KW PILOT SUPER meets the youth of the 21st century!

Well, it's time again for a Pilot Super thread. As most regulars here know,

there are certain requirements to be considered into the inner circle of

photo.net's elite Classic Camera Forum club. One of them is owning and using a

Kamera-Werkstätten Pilot Super camera.

<p>

The Pilot Super is one of the earliest medium format <abbr style="border-bottom:

1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr>. Unlike the

Reflex-Korelle and similar cameras it features the revolutionary "box" design

that later evolved into system cameras like the Hasselblad or Rollei offerings.

It takes 6x6 images on regular 120 roll film and is one of the most compact

<abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex

cameras">SLRs</abbr> for this format. It does not have interchangeable finders

or backs.

<p>

It was built around 1939-41 in Dresden, Germany, and is the successor of the

similar (but also quite different) <b><a

href="http://www.retrography.com/kw.htm">Pilot 6</b></a>. <abbr

style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title=" Kamera-Werkstätten Guthe

& Thorsch">KW</abbr> was quite innovative in the <abbr style="border-bottom:

1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex camera">SLR</abbr> design field

(their claim to fame is the well-know Praktiflex) and targeted less affluent

consumers with small but user-friendly picture-takers. Their cameras are

therefore not the high-end German precision tools some vintage camera

aficionados love, but more pedestrian in finish and built quality. The Pilot

Super is a good example for this. It definitively isn't a pro-level camera, but

then again pros weren't considering <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue

dashed;" title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> to be professional

cameras at the time.

<p>

The reason for this becomes apparent with the Pilot Super: It has many teething

problems of early <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr>. First of all and most

importantly is the viewfinder, which is VERY dark, shows extreme vignetting and

has very low contrast. The <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title="waist-level finder">WLF</abbr> may be what-you-see-is-what-you-get, but

since it is pretty much only useable in bright daylight, critical focusing is

rather difficult and next to impossible in "low-ish" light. That the lens isn't

auto-aperture but needs to be stopped down manually (making the viewfinder image

even dimmer) isn't helping things.

<p>

Lenses. The Pilot Super has an 32mm thread mount for interchangeable lenses. A

couple of 7.5cm standard lenses from different manufacturers were offered, but

nothing else. It seems like <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title=" Kamera-Werkstätten Guthe & Thorsch">KW</abbr> hadn't yet

thought through this whole <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;"

title="single-lens reflex camera">SLR</abbr> business at the time. All available

lenses are mundane triplets, with speeds from f/2.9 to f/4.5. Unfortunately, my

camera comes with one of the slowest lenses, an Enna Munich Ennatar 7.5cm f/4.5.

Minimum focus distance is also different between the lenses and range from 9' to

1.5m. Again, mine has the least desirable 1.5m (5 feet).

<p>

The shutter mechanism is one of the highlights of the camera and allows speeds

from 1/20 to 1/200 sec (plus bulb). Like in some of the Exa cameras it is

incorporated into the mirror box design. The mirror is actually the "1st

curtain" of the "focal plane" shutter. Thanks to its metal construction and

overall simple-yet-efficient design is pretty failure-proof. It may be limited

in shutter speed range, but unlike the Reflex-Korelle and its ambitious cloth

shutter it is often in a usable condition, making the Pilot Supers good user

cameras. The shutter release is on the right side of the body and is easily

operated with one's right hand's thumb.

<p>

The operation of the Pilot Super is pretty straight-forward with a nice safety

interlock for stupid amateurs. Three ruby windows in the back are used for frame

counting and checking proper film advance. The camera can take 645 format images

with a mask, but I haven't one. It seems to be a rather rare item. The release

has a very useful double-exposure lock, which can be overridden if you want to

take multiple images on one frame. The shutter can only be wound (and the mirror

returned) when the film has been advanced. The lens has front-cell focusing and

with the small magnifier ground glass focusing becomes possible. The <abbr

style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="waist-level finder">WLF</abbr>

construction is a bit flimsy but well designed and light-tight (again, in

contrast to the Reflex-Korelle and many Franke & Heidecke <abbr

style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="twin-lens reflex

cameras">TLRs</abbr>). I use a rubber band to keep the chimney finder tight and

preventing the magnifier from flipping down accidently (which it does with a

loud and terrifying <i>bang!</i>).

