Do I need one? A Nettar I mean.

I have a little bit of cash burning a hole in my hand and from

looking at Dean's nice Nettar pictures I wondered if I would spend

the money on one of those. I already have a nice CLA'd Isolette III

with Apotar and would like to know if a Nettar with Anastigmat would

better the results I get from the Agfa.

I could also save some more and buy a Retina IIa to add to the IIc I

already have. But I am afraid that the exposed (but rather

unaccessible) bellows in that model could mean expensive repairs if a

replacement is ever needed. Thanks in advance for your ideas.

When you are comparing results from different old cameras, I think you are mostly looking at what kind of life experience they had rather than how they started out when they left the factory. All of those cameras you mention were originally capable of producing excellent images.<br>     There is also the issue of technique. One has to use any camera enough to become thoroughly familiar with its quirks in order to obtain optimal results. Details like lens shades can also be critically important on lenses with little or no coatings.<br>     The bellows used on the Retinas were of very high quality. The only problem I have experienced with any of mine was on a Retina II in which the rear edge of the bellows had become detached from the body. A little glue took care of that.

I've been happy with my 515/2 Nettar (6X9), but not so thrilled with my 515 (645). The 515 would be a great little camera; but although the bellows look o.k. they've got many pin holes that I've almost finished tracking down. The front standard doesn't always unfold perfectly either and requires a little help.

 

I've thought about just buying a different one to replace it (I got mine for $11 on Ebay); but they're all going for about $20 now (I know, still cheap). I've asked a couple sellers to please go into a dark room and check the bellows with a flashlight; one reported back that there were quite a few holes (he'd originally said he thought the bellows looked good) and I never heard back from the other one.

 

Now I'm a little leary of them. My 515/2 bellows seem to be made of a different material though and are light tight. Maybe I just got a bad sample with my 515.

 

Either way you can hardly go wrong, even the 515/2 can be had for $30 or under. Keep an eye out for ones with a Klio shutter as from what I've seen they have the widest range of speeds. When I tested the Klio shutters on both of mine they were surprisingly accurate.

 

Good luck,

 

Alan

Benny, I doubt that you'll see a significant improvement over the Apotar with an older Nettar. In fact, you will probably find the Isolette III to be a better performer. An Ikonta with a Tessar would have a better formulated lens. However, you may miss the built-in range finder of the Isolette III.

 

With regards to the Retina IIa, its viewfinder isn't as nice to compose with as the IIc, but it is a smaller camera. It's also a camera that may definitely need to be CLA'd before you use it. A Retina II has a more reliable film advance.

I've used a couple of 1950's Nettars with Novar Anastigmats and one from about 1937-38 with an uncoated Tessar. The Tessar camera produces superb B&W negatives with lots of contrast. The Novars are lower contrast but the results are very nice in both colour and B&W. One of the 1950s Nettars has an f6.3 lens and the other has an f4.5 lens both are good and these 6x6 format cameras fold up so small that they make a nice low cost pocketable medium format notebook.

 

I have not compared them with an Isolette III but the result shold be comparable to the Apotar but less contrast than say an Agfa Solinar

Hi Benny.

 

I find that the Apotars and the Novars produce similar results (both very good). Both of my Nettars work great. One is a 515, one a 515/2 (645 and 6x9). I find I carry the 645 model with me more often than my other 120 folders, mainly because it's the smallest of the lot. Honestly, I doubt a Nettar would do any better, performance wise than your Isolette, but if you want a different sized negative, or just would like another camera, (which is a good enough reason) then spring for a Nettar.

Thanks for all the great and valuable answers. I am glad to hear that the Apotar should give comparable results to Dean's nice Nettar 6x4.5 pictures, although I haven't been able to obtain those yet. Perhaps, like Mike said, it is just a matter of technique. I admit I haven't used the Isolette that much yet because the first couple of colour rolls (Fuji Superia ISO200 print film) were only 'good' and nothing more. I began to loose faith in the rumoured quality of *all* old folders. Time to give it another try I guess... and save the money for a Retina II (or an Ikonta?).

<I>Time to give it another try I guess... and save the money for a Retina II (or an Ikonta?)....</i><P>

 

Or an Iskra!<P>

 

Alan

Hello Benny,

 

As a simular problem, I kind of have the flip side of the coin from you. I have a few Nettars of various sizes (515, 518/16, 518/2) and use them enough to know that I really like them. But I've been researching the Agfa Isolette III, mainly because of the built in range finder. The Nettars don't have that option, other Zeiss folders do. I have the built in rangefinder with my Zeiss Ikon Contina II (35mm folder) and it's a real bonus!

