6x9 FOLDING CAMERAS
Marek Jastrzebski
Hi,
I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
so,
I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question -
which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
what about the CRFs on them ?
Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
Regards,
Marek Jastrzebski
Marek Golen
Jastrzebski) pisal(a):
>...
>Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question -
>which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
>
>what about the CRFs on them ?
>
>Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
>...
Hi,
I'd strongly recommend Carl Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9.
I have used it with Novar Anastigmat 3.5/105mm several years ago.
Regards
Marek Golen
P.S. Sczegoly na priva w przypadku zainteresowania
jjs
Marek Jastrzebski <mcja...@cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote in message
news:8n95bq$58t$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl...
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50'
are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander
Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
The major draw back concerning the early lenses for the above is lack of
coating. If you opt for an uncoated lens, then flare can be a significant
problem. If you wish a later model with coating, you are entering
Collector's Territory and they get real spendy.
Marek Jastrzebski
I have bought recently for someone else a Voigtlander Bessa I probably from
the 50' but really mint in London for 100 pounds, and the lens WAS coated.
RoninUK
question -
> >which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
I can recommend the Ensign Selfix 820 Super which offers the option of 6x6
or 6x9 but be sure to get one with the Ross xpress lens which is first rate.
Ronin>
Austin Franklin
Check out write-up on them here:
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/ikonc_e.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontc.htm
and a list of them here:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm
If you have the money, get the latest version with MX sync and Synchro
Compur shutter. You will pay round $800 for a mint one. Well worth it.
Good luck!
Marek Jastrzebski <mcja...@cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote in article
<8n95bq$58t$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl>...
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear
and
> also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
>
> so,
>
>
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50'
are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander
Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
>
> Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my
question -
> which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
>
> what about the CRFs on them ?
>
> Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Marek Jastrzebski
>
JCPERE
>
>I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
>also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
>
>so,
>
>
>I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
>moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
>usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
>
>or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
>
>Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question
>-
>which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
>
>what about the CRFs on them ?
>
>Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Marek Jastrzebski
>
lens. If you can afford it this would be the one to get. Both the I and II
have Color-Skopar lens (Tessar type). The cheaper I's will have the 3 element
Vaskar lenses and probably should be avoided if you are looking for best
quality. Look for a shutter with X sync and the lens should be coated. The
earlier , much cheaper, Bessa's with Skopar lenses are Ok (I use two of them)
but uncoated.
Zeiss Ikonta C with a Tessar would be cheaper than a Super Ikonta but no
rangefinder. A late Super C with X sync would be nice.
Another camera I'd like is the Agfa Record II or III with a Solinar (Tessar
type) lens. The III has an uncoupled RF. Even these would probably cost you
$200.
If you can stand the size and cost, it may be better to look for a used Fuji
6x9. Should out perform any older folder with it's multicoated optics and cost
not that much more than a high end folder.
Chuck
jjs
Marek Jastrzebski <mcja...@cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote in message
news:8n9ips$ntm$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl...
> I have bought recently for someone else a Voigtlander Bessa I probably
from
> the 50'
Probably
> but really mint in London for 100 pounds, and the lens WAS coated.
Coated with what? London smog?
rgi...@cix.compulink.co.uk
find a later one (late 1950's) it will have a F3.5/75mm Solinar lens
(which is about as good as Agfa lenses got) and a Syncho Compur shutter.
Only 6x6 and the rangefinder is uncoupled - but otherwise good - and
considerably cheaper than many better known classic models.
The Isolette III also came with other lenses/shutter - mainly the Apotar
in a Prontor shutter. Not as good - but worth using.
I have more information on my web site if anybody is interested:
The Isolette III listed has now been repaired by myself (although its
rangefinder is not yet perfectly adjusted) and the first roll of film gave
very good results.
:-)
Roland.
Bogdan Karasek
I have a Bessa I (6x9) with the 6x4.4 insert in a Color-Skopar
105/3.5 to f22 and a Prontor-S shutter with speeds from 1s to
1/250 and B. At first, I thought that the absence of a
Rangefinder like in the Bessa II would be a hinderance but since
I use this camera for landscape, my focus is usually at
Infinity. If I am at closer distances and the focus becomes more
critical, I will insert a pocket rangefinder into the flash shoe
and get a distance fix. I also like the fact that I can easily
carry it in a jacket pocket and still get LARGE negatives and
great large contacts. This gives you another advantage. I often
use it at family functions and take pictures of all the
children. I give their parents the contact sheet which they cut
out and they have ready made wallet size pictures of their kids.
Anyway, it is a very solid camera with an Excellent lens.