<p>

My camera had some light leak issues. I remedied this by removing the pressure

plate and sealing the two unused ruby windows. After literally months of trying,

I <i>finally</i> managed to remove my stuck lens from the body (thanks to fellow

photonetters for the directions), and cleaned the glass surfaces which were

showing dust or possibly minor fungus. This also enabled me to reduce the

minimum focus distance. For many portraits I almost unscrewed the lens from the

body, which acted like a small extension ring, giving me an actual minimum focus

distance of about 90cm (3'). I also found a 37mm clip-on red filter from Zeiss

Ikon in my odds-and-ends accessory box, which I managed fitting onto the

thread-less lens. All pictures below were taken with this filter.<div></div>

I have seen my fair share of graveyard and landscape photos in this forum. I am always a bit saddened that classic cameras aren't used for what they were designed for -- taking snapshots and capturing normal life. I mean, nothing against eternal resting places or rural scenery, but virtually every camera can produce fine-looking pictures when focused at infinity, with its lens stopped down and a static subject. My passion lies in people photography and this is what I enjoy using my vintage cameras for.<div></div>

I shot a roll of Fuji Neopan 400 black and white film. <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="black and white">B&W</abbr> film is much easier to scan for me, less costly to print professionally and I have one of Germany's best, dedicated <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="black and white film">B&W</abbr> labs just around the corner. So after my test roll last year for checking the camera's functions was color slide, I decided to try it with something different. By the way, I metered all my shots carefully with my trusty Sekonic L-508 incident light meter.<div></div>

Originally I often used my classic cameras for street photography, taking portraits of strangers and shooting candid pictures of everyday life. While doing this I sometimes encountered groups of young people, all dressed up in strange costumes or rock star clothing. I approached them and got to know them.<div></div>

I learned that they are "cosplayers", who enjoy dressing up as the characters from Japanese comics, video games or popular music scene. Many of them make their own costumes, spending lots of free time (and their pocket money) on sewing fabric, finding the right accessories or traveling to conventions. They have huge online communities and use their social network websites to interact with each other, review Japanese popular culture trends and schedule events.

<p>

Of course documenting their style plays an important part in this <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="do-it-yourself">DIY</abbr> subculture. I learned they were lacking experienced photographers with good gear for taking pictures for their online galleries, so I began volunteering at their (pretty informal) local conventions. First I used my analog cameras, then I switched to my <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="digital single-lens reflex camera">dSLR</abbr> for convenience's sake (and cost's).<div></div>

Fortunately, I can work pretty well with children and teenagers (and people in general -- hey, I'm a street photographer!). To make a long story short, I became friends with some of them and everyone liked their pictures, of course. Almost every week I join the local cosplayers for couple of hours, taking pictures and mingling with this friendly crowd of young people. This gave me the opportunity of having a pool of willing subjects to shoot and practise my photography skills.<div></div>

Those who ask I mentor about all questions regarding photography and gear purchases. From time to time I try to lead them to the dark side by bringing some film camera (e.g., my Mamiya RZ67) and letting them shoot a couple of rolls with it (I have way too many rolls of film in my freezer, I am always glad of having them put to use). Any analog camera is old tech for them and except for those few with professional photographers in their family no one has ever heard of medium format.

<p>

The Pilot Super looked "normal" (and probably harmless) enough to gather not much attention. The red filter was much more often asked about and I had to explain and demonstrate its effect on <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="black and white film">B&W</abbr> film multiple times. Several people announced to buy their next sunglasses with red-tinted lenses...<div></div>

As you can see, when the weather is well, most of their gatherings are outside in some park or public garden. Since the Pilot Super has only limited shutter speeds (1/200 sec top, see above), I actually brought the red filter in case it was too sunny for shooting 400 speed film at all. My lens also stops down only to f/16, but fortunately it wasn't that bright, so I could use the lens pretty much wide open most of the time. After all, I wanted to shoot portraiture with a small depth-of-field to show off the weird bokeh of the Ennatar lens.<div></div>

Like most classic cameras when put to actual use, the Pilot Super produces great images. I am sure the Ennatar won't win any <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="modulation transfer function">MTF</abbr> chart contests, but is a pretty decent and sharp lens. Despite the poor viewfinder, the camera's <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex">SLR</abbr> design has the big advantage of being free from problems that plague many vintage cameras -- focus misalignments, parallax, or lens issues. <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="What You See Is What You Get">WYSIWYG</abbr> is very useful and helps critical focusing. On the other hand, the viewfinder image is not only very dark, but for all practical purposes it shows also much less than will end up on film. Due to severe vignetting the exact framing and composition is a little bit of guesswork.<div></div>

As you can see, I got only 8 pictures from my roll. The other four frames are completely blank (including all group shots) -- I have no idea why this is so. Since I worked very carefully, there must be some kind of shutter failure. I checked the camera thoroughly before selecting it for this endeveour, but I did not notice that the shutter wasn't opening properly. While there may have been one or two blank frames on my test roll (which I attributed to user error), I did not expect to lose one third of my images. This issue is a serious dealbreaker for me and may result in selling the camera. Oh, well... >__<"

Lovely pictures and a lovely camera.

 

Well, shame on me, I promised my wife I wouldn't buy any more cameras... but this one is sooo cute ^_^

 

Well... I'm not sure I will get it, as I just found it at eBay ans it's still in the auction.

Next thing I need from eBay is a cupboard, LOL

Bueh, Thanks.

