RichC
Well-known
I started photography with a Canon 10D digital SLR, and now use a Leica M8 - I have never been a film user. However, a few months ago I fancied trying film. There was no point in buying a 35 mm film camera as the format is too similar to my APS-format digital cameras with non of digital’s advantages, so I decided on a format entirely different and complementary: 6x6 120 film.
One of the reasons I use a rangefinder is its small size, so I wanted a medium-format camera that was small and portable. I’m not interested in cameras except as tools, so I had a minimum specification for it to be usable to me. In short, it had to match my Leica M8: compact size; easy to use; reliable; accurate viewfinder with a rangefinder and parallax correction; fast, high-quality lens; fast shutter; PC flash socket. SLRs and TLRs were out because they’re too large and bulky, so that left collapsible/folding cameras. Modern ones like the Mamiya 6 are too expensive, so that meant buying a camera older than myself, as this type of camera seems to have largely died out by the start of the 1960s.
I researched folding cameras by playing around with a few top-end 1950s models in my local camera shop, such as those made by Agfa and Zeiss. I found that these old folders have some unforgivable faults - unforgivable as there is no reason I can see why a manufacturer would offer a high-quality camera with major deficiencies that significantly impact the camera's usability whereas 35mm cameras designed in the same era (and often by the same companies) not only did not suffer from these afflictions but had improved features (e.g. a combined shutter-cocking/film-advance lever and double-exposure prevention). It's as if the manufacturers simply weren't interested in making folding cameras user-friendly - even top-of-the-line models aimed at serious photographers!
The main faults were:
• Small squinty viewfinders
• Viewfinders suffering from distracting flare and reflections
• No strap lugs on the camera body
• Uncomfortable, awkwardly placed controls
The first camera I bought was an Iskra, going by its high specifications (on paper) and glowing reports by users. Big mistake! I’ve never seen such a crude, poorly built machine in my life - it looks like it was made and designed by a blacksmith! And it’s an ergonomic nightmare; for example, the knurling on the controls is so sharp that it takes the skin off your fingers, and the focusing lever disappears awkwardly behind a strut! Then the shutter jammed, tearing the blades! Back to the drawing board...
After more research I decided on the Certo Six, mainly because of its parallax correction mechanism, and managed to find one after some serious searching. It’s a nice camera, well built and well specified, and was obviously not cheap when new, but suffers from the faults common to many folding cameras listed above. I sent the Certo to Newton Ellis Ltd (Liverpool, UK) for a complete overhaul after the shutter jammed when I used the self-timer. (I would like to congratulate Newton Ellis for doing a superb job.)
Collectors will probably hate me, but I've now irreversibly modified this rather uncommon camera!
My Certo, though no longer original, is now much easier to use, and I can now concentrate simply on taking photographs rather than wrestling with poor camera design. In case anyone wants to improve their Certo or another old folder, I'm giving detailed notes below. I'm especially pleased with the viewfinder modifications, as they've transformed it: it's clear, bright, accurate and does not suffer from reflections or glare even when facing a low sun.
These old European cameras remind me of how the Japanese were able to destroy the entire British motorcycle industry within a few short years: our poorly designed machines made by complacent manufacturers were decimated by simple, well-designed models that performed reliably and efficiently. The Japanese considered what a motorcycle had to do, then created ones that met all the criteria: the best British motorcycles used high-quality components but still borrowed heavily from decades-old designs, and were often created by committees with no experience of the motorcycle industry - peddling their own agendas and uninterested in their customers' needs. Hence, we have Triumph producing the 1971 "Umberslade" Bonneville - which was too tall for anyone to sit on, overheated because the oil tank was too small, vibrated like h-ll because the engine size was stretched beyond its limit, and wouldn't stop because the brakes didn't work! When looking at old European cameras, I get the same feeling about their manufacturers' complacency... :bang:
So, as a photographer who’s used only modern cameras, what I can I take from my foray into the world of classic cameras? First, when sellers say that a camera is in full working condition and reliable, don’t believe them unless they can prove it’s been recently serviced - both sellers were very unhappy when I told them that their cameras had broken, accusing me of mistreating them (yeah - if using the camera counts as misuse!), with one saying that self-timers should never be used (I can’t believe that - presumably, self-timers worked reliably when the camera was new, otherwise the makers wouldn’t have fitted them)!
