graywolf
Well-known
Unfortunately my Monitor has a totally crapped out bellows, the inside just fell apart. Otherwise it is rather nice.
Kodak Monitor 620
- Thread starter shawn
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 6K
shawn
Veteran
First couple out of the scanner...
Flare on this one reduced contrast, uncoated lens. It was also a little underexposed.
Initial impression is that the Monitor is sharper than my Fuji.
Shawn
Flare on this one reduced contrast, uncoated lens. It was also a little underexposed.
Initial impression is that the Monitor is sharper than my Fuji.
Shawn
Muggins
Junk magnet
Intriguing - hugely more contrasty than my three-element Anastigmats.
They look good, don't they?
Adrian
They look good, don't they?
Adrian
shawn
Veteran
The ones above are straight out of the scanning software, no PP or sharpening applied. Here is another one...
and this is the same with some PP to bring out more detail and raise the shadows somewhat. Probably a little too much as it looks a little hard but it shows how much detail is in the negative. Click on the picture and you can see the full size (118 megapixel) version.
Shawn
and this is the same with some PP to bring out more detail and raise the shadows somewhat. Probably a little too much as it looks a little hard but it shows how much detail is in the negative. Click on the picture and you can see the full size (118 megapixel) version.
Shawn
oftheherd
Veteran
The photos look good.
Pioneer
Veteran
Looks good Shawn. Mine haven't made it to the scanner yet. Maybe I'll get there today.
Denverdad
Established
Nice images Shawn! It's great to see what these old guys can do, especially since we so rarely get to see shots from them these days. Darn, this thread is really getting me itchin' to get mine put together. 🙂
Ashfaque, what the proverbial "they" generally say is that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the coated and non-coated versions of these lenses, except in cases where you are shooting directly into a bright source of light. The coated versions are surprisingly plentiful anyway, so generally, you shouldn't take it as being too much of a discriminator. I completely agree with Pioneer that insuring the lens is clean of haze and fungus is a much bigger priority.
As long as we're at it, maybe I can throw out some long standing questions I have had about Monitors (not important issues really, but just things I am curious about):
Ashfaque, what the proverbial "they" generally say is that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the coated and non-coated versions of these lenses, except in cases where you are shooting directly into a bright source of light. The coated versions are surprisingly plentiful anyway, so generally, you shouldn't take it as being too much of a discriminator. I completely agree with Pioneer that insuring the lens is clean of haze and fungus is a much bigger priority.
As long as we're at it, maybe I can throw out some long standing questions I have had about Monitors (not important issues really, but just things I am curious about):
- How much of a difference is there really between the Anastigmat Special lens and the "non-Special" Anastigmat (4.5 version)? I have read all the usual things online and the closest thing mentioned is the suggestion that the Special may use some different/more exotic glass for one or more of the elements. But from the drawings, they sure look to have the same prescription.
- Did ANY of the Six-16 version Monitors come with a coated f/4.5 Anastigmat Special lens? All the Six-16 specimens I have seen have been pre-war, and none I have seen have coated lenses.
- Is there a way to decode the manufacture date of the Monitors with the numeric-only serial code on the lens (i.e., without the CAMEROSITY code)? Presumably these are the earlier cameras?
- Is there a reason for the bellows folds getting progressively narrower towards the film gate side? It is something I have noticed on mine, although I don't know if it is true of all variants/versions.
Ironage
Member
I love those pictures. I want to live there for a while. Nice neighborhood.
shawn
Veteran
Thanks everyone. That is a very scenic old town that I enjoy shooting at.
Regarding coated vs. not the gallery I linked to earlier has coated and not from the same person. There isn't much of a difference there to my eye. I do have a non-functioning beater 1946 Monitor that has the Luminized Anastigmat Special. I might move the lenses over to my 1940 to see if I can tell much of a difference.
"Did ANY of the Six-16 version Monitors come with a coated f/4.5 Anastigmat Special lens? All the Six-16 specimens I have seen have been pre-war, and none I have seen have coated lenses."