 

My own copy of this is not nearly so pristine as yours, but it does work. You are certainly right about the dimness of the finder. You can only see what comes through the lens in bright light, but then the light is so bright that you have to really shade the finder to see anything at all, and once you've stopped down, well it doesn't get easier.

 

I looked around for the negatives I took with it, but haven't found them yet, If I do, I'll post some of them.<div></div>

And by the way, was the only hint of how to remove the lens, the one about unscrewing it counter-clockwise? I can't get mine off either.

Excellent portraits. It makes me think of something August Sander would have done in the 21st century.

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">And by the way, was the only hint of how to remove the lens, the one about unscrewing it counter-clockwise? I can't get mine off either.

</blockquote><p>

Yes, that's it. When looking at the camera viewed from the front, you have to turn the lens counter-clockwise. I discovered that the lever on the aperture ring is very useful for this operation, since you can grip it much better than the small thread mount ring. Use your thumb and index finger you and will be able to unscrew the lens. Good luck!

<p>

And by the way, my camera is pretty battered and worn out. But I have the original ever-ready case, which helps keeping the camera light-tight and clean.

 

<br> 

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">It makes me think of something August Sander would have done in the 21st century.

</blockquote><p>

I guess that's to much praise for this amateur.

What a wonderful and insightful post. It's a pleasure to read. Thank you.

Excellent post. Sooner or later I will happen upon one of these!

I remember wanting one of these when I was a teenager, knowing that I could never afford a Hasselblad but if I could get my hands on the Pilot, I could pretend it was almost as good.

 

I also wanted an Optika IIA.

Never seen a Pilot myself so I am pleased that you have featured it here. Those are wonderfully conceived portraits of an obviously interesting group of young people.

 

The swirly bokeh from that lens is just the ticket for what you are doing. You say that they were happy with the shots but did they appreciate, or notice that "look" that you achieved with the old analogue camera?

 

Always great to see shots of that calibre here, keep them coming.

 

Tony

"The reason for this becomes apparent with the Pilot Super: It has many teething problems of early SLRs. First of all and most importantly is the viewfinder, which is VERY dark, shows extreme vignetting and has very low contrast."

 

All SLRs and TLRs up to the 1950s used silvered mirrors which corrode over time. Replacing the mirror by a modern one (aluminium coated) or having it re-silvered (or actually re-aluminized) will help a lot. If the silver mirror has brown stains, it is corroded, and trying to clean it will just remove the corroded silver coating.

 

Vignetting (i.e. showing a "hot spot") is mostly due to the focus screen. Again, replacing it by a modern one or a DIY screen (I had good results with spraying slide-frame glass with matte transparent paint) and adding a fresnel lens (cannibalized from used Hasselblad two-part screens, or bought new from Edmund Optics) will brighten up the viewfinder significantly.

A very interesting post. My sincere compliments.

 

David

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">Replacing the mirror by a modern one (aluminium coated) or having it re-silvered (or actually re-aluminized) will help a lot.

</blockquote><p>

Actually, no. I had the mirrors of three of my problem-child <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> (Rolleicord III, Yashica 635 and Weltaflex) resilvered and the benefit was neglectable. Maybe you had more look but I am pretty sure that ground glass design (with its lack of microprisms or fresnel lenses) is the real reason for the dimness of the viewfinder image. You are welcome if you want to give it a try, but after several failed repair attempts with various cameras/lenses I'll just leave the ground glass the way it is.

 

<br> 

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">did they appreciate, or notice that "look" that you achieved with the old analogue camera?

</blockquote><p>

No, not really. While a <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px dashed blue;" title="black and white film">B&W</abbr> or even <i>film</i> image has some novelty for them, discussing the aesthetics of uncoated lenses or astigmatism will get you blank stares. But what they always appreciate are portraits with small depth-of-field, because the basics of bokeh, selective focus techniques or fast primes lenses are completely unknown.

I also found that a good screen contributes more to viewfinder brightness than a good mirror. But once you start upgrading your camera I think it might be wise to do both ;-) In early days they used just sand-blasted screens. Today's screens sometimes use well-defined micro-structures and/or fresnel lenses to direct the light to the user's eyes.

<b>Bueh B.</b> - <i>But what they always appreciate are portraits with small depth-of-field, because the basics of bokeh, selective focus techniques or fast primes lenses are completely unknown.</i>

<p>

Good point - something I've noted as well. From what I understand the mechanics of a light-gathering surface area smaller than regular 35mm film (such as the sensor sizes in many digital cameras) make small depth of field harder to achieve, so the effect is much more rare than it used to be.

<p>

I've shown people small DOF shots before and gotten genuinely astonished responses - just one more thing in film's favour, I guess :)

Some wonderful photos Bueh B,

 

Thanks for sharing them.

 

I think I'll invest in one of these cameras as well one of these days. A pre-war SLR would make a very nice addition to my collection. In my search for one I came across the KW Praktiflex. That appears to be an interesting camera as well.

 

Rick