Author Topic: Looking for the perfect COMPACT 6x4.5 camera (Read 22215 times)

Kai-san · « **on:** April 14, 2015, 07:00:45 PM »

I have been looking around for a good 6x4.5 camera lately. There are many nice ones and I quite like the Contax 645 (apart from the price!). But I have started thinking that the 6x4.5 format is really the half frame solution for MF, like an Olympus Pen for 35mm film. And the more I think about it I don't like the idea of lugging around a large heavy camera that is better off on a tripod just to get the half size of 6x9. So in the spirit of 'small is beautiful' I've started looking for a small and really portable camera. I already have a Fuji GA645W which is kind of nice, but it has autofocus which I have come to dislike more and more. So I'm looking for a camera with manual focus and preferrably with a coupled rangefinder, it does not need to have a built in lightmeter. The Bronica RF645 looks nice, but I hear there are issues with film winding. The most promising I've seen so far is the Konica Pearl III.
Are there any gems out there that I have overlooked? All views appreciated.

jharr · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2015, 07:50:07 PM »

If you don't mind full manual and a fixed lens, there are tons of 6x9 folders out there that will take an accessory 6x4.5 mask. I have a Bessa 6x9 that I love, though I rarely use it for 645. It folds up and fits in the back pocket of my jeans. With the mask I think I paid ~$120 for the Voigtar lens model. It was also made with a Color Skopar which would be quite dear, I imagine.

scapevision · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2015, 08:32:02 PM »

There's a Bronica 645RF

Kai-san · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2015, 08:37:29 PM »

Both the Bessa II and the Bessa RF looks nice. I don't mind a fixed lens, but maybe a 105mm is more suited for the 6x9 format. I would really be happier with something around 75mm. But it is worth looking into these combined cameras, I did not think about that possibility. Thanks for the tip, James!

Francois · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:31:59 PM »

Holga and Diana F+... Oh wait, you did say "Nice" didn't you

charles binns · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:53:24 PM »

Quote from: Francois on April 14, 2015, 09:31:59 PM

Holga and Diana F+... Oh wait, you did say "Nice" didn't you

Shame on you Francois. There is nothing nicer than a Holga. I agree with you about the Diana F+ - but the original Dianas and their clones are so much nicer. The F+ is a Hipster's Leica.

Kai-san · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2015, 09:58:46 PM »

Well I used the word 'gem' and I suppose some might place both Holgas and Dianas in that category. But it was not quite what I had in mind, Francois.

Scapevision; I think Bronica 645RF is the same as the RF645 that I mentioned. Anybody with experience of this camera?

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2015, 10:32:37 PM »

I think it was French photographer Bernard Plossu who used it for one of his series... but I'd have to check. I know I have a review of it somewhere and from memory they said it was good.

You can also check this out
http://web.archive.org/web/20060508230912/http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bronrf645.html

edthened · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2015, 10:56:36 PM »

Och hou aboot wunno rem Zeiss Ikon Ikonta (521) cameras

Taks awfie grand fotis

02Pilot · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:40:57 AM »

I've heard really good things about the Konica Pearl, but they do seem to be scarce. The Zeiss 6x4.5 folders are similarly small and probably more common, but the RF arrangement is not as compact (on those that even have an RF). There are some other options out there, but I doubt you'll find anything smaller than the Konica; depends how small you want to go. I've got a real oddball for 6x4.5, a prewar Certo Super Sport Dolly - coupled RF, unit focusing, even an extinction meter. Quite capable, but much bigger than some of the other choices.

Flippy · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2015, 04:48:21 AM »

I really enjoy my Pilot 6.

Pilot 6 by berangberang, on Flickr

Measured in extreme dimensions it is actually a bit smaller than some 35mm SLRs.

And I love the results I get from it:

volkswagen by berangberang, on Flickr

Hero Dog Clock by berangberang, on Flickr

It is however not the easiest/most convenient camera to use. There is a 6x6 and a dual format version too.

