ZeissFan
Veteran
A number of the Voigtlander cameras have quirky ergonomics, which I suppose is part of their charm.
Voigtlander used "focus by dial" on several of its cameras. Not one of my favorite means of focusing a camera, for sure.
However, I do like the left-handed trigger for the shutter release.
Voigtlander used "focus by dial" on several of its cameras. Not one of my favorite means of focusing a camera, for sure.
However, I do like the left-handed trigger for the shutter release.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Well, I was biting my tongue regarding Voigtlanders. Let me say more than a few words regarding the unit focus Bessa RF and Bessa II versus front-cell focus on the Zeiss Ikon cameras.
In theory unit focus is a slam dunk over front-cell focus. In practice however, with a random sample of one Bessa II, there is a noticeable bit a back-lash in the focus gears, plus a small bit of up and down wobble to the front standard on which the lens/shutter combo are mounted.
The play in the focus adjustment is from the course gearing used to rack the lens/shutter assembly forward to near focus and back to infinity by moving the front standard on its rails.
My point here is there are weaknesses to the Voigtlander design that limit its unit-focus advantages. On my Bessa II, I have to double check two small latches, which prevent the front standard from wobbling - whenever open the lens platform. With the RF/focus back-lash in mind, also set the focus from one direction only - infinity to near.
So, in practice the Super Ikonta C, (with its rigid front standard, along with much finer teeth on the gears of its focusing wheel that controls the counter-rotating prisms) may be more consistent in accurately setting the focus for close-in shots than the Bessa RF or Bessa II.
Surely, having lens-coupled rangefinders are nice. However, on a 60 plus year old folder, a simpler non-RF design may be more trouble free.
In theory unit focus is a slam dunk over front-cell focus. In practice however, with a random sample of one Bessa II, there is a noticeable bit a back-lash in the focus gears, plus a small bit of up and down wobble to the front standard on which the lens/shutter combo are mounted.
The play in the focus adjustment is from the course gearing used to rack the lens/shutter assembly forward to near focus and back to infinity by moving the front standard on its rails.
My point here is there are weaknesses to the Voigtlander design that limit its unit-focus advantages. On my Bessa II, I have to double check two small latches, which prevent the front standard from wobbling - whenever open the lens platform. With the RF/focus back-lash in mind, also set the focus from one direction only - infinity to near.
So, in practice the Super Ikonta C, (with its rigid front standard, along with much finer teeth on the gears of its focusing wheel that controls the counter-rotating prisms) may be more consistent in accurately setting the focus for close-in shots than the Bessa RF or Bessa II.
Surely, having lens-coupled rangefinders are nice. However, on a 60 plus year old folder, a simpler non-RF design may be more trouble free.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
No, Novars are among a handfull of pretty good 3-element lenses, but you do have to shoot stopped down with them, if you want to avoid soft corners. Trioplans are a little better, as are Cassars. Apotars are about the same, if you calibrate them just so. The main problem with Apotars (and Solinars and other Agfa lenses) is that, if the camera is working, it has been taken apart at some time (to get that horrible green gunk out of it), and this means that someone has recalibrated the lens. Only god knows how well he did that.
Another good camera. The only problem I have with Super Ikons is that *%$&# swing arm with the rotating prisms. If at any time in it's decades old history it has ever received a bump, it is just more trouble than it is worth to fix it. And God forbid it has ever been worked on by someone who has misaligned the prisms upon reassembly! Takes forever to get it right again.
Me too. I favor Agfas and Weltas. No Agnars and Radionars though.
Well, they all seem to have done a decent job. Novars tend to be pretty uniform in quality.
Is that unusual? I've never seen anything but Tessars or Novars on the Zeiss folding cameras I have bought.
Yes, that was impressive. Might have meen even sharper with the yellow lens filter removed. BTW, I am not poking fun, just stating a fact. Lens filters, unless really top grade, tend to slightly soften images.
So do you think f/8 is the sharpest aperture for a Novar or is it f/11? I've never been able to decide. Of course I've never blown up a matchhead sized part of one of my photos either though.
Good thing she hasn't seen me packing a steel Cambo 4x5 monorail and a Davidson or Tiltall tripod up into the mountains, or she'd have had me committed!
* * *
Yes, I agree. I think most of the old stuff can outperform most of the new stuff, within its limitations.
Last edited:
jbf
||||||
I will gladly buy the new fuji folder if it is released. I've wanted a 120 rangefinder folder for SO long. It'd be perfect. Compact, metered and ready to go.
literiter
Well-known
If you insist on 6 X 9, I'd really consider the crusty old Moskva 2, 4, or 5. (some may actually arrive with a crust of some sort!) They can be at your door within 2 weeks and there are reputable dealers out there. (Google: Moskva, Mockba, Moscou. I think, if the Cyrillic characters were translated it would say "Moscow")
The Moskva has a very good shutter and from what I have seen, some very good lenses. The lenses are front cell, like the Ikonta, but I believe they are not inferior to the Tessar lenses in the Ikontas.
There are really 4 Moskva cameras of interest. The Moskva 2 which is the earliest of the roll film folding Ikonta types.
