scorpius73
Well-known
here is a recent image from my nettar 517/16
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31012019@N00/549969271/in/set-72157600329014140/
i really like this camera!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31012019@N00/549969271/in/set-72157600329014140/
i really like this camera!
pagpow
Well-known
Just stumbled on this thread. One aspect of your question about reducing the frame to a 645 doesn't seem like it was addressed. It is true that the location of the window will result in the same amount of film being wound on as when you are shooting 6X6.
If, IF, you make a portrait mask (ie with the long axis verical) you will have greater space between smaller frames. But, you can also choose to make the make landscape (ie with the long axis horizontal). This would give you a very simple and convenient system for shooting landscape orientations without having to rotate the camers as is necessary with many modern 645.
It is something I have wanted to try, because I like the aspect ratio better. If you do make a frame, please let us know what material you used, how you fixed it in the film gate,and what your results were like.
Oh, yes, and you can mask the finder down to reflect the frame. Mask the top and bottom 13% (tape on the front of the viewfinder should do it) , or make it 10% if you can live with the imprecision.
Giorgio
If, IF, you make a portrait mask (ie with the long axis verical) you will have greater space between smaller frames. But, you can also choose to make the make landscape (ie with the long axis horizontal). This would give you a very simple and convenient system for shooting landscape orientations without having to rotate the camers as is necessary with many modern 645.
It is something I have wanted to try, because I like the aspect ratio better. If you do make a frame, please let us know what material you used, how you fixed it in the film gate,and what your results were like.
Oh, yes, and you can mask the finder down to reflect the frame. Mask the top and bottom 13% (tape on the front of the viewfinder should do it) , or make it 10% if you can live with the imprecision.
Giorgio
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Congratulations! You say that you don't mind wasting film, so you might do better masking the easel you use for your paper or using a smaller negative carrier when you make prints than you would putting a mask in the camera. No chance of messing the camera up at all that way.
The paper backing for 120 film has several lines of numbers on it. Each row of numbers is for a different format (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9). The red window on the back of your camera will line up with ONE of these rows. If you want to mask it for 6x4.5, for example, and if you wanted to get the spacing right, you'd need to drill another hole in the back of the camera (one that would line up with the row of numbers for 6x4.5 format) and install another red window. Then, of course, you'd need to make a 6x4.5 mask.
The paper backing for 120 film has several lines of numbers on it. Each row of numbers is for a different format (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9). The red window on the back of your camera will line up with ONE of these rows. If you want to mask it for 6x4.5, for example, and if you wanted to get the spacing right, you'd need to drill another hole in the back of the camera (one that would line up with the row of numbers for 6x4.5 format) and install another red window. Then, of course, you'd need to make a 6x4.5 mask.
literiter
Well-known
Way back when, when the Earth was a larger place (1959 or so) I was given a Zeiss Nettar 515/2. I had a Brownie Hawkeye up till then.
The Zeiss took very nice pictures, if one followed the instruction on the film package carefully. The camera has long since gone, but not the memory of it, nor the pictures it took.
A few years ago the wife showed me her father's old Zeiss 515/2 which she still has and used herself when younger. Quite a pleasant suprise. There was even a set of filters in a pouch handmade out of old bluejeans.
I loaded with some Ilford XP2, set the camera to it's maximum speed, a sizzling 1/125 sec. and f32 in the sun and took some pictures. Fortunately XP2 is a very forgiving film. The pictures were fantastic - all 8 of them. (Well, artistically they aren't but that's OK)
Remembering to open the camera before advancing the film, advancing the film, estimating and setting the focus range etc. certainly puts one in touch with the process.
I wish I could say this is my favorite camera, I'm afraid I can't. But it certainly started my renewed interest in folding 120 cameras. Particularly old Moskvas and Super Ikontas.
The Zeiss took very nice pictures, if one followed the instruction on the film package carefully. The camera has long since gone, but not the memory of it, nor the pictures it took.
A few years ago the wife showed me her father's old Zeiss 515/2 which she still has and used herself when younger. Quite a pleasant suprise. There was even a set of filters in a pouch handmade out of old bluejeans.
I loaded with some Ilford XP2, set the camera to it's maximum speed, a sizzling 1/125 sec. and f32 in the sun and took some pictures. Fortunately XP2 is a very forgiving film. The pictures were fantastic - all 8 of them. (Well, artistically they aren't but that's OK)
Remembering to open the camera before advancing the film, advancing the film, estimating and setting the focus range etc. certainly puts one in touch with the process.
I wish I could say this is my favorite camera, I'm afraid I can't. But it certainly started my renewed interest in folding 120 cameras. Particularly old Moskvas and Super Ikontas.