Obviously, if you have the money, you might to go for the Bessa
II with Heliar lens but you will be paying a premium for the lens
at 5x in price compared to the Bessa I in Color-Skopar. By the
way, the Bessa I also comes with a lesser quality lens, the
Vaskar. For the difference, in price and quality, get the
Skopar.
I would also recommend the Ensign Selfix 820 (6x9) if it has the
Ross Xpres lens. I have the Selfix 16-20 with the Ross Xpres
lens and it is very, very good. A Ross Xpres has quite reputation
in the U.K. Any camera with a Ross Xpres lens is to be
recommended.
With the Super Ikonta C, you are climbing into a higher rarified
financial sphere. Great camera, I have the A and B but the C is
out of my range.
The Moskva, especially the 2 is an exact copy of the Super Ikonta
C but I could not say if the lens quality is comparable. Maybe
some one else can give their opinion on that one.
Hope this helped.
Do Widzenia,
Bogdan
Marek Jastrzebski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
> also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
>
> so,
>
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
>
> Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question -
> which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
>
> what about the CRFs on them ?
>
> Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
>
> Regards,
>
> Marek Jastrzebski
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
________________________________________________________________
greg
Marek Jastrzebski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
> also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
>
> so,
>
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
I have two Super Ikontas - a 6x6 and a 6x9. The 6x9 is incredible - it's small
and the image quality is superb. I recommend you do some research online to
find out what the later versions are so that you don't have to deal with flare -
it's avoidable but you have to choose your shooting situations carefully.
It's VERY manual, though. You have to get used to that but once you do it's
not an issue - my experience. Regards,
C & R McBride
Try
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html
There is a lot of info on the older MF cameras here. There are various
discussions on the quality of the different lenses also.
RM
(Moscow 4 owner and happy with it)
Marek Jastrzebski wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
> also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
>
> so,
>
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
>
Marek Jastrzebski
I do not know much about coating, it is probably not multicoated (whatever it
means) but clearly Vaskar is coated judging by the bluish look of it. It is
also what they say in the instruction which comes with the Bessa I
>
>
richard evans
The results are superb and the Tessar is not coated. You must use
a shade on the lens. The later models -- 531/2 for 6x9cm. -- with
coated lenses and Synchro-Compur shutters are the most sought
after but get very expensive. CRF is a must IMO, but check that
you can live with the very small eyepiece, and check that the
adjustment is spot-on.
A good Bessa II would be as good but also expensive unless you
are lucky. If you find one with Apo-Lanthar you'll be competing
with the collectors!
Marek Jastrzebski wrote in message
<8n95bq$58t$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl>...
Ralf R. Radermacher
> (Moscow 4 owner and happy with it)
Just received my 'new' Moskva 5 (got it through ebay.de) by mail, today.
I'll post a report here as soon as the first film has been processed.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
Ralf's Cologne Tram Page - www.netcologne.de/~nc-radermra
e-mail from trash accounts (deja, yahoo) automatically rejected
Philippe LEMAIRE
"JCPERE" <jcp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000815080010...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> >Hi,
> >
[snip]
>
> Another camera I'd like is the Agfa Record II or III with a Solinar (Tessar
> type) lens. The III has an uncoupled RF. Even these would probably cost you
> $200.
>
I personally own a Agfa Billy with an uncoated Agfa Agnar 6.6/105 lens...
Does it have some value ?
What was the manufacturing date ?
It accepts plactic reels but I don't know whether I have to use 120 or 220 film
concerning the thickness of the supporting medium.
I have some small holes at some bellows' angles; what can I use to seal them ?
TIA and best regards,
WS
Ralf R. Radermacher <foto...@gmx.de> wrote:
> C & R McBride <rag...@coiinc.com> wrote:
>
> > (Moscow 4 owner and happy with it)
>
Fshadoan
Heliar lenses.) The Super Ikonta Bs with Tessar 2.8 lenses produced great
images, the SI C's equally so; the SI 3 with Novar lens was not great, the SI
IV with 3.5 Tessar that I now have is in the process of evaluation, is
incredibly small and convenient, lens said to be good, but first set of
transparencies seem less than spectacular to me. The Bessa II with Heliar was
tremendously sharp; now I have one with a Colar Stopar that is supposed to be
just as good unless you are doing an MTF, but I can't say from my personal use
to date. I think that the Super Ikonta Cs are not as easy to use as the Bs and
the Bessas. In all, these cameras are tremendously portable and provide some
great images if you are willing to do your own thinking and setting of
mechanisms. George Shadoan
rgi...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> lens...
I don't have this exact model - but am familiar with this type of camera:
> Does it have some value ?
