FallisPhoto
Veteran
chippy
foo was here
for sure that filter size makes it easy. I was nearly going to get one just because of that but decided to make do what what i have.
arn't those ND filters just the thing! i remember my first camera (Ricoh KR5, still have it too!) i purchased with money from working part time jobs when i was a kid. i couldn't afford a Pentax K which is the same camera but with 1/1000th instead of 1/500th top speed and i certainly could not afford an Olympus OM1n which to my mind was the best thing going around at the time. but using ND filters turned my camera into what ever speed i wanted hey! i thought i was sooo clever hahaha
i have been collecting a few cheap filters (push on) for my welturs and some others. I intend on removing the glass and having some ND's made to size and placing them in them..the more than one way to skin a cat theory..
the wind/frame spacing mechanisms on those must be a common concern. i notice cert*6 is auctioning a hapo66 and all but comes out and says in his blurb that it is having difficulties as well
charjohncarter
Veteran
Here is the Balda Hapo66e with the humble Enna f3.5, even though it is nothing like my Rollei, I still like it. But then I find that lens quality is low on my list of priorities when I look at the total photographic experience.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Here is the Balda Hapo66e with the humble Enna f3.5, even though it is nothing like my Rollei, I still like it. But then I find that lens quality is low on my list of priorities when I look at the total photographic experience.
If you're going to post photos on the internet, it doesn't really matter. No monitor has enough resolution to show much (if any) difference.
chippy
foo was here
interesting that...just shows we are all different. i find i do look for lens quality more particulaly with a camera i wish to use regularly. I agree with FallisPhoto tho it makes litle difference viewing them on the screen
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting. Porst also bought Fujica cameras and rebranded them. I guess they are/were like Spiratone and Hanamex. From my limited experience in looking at their products, they seemed to buy good equipment to rebrand.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Also it depends on what you are shooting. In portraiture sometimes you want a lens that is a little soft. Chippy, that Aplanat I got on the Welta Sport will probably only be used for portraits, as is my one Isolette with an Agnar and as are my box cameras. I can't think of any other type of photography offhand where the lens of choice would be sharp in the middle and soft everywhere else though. In the normal course of events, I tend to look for Heliars, Skopars, Xenars, Xenons, Tessars, Solinars, Soligons, Ennits, Ennagons, Apotars, Novars and other of the better lenses in folding cameras.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have one that is at least sharper in the middle than the edge, but that isn't saying much. I use it for effect:
It is not a Holga, but it does have a goofy effect.
chippy
foo was here
howdy Charles..sure i couldnt agree more. although this is still relevent today i'm particularly relating to the old photographers (or us using the old vintage equipment-even pre self erecting folder) that would choose a lens, interchange it on their camera, or choose a camera with a certain lens mounted depending on what they wanted to photograph (they had little choice but to) and what result they needed. i.e. the lighting conditions they were likely to encounter would be another factor determining their lens choice amonst a miriad of others. e.g they may choose a lens that produces lower contrast in comparison to another to avoid the chance of flare
Charles have you goten the chance to use that one yet? it would be interesting to see/know how it went for you. it was a hallmark lens when first developed aound the 1860's and was used in all the better cameras and continued to be used 60 or so years later. by the time the Welta Sport came along it was probably near the end of its popularity. and that is probably reflected in that the Welta Sport was the entry level rollfilm camera for Welta in the mid to late 20's.
the Aplanat is the german version of the well known rapid rectilinear with the Aplanat accredited being the first by a mere two weeks and based on mathamatical priciples, it can only be guessed how Dallmeyer developed his as it appears he didnt disclose how he came to the result--a heated agurment was documented between the two blokes at the time as to whether Dallmeyer had pinched the idea from Steinheil. Steinheil did make a portrait aplanat (f6.2)as well as lanscape (which they were said to be more suited for) and also a wide angle.
