8 exposures on the roll just like 120 & 116.
Nagel Works was bought by Kodak in 1933. It is the company that developed and manufactured Kodak Retina cameras. However, the camera that became the Kodak Duo 620 was brought out in 1931 by Nagelwerk, and was supposedly the first camera to use 620, Nagel worked in conjunction with Agfa to develop the smaller spool for it.
Dr. August Nagel was a co-founder of Zeiss Ikon, he left them and started his own company Nagelwerk in 1928. He was one of those very talented German camera engineers that so influenced the camera industry.
I got interested in all that, because Amelia Earhart supposedly carried a Kodak Duo 620 on her round the world flight. Nifty camera.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
My 2 cents suggests a coupled rangefinder,it's enough to be guessing the exposure let alone the distance.If you can get around the light leaks,a Mockba-5 for the money is hard to beat (and they fit almost everywhere,and stopped down a bit and on a tripod will surprise most of us)
Regards,Peter
Regards,Peter
P C Headland
Well-known
Getting one in good working condition is the key !
Another one that's worth looking at is the Ikonta 524/2 (uncoupled rangefinder). The Novar lens on these is pretty good, and usually means you can pick the cameras up quite a bit cheaper than their Tessar equipped cousins. I find it to be easier to shoot handheld than the Moskva 5, though my Moskva is ultimately sharper (it looks well used, but works well).
Another one that's worth looking at is the Ikonta 524/2 (uncoupled rangefinder). The Novar lens on these is pretty good, and usually means you can pick the cameras up quite a bit cheaper than their Tessar equipped cousins. I find it to be easier to shoot handheld than the Moskva 5, though my Moskva is ultimately sharper (it looks well used, but works well).
chippy
foo was here
scale focusing is not hard at all, even without a built in RF or hand held RF, with a little practice you will surprise yourself just how accurate you can be. take a few measurements from your everyday surroundings, a couple close and a couple further away, to the letter box out front or house across the street, length of your living room or hallway, whatever. you just need a few, dont over complicate it. then when you see something to focus on you can recognise it as that distance or part of that or multiples of that distance and apply it. with a built in but non coupled RF, or an auxiliary RF you just take the range and transfer the measurement across to the lens scale, that comes in handy with close distances and shallow DoF (wide apertures) but not as much (any) advantage with shooting landscapes
if you do a little learning about DoF and hyperfocal distance in relation to the focal length (105mm) etc of your camera you can commit a couple to memory and get good shots. you can find cardboard DoF calculators/charts that you can carry or even Apps for your phone nowadays.
a few folders have DoF scales on them, a few more just put a symbol or mark on the distance scale e.g a mark around the 10 foot distance and a mark often between f8 and f11, if you set to that for close-ish shots everything between about 8'-16' will be in focus or if set at the other mark, usually marked around 30 feet on the lens and using the same f stop position everything from about 16' to ∞ will be in focus, they often referred to that as zone focusing and is quick and easy to use.
if your camera doesnt have any marks you either remember them or place a mark with a drop of paint or whatever you can think up. its more complicated to explain and it sounds more complicated than it is than to actually use . if you learn more about hyperfocal distances it can get a bit more complicated to use but your results can be improved
for doing landscapes you can easily get by with a 6x9 without a RF and there are oodles of them to choose from that easily fit your budget, even the older ones e.g 1920's to early 1930's that are even more basic (for instance non self opening door and pull out lens) and are less versatile than later folders (low light and portrait limitations) but can be better suited for landscape due to their unit focusing lenses and often their lenses can be well configured for landscape, their downsides are the lenses are slow and shutters can sometimes not have the range of later years shutters, it depends on the camera model ,not a huge problem for landscape though
more food for thought
cheers
chippy
oftheherd
Mentor
Just got back in to this thread. Thanks for the information. Nagel Works seems to be one of those manufacturers that doesn't get credit for the cameras it made. Especially those branded as Kodak. I didn't know they made the Retina line. Those were rather popular with camera club memebers when I attended with my father in the 50s.
