Exercise Equipment : The Selfix 820

When the Ensign Selfix 820 camera entered the market in 1952, it was apparently described in a contemporary catalogue as "probably the finest roll-film camera, designed successfully to beat all the German competition both in optical and mechanical performance". If that's not drawing rather a long bow, nothing is. Still, it is a handsome camera.

 

Ensign Selfix 820

 

 

It's a big, heavy camera, of very solid metal construction and clad in nice Moroccan leather. Did I mention the fact that it's heavy...? I rather like solid, hefty cameras, but the Selfix 820 is getting pretty close to tripod weight, especially since the design of the camera makes it rather clumsy to hand-hold. The shutter button, rather vague in it's operation due to the long and somewhat sloppy linkage, has to be operated by the left index finger, this in my case being a digit which is not as good at these kind of tasks as my right. I shot 3 films through the camera to get the samples I'll post below and fully half the frames displayed some measure of camera shake, even at the 1/250th speed. After all, it is a 105mm lens, so anything less than 1/125 is pushing the boundaries. And, with a lens of this length, the DOF gets narrowed down, so you want to use smaller apertures to compensate, and smaller apertures demand lower shutter speeds... At the other end of the scale, the top speed of 1/250th provided by the Epsilon shutter is really not becoming of "the finest roll film camera". The lens provides some saving grace. The 105mm f/3.8 Ross Xpres lens, apparently a Tessar type, is adequate but not sensational, very lightly coated and sharp enough in the middle apertures. It has been much vaunted on various forums over the years, but I've yet to be persuaded that it deserves iconic status.

 

The camera has some nice design features. It has a double-exposure prevention gadget built into the winding knob that sometimes works, and a flash connector of extraordinary Ensign design. The Albada finder is great in the right light and woeful in the wrong, in accordance with the nature of the beast. Either 120 or 620 size rollfilm can be used, and there are a couple of nifty shutters that swing out to reduce the format from 6x9 to 6x6, dual red windows on the rear of the camera enabling the two different formats. And yes, you can manage to get a fogged frame (even with a blurry film number !) if you let a flash of sunlight hit the red window while winding on. I managed it a couple of times. The photograph below shows one of the frame shutters in a semi swung-out position.

 

Open

 

 

Overall, the construction and finish is beyond reproach, but it's still pretty much a pre-WWII design and I can think of half a dozen similar folders I'd rather use. The results from the Agfa Isolette II I featured last weekend produced better results and it's a far easier camera to use. I find the 6x9 format tricky, in that it seems to suit landscapes and very little else; certainly the Selfix 820 firmly seated on a tripod would make a nice landscape camera. Anyway, here are some samples, the film being Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in PMK Pyro and scanned on an Epson V700 Photo using Silverfast SE Software. I hope you find a couple to like.

 

Lake Country

 

 

Old Man Pine

 

 

Vinyard

 

 

Breakfast in the Square

 

 

On the Road Home

 

 

Ford

 

 

Tawaha

 

 

Dudley's Shed

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by rick_drawbridge

When the Ensign Selfix 820 camera entered the market in 1952, it was apparently described in a contemporary catalogue as "probably the finest roll-film camera, designed successfully to beat all the German competition both in optical and mechanical performance". If that's not drawing rather a long bow, nothing is. Still, it is a handsome camera.

 

Ensign Selfix 820

 

[ATTACH=full]1181459[/ATTACH]

 

It's a big, heavy camera, of very solid metal construction and clad in nice Moroccan leather. Did I mention the fact that it's heavy...? I rather like solid, hefty cameras, but the Selfix 820 is getting pretty close to tripod weight, especially since the design of the camera makes it rather clumsy to hand-hold. The shutter button, rather vague in it's operation due to the long and somewhat sloppy linkage, has to be operated by the left index finger, this in my case being a digit which is not as good at these kind of tasks as my right. I shot 3 films through the camera to get the samples I'll post below and fully half the frames displayed some measure of camera shake, even at the 1/250th speed. After all, it is a 105mm lens, so anything less than 1/125 is pushing the boundaries. And, with a lens of this length, the DOF gets narrowed down, so you want to use smaller apertures to compensate, and smaller apertures demand lower shutter speeds... At the other end of the scale, the top speed of 1/250th provided by the Epsilon shutter is really not becoming of "the finest roll film camera". The lens provides some saving grace. The 105mm f/3.8 Ross Xpres lens, apparently a Tessar type, is adequate but not sensational, very lightly coated and sharp enough in the middle apertures. It has been much vaunted on various forums over the years, but I've yet to be persuaded that it deserves iconic status.

