farlymac
PF McFarland
I agree, not the photographer. I've never even heard of another one. I bought it off Ebay just to see what it looked like. The shutter packed it a year ago so I bought a Pronto shutter from Jurgen and took a chance the lens would fit; it did.
Looks like a Zeiss bellows on it, John. Lovely crab-apple shot.
PF
farlymac
PF McFarland
Tom, the most I've paid for one so far was $75 for a Super Ikonta B that needs a total overhaul. It's usually a matter of bad timing when I see one that isn't too expensive, like it's towards the end of the month, or I miss the end of the action (yes, I lurk around on the big auction site). You just don't find too many good old folders around these here parts anymore.
PF
kuzano
Veteran
Zenobia 645 w/Neo Hesper.. smaller than Perkeo
Zenobia 645 w/Neo Hesper.. smaller than Perkeo
Nice little Japanese clone of the small Zeiss 514 or something like that. I have three in various conditions and two of the latest shutters with the Neo Hesper lens.
In addition, I have a restorable Zenobia R. The only one I've ever found or seen in the wild. It's the standard Zenobia with a different door latch and an uncoupled rangefinder that appears to be quite accurate, although a bit hard to read the distance from to convert it to the front cell focus.
Any other Zenobia R's in this crowd?
Usually one or two on eBay at any given time. Quite an unappreciated little find. Shoots 16 on 120. Bellow often sag a bit, but usually light tight. I've purchased a few of them. Naturally shoots portrait mode. The first gen shutter were poor. D.O.C. Rapid
Zenobia 645 w/Neo Hesper.. smaller than Perkeo
Nice little Japanese clone of the small Zeiss 514 or something like that. I have three in various conditions and two of the latest shutters with the Neo Hesper lens.
In addition, I have a restorable Zenobia R. The only one I've ever found or seen in the wild. It's the standard Zenobia with a different door latch and an uncoupled rangefinder that appears to be quite accurate, although a bit hard to read the distance from to convert it to the front cell focus.
Any other Zenobia R's in this crowd?
Usually one or two on eBay at any given time. Quite an unappreciated little find. Shoots 16 on 120. Bellow often sag a bit, but usually light tight. I've purchased a few of them. Naturally shoots portrait mode. The first gen shutter were poor. D.O.C. Rapid
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
Hi Kuzano,
what makes you say the Perkeo with the Color Skopar is unique? The Perkeo I came with either Vaskar or Color Skopar lenses. The Skopar version is just not as common but can be found quite regularly.
Cheers!
what makes you say the Perkeo with the Color Skopar is unique? The Perkeo I came with either Vaskar or Color Skopar lenses. The Skopar version is just not as common but can be found quite regularly.
Cheers!
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Four ranging from 6x6 to 8x10 film format.
http://www.pigment-print.com/Fotografica/Agfa Record II/index.html
Actually 5 as the Kodak Monitor is still disassembled. The lens is very good but the conversion to 120 film did not deliver a good camera. The Agfa may get a Kodak lens if I can take out 4 mm of the struts etc to get the focal length adapted.
http://www.pigment-print.com/Fotografica/Agfa Record II/index.html
Actually 5 as the Kodak Monitor is still disassembled. The lens is very good but the conversion to 120 film did not deliver a good camera. The Agfa may get a Kodak lens if I can take out 4 mm of the struts etc to get the focal length adapted.
citizen99
Well-known
You might perhaps be able to do it without shortening the Agfa lens-to-film distance.
I once successfully transplanted the 100mm Anastar lens from a Kodak 620A to the body of a Kodak Sterling II (designed for a 105mm Anaston), there was enough helicoid on the front cell to bring the focus range into line. The Anastar lens was transplanted in its own shutter which was standard Size #0 fitting, which would be the same on your Record II (but I don't know whether that would be the case for the shutter from your Monitor)(EDIT: more information in posting #28 below). You might have to adapt the shape of the shutter release lever, and possibly move a shutter location pin.
Last edited:
Thomas78
Well-known
Please pardon my ignorance but why would you like to change the Afga Apotar for the Kodak Anastigmat?
Is it a higher quality lens (tessar type) or does it have any special features?
citizen99
Well-known
I see from the link that the Monitor lens is an Anastigmat Special, with serial number prefix EO (date 1946), so I would expect it to be a coated Tessar type.
As far as one can tell from the photographs, with a side-ways view of the retaining ring and centimetre scale, the Flash Supermatic mounting seems to be ~33mm diameter, which would be the standard Size #0. (BTW my Record III takes shutter Size #0) .
As far as one can tell from the photographs, with a side-ways view of the retaining ring and centimetre scale, the Flash Supermatic mounting seems to be ~33mm diameter, which would be the standard Size #0. (BTW my Record III takes shutter Size #0) .
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
Excuse my (total) ignorance but are folders the least expensive way into MF? And what's their image quality like compared to for instance Rollei and Hasselblad?
Tom hicks
Well-known
Image quality is as good as the others with the right lens.
here is a link to some taken with a 6x9 folder.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120624
farlymac
PF McFarland
And here's some from a 6x6 folder.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128977
Paid $35 for that camera.
PF
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128977
Paid $35 for that camera.
PF
Thomas78
Well-known
Yes, folders are less expensive than a Rollei or a Hasselblad in most cases.
But the handling and experience ist quite different: Rollei (TLR), Hasselblad (SLR) and Folders (scale focus or RF).
