Solinar
Analog Preferred
Murray - not quite right. The Heliar predates the first World War and is one of the designs which followed the original Cooke triplet.
The original Cooke triplet was 3 glass elements in 3 groups.
The Tessar design - which includes the Skopar and Xenar - adds a cemented doublet of two different types of glass to the third group to yield 4 elements in 3 groups.
The Heliar uses a cemented front doublet in addition to the rear doublet of the Tessar to yield a design that has 5 elements in 3 groups.
Back before anti-reflective lens coatings were common - a triplet design reduced the number of interior glass to air surfaces.
The original Cooke triplet was 3 glass elements in 3 groups.
The Tessar design - which includes the Skopar and Xenar - adds a cemented doublet of two different types of glass to the third group to yield 4 elements in 3 groups.
The Heliar uses a cemented front doublet in addition to the rear doublet of the Tessar to yield a design that has 5 elements in 3 groups.
Back before anti-reflective lens coatings were common - a triplet design reduced the number of interior glass to air surfaces.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I agree - the Agfa Record III is definitely a contender - so long as someone competent in recent years has replaced the original bellows, in addition to cleaning out the original grease from the front focus cell and the un-coupled RF dial.
The nice things about the Record III also are its relative lightness and bulk - in addition to being able to adjust the rangefinder dial and operate the shutter release with my right hand index finger.
Best Regards,
shortstop
Well-known
Hi Solinar,
you are surely a Solinar fan😏. I have a Super Isolette 6x6 and wondered shots taken with Solinar at full aperture. The RF is very accurate too.
6x9 is also a nice format for contact prints and to scan negatives, although at the moment I haven't one.
CMur12
Veteran
Thanks for the clarification about the Heliar, Andrew.
- Murray
- Murray
PMCC
Late adopter.
Another vote for the Agfa Record III with Solinar and Synchro-Compur. Full marks for carry-ability, a more than reasonable trade-off for lack of CRF and unit lens focusing.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Another plus - the Record III has an accessory shoe - which I use for an external finder - but it can be also used for a VC II light meter.
Best Regards,
Solinar
Analog Preferred
To the O.P. if you are still with us. The 6x9 scans you see on the web are highly compressed. An original uncompressed TIFF file may have 690 mega bytes of data. Here is one from a 6x9 with a front cell focusing, Tessar lens - with the original file slimmed down to 160 kilo bytes into jpg for web use.
A Chile Roaster
A Chile Roaster
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Here is a crop showing a small portion of the color negative of the 6x9 neg. Again, slimmed down from the original 4000 DPI resolution to about 72 DPI.
The On/Off Switch for the Chile Roaster
The On/Off Switch for the Chile Roaster
Solinar
Analog Preferred
A final image with the roasted chiles - now ready for the customer.
jett
Well-known
ofcourse I am
I have been following this thread and doing some outside reading.
I have thoughts, and I will express them later. Busy atm.
shortstop
Well-known
Unbelievable result! I'd be curious to see the 690 megabite file. Truly a 6x9 gives such a file?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is the size of a raw 48bit 4000dpi scan. The real resolution would be about half that (12 bit/pixel and about 3000dpi), lossless compression does bring it down to 300MB or less (often considerably so, depending on content), on average about 200MB for the files on my disk.
shortstop
Well-known
200MB is however much more than 24MB of a digital sensor.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The 690 megabyte file is a full frame right off the scanner - set to 4000 dpi, 4x multi, a 16 bit raw output and TIFF with a Coolscan 8000 . On my Mac - get info shows 690 megabytes of memory used to store the TIFF.
Photoshop pixel count is 8,804 by 13,070 - which is overkill for any type of print that I'll be making. Multiply the two numbers together and you get 115 megapixels.
The purpose of all this pixel peeping was to show that a front cell focusing Tessar performs pretty well in a format that yields about 1/3 rd of the real estate of 4 by 5 neg.
jett
Well-known
thanks for all of the advice.
I'm leaning towards the Bessa II (skopar) because of unit focusing as I tend to shoot at closer distances.
My main issue with folders is the film flattness/alignment issues. Many samples that I've seen (not in this thread) are a tad soft but the tonality is incredibly. I expect this softness to mostly come from film flatness / front standard / etc issues. I would like the Heliar lens but it is too expensive for a folder.
I'm leaning towards the Bessa II (skopar) because of unit focusing as I tend to shoot at closer distances.
My main issue with folders is the film flattness/alignment issues. Many samples that I've seen (not in this thread) are a tad soft but the tonality is incredibly. I expect this softness to mostly come from film flatness / front standard / etc issues. I would like the Heliar lens but it is too expensive for a folder.
citizen99
Well-known
Here's a 'distance' example with the late 1930s Skopar. Of course with the Bessa II you would get the Color-Skopar.
The White Lion, Thornbury by johnnyh4, on FlickrHere's a relatively close-up example with the late 1930s Heliar. Of course with the Bessa II you would get the Color-Heliar.
Frampton Country Fair 2012 by johnnyh4, on FlickrBoth at Flickr 640x439, Originals are 2982x2048.
shortstop
Well-known
Good choice. Agree with you that unit focusing (and coupled RF) is better in critical focusing at short distances. I experimented this with my Super Isolette and focus at 1 meter is perfect also at maximum aperture (3,5).
Beemermark
Veteran
The Bessa II with the Color Heliar sells for the same price as a used Bessa III. To me the Bessas are way overpriced. I have used Super Ikontas (all models) over the years and they are all rock solid. I love the Tessar lens. I've had two Bessa II and it doesn't matter how great the lens is if you cannot keep the lens plane parallel to the film.
DwF
Well-known
Beesa II
Beesa II
Loosely following this thread and enjoying the images posted! I had a Bessa II for a while some years back and found it cumbersome. For my use, my Ikonta C (without rangefinder) was easier to wield and felt more solid in build and response. I still use that camera and like all of the Ikontas enjoy the feel and image quality. I have been curious to get my hands on another Bessa II and see how it goes, but they are pricey which played into my selling the first one so I could help fund a trip to Europe.
Here is one exposure that I made with the Bessa II Color-Skopar.
Beesa II
Loosely following this thread and enjoying the images posted! I had a Bessa II for a while some years back and found it cumbersome. For my use, my Ikonta C (without rangefinder) was easier to wield and felt more solid in build and response. I still use that camera and like all of the Ikontas enjoy the feel and image quality. I have been curious to get my hands on another Bessa II and see how it goes, but they are pricey which played into my selling the first one so I could help fund a trip to Europe.
Here is one exposure that I made with the Bessa II Color-Skopar.
Mike-D
Member
I have to second the comment about the squinty viewfinder on the Bessa II. Not being able to see the whole frame easily while wearing glasses stopped me from using mine. The Color Heliar is a great lens though.