Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas


I have an opportunity to buy one, it is something like 6x9cm, I haven't fully
examined it. There is no maker's name anywhere on it. The "box-body"
and focus rails with lens standard were of the same manufacture for this
camera.

But I am quite sure that it is also a full modification home job that worked
very well (probably having been a small plate camera) as there is no way to
look through anything in order to focus it, no rangefinder and no ground
glass.

So it is a zone focusser, estimate the distance and use a smaller aperture
from a light meter, yes? Though it does have a fold out "sport frame" on
the front standard that flips out to the side as the camera is standing up
LOL...

As for being a possible home job, the shutter is an old Deckel type Compur
size 2 but not 0 or 00, speeds go up to 125/s (T, B) working quite well. It
is not as big as a size 3. Definitely one of the last to say "Deckel" on it, more
modern.

So I am convinced it is not the original shutter, yet mounted is an un-coated
Steinheil Munchen (Munich) lens with no scratches. The glass is older than
the shutter!

Mounted on the back of the box-body is a roll film holder/back, which will
slide out of stamped steel slide rails, to reveal no GG and no place for one...
I still need to examine this RFH/B. You only see the back element and the
folded bellows around it.

If all is well with it's workings, there are things I could do, I think a unique
idea which is build a new box-body made of teak or something nice (4-1/2 x
3-1/2 x 1-3/4 deep approx. in inches) with box finger joints like a cigar box,
and rebuild all the hardware into it.

Yet, instead keeping it a zone focusser, route in new grooves all around in
the new box for both GG and the RFH/B, but only one all-around groove.
I would hence be focusing on the GG, then remove it and replace it with the
RFH/B, remove the dark slide and shoot.

The glass can have steel thicknesser framing (strips) all around it's facing
edges so it matches the focal plane of the RFH/B, when slid into the grooves.

Would anyone consider this to be a feasable and workable idea, The seller
wants an even $100 for it... does anyone think I should?

Does anyone know about this camera better than me?

--
}<)))*> Giant Alex
cravdraa at-yahoo dot-com
not my site: * w w w .e-sword . net /

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On 22 Aug, 07:08, "AAvK" <Idondo...@wahoo . com > wrote:
> I have an opportunity to buy one, it is something like 6x9cm, I haven't f=
ully
> examined it. There is no maker's name anywhere on it. The "box-body"
> and focus rails with lens standard were of the same manufacture for this
> camera.
>
> But I am quite sure that it is also a full modification home job that wor=
ked
> very well (probably having been a small plate camera) as there is no way =
to
> look through anything in order to focus it, no rangefinder and no ground
> glass.
>
> So it is a zone focusser, estimate the distance and use a smaller aperture
> from a light meter, yes? Though it does have a fold out "sport frame" on
> the front standard that flips out to the side as the camera is standing up
> LOL...
>
> As for being a possible home job, the shutter is an old Deckel type Compur
> size 2 but not 0 or 00, speeds go up to 125/s (T, B) working quite well. =
It
> is not as big as a size 3. Definitely one of the last to say "Deckel" on=
it, more
> modern.
>
> So I am convinced it is not the original shutter, yet mounted is an un-co=
ated
> Steinheil Munchen (Munich) lens with no scratches. The glass is older th=
an
> the shutter!
>
> Mounted on the back of the box-body is a roll film holder/back, which will
> slide out of stamped steel slide rails, to reveal no GG and no place for =
one...
> I still need to examine this RFH/B. You only see the back element and the
> folded bellows around it.
>
> If all is well with it's workings, there are things I could do, I think a=
unique
> idea which is build a new box-body made of teak or something nice (4-1/2 x
> 3-1/2 x 1-3/4 deep approx. in inches) with box finger joints like a cigar=
box,
> and rebuild all the hardware into it.
>
> Yet, instead keeping it a zone focusser, route in new grooves all around =
in
> the new box for both GG and the RFH/B, but only one all-around groove. =20
> I would hence be focusing on the GG, then remove it and replace it with t=
he
> RFH/B, remove the dark slide and shoot.
>
> The glass can have steel thicknesser framing (strips) all around it's fac=
ing
> edges so it matches the focal plane of the RFH/B, when slid into the groo=
ves.
>
> Would anyone consider this to be a feasable and workable idea, The seller
> wants an even $100 for it... does anyone think I should? =20
>
> Does anyone know about this camera better than me?
>
> --}<)))*> Giant_Alex
>
> cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
> not my site: * w w w .e-sword . net /

If you want it then buy it but don't assume it will take good
pictures. If you want a more reliable 6x9 camera in the sense that it
can take good photos then get a Super Ikonta with a coated Tessar lens
or a Voigtl=E4nder that you have somehow checked to make sure the lens
is held rigidly when the bellows are extended.