The most interesting is the Moskva 4 which comes in two flavors:
-One flavor has a finder/focus system similar to the Zeiss Super Ikonta, without the dreaded Albada finder. A nice f4.5 front cell focus lens, in a Moment shutter.
-The other looks like the Moskva 5 but with the same lens as the other, a f4.5 coated front cell focus. The f4.5 lens may be the better than the f3.5 of this series. A tad rare it seems.
Then of course is the Moskva 5 with the f3.5 lens. The M5 and the latter M4 have a nice viewfinder, compared to the early M4, M2 and much much better than the poor old Albada finder one finds on the otherwise glorious Super Ikonta C.
Moment shutters are usually accurate and the lenses are certainly good enough for me.
If you have the cash then the Voigtlander, Wetur etc. stuff is pretty nice. For myself I prefer the Super Ikonta C for looks, finish and reasonably sharp lens and accurate shutter. But the old Moskvas can do the work.
The Moskva has a very good shutter and from what I have seen, some very good lenses. The lenses are front cell, like the Ikonta, but I believe they are not inferior to the Tessar lenses in the Ikontas.
There are really 4 Moskva cameras of interest. The Moskva 2 which is the earliest of the roll film folding Ikonta types.
The most interesting is the Moskva 4 which comes in two flavors:
-One flavor has a finder/focus system similar to the Zeiss Super Ikonta, without the dreaded Albada finder. A nice f4.5 front cell focus lens, in a Moment shutter.
-The other looks like the Moskva 5 but with the same lens as the other, a f4.5 coated front cell focus. The f4.5 lens may be the better than the f3.5 of this series. A tad rare it seems.
Then of course is the Moskva 5 with the f3.5 lens. The M5 and the latter M4 have a nice viewfinder, compared to the early M4, M2 and much much better than the poor old Albada finder one finds on the otherwise glorious Super Ikonta C.
Moment shutters are usually accurate and the lenses are certainly good enough for me.
If you have the cash then the Voigtlander, Wetur etc. stuff is pretty nice. For myself I prefer the Super Ikonta C for looks, finish and reasonably sharp lens and accurate shutter. But the old Moskvas can do the work.
ZeissFan
Veteran
FallisPhoto, way back when I started buying cameras, it was obvious to me that this could rapidly spiral out of control. So I made a conscious decision to limit what I would buy to primarily German cameras.
I still ended up with a nice Minolta SRT setup (which I recently sold), several Pentaxes (my first true SLR was the Pentax MX), my original Nikons (F2A and FE and now an FM, FT3, EL2), some Konicas (I, II and III) and a Nikon S (which I disassembled to service, got stuck, put all the parts in an empty butter container for a year and then reassembled into excellent working condition).
On the German side, I started with Agfa (Isolette III with an Apotar), delved into the Kodak Retinas and then bought my first Zeiss Ikon (a folding Contina II with a Novar). The lens on the Zeiss Ikon blew me away and that set me down the Zeiss Ikon path. Ironically, it wasn't a Carl Zeiss lens.
The first camera that ever cost me more than $200 was a Contax IIa with a heavy coated wartime f/1.5 Sonnar. That lens really impressed me and got me interested in the Zeiss Ikon cameras.
By now, I was doing all of my own restoration, because paying someone would run into a small fortune. I had bought a Rolleiflex Automat (Xenar) around 1983, as well as a Rollei 35S to complement a Rollei 35T that I had bought while stationed in Germany several years earlier.
I added a couple of more Rolleiflex TLRs (3.5F, a Tessar Automat, Rolleimagic II -- ugh!, two Baby Rolleis -- sold one) and eventually a Rolleiflex SL66 (massive) and a tiny SL26. Evenutally, I also dipped my toe into the SL 35 series. The reliability of the Singapore-made bodies is sadly inconsistent.
Along the way, I was buying and restoring various Zeiss Ikon folding cameras. Mostly 35mm,. At one time, I had a large number of folding Contessas but eventually sold or gave away all buy two of them. Same goes for the Contina II. I have several Contaflexes, some rigid Contessas (nicer than I thought) and a very nice Tenax II that took me a few hours to restore. I went through an Ikoflex craze several years ago. Nice, but they're not the equal of a Rolleiflex.
Then there are the folding 120 Ikontas and Super Ikontas. I often go for the camera that hasn't been used in decades and belonged to someone's father, uncle or grandfather. Those cameras have often turned out to be the best, just needing a thorough and careful restoration. My favorite Ikonta came from Nova Scotia from "Mary." And my favorite Super Ikonta was from Texas, I think. It was coated in a thick layer of dust.
The worst Super Ikonta (6x4.5) came from Russia, and one of the nicest little Kolibris (127) that's been my pleasure to own also came from Russia. Win some, lose some, I suppose.
During the mad rush to digital, I picked up a nice Sinar 4x5 with the extra rail and a case for a song.
Lately, I've been shooting with a half-frame Agfa Optima-Parat, my Contax IIa, Tenax II or a little Balda CE 35 (1980s) that has a tiny light leak. I've also been intrigued by the Werra, early Contax SLRs and the early Agfa Karats, although the typical Agfa grease/cement always poses some restoration difficulties.