Weren't there some Rolleicords that did 645? I think that would be a good option. There are plenty of folders, Balda, Zeiss Ikon, Welmy, Welta, Minolta Semi, etc. but I'm personally not a big fan of folding cameras anymore.

Ezzie · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2015, 07:20:23 AM »

I know 127 film is a bit scarce, and expensive as a result. But it is still being made. And with practice you can cut down 120 quite easily. If of interest there are quite a few 127 4x6 (or 4x6.5) cameras out there. Folders, box and even folding twin lens. The advantage being that these for the most part are landscape oriented. And 127 being 47mm wide, the frame is not 4cm, more like 43-44mm. May actually result in a fraction more real estate per frame.

EDIT: On second thoughts, not many of these are made after the war, so would be difficult to get hold of one with fast coated optics and reliable shutter.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:06:24 PM »

looking through the postwar 6x4,5 japanese folders I found the Petri RF and it seems nice
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Karoron_RF_and_Petri_RF

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:German_4.5x6_rangefinder_folding
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_4.5x6_rangefinder_folding

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** April 15, 2015, 02:06:49 PM »

My Lubitel has a removable 645 mask...

SLVR · « **Reply #14 on:** April 15, 2015, 03:14:47 PM »

You can get a 645 kit for the rolleicords and rolleiflexes.

May I ask why exactly you are set on 645? Is it an economy thing as well as the portability that you mentioned? I think there are lots of great cameras out there that are very portable that aren't 645.

Some that come to mind could be:
Mamiya 6
Lomo LCA 120
Rolleicord/flex
Fuji GF670
Zeiss Ikon Ikonta

Going back to adapters for the rollei'. Why not just shoot 6x6? The size difference is the same with the camera but the clunkiness and expense of finding a 645 kit for the camera doesnt sound all that appealing to me.

Also with the bronica RF645 keep in mind the VF will be exactly like half frame, portrait orientation.

Kai-san · « **Reply #15 on:** April 15, 2015, 08:00:28 PM »

Thanks to all for the input. Ed, I’m quite a fan of the Zeiss camera family, but is there an Ikonta with coupled rangefinder? There are so many models, it’s a jungle out there.

The Pilot 6 looks like a mean machine, and I love the pics you’ve taken with it, Flippy. I’m generally not a fan of box cameras, but it looks like good fun. Eirik, I have seen some really nice mouthwatering 127 cameras, but as you say the film situation is not the best. The Petri RF and its siblings looks very nice Jonas, but they seem to be even scarcer than the Konica. In fact there were more offers on 02Pilot’s Certo.
Why 645? It’s not a question of economy, although it is nice to be able to shoot 16 frames without changing film. It’s the possibility of shooting MF with improved quality compared to 35mm, and to be able to do that with a light and compact camera. 6x6 is in my opinion a totally different format, and I do not like to crop my pictures, I prefer to compose them in the field.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** April 15, 2015, 09:57:29 PM »

You can also go for a Bencini Koroll II... that's a proper 120 half frame camera since it puts 24 images on a roll of 120 for that funky aspect ratio.

Hungry Mike · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2015, 01:56:12 AM »

I'll second the Bencini Koroll II. Not a fancy camera by any means but fun. If you like the Holga have a look at the Koroll II. It does not have as dreamy a quality as the Holga but a similar aesthetic.

edthened · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2015, 02:25:46 AM »

Och Kai-san, therzz a Super Ikonta A 531 wi wunno rem rangefinders attatcht https://www.flickr.com/photos/silhouettepies/521361848/in/pool-camerapedia/

butta think it wad costye a prettie pennie

02Pilot · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2015, 03:17:31 AM »

Out of curiosity I checked Ebay and found a few Super Sport Dollies, one of which was actually pretty reasonable. I also found a few Konica Pearls, which I had to resist buying myself. I'm interested to see what you end up going with; my entry in 6x4.5 was completely accidental - I found the Certo looking quite the worse for wear in an antiques shop and couldn't leave it there in that sad state. Given the quality of the images it produces (uncoated 75/2.8 Zeiss Tessar) I'm glad I took pity on it and restored it (shameless sample photo follows).