Secondly, like old motorcycles, it seems that many people view old cameras through rose-tinted spectacles - most of both types of machine were utter rubbish and are best forgotten, and many of the remainder had serious flaws. (I should mention that I ride and rebuild classic motorcycles - but am very selective which ones I own, and have no qualms about modifying them to fix glaring flaws. So, I do like old machines - but good design is timeless, and a well-designed machine (e.g. a Leica M3 or an MV Augusta 750 cc motorcycle) should be able to perform and handle as well as its modern peers.)
Anyway, the modifications...
Squinty viewfinder
The viewfinder eye hole is far too small: you have to put your eye so close to the camera to see the entire view that the camera is literally touching your eyeball! You can forget about using the Certo with glasses. My solution (see first thumbnail image) was to:
1. Remove the screwed-on dioptre lens holder
2. Enlarge the eye hole. The hole is now a 6 mm-sided square. I may enlarge this to 7 mm
3. Paint the eye hole surround matt black
4. Screw on a 0.5 mm-thick square of black-painted brass in place of the dioptre holder, to act as an eye shield
(Note: the dioptre holder (safely stored) can be replaced at any time, hiding the enlarged hole, although this would, of course, negate the point of this particular modification.)
Viewfinder flare and reflections
This was very distracting, but was easily solved with a bit of experimentation. A bit Heath Robinson, but the transformation is startling. Note: I used PVA glue (easily removed).
1. Paint the inside of the top plate matt black, as well as anything in the light path
2. Glue a 6 mm (inside diameter) rubber O-ring to the inside of the rangefinder window (behind the glass), to act as a baffle (see second thumbnail - also note the black-painted brass baffle I made, to the right of the O-ring, and the velvet glued to the rangefinder floor (see point 3))
3. Glue a strip of a non-reflective black material (e.g. thin velvet) between the rangefinder mirror and the collimating lens (the small lens that moves when the camera is focused) – make sure that (a) the mechanism is not hindered and (b) the adjustment screw is not covered. After making this and the previous modifications, the rangefinder patch no longer flared or had multiple images
4. Glue two roughly triangular pieces of velvet in front of and behind the beam splitter, abutting the beam splitter. Glue a semicircular piece of velvet to the pivot just in front of the rear viewfinder window. Before this modification, when looking through the viewfinder, the surface on which the beam splitter is mounted could be seen, as could the bottom edge of the beam splitter, and part of the film advance mechanism. With the velvet, the viewfinder is totally free of distractions
The second thumbnail also shows the rangefinder mechanism with parts in the light path painted matt black and the velvet in place (each piece labelled "v")
Fitting strap lugs
I hate camera cases, so wanted to fit strap lugs. The camera body is 2–3 mm thick aluminium alloy, so it’s straightforward to drill and tap some holes for threaded strap lugs. I got the threaded strap lugs simply by emailing a camera restorer I found on the web.
The only problem was preventing the lugs from unscrewing. In the end, I had to epoxy them in place as even Locktite studlock wasn't strong enough - this is not as drastic as it seems, as heat applied to the lug (e.g. with a soldering iron) will break down the epoxy. I used JB Weld, which is the toughest epoxy I know of! The third thumbnail shows one of the lugs.
Uncomfortable controls
I don’t mind cocking the shutter nor the unusual focusing method using a lever under the camera, but I do have a problems with the shutter button. First, it moves sideways, not down – I expect that it feels strange as I’m used to pressing shutter buttons down! Secondly, the button is rectangular, and the sharp edges and corners press uncomfortably into my finger.
I can’t do anything about the button direction, but the shutter button was made more comfortable by filing the edges and corners round. For the sake of appearance, I polished off the remaining chrome on the button, to leave bare brass (see the third thumbnail).