These days, I never worry if I don't win a camera. There's always another out there. I don't buy much (or as much), because as you can tell from this long, long post, I certainly have more than I need.
I'll confess to buying a Zeiss Ikon medium format enlarger to add to the 35mm one that I bought a couple of years ago. I've used the 35mm enlarger, and the lens is very good. It's an uncoated prewar Spezial-Anastigmat. The medium format enlarger has a Novar, and I'm very anxious to get it cleaned up and give it a go. Like the 35mm enlarger, I'll convert this to use flourescent. Both have glass negative holders.
That's my camera fascination story in a nutshell. I have a bunch of oddball cameras here and there and most definitely have strong opinions regarding cameras, quality of construction, design, ergonomics and lenses. Even so, there's still so much that I don't know. Like life, it's a learning process, and you pick up a little bit more knowledge all of the time.
I try not to get involved with bashing certain makes, because we each have our own desires, goals, ambitions, likes and dislikes -- with cameras and a lot of other things.
I still ended up with a nice Minolta SRT setup (which I recently sold), several Pentaxes (my first true SLR was the Pentax MX), my original Nikons (F2A and FE and now an FM, FT3, EL2), some Konicas (I, II and III) and a Nikon S (which I disassembled to service, got stuck, put all the parts in an empty butter container for a year and then reassembled into excellent working condition).
On the German side, I started with Agfa (Isolette III with an Apotar), delved into the Kodak Retinas and then bought my first Zeiss Ikon (a folding Contina II with a Novar). The lens on the Zeiss Ikon blew me away and that set me down the Zeiss Ikon path. Ironically, it wasn't a Carl Zeiss lens.
The first camera that ever cost me more than $200 was a Contax IIa with a heavy coated wartime f/1.5 Sonnar. That lens really impressed me and got me interested in the Zeiss Ikon cameras.
By now, I was doing all of my own restoration, because paying someone would run into a small fortune. I had bought a Rolleiflex Automat (Xenar) around 1983, as well as a Rollei 35S to complement a Rollei 35T that I had bought while stationed in Germany several years earlier.
I added a couple of more Rolleiflex TLRs (3.5F, a Tessar Automat, Rolleimagic II -- ugh!, two Baby Rolleis -- sold one) and eventually a Rolleiflex SL66 (massive) and a tiny SL26. Evenutally, I also dipped my toe into the SL 35 series. The reliability of the Singapore-made bodies is sadly inconsistent.
Along the way, I was buying and restoring various Zeiss Ikon folding cameras. Mostly 35mm,. At one time, I had a large number of folding Contessas but eventually sold or gave away all buy two of them. Same goes for the Contina II. I have several Contaflexes, some rigid Contessas (nicer than I thought) and a very nice Tenax II that took me a few hours to restore. I went through an Ikoflex craze several years ago. Nice, but they're not the equal of a Rolleiflex.
Then there are the folding 120 Ikontas and Super Ikontas. I often go for the camera that hasn't been used in decades and belonged to someone's father, uncle or grandfather. Those cameras have often turned out to be the best, just needing a thorough and careful restoration. My favorite Ikonta came from Nova Scotia from "Mary." And my favorite Super Ikonta was from Texas, I think. It was coated in a thick layer of dust.
The worst Super Ikonta (6x4.5) came from Russia, and one of the nicest little Kolibris (127) that's been my pleasure to own also came from Russia. Win some, lose some, I suppose.
During the mad rush to digital, I picked up a nice Sinar 4x5 with the extra rail and a case for a song.
Lately, I've been shooting with a half-frame Agfa Optima-Parat, my Contax IIa, Tenax II or a little Balda CE 35 (1980s) that has a tiny light leak. I've also been intrigued by the Werra, early Contax SLRs and the early Agfa Karats, although the typical Agfa grease/cement always poses some restoration difficulties.
These days, I never worry if I don't win a camera. There's always another out there. I don't buy much (or as much), because as you can tell from this long, long post, I certainly have more than I need.
I'll confess to buying a Zeiss Ikon medium format enlarger to add to the 35mm one that I bought a couple of years ago. I've used the 35mm enlarger, and the lens is very good. It's an uncoated prewar Spezial-Anastigmat. The medium format enlarger has a Novar, and I'm very anxious to get it cleaned up and give it a go. Like the 35mm enlarger, I'll convert this to use flourescent. Both have glass negative holders.
That's my camera fascination story in a nutshell. I have a bunch of oddball cameras here and there and most definitely have strong opinions regarding cameras, quality of construction, design, ergonomics and lenses. Even so, there's still so much that I don't know. Like life, it's a learning process, and you pick up a little bit more knowledge all of the time.
I try not to get involved with bashing certain makes, because we each have our own desires, goals, ambitions, likes and dislikes -- with cameras and a lot of other things.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Mike, I just edited my rambling post from yesterday. My last point that I edited out, is yes there are signature differences between a Cooke-triple, Tessar-type and Heliar lens - but I like them all. Bare in mind that many of those classic glamour photos of movie stars were usually taken with a Cooke-triplet on a large format camera with movements.
To tell you the truth, I really don't need five medium format folders, but there is something about each that I really like over the rest of them and after restoring them, so that each one is in top nick, it's tough to let them go. For example, I once thought that I'd sell my Agfa Record III - but the ergonomics of the Bessa II put that idea on hold. The Heliar on the Bessa II on the other hand is unique, so it stays as well.
Fingers crossed, I will be pairing down the 35mm collection this year. It looks like the FED 2 and Bessa R may need to find new homes, along with some lenses.
To tell you the truth, I really don't need five medium format folders, but there is something about each that I really like over the rest of them and after restoring them, so that each one is in top nick, it's tough to let them go. For example, I once thought that I'd sell my Agfa Record III - but the ergonomics of the Bessa II put that idea on hold. The Heliar on the Bessa II on the other hand is unique, so it stays as well.
Fingers crossed, I will be pairing down the 35mm collection this year. It looks like the FED 2 and Bessa R may need to find new homes, along with some lenses.
chippy
foo was here
just to be different ;-)
just to be different ;-)
well i could mention about the same cameras (although they are great) , but i thought why not throw something else in there that goes largely unnoticed just for the hell of it, it is in a sence one of my favourite
so, how about this...barring a rangefinder its got the lot, but then with this you dont actually need a rangefinder
its the baby 6.5x9 Welta Watson and it fits in the palm of your hand, so its.. compact & ergonomic hehe! no auto pop out for the lens but it slides out smooth and easy, the quality is fine, feels solid and the chrome on the rails must be god knows how thick as i have rarely ever seen one with poor chrome even now some 80+ years on
thieves wont pinch it if you have it sitting beside you on the cafe' table; because when folded it looks more like a book than a camera and not many theives go around stealing books eh. not to mention they wouldnt know how to open it...its always a small sence of amusement when i hand the camera closed to someone and watch them try to to figure out how to open it (i am easily entertained:angel . its the hiden button under the leather for those that dont know. hmm maybe i should of kept that secret...kind like telling what someone happend at the end of the movie
three diferent ways to compose your image:- big brilliant finder which is brilliant not to be compared with the puny little ones you often see and get on later folders; sports folding frame finder no worries about it yellowing with age like albada finders or a squinty view like the bessa, doesnt even need cleaning and remains crystal clear! or use the ground glass viewer, it lets you see exactly what the lens is seeing so its just like an SLR hey and with this method it works better than a rangefinder and needs no adjustment, maintenance or resilvered mirrors (actually my young daughter when i showed her this feature and how to use it said 'hey thats just like (does the same as) the viewer on the back of a digital camera' LOL--the things kids say eh! then i thought yeah how true, no batteries and its live veiw as well unlike a Leica M8 haha
focusing methods; take your pick of using hyerfocal and the quick viewfinders for street shooting lol, or use the scale distance focusing with the markings laid out on the bed, or for precise focusing, use the rack and pinion dial to adjust fine increments for precision focusing while viewing the ground glass veiwer; what you see is what you get. as for sturdiness no problems, unless you drop it on it on the front bed they are good, as is the front standard...oh i forgot to metion ther is that advantage of single unit lens focusing as well
(as i am writing this i am starting to think why i need anything else haha)
as for lenses well take your pick, the choices are almost endless with this Welta Watson (3 element, 4, 5 or 6 element lenes) barring the voigtlander range , everthing from the quality triplets that have been used on cameras ever since (including many of those mentioned earlier) to the xenar, tessar, and yes even leitz gave their seal of approval to Welta and were happy to make available their elmar glass on this particular camera as well, dogmars and many more. ....it occures to me that it is likely possible that it could be retrofitted with some modern lenses without too much diffculty as well, as there appears to be enough room to do so...just a thought
no doubt someone is thinking 'film availability problems'. well true its not as easy to get as 120 but it is available online at a few places and will store forever in the freezer. an advantage is that this film in its holders will be flat, eliminating the occurances that some people have with 6x9 folding cameras. but i usually just use a Rada roll film back (there are other brands out there), its has a nice shape that i think doesnt upset the look of these camera and makes it as convienent as any 6x9, with almost the same format as originanly intended.
and to top it off it has rise, fall and shift that works as easy as turning a knob. most people would not appreciate the benifits of these but once you have it you will enjoy using it.
