Zeiss Nettar + Novar

<p>Mine is a 6x6 Nettar with an f4.5 Novar lens and Prontor-S 1/300 -1 s +B shutter, type 515/16.</p>

<p>Found a yellow push on filter for it, may use it a bit more.</p><div></div>

<p>I used 400 T-max film film developed in PMK pyro,1/100s f16.</p>

<p>The weakest link was Camera shake, could use a developer giving more film speed.</p>

<p>This one was OK:</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a crop, the full frame is about 10x the width of this.</p>

<p>120 film is large enough to overcome the resolution limitations of my Epson V700 scanner.</p><div></div>

<p>Nettar is simple,the 3 element uncoated lens a good performer when stopped down.Maybe a good camera for hiking with modern 400 ISO film.Would be very nice to have a rangefinder and a larger aperture for people pics but that is the top of the range Super Ikonta.I dont think they made a 645 Nettar but the 6x6 is quite small.<br>

What do you recon to it?</p>

<p>My favorite folders are the Nettars. I carry mine (usually a 6 x 6 but sometimes a 6 x 9 or 6 x 4.5) with me most of the time. And actually they did make a 6 x 4.5, the Nettar 515. Awesome camera.</p><div></div>

<p>I had one of these a few years ago. Thanks to the wonders of the auction site, someone else has it now. It may be medium format, but it couldn't do anything that a good 35mm camera and lens couldn't do as well or better and much more conveniently. Similarly to others, my idea at the time was that it would be better to scan these larger negatives on my flatbed. That didn't turn out to be true, because the size of those larger negatives makes it impossible for it to be flat when scanned. It's just a big floppy surface hanging there in the negative holder. In my opinion, this completely negated the theoretical advantages of the larger format. Nice-looking cameras, though. The pictures were OK (though I thought, chronically lacking in contrast), just not good enough to make me carry one instead of my 35mm camera. I'm not a sharpness nut, but I like to start out with good contrast. That was true in my darkroom days as it is now with digital imaging.</p>

<p><strong>Scot </strong>you're right about 645 Zeiss folders ,they were the ones which had no slash and numeral at the end of the model number,I found it in this thread:<br>

<a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00QXGq?start=20">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00QXGq?start=20</a></p>

<p><strong>Pierre</strong> I just started my folder revival and note your comment about contrast, for a user folder perhaps better to look for a coated lens but I have seen it suggested develop for a bit longer.</p>

<p>With care and maintenance, pics from these can rival those from the TLRs that use similar lenses and shutters. Yes, scanning is a problem. None of the flatbed holders for 120, including the aftermarket ones, are any good. Someone should develop a holder that applies some gentle tension, using magnets or rubber bands or something, to stretch the film flat. I cannot say that I have ever had a problem with low contrast from folders, except when shooting up-sun.</p>

<p>The biggest pitfall is the temptation of using these cameras handheld, which like any 120 camera, will often negate any advantage over 35mm. Most handheld 35mm shots are already blurred enough that they come nowhere near the film's resolution, so with 120 film you'd just be getting a higher-res look at the soft edges and no real additional detail. Even a junky cheap tripod really makes 120 jump out ahead of 35mm.</p>

 

<p>I'm not saying these cameras are garbage. You can have a lot of fun with one. It's just that if you expect some outstanding results, better than your Nikon or Pentax, just because it uses 120 film, you may end up disappointed. Yes, you can certainly use a tripod, but last time I looked, there was a little screw hole on the bottom of my 35 mm cameras too.</p>

<p>Pierre, I'm saying that <em>if </em>you use a tripod and maintain the folder properly, it <em>can </em>blow away the Nikon or Pentax. (Or Leica, or EOS 1D, whatever -- even if you use a tripod with those.) So yes, outstanding results are possible in that sense, as well as a lot of fun.</p>

<p>I don't really see how there can be a problem with camera shake when hand holding these cameras - especially with ISO 400 film. That was considered super high speed at the time these were built and more realistic film speeds at the time would have been around ISO 50 - 64 with 125 being considered fast.<br>

I often use my Nettar and Ansco 6x6 folders with ISO 400 film and I have not had, nor would I expect to have, a problem with blurred shots from too slow a shutter speed.</p>

 

Any handheld camera produces pics that are softer than they could be, unless you use a speed like 1/1000 that these folders can't reach. Whether that is a "problem" depends on what you want. With a normal lens, the convention is that 1/60 produces shots sharp enough for street or sports, maybe not landscape or architecture. If you use 1/60 with a 6x6 and 75mm lens it will look as sharp as with a 35mm when viewing the whole image, but if you grain peep, you'll see the blurred lines are 1.5x as wide because the lens and cam have magnified everything, including shake blur. You've captured no real extra detail by going to MF. If you step up to 1/100 or 1/125, the blurred edges on the 6x6 will now be the same at 1:1 as on the 35mm at 1/60, and because there is more film area, you will have more detail. But you could get it back on the 35mm by going up to the same speed. If you want to be impressed by the greater detail available from the 6x6, you have to steady the cam so that the limiting factor on detail is the recording medium rather than camera shake. This doesn't mean it's not okay to shoot freehand with an MF folder - I was doing it just this weekend - but I was responding to Pierre in terms of seeing a real difference from 35mm results, and this is what it takes to do that.

<p>The film size is not really relevant. It's the final output size of the print (or the magnification) which will show more camera shake the larger it is. The film is just an intermediate step and if the final output is an 8x10 print it doesn't matter if the film was 35mm half frame or a sheet of 8x10 which was contact printed.</p>

<p> </p>

That is true for the case in which the final print size and cropping are predetermined before you ever take the photo and will never change. You are just repeating what I said, that at the same shutter speed there will be equal sharpness when viewing the whole frame. If however you are asking yourself what you can do with your negative by way of enlargement and cropping, both the film size and the amount of detail are relevant.

<p>Or, I thought of another way to put it. Suppose you have predetermined that you will be making a full-frame 8x10 and are deciding between 35mm or 6x6, both with a normal lens. If you are going to be handholding at 1/60, the final print from both cameras will, as you say, show the same amount of motion blur. Further, that motion blur will mostly overwhelm the greater detail available from the 6x6, so the print from 6x6 may look a little better than the 35mm but not much. On the other hand, suppose you use a tripod. The shake blur on both prints still will be the same, but now it will be negligible. Both prints will look sharper than handheld, but the 6x6 should now show considerably more detail because shake blur has been eliminated as the limiting factor on detail and the greater resolution of the neg from which the 6x6 print was made will be more apparent. That's all I was trying to say.</p>

 

<p>I think I agree with what you are saying. If you use a tripod and eliminate all shake then the 6x6 will show more detail due to its larger film area (assuming the lenses are up to the task) whereas hand held, after a certain degree of camera shake the advantage of the larger film is lost and both will be about the same.</p>

<p>Thanks <strong>August</strong> and <strong>Steve</strong> for comments re steadyness.Previously I found camera shake at 1/100 sec so did another test at 1/300 sec ,arms held close to sides ,shutter release gently squeezed. I can't see any shake now on any of the negs scanned at 1800 dpi.</p>

<p>It seems that in sunny conditions my Nettar could be used 1/300 sec f11 with a yellow filter and 400 ISO film.To get depth of field I would crop to 645,cut out the close foreground.Have not done any real landscapes yet.</p><div></div>

<p>It looks better than 35mm to me, I attribute this to my flatbed scanner.</p><div></div>