Eric T
Well-known
Pass on a 6x9 folder. I have a Moskva 5 and Bessa II. Neither of them can keep the film plane flat. Hence, the edges of all photos are out of focus. Get something newer that doesn't have this problem such as a Fuji 6x9 or the Bessa III 6x7. I have the Bessa III and it is terrific.
chippy
foo was here
seems a rash statement to make about all 6x9's on the basis of two you have. there must be thousands out there producing fine results today not to mention those over many decades by many people. I suggest to get them serviced by someone who knows what their looking at. i have 5 or 6 bessa's (RF and B II), perfect. have worked on heaps of them, no problem, have more 6x9 folders than i can count and film flatness is not a problem with any that are in working condition and the countless many i've put film through (and a few i use regularly with a bit of rotation), bessa 3 is good too but is the same fundamental design, actually the bellows on the bessa 3 can be sucked in relatively easy if opened fast so is one of those camera to take a little care with, as should be with any camera of course
cheers
chippy
graywolf
Well-known
Chippy wrote, "scale focusing is not hard at all,..."
One of the tricks is to learn just a few distances by sight. Weegee claimed he used 6' and 10'. It is interesting that the 4x5 Speed Graphic closest marked distance was that 6', apparently they thought you needed to use he RF or the Ground Glass for closer distances.
I like 5', 10' & 20. Or with metric marked cameras you might use 2m, 4m, & 8m. With those you can shoot most anything, and depend upon the DOF to cover any errors. So you really need to know what 3 distances look like, and as Chippy said it is not hard to learn that.
One of the problems 35mm and digital photographers have with that is that they use large lens openings and fast shutter speeds. That hoary old Sunny/16 rule* was actually used a lot back in the folding camera days. F/16 at 1/ASA. At f/16 you have lots of DOF to play with. The standard for box cameras was f/11 @ 1/50, or so, by the way; that gave a decent exposure under almost all daylight conditions with the standard 80-125 speed film.
Anyway the point here is that with f/11 to f/32 at those distances you should get sharp photos. Only at wider f/stops and/or distances closer than 5-6 feet (2m) is a rangefinder really needed. Under 3ft (1m) you begin to need ground glass focusing (that is, either a SLR or a View Camera).
I have a scale focus camera (Ansco Speedex), an uncoupled RF camera (Hapo66e), and a coupled RF camera (Iskra). I do not see much difference in the photos taken with any of them. While all those are 6x6 (that is the size enlarger I have), you will get basically the same results with 6x9 folders only with a larger negative.
Summary: For landscape photography a RF'less 6x9 folding camera, is probably about perfect. Just add a 2# tripod and you have an under 5# kit that is easy to carry to trails end.
*Sunny/16 should be Sunny/11 as most film speeds were increased by one stop in 1959, so it is easier to under expose with Sunny/16. I sometimes thing that Sunny/16 should be thought of as 1/ASA, and Sunny/11 as 1/ISO.
One of the tricks is to learn just a few distances by sight. Weegee claimed he used 6' and 10'. It is interesting that the 4x5 Speed Graphic closest marked distance was that 6', apparently they thought you needed to use he RF or the Ground Glass for closer distances.
I like 5', 10' & 20. Or with metric marked cameras you might use 2m, 4m, & 8m. With those you can shoot most anything, and depend upon the DOF to cover any errors. So you really need to know what 3 distances look like, and as Chippy said it is not hard to learn that.
One of the problems 35mm and digital photographers have with that is that they use large lens openings and fast shutter speeds. That hoary old Sunny/16 rule* was actually used a lot back in the folding camera days. F/16 at 1/ASA. At f/16 you have lots of DOF to play with. The standard for box cameras was f/11 @ 1/50, or so, by the way; that gave a decent exposure under almost all daylight conditions with the standard 80-125 speed film.
Anyway the point here is that with f/11 to f/32 at those distances you should get sharp photos. Only at wider f/stops and/or distances closer than 5-6 feet (2m) is a rangefinder really needed. Under 3ft (1m) you begin to need ground glass focusing (that is, either a SLR or a View Camera).
I have a scale focus camera (Ansco Speedex), an uncoupled RF camera (Hapo66e), and a coupled RF camera (Iskra). I do not see much difference in the photos taken with any of them. While all those are 6x6 (that is the size enlarger I have), you will get basically the same results with 6x9 folders only with a larger negative.
Summary: For landscape photography a RF'less 6x9 folding camera, is probably about perfect. Just add a 2# tripod and you have an under 5# kit that is easy to carry to trails end.
*Sunny/16 should be Sunny/11 as most film speeds were increased by one stop in 1959, so it is easier to under expose with Sunny/16. I sometimes thing that Sunny/16 should be thought of as 1/ASA, and Sunny/11 as 1/ISO.
oftheherd
Mentor
Chippy and Greywold are correct. Scale focusing isn't as hard as some people make it out to be. I first learned it with a Welta Welti many years ago. No Rf makes for a smaller lighter camera as well.