The Certo Six can't be closed with the shutter cocked as the cocking lever fouls the top of the camera. This can be fixed by grinding a cut-out for clearance. I haven't done this yet, but will do so at some stage.
My Certo Six (before modification):
One of the reasons I use a rangefinder is its small size, so I wanted a medium-format camera that was small and portable. I’m not interested in cameras except as tools, so I had a minimum specification for it to be usable to me. In short, it had to match my Leica M8: compact size; easy to use; reliable; accurate viewfinder with a rangefinder and parallax correction; fast, high-quality lens; fast shutter; PC flash socket. SLRs and TLRs were out because they’re too large and bulky, so that left collapsible/folding cameras. Modern ones like the Mamiya 6 are too expensive, so that meant buying a camera older than myself, as this type of camera seems to have largely died out by the start of the 1960s.
I researched folding cameras by playing around with a few top-end 1950s models in my local camera shop, such as those made by Agfa and Zeiss. I found that these old folders have some unforgivable faults - unforgivable as there is no reason I can see why a manufacturer would offer a high-quality camera with major deficiencies that significantly impact the camera's usability whereas 35mm cameras designed in the same era (and often by the same companies) not only did not suffer from these afflictions but had improved features (e.g. a combined shutter-cocking/film-advance lever and double-exposure prevention). It's as if the manufacturers simply weren't interested in making folding cameras user-friendly - even top-of-the-line models aimed at serious photographers!
The main faults were:
• Small squinty viewfinders
• Viewfinders suffering from distracting flare and reflections
• No strap lugs on the camera body
• Uncomfortable, awkwardly placed controls
The first camera I bought was an Iskra, going by its high specifications (on paper) and glowing reports by users. Big mistake! I’ve never seen such a crude, poorly built machine in my life - it looks like it was made and designed by a blacksmith! And it’s an ergonomic nightmare; for example, the knurling on the controls is so sharp that it takes the skin off your fingers, and the focusing lever disappears awkwardly behind a strut! Then the shutter jammed, tearing the blades! Back to the drawing board...
After more research I decided on the Certo Six, mainly because of its parallax correction mechanism, and managed to find one after some serious searching. It’s a nice camera, well built and well specified, and was obviously not cheap when new, but suffers from the faults common to many folding cameras listed above. I sent the Certo to Newton Ellis Ltd (Liverpool, UK) for a complete overhaul after the shutter jammed when I used the self-timer. (I would like to congratulate Newton Ellis for doing a superb job.)
Collectors will probably hate me, but I've now irreversibly modified this rather uncommon camera!
My Certo, though no longer original, is now much easier to use, and I can now concentrate simply on taking photographs rather than wrestling with poor camera design. In case anyone wants to improve their Certo or another old folder, I'm giving detailed notes below. I'm especially pleased with the viewfinder modifications, as they've transformed it: it's clear, bright, accurate and does not suffer from reflections or glare even when facing a low sun.
These old European cameras remind me of how the Japanese were able to destroy the entire British motorcycle industry within a few short years: our poorly designed machines made by complacent manufacturers were decimated by simple, well-designed models that performed reliably and efficiently. The Japanese considered what a motorcycle had to do, then created ones that met all the criteria: the best British motorcycles used high-quality components but still borrowed heavily from decades-old designs, and were often created by committees with no experience of the motorcycle industry - peddling their own agendas and uninterested in their customers' needs. Hence, we have Triumph producing the 1971 "Umberslade" Bonneville - which was too tall for anyone to sit on, overheated because the oil tank was too small, vibrated like h-ll because the engine size was stretched beyond its limit, and wouldn't stop because the brakes didn't work! When looking at old European cameras, I get the same feeling about their manufacturers' complacency... :bang:
So, as a photographer who’s used only modern cameras, what I can I take from my foray into the world of classic cameras? First, when sellers say that a camera is in full working condition and reliable, don’t believe them unless they can prove it’s been recently serviced - both sellers were very unhappy when I told them that their cameras had broken, accusing me of mistreating them (yeah - if using the camera counts as misuse!), with one saying that self-timers should never be used (I can’t believe that - presumably, self-timers worked reliably when the camera was new, otherwise the makers wouldn’t have fitted them)!