depending on how you look at it . it doesnt have the versitility of a full on field camera but what a great feature to have in a book size 6x9 folder, that even though it does have square sides still can fit in you pocket. in fact it is smaller in size both in height and width (although thicker by a small margin) than a 6x6 perkeo (often noted for being a(the) pigmy size camera), of course thats not counting the rada film back which on its own isnt too big either, but hey put it in you other pocket if you dont want to leave it atatched to the camera
i just wanted to show something we dont usualy mention but i bet i convinced someone hehe
just to be different ;-)
well i could mention about the same cameras (although they are great) , but i thought why not throw something else in there that goes largely unnoticed just for the hell of it, it is in a sence one of my favourite
so, how about this...barring a rangefinder its got the lot, but then with this you dont actually need a rangefinder
its the baby 6.5x9 Welta Watson and it fits in the palm of your hand, so its.. compact & ergonomic hehe! no auto pop out for the lens but it slides out smooth and easy, the quality is fine, feels solid and the chrome on the rails must be god knows how thick as i have rarely ever seen one with poor chrome even now some 80+ years on
thieves wont pinch it if you have it sitting beside you on the cafe' table; because when folded it looks more like a book than a camera and not many theives go around stealing books eh. not to mention they wouldnt know how to open it...its always a small sence of amusement when i hand the camera closed to someone and watch them try to to figure out how to open it (i am easily entertained:angel
. its the hiden button under the leather for those that dont know. hmm maybe i should of kept that secret...kind like telling what someone happend at the end of the moviethree diferent ways to compose your image:- big brilliant finder which is brilliant not to be compared with the puny little ones you often see and get on later folders; sports folding frame finder no worries about it yellowing with age like albada finders or a squinty view like the bessa, doesnt even need cleaning and remains crystal clear! or use the ground glass viewer, it lets you see exactly what the lens is seeing so its just like an SLR hey
and with this method it works better than a rangefinder and needs no adjustment, maintenance or resilvered mirrors (actually my young daughter when i showed her this feature and how to use it said 'hey thats just like (does the same as) the viewer on the back of a digital camera' LOL--the things kids say eh! then i thought yeah how true, no batteries and its live veiw as well unlike a Leica M8 haha focusing methods; take your pick of using hyerfocal and the quick viewfinders for street shooting lol, or use the scale distance focusing with the markings laid out on the bed, or for precise focusing, use the rack and pinion dial to adjust fine increments for precision focusing while viewing the ground glass veiwer; what you see is what you get. as for sturdiness no problems, unless you drop it on it on the front bed they are good, as is the front standard...oh i forgot to metion ther is that advantage of single unit lens focusing as well
(as i am writing this i am starting to think why i need anything else haha)
as for lenses well take your pick, the choices are almost endless with this Welta Watson (3 element, 4, 5 or 6 element lenes) barring the voigtlander range , everthing from the quality triplets that have been used on cameras ever since (including many of those mentioned earlier) to the xenar, tessar, and yes even leitz gave their seal of approval to Welta and were happy to make available their elmar glass on this particular camera as well, dogmars and many more. ....it occures to me that it is likely possible that it could be retrofitted with some modern lenses without too much diffculty as well, as there appears to be enough room to do so...just a thought
no doubt someone is thinking 'film availability problems'. well true its not as easy to get as 120 but it is available online at a few places and will store forever in the freezer. an advantage is that this film in its holders will be flat, eliminating the occurances that some people have with 6x9 folding cameras. but i usually just use a Rada roll film back (there are other brands out there), its has a nice shape that i think doesnt upset the look of these camera and makes it as convienent as any 6x9, with almost the same format as originanly intended.
and to top it off it has rise, fall and shift that works as easy as turning a knob. most people would not appreciate the benifits of these but once you have it you will enjoy using it.
depending on how you look at it . it doesnt have the versitility of a full on field camera but what a great feature to have in a book size 6x9 folder, that even though it does have square sides still can fit in you pocket. in fact it is smaller in size both in height and width (although thicker by a small margin) than a 6x6 perkeo (often noted for being a(the) pigmy size camera), of course thats not counting the rada film back which on its own isnt too big either, but hey put it in you other pocket if you dont want to leave it atatched to the camera
i just wanted to show something we dont usualy mention but i bet i convinced someone hehe
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The Welta Watson looks to be more from the collector's corner. In the US, the Century Graphic is a viable alternative. It takes roll film backs for 6x9, 6x7 and 6x6 in addition to sheet film. The baby Graphics still used a removable lens board and will fit in the palm of the tallest basketball player.
chippy
foo was here
rather than a 'collectors corner' camera i would prefer to think that its still a very usable camera. Whilst the Century Graphic is a fine camera although is somewhat missing the elegance of the old Welta Watson, with all the century's usefull add on bits, the Welta certainly can be had much cheaper than a Century graphic so maybe in that repect it doesnt qualify as collector camera...obviously the Century has more features but that is to be expected for a camera made some 20-40+ years later.
at any rate i was just trying to show other choices...there are a number of other makers such as zeiss, voigtlander and all the other german brands that made this format and simular cameras in abundance--slightly different to what the US standard sizes were
at any rate i was just trying to show other choices...there are a number of other makers such as zeiss, voigtlander and all the other german brands that made this format and simular cameras in abundance--slightly different to what the US standard sizes were
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The base Century Graphic with on its original Graftar set in a Century shutter is only about a 100 bucks USD. The add-ons are the gotcha. For example, the roll film back will run as much as the base camera.
For anyone reading this overseas, the Century Graphic was the bottom end 6x9 press camera made domestically in the US by the Graflex Corporation. The Century Graphic's body is made of a heavy bake-lite type plastic and in its base form did not include a rangefinder, which wasn't a problem when use with its 6x9 glass focus screen at the back of the camera.
The Century Graphic had long production run from the 1940's all the way into the early 70's. It was the rock bottom budget alternative and still is to the Crown Graphic Pacemaker 23 in the Graflex line-up.