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas


If you want it then buy it but don't assume it will take good
pictures. If you want a more reliable 6x9 camera in the sense that it
can take good photos then get a Super Ikonta with a coated Tessar lens
or a Voigtländer that you have somehow checked to make sure the lens
is held rigidly when the bellows are extended.



Yes, thanks, but it is also a financial thing of limitation, yet a seemingly great possibility.

I would love to have a Voightlander 6x9 with a coated Heliar definitely, as well as a
couple rangefinder. I just saw one sell on the *bay for, what was it... $787? YUP...
Item number: 110158786629 ooohh aaahh!

HOWEVER, thank you as well for the advice on the front standard, I'll check it out.

--
Giant_Alex
not my site: * w w w .e-sword . net /

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas


"AAvK" <Idondodat@wahoo . com > wrote in message news:GtPyi.90671$dI1.1234@newsfe08.phx...
> [snip]


I thought up this check list:

Box folder check list:
-
Lens, Steinheil Munchen:

what model is it (for internet / vade mecum research)
focal length and aperture numbers
scratches on the glass
separation
coatings
are there parts / screws missing
-
front standard:

is it rigid when bellows is fully stretched
is it square to 90º when bellows is fully stretched
do all movements work
does the sliding focusing work well
are there gears
are there parts / screws missing
rust
-
bellows:

does the bellows have holes
does the bellows crack when stretched
how long does it stretch
-
roll film back with dark slide:

what size is the frame
does it fully work
does it have all parts
does it stop at the next frame
does it have a frame counter
are there parts / screws missing
rust

(shutter speeds not an issue, slow speeds are ever so slightly slower)

Anything I could add or correct?


--
Giant_Alex
not my site: * w w w .e-sword . net /

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On 23 Aug, 05:16, "AAvK" <Idondo...@wahoo . com > wrote:
> "RolandRB" <rolandbe...@hotmail . com > wrote in messagenews:1187838034.760250.5910@x40g2000prg.googlegroups . com ...
> > You might want to think about the ability of the lens. I recommend you
> > avoid triplets if you actually have any aims of taking decent
> > photographs with it.
>
> I am not going to buy that old camera... I gave a really thorough examination, too
> much is wrong with it. I found the aperture blades are mostly off their hinges. And
> the "roll back" (brand) was too ancient, no counter just the red window and no
> stopping at the next frame, time for Panatomic X?
>
> I got the "Munchen" from the shutter: "F. Deckel Munchen" But it is a Rodenstock
> Trinar F/4.5... way old (obviously tri = 3, 3nar). However there are some really
> sharp triplets out there that I have seen examples from.
>
> Thanks for the replies,
>
> --
> Giant_Alex
> not my site: * w w w .e-sword . net /

Good lenses for these old 6x9s are the coated Tessar, Color Skopar and
Color Heliar. The Ross Xpres is supposedly another good lens but
manufacturing quality leaves a lot to be desired. Best avoided.

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas


"RolandRB" <rolandberry@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On 23 Aug, 05:16, "AAvK" <Idondo...@wahoo . com > wrote:
>
> Good lenses for these old 6x9s are the coated Tessar, Color Skopar and
> Color Heliar. The Ross Xpres is supposedly another good lens but
> manufacturing quality leaves a lot to be desired. Best avoided.

Somewhere lying around here is a 6x6 Agfa folder that I ran a few rolls
through. The places on the frames that were sharp were very sharp, but the
plane of focus seemed to show up in rather random places. I suppose if I
found the hyperfocal distance for f/8 and then shot only landscapes at f/16
or f/22, I could get some sharp images. Maybe.

I suspect that that's about par for the course for these things. My best
guess would be that the 6x9 cameras would be even worse. Looking through a
Japanese book on these things, all 21 of the 6x9 cameras look as though
there's no way they could possible hold the lens parallel to the film
reliably.

Of course, I do have a perverse optimistic streak, and there's an Olympus
6x6 folder in one of the used stores I frequent that's looking very
attractive. If they wanted around US$200 for it, it would have come home
with me, but they want over US$400.

I should probably just shut up and buy a GW690, but they seem to be getting
more expensive, running about US$1,500 for a nice one. Ouch!

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> Somewhere lying around here is a 6x6 Agfa folder that I ran a few rolls
> through. The places on the frames that were sharp were very sharp, but the
> plane of focus seemed to show up in rather random places. I suppose if I
> found the hyperfocal distance for f/8 and then shot only landscapes at f/16
> or f/22, I could get some sharp images. Maybe.

Probably. Remember what those cameras were designed for. Most people
who used them had no real understanding of exposure or focus.

They probably used the equivalent of ISO 25 film, set the shutter for
1/25th the lens at F16 and infinity. More sophistocated photographers
used the "Sunny F16" and had more shadow detail. Some understood hyperfocal
distance, some even had the ability to guess distances. A few of the
cameras had rangefinders, most did not.