Secondly, like old motorcycles, it seems that many people view old cameras through rose-tinted spectacles - most of both types of machine were utter rubbish and are best forgotten, and many of the remainder had serious flaws. (I should mention that I ride and rebuild classic motorcycles - but am very selective which ones I own, and have no qualms about modifying them to fix glaring flaws. So, I do like old machines - but good design is timeless, and a well-designed machine (e.g. a Leica M3 or an MV Augusta 750 cc motorcycle) should be able to perform and handle as well as its modern peers.)
Anyway, the modifications...
Squinty viewfinder
The viewfinder eye hole is far too small: you have to put your eye so close to the camera to see the entire view that the camera is literally touching your eyeball! You can forget about using the Certo with glasses. My solution (see first thumbnail image) was to:
1. Remove the screwed-on dioptre lens holder
2. Enlarge the eye hole. The hole is now a 6 mm-sided square. I may enlarge this to 7 mm
3. Paint the eye hole surround matt black
4. Screw on a 0.5 mm-thick square of black-painted brass in place of the dioptre holder, to act as an eye shield
(Note: the dioptre holder (safely stored) can be replaced at any time, hiding the enlarged hole, although this would, of course, negate the point of this particular modification.)
Viewfinder flare and reflections
This was very distracting, but was easily solved with a bit of experimentation. A bit Heath Robinson, but the transformation is startling. Note: I used PVA glue (easily removed).
1. Paint the inside of the top plate matt black, as well as anything in the light path
2. Glue a 6 mm (inside diameter) rubber O-ring to the inside of the rangefinder window (behind the glass), to act as a baffle (see second thumbnail - also note the black-painted brass baffle I made, to the right of the O-ring, and the velvet glued to the rangefinder floor (see point 3))
3. Glue a strip of a non-reflective black material (e.g. thin velvet) between the rangefinder mirror and the collimating lens (the small lens that moves when the camera is focused) – make sure that (a) the mechanism is not hindered and (b) the adjustment screw is not covered. After making this and the previous modifications, the rangefinder patch no longer flared or had multiple images
4. Glue two roughly triangular pieces of velvet in front of and behind the beam splitter, abutting the beam splitter. Glue a semicircular piece of velvet to the pivot just in front of the rear viewfinder window. Before this modification, when looking through the viewfinder, the surface on which the beam splitter is mounted could be seen, as could the bottom edge of the beam splitter, and part of the film advance mechanism. With the velvet, the viewfinder is totally free of distractions
The second thumbnail also shows the rangefinder mechanism with parts in the light path painted matt black and the velvet in place (each piece labelled "v")
Fitting strap lugs
I hate camera cases, so wanted to fit strap lugs. The camera body is 2–3 mm thick aluminium alloy, so it’s straightforward to drill and tap some holes for threaded strap lugs. I got the threaded strap lugs simply by emailing a camera restorer I found on the web.
The only problem was preventing the lugs from unscrewing. In the end, I had to epoxy them in place as even Locktite studlock wasn't strong enough - this is not as drastic as it seems, as heat applied to the lug (e.g. with a soldering iron) will break down the epoxy. I used JB Weld, which is the toughest epoxy I know of! The third thumbnail shows one of the lugs.
Uncomfortable controls
I don’t mind cocking the shutter nor the unusual focusing method using a lever under the camera, but I do have a problems with the shutter button. First, it moves sideways, not down – I expect that it feels strange as I’m used to pressing shutter buttons down! Secondly, the button is rectangular, and the sharp edges and corners press uncomfortably into my finger.
I can’t do anything about the button direction, but the shutter button was made more comfortable by filing the edges and corners round. For the sake of appearance, I polished off the remaining chrome on the button, to leave bare brass (see the third thumbnail).
