chippy
foo was here
Adrian the Perle was the first camera from Welta that was self-opening. the first were in 1930 (look kinda like the old kodak cartridge cameras albeit better quality) and then in 1932 they began the model you have and although it slightly changed looks over the years it still looks simular to the c38 models.
at first glance it looked to me to be a pre 1935 because of the fast trioplan lens (from 1935 they generaly offered other 2.8 or 2.9 lenses but not the trioplan). however i noticed the serial number and although i cant be 100% sure it looks to me to be a early 1935 Perle. one of the very first in that year most likely, and possibly one of the last Perle before they changed the body shape again in 35.
that perle was offered with all sorts of shutter/lens combinations and yours is by no means the least spec. it has the best shutter! and probably what could be discribed as the lower grade of the high end lenses. as an example they also had 6.3 weltar, 4.5 radionar or 3.5/2.8 tessar and 2.9 xenar to name just a few. no there was no coating that i know of on these, i hear some people say that the uncoated lenses tended to form a 'discolouration' or 'coating' after some years which led to the 'accidental' (wrong word i think) development of coating lenses once they noticed its advantages.
while it is nice to have and most of us (me included) are guilty of wanting the best lenses you can only work with what you got. i used to do a lot of studio portraiture with equipment supplied (i'm a crappy speller!) but i could not afford much in the way of my own flash equipment at one point, so when i was out of the studio, i had to make do with one flash. however, i dislike plain old flash from the front so i found all sorts of ways to light subjects from different angles and the results turned out very good (i think and was the general concenses) but not what or the way you would do it if you had the good equipment. after a while i noticed other photographers (from the workplace) would identify the pictures were taken by me saying things like thats Andrew's style, he does this or does that (haha i used to think that was cool at least lol)
my point is with that little story is the 2.8 trioplan is a ver fast lens but only a triplet and will give kinda lumpy bokea (compared to modern or a old Heliar or tessar lens) when opened up. but i think you can use that to your advantage and make unique pictures is all
they also offered that model perle with helical focusing but alas the top located shutter button wasn't yet available. it is awkward to use isn't it!! many people in those days would use a shutter release cable to avoid having to reach around the front. its the way to go if you decide to use one regularly. makes it much easier
so i wouldnt nessarsarly say it is mixed spec but typical of a 34 model with the wind key etc, although your is a late one
at first glance it looked to me to be a pre 1935 because of the fast trioplan lens (from 1935 they generaly offered other 2.8 or 2.9 lenses but not the trioplan). however i noticed the serial number and although i cant be 100% sure it looks to me to be a early 1935 Perle. one of the very first in that year most likely, and possibly one of the last Perle before they changed the body shape again in 35.
that perle was offered with all sorts of shutter/lens combinations and yours is by no means the least spec. it has the best shutter! and probably what could be discribed as the lower grade of the high end lenses. as an example they also had 6.3 weltar, 4.5 radionar or 3.5/2.8 tessar and 2.9 xenar to name just a few. no there was no coating that i know of on these, i hear some people say that the uncoated lenses tended to form a 'discolouration' or 'coating' after some years which led to the 'accidental' (wrong word i think) development of coating lenses once they noticed its advantages.
while it is nice to have and most of us (me included) are guilty of wanting the best lenses you can only work with what you got. i used to do a lot of studio portraiture with equipment supplied (i'm a crappy speller!) but i could not afford much in the way of my own flash equipment at one point, so when i was out of the studio, i had to make do with one flash. however, i dislike plain old flash from the front so i found all sorts of ways to light subjects from different angles and the results turned out very good (i think and was the general concenses) but not what or the way you would do it if you had the good equipment. after a while i noticed other photographers (from the workplace) would identify the pictures were taken by me saying things like thats Andrew's style, he does this or does that (haha i used to think that was cool at least lol)
my point is with that little story is the 2.8 trioplan is a ver fast lens but only a triplet and will give kinda lumpy bokea (compared to modern or a old Heliar or tessar lens) when opened up. but i think you can use that to your advantage and make unique pictures is all
they also offered that model perle with helical focusing but alas the top located shutter button wasn't yet available. it is awkward to use isn't it!! many people in those days would use a shutter release cable to avoid having to reach around the front. its the way to go if you decide to use one regularly. makes it much easier
so i wouldnt nessarsarly say it is mixed spec but typical of a 34 model with the wind key etc, although your is a late one
Muggins
Junk magnet
Thank you very much for that, Andrew! That's increased my knowledge a thousand-fold! They're not the easiest to research online, as no-one much has posted about them - until today, anyway. The Flickr group has one "discussion" on it, with the only reply being over a year ago...
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not a high-grade lens fiend (the only photo I've ever taken that won a trophy, albeit at a village flower show, was with a No2 Model F Box Brownie! However I do like to know what I've got, and it's nice to know that I probably haven't knackered a coating.
I've only out one roll through it, and really I'm waiting until I find a shutter for spares - I think that this one has a couple of cracked blades. While they work OK at the moment (except for 1/400, which is definitely slow), they may not go back together again if I dismantle them! Sooner or later I'll find a junker with a Compur-Rapid so once that happens... Until then, I shall stick to Ronsonol as I can still see sludge on the blades.
It won't get a lot of use as I have nearly fifty cameras (would that I had the talent to match the numbers!), but it's definitely one on the list to use more - especially with a cable, and if I can wean myself onto photos without too much sky!
