PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Portable LF cameras . . . . . . .



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Curt
10-23-2008, 06:35 PM
Looks like a great camera, I'd love to see the back, possibly with a holder in it. Great pictures of what appears to be a fantastic travel camera.

Curt

Anastigmatic
10-23-2008, 07:18 PM
It's actually your first post, so welcome to APUG.

Yes there were a wide variety of similar 9x12 cameras, some sharing common parts, made mostly in Germany, and it was common for manufacturers to offer models with a variety of lenses & shutters. The best shutters were the Compur's and the less common Ibsor which is self cocking and very similar to the later Press Prontors.

One problem today is that a few 9x12's have had the lens & shutter replaced, so for instance you can find a Zeiss Ikon with a Rodenstock Eurynar lens, Zeiss never fitted competitors lenses to their cameras.

However the Etui's are quite unique due to their size & design, maybe I'll buy a 6.5x9 like Patrick's one day. But I don't think the smaller version has the same advantages over it's competitors as it needs a bulky roll-film back compared to other roll fim 6x9 cameras of the same era.

Ian

Hi Ian, thanks for the welcome (was my first post-i didnt realise)

Sorry, I probably should of made myself a bit clearer but I was trying to say that the Etui 9x12 (depending on its year of manufacture) was offered with all those different lenses (from a catologue). No doubt some lens/shutter combinations sold in greater numbers than others though, as a result some of those lens/shutter combo's may not be seen commonly.

I agree as well with the 6.5x9 size, cute little cameras (all the various brands) and with a roll film adaptor quite usable (can still get sheet film for that size too of course). and if its a double extension model camera then they have an advantage or two (almost macro type pictures can be obtained). however I too find in most instances I would rather just use a pre-war 6x9 roll film camera for ease of use and size.

On the roll film adaptor's; I have Rada roll film backs for 9x12 and 6.5x9 camera, but I find I cant fit the smaller Rada back onto metal bodied 6.5x9 pre-war folding plate camera. Timber/wood (holtz) camera's will fit the rada back, because the slot on the camera back flexes the small amount needed. Has anyone had/got both a rollex (i think thats the brand) and a Rada in the smaller size to compare the flange (?) thickness? (the thin edge of the roll film back that slides into the camera) Is the rolex thinner?

JPD
10-23-2008, 11:00 PM
I do believe the 9x12 were sold with a wide variety of lens shutter combinations Helioplan, Unofocal, Trioplan, Triotar, Isconar, Xenar and the Tessar's you mentioned..and i am sure a few more other basic lens also. That makes the Patent Etuis fun to collect. I saw a 6,5x9 with a Plaubel Supracomar 3,9/10cm on german eBay recently.

Anastigmatic
10-24-2008, 04:05 AM
That makes the Patent Etuis fun to collect. I saw a 6,5x9 with a Plaubel Supracomar 3,9/10cm on german eBay recently.

Indeed JPD! fun to collect and use! if not just to see the difference between the lenses and what they are best suited for. The ZW Etuis are not alone with these offerings of different lenses though, many of the other makers of plate cameras had simular offerings with their cameras (i have enjoyed collecting and using my own favourite brand with a variety of lenses, but i dont want to impose them on Ian's thread), with perhaps Voigtlander and as Ian mentioned the Zeiss brand having good but more limited choices of lens selections, sticking to their own lens offerings of course.

actually there was a very nice brown Etuis just sold in the UK for a very reasonable price with film holders and extras, albeit a 6.5x9 version with tessar. I considered bidding myself but ....lol where does it end hehe

Ian Grant
10-24-2008, 05:52 AM
So far I've only ever come across one Patent Etui not fitted with a Tessar or the cheaper Meyer Trioplan on a few 6.5x9's. Can you scan the catalogue page showing the different lenses available.

One major problem with the 9x12 Etui is the overall size of the lens is critical or the case won't close :D

Curt, I'll take some photo's of the back later today.

Ian

bdial
10-24-2008, 07:34 AM
Ian, what a lovely little camera.