They also did not have coated lenses.

Agfa had the equivalent of ISO 80 film in the 1930's, No one else made
film at that speed until the late 1940's.

I had a Kodak "Tourist" camera from the 1950's and it had two films on
an exposure calculator on the back, Color (Kodacolor) and Black and
White (Verichrome). It just used the "Sunny F16" rule.

I assume the 1940's cameras did not have that as the only consumer color
film was Kodachrome and it did not exist in anything except 35mm.

Like most digital photos these days end up unseen on a hard drive, the
prints from these cameras had the same fate, enlarged to 4x4 (2x) inches or
6x6 (3x), or cropped to 4x6, they were looked at once and eneded up in
a box in the attic.

> I suspect that that's about par for the course for these things. My best
> guess would be that the 6x9 cameras would be even worse. Looking through a
> Japanese book on these things, all 21 of the 6x9 cameras look as though
> there's no way they could possible hold the lens parallel to the film
> reliably.

Sure, there were lots of cameras of that size and bigger (remember 116
and other large rolls?) that had a pressure plate and used the stiffness
of the film and backing paper to keep it straight. Not much there.

However shots from 6x9 and larger cameras rarely were enlarged. Serious
photographers used sheet film cameras, or just lived with the limitations
of their medium.

I was going to say that more attention was paid to compostition, lighting
and exposure, but I would be wrong. While many of those cameras were
capable of high quality shots if handled properly, they were the equivalent
of the cheap digital cameras of today and the point and shoot 35mm cameras
of the 1980's.

I would even hazzard a guess and say that the modern equivalent of
them is the Holga, which makes no pretense of being more than it is,
and people don't attribute higher quality to it than it has.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson . com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On 23 Aug, 10:24, g...@mendelson . com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > Somewhere lying around here is a 6x6 Agfa folder that I ran a few rolls
> > through. The places on the frames that were sharp were very sharp, but the
> > plane of focus seemed to show up in rather random places. I suppose if I
> > found the hyperfocal distance for f/8 and then shot only landscapes at f/16
> > or f/22, I could get some sharp images. Maybe.
>
> Probably. Remember what those cameras were designed for. Most people
> who used them had no real understanding of exposure or focus.
>
> They probably used the equivalent of ISO 25 film, set the shutter for
> 1/25th the lens at F16 and infinity. More sophistocated photographers
> used the "Sunny F16" and had more shadow detail. Some understood hyperfocal
> distance, some even had the ability to guess distances. A few of the
> cameras had rangefinders, most did not.
>
> They also did not have coated lenses.
>
> Agfa had the equivalent of ISO 80 film in the 1930's, No one else made
> film at that speed until the late 1940's.
>
> I had a Kodak "Tourist" camera from the 1950's and it had two films on
> an exposure calculator on the back, Color (Kodacolor) and Black and
> White (Verichrome). It just used the "Sunny F16" rule.
>
> I assume the 1940's cameras did not have that as the only consumer color
> film was Kodachrome and it did not exist in anything except 35mm.
>
> Like most digital photos these days end up unseen on a hard drive, the
> prints from these cameras had the same fate, enlarged to 4x4 (2x) inches or
> 6x6 (3x), or cropped to 4x6, they were looked at once and eneded up in
> a box in the attic.
>
> > I suspect that that's about par for the course for these things. My best
> > guess would be that the 6x9 cameras would be even worse. Looking through a
> > Japanese book on these things, all 21 of the 6x9 cameras look as though
> > there's no way they could possible hold the lens parallel to the film
> > reliably.
>
> Sure, there were lots of cameras of that size and bigger (remember 116
> and other large rolls?) that had a pressure plate and used the stiffness
> of the film and backing paper to keep it straight. Not much there.
>
> However shots from 6x9 and larger cameras rarely were enlarged. Serious
> photographers used sheet film cameras, or just lived with the limitations
> of their medium.
>
> I was going to say that more attention was paid to compostition, lighting
> and exposure, but I would be wrong. While many of those cameras were
> capable of high quality shots if handled properly, they were the equivalent
> of the cheap digital cameras of today and the point and shoot 35mm cameras
> of the 1980's.
>
> I would even hazzard a guess and say that the modern equivalent of
> them is the Holga, which makes no pretense of being more than it is,
> and people don't attribute higher quality to it than it has.
>
> Geoff.

Super Ikontas were considered serious cameras. I heard a story that
the day before England declared war on Germany the newspaper offices
sent people out to buy every Super Ikonta that existed in London so
they could use them for coverage of the war. It was considered the
most reliable camera at the time and supplies of it were about to dry
up.

> --
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson . com N3OWJ/4X1GM
> IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
> Visit my 'blog at * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On Aug 23, 4:24 am, g...@mendelson . com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:

> Agfa had the equivalent of ISO 80 film in the 1930's, No one else made
> film at that speed until the late 1940's.