The Certo Six can't be closed with the shutter cocked as the cocking lever fouls the top of the camera. This can be fixed by grinding a cut-out for clearance. I haven't done this yet, but will do so at some stage.
My Certo Six (before modification):
Attachments
Last edited:
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
The Iskra viewfinder in itself is good. The main problem is wearing glasses. So I glued a small circular segment of an old glass inside the Iskra's peeping hole. You only need to remove the top cover of the rangefinder mechanism to get there. Add a soft PE eye cup and for me it is perfect.
The distance setting is ergonomically wrong, I have to agree on that. For the rest I can not complain much on its ergonomics. I'm not coming from this decade DSLRs, more likely I will go to that this year. My Iskra is more than 40 years old and I like blacksmith technology as long as the lens isn't polished by the blacksmith. There are strap lugs on the Iskra
but I hang it over my shoulder with a knot in the "chainpod".http://www.pigment-print.com/tijdelijk/PimpedIskra/Iskraindex.html
But do you like the 6x6 images, the compactness of the Certo and the way photography becomes different carrying a folder like that ? If that didn't happen after the conversions I think even the Bessa III will not bring that.
Ernst Dinkla
RichC
Well-known
Part of my frustration with finding a 6x6 camera that (a) suited me and (b) worked was that I've spent the last couple of months composing virtual square photos with no camera to capture them - cropping my Leica M8 photos isn't quite the same! Although I'm used to composing for the usual rectangle, I've found that I seem to have a preference for square compositions for some reason.
Despite only being used to modern digital cameras, I found my modified Certo Six surprisingly easy and comfortable to use, even though I have to use a light meter* - my Leica M8 is more ergonomic, but not by much. There are small annoyances such as the advance lever not returning automatically, the rangefinder patch not having sharply delineated edges, it won't fold if the shutter is cocked, and the shutter being very slow (1/500s max - I'm used to 1/8000s!), but nothing I can't get used to or work around. The only thing I really dislike is the horizontally travelling shutter button (poor design - more awkward to push and difficult to hold steady than the usual vertical button) - but every camera has its foibles (including my M8!).
As for size, it's remarkably compact - roughly the same width and thickness as my M8 but an inch taller.
So, in short, the modified Certo is comfortable to use, and I like the 6x6 format. It's early days, since the camera has only its first roll of film in, but I can see this partnership enduring...
Incidentally, out of curiosity I put some tracing paper in the camera to see how accurate the viewfinder is. The answer is extremely, and the parallax correction works perfectly. (Unlike most parallax-corrected cameras that work by moving the viewfinder/framelines, the Certo moves the lens/shutter assembly instead.)
[*I'm not a believer in Sunny 16, so always use a meter. Being a digital photographer, I'm used to getting exposures exact. For that, I need to know the "standard" exposure of what I'm metering, which I can then adjust to meet my preferences. I simply can't understand how people can guess exposure, as I find that a third of a stop can make a big difference to the effectiveness of an image - i.e. its message or mood.]
chippy
foo was here
Rich,
i have enjoyed reading your excellent detailed post that lead me through your reasoning for a 'more useable' compact medium format camera. your detailed discription how you proceeded and pics enhanced it.
its also interesting because you have come from a digital background to now beginning to embrase film with med format. something we are seeing more and more often nowadays. i agree there is little (or less) point in 35mm (not to offend all the keen 35mm people) in a practical or professional sence , still some advantage though. medium format on the other hand fills the void.
however i presume you posted to share your reasoning, thought out adaptions and eventual conclusions and presumably invite praise or critisium, so whilst on one hand i commend you on your efforts, on the other i may in places disagree--
yep ..no doubt it is a shame you have iriversably altered a camera that for many people is difficult to get (that a negative incase you havnt noticed--taken out the back an beaten to a pulp comes to mind lol)
I really like your idea of blackening out ...did you notice a significant change?I have had the same idea for a couple of camera
what was the excact size of the viewfinder before? I wonder how this size affects things in a practical manner and the reasonong/math behind it---Ernst seems to have a grasp on measurements and such for cameras, so i wonder what his thoughts are.
for instance i have a few 35mm weltini and some happen to have different viewfinders. some with a much bigger hole to view through (which i prefer) that is directly on the back of the camera and some others that protrude at least 7mm away from the body but has a tiny 3-4mm hole. i still wonder what the reasoning is for this.
