Nicht immer nur Kaviar ... (English Version)

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/20/2023 at 8:30 AM, Matlock said:

Something a little different. Nearly 70 years separate the camera and the lens but they seem to work well together. Contax I version 7 and Voigtlander 21mm SC Skopar.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I have the same lens for my Nikon S and S2, didn’t add the ribbed focussing ring as I didn’t like it.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Pyrogallol

[willeica]

I am doing cataloguing and identification on the collection (c 300 items) of the former Photographic Society of Ireland (PSI) Collection (founded in 1854 as the Dublin Photographic Society) at the our National Photographic Archive. I will post some treasures as I go along. This is a sliding box camera from the 1850s-60s with a Grubb Ax Lens SN 3878, made here in Dublin in the 1870s. I own the similar Grubb Ax lens with SN 3631 which takes superb images. The example in the archive comes with 3 washer stops. The one feature I really like here is the 'integrated' ground glass screen which  is well protected instead of hanging off the back which became the norm later on. The full back is 5x5 but the screen is ruled for 3x4 and CDV. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

A true early beauty with parts that range from possibly 150 to 170 years old. I am not sure who made the camera body, but some have mentioned the English firm J.J. Shew http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C145.html

I will continue this as a series. The next one I will show is an early Kodak roll film camera from c1890. 

William 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[willeica]

Another one from the PSI Collection. An Ordinary Kodak No C from c 1890. Sold by Robinsons at 65 Grafton Street Dublin in the 1890s. I like to think that John Bolton Robinson, born in Dublin in 1846 and a son of James Robinson of 65 Grafton Street, may have seen one of these when creating the famous Luzo camera which was one of the first non Kodak roll film cameras

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

In this case the string for cocking the shutter has been replaced. The shutter is released using the small brass button on the side of the camera. The main controls are accessed by opening the front door. Other details are here http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/nonview/ordinarykodak.htm

Details of Robinson's Luzo camera are here. He went bankrupt in London in the late 1890s and returned to Dublin to join the Grafton Street business where, I believe, he made some cameras in the period up to about 1910. A friend of mine has one of those cameras. 

http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C270.html

The camera shown above is the earliest and largest Kodak which I have ever handled.

William 

 

 

[wlaidlaw]

William, does this camera and/or the Luzo use paper or celluloid roll film? It has always puzzled me how positive prints were made from paper negatives, given the absence of transparency of the paper substrate, to shine light through for a contact print. In period, one must have had to be very careful about leaving a camera pointing into the sun, given the extreme flammability of celluloid film, made from in effect the same compound as gun cotton. 

Wilson

[willeica]

4 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

William, does this camera and/or the Luzo use paper or celluloid roll film? It has always puzzled me how positive prints were made from paper negatives, given the absence of transparency of the paper substrate, to shine light through for a contact print. In period, one must have had to be very careful about leaving a camera pointing into the sun, given the extreme flammability of celluloid film, made from in effect the same compound as gun cotton. 

Wilson

Wilson,  much of this is covered in the large book by Todd Gustavson, former head of the Eastman Museum. I will look at the book and revert. In the 1880s and 1890s a lot of changes were occurring, many of them driven by Kodak/Eastman. With paper negatives there was a lot of touch printing, but I will get you a full answer in a Kodak context. 

William 

[willeica]

5 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

William, does this camera and/or the Luzo use paper or celluloid roll film? It has always puzzled me how positive prints were made from paper negatives, given the absence of transparency of the paper substrate, to shine light through for a contact print. In period, one must have had to be very careful about leaving a camera pointing into the sun, given the extreme flammability of celluloid film, made from in effect the same compound as gun cotton. 