 

The camera has some nice design features. It has a double-exposure prevention gadget built into the winding knob that sometimes works, and a flash connector of extraordinary Ensign design. The Albada finder is great in the right light and woeful in the wrong, in accordance with the nature of the beast. Either 120 or 620 size rollfilm can be used, and there are a couple of nifty shutters that swing out to reduce the format from 6x9 to 6x6, dual red windows on the rear of the camera enabling the two different formats. And yes, you can manage to get a fogged frame (even with a blurry film number !) if you let a flash of sunlight hit the red window while winding on. I managed it a couple of times. The photograph below shows one of the frame shutters in a semi swung-out position.

 

Open

 

[ATTACH=full]1181460[/ATTACH]

 

Overall, the construction and finish is beyond reproach, but it's still pretty much a pre-WWII design and I can think of half a dozen similar folders I'd rather use. The results from the Agfa Isolette II I featured last weekend produced better results and it's a far easier camera to use. I find the 6x9 format tricky, in that it seems to suit landscapes and very little else; certainly the Selfix 820 firmly seated on a tripod would make a nice landscape camera. Anyway, here are some samples, the film being Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in PMK Pyro and scanned on an Epson V700 Photo using Silverfast SE Software. I hope you find a couple to like.

 

Lake Country

 

[ATTACH=full]1181461[/ATTACH]

 

Old Man Pine

 

[ATTACH=full]1181462[/ATTACH]

 

Vinyard

 

[ATTACH=full]1181463[/ATTACH]

 

Breakfast in the Square

 

[ATTACH=full]1181464[/ATTACH]

 

On the Road Home

 

[ATTACH=full]1181465[/ATTACH]

 

Ford

 

[ATTACH=full]1181466[/ATTACH]

 

Tawaha

 

[ATTACH=full]1181467[/ATTACH]

 

Dudley's Shed

 

[ATTACH=full]1181468[/ATTACH]

Hi Rick, great shots. I have two of these, both with flaws. One (which I got at a gadget sale for $25, has failed back film latches). The other, I've had to trick up the shutter release. Having said that, it has a fabulous lens - you can see that in your shots - and great colour fidelity. Keep them coming Rick. I'll try to post a shot of mine.

Regards, Arthur

Nice work with the Ensign. The shots have an old fashioned look, especially the first two.

 

Here was my take on it:

 

Some Great Captures with my Ensign Selfix 820

 

The apparently self-congratulatory thread title was a reaction to a discussion which was going on at the time.

Rick, meaning no disparagement, to me those do look a bit flat (although I suppose some foreshortening is expected with a 105mm) and harsh (high-ish contrast, not a lot of midtones). I'm inclined directly toward putting that down to the camera since this is a combination of film, dev, and scan that you frequently use to good effect, and you've tackled worse lighting situations before. If all that reasoning is correct, then indeed I would agree with you that the Ross Xpres lens is not all it's touted to be. Composition-wise I like what you've done, and you've clearly got some impressive trees to work with down there.

 

--Dave

Thanks Dave, analysis is always welcome. I do find the 105mm lens a little compressing in respect of perspective, but I think it's the light and the subject matter that makes this series look harsher than previous ones. Dark conifers in a landscape, shot in the strong morning or evening light of Autumn, are always a challenge, and the landscape becomes inherently contrasty. Our harsh New Zealand light is just so different from, say, the soft glow of the Mediterranean. I'd actually felt that the film and developer combination had handled things quite well, the "Ford" image being an example where a full range of tones was preserved in a very challenging situation.

I understand conceptually, Rick. I had to consult a map and figure out that you're at about the 41st parallel (south). If I've done this right, in Northern Hemisphere terms that's similar to somewhere between New York City and Boston in USA, or around Oporto or somewhere between Rome and Naples, in Europe. I've lived near New York and Boston, and the light there can get a bit low and harsh in the dead of winter, though not polar-like low. I shall have to sample that NZ light some year to see how it compares, given as you say the different terrain and climate despite the similar latitude.

--Dave

Interesting timing Rick! i have an 820 Special on its way. I'm curious to see how it stacks up.

I wonder if the 6x9 folders feel larger/heavier (than one would expect) due to poor ergonomics. Mainly the fact that the door opens to the side. This limits the space to get a good grip on one side.

 

In contrast, on many 6x6 folders like the Isolette, the door folds down. And you can grip both sides easily.

 

in any case, the examples you posted look good, but not great. -And you have some great images from simple 35mm cameras. I wonder if the difference is from the camera, lens, film, or image size reduction . Do you have a higher resolution example anywhere?

 

I've had similar results from 6x9 cameras.One thing I've noticed is that they really need a hood. The coatings on these lenses can be primitive. And the lens is rather exposed. Here is one from my Bessa I. Not quite the 'wow' factor I would hope for from a negative 5x the size of a 35mm. Of course it only takes one of many possibilities to degrade an image..

Edited April 8, 2017 by darin_cozine

Darin, I'll be interested to see how you find the 820 Special. You're right about the ergonomics in relation to the way the cameras open, and I sometime wonder why the manufacturers constructed these convoluted shutter releases mounted on the body, when a simple release on the shutter itself was often easier to to access and operate. Just another "modern feature" I guess! I scanned these negs at a relatively low 2400 DPI for the post, and since almost all displayed some degree of camera shake it really wasn't a fair test of the lens, and I hope you can post something better. And yes, definitely use a lens hood!

 

Incidentally, a close inspection of the cropped image you posted suggests to me that the scanner focus may be slightly out, in that the grain structure looks a little soft. I'd expect something a little "grittier" at that magnification.

Our harsh New Zealand light is just so different from, say, the soft glow of the Mediterranean.

 

Having enjoyed the Mediterranean for a long time, I dare say that the light there can be extremely harsh ;-) Then again, I could not speak about New Zealand.... And most of your photos usually have that brilliant soft glow, my guess it might just be a bit bad luck with how the light worked out. Still lovely photos, and I guess it more speaks about your usual high standard that there is some criticism on those than it actually does speak about them in more absolute measures. Victim of your own success, in a way? Seriously, I do like the photos, especially Ford would probably look really nice in a large print.

 

I guess in today's world, releasing a camera called Selfix, one would expect something entirely different.... too little snapchat integration on this one!

Good points, Wouter. Yes, it all boils down to a question of taste, to some degree. There seems to be an international trend towards the contrasty image, if other Forums are any indication, most B&W images being the product of digital files using lenses with high micro-contrast and post-processing to increase the effect. Perhaps I'm being influenced to some degree by the work I do on the digital platform; I'll just have to keep thinking, "Film! Film!..."

Speaking of lens hoods, what fits the Selfix lens correctly?

 

I think you are right about the film scan. It is a bit out of focus. The epson film holder is terrible, and the film freshly developed curls horribly.

A friend of mine has a betterlight film holder which keeps the film flat. I borrow it from time to time.

I used a generic Cenie lens hood of the push-on variety as the lens surround has no internal thread. Oddly, it's size is not marked on the lens hood but it appears to be 42mm.

 

Yes, the Betterscanning glassed carrier is what I use. With the screw adjustment to the "feet" of the carrier it's possible to set the carrier up very accurately. I just wouldn't bother with the Epson carrier; if you can't get the scans sharp there's no point in trying to assess the lens!

I have a Selfix 820. It has a nice big viewfinder for the era but no shoe for a range finder. GW Crawley tested an Ensign lens for Amateur Photographer and found it approached 35mm SLR lenses in performance but I cannot recall which Ensign lens it was. In recent months the Autorange version on this camera has sold for around GBP 2000 ,it is a real collectors item.

I think it was the company's last stand, they never made a 35 mm camera and at the time I don't think there were any wide angle lens folders like the Japanese made later.