From reading more on this Kodak had some coated lenses before 1946 and the 'L' logo. Details at this link:
http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakID_db.htm
Shawn
Regarding coated vs. not the gallery I linked to earlier has coated and not from the same person. There isn't much of a difference there to my eye. I do have a non-functioning beater 1946 Monitor that has the Luminized Anastigmat Special. I might move the lenses over to my 1940 to see if I can tell much of a difference.
"Did ANY of the Six-16 version Monitors come with a coated f/4.5 Anastigmat Special lens? All the Six-16 specimens I have seen have been pre-war, and none I have seen have coated lenses."
From reading more on this Kodak had some coated lenses before 1946 and the 'L' logo. Details at this link:
http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakID_db.htm
Shawn
Denverdad
Established
Regarding the spool holders in the later models - I found that I was able to remove mine without having to drill out the rivets. Really, they just kind of rotated out (with a little persuasion). As you can see below, the feed side holder (right) does have the three rivets previously mentioned, but these actually secure a thin sheet metal plate to the underside, and it is this plate which locks the assembly to the body as you snap it into place onto two brass post-rivets in the body. The take-up side doesn't have this feature, but as I recall the holder came out easily after simply removing the traction roller and wind knob.
I don't know whether if ALL examples of this style are like mine, or if the rivets on some actually do secure the holder to the body. But it is probably worthwhile to first check if you can pop these out manually like I did, before resorting to drilling.
I don't know whether if ALL examples of this style are like mine, or if the rivets on some actually do secure the holder to the body. But it is probably worthwhile to first check if you can pop these out manually like I did, before resorting to drilling.
Denverdad
Established
Thanks shawn, that is actually where I have obtained much of my information about Kodak Monitors. Great site!
The one Six-16 specimen he reports there as being "probably coated" is so far the only anectdotal evidence I have for a Monitor Six-16 with a coated AS lens:
The one Six-16 specimen he reports there as being "probably coated" is so far the only anectdotal evidence I have for a Monitor Six-16 with a coated AS lens:
[FONT=Gill Sans, Futura Md BT]Anastig Spec 127mm f/4.5 (Monitor)[/FONT]; [FONT=Gill Sans, Futura Md BT]EC1685 ('41)[/FONT][FONT=Gill Sans, Futura Md BT]; [/FONT][FONT=Gill Sans, Futura Md BT]Probably coated[/FONT]
but it is certainly far from conclusive. When I think about it, I am not sure I have actually seen ANY Monitor Six-16 dated beyond '41 or '42, coated or not. I wonder if the Six-16's were really manufactured over the full production range usually specified for Monitors in general.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Two image strips of the 1946 Kodak Anastigmat Special (L) on the Agfa Record body.
About 52x22 mm cropped on the left center of the 53x86 mm negative.
I made them to check the scale focusing, so at the widest aperture, f4.5.
Plus X Pan Professional developed in Rodinal 1/50 - 7.5 minutes - 24 C- Jobo Autolab 1000.
Nikon LS-8000 wet mounted scan.
Parts of the images assembled with other shots to detect best focus.
A download shows more.
www.pigment-print.com/Samples/AgfaHybridFocustest0001+2.jpg
www.pigment-print.com/Samples/AgfaHybridFocustest0005-6.jpg
A fine lens
Ernst Dinkla
About 52x22 mm cropped on the left center of the 53x86 mm negative.
I made them to check the scale focusing, so at the widest aperture, f4.5.
Plus X Pan Professional developed in Rodinal 1/50 - 7.5 minutes - 24 C- Jobo Autolab 1000.
Nikon LS-8000 wet mounted scan.
Parts of the images assembled with other shots to detect best focus.
A download shows more.
www.pigment-print.com/Samples/AgfaHybridFocustest0001+2.jpg
www.pigment-print.com/Samples/AgfaHybridFocustest0005-6.jpg
A fine lens
Ernst Dinkla
shawn
Veteran
Thanks for the scans. What version of the Record did you move the Kodak lens to? That sounds like a nice conversion.
Thanks,
Shawn
Thanks,
Shawn
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
There is an older thread on that conversion:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140362
Ernst Dinkla
Similar threads