For anyone reading this overseas, the Century Graphic was the bottom end 6x9 press camera made domestically in the US by the Graflex Corporation. The Century Graphic's body is made of a heavy bake-lite type plastic and in its base form did not include a rangefinder, which wasn't a problem when use with its 6x9 glass focus screen at the back of the camera.
The Century Graphic had long production run from the 1940's all the way into the early 70's. It was the rock bottom budget alternative and still is to the Crown Graphic Pacemaker 23 in the Graflex line-up.
chippy
foo was here
i dont want to get anyone or you in a twist over this. i was only wanting to show something different in an amusing and light hearted way. as regulars here we often see the same type of opening post and as a result we often see the same types of answers. even including the century from time to time........the century is fine, i havnt got anything against it. but in comparison the century was made starting in 49 in comparison to 1924 for the watson..the century had a long production run as you say up till around 70 and in comparison the watson up till around 1930..no big deal but hard to compare on that basis
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Don't worry I'm definitely not in a twist, but I did want to put in a plug for the Century Graphic, because we have them in a relative abundance here in the US.
By the way, the Watson looks to be very well made.
By the way, the Watson looks to be very well made.
Argenticien
Dave
I have never used or even held anything like this Welta Watson that is sort of a folding, simplified version of a view camera. So this might be a daft question, but: how do you use a roll-film back on it if you want to focus with the ground glass? Is it the full complex process of focus -> insert dark slide -> remove ground glass -> attach film back -> remove dark slide -> expose -> insert dark slide -> remove film back -> reattach ground glass -> remove dark slide?? If so, I'm sure I would leave the roll-film back on and focus by those other means that you mentioned. (Or, get a full-on view camera if I am going to deal with the dark slide pain in the arse anyway.)
chippy
foo was here
hehe nothing wrong with a bit of brand and national loyalty
, you blokes can always ship one over to me-i will happly use it. Aussies of old had the advantage (or just just easy going aceptance) of having things from all you overseas guys without worring too much about a brand (we just picked what was good for the price), whether from the US, Europe or mostly the Brits (we call them affectunately Poms, hmm sometimes with a swear word in front but it still friendly ). on the down side in the old days there were many things we didnt get here until on average 20 years later. it was a standing joke whenever talking with ya mates at the pub and someone mentioned what new 'thing' (TV or colour TV for instance) was being used in pommyland or the US,, we new at best we wouldn't see it for at least 10-20 years hahait is very well made, i think it has to be some kind of testimate when they still (by enlarge) function well and operate as they did when they were built some 80 or so years later, that has to be hard to say of any product.
but not to sound too 'one eyed' (as we call it here) there are other cameras of the era built to slightly (or much) higher standard. even in the Welta range this was just above their mid level camera (3rd from top although in this small format i think it was the top offering) albeit the most popular (most sold). the lower featured cameras had materials that reflected this as did the higher priced cameras on the other end of the scale. interestingly McKeowns says they are run of the mill type cameras which i think is not doing them justice at all. i beleive this more of a case that this type of camera without close inspection all look the same at first and even second glance, also that many of the cameras sold all came from around Dresden and surrounding communities and its my thought they all drank at the same pub and swaped and made deals LOL
the thing is i never seize to be amazed that a camera built that long ago by a small firm can still be easily used today. with a rada film back which fits great and doesnt look too out of place, and the masks that come with them it can be used for the formats 6x7 with some adjustment and 6.45, 6x6,6x9 out of the box.
its chock full of features and is available with a wide range of top lenses ,which really is what makes this brand stand out from some of the others of the day and at least provide a real alternative to the huge market share zeiss and voigtlander ect. had. that make it
ZeissFan
Veteran
I have the Kodak/Nagel Recomar '18' -- roughly the same camera as the many other plate cameras from that era.
Recomar '18' is 6x9.
Great camera. And the process with shooting is open hood, set shutter to "T," focus, close shutter (don't forget this step!), remove ground glass back, insert roll film back, remove dark slide, set shutter and aperture and take photo, wind to next frame and repeat.
Best used on a tripod and with a static scene. Probably not the best choice at a sporting event. Or to photograph live wildlife. Or children.
I also have a Recomar '33' (9x12) -- it needs a bit of work.
Recomar '18' is 6x9.
Great camera. And the process with shooting is open hood, set shutter to "T," focus, close shutter (don't forget this step!), remove ground glass back, insert roll film back, remove dark slide, set shutter and aperture and take photo, wind to next frame and repeat.
Best used on a tripod and with a static scene. Probably not the best choice at a sporting event. Or to photograph live wildlife. Or children.
I also have a Recomar '33' (9x12) -- it needs a bit of work.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Wow Chippy. Did you notice how much that looks like the camera I posted the other day as having been my father's? To include the red bubble level. Maybe I need to measure the ground glass. I sure thought that was a 6x9 I had though.
EDIT: For those who haven't used it, the mirror view finders in cameras like these, or the old box cameras even, were not difficult to use at all. And rather fast. And so were the "sports" finders.
I'm still marveling over your description of your camera. I'll have to look when I get home, but I think my father's also opened with a bump under the leather. I do have another non-Welta that does that also.