Wilson

 Per Gustavson, the Luzo used Kodak film, but the owner did not get the same processing deal as they would have got with a Kodak camera. Both of these cameras, the one shown above and the Luzo, were introduced at around the time of the changeover from paper to celluloid rollfilm. Prior to the introduction of celluloid, contact printing was the most common method used. I have found quite a few printing frames in the PSI collection so far and I expect to find more. As the years went by there were various attempts to make paper negatives more transparent. The introduction of celluloid made cinema possible. Here are a few useful links for you.

https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/celluloid-and-photography-part-3-the-beginnings-of-cinema/

https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/1995-volume-six/06_01_Daffner.html

William 

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William, 

Thank you for the suggestion about the Todd Gustavson book. My daughter's in laws gave me that book for a Christmas present and it is sitting at my French house, as yet unread. When I finally get down there, hopefully in early July, I will make a point of reading it.  I see that beeswax was the most common product used to making the paper negative more transparent in order to get a positive contact print. I have read a number of papers today on the subject and it seems as if the process was well known to have limitations, so Frederick Scott's wet collodion on glass process must have come as a great boon in 1851, for the huge leap in resolution it permitted. I was involved some years ago in sponsoring the wonderful book by Kenneth Beken of historic prints of legendary yachts through the 19th and 20th century by the Beken company, at Cowes in the Isle of Wight. The level of detail from their older wet process glass slides is remarkable. 

Wilson

[AlexMogens]

I picked up this Braun Super Paxette Ib at a thrift shop. Sadly, it doesn't work. I've now sold it for about what I paid, hopefully the buyer restores it. Personally, I'm not much of a collector. It was fun having this in my possession for a short while. It's a beautifully made camera by any measure and very small!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[zeitz]

The largest source of mirror lenses that can be used with a Visoflex or Leicaflex is Zoomar, Glen Cove, NY (then Kilfitt Zoomar Munich, Germany).  In Post 829 I showed some of the Kilfitt Zoomar lenses including a partially disassembled 500mm f5.6 Sport Reflectar (product code 292).  In Post 832 I showed a partially disassemble 1000mm f5.6 Zoomar Reflectar.

I recently bought a very inexpensive 500mm f5.6 Sport Reflectar (product code 278) with a Nikon F mount (WENIN) on e-bay.  The lens appeared to be in terrible condition.  But the Nikon mount was almost worth the price by itself.  When I got the lens, I found it needed four things.  The lens was very dirty, but it cleaned up beautifully.  The leatherette was loose at the ends and needed to be re-glued.   The lens was dusty inside; the lens came apart easily to access the optics and clean them.  (A picture of the primary mirror and focusing mechanism is attached.)  And the neutral density filters were in bad condition with irregular patches and Newton rings.  I thought these filters just needed cleaning, but I found the filters to be sandwiches of two clear pieces of glass and what I assume to be gelatin filters in the middle.  Whatever the neutral density material was, it was melted and partially missing.  I bought Kodak Wratten 96 gelatin filters to cut and sandwich with the clean glass.

The comparison of the 278 and 292 Sport Reflectar lenses is interesting.  Patrice-Herve Pont  in his book Kilfitt & Zoomar says 278 does not cover 6 x 6 negatives, but 292 does cover 6 x 6 negative.  Production dates also overlap significantly.  I don't think the statements about coverage are correct; I think they both cover 6 x 6 negatives.  What is different is the complexity of the design.  278 has a lot more parts and focuses by means of the rack pressing on a spring loaded yoke as shown in the photo.  My index finder is pressing on the tab on the yoke which moves the primary mirror and allows the yoke to be visible.  The rear of the lens screws into the main lens tube and is prevented from unscrewing by three set screws  For 292 the rack attached to the structure holding the rear optical assembly; this is much simpler.  The rear of the lens slides into the main lens tube and is only held in place by the three set screws.  The deletion of the lens hoods also stands out.  I am going to have to do some research to see if I can find the original prices of the two lenses.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Not so much Caviar as cod row. Yesterday’s purchase, a Samoca 35 model 11. Japanese from circa 1953. Seems to be working ok. I found up a Taylor Hobson lenscap and Voigtlander hood that fit.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thomas_schertel]

Nagel Pupille

( from Tübingen   )

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

yours sincerely
Thomas

[zeitz]

Quick question.  What is the widest lens that can be used on a Visoflex II or III?  The obvious answer is the 65mm f3.5 Elmar.  Another answer might be the Zeiss 24mm f3.5 F-Distagon in Hasslblad mount.  The uploaded image shows a Visoflex III that was modified for Hasselblad V Series lenses by a Japanese seller.  Since I don't have any Hasselblad equipment, I bought a dirt-cheap Zeiss 250mm f5.6 Sonnar "for parts or repair".  The diaphragm won't stop down from f5.6.  The performance of the Sonnar wide open is similar to the 280mm f4.8 Telyt with apparent chromatic aberrations on a digital camera.