> What was the manufacturing date ?
The Agfa Billy 1 with an Agnar 6.3/105 was around in the early 1950s. The
Agnar lens is the cheapest Agfa lens and therefore this camera will
probably be worth $5-$20 depending on shutter (Vario, Pronto) and where
you sell it.
I must admit I assumed the lenses was coated - as other Agnar lenses I
have from that period appear to be.
> It accepts plactic reels but I don't know whether I have to use 120 or
> 220 film
Should be 120. You should have a red window on the back which you wouldn't
have for 220.
> I have some small holes at some bellows' angles; what can I use to seal
I'd used electricians black tape - although there are other suitable
things.
If you are interested I have a section on repair Agfa folding cameras on
my web site - along with some of the Agfa and Russian cameras my wife and
I own:
Having said all that - I'd encourage you to try the camera. You might well
be surprised at the results it produces. :-)
Hope that helps,
:-)
Roland.
Philippe LEMAIRE
<rgi...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8np9u2$17m$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk...
> > I personally own a Agfa Billy with an uncoated Agfa Agnar 6.6/105
> > lens...
Typing error 6.3/105
>
> I don't have this exact model - but am familiar with this type of camera:
>
> > Does it have some value ?
> > What was the manufacturing date ?
> The Agfa Billy 1 with an Agnar 6.3/105 was around in the early 1950s. The
> Agnar lens is the cheapest Agfa lens and therefore this camera will
> probably be worth $5-$20 depending on shutter (Vario, Pronto) and where
> you sell it.
How can you SELL it for $5 !? :-(
The shutter is Vario...
>
> I must admit I assumed the lenses was coated - as other Agnar lenses I
> have from that period appear to be.
Although looking white not blue !?
>
> > It accepts plactic reels but I don't know whether I have to use 120 or
> > 220 film
>
> Should be 120. You should have a red window on the back which you wouldn't
> have for 220.
I have. What brands are still available ?
>
> > I have some small holes at some bellows' angles; what can I use to seal
>
> I'd used electricians black tape - although there are other suitable
> things.
The holes are just at the vertices...
>
> If you are interested I have a section on repair Agfa folding cameras on
> my web site - along with some of the Agfa and Russian cameras my wife and
> I own:
>
> http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/
>
> Having said all that - I'd encourage you to try the camera. You might well
> be surprised at the results it produces. :-)
I already do it BUT :
1. The holes were annoying
2. The lab treated the film the worst they could do !
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> :-)
>
> Roland.
Sure,
Philippe
PS. What about a Franka Solida III ?
John R Pierce
<ph.le...@COMPAQnet.be> wrote:
>> > I have some small holes at some bellows' angles; what can I use to seal
>>
>> I'd used electricians black tape - although there are other suitable
>> things.
>
>The holes are just at the vertices...
I'd get some photographers tape, this is a black paper masking tape.
Electrical tape gets way too gummy after a short period.
-jrp
Marek Jastrzebski
>C & R McBride <rag...@coiinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'll post a report here as soon as the first film has been processed.
>
>Cheers,
>Ralf
>
My brother has Moskva 2 and according to his tests the sharpness is awful,
when you open the lens ( f3.5 ) ist pure abstraction, when you use f32 its
better, although diffraction sets in....
Marek Jastrzebski
rgi...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > The Agfa Billy 1 with an Agnar 6.3/105 was around in the early 1950s.
> > The
> > Agnar lens is the cheapest Agfa lens and therefore this camera will
> > probably be worth $5-$20 depending on shutter (Vario, Pronto) and
> > where
> > you sell it.
>
> How can you SELL it for $5 !? :-(
> The shutter is Vario...
Well I've bought a similar camera at less that $5, and quite a few at
around $10. I agree its hardly worth doing the business - but some people
would rather have the $5 than a camera they don't want.
The Vario is the cheapest shutter too - but at least it doesn't have any
slow speeds to stick! ;-)
> > I must admit I assumed the lenses was coated - as other Agnar lenses I
> > have from that period appear to be.
>
> Although looking white not blue !?
Well I've just had a good look at an Agnar tonight and compared it to
several other lenses I know to be coated and uncoated. Maybe the one in
the Agfa Billy 1 is uncoated - but the one in the Agfa Isolette V from the
same period certainly has a coloured tinge like the other coated lenses.
> > Should be 120. You should have a red window on the back which you
>
> I have. What brands are still available ?
Kodak and Fuji are the ones I've used. Both print and slide film. Any
decent camera shop should have something suitable.
> > I'd used electricians black tape - although there are other suitable
> > things.