MrclSchprs · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2015, 11:18:08 AM »

Have a look at the Fuji GA645 (http://www.dantestella.com/technical/ga645.html) series.

Kai-san · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2015, 09:07:48 PM »

The Bencini Koroll II has a very interesting design as do most Italian cameras, but maybe a bit too basic, I like to be able to control the aperture. I had a look at the Super Ikonta A 531 Ed, it is very nice. It reminds me of the Polaroid 101, it has one window for focusing and one for framing. The focusing window looks very tiny and I fear that I might be in trouble since I wear glasses, what do you think? I already have a Fed 5b that I try to get rid of for the very same reason, it has a pinhole viewfinder and the diopter adjustment stops at -3 (I'm -4).
02Pilot, that Certo of yours impresses me, very nice picture! Does it have a Zeiss Tessar or Schneider-Kreuznach lens?
As for the Fuji GA645 series: as mentioned I already have a GA645W.
By now I feel like a spoilt brat, seeming to find something wrong with all your propositions.

Sorry about that but I appreciate them all, I feel like I've learnt a lot from you guys so keep them coming.

Well, as long as you don't suggest this one, I don't think I can afford it!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintag-Roland-645-Rangdfinder-camera-w-Plasmat-70mm-f-2-7-Plasmat-No-W-799-/311303663066?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item487b24edda

02Pilot · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2015, 02:09:17 AM »

My Certo has a 75mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar, uncoated, in a Compur shutter. The camera is impressive in many ways, but it's a pre-war design and it shows. The body-mounted release button requires a convoluted linkage that can go wrong in about ten different ways. The rangefinder is a split-image type, which is hard to see in the best of conditions, and the mechanism is both crude and delicate. The VF and RF windows are very small, and framing is hardly precise. Since it's a dual-format camera (6x6 and 6x4.5), it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated 6x4.5. On the subject of format, you have to have a mask even for 6x6, since the rollers are built into the mask rather than the body.

That said, the build quality is very good, and the lens and shutter are fairly foolproof. Clearly, it's not the most user-friendly camera ever made, but it does take very nice photos if you can live with the quirks.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:03:54 AM »

I bought this because it is British, it is pocket sized but not in weight, the quality of the images though is first rate.

A review and some images, I think it cost me less than £20.

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.ie/2009/08/ensign-selfix-1620.html

And finally against my Leica which some think of as small.

Kai-san · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:07:48 PM »

Photo_Utopia, that is a very nice piece of kit. I had a look in ebay and there are quite a few different Ensign models for sale. I had a look at the Fuji GS645 series as well but they are a bit too plastic-fantastic for me. So far the scales are still tipping in favour of the Konica Pearl III, but it might not be easy to find one in good condition. Currently there are two on ebay, one has fungus and the other one has a pair of bellows that look like they've been eaten by rats. Patience might be a good thing.........

Ezzie · « **Reply #25 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:12:21 PM »

The plastic on the Fujis is only skin deep Kai, they are all metal bodied.

But that Ensign really is a looker.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2015, 05:50:41 PM »

That Pilot 6 looks like a lot of fun ... as do most of the others, too.

Too bad that most are rather old and it's a bit hard to find one (at a reasonable price) that works fine.

Kai-san · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2015, 07:27:54 PM »

The most amazing thing about the Pilot 6 is that the tiny little box is in fact an SLR! Right now there is a Pilot Super 6x6 on ebay, it has a lens from Enna Werke and they have a rather good reputation. It's a supercool camera!

Ezzie · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2015, 06:31:50 AM »

Since we are on the topic of boxy SLRs, had 127 4x4 (43x43) mm been a big enough frame, then the Komaflex would have been a nice choice. Very similar to the Pilot, only even smaller. It's a Kowa by the way, they had a very confusing naming of their cameras to begin with, Kallo, Kowa, Koma, etc. Kowa optics are by reputation stellar, and personal experience backs that.

