Making a K-mount folder

[Ian Grant]

Being slightly crazy I've just bought a third 9x12 camera for 2.50 euros, it has no lens, but appears looks sound apart from that.

Now Voightlander made 9x12 AVUS cameras with changeable lenses and I've seen an Ihagee Exacta bayonet version too so I'm considering fitting a K-mount to the camera - I have a body mounting ring off a scrap Pentax, and I'm figuring on using K-mount body caps to mount the lenses on.

My thinking is a very small, light & flexible LF camera, use-able with 9x12 film or a roll film back for 6x9.

Ian

[Ole]

It was the Bergheil, not the AVUS. Apart from that, it should work.

[BradS]

but....what K-Mount lens has enough coverage for 9X12?

[DBP]

I presume you are talking about using the mount, not the actual lenses, as the flange to film distance is pretty short for K-mount. I would probably go with a simpler mount, like the Exakta, or maybe the T-mount, M42, or M39.

[Ian Grant]

Well I got the idea from seeing a 9x12 with an Exacta mount on ebay, whether original or fitted later difficult to say but as Ihagee made MF cameras quite possibly original. But the M39, M42, Exacta and Tmount are all quite narrow compared to the K-mount. So as I already have a K-mount lens mount off a scrap Pentax that's a good staring place, an EOS mount would be even better

Quite a number of my LF lenses could easily fit on a Pentax body cap, just by drilling the rights size hole for the shutter, so I could fit a modern 150mm Sironar, and 105mm Trinar (6x9 only) plus a 90mm Angulon, I just tried and the Sironar rear elements fit through a K-mount, the other suggested mounts would be too limiting.

So the idea is looking very promising, remarkably easy and cheap, if it works I'll post some images.

Ian

[BradS]

But, I still don't understand how it would be better / cheaper than say, a copal #1 flange? You know, like the flanges that are atteched to older, thick wooden lens boards. The flange is attached to and stays with the lens board....then, anything in a copal #1 is instantly mountable on that board....Would this not have a similar result?

[Ole]

Since I own not only two Bergheils (9x12 and 6.5x9) but also additional mounting bayonets, I can easily understand the attraction of a quick bayonet lens mount.

One interesting "cross candidate" is mounting the lens bit off a Leitz Hektor 135mm in a 39mm to 42mm to PK adapter - it covers 9x12cm with movements.

[Ian Grant]

Brad, good point except these 9x12 cameras don't have much space on the front, my lenses are in a variety of shutters, 00, 0, older Compur's etc, and K mount adaptors are cheap from China if I decided on using metal instead of plastic body caps.



As Ole knows these 9x12 cameras were once extremely common in Europe, and the film size is just a touch under 5x4 (modern 9x12 film holders are larger to fit the International 5x4/9x12 backs) but these cameras are very mush smaller than 5x4 models. Many of these cameras are extremely similar, and a number of manufacturers used common parts, the major differences being the quality of the lens & shutter. Kodak were so impressed with these cameras they bought Nagel, putting Rochester sourced lenses on them and for their top models added a Kalart Rangefinder.

I bought this one for parts, and will remove the bright-finder sight to use on another 9x12 camera I own, this one's tatty so I may jazz it up a little - repaint it, fit the K mount and give it to my wife

Cameras should be fun to use . . . . . .

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I think you're showing us the corrupting power of found money. Or, in your case, found camera. You have the thing and can't resist the temptation to make it useful ...

[BradS]

Brad, good point except these 9x12 cameras don't have much space on the front, my lenses are in a variety of shutters, 00, 0, older Compur's etc, and K mount adaptors are cheap from China if I decided on using metal instead of plastic body caps.

Cameras should be fun to use . . . . . .

Ian

Ah, yes....excellent points, both.

Cheers!