Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

6x4.5 folders
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:43 am    Post subject: 6x4.5 folders Reply with quote

I am interested in buying a 6x4.5 folding camera and was wondering what camera brands made a 6x4.5?
A 6x9--6x4.5 combo would be OK too.

Thank you for any replies or links.


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 9:13 am    Post subject: Iskra Reply with quote

Iskra (6x6) - cheap and qualitative, with rangefinder. Square - do not think about rotation.
A lot of examples. My:
http://album.foto.ru/photos/137518/ (all square)
http://album.foto.ru/photos/125935/ (with file name "Iskra...") and so on...


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not 6x4.5, but is a 6x6 or 6x9 combo: Moskva-5. Available in very nice condition on Ebay for about US$50. It has a rangefinder and dual-format viewfinder.


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, but I am looking for a 6x4.5 folder.
I have a 6x6 already and 6x9s are easy to find around here.


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weltax cheapest and excellent option without rangefinder.
I love Konica Pearls they are more rare and available with coupled and non coupled RF both
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/lens/filmcamera/6x4_5/
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/lens/filmcamera/japanese/Konica/konica-pearl-3-fomapan-100/


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Weltax cheapest and excellent option without rangefinder.
I love Konica Pearls they are more rare and available with coupled and non coupled RF both
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/lens/filmcamera/6x4_5/
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/lens/filmcamera/japanese/Konica/konica-pearl-3-fomapan-100/


Thank you Attila. I forgot about the Weltax.
A Pearl would be great, but they are rare and expensive! Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have several. There really is a huge range of these things, dozens of brands, German and Japanese.

A very common one is the Zeiss Ikonta 521 version in 6x4.5
They seem to go for low prices.
I have one and it works very well. Most have a front-cell focus Novar triplet in a Prontor but that should be fine, its not a rangefinder camera so focus will be approximate. Stop down for best results.
Some had Tessars, some had Compur shutters, etc. Practically speaking I don't see the difference.

The biggest problem with these is the same for any folder - condition.
Bellows, shutter, lens, thats what you have to check.

Pretty much all the mini-folders from the German makers of the day were about the same quality. They all used the same shutters and mostly the same lenses, and the bellows were all good quality (much better than US-made Kodaks bellows).
Welta had some problems because in some models the body was sheet steel instead of aluminum, so rust.

Considerably better quality than the Zeiss Ikontas were the Kodak/Nagel (German made) Duo 620. The better ones had unit focusing (no rangefinder though) and the fit, finish and feel were much more solid than the Zeiss or anything else. Unfortunately unless you can find a Nagel version these were made for 620 film. I have used 120 film on these, the feed roll will fit if you clip the edges and use a 620 reel for takeup, so you don't really need to respool. They came in various lenses and shutters as usual, but the lenses and shutters were more often premium (if relabelled) Schneider Xenar and Compurs.

From what I have seen the Japanese ones were much more variable in quality. There is total trash there that you wont find among the Germans. One upside is the Japanese models you will find are generally postwar, and even then often newer than the Germans.


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I correct myself - my Zeiss folder is a Nettar 515 - same thing really, mainly just a different selection of lenses and shutters.

http://forum.mflenses.com/zeiss-nettar-515-6x4-5-cm-baby-folder-t25882,highlight,%2Bzeiss.html

I have a working Welta Perle and a Kodak Duo 620 also, and have shot rolls with them. I should do writeups.


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plaubel made the Roll-Op 6 x 4.5 coupled RF folder cameras.
I have never had the chance to try one but all my Plaubel-made photographic gear proved to be very well manufactured, in the good German tradition.
It should be a very good RF folder - its coupled RF is the same as the one used in their Makina line of cameras.

If you want a more modern 6x4.5 RF camera I think the quality of the Fuji 645 cameras can't be beat (but they are not folders...).


PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a 6x4.5 Roll-Op, resold it.
It was nice enough. The RF isn't that hard to adjust. A bit complex to survive 70 years without requiring service.

http://forum.mflenses.com/plaubel-roll-op-6x4-5-rangefinder-camers-1938-t66146,highlight,%2Bplaubel.html


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 small Thanks a lot for all of this useful information.
I think I might find some by Voigtlander also. It seems they had many
combination models with 6x9 and 6x4.5 together. I would prefer a plain
6x4.5 for the small size though.
Today I will look around Budapest for one.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found a very basic camera that can shoot in either 6x9 0r 6x4.5 format.
It is a Beirax II with a Meritar 4.5/105 lens on a Junior shutter. It only has three speeds 25, 50 and 100 and also B.
It seems to be in excellent condition.