EDIT: For those who haven't used it, the mirror view finders in cameras like these, or the old box cameras even, were not difficult to use at all. And rather fast. And so were the "sports" finders.
I'm still marveling over your description of your camera. I'll have to look when I get home, but I think my father's also opened with a bump under the leather. I do have another non-Welta that does that also.
well i could mention about the same cameras (although they are great) , but i thought why not throw something else in there that goes largely unnoticed just for the hell of it, it is in a sence one of my favourite
so, how about this...barring a rangefinder its got the lot, but then with this you dont actually need a rangefinder
its the baby 6.5x9 Welta Watson and it fits in the palm of your hand, so its.. compact & ergonomic hehe! no auto pop out for the lens but it slides out smooth and easy, the quality is fine, feels solid and the chrome on the rails must be god knows how thick as i have rarely ever seen one with poor chrome even now some 80+ years on
thieves wont pinch it if you have it sitting beside you on the cafe' table; because when folded it looks more like a book than a camera and not many theives go around stealing books eh. not to mention they wouldnt know how to open it...its always a small sence of amusement when i hand the camera closed to someone and watch them try to to figure out how to open it (i am easily entertained:angel
three diferent ways to compose your image:- big brilliant finder which is brilliant not to be compared with the puny little ones you often see and get on later folders; sports folding frame finder no worries about it yellowing with age like albada finders or a squinty view like the bessa, doesnt even need cleaning and remains crystal clear! or use the ground glass viewer, it lets you see exactly what the lens is seeing so its just like an SLR hey
focusing methods; take your pick of using hyerfocal and the quick viewfinders for street shooting lol, or use the scale distance focusing with the markings laid out on the bed, or for precise focusing, use the rack and pinion dial to adjust fine increments for precision focusing while viewing the ground glass veiwer; what you see is what you get. as for sturdiness no problems, unless you drop it on it on the front bed they are good, as is the front standard...oh i forgot to metion ther is that advantage of single unit lens focusing as well
(as i am writing this i am starting to think why i need anything else haha)
as for lenses well take your pick, the choices are almost endless with this Welta Watson (3 element, 4, 5 or 6 element lenes) barring the voigtlander range , everthing from the quality triplets that have been used on cameras ever since (including many of those mentioned earlier) to the xenar, tessar, and yes even leitz gave their seal of approval to Welta and were happy to make available their elmar glass on this particular camera as well, dogmars and many more. ....it occures to me that it is likely possible that it could be retrofitted with some modern lenses without too much diffculty as well, as there appears to be enough room to do so...just a thought
no doubt someone is thinking 'film availability problems'. well true its not as easy to get as 120 but it is available online at a few places and will store forever in the freezer. an advantage is that this film in its holders will be flat, eliminating the occurances that some people have with 6x9 folding cameras. but i usually just use a Rada roll film back (there are other brands out there), its has a nice shape that i think doesnt upset the look of these camera and makes it as convienent as any 6x9, with almost the same format as originanly intended.
and to top it off it has rise, fall and shift that works as easy as turning a knob. most people would not appreciate the benifits of these but once you have it you will enjoy using it.
depending on how you look at it . it doesnt have the versitility of a full on field camera but what a great feature to have in a book size 6x9 folder, that even though it does have square sides still can fit in you pocket. in fact it is smaller in size both in height and width (although thicker by a small margin) than a 6x6 perkeo (often noted for being a(the) pigmy size camera), of course thats not counting the rada film back which on its own isnt too big either, but hey put it in you other pocket if you dont want to leave it atatched to the camera
i just wanted to show something we dont usualy mention but i bet i convinced someone hehe
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
LOLOL the long lead up and the finish that is about the pain in the arse that is
indeed you are correct in most respects. i guess it helps to have an appreciation for how things were and how they evolved e.g view cameras were the main stream for serious photographers (you could always have a box camera if you wished) because they have real benifits. these type of camera where a step down from owning a real field camera but more compact with the obvious advantages and disavantages.
before you go all glum and think it sounds too hard you have to consider what a non rangefinder camera can give you in comparison. the answer i would argue is not a lot (dont get me wrong here i like all cameras for one thing or another). forgetting the ground glass back of the folding plate camera for the moment it functions much the same as the folding cameras that you are thinking about. e.g with a folding camera you have no choice but to guess the distance. unless you buy an asserory rangefinder, but that would work for the folding plate camera as well, actually a bit better because the unit focusing has more travel than front cell focusing
advantage of the folding camera is (providing you buy a late 30s model onwards) it will be semi or self ereckting. straight forward load the film in the one unified unit as you wont have to load the film in a seperate roll film holder, is that a big deal? well maybe if you like to keep as light and minumal as possible. but on the other hand with the folding plate camera you have a great deal more versitility. th lens is a fixed unit as mentioned before which really does increase the res particularly considering these wont be coated glass.
