shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I used this one (Bessa RF with coupled RF and Heliar 105/3.5 lens):
to get these:
to get these:
oftheherd
Veteran
Shadowfox, that is a pretty camera. I love the rendition of color in the bridge/ocean shot!
Krosya, you have to quit showing that Weltur and the photos from it. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax.
GAS go away.
Krosya, you have to quit showing that Weltur and the photos from it. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax. I am satisfied with my Weltax.
GAS go away.
chippy
foo was here
hehe your a funny bugger
I'll try an dig it out sometime. I packed away a bunch of old cameras years ago (particularly the kodaks) to make room for ..well ..can i say the nicer cameras (you know what i mean) with the intention to build some more (I always seem to building here) display cabinettes in my little camera shop (thats what i call it. its at home but it looks like a camera shop building out the back of my home). the kodaks were a side line because generaly they are cheap, at least compared to my other favourite cameras, english wooden veiw cameras ect. (and my welta's and my .......omg) .anyway the kodaks were cheap and filled the shelfs for a while and I had some fun using them for a while but my other cameras needed the space so i only have a few coloured ones on display (the visitors love em, go figure!).
speaking of colours oftheherd, what in gods creation do you suppose that bloke feeds his goats to get all them different coloured soaps!!
Krosya
Konicaze
I used this one (Bessa RF with coupled RF and Heliar 105/3.5 lens):
to get these:
Great photos!.
I used to have this same camera, but with the Skopar, which is not that far behind:
But I sold it due to it's small and squinty VF/RF plus I really prefer Weltas and have both 6x6 (pic earlier in this thread) and 6x9 Welturs:
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
not so much 'behind' i would say...as just different (opmv). In some instances or peoples veiw the scopar may be more desired.
I have now had quite a few of the bessa rf , its been difficult for me to get one without a problem of some sort (mostly all fixable at a cost and time spent, not counting bent struts-your virtually stuffed then). but once/if good they are a fine camera, even beautifull i think with their sleek black lines of the 30's that are a reminder of zeplins and fast german cars of the period.
however, my take on pre-war RF folders is that if I compare the big names of time Zeiss with the Super Ikonta and Voigtlander with the Bessa RF (E) they have their dis-adavantages if i am to be road testing them....well
(all thing being well and in good nick for all cameras) the Zeiss has a superb stability/strut system (the best in the buisness i think) , which i feel was both a benifit and a negative for the company. the benifit of course is that everthing is true and sound (and so good it was favable for years to come). the negative is that their system was for 1929 designedcamera and it is best suited for front cell focusing cameras (aimed at the consumer market no doubt) ,but because it was a good solid system they stuck with it to the deteiment of further development.
their exceptional marketing and reputaion on this fabulous stability and strut design, and because they had too many cameras 'in the works'. I feel must have contributed to the reason why a better system for a pro-sumer/ pro unit focusing camera never eventuated. the same design carried on for years as you know afer the war.
the bessa Rf IMO was/is a much better camera (providing its in good condition, harder to obtain then than a Zeiss in good nick IMO) in many ways (of course to be fair it was a 1936 introduction). It has a coupled rangefinder that can be set without opening. it takes its heritage from earlier bessa, and for some, if they have used them, those early bessa, the shutter mechanisam does not feel smooth but on the Bessa E this is improved with significant upgrades to make it 'hair trigger' feel. the down side compared to the Zeiss is the stability and more particularly the front standard which can be in comparison ..hmmm less stable! Its inherant and not an easy thing to overcome if you look at the design.
To make a single unit lens focusing coupled rangefinder camera of that era( try saying that with a red wine and a mouth full of marbles!) , was a great step foward. having to veiw through two differant windows IMO is a bit of a pain (antique leica people were used to this though for years after!) but perhaps that depends on the user..
But the creme' de la creme' the peice da la resistonce' ,(spelling) the most unknown and underrated camera of the time is none other than the Welta Weltur. its truly the winner in any road test i give, and stacks up against cameras many, many years after. It has a solid platform, simple in design, but way better than the voigtlander, a very usable camera by todays standards(IMO) with combined veiw-rangefinder , unit focusing, which does increase quality inside and ouside the optimal range of front cell focusing lenses, it returnes to infinity auto upon closer...heck i would of loved to have seen this camera devolped further, we have no idea what might have been instore!!!
I never tyer of seeing krosya Weltur, i have the 6x9 in all the lens offerings Xenar, Tessar and Trioplan (which is remarkably good considering) and several 6x6 with all the lens available...maybe one day i will part with one or two of them...havnt so far tho
chippy
foo was here
very fine pictures shadow. (perhaps a little big? is it yours or someone elses that makes me have to scroll sideways in this thread?)
the colour shot is the most lovely spot...that a slide film by the looks? i can guess but which one? it has a very sereal look to it.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
Hi go for a><<<<BRONICA RF645>>>>>>>>> bgreat camera,lenses and flash!!!!!!!!!!you''ll love it
you''ll love it
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
oftheherd, Krosya, and chippy:
Thanks for the nod on the ocean picture. Sorry it's big , but I think it needed to be that big to show what a typical 6x9 film can show when digitized. I remember when I was deciding to try MF, I was looking for an example that can give me an idea on what to expect.
It's an expired Ektachrome 100 digitized on a flatbed Microtek scanner.
Thanks for the nod on the ocean picture. Sorry it's big
, but I think it needed to be that big to show what a typical 6x9 film can show when digitized. I remember when I was deciding to try MF, I was looking for an example that can give me an idea on what to expect. It's an expired Ektachrome 100 digitized on a flatbed Microtek scanner.
Dunk
Established
Last edited:
Svitantti
Well-known
Why?
I do have a Balda Super Baldax 6x6 RF folder. It is a great camera, like probably a Zeiss Super Ikonta would be (never had one). 80/2.9, coupled RF, sharp pictures... Nice size when folded and quite good RF. Makes great photos, even thought the bokeh is not the cleanest in all situations.
Mamiya 7 is great too, doesnt have to be model II (just costs extra with not much new to the original 7), but surely it is not cheap.
LeicaM3
Well-known
i got this year a fuji gw690ii and it is a lovely beast. You can't get bigger than that (both in camera size and frame size
If you want more portable,get a folding camera.
+1
Got the same camera - amazing. Superb lens.
Develop B&W yourself.
Colour (and B&W if I am lazy) goes to WalMart - they send it to Dawney's
. About $4.50 for development and prints, no postage. And archiving is real simple. For colour I measure exposure with an incident light meter (guess if Nachtwey does it, it is fine for me, and he uses a 1v or 1d if he has to)
noah b
Established
I have a mamiya C330 but I'd rather have a handheld camera. I'm indoors most of the time walking around. I was thinking about the mamiya 7 but it seems like the fuji 6x9's are more prevalent and cheaper. My intentions for the MF is to develop and make b&w prints, and also scan them to put online.