So i understand your reasoning for enlarging the hole however i think it looks ...hmm... well..terrible..sorry. perhaps if was expertly done it would appeal to me. not that keen on the grinding of the shutter button either but i understand why you have done so. perhaps you could disasemble it and get it chrome or nickle plated.
I would not grind more out of the body so you can fold the camera while the shutter is cocked (considered poor practise at the best of times). thats just puts stress on the shutter mechanism. i would prefer that you adapt your usage of the camera to allow for its old mechanical shortfalls....simply adapt the way you shoot and cock the shutter imediately before, as they were designed to do.
the strap lugs while not orginal dont distract from the camera and are a usable feature . they look good. are they leica lugs? i have no idea with the epoxy how permanent they are but let us know if they come adrift, considering all that weight is hinged on them .
your analogy on the british motorbikes was good...particularly with their brakes...but they were built that way to make them more exciting to ride. the Jap bikes just took all the fun out haha....nothing more thrilling than riding down through the hills than to discover the brakes wernt working! ..again LOLOL
But as a mate and good mechanic once told me....because i once had an interest in old cars and bikes... and hot rodding up when i was young. I was takling to him about what i could do to my 55 desoto at the time and he said 'Andrew you can take a Ford model T and hot it up all you want (he said that because i was after a 32 ford), but at the end of the day its still going to be a model T and handle like a model T' if you want something better, buy it or appreciate the old Ford for what it is
i have enjoyed reading your excellent detailed post that lead me through your reasoning for a 'more useable' compact medium format camera. your detailed discription how you proceeded and pics enhanced it.
its also interesting because you have come from a digital background to now beginning to embrase film with med format. something we are seeing more and more often nowadays. i agree there is little (or less) point in 35mm (not to offend all the keen 35mm people) in a practical or professional sence , still some advantage though. medium format on the other hand fills the void.
however i presume you posted to share your reasoning, thought out adaptions and eventual conclusions and presumably invite praise or critisium, so whilst on one hand i commend you on your efforts, on the other i may in places disagree--
yep ..no doubt it is a shame you have iriversably altered a camera that for many people is difficult to get (that a negative incase you havnt noticed--taken out the back an beaten to a pulp comes to mind lol)
I really like your idea of blackening out ...did you notice a significant change?I have had the same idea for a couple of camera
what was the excact size of the viewfinder before? I wonder how this size affects things in a practical manner and the reasonong/math behind it---Ernst seems to have a grasp on measurements and such for cameras, so i wonder what his thoughts are.
for instance i have a few 35mm weltini and some happen to have different viewfinders. some with a much bigger hole to view through (which i prefer) that is directly on the back of the camera and some others that protrude at least 7mm away from the body but has a tiny 3-4mm hole. i still wonder what the reasoning is for this.
So i understand your reasoning for enlarging the hole however i think it looks ...hmm... well..terrible..sorry. perhaps if was expertly done it would appeal to me. not that keen on the grinding of the shutter button either but i understand why you have done so. perhaps you could disasemble it and get it chrome or nickle plated.
I would not grind more out of the body so you can fold the camera while the shutter is cocked (considered poor practise at the best of times). thats just puts stress on the shutter mechanism. i would prefer that you adapt your usage of the camera to allow for its old mechanical shortfalls....simply adapt the way you shoot and cock the shutter imediately before, as they were designed to do.
the strap lugs while not orginal dont distract from the camera and are a usable feature . they look good. are they leica lugs? i have no idea with the epoxy how permanent they are but let us know if they come adrift, considering all that weight is hinged on them .