 

I have purchased/looked at a few Agfa folders and every one needed new bellows but with all the Nettars I have purchased/looked at, the bellows were the strong point. None needed replacing. Other problems existed but the bellows longevity seem to be one of Zeiss's many strong points. I would think that if you have an Isolette with good bellows, you are fortunate. If you go for a Nettar, I think you have a pretty good chance that that problem is not present. That is just my experience, I'm sure others have horror stories to tell.

 

As far as the quality of the lenses, I would think that they are apples and oranges, more what you want from a lens rather than what is better. I happen to like the look obtained from the Novar lenses and have to say that the Nettar lens on my 515 is very good, very sharp with nice contrast. Maybe not as contrasty and sharp as the Tessar on my Ikoflex but beautiful in it's own right. When looking for something "better" I find it very helpful to clarify exactly what it is I want better. Do I want better contrast, sharper focus, softer/harder, more options..."bokeh"...?

 

So, my solution...I'm going after another Zeiss Ikon Contina II with a "better" lens and shutter combo ;)

I second Alan's advise to sign up with Team Iskra.

You've heard it here before, but I'll say it again : this is a great forum! Thank you for all the good advice. You know, the contact prints from the Isolette are not at all bad, they are just...well, not really better then 35mm contacts, just bigger. That disappointment makes me reluctant to use the camera more. I just expected MF quality, but I guess it just ain't a Hassy. Despite the use of a handheld meter it seems that the pictures are easily overexposed. Flare seems to be a problem as well, but I can't find a hood that fits the Apotar lens. Come to think of it : I only used three colour rolls with it until now - perhaps I do have to make an effort and try some ISO100 black & white film in it and see what it does. After all, b&w is what they mostly used back in the fifties and what the lens was 'made for', right?

Benny, overexposure could simply be a sluggish shutter, but the hood - can make. Craft knife, matt black poster paint, a little gaffer tape, and the top end of a plastic bottle of whatever - there are some nice shapes in screenwash containers these days!

Sandeha, thanks for the tip. LOL... I picture myself in the supermarket checking all the bottle tops for a good hood candidate, brassed Isolette w.red bellows in hand. But it IS a good idea if nothing else turns up. I just made a bid on a 30mm push-on collapsible hood and I hope I don't get overbid or I might have to go to the supermarket after all. Thanks again to everyone. Will post b/w pics soon I hope.

Another vote for camp Iskra.

 

Don't give up hope with the Agfa though Benny! Grab a roll of Provia or Velvia, stick the camera on a tripod and try again.

 

This will allow you to get a good idea as to the accuracy of the shutter, and if it's any good, it will reaffirm your faith.

 

I've just scanned a roll of Velvia taken with the Mosvka 5 (6x9) - they were mostly taken on a tripod and are amazingly sharp! Slides this size are gorgeous.

 

Paul

PC, The Isolette seems indeed to call for more careful picture-taking, with a tripod if necessary and paying more attention to the direction of the light. There goes my idea of taking just the camera in a coat pocket and bringing home MF quality in a true P&S style ("Medium Format in your Pocket", you know). The highest shutter speed of 1/300s is a very limiting factor for handheld shooting with a folder, unless one practices a lot.

Benny

 

With the Moskva, there is a notable increase in sharpness when the camera is on a tripod or braced against something solid. In comparison, my Iskra delivers decent results hand held or on a tripod. I can hand-hold this one to quite slow speeds, although not quite to the same level as I can with the Minox 35GT.

 

When taking the shots hand-held, look for something to brace yourself or the camera against, and consider loading up with some faster film, such as 200 or 400 film. Make sure you stop the lens down to at least f11. If you find 400 speed film limits you a bit in bright light, find a ND filter for colour, or an orange filter for B+W. That'll give you a bit more flexibility.

 

Paul

<I>You know, the contact prints from the Isolette are not at all bad, they are just...well, not really better then 35mm contacts, just bigger. That disappointment makes me reluctant to use the camera more. I just expected MF quality, but I guess it just ain't a Hassy. Despite the use of a handheld meter it seems that the pictures are easily overexposed.</I><P>

 

If you're just looking at contact prints I wouldn't expect better results from a Hassy then I would from my 35mm Pentax. Even enlarged to 4X6 I wouldn't expect the best MF camera to beat an average 35mm camera. To really see the benefits you'll need to enlarge it more or crop heavily.<P>

 

As far as overexposure I'd agree that the shutter is likely slow with age (don't overlook development either if it's B&W). I built a shutter speed tester and it was fun to check all my shutters. The old cameras that hadn't been CLA'd were mostly a stop off at any given speed (at least). My old Nettars with Klio shutters (on my Nettars) were very accurate though.<P>

 

Alan

Thanks to all for the great replies.