Agfa did have faster films than anyone else
in the mid 1930s, but their advantage was
fairly short lived. The fastest Agfa-Ansco
film in the mid 1930s was Super Pan Press
which was Weston 64 (approx ISO 160) which
was twice as fast as Kodak's fastest film at
the time: Super-X at Weston 32 (approx ISO 80).

But by 1938 (I think) Kodak had Super-XX which
was Weston 80 (approx ISO 200).

The regular rollfilms of the 1920s and early
1930s were typified by Kodak N.C. film which
was Weston 8 (approx ISO 20) by the time that
Weston meters came out in the early 1930s.

Kodak Verichrome was a major advance when
it came out in 1931. Early Verichrome
was Weston 16 (approx ISO 40). Agfa Plenachrome
and Selo (Ilford) Selochrome were very similar.
These quickly became the normal films for
snapshooters.

Some time probably in the late 1930s,
(but certainly before 1943 when the
datasheet I have was printed) Verichrome
was improved to Weston 40 (approx ISO 125).

>
> I had a Kodak "Tourist" camera from the 1950's and it had two films on
> an exposure calculator on the back, Color (Kodacolor) and Black and
> White (Verichrome). It just used the "Sunny F16" rule.
>
> I assume the 1940's cameras did not have that as the only consumer color
> film was Kodachrome and it did not exist in anything except 35mm.

Kodacolor rollfilm came out in 1942. It was available in
127, 120, 620, 116, 616 and 122 sizes. It wasn't very good.
(Kodachrome in 35mm, 828 and sheet film was excellent.)


Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb . net

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:26:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol . com > wrote:

[---]

>I should probably just shut up and buy a GW690, but they seem to be getting
>more expensive, running about US$1,500 for a nice one. Ouch!

Indeed. And the Mamiya 7s aren't getting any cheaper, either. So
much for the "film is dead" mantra ...

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

Andrew Price wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:26:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol . com > wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>I should probably just shut up and buy a GW690, but they seem to be
>>getting more expensive, running about US$1,500 for a nice one. Ouch!
>
> Indeed. And the Mamiya 7s aren't getting any cheaper, either. So
> much for the "film is dead" mantra ...

Buy that GW690III, you won't regret it ;-)

Adding a screw-in 67mm linear polarizer, and having a Gossen Digisix light
meter makes for a potent and light combination (speaking from experience
here).

N.F.

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

On 23 Aug, 20:38, Andrew Price <ajpr...@free . fr > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:26:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>
> <davi...@gol . com > wrote:
>
> [---]
>
> >I should probably just shut up and buy a GW690, but they seem to be getting
> >more expensive, running about US$1,500 for a nice one. Ouch!
>
> Indeed. And the Mamiya 7s aren't getting any cheaper, either. So
> much for the "film is dead" mantra ...

Film has been dying for years. Let's hope it is still dying in twenty
years time so we can still buy it.

I see Canon have brought out a 21.1 megapixel camera. This is surely
encroaching into MF. But that camera body is expensive, and to get the
best results out of it will require Canon "L" lenses though, I guess
you could get away with an "L" zoom to keep costs down. It's still
more expensive than film if you don't take many shots but if you use a
camera every day and need MF quality then I can see a lot of
photographers moving over to this camera and selling off their MF
gear. Maybe this will have a negative impact of the demand for 120
roll film.
* w w w .dpreview . com /previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/

Re: Old small tropical fold-out with a bellows ideas

RolandRB wrote:
> Maybe this will have a negative impact of the demand for 120 roll film.

I'm sure it will. A few years ago you could get film from Kodak, Agfa
and Ilford, plus if you searched around/mail ordered several other
small companies. Agfa is gone, and I expect that Kodak's days are
numbered.

Commercial photography has all but abandoned film, my expectation is the
only PROFESSIONAL market 120 film remains in use is the wedding business.
That's on its way out too, digital and HDTV video have all replaced
it.

As this happens, Kodak will reduce its offerings in film, eventually they
will be down to a color negative for general photography, a color negative
for portrait use and a chromogenic black and white film. My guess is that
will be before the end of the decade.

Ilford will hang on for as long as they can, it depends upon how many rolls
of film people buy, instead of complaining on usenet that it is disapearing
(mea culpa).

Small "boutique" film manufacturers will continue for many years to come,
but their products will never make the corner store (remember when you
could get several different films at one?).

Like other things of the past, such as morse code keys, and leaded gasoline
(or additives to regular gas), they will continue to be available, but
not easily.

My hope is for companies such as Lucky. If one in a million Chinese buy
a roll of 120 film a year, they will sell a lot more than here, where
that would be 4-5 :-(

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson . com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /