My Ermanox Journey

Vince, I really admire your devotion to the simple black box that is the camera.....& ultimately to the image itself. There is no question that in the 21st century there are a plethora of quick ways to get a shot....but IMO the struggle adds value to the image (at least for the photographer or the knowledgable). Kudos!
 
Sounds good! Frank repaired my Makina IIIR and did a great job. Interestingly he had never worked on one before. Even ground a new part of the rangefinder mechanism that was missing a piece. Great Guy to know.
 
Deardorff38 said:
Vince, I really admire your devotion to the simple black box that is the camera.....& ultimately to the image itself. There is no question that in the 21st century there are a plethora of quick ways to get a shot....but IMO the struggle adds value to the image (at least for the photographer or the knowledgable). Kudos!
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the encouragement -- as you may know I've used a lot of weird cameras over the last 40+ years and I don't feel too intimidated by any of them. I think the thing that holds the 'image' back is when i'm expecting all cameras - even ones that are 100 years-old - to be able to be used like 'modern' cameras, not realizing the limitations of the designs of the cameras (such as the naturally-occurring Ermanox light leaks!) and the film materials they were originally meant to use.

It's funny but I was reading an old thread from another photo site (it might have been photo.net) on the Ermanox, and the general consensus was that nobody in their right mind would use one today for actual picture-making. Better to be left on a shelf as a display piece. Who knows, maybe they're right, or maybe when I read things like that I regard it as a personal challenge. I'm sure some intense psychological counselling would reveal the true answer!
 
Vince Lupo said:
Many thanks for the encouragement -- as you may know I've used a lot of weird cameras over the last 40+ years and I don't feel too intimidated by any of them. I think the thing that holds the 'image' back is when i'm expecting all cameras - even ones that are 100 years-old - to be able to be used like 'modern' cameras, not realizing the limitations of the designs of the cameras (such as the naturally-occurring Ermanox light leaks!) and the film materials they were originally meant to use.

It's funny but I was reading an old thread from another photo site (it might have been photo.net) on the Ermanox, and the general consensus was that nobody in their right mind would use one today for actual picture-making. Better to be left on a shelf as a display piece. Who knows, maybe they're right, or maybe when I read things like that I regard it as a personal challenge. I'm sure some intense psychological counselling would reveal the true answer!
Click to expand...

The challenge is the fun. No challenge=no fun.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Many thanks for the encouragement -- as you may know I've used a lot of weird cameras over the last 40+ years and I don't feel too intimidated by any of them. I think the thing that holds the 'image' back is when i'm expecting all cameras - even ones that are 100 years-old - to be able to be used like 'modern' cameras, not realizing the limitations of the designs of the cameras (such as the naturally-occurring Ermanox light leaks!) and the film materials they were originally meant to use.

It's funny but I was reading an old thread from another photo site (it might have been photo.net) on the Ermanox, and the general consensus was that nobody in their right mind would use one today for actual picture-making. Better to be left on a shelf as a display piece. Who knows, maybe they're right, or maybe when I read things like that I regard it as a personal challenge. I'm sure some intense psychological counselling would reveal the true answer!
Click to expand...


I was told the same thing about overhauling a Contaflex 2, but I did it anyway. It took more time to fix what someone else "repaired" than the rest of the overhaul. Works just fine now. Keep at it, Vince, you'll have a fine working camera yet.


PF
 
attachment.php


I like this ad for Ermanox.
 

Attachments

  • ermanox.jpg
    ermanox.jpg
    13.1 KB · Views: 1
I figured out a solution to the whole rangefinder situation - you guys aren’t gonna like it 🙂

While pondering the prospect of spending untold amounts of money on an accessory rangefinder to help with distance setting (not to mention having to carry one more thing in my pocket), I wondered if there was such a thing as a ‘rangefinder app’ for my phone. Quick search in the app store and bingo, found one. It seems to work reasonably well and is fairly accurate when compared to the image on the ground glass, so I think I’ll give it a try for now.

Like most everybody else I already carry my phone around so I’m not adding to my pocket stash, and best of all the app was free.
 
Vince Lupo said:
I figured out a solution to the whole rangefinder situation - you guys aren’t gonna like it 🙂

...I wondered if there was such a thing as a ‘rangefinder app’ for my phone. Quick search in the app store and bingo, found one. It seems to work reasonably well and is fairly accurate when compared to the image on the ground glass, so I think I’ll give it a try for now.

Like most everybody else I already carry my phone around so I’m not adding to my pocket stash, and best of all the app was free.
Click to expand...

What is the app? Sounds interesting. I have an old Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 (110 camera) with a decent little rangefinder built in. I have used it with my Ihagee 6x9 folder.
 
I wonder how the phone RF app works? I don't think its a real RF as I don't think most phones have more than one lens (pointing the same direction). I'm just curious...
 
markjwyatt said:
What is the app? Sounds interesting. I have an old Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 (110 camera) with a decent little rangefinder built in. I have used it with my Ihagee 6x9 folder.
Click to expand...

It's called Rangefinder Meter for the iPhone. It has large crosshairs on the screen, you tell the app how high you're holding the phone (for standing I choose 1.4 meters, which is about chest height) and you point it at the base of your subject (so someone's feet, the base of a tree etc) and it gives you the measurement in whatever unit you want. Seems reasonably accurate.
 
Dralowid said:
If you have sorted the rangefinder business you won't need one of these

leaflets4207 by dralowid, on Flickr

So now perhaps have a look at scary flash using magnesium tape...

IMG_2551 by dralowid, on Flickr

Very compact and has its own exposure guide...

IMG_2547 by dralowid, on Flickr

Or perhaps a hand held extinction meter?
Click to expand...

I looked at all the various Leitz rangefinders and honestly I didn't really feel like spending $200-$300-$400 on one (you can get a so-so one with a dim view for $200 all the way up to a 'minty' one for $500). Whether it's a FODIS, FOKOS, FOFER etc they all seem to be in that price range or even more. I like the FOFER rangefinder and who knows maybe I may end up getting one down the line (in meters of course!), but at the moment this rangefinder app seems to be okay. I'll be fully testing it 'in the field' on Saturday -- there's a Civil War reenactment happening this weekend up at Gettysburg and I'm planning on shooting some glass plates. I have 19 holders loaded up and ready to go, so we'll see how we do.

One new shot, which is a 'salvage' from yet another fogged roll of Rerapan 100. I've determined that I'm not a fan of this film.


Cloisters2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New to the forum. Brief description.
Replies
16
Views
727
CMur12
C
P
Zorki 4 arrived and has shutter issues
Replies
15
Views
536
seany65
S
R
Leica Digital M (11-D) Bugs
Replies
6
Views
566
Photon42
Photon42
J
  • Article Article
The Eternal Ermanox: First with the fastest lens, but eclipsed by the Leica
Replies
17
Views
3K
Vince Lupo
Vince Lupo
O
Rewinding MP without engaging the 'R' lever
Replies
5
Views
338
onehappybunny
O
Back
Top Bottom