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/komaflex-s.htm

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2015, 06:35:44 AM »

Oh yes, I remember that one Eirik! But 127 really is a bit of a pain.

And that Pilot 6 you're talking about. It's the one located in Germany, right? But 99€ minimum bid for a camera with such a bad description? I don't know ...

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2015, 06:40:13 AM »

I will keep looking for that perfect (yeah, I know

) small 120 camera for the time being. The Bronica ETRSi is amazing but also really big and heavy.

Flippy · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2015, 08:40:31 PM »

There was a very nice Pilot 6 that sold for under $30 recently, I was watching it but decided not to bid at the last moment since I already have two (1 6x6, 1 645). There's another 6x6 one for $79 that looks nice but is missing the lower film roller - I'd imagine one from any old box camera could be used as a replacement though. The name makes it rather hard to search for on ebay or online though. But if one is not used to using old SLRs it would probably not be a fun camera (I personally love using old SLRs though).

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #32 on:** April 25, 2015, 07:51:24 AM »

What's the problem with old SLRs? My only problem could be that the mirror isn't really good anymore and the finder is dark.

But my main problem is that I don't fix cameras. And I guess all those Pilots will need some work.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #33 on:** April 25, 2015, 08:28:55 AM »

Quote from: Kai-san on April 19, 2015, 08:07:48 PM

Photo_Utopia, that is a very nice piece of kit. I had a look in ebay and there are quite a few different Ensign models for sale. I had a look at the Fuji GS645 series as well but they are a bit too plastic-fantastic for me. So far the scales are still tipping in favour of the Konica Pearl III, but it might not be easy to find one in good condition. Currently there are two on ebay, one has fungus and the other one has a pair of bellows that look like they've been eaten by rats. Patience might be a good thing.........

All I can say about the Ensign is they are common, cheap and fairly rugged (take 16 images on 120). I have a Zeiss Ikon as well but the Ross lens is far better than the Tessar it is based on.
With 2-3 16-20 on Ebay between £25-30 they will serve you well at a cheap price-I have one in the car loaded and ready to go 24/7

Aksel · « **Reply #34 on:** April 27, 2015, 09:58:26 PM »

If you don´t mind the film orientation of the Bronica 645 RF it´s a superb camera! Used to have one that went around with me pretty much every day for 2 years. It feels solid, gives great results and it´s pretty compact.
Another one for the list is the Fuji GS645, perfect to just toss in the bag - no worries, lens protected by the lid and it´s not all to expensive. The Fuji GA series feels very much like a grown up Mju II - point and shoot, perfect exposure with flash and very compact!
I miss mine and will for sure pick one up sometime in the future. The Mamiya 6 is just a tad larger, feels better the the lot and you don´t have to think about orientation to get portrait/landscape and there´s the GF670, very much a hate/love thing. What where they thinking when they made a folder camera that can´t be collapsed with the filter attached? As mentioned by others - Bessa II & SuperIkonta´s are very compact and gives great results... It´s a jungle out there - so many tempting variations to check you before you hopefully find you favourite

Dave Elden · « **Reply #35 on:** April 28, 2015, 12:45:52 AM »

Quote from: Aksel on April 27, 2015, 09:58:26 PM

If you don´t mind the film orientation of the Bronica 645 RF it´s a superb camera!

+1 on that, I have one with the 65 & 45mm lenses, the whole kit + Minolta IVF meter and some film and the 45mm finder will go in an Ona Bowery shoulder bag - and you can still close it (just). As much as the folders are even more compact you lose the option of a different lens and the superb RF645 finder. The film advance on mine has stuck and refused to wind on part way through a roll on two occasions since I've owned it (bought used). It seems to help to make sure the film is as taut as you can get it when loading but yes, it is a weakness of the design.
The orientation I found way less of an issue than I expected, I do shoot it mostly vertical but I shoot 35mm that way a lot too. YMMV.
It's a camera that should hold its value so if you buy one and it doesn't work out the you probably can flip it without losing too many $.
To conclude for me the RF645 is the perfect compact 645 cam, a great option for travel, especially with 16 exposures/roll. I do have a Mamiya 6 RF and it hasn't seen much travel use since the Bronica arrived. Also have a Voigtlander Bessa (Voigtar lens), OK but the finder is horrible compared to modern cameras.
Fusjis: have only handled but not owned, if I didn't already have the Bronica I would try one of them, some are even smaller and they are cheaper - but fixed lens I think.