>
> The holes are just at the vertices...
I used very small triangular bits of tape which fold over the corners
nicely. You can also use black gasket compound - or a mixture of rubber
glue and soot - amongst other things.
> PS. What about a Franka Solida III ?
Only looked at one briefly - but quite nice too, IMHO.
:-)
Roland.
Mark Bergman
no longer parallel to the film plane. I have a number of Mockva's and they
have been decent to very good performers. The coated lens in a later Mockva
5 is coated and much better than a pre-war Zeiss Super Ikonta Tessar. I
would say the 5 is almost as good as a post-war Super Ikonta, equal at F8.
(I also have the Super Ikonta C & A , pre and post war). I only shoot B&W
so am not sure about slides.
"Marek Jastrzebski" <mcja...@cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote in message
news:8nrduu$pk2$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl...
> In article <1efkw1f.11lhu7mkqcmm8N%foto...@gmx.de>, foto...@gmx.de (Ralf
R. Radermacher) wrote:
> >C & R McBride <rag...@coiinc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (Moscow 4 owner and happy with it)
> >
Mark Langer
Marek,
You've had a lot of good advice regarding higher end cameras. I have had
experience with most of these, and prefer the Agfa Record III (w.
uncoupled rangefinder) and the Bessa II w. Heliar to the others mentioned.
I find that the separate range/viewfinder of the Super Ikontas A and C are
not as convenient, and the Albada finders on these are prone to having
their bright lines fade, suffer from flare and often are broken or
missing.
Let me suggest that you begin with a budget folder, like one of the lesser
Agfas with a coated Agnar or Apotar lens, or a Balda with an Enna lens.
These can be surprisingly good stopped down, and your investment will be
about $25 or so. If you like the results you can always get your money
out of the camera and move up to one of the more premium ones.
If absolute compactness is not important to you, you might consider
getting a Century Graphic. This is a great folder that is somewhat
bulkier than the ones suggested, but offers rangefinder and scale focus,
interhangable lenses, interchangable backs, different finders for 6x6, 6x7
and 6x9, takes sheet film, limited tilts, ground glass focussing and all
sorts of other nifty features. They are commonly available for less than
a postwar Super Ikonta C or a Bessa II.
You might also look into a press camera such as the Mamiya Universal,
although this is now taking us out of folder territory. But the Mamiya
Universal offers a host of features and is worth considering.
Good luck and let us know what you wind up with.
Mark
Marek Jastrzebski (mcja...@cyf-kr.edu.pl) wrote:
> Hi,
> I am a bit tired with the dimensions and weight of my medium format gear and
> also 6 x 6 which I have is much less than 6x9
> so,
> I have been lately considering buing a 6x9 folding camera - they are
> moderately cheap, and very small, and especially the ones from the 50' are
> usually in good shape. I am thinking about someting like Voigtlander Bessa I
> or Bessa II, Zeiss Super Ikon, Ensign or Moscva.
> Of paramount importance to me is the lense quality - and here is my question -
> which one of the folding 6x9 cameras offers the best image quality ??
> what about the CRFs on them ?
> Does any one here have any experience with these cameras ??
> Regards,
> Marek Jastrzebski
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Langer
Email address: mla...@ccs.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Know-it-all
Mark Langer wrote in message <8nuilf$rml$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>
>Marek,
>Let me suggest that you begin with a budget folder, like one of the lesser
>Agfas with a coated Agnar or Apotar lens, or a Balda with an Enna lens.
>These can be surprisingly good stopped down, and your investment will be
>about $25 or so. If you like the results you can always get your money
>out of the camera and move up to one of the more premium ones.
Nettar cameras for 6x9. One is incapable of a sharp picture at any
aperture. The other is OK from f/8 or so. But, if I wanted to make a
large print, I'd use the Rollei with 2.8 planar. Even if I could use the
Nettar image full frame and had to crop the Rollei, I'd still have a sharper
print. Also, remember that the bellows in these cameras do wear out.
I purchased an (plain, no RF) Ikonta A with tessar that produce an
outstanding first roll.
Six rolls later, the bellows had pinoles in the corner and were beyond hope.
Perhaps, they had dried out (but looked fine) and could not withstand the
opening
and closing in use. And, from what I have seen at camera shows, the Agfa
bellows
don't seem to be the same quality as the Zeiss.
rgi...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> bellows don't seem to be the same quality as the Zeiss.
Post WarII Agfa bellows are made of a synthetic material which does tend
to pinhole. However these pinholes are very easy to fix and the material
does not perish or crumble at all.