no doubt with your fine creative skills you will adapt the Welta Sport with its Spezial-Aplanat (the spezial would indicate an updated Aplanat using a higher quality more dense flint glass next to the crown glass) to be able to take good portrait however generaly speaking it unlikely someone would of chosen it for that. Additionaly it having f11 as its fastest aperature makes it restrictive in this regard (of course we often prefer not to a use a lens at its extreme ) and the f11 Aplanat was origonaly considered the lanscape lens. The welta sport was also available with the 6.3 Weltar Anastigmat which is a step up and somewhat better suited to portraiture, really just more versitile...to get lenses of that era better suited to portraiture one would need to purchase a higher level camera with one of the various brand of f4.5 lens for example.
again i completly agree...in the 'normal' course, if choosing a particular model camera, and now we are talking (with some of lens names you mentioned) later era cameras i always prefer to choose the better lens equiped for that model camera-a solinar over an apotar or angar, an ennit over an ennagon ect, heliar and scoper are an exception for me they are just different to each other so i choose which one i want on whim but infinately better than the voitigatar. i find the tessars ect quite soft enough wide open for portrait, and the better the lens the more veritile it is to use in more situations. it still usually does what the lower end lens can do (and usually better-noticable in prints). tho no doubt if you are wanting to be creative and produce an effect you may wish to go with antique lenses (box camera, aplanet ect.).
on this new day seeing charjohncarter former post (hehe couldnt you find a longer name-i have trouble spelling anything with more than three letters in it lol), i see it in a new perspective and realise he is refering to his overall enjoyment of using the cameras and enjoying the experiance. but when i first saw it my first thought was hmmm funny that! the lens is usually one of the first things i look to with any camera
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I think I know which one you mean (the one with the photo taken with the Enna lens). I believe he said that lens quality is low on his list of priorities. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for me. Trying to take photos with an inappropriate lens would be a source of frustration and extreme annoyance for me.
I'm still looking for a 2 7/8 x 3 7/8 bellows. I'm starting to think I'm going to have to make a bellows for this one. I could probably shoot with it as is, but to tell the truth, it just didn't occur to me to shoot with a camera that is unfinished and that still has taped-up bellows. I just hate doing that. I seriously dislike patched bellows and other temporary repairs.
It would never have occurred to me to use an Aplanat as a landscape lens. I've been doing this for a while and it always seemed to me that in landscape photography, capturing as much fine detail as possible was pretty much one of the very top priorities. There are a few exceptions to this, but I seldom have seen landscape compositions that I thought would be better if they were soft. In the few exceptions I have seen, I've preferred to use a sharp lens and to "soften" them with grain. http://fallisphoto.deviantart.com/art/Smith-Mountain-Lake-3219175 This allows you to keep some of the foreground elements sharp, and thus gives you an extra element of contrast.
As for portraits, while its widest aperture of f/11 makes this a pretty bad studio camera, it would be a very suitable camera for shooting environmental portraits (portraits with the subject shown in context with his/her environment). Edward Weston did several of those with Tina Modotti that seem to have been fairly successful.
You know, Chippy, I really like Agfas and Anscos. You know exactly what you are going to have to fix every time with them, they are basic enough that quality and handling are very consistent from camera to camera, and they work very well. However, although I like Apotars and Solinars (and Soligors too), I loathe Agnars. They were of such low quality that they didn't behave consistently. An Agnar on one Isolette I might be soft and on another Isolette I it might be sharp (although the ones that are really sharp only come along once in a blue moon). To me, this suggests that their quality control was, to say the least, highly variable. If they were consistently bad they would be better. You'd at least know what to expect and could either just entirely avoid them or we'd have a new kind of Lomo camera. It makes buying those particular Isolettes (with Agnars) like entering a lottery. They are not really bad enough to make good "effects" lenses (like a Holga), but they are not good enough to take seriously either.