FWIW, there's a 6x9 on ebay (U.S) right now; http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=220251806936

Ian Grant
10-24-2008, 08:29 AM
Actually it's a 9x12 :D There are 2 or 3 6.5x9's in Germany as well :)

Unfortunately Ebay's worldwide search isn't very good at checking every flavour of Ebay. It's useful to know your Ebay Log-on details are exactly the same whether you use Ebay.com, .co.uk, .de .fr .it etc, also your watched items show up on any Ebay site.

Here's some images to indicatethe camera's size. The first shows a 5x4 Crown Graphic, Ikonta 521 (6x4.5) and the 9x12 Patent Etui.

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui06.jpg

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui07.jpg

As you can see it is very significantly smaller than a Crown Graphic.

And here's the back for Curt, sorry I didn't bring any holders to Turkey as my luggage was already over-weight :D

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui08.jpg

Lastly plate holders that fit, I posted them in an earlier thread (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum192/51677-9x12-plate-holders-1-a.html).

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/plates1a_sm.jpg

Ian

Antje
10-24-2008, 10:40 AM
Ian, thanks for the comparison - that really is a small camera. Wow. Indeed looks like an ideal travel camera!

Antje

Anastigmatic
10-24-2008, 10:56 AM
So far I've only ever come across one Patent Etui not fitted with a Tessar or the cheaper Meyer Trioplan on a few 6.5x9's. Can you scan the catalogue page showing the different lenses available.

One major problem with the 9x12 Etui is the overall size of the lens is critical or the case won't close :D

Curt, I'll take some photo's of the back later today.

Ian

you will have to take my word for it Ian. That is unless it only counts if you have seen it ;):)

As I am not keen to bend the pages on a scanner, not to mention these were difficult to get, expensive and unfortunately delicate; I have already had one page fall out.


With these Patent Etui there is a 6.5x9 model with built in rangefinder as well which you may find interesting (still looks quite streamlined), not sure at the moment if it was available in 9x12 as well.

Also another that appears to be a specific model Patent Etui for export.

In addition it appears there were single and double extention models but i will have to double check my translating to comfirm, but it seems to read that and the pricing reflects differances .

Cheers
A

Curt
10-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Thank you Ian, it looks like it takes dedicated holders that slip in and they look very thin, someone really had the think cap on when they designed this camera. I wish some of the old designers of yesterday were here now to design some great cameras. I hadn't heard of the Etui before you posted yours, have a great time with it.

Curt

Steve Smith
10-24-2008, 01:23 PM
someone really had the think cap on when they designed this camera.

That's what I was thinking. I am constantly amazed at the at the design of older complex equipment such as the workings of a Compur shutter or indeed, the folding mechanism of this camera and the fact that they were designed using a drawing board and the designers skill, not a CAD system with the benefit of 3D modeling and fast prototyping.



Steve.

Ian Grant
10-24-2008, 01:58 PM
In addition it appears there were single and double extention models but i will have to double check my translating to comfirm, but it seems to read that and the pricing reflects differances .
A

Mine focuses to about 25cm which is nearly 1:1 with the 135mm Tessar, that's quite close :D.

What book/catalogue are the cameras & lenses shown in ? I'd love to see the one with a range-finder.

Ian

Frank R
10-24-2008, 06:08 PM
As I am not keen to bend the pages on a scanner, not to mention these were difficult to get, expensive and unfortunately delicate; I have already had one page fall out.
I would love to see the catalog pages too. You can take digital pictures of each page without bending your pages. Email them to me and I can edit them for posting.


With these Patent Etui there is a 6.5x9 model with built in rangefinder
A rangefinder on a Patent Etui? I have never heard of such a thing. Please show a picture. That has got to be rare.

Ian Grant
10-25-2008, 01:16 AM
All the adverts I've seen for the Patent Etui's only ever list lenses from two manufacturers, Zeiss & Meyer and thats the Tessar's or the cheaper Trioplans. also a choice of 3 shutters Compur, Ibsor or Vario.

I rather suspect that an advert showing Etui's with a rangefinder etc is showing what's possible, maybe prototypes rather than actual production, much the same as the successor companies 1968 adverts for the Pentacon Super system, which never really saw the light of day.