I will put some film into it and try it out at 6x4.5 size first.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good luck!
105mm is short portrait FL for 6x4.5 format.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
Good luck!
105mm is short portrait FL for 6x4.5 format.


Thank you.
I will keep that in mind. What is it when shooting 6x9?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit wide-normal.
Conversion to 35mm comparative FL is a little bit of a matter of opinion
More or less, 105mm on
6x4.5 = 68mm on 35mm
6x9 = 46mm on 35mm

One of many charts -
https://gregneville.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/focalchart-1.gif


PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Mamiya-Six Type K Setagaya Kki Sekor 3,5/7,5cm. It's a 6x6 and 4.5x6 by rotating panels in the chamber.
I also have a Suruga Seiki Co Mihama Six Model II Anastigmat 3,5/75mm wich has the same system giving both formats : 6x6 and 6x4.5.

Another folding having this format is the french camera Royer 6x9 4,5x6 Special Berthiot 4,5/105mm. But you need to have the 4.5x6 adapter to install in the chamber. Same system as for the Moskva-4 and 5 with formats 6x9 and mask for 6x6.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier wrote:
I have a Mamiya-Six Type K Setagaya K�ki Sekor 3,5/7,5cm. It's a 6x6 and 4.5x6 by rotating panels in the chamber.
I also have a Suruga Seiki Co Mihama Six Model II Anastigmat 3,5/75mm wich has the same system giving both formats : 6x6 and 6x4.5.

Another folding having this format is the french camera Royer 6x9 4,5x6 Special Berthiot 4,5/105mm. But you need to have the 4.5x6 adapter to install in the chamber. Same system as for the Moskva-4 and 5 with formats 6x9 and mask for 6x6.


Thank you for the information.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I finished one roll of film. The photos are kind of dark and I chopped off some heads composing through the viewfinder.
The negatives were scanned by the people that developed the film. Fomapan 100 was the film. I am not sure what to think.
My estimation of the distances may have been off and perhaps I did not choose my subjects wisely. Any comments or help welcomed. With some PP some of them would look better.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like you have a contrast problem, partly. Did you use a hood ? I find this very important.
Yellow filter is also very useful in daylight, improving contrast in several ways.

Focus needs good distance estimation, the longer the lens the more so. I always use small stops as much as possible for better depth of field. Wide open (f/4.5?) on these things isn't very useful.

Also check for haze (I dont think its a bad case if you have it).

Also worth checking is if infinity is correct. I cut a piece of thin clear plastic to go over the film guides, and sand one side with very fine sandpaper to make an ersatz groundglass. Set the shutter to T or B and aperture to wide open, and check if infinity gives you a sharp picture. Its often necessary to adjust this on folders.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the tips. I did not use a hood or a yellow filter. I will see if I have any the correct size.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uddhava wrote:
I finished one roll of film. The photos are kind of dark and I chopped off some heads composing through the viewfinder.
The negatives were scanned by the people that developed the film. Fomapan 100 was the film. I am not sure what to think.
My estimation of the distances may have been off and perhaps I did not choose my subjects wisely. Any comments or help welcomed. With some PP some of them would look better.

I think you didn't begin in the best conditions by choosing a 6x9 6x4.5 folding limited to 1/100 and loaded with Fomapan 100 iso.
About heads chopped off, do you have a button or somewhat next to the viewfinder to reduce the view when 6x4.5 is chosen ?

What did you use to calculate exposition ?

Else, what I would do :
- Load a better film than Fomapan, for instance try Kodak TMax400 which is 400 iso and give better light latitude and has a fine grain quality.
- Find a rangefinder to set the correct distance on the lens.
- Beware moving blur when pressing shutter. Maybe use a release shutter cable.
- After a while, develop films and scan them by yourself.

For a beginning they are not so bad.
Wink

Oh, another thing, scans are usually done with settings keeping details in lights and shadows.
That gives dull and lifeless pictures.
We have to consider them as raw files and consequently they must be processed.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for more tips.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of your pictures above quickly post processed in lightroom :

Your raw scan with details in lights and shadows


a proposal of post processing in LR with more contrast and local zones treatment


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, much better. Thanks for the sample.