your analogy on the british motorbikes was good...particularly with their brakes...but they were built that way to make them more exciting to ride. the Jap bikes just took all the fun out haha....nothing more thrilling than riding down through the hills than to discover the brakes wernt working! ..again LOLOL
But as a mate and good mechanic once told me....because i once had an interest in old cars and bikes... and hot rodding up when i was young. I was takling to him about what i could do to my 55 desoto at the time and he said 'Andrew you can take a Ford model T and hot it up all you want (he said that because i was after a 32 ford), but at the end of the day its still going to be a model T and handle like a model T' if you want something better, buy it or appreciate the old Ford for what it is
RichC
Well-known
The first thing I addressed was reflections surrounding the circular rangefinder patch. After a bit of experimentation, I found that these were from rangefinder window, which was poorly baffled and shaded. These reflections nearly all disappeared when I glued in the O-ring to act as a baffle. The following steps got rid of the few remaining reflections around the rangefinder patch.
Using matt black paint helped reduce glare and reflections in the viewfinder a bit but the black velvet (I cut up an old lens bag) made a huge difference - after gluing in the material, (a) there are no reflections whatsoever (even when pointing the camera at a light source) and (b) the top and bottom edges of the beam splitter, which were distractingly visible, before disappeared entirely. So, just like on a modern camera, all you see is a clear, reflection-free view with a completely black surround and a single rangefinder patch.
It was a 5 mm round hole. Why it was round when the view is square seems bizarre to me! I don’t think there is any maths determining the Certo's eye hole. It’s not a lens, simply a hole with the viewfinder lens behind it. As far as I can tell, the ideal size is the maximum that allows a clear view before the walls of the viewfinder become distractingly visible. I could easily make the hole at least another 1 mm wider with no ill effects (better to take off too little than too much!).
Yes, I’m aware that it’s not good for the shutter keeping it cocked. However, if for some reason I didn’t take a shot, it would be convenient if I were able to fold the camera instead of having to carry unfolded. So, I was thinking only of short term use rather than storing the camera cocked for long periods.
I think they’re out of a very old Nikon (Nikkormat or something?). I just phoned a camera repairer picked at random, and he sold me those for £5, for his time and postage. The metal’s about 3 mm thick and I tapped M2 threads, and screwed the lugs in. They easily came loose, so more drastic action was needed. JB Weld has a tensile strength of 4000 psi, a shear strength of 1000 psi and an adhesion 2000 psi - so those lugs aren’t likely to ever work loose! If I ever need to remove them, heat applied with a soldering iron will break down the epoxy.
Oh, not all Japanese bikes are boring! What about the Kawasaki KH 750 two stroke or the Suzuki Katana 1100!? <grin>
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
My thoughts are expressed in how I solved part of that issue on my Iskra. With glasses on you can not get close to the viewfinder, a diopter adjustment lens in the viewfinder solves that. As long as the oculair is close enough to the bare eye you do not need to widen it and adding an eye cup will take out any unwelcome light at that side of the viewfinder too. Much harder to control the last with glasses on and a widened eyepiece.
Not my invention in the digital age but one that must be more than a hundred years old. Not that I didn't try to use the Iskra with my glasses on, the rough eye piece scratched one glass so I had to replace it. That glass then was used as the diopter correction lens. Using both eyes or just the one open on the viewfinder. The viewfinder is close enough to 1:1 so that works nice.
Ernst Dinkla
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Pretty cool mods, but I wouldn't have started off with a collector's camera that was in good condition (bad condition, sure, but not good condition). Still, now it's done, have you considered replacing that square of black brass on the back with a modified eyepiece from an SLR? It would be big enough, would look better, won't scratch your glasses, and some of them have a number of other advantages (diopter lenses, rubber eyecups, and etcetera). I'd also have to do something about that shutter release (I'm not sure what, but it just looks wrong as is -- as was too). Maybe if you finish rounding it off and use some brass black on it?
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
More interested in a reliable tool than an ornament, so I was after a camera in as good as mechanical condition as possible to modify. Sorry collectors...!