The common Agfa shutter is the Prontor-S which tends to work fine - except
the slow speeds (<1/50) and the self timer which tend to be sticky due to
dirt.
The common Agfa lens - the Apotar - is a fairly basic 3 element coated
design - but I've used it at full (F4.5) aperture - with no real problems.
If anybody is interested - I took an Agfa Isolette II to Egypt last year
and ran off 8 rolls of film - no problem. Four of the rolls were Fuji
velvia/provia and the metering was done with a Minolta 7000i SLR. The
Prontor-S shutter must have been reasonably accurate at all speeds as I
didn't have time to bracket exposures - but they came out fine. Only 2
really duff frames out of 96.
On this particular example unusually all the shutter speeds work fine -
but there is some slippage in the self timer which causes the shutter
blades to open slightly as the timer starts its run.
Having said that - whilst Agfas will not appeal to everybody - I would
still recommend them to anybody thinking of trying MF on a budget - or
looking to see if folding cameras are for them.
More details and some pictures from Egypt can be found at:
:-)
Roland.
Martin Jangowski
> His Moskva 2 either has an element in the lens out of place or the lens is
> no longer parallel to the film plane. I have a number of Mockva's and they
> have been decent to very good performers. The coated lens in a later Mockva
> 5 is coated and much better than a pre-war Zeiss Super Ikonta Tessar. I
> would say the 5 is almost as good as a post-war Super Ikonta, equal at F8.
> (I also have the Super Ikonta C & A , pre and post war). I only shoot B&W
> so am not sure about slides.
I own a Moskva-2 and a Moskva-5. Both are in good shape, the glass seems
very good, but the sharpness is not very good. For my tests, I used Delta
100 and a tripod and made landscapes with all f-stops from 3.5 (4.5) to
22 using the oo-marker on the lens.
I made 8x10"-enlargements and found these _much_ worse than the quality
I expect from my RB67. I have an Xenar 6.1/210 for my 4x5-Technika and
know what Tessar-type lenses are capable of. However, both Moskva-lenses
show a much lesser sharpness. I would like to use one of the Moskvas as
pocket camera for every day, but my Minox 35 has better sharpness at 8x10"
enlargements, and is smaller...
Martin
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I would like to use one of the Moskvas as
> pocket camera for every day, but my Minox 35 has better sharpness at 8x10"
> enlargements, and is smaller...
Absolutely.
Anyone interested in a Moskva 5 in decent condition with coated lens and
eveready case?
Philippe LEMAIRE
Shutter : Prontor - SV
Regards,
"J.M. Vitoux" <vit...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:39A30431...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg...
>
>
> Philippe LEMAIRE wrote:
>
> >
> > PS. What about a Franka Solida III ?
>
> I have a II with a Schneider Radionar lens. Tested it with B&W
> film and results were sharp but not very contrasty. The II goes
> for somewhere between 30-40 USD. What lens do you have on yours?
>
> Jean-Marc
>
Ernst Dinkla
<URL:mailto:foto...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Martin Jangowski <m.jan...@phoenix-ag.de> wrote:
>
> > I would like to use one of the Moskvas as
> > pocket camera for every day, but my Minox 35 has better sharpness at 8x10"
> > enlargements, and is smaller...
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Anyone interested in a Moskva 5 in decent condition with coated lens and
> eveready case?
This is the report you promised us? ;-)
What seemed a nice thread about the surprising qualities of the MF
folders becomes less interesting if compared to 35 mm optical qualities
or am I wrong on that conclusion?
About MF folders in general, almost all are made before 1960
(Makina/ Nikon the exception AFAIK), is the quality at an 8 x 10"
enlargement less or just equal to a good 35? Are the late 1950 Super
Ikonta's and the Ensign 6 x 9 any better?
Would a Polaroid 110 + Ysaron, adapted to rollfilm, give an equal
quality as a late Super Ikonta?
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk The point will never be metric
Ralf R. Radermacher
> This is the report you promised us? ;-)
Somewhat reminiscent of Alfred Kerr's famous critique of a 1920's
theater premiere in a Berlin paper: "The play began at eight and ended
at 9:30. When we left the theater, it rained. As if things hadn't been
bad enough."
> What seemed a nice thread about the surprising qualities of the MF
> folders becomes less interesting if compared to 35 mm optical qualities
> or am I wrong on that conclusion?
I'm afraid you're quite right. And it can't be just a matter of old
versus new cameras. My Contarex is a mere 5 years younger than the
Moskva and it runs circles around the Moskva in each and every aspect.
Or is it that we're looking at the levelling effect of modern emulsions?
With the film stock of the late 50's, the picture would supposedly have
been rather different.