"RolandRB" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 11:18 pm, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
wrote:
wrote in
...
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
wrote in message
...
RolandRB wrote:
This is why nearly all attempts to use a 6x9 folder fail
at this first hurdle - the camera was not up to the task. Very few
are.

Nice post and also the reasons I like the 6 X 4.5 folders better. The
6X9 chromes are nice but with the film flatness issues etc I get
better
results from the smaller negs most of the time, especially when hand
holding the camera and shooting neg film. I've also found the models
that don't use front cell focusing work better for infinity shooting,
the front cell focusing models appear to be optimized for "portrait"
distances?

Steph -

You can adjust the focus of those front cell focusing cameras yourself.
There used to be a fair number of websites explaining how to do this,
but
I can't find them at the moment. aha - here is one such website. Click
on "focus adjustment."
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/repair.html
What I am talking about is optically these front cell focusing cameras
are
a compromise, not that they need repair. They appear to be designed to
work best at medium distances and then use the shifting of the front
cell
as a means of getting the focus at other distances acceptable. I've
found
the models that use a helix or other means of moving the whole lens
assembly to produce sharper images at the ends of the focus range.
.

mmm...I thought you were talking about the situation in which the camera
does not focus properly at infinity. I did not know you were talking about
a camera which focuses properly at infinity but not at other distances.

The implicit assumption made by the article that I cited is, of course,
that
if the camera properly focuses at infinity, then it will also properly
focus
at other distances. I would think that a camera focusing properly at
infinity but not at other distances suffers from some kind of serious that
requires the services of a good technician.

ummm..it is proper focus at different distances that we are talking about,
is it not?

It doesn't work like that. True macro lenses, for use at close
distance, have a more symmetrical design. For very close focussing
distances you can even get rings that allows you to reverse a standard
lens to give you better images. In other words, the design of the lens
is linked to the intended focussing distance. It could well be that
these front cell focussing lenses on folders are optimized to closer
distances and reach infinity as a compromise. However, moving a whole
lens that is more suitable for infinity won't give you best results at
closer distances. That is why front cell focussing is maybe not a bad
idea.

And for anyone who cares to try one of these old Tessars at infinity
focus then I can assure you that the results can be spectacular at
smaller f-stops.

***

Interesting point. I didn't realize that Stephanie was talking about
distances so close to the lens. Perhaps she can clarify the exact distances
of concern to her. Then perhaps someone with an optical background can
contribute to the discussion.

My personal experience is that the Tessar has served me very well at
whatever distance indicated by that distance scale, including infinity. But
no optical person am I.

hmm...a folder that allows its lens to be reversed just as a 35mm SLR does.
Now that one is new to me. Which folder has such a capability?