Oh, and incidentally, Voigtars are the same way. I have a Bessa with a Voigtar that is pretty darned sharp. The only problem was that I had to go through four Bessas to find one with a Voigtar lens that was sharp. Personally, I think I was very lucky that it only took four. I went through something like a dozen Isolettes with Agnars before finding one that was even moderately acceptable.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Nice photo. The only problem with "effects" lenses is that you don't use them much. Appropriate subjects just don't come along every day and you have to pass up a lot of stuff while looking for appropriate subjects. Usually, the only time they are useful is when you see something and can plan to bring it along next trip.
chippy
foo was here
nah..fair enough..just curious what results you might get out of the ol girl
when it was first developed that what it was best suited for and also why its design was also used for wide angle and continued to be popular for the next 60 years. its ability to to produce a flat field on film (as oposed to producing field curvature) gave it an advantage over other lenses of the era, which made it an ideal lens suited to landscape. of course it cant be compared to lenses developed later (a vintage tessar, heliar or modern nikon lens will always give more detail) but in its era it was a good choice for landscape and if you want that antique look nowadays its woth trying...
maybe the spezial-aplanat will produce something like that!? see i said you would be creative
. the faster film thats availble to us now (what was it back then hmm 10-25iso) gives you some more scope for usability. what camera/lens was used for that image?
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
I have one that is at least sharper in the middle than the edge, but that isn't saying much. I use it for effect:
It is not a Holga, but it does have a goofy effect.
CJC this is an agnar lens i assume.
its often mentioned if a lens is sharp or soft or if the sharpness is in the center and falls of at the edges. this image is a good example.
sharpness to me is a mixture of resolution and acutance (usually refered to as contrast) but can also be affected by other things such as field curvature. only added for clarity not a lesson; resolution allows the fine details to be seen particularly once enlarged and contrast allows the details to stand out (to be seen more clearly). Idealy one wants resolution and contrast uniform to the edges of the image. if an image has field curvature (and few lenses have perfect flat fields) it can also produce soft edges.
with this image it looks to me that it has all three characteristics (as well as some vignetting). field curvature with this lens can be tested somewhat to find its optimal focus distance by taking a number of pictures and varying the focus distance. if some frames/pictures are sharper in the corners (without stopping down the aperature) then its more a case of field curvature (and may (not definate) explain why FallisP has occasionaly came across an ok lens). but it looks to me there is a fall of in resolution and contrast at the edges as well as curvature.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
maybe the spezial-aplanat will produce something like that!? see i said you would be creative
what camera/lens was used for that image?
I'll have to try it and see. Today I am headed over to Martinsville, where they have opened a new natural history museum though. I doubt I will be shooting landscapes.
The camera was a Pentax K1000 and I used an SMC Pentax 1:2 50mm lens. I used T-Max 400, pushed one stop and developed in 1:1 D-76. I used T-Max's instability during development and gave it some pretty severe agitation to increase the apparent grain in the paler background. I printed it on Oriental Seagull graded FB paper (grade 3, to increase contrast) and I scanned the print on my old Agfa Snapscan 1212 flatbed scanner (yes, I take notes). Everything but scanning it was planned beforehand. Previsualization strikes again! I'd like to reshoot it, with an Isolette, but the pilings in the foreground are now supporting a dock and it just wouldn't be the same at all.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Chippy, no it is on this camera.
And FallisPhoto, you are right but I have it loaded and take it with me all the time (along with other cameras). Even family photo have a nice old time look some times with it.
And FallisPhoto, you are right but I have it loaded and take it with me all the time (along with other cameras). Even family photo have a nice old time look some times with it.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
If you like the Balda and want to get another, why not try a different camera. perhaps a Zeiss Nettar, Agfa Isolette with a Solinar lens, a Perkeo. I have many folders and they all have different signatures.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Along the same lines as John's comments...even the 3 element f4.5 Baltar can give pleasing results...though I admit I haven't shot that camera since getting its 4 element cousin.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
God, I wish I could get some ASA 10 film! Some ASA 25 Kodachrome would be nice too, as long as I am wishing for things I can't have.
Well, I'm back from Martinsville. Didn't see a thing worth shooting. The "natural history museum" was a washout. Nothing very interesting in there -- just rocks and fossilized seashells.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Incidentally, see the dried milky-looking stuff in the photo of the camera, between the "pebbles" in the grain of the leatherette? You don't really want to know what that is. A soft-bristled toothbrush and some water (or Windex) will get rid of it though (and if you knew what it was, you'd really want to).
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Fungi? Thanks for the tip.