Regarding image quality:
It depends on what you are looking for.
A folder in good condition can give you very nice images (and I have a higher pecentage of nice pictures taken with my folders than with my 35 mm cameras), and its performance improves when stopped down to f/8 - f/11.
But if you like to count pixels/ lines per mm at full aperture, you should look for a Rollei (with Planar or Xenotar), Hasselblad or Mamiya 6/7 as their more complex optics should give a better performance at f/2.8 or f/3.5.
Here some more pictures (if you have not searched there already) :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73622
Last edited:
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
Thanks very much for the information and the links. I just came across that long thread actually - some very nice imagery in there. Seem to be intriguing cameras!
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
The Anastigmat Special of 1946 has a good reputation that is confirmed in pictures I have made with the Kodak Monitor. It is one of the best Tessar types ever made, Luminized = coated too as can be seen in the L in O character at the end of the serial number. The shutter is also working better than the Prontor S on the Apotar and goes up to 1/400.
The Monitor has one advantage, the film advance counter in Iskra style. If it worked without flaws. It has a very rigid strut construction, that is a pro too. The coupling to the shutter is hopeless, the ergonomics of the camera simply bad, it is heavier than the Agfa Record and I suspect that the conversion to 120 film does not always hold the film plane enough. Also hard to load as the 120 spools fit very tight.
The Agfa is even smaller and lighter than the Bessa, good construction, ergonomics better than the Monitor and loads 120 film easily. One of the most pocketable 6x9s around. The Acall viewfinder on top and in line with the lens is nicer than on the Bessa where it is shifted some cms. If the Monitor was 105mm instead of the 101 mm I would have made the change already but this is much harder to do. I have to recess the lens board or take something off the struts. There are no alternative folder bodies in 6x9 that have a shorter lens but the Telka III, rare and expensive and not meant to be customised.
The other 6x9, the Bessa is a good one as a whole, the Iskra 6x6 even better.
With more digital cameras at hand I use all less so the decision could go another way too, sell all. There are some Polaroid 120-150 bodies and lenses around where I can put my energy in if I like to tinker.
Ernst
citizen99
Well-known
Exactly
.In fact, there are hordes of folders with 3-glass or 4-glass lenses that can give at least perfectly 'decent' pictures at a fraction of the cost of the likes of the Hasselblad; many of those lenses on the 6x6 and 6x4.5 folders are the same as those that can be found on Rolleiflexes. Some classic Voigtlander folders up to and including the Bessa II can also be found with (5-glass) Heliar lenses, and in a rarer and more expensive category is the Bessa II with Apo-Lanthar. (The only reason why I don't mention the Japanese folders is because I don't have experience of them.)
citizen99
Well-known
It could be worth a try, before having to modify the Record structure. You only need a comparatively small increase in front cell extension to increase the effective focal length. My experience is that the lens performance ( a compromise anyway with cell focussing) would not be noticeably degraded unless you wanted to perform optical laboratory type tests
.Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
It could be worth a try, before having to modify the Record structure. You only need a comparatively small increase in front cell extension to increase the effective focal length. My experience is that the lens performance ( a compromise anyway with cell focussing) would not be noticeably degraded unless you wanted to perform optical laboratory type tests
You could be right. I am a bit of a purist in those things and the distance scaling will be off in a way as the focal length is changed with that approach but that could be minimal too. As I understand it I need no extension on the cell thread but slightly less, that is available too I think.
Related; in the past I have asked at what distance front cell focusing lenses should have their optimal performance and the best answer I got then was this one:
>>Roland Haid , Apr 04, 2003; 02:34 a.m.
Dear Ernst,
according to J. Stüper, Photographische Kamera, 1962, a lens with front focusing is designed to have optimum performance at a distance of 40x focus_length, hence 2m for an 50mm Triplett or approx. 4m for a 6x9 camera. Thus, good performance for such a design is then provided between 20x focus_length and infinity. If a Tessar design is set to 4m and fixed then, the quality will be much the same for far distances, because Tessar's are robust in variation in object distance.
On the other hand, a lens with front focusing which is optimised for 40x focus_length the spherical aberration will be overcorrected for far distances, this is not a problem because for landscape photographie the lens is used with smaller stops most times and the increase is small. If you fix the front lens at infinity setting, the overcorrected spherical is (not exactly) fixed for all distances and subsequently reducing the quality. Best regards, <<
If the optimal distance was 4 meter it should come closer with this change. How much I am not going to compute
Thank you again, makes the experiment a lot easier.
Ernst
citizen99
Well-known
Ernst,
We need purism to give intellectual structure to our pragmatism :angel:.
Thanks for that very interesting note by Roland Haid.
Good luck. I love this kind of experimentation; sometimes we can continue development where the original manufacturers stopped.
John.
We need purism to give intellectual structure to our pragmatism :angel:.
Thanks for that very interesting note by Roland Haid
.Good luck. I love this kind of experimentation; sometimes we can continue development where the original manufacturers stopped
.John.
citizen99
Well-known
Oh, by the way, the Record III was able to accommodate a much bulkier lens (Ross Xpres) (with just a little work) than the f/4.5 Apotar, I think it would be the same for all Record models of that time .
.
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
I have a Zeiss Super Ikonta III with it's ancient old lens, and a Rolleiflex 2.8GX and it's much more modern lens. I think image quality is much the same. If you do a drum scan on both, perhaps the Rollei would show more detail, but I think the difference will be pretty minor.