In addition to the 24mm f3.5 which is very rare, Hasselblad offered a 30mm f3.5 F-Distagon which is not as rare and a 40mm f4.0 Distagon which is common.  Now I have to find the 40mm lens at a dirt-cheap price.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thomas_schertel]

Ernemann HEAG XII

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

yours sincerely
Thomas

[thomas_schertel]

9x12:

from left: Voigtländer Klappkamera with Kollinear II 13, 5 cm f: 5,4 (ca 1910); the focal plane shutter does not work, because the blinds have holes. But I haven't found anybody who wants to repair it.

Ernemann HEAG XII, Doppel-Anastigmat 5,4 No 1, 13,5 cm (ca 1919)

Zeiss Ikon Favorit 266/1, with Tessar 4,5/150 mm (ca 1925)

Linhof Super Technaika IV with Symmar 5,6/150 mm (ca 1965)

dahinter: Plaubel Peco Universal III (etwa 1960) with Apo Symmar 5,6/150 mm

The versality increases with the measures of the cameras.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

yours sincerely
Thomas

[jankap]

On 6/17/2023 at 4:25 PM, zeitz said:

Quick question.  What is the widest lens that can be used on a Visoflex II or III?  The obvious answer is the 65mm f3.5 Elmar.  Another answer might be the Zeiss 24mm f3.5 F-Distagon in Hasslblad mount.  The uploaded image shows a Visoflex III that was modified for Hasselblad V Series lenses by a Japanese seller.  Since I don't have any Hasselblad equipment, I bought a dirt-cheap Zeiss 250mm f5.6 Sonnar "for parts or repair".  The diaphragm won't stop down from f5.6.  The performance of the Sonnar wide open is similar to the 280mm f4.8 Telyt with apparent chromatic aberrations on a digital camera.

In addition to the 24mm f3.5 which is very rare, Hasselblad offered a 30mm f3.5 F-Distagon which is not as rare and a 40mm f4.0 Distagon which is common.  Now I have to find the 40mm lens at a dirt-cheap price.

 

The flange distance of the Hasselblad V is 74,9mm. For the Visoflex I found in the Internet 68,8mm. So with a ring of around 6 mm the Viso takes every Hasselblad V Series lens. With infinity as a possible setting!

[zeitz]

53 minutes ago, jankap said:

The flange distance of the Hasselblad V is 74,9mm. For the Visoflex I found in the Internet 68,8mm. So with a ring of around 6 mm the Viso takes every Hasselblad V Series lens. With infinity as a possible setting!

My lists say 74.9mm is correct as the lens flange to focal plane distance.  Using Visoflex values for Leica M with its 27.8mm thick body, Visoflex I is 63.5mm thick; so 63.5 + 27.8 = 91.3mm.  A Hasselblad V Series lens cannot focus to infinity on a Visoflex I.  Visoflex II/III for Leica M is 41.0mm thick: so 41.0 + 27.8 + 68.8; so indeed your number is correct and there is about 6mm for a ring that allows infinity focus.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

The length of either a bayonet mount or a screw mount Leica body + an appropriate for it Visoflex I is 91.3mm.

A Visoflex I has a screw mount on the lens side.

The length of either a bayonet mount or a screw mount Leica body + an appropriate for it Visoflex II or IIa is 68.8 mm. 

A Visoflex III only has a bayonet mount on the camera side. Combined with a bayonet mount Leica body: Together they measure 68.8 mm.

Visoflex II, IIa & III all have a bayonet mount on the lens side.

Adapter 16466 is for using Visoflex I lenses on Visoflexes II, IIa & III. Including correct focus at Infinity.

It is attached to the lens side of Visoflexes II, IIa & III.

Adapter 16466 has a bayonet mount on the camera side & a screw mount on the lens side. It is 22.5 mm long.

Because 22.5 mm added to 68.8 mm, gives a total of 91.3 mm.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited July 4, 2023 by Michael Geschlecht

[Pyrogallol]

Some test darkroom prints from a Minolta 35 Leica screw camera.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

The camera.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Susie]

What paper are those prints done on?  I really like the look.