At 19:57 10/24/02, Andre Goforth wrote:
Zuiks,
A couple of weeks ago someone mentioned their favorite walk around was an
Agfa Isolette(sic), a vintage medium format folding camera. I didn't think
anything about it except how curious. To make a long story short I was in
a camera store that sells used Oly equipment looking for fangs and saw
this "thing" where some funky OM10s were sitting. They had just taken in
the "thing" and it was a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta BX. The old (1952)
folder 6X6 takes amazing pics!!! And it folds up into a fat wallet. I've
rented those bricks like Mamiya, and Fuji rangefinders and felt I was in a
Disney carton with this huge thing hanging off of my neck.
First camera I used was a 620 folder. They are light weight compared to
other cameras. Sounds like you got a good one in decent working
condition. Not surprised about the "amazing pics" you're getting. The
Super Ikonta BX has quite excellent glass! Folders were specifically
created to fit into (large) coat pockets.
(645s don't count personally as medium format; they are more like 35mm on
steroids. And all of these that I've seen are brick-like.)
If you're seriously into square prints (and some are) then a 6x6 is a *must
have* be it a TLR, RF, folder or SLR. However, if you have standard sizes
of rectangular prints made (3.5x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, etc.) a 645 is more
efficient with film. The long dimension of the 645 film frame is identical
to the 6x6 height and width, 57mm. After cropping it top/bottom or
left/right to make a rectangular print from a 6x6, you are using
approximately the same portion of film as a 645 makes with its entire frame
and a 6x6 has zero gain in additional film area. Indeed, the 6x6 SLR's
I've looked through have vertical and horizontal 645 lines etched on the
focusing screen to aid in composing for rectangular prints.
The advantage I've most often heard from those who prefer a 6x6 versus a
645 is not having to turn the camera sideways. This makes using a WLF
infinitely easier. A 645 SLR requires a prism to be of much use. Prisms
versus WLF's have pros and cons for each and preference is typically based
on the subject material and conditions under which it's photographed. The
WLF is lighter than a prism, but is not as usable in lower light levels,
nor does it work well when trying to follow action (the reason for the
"sports finder" built into the hood). Gaining additional area for
rectangular prints requires a 6x7 or larger.
Sure, I read about the weakness of the folders being that of keeping the
film plane in the lens' depth of focus but so what about the weakness of,
say, Hasselblads with the weakness in their camera back getting out of
kilter with the body. (Go Rollei!!!)
Maintain and protect the lens board mechanicals, don't abuse them, and you
should be OK. The other issue with the folders is condition of the
bellows. Inspect it periodically for dry rot and fatigue at the fold points
where it flexes most. Bellows on most can be replaced without too much
problem or cost by someone experienced with these older cameras.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|