In my mailbox today :)

[PaulC]

I couldn't resist her, a Japanese Zenobia 4.5cmx6cm with a Hesper lens... and she feels almost new (even though she's the same age as me). I loaded her with 400ASA B&W tonight so tomorrow she will get an outing.




I've never used a camera like this in my life. My parents had a folding camera but it developed a light leak in 1962 and got dumped.

[Attila]

YES! This is the camera I love folders! Congrats!

[PaulC]

Thanks Atilla. She's a real beauty and very compact. I almost wonder why the bulkier 35mm SLR displaced these so easily.

[Attila]

I think replaceable lens was the key. I have Bessa RF folders from 1938 provide better quality than my Olympus OM2n with Olympus OM 21mm f3.5 or with my Olympus E-1 DSLR. I was shocked by Yashica Electro 35 GSN too, it's provide better quality than any of my SLR cameras with any lenses what I tested with them.
I hope your folder will produce nice result too, I tested a 35mm Kodak folder that provide crappy output. I can't wait for your result, test with slide if possible. I think any slide provide far better quality after scan than films.

[PaulC]

I need to order more films from the US, I only have 10 B&W rolls from ebay. There is no 120 rollfilm available here. There's a studio that says it will process the films for me. I haven't got round to thinking about finding scanning facilities yet.

[Attila]

I got an Epson V500 as present from our core members I love it at highly recommend. I have good experience with expired films I bought form sellers who are declared they were stored in freezer or frozen.

[PaulC]

Old film hardly seems worthwhile. I see someone bidding almost $20 for five rolls of old Ektachrome 100 which can be bought new for $27 and someone else offering $10 for five assorted rolls, some opened and one going as far back as 1958! I wouldn't feel confident that what came out of the camera was a fair reflection of what it could do - or that any shot I really wanted to keep would come out at all. It seems a bit of a pot-luck route to take.

I did look at some tests with one of the epson scanners and it was very impressive.

[LucisPictor]

I am still looking (well, kind of) for a folder for 35mm film.
Almost got one the other day.
This would be nice, since medium format film is a nuisance to get processed where I live.

[kansalliskala]

"Portrait" camera? (as no like "landscape"=

[Sevo]

[Farside]

Very nice looking camera - be interesting to see what comes out of it.

[PaulC]

Well, I shot a full 16 frames with her this afternoon and took them in for processing. I couldn't tell how well the shutter and iris worked but everything seemed to purr along like clockwork.

I haven't seen the results, yet, but I fear they will reflect the complete incompetence of the photographer. I'll bet I've got at least one double exposure and at least one blank frame. The exposure is probably all over the place, maybe the focus will be a little better than the exposure.

I felt so confused and disconnected from the medium that even the compositions are likely to be all to pot.

For a lot of the time I was wondering why the image didn't seem to be in focus, despite my efforts to pre-set the focus ring ... then I realised that the problem is that my eyes aren't in focus any more and the image hitting the emulsion has nothing to do with that (I trust that a Hesper lens has survived the last 50 years with less deterioration than the lens in my own eye!)

I'll get the contact sheet and negs tomorrow night. No scanner yet, so the best I will be able to offer is a digital photo of the contacts. If one out of 16 is really good, it will be more than I deserve.

So here I am, learning photography, all over again!

PS: I have slightly better hopes for the results from the Pentacon Six, also shot today.

[Attila]

Exciting stuff, I tested also yesterday one of my Bessa RF with Heliar lens, this was first time when I left 4,5X9cm insert in. who know how much double exposition is there.

I look forward your result!

[PaulC]

Well the initial test was disappointing. Everything looked as if it had been shot through thick mist, it had very, very low contrast. I had over-exposed images that went from whitish to light grey and under-exposed that went from blackish to dark grey. There is also a hell of a lot of flare

At first, I thought everything was wildly out of focus, but on closer examination lens flare and terribly low contrast seem to be the real problems. The same film shot on a Pentacon Six showed the full range of contrast, so it is save to assume that it is not a film or developing problem.

I guess this means either loads of dirt somewhere in the lens system or (help!) that there is decayed glue between lens elements.

Here is a photo of the contact sheet from the processor (the specked effect is because it is printed on rough paper):



On the bright side, the camera seems to be light-tight and the shutter seems to open and shut properly (not sure about shutter times yet), so the foundations of a useful apparatus are all there, if only I can solve the lens issue.

Can anyone give a better diagnosis of the problem and suggest what to do? The front of the lens looks clean and the back seemed OK, but without a shutter release I don't seem to be able to lock it open to look through it for signs of trouble.

[kansalliskala]

[PaulC]

It was two rolls of film from the same batch.
They were developed by a local lab, not by me. I guess that they did them simultaneously, not individually, but I'm not sure.

I've just had a close look at the rear lens in bright sunlight and on the side that isn't accessible there is something that is probably the cause. I have a nasty feeling it might be glue breaking down between two lenses. If it is, how can I get them put back together? Or is it something else that I can reach just by unscrewing this element?




It looks obvious enough there but with the iris behind it you can't see anything unless the light is oblique. Is it fungus?

(PS: That image is one more triumph for the 35/2.4 Flektogon. I don't know what I'd do without that lens!)

[LucisPictor]

As far as I can see, it doesn't look like fungus to me, rather like some coating problem - if there was a coating at all.

[PaulC]

Hmm. I guess that back element would unscrew easily but I'm one of those people who can take things apart but can't necessarily get them back together, so I am a bit reluctant to mess about with such a fine old machine in case I damage it.

Does anyone know if it is a straightforward unscrewing of that inner ring to make the lens come out to clean it? I don't want to find that parts of the shutter start falling out.

Alternatively, are there professional optical experts who would do whatever work it needs to put it back in first-class working order for a modest fee? I don't mind spending a little to restore a historical instrument to pristine condition.

I have to go out on a job for a quite a few hours now. Back tonight (whatever that might mean in your time zone)

[kansalliskala]

Is it salt? Someone dropped it to sea ..

[Attila]

Looks did drop into water and after dried left this mess there. You should open it and clean it.

[PaulC]

OK, I'm just off out to cover sports again, but when I get back I'll have a go. Which of those two rings should I try to undo, the inner one or the outer one, any idea? Is there some lubricant I can use to help get them off if necessary?

Paul

[Attila]

Either ring is possible with right tool it will open without difficulties at least I expect this.
Click here to see on Ebay