Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,918   Posts: 1,584,753   Online: 911
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,567
    Tom, I wouldn't be surprised if a Wehman were a little lighter that a Century, a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed, and the bracketry. But its in a whole different universe in several respects.

    Movements, for one. Practically speaking, my rig allows none.

    Cost, for another. My Speed can't use short lenses, that's why I have the Century. The Century can't use long or barrel lenses, that's why I have the Speed. Getting from the two of them to the tandem rig requires a pair of brackets to hold the cameras together with their backs parallel and a coupling to put between them to keep the dark in. The bracketry is lighter, more compact, and even though expensive -- I WOULD wimp out and have a good machinist drill the holes and make the bits for the coupling -- is much less expensive than a long camera.

    Flexibility for another. You can shoot larger than 2x3 with it if you want. If I want to go up in format, I'll have to buy another camera.

    I'm not sure that if I were starting out from zero I'd leap to an 8x10 camera with reducing back, but it is a solution to the problem my tandem rig addresses.

    For curiosity, what's the shortest lens you use with the Wehman? I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon (doesn't cover 2x3) and a 47/5.6 SA (covers) on the Century, a 44/2.8 Elcan (doesn't cover, on the whole the 47 SA is better) and 65/8 Ilex (covers) on the Speed.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  2. #22
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
    Ensign invented the 129 film format. Which is I think 2x3.
    Really? I have a Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera from 1928; its descendent, the Inos I, was sold in 129 as well as 120, and the 129 was smaller -- between 120 and 127, for a (nominally) 5x8 (2x2.75 inches, roughly) rather than 6x9 negative. I found this information while looking for identifying information for my camera, which I was originally told was an Inos I but doesn't have the dual format red windows.

    Oh, and 120 was originally sold by Kodak with only 6x9 markings, dating back to around the turn of the 20th century. Early cameras with 6x4.5 capability (starting in the late 1920s or very early 1930s) had two windows, and the 6x9 framing track was used by advancing to one window, then the other (I have a Wirgin Auta made in the 1950s that still had this). The earliest 6x6 cameras, all TLRs, had either automatic film counters/stops like the Rolleiflex and some versions of the Voigtlander Brilliant, or a *three* window system on the 6x9 track with odd numbers framed in the first and third window, even numbers in the middle one only. There was in fact another format, same width, length, and spools, sold with 6x4.5 markings, and may have been one in 6x6 as well, but all the markings were combined into 120 film at about the time manufacturers stopped using other designations for film that was the same width and same spool spec as 120 -- approximately 1950.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    For curiosity, what's the shortest lens you use with the Wehman? I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon (doesn't cover 2x3) and a 47/5.6 SA (covers) on the Century, a 44/2.8 Elcan (doesn't cover, on the whole the 47 SA is better) and 65/8 Ilex (covers) on the Speed.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    Dan, with a flat lens board for 8x10 - with no movements - my 110mm Schneider SS XL. The 110mm will cover a vertical 8x10 at infinity without camera bed interference. For 8x10 coverage with movements, my 150mm Schneider SS XL.

    For 4x5 (and smaller) with a flat lens board, my 65mm Schneider SA. I also have a 55mm Apo Grandagon, but that would require a recessed lens board (I'd need about another 10mm to focus at infinity). I'd likely be in trouble with 4x5 verticals.

    I currently am using the 55mm Apo Grandagon on a flat lens board on my 4x5 Shen Hao.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Really? I have a Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera from 1928; its descendent, the Inos I, was sold in 129 as well as 120, and the 129 was smaller --

    The earliest 6x6 cameras, all TLRs, had either automatic film counters/stops like the Rolleiflex and some versions of the Voigtlander Brilliant, or a *three* window system on the 6x9 track with odd numbers framed in the first and third window, even numbers in the middle one only. There was in fact another format, same width, length, and spools, sold with 6x4.5 markings, and may have been one in 6x6 as well, but all the markings were combined into 120 film at about the time manufacturers stopped using other designations for film that was the same width and same spool spec as 120 -- approximately 1950.
    Ensign #2 was called 129 by Kodak. #1 was 128. #2 supposedly came out in 1912? #1 is even earlier.

    117 was supposedly 2.25"x2.25". It's listed to have come out in 1900. Did they have automatic film stops that early?

  5. #25
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Interesting. Those numbers were assigned sequentially, which implies 117 predates 120, and that 6x6 predates 6x9 in roll film (though the first few were retroactively applied to existing formats when the 100 series numbering was started not long before 1900). Interesting because NONE of the earliest German TLRs had a center window -- the Brilliant had a starter window on the 6x9 track, the Rolleiflex (of course) had the automatic counter start, and there were a couple models with the three-window system on the 6x9 track. Perhaps this is just because they were made to use the Agfa B2 film, which was identical to 120 (including having only a 6x9 track in the earliest days, though B2 apparently had 6x6 by the time my Speedex Jr. was made, around 1948).

    Ah, my film size reference (http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/B.../FilmSizes.htm) shows 117 had different flange diameter and length than 120 -- might or might not have fit 120 cameras (the length difference is small), depending on the drive arrangement, but certainly wasn't perfectly compatible. So if a 6x6 was intended to use B2/120, it needed the film counter or three-window system, at least prior to WWII.

    In fact, I believe it was 620 that introduced multiple framing tracks on a single film; I've seen 620 cameras in 6x9 and 6x6 dating from immediately post-War, if not pre-War, and the Duo 620 half-frame had a single window as well, I think (pre-War half-frame 120 cameras were, AFAIK, always dual window).
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pennines
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    146
    Got back from holiday and had a look at the Ensign. Its a 42mm push on filter - I got one of those old push on lens hoods so I'm off! I also thought I'd be brave and clean the shutter and lubricate it as it worked hit and miss on speeds below 1/25. It works great now - it's also a dead simple shutter, not at all like a compur/copal. The lens looks great, the body opens/closes well and all seems mechanically OK - I can't wait to give it a go!. I'm not overly keen on the viewfinder though - the sides are pretty spot on going by the white lines, but top and bottom are miles off with the finder showing much too little of the neg area. If I can handle this and a fixed taking lens and being a bit careful with focusing settings and DOF I reckon I'll be using it a lot - plus it feels and looks like a proper camera!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    my Selfix 820 with 105/3.8 Ross Xpres in Epsilon produces negatives that are 57 mm x 78 mm.
    Just measured my negatives, and they are 56 x 82mm (81.5 to be precise). Odd variation.
    The negatives are very pleasant, so much so that Iím keeping mine for the moment. I donít like the handling, but do like the rendering.
    Probably selling a Super Ikonta IV instead. One thing I do find difficult is keeping it still when releasing the shutter. A monopod seems necessary to me at least.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  ó   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin