6x4.5 folders

[uddhava]

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.

[evgenv]

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...

[Teemō]

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.

[uddhava]

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

[Attila]

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/

[uddhava]

[luisalegria]

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.

[luisalegria]

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.

[dan_]

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...).

[luisalegria]

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

[uddhava]

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.

[uddhava]

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.

[luisalegria]

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

[uddhava]

[luisalegria]

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

[Olivier]

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.

[uddhava]

[uddhava]

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

[luisalegria]

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.

[uddhava]

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.

[Olivier]

[uddhava]

Thank you for more tips.

[Olivier]

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

[uddhava]

Yes, much better. Thanks for the sample.