with the film back and ground glass it simply adds that extra dimention to what you can do (compose for DOF, or using the shift/rise ect ect). if focusing using that , yes you first focus using the ground glass back, open the shutter first of course and than close once focused, with this small camera its quite easy to use hand held as its only about 120mm X 80mm camera (not to mention fast film we have now), although as with all cameras a tripod can be advantage but its the bigger format versions where its really needed. then you remove that and place the roll film back>set shutter and aperature> remove dark slide>take shot>......then it depends on what you are shooting/circumstances and what technick you wish to use. if you use the same camera all the time you will be amazed at just how fast and adept you can become at making small adjustments without removing the back at all and simply roll on to the next frame. for instance you may be at a BBQ or an event; take your light reading and then take a focus reading. keeping that in mind and altering your aperature and focus a little one way or the other will get you through most shots,,
,if not or until you become familar with it you replace the darkslide>remove roll film back>insert glass (on this format the glass back or roll film back is so small it fits in your pocket)>open shutter>focus>close shutter>remove glass back (its in a metal frame by the way)>insert roll film back>set shutter and aperature>trigger..........$#% sound so long writing it, doesnt seem nearly do hard just doing it.
the thing is this type of camera is just an alternative--it can be a bunch of fun-simple as point and shoot or as complicated as a view camera--but it does have that versitility......its worth considering particularly if you dont want to spend the dollars on a coupled rangefinder model camera--which was simply in photographic evoloution terms the next step up to get things working quicker. but even rangefinder and SLR dont have some of the features these old girls have...well you can get shift lenes for canon and nikon but you have to morgage you neighbours wife, providing your on friendly terms of course
chippy
foo was here
hey oftheherd,
i would have liked to have seen your ol mans' (said endearingly) camera from a different angle. it was kinda hard for me to tell excactly what it was from that angle...i am betting its not a welta tho. there is so little differnce in many of those camera from germany in that era it is hard sometimes to tell one from another. you will need to check the size as it is difficult to tell the size apart in a picture on the internet as well. if i took a picture of this little dude close up without showing the focul lenght it would fool all but most decerning critic. without something to scale against they all look the same in a picture.
check the lens focul lenght oftheherd if its 105mm its 6.5x9 if 135mm or 150mm its 9x12 if 180mm then 10x15
and yeah hey the red bubble on this is a bonus!! i love it,, by now most have dried up but this one like a few others i have are ok, but mostly they are gone by now
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I started off getting Yashica rangefinders, but switched to mainly German folders shortly afterward. Yes, it can get out of control if you don't watch it. I have about 100 cameras at present.
The only one that really confounded me was a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s. It was dropping shims all over the place as I took the lens apart and only god knows where they came from. After getting one good working 7S and an AL-F, I stopped getting Minoltas.
It was the Agfa Isolettes that hooked me on German folders. Alas, most of them are not as easy to work on as the Isolettes, and even the Isolettes are getting difficult to find replacement bellows for. I've got a couple of Retinas, but I preferred the Agfa Karats.
Only three times in my whole life have I ever spent more than $40 on a camera. These were a brand new Pentax K1000, a Cambo 4x5 with a Schneider lens, and a brand new digital Canon A630.Experience has show me that, if I am just patient enough, and if I am willing to do some work on it, I can get pretty much anything I want, on ebay or elsewhere, for very little.
Yes, if I were paying someone to do my repairs, it would have bankrupted me by now. It is something you learn in self-defence.
There are a number of cameras that are like that. Sometimes the camera was never within a thousand miles of the factory whose name is on the label. They are almost never up to the standards of the company's brand name.
I don't have a lot of folding 35mm cameras, although I have a few. My folders are mainly medium format.
Well, that Agfa PB-20 Tripar I just finished and stuck in my gallery belonged to Lenore Anderson. I know, because she embossed her name, in gold, on the leatherette. She had also apparently broken the film door off of it at some time, because it had been soldered back on (sloppily) and taped over. Took me a whole day to fix that. Lenore also removed the external viewfinder, for some reason, and tossed away the reducing insert that came with the camera. Anyway, it is fixed now. Yesterday I finally found another external viewfinder in my parts bin. As for dust: I have a plate camera that was apparently kept in a barn with the back off. It had a bird's nest in the back and was spattered with red paint. It looks like new now. My Avus had dried rice jamming the shutter, as well as a half a handfull wedged into the base of the bellows. I assume it was used for wedding photography. Dust is lightweight stuff.
The worst? Only camera I really seriously disliked and couln't think of any situation I would ever use it for was a Holga. The damned back kept falling off in mid-roll.
I never did succumb to the lure of digital cameras. I have a couple of them, but I only use them to take photos of other cameras that I want to post online. For anything else, I use film.
I generally take half a dozen assorted cameras out with me. Lately I have been trying to figure out what to do with a Welta Sport with an Aplanat lens.
Me either. I just make lots of ridiculously low bids and occasionally I get one. Doesn't happen as often as it used to though. More people are using Ebay these days.
I haven't really gotten into vintage enlarger at this point. It is pretty much just cameras and tripods (I like my old Davidsons and Tiltalls).
Exactly. If you are not absolutely sure about something, it will bite you on the ass every time you open your mouth.
I don't mind bashing the trash, but I am always sure to make it plain that I am just expressing a personal opinion. After all, there are people who like Holgas (I'll never understand why, but they are out there).