Ian

Anastigmatic
10-25-2008, 04:38 AM
Dear Ian

I'd rather hoped I was contributing and helping with information regarding the Etui however you seem rather reluctant to acknowledge any information that you are unaware of on these camera unless you have seen it for yourself. As a result this has become unenjoyable for me and feels rather like pulling teeth.

As with most things in life it’s always best to assume there is something new to learn and that we have not yet seen it all. I certainly don’t presume to know all there is about these and other plate camera (after collecting for a long time and I have an extensive collection) but it is usually most enjoyable to learn and discover more.

Much of this information I mentioned (at least parts of it) is common knowledge if you can get hold of any of the well known collector camera encyclopaedia type books, other parts are not so easy to come by (old ads and catologs) and if you rely on the www then information is more limited. I really don’t feel inclined to have to scan all my books and catalogues as that soon becomes a full time job with little thanks that has caused my old catalogues damage in the past. I feel if I am sharing the information then that should be adequate, I am sure you would not feel inclined to scan a document to prove every simple comment you share.

At least on the shutter (since your post #10) you now acknowledge that it was also available with Ibsor shutter so perhaps there is hope.

As an overview; these were available in two sizes (as you mentioned) 9x12& 6.5x9

Available in 5 different colours, available in single or double extension,

There are also variation differences depending on the year of the camera, mainly to do with the lens board shape

It was available in all the lenses I mentioned in an earlier post, as well as some older style aplanats ect, in addition to the triotar, radionar and eurynar. Perhaps the one you were hoping to fit is the f3.5 (?) which takes the larger shutter and will not fit the lens board area which is on the small side on the Euti.

As I mentioned before the lenses available varies depending on the year and no doubt the distributing outlet. If you are like me and been collecting these over a very long period then no doubt you will find as I have. That I can go for years without seeing a particular lens on a particular camera only to find that same combination several times in a row at another given time.

The 6.5x9 E (range-finder model) does not appear to be a prototype in any way, quite the contrary! (Again just because you haven’t seen it yet its best not to jump to conclusions), several sources show it was sold in c1934 and on the second hand market in recent years has been sold for around $200, all indications to me is it may be somewhat scarce but not unobtainable with patience (that is if a 6.5x9 plate camera is sort)

Cheers
Andy

Anastigmatic
10-25-2008, 06:31 AM
As an aside note, if anyone was interested in these camera, I would not panic and bid with undue care on these. Not inculding the coloured models (which come up from time to time) they are quite common and easily obtained at good prices, no doubt sold in good numbers!

The advantages as I see them are; is that yes it is a nice light LF compact camera, and basically, that can be repeated many times as its the main feature. It has almost a modern/ergonomic look as far as this type of camera is concerned. Solid reasonably built depending on what you compare it to=better than some basic plate camera of various makers (which can be very poor). I see it as an advantage that it is available with a wide variety of lenses as it makes things more interesting (ive seen them in various offerings, and i beleive they are original!). It would be a rare camera of this period to be only available with a Tessar (limited, restrictive, not competative and boring!)

Disadvantages as i see them without too much thought are; not available with some of 'the' best lenses of the time because of the limitations with front standard size; it cant take the larger shutter neccessary to house the faster lenses, build quality is arguable compared to the finer cameras of the period. no sports finder (not that modern people using these would take the option of quick shots)

Has curved ergonomic profile that looks good closed , and is around 5-10mm thinner on the biggest dimension in the center than some other makers (though they can use the larger shutter and faster lenses available in some models). its size/or shape can on one hand be considered an advantage (and would have been when film was available in film packs--no longer available) but with the need to carry metal film holders its advantage and profile is somewhat dimished in real life terms (to nill? in the eye of the user i guess!) as a compact camera to use in modern practical daily use, over other plate camera of this type; not all but some/many that are only slightly thicker overall. Does it really matter is the question for a serious user!

Ole
10-25-2008, 07:22 AM
Just for the record, my 6,5x9 has a 10,5cm Isconar.

Ian Grant
10-25-2008, 08:55 AM
Andy, I don't doubt what you're saying (in your previous posts). Rather that the vast majority of Patent Etui's that come up for sale are fitted with Tessar's or the Meyer Trioplan, and Compur or Vario shutters. My guess is that the number fitted with Ibsor shutters would have been quite small, I've not come across one yet, but then the very similar Prontor Press shutter isn't that common on more modern LF lenses either.

It's Frank who suggested you take a quick photo of the pages showing the camera with a range-finder, (as you don't want to scan it), you have to forgive us for any scepticism but it would be nice to see an example. One problem with "well known collector camera encyclopaedia type books" is that they often show the rarities that collectors like to acquire, and for most of us the only time we'd see those models is in those books :D

Perhaps you could tell us what books to look in for ourselves.

Yes, Patent Etui's do appear to have been quite common cameras, and they were manufactured for at least 18 years. I saw a production figure somewhere of approximately 100 camera's a day for the KW factory around 1934, that's roughly 25,000 cameras a year presumably not all Etui's by then. That seems feasible as in comparison Compur were manufacturing around 500,000 shutters & Zeiss over 100,00 lenses a year.

In your list of advantages/disadvantages I think you've missed one important point, the camera's lighter weight is an advantage for portability but will be slightly dis-advantageous when using the camera hand-held, the lack of mass will make it harder to hold steady at slow shutter speeds. It's a great pity film packs are no longer available, but half a dozen loaded 9x12 holders isn't that heavy and would slip easily into a coat pocket.

BTW both my Patent Etui's have sports finders, I guess I've looked at well over 250 Etui, on Ebay & elsewhere and almost all the 9x12's have had sports finders, but not all the 6.5x9's, perhaps a third don't have one.

I don't know what the true definition of Double & Triple extension bellows is, I assume it's 2 & 3 times the focal length of a standard lens for the format, or the fixed lens fitted. That's the case with my triple extension 10x8 camera 12" lens, 37Ĺ" bellows extension. On that basis an Etui with a 135mm Tessar would have Double extension, but the same camera & bellows wouldn't be double extension if the 150mm Tessar was fitted.

Ian

Anastigmatic
10-25-2008, 02:58 PM
Andy, I don't doubt what you're saying (in your previous posts). Rather that the vast majority of Patent Etui's that come up for sale are fitted with Tessar's or the Meyer Trioplan, and Compur or Vario shutters. My guess is that the number fitted with Ibsor shutters would have been quite small, I've not come across one yet, but then the very similar Prontor Press shutter isn't that common on more modern LF lenses either.

no doubt you are correct with more Etui sold with tessar, after all if thats what most commonly seen for sale nowadays, it stands to reason there must of been more sold with that configuration...a very popular lens!! Ibsor shutters are likely more common than you realise or have seen i think...a little search atm will reveal what i am sure you have already seen with helio,,,


you have to forgive us for any scepticism but it would be nice to see an example. One problem with "well known collector camera encyclopaedia type books" is that they often show the rarities that collectors like to acquire, and for most of us the only time we'd see those models is in those books :D

Is it just scepticism? Keep your eyes open and it/they will come up

respectfully Ian, any long term collector of various camera can indentify the short falls in various camera encyclopaedia, if you are familiar with these (and you indicate you are) then i do not understand why you asking for the titles!! a simple amozon search will get you on thr right track? Yes these are scarce but if they were common my next door neighbour would know about them as well as you

I would not have passed the information if i thought it was sceptical, you dont know me at this point so i will excuse that. However, rest assured that i do not feel comfortable passing information unless i have several sources of information and confident (you may understand that is difficult though dealing with antique cameras! swings and roundabouts! i never believe much until i have researched it). My nature is to understate things rather than overstate, if not, i would say so if there is a chance its unreliable.


Perhaps you could tell us what books to look in for ourselves.

you have over 4000 posts! and have written marvellous posts on plate camera related articles. are you not familiar with the first step, Mckeowns? even that book will give you some extra detail on this camera than what you have said.


Yes, Patent Etui's do appear to have been quite common cameras, and they were manufactured for at least 18 years. I saw a production figure somewhere of approximately 100 camera's a day for the KW factory around 1934, that's roughly 25,000 cameras a year presumably not all Etui's by then. That seems feasible as in comparison Compur were manufacturing around 500,000 shutters & Zeiss over 100,00 lenses a year.

I am familiar with the estimate of the shutter production as well, it is well documented. the gem is that you have production figures for the KW werkes. So you must have some books,catologs, documents or..is it on the www somewhere ? lovely bit of information


In your list of advantages/disadvantages I think you've missed one important point, the camera's lighter weight is an advantage for portability but will be slightly dis-advantageous when using the camera hand-held, the lack of mass will make it harder to hold steady at slow shutter speeds. It's a great pity film packs are no longer available, but half a dozen loaded 9x12 holders isn't that heavy and would slip easily into a coat pocket.

A fair point; i was thinking on the fly and with this camera my prejudice was to its advantages but you make a very fair point. In most instances as photographers we prefer heavier cameras (me at least).

my point on camera weight and film packs is somewhat redundant, although perhaps interesting. the metal film pack casing (9x12) weigh around 120g depending on the maker, the film packs (fully loaded with 12 shots) weigh only around 110g, so obviously total around 230g for 12 shots. Then an extra 110g for an extra 12 shots. =total 24 shots for 330g, not bad eh!!!and so on for extra 12 shots

however one of things we have to put up with (i dont mind) to use these old gems is the extra weight of film holders (which dimishishes the advantage of skimping weight on the camera by a mere 1 or two hundred grams! if that makes sence to you).So if we carry 24 shots around with us now it pretty much equels 2.4Kg (@90-110g depending on the maker of the film holder+sheath+film). 6 shots sounds fine, but if your keen or use the camera to its full potential than most people would use more than 6 shots. two or so Kg in your spare pocket is not as appealing---i dont mind, heck i get someone else to carry em half the time,,,but thats another story


BTW both my Patent Etui's have sports finders, I guess I've looked at well over 250 Etui, on Ebay & elsewhere and almost all the 9x12's have had sports finders, but not all the 6.5x9's, perhaps a third don't have one.

fair enough, many i have seen havnt had them but i appreciate the difference, many of my illustrations show it as well (not all)


I don't know what the true definition of Double & Triple extension bellows is, I assume it's 2 & 3 times the focal length of a standard lens for the format, or the fixed lens fitted. That's the case with my triple extension 10x8 camera 12" lens, 37Ĺ" bellows extension. On that basis an Etui with a 135mm Tessar would have Double extension, but the same camera & bellows wouldn't be double extension if the 150mm Tessar was fitted.

i find this a very interesting question. because it has/ or used to always puzzle me as well. however basically (not counting the math which i am not sure always adds up) it seems to be that many makers (varies) considered a camera that extended only a few inches (1-2 or so) a single extension camera (no extension was not mentioned as extending). a camera that extended its full length of bed (not accurate i know) was considered a double extension and obviously a camera that had another table to extend was a triple extension (i have a few of those as we are discussing here (not counting old wooden field camera) but they are less common). i donít doubt i have something to learn on this but my 'basic' rules have gotten me by. there may well be a precise math equation that works.

[/QUOTE]

k_jupiter
10-25-2008, 03:26 PM
Sorry, but this won't work on these old plate cameras.

BTW: Most of them only had front rise and shift but no other movements. If you are happy with that, you can still buy a 9x12 for a reasonable amount. Just make sure you buy one with filmholders. There were few standards back then and many were different. They really are small compared to even a Gowland or a Speed Graphic.

Yes, but there is another solution... there are gg spring backs designed to take modern 3.25x4.25 graphics holders that slide onto the backs of many of these 9x12 platefilm cameras. I have one for my Zeiss Trona (1927). It allows me to use a number of B&W emulsions with an incredibly sharp 135 Tessar.

Keep your eyes peeled on EBay, maybe make a search for "Springback". These were popular in the 1950s. I keep looking for a 2x3 springback for my 6x9 Trona.

tim in san jose