Bob Monaghan wrote:

. . . . . . . . . .

yes, the uncoupled rangefinder would probably work fine for many users,
esp. landscape types and a lot of travel work. A simple focusing chart
along the sliding standard (as with many older folders) could do the job
too, minimizing the cost and complexity of the focusing mount.

It is actually a little surprising how accurate one get become using just an
uncoupled rangefinder, and a somewhat calibrated focus scale. While I am sure
distance and DOF help in most cases, I have also done many successful, well
focused, images at close range use folder cameras. One area that has been
less successful is accurate framing, since these cameras do not offer
parallax correction.



But you are probably right that our interest doesn't match the real
marketplace, so we will have to homebrew such cameras rather than expect
to run in and buy them off the shelf. I think if fuji had made their zoom
lens a bit longer, it might have been enough to make it a nice travel
camera (esp. at 28 ounces for a 645 RF).

I really wonder about the longer focal length, or telephoto usage. While many
seem to want longer lenses, I question how much they actually get used.
Combine that with larger film sizes, and cropping ability, and I do not think
the Fuji rangefinders sold poorly due to lack of long lenses. While that
might be claimed for the Bronica RF645, I think the real story is distrust
due to the focusing problems with the early 135 mm lens.

Many medium format (645 or 6x6 mostly) photographers will claim using a 150
mm lens often. When looking at what these are most useful for, it is often
tight framing for portraits, either head shots, or only head and shoulders
(upper torso) images. While a longer lens can be less obtrusive to your
subject, by allowing more distance, I really wonder about the desire to
always fill the frame. With 6x6 photographers especially, most of the square
images get cropped anyway, so what is the big deal about cropping further.



I think a big part of the reason folders died, similar to TLR sales, is
that the existing market of used and low cost but serviceable TLRs and
folders made it possible to satisfy many buyers with a used rolleiflex or
ikonta or whatever.

Victims of their own success? Perhaps they should have made them of worse
quality, which would ensure future sales.

Even today, many folks are settling for a Moskva 5
copy or similar at modest prices, and happily so if they get a good one
;-) But the lack of a multiple lens option makes these cameras less of a
stand-alone solution for travel and so on, making the Bronica RF645 and
Mamiya 7 series a lot more attractive to users.

Though the Bronica RF645 has not sold well. A check of used prices for Mamiya
7, and many not completed auctions, might indicate that the price for the
Mamiya is thought to be too high. Don't get me wrong, I think these are great
systems, though I think the marketing and further development could go
better. I hope neither of these companies discontinue these cameras.

I am really amazed that you never mentioned the Polaroid 600SE. There were
roll film backs, and a few lenses available. While not super light, it is
somewhat compact. The rangefinder works fairly well, though the left hand
grip takes a little getting use to using.



I have been playing with a few polaroid SLRs, captiva etc., and keep
trying to think how a MF rollfilm folder could be similarly crafted.

The focusing mechanism on the Automatic 250, 350, 360, and 450 is one very
useful item. Removing that and attaching to a flat adapter plate for
something like a Graflock, Linhof, Horseman, or similar roll film adaptation,
would be useful.

I saw a somewhat rare NPC item once that might get your interest. It had a
Copal 3 shutter, with a Nikon F mount on it. Just a simple aluminium block
was used to locate all the parts, and a pack film back. I would think that
something similar could be done using other lens mounts, and large format
shutters. I don't remember the focusing mechanism for that, though it would
seem that something could be adapted.


Another area of inquiry is how a digital chip could be used in a modern
design for focusing and composition (including closeup work as with SLR)
and then pop out of way and allow film exposure.

You mean something other than a removable back, like some medium format
backs? I think one problem is that these are a bit thick, so your eye goes
further back than with the normal film back, except on some SLRs.

This would eliminate much
of the SLR bulk and complexity while providing thru the lens composition
and effects (grad filters, polarizers..) etc.

Still seems like a simple ground glass would work okay. Personally, I think
it is a shame that a truly small and compact TLR was not developed, where the
focusing lens and mechanism where closer to rangefinder size, and got away
from the box shape.



Finally, it may just be that we need better afocal adapters. As I have
noted, the telephoto (finder scope style) attachments could be used easily
enough in a pinch with the right bayonet filter ring adapter (faster
on/off). A low magnification afocal adapter should be do-able with minimal
vignetting, though size and close focusing distances would be tradeoffs...


There are Optec, Raynox, and Century Precision, though mostly video and
motion film cameras. I have used some Century Precision adapters, and they
are very high quality, though at a somewhat unfriendly price.


The zeiss mutars were very pricey but also very excellent adapters. The
standard japanese/korean superwide 0.42x and similar are not close to the
cost or quality, though pretty good for the $$. Perhaps some of the new
lighter superwide adapters for video will be better optically, and so
provide an option for fixed lens camera users (moskva 5 etc.?). The one I
have purchased is not as good as the bigger heavier glass older 0.42x
mutar I matched it against, but then, what can you expect for $20-ish from
dealer closeouts? ;-)

I think actual lenses could still be better choice, except for simple close
up adapters. The various Polaroid close up adapters actually do a fairly good
job for portrait work.



oh well, the search for the perfect camera, as with the perfect
cheeseburger, continues...

I don't think there is a perfect camera, though I find the old 6x9 folders
really intriguing. It is my hope to find an economical way to improve the
image quality, without getting too bulky, nor too complex, and still keeping
it fairly economical. I think money should be spent mostly on a good lens, or
two, probably something large format. The other solutions of focusing and
parallax might be solved with simple add-on rangefinders and a viewing finder
replacing the original window finder. The basic idea is a low cost ALPA 12
competitor, but with a more normal to short telephoto lens set-up, rather
than the wide bias of the ALPA. My guess is under $400 for all parts, sourced
from used gear, with the lens being the highest cost.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com