Dave.
PS, that Ensign looks like an inspired design - assuming the finder is bright & clear.

Kai-san · « **Reply #36 on:** April 28, 2015, 08:32:18 PM »

Lots of good input here, thanks to all. Talking about folders, I happened to see a Chinese camera on ebay, the Seagull 203. It is said to be a copy of the Agfa Super Isolette which is a 6x6, but the Seagull is a combined 6x6 and 6x4.5 camera. It was made between 1964 and -67 and has an advance lever for the film which the Agfa did not. But the lens is chinese as well and I expect that it is rather in the Lomo league (no offence!). Anybody heard or seen anything about this camera?
The Agfa Super Isolette had a Soviet copy as well, the Iskra RF (Industar lens) which is an almost perfect copy. At least the Chinese had the good sense of adding their own style to it.

Flippy · « **Reply #37 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:01:46 PM »

I don't know anything about the Seagull folder, but if it is a relative of the Seagull TLR it may be a sharp performer.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #38 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:48:00 AM »

If anybody has a working 6x6 or 6x4.5 folder with a rangefinder or a (working) Pilot 6 lying around that they don't need, just PM me.

Ezzie · « **Reply #39 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:55:29 AM »

Quote from: Kai-san on April 28, 2015, 08:32:18 PM

Lots of good input here, thanks to all. Talking about folders, I happened to see a Chinese camera on ebay, the Seagull 203. It is said to be a copy of the Agfa Super Isolette which is a 6x6, but the Seagull is a combined 6x6 and 6x4.5 camera. It was made between 1964 and -67 and has an advance lever for the film which the Agfa did not. But the lens is chinese as well and I expect that it is rather in the Lomo league (no offence!). Anybody heard or seen anything about this camera?
The Agfa Super Isolette had a Soviet copy as well, the Iskra RF (Industar lens) which is an almost perfect copy. At least the Chinese had the good sense of adding their own style to it.

Agree with Flippy. Used to follow a chap on Flickr who used one of these folders, and it performed more than adequately.

Kai-san · « **Reply #40 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:03:18 PM »

OK guys, I'm not going to keep you in suspense any longer. I have made up my mind and let's say that it's partly down to practical concerns and partly down to pure GAS! I have purchased a Konica Pearl IIIMX which is a later model than the III (1956). The MX designation is due to the fact that this model has a Seikosha MX shutter in stead of the Konirapid S. In addition it has X-sync and an improved version of the lens. This one looks like it is in very good condition apart from the bellows which looks a bit tired. But there is no light leak if I have understood the seller correctly (my Japanese-english is very bad). A pair of bellows is reasonably easy to replace and there should be no problem getting one made to order. What I particularly like about the Pearl is its compact size, easy handling and the automatic stop on the film advance.
I hope to receive it early next week, I will keep you posted. Thanks again for all good advice, it will come in handy if this one flops!

Ezzie · « **Reply #41 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:09:34 PM »

Oooooh, nice. Good choice.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #42 on:** April 30, 2015, 08:12:47 AM »

Wow, the Konica Pearls look awesome, Kai! I think I'll have to stick with my Kodak 66 Model II for now as money is tight. I've almost repaired it, I just need to collimate the lens. Let's hope the bellows are light tight.

Still, if someone has a better camera lying around, I'm all ears.

Aksel · « **Reply #43 on:** April 30, 2015, 10:58:50 AM »

That was a very nice little pearl! So compact!!!
Congrats, hope it lives up to your expectations