Adrian
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not a high-grade lens fiend (the only photo I've ever taken that won a trophy, albeit at a village flower show, was with a No2 Model F Box Brownie! However I do like to know what I've got, and it's nice to know that I probably haven't knackered a coating.
I've only out one roll through it, and really I'm waiting until I find a shutter for spares - I think that this one has a couple of cracked blades. While they work OK at the moment (except for 1/400, which is definitely slow), they may not go back together again if I dismantle them! Sooner or later I'll find a junker with a Compur-Rapid so once that happens... Until then, I shall stick to Ronsonol as I can still see sludge on the blades.
It won't get a lot of use as I have nearly fifty cameras (would that I had the talent to match the numbers!), but it's definitely one on the list to use more - especially with a cable, and if I can wean myself onto photos without too much sky!
Adrian
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Well, it all worked out for the best. When I pointed out that the lens was missing from that one, he took the item off of ebay. The other Perle went for WAY more than I would be willing to risk on a rust bucket, and I got another Perle, in much better shape, for about half the price of the wreck. It does have the same Weltar lens though. The pics don't really show the condition of the body, so (being a cynical type) I expect it is going to be pretty dodgy. Still, as I said, as long as the glass and the shutter is good, I can fix the rest. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270223442228&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=017
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
yeah i know what you mean, i have never been able to find much either. i have only been able to piece small bits of information together from a book here or a catologue there (and i dont read german so i have to type it out and translate through google lol). if i had a clue on how to make a web page i would consider doing that!
well if you ever decide you dont need it you can always pass em my way
. i can always use another one (seems never ending to make one more good welta camera!) and one of these days i will have em all lolSky? i am guessing you mean you dont get enough contrast. yellow filter...but fitting it is difficult i presume you mean to that lens.... there is bound to be a way...you can rig something with a clamp style filter or when i use infrared i use (think it is a dark red, almost black..maybe 72 filter..i forget) an oversize filter and blue tack it on to whatever camera i useing...crude but it works and doesnt leave any marks. but in reality i dont shoot much with all the cameras, i have my favourites that i use from day to day, and most of them i have filters for
chippy
foo was here
it did go for a high price hey! someone with 0 bought it!! i put a bid on after you said because i could of used the shutter (i am just a bit fanactical with welta or crazy! which ever you prefer! but it keeps me off the zoloft LOL).
i saw that one you got as well. its a nicer camera for sure and a good price! i was concerned that the seller didnt have very good feedback and didnt want to risk the hassle of sending a money order internationaly if there was a problem with him. not so bad for you as you are in the US presumably. be sure to show us the perle and let us know how it is (even if you send a PM as sometimes i am busy with workand dont get time to browse the forum)..hope its great hey!
it was interesting about the leather topic and the zeiss method as well. i would like to get further into that discussion sometime ahead.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I found out about the Zeiss leatherette when I was changing the bellows on an Ikonta some time ago. In order to change the bellows, you have to take the frame apart, and to do that, you have to peel the leatherette back on either side of the front door (in order to expose the rivets you have to drill out).
Well, I was trying to lift the leatherette off intact, but every time I'd try to put the edge of a blade under it, it just crumbled. Finally, giving up, I got hold of a corner of it and just ripped it off. The paint turned to powder and I was holding a piece of dirty gray cloth. I'd have to assume this had something to do with Germany's wartime economy.
Anyway, I drilled out the rivets, and then found out the two sections of the frame were apparently glued together as well. Turned out to be stuck with dried paint. Well, I cut through that and got it loose. That left only the Tripod socket holding the two sections of frame together. That's the one that almost defeated me. It is nearly impossible to get a grip on it, with anything, because they beveled it. Even with pliers, it was like trying to catch a greased pig. Eventually, I drilled two small holes and used a pencil point spanner to remove it.
After that, it's easy, but it can be sheer hell getting to that point. Late model Agfa folders are a LOT easier (no rivets -- just take out four screws).
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Actually, buying this one broke two of my rules for buying stuff on ebay: He has less than 98% positive feedback AND he doesn't take Paypal. I wouldn't have gone much higher than I did, because of the risk. I'll let you know how this one goes. I don't think I'll have to take the chrome off of this one.
chippy
foo was here
i think it is bazzar...it seems obvious to me and probably you too that that is why this camera and presumably much of his other stuff didnt/doesnt get higher prices. i just dont understand it from apprantly shop type people/sellers on ebay that want buyers to jump through hoops and send cheques and money orders.....i assume they want to save the 3% Ppal fee but dont they understand that they would likely increase their turnover/income if they offered it...like a said i just think it is Bazzar!!!
Muggins
Junk magnet
well if you ever decide you dont need it you can always pass em my way
You never know... If I ever do, I'll pass it your way - postage allowing!
:bang: Why didn't I think of something like that? (answer: because I didn't have the filters out and the welta to hand...) I've got some filters with mounts that would be ideal for that sort of thing... Unless I'm on a tripod, I doubt I'll use the 6x red filter (I can think of a few bits of scenery that could look awesome under red-filter skies, but they not the sort of places I'd like to lug a tripod!) because of the speed range I've got, but an orange or yellow one would be good...
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Yes, it is sort of bizarre. I expect it might have something to do with Paypal's "Buyer Protection insurance" and his less than 98% positive feedback. I know I'm taking a risk, but the price is worth it, I think. I might feel very differently if it was a more complex camera, or if I was less confident in my ability to repair the sort of problems you most often find with folders.
Last edited: