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: http://www.e-sword.net/

On 22 Aug, 07:08, "AAvK" wrote:
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:http://www.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 Voigtländer that you have somehow checked to make sure the lens
is held rigidly when the bellows are extended.

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: http://www.e-sword.net/

"AAvK" wrote in message ...
[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: http://www.e-sword.net/

On 22 Aug, 22:12, "AAvK" wrote:
"AAvK" wrote in ...
[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:http://www.e-sword.net/

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.

"RolandRB" wrote in message ps.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: http://www.e-sword.net/

On 23 Aug, 05:16, "AAvK" wrote:
"RolandRB" wrote in glegroups.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:http://www.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.

"RolandRB" wrote:
On 23 Aug, 05:16, "AAvK" 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

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 N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

On 23 Aug, 10:24, (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 N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog athttp://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/