Actually, I would have preferred a more modern 6x6 alternative that was as small in size and equal in price (pref. with a built-in light meter), but none exists - the closest is the Mamiya 6, but this is larger and a lot more expensive. My ideal would be the new Voigtlander folder - but the price will be scary!
An SLR eyepiece won't work. A flaw with the Certo viewfinder is the almost-zero eye relief: with the original dioptre lens holder fitted, I had to hold the camera so close to my eye that the lens holder touched my eyeball a couple of times (seriously!).
So, anything that prevents the eye from being held right up to the camera (like a moulded SLR eyepiece) is unusable - hence the flat piece of brass.
I could leave off the brass square. That would look neater (the screws are original), but I added this black surround as the shiny chrome was a distraction when looking through the viewfinder - and this camera is purely a tool to take photographs.
(In fact, the original dioptre lens holder can be screwed back on, covering the enlarged eye hole, but, again, that creates the eye relief problem again.)
literiter
Well-known
Yes, thank you for this RichC. I will do the blackening out now to mine as well.
Can you cock the shutter and close the camera?? I cannot do this to mine because the Prontor shutter cocking lever interferes. I wonder if the Compur shutter is better for this.
My Certo 6 required all the mirror glass in the rangefinder to be replaced. As well I had to machine a tiny screw/pinion device to replace one that had broken. Then the lens focus mechanism had to be disassembled because it was too stiff to focus properly.
Some parts didn't seem to fit very well overall either, such as the screws to hold the top cover on.
I'll bet I spent 6 or 7 hours diddling with the thing, but once it was put right I have a very nice camera. I think the lens is a match for the 80mm Planar on my Hasselblad.
It came with a leather ready case which I modified by installing a snap fastener in place of a rivet which held the front of the case on. Now I can remove the case front, have ready access to the camera, and have a strap without attaching the lugs. I now see that the lugs would make an attractive, useful addition, I may do this.
Can you cock the shutter and close the camera?? I cannot do this to mine because the Prontor shutter cocking lever interferes. I wonder if the Compur shutter is better for this.
My Certo 6 required all the mirror glass in the rangefinder to be replaced. As well I had to machine a tiny screw/pinion device to replace one that had broken. Then the lens focus mechanism had to be disassembled because it was too stiff to focus properly.
Some parts didn't seem to fit very well overall either, such as the screws to hold the top cover on.
I'll bet I spent 6 or 7 hours diddling with the thing, but once it was put right I have a very nice camera. I think the lens is a match for the 80mm Planar on my Hasselblad.
It came with a leather ready case which I modified by installing a snap fastener in place of a rivet which held the front of the case on. Now I can remove the case front, have ready access to the camera, and have a strap without attaching the lugs. I now see that the lugs would make an attractive, useful addition, I may do this.
RichC
Well-known
Sadly, no - if cocked, the Synchro-Compur's cocking lever fouls the camera too, if you try and fold the camera. So, this is a problem whatever shutter is fitted.
I think the camera can be modified by grinding a cutaway in the camera body, using epoxy, if necessary, to make a curved upper surface for the cutaway. This is something I am considering - I will need to carefully check that the cutaway will not interfere with the rangefinder mechanism.
II don't intend to store the camera cocked, but I can imagine being unable to fold the camera may be irritating on occasions (rush hour on the horrendously overcrowded London Underground trains springs to mind!).
FallisPhoto
Veteran
What I look for are restorable cameras that are in awful cosmetic condition. The cameras I modify all pretty much started off looking like train wrecks. My Ciroflex, for instance, started off as three different cameras. When I am done with them, they are at least as reliable as they ever were though, and I have not ruined a valuable and rare camera. Instead I have saved something that was probably headed for a landfill somewhere. Like yourself, I am not interested the least bit in cameras that just sit on shelves though. Mine all work, and they all get taken out and used at least every now and then.
Wasn't this the fault of the "prescription" of the original diopter lens? I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there are any actual lenses in the rangefinder mechanism itself, just flat mirrors and glass. With the eyepiece of a Pentax K1000 installed, for example, wouldn't the eye relief be very different?
Last edited: