Out and about with the Contaflex I

As I mentioned, I'm starting to develop the exposed film that's been

around my house since June.<p>

 

This is from the Contaflex I that I recently had completed.<p>

 

<img src=http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=21965284

border=0 align=none><p>

 

The film is Ilford FP4+, processed in Rodinal at 1:50 for 18 minutes

(!) with [my] standard agitation, which is one inversion every 30

seconds. Agfa has this rateher vague "tip the tank" recommendation.

I'm not quite sure what they mean.<p>

 

The Tessar is really a nice lens. Fast at f/2.8 and very sharp. I'm

very pleased with the camera. Workmanship is very high. I'm not a big

fan of the non-instant return mirror, however. It makes slow speed

shots difficult when shooting handheld.<P>

 

Anyway, some snaps. Some bad, some OK. Indoor shots were at f/2.8,

1/15:<p><div></div>

Driving to work. Part of my DWP series. I wonder if you can be charged with that ... driving while photographing. Not technically correct, but a little different.<div></div>

The printing press at work. Big, noisy, dirty. Would rip off your arm in an instant, if you weren't careful. No one who wears a tie or scarf should ever get near one.<div></div>

My parking space last Friday. I'll leave it at that.<div></div>

Light on the carpet at home. More serene.<div></div>

... last shot. The dog in the kitchen.<div></div>

The last two shots are beautiful. I often see wonderful sunlight photos on my walls and floors. The dog shot is a trophy winner.

Nice shots. A couple of years ago I sold a Contaflex someone had given me. Makes me wish I had kept it.

Very nice shots, Mike. I need to spend more time with my Contaflex. But I'm taking a zone system calss now and am mostly using a very nice Autocord.

 

Robert

The Contaflex 1 was my first camera. Got it used in 1970 + or -.It

was used when I got it. I used it heavily for years. My wife used it

for a long time. It finally slowed down and died. But I still have it.

Have you found a filter - hood combination yet?

Great shots which one for the "Classic Contest"? Mike did you do the camera work yourself?

Nice shots, Mike! We'll be finishing the shutter service thread soon.

Jon

Neat shot on the press, Mike. I like your dog too. This camera doesn't look very large. Is it similar in size to a Contessa?

Mike

 

I assume that you did the work yourself. Any idea why WW Umbach does not service the model I any longer? He will work on all later models, though.

 

Robert

Very nice.... lovely litte camera. Will have to find a way to sneak one past my lovely little wife.

I'm not really sure why Mr. Umbach won't service these. Maybe it's the whole mirror-shutter-aperture linkage thing. I have a "dead" Contaflex I and IV sitting around. Maybe I'll get those going some day.

 

This was the $10 camera from W.Va.

 

It's more or less the same size as a Contessa. A nice little camera. Slips easily into the pocket of a jacket. Make sure you don't have your car keys in the pocket, like I did, as they will scratch the paint.

 

I chickened out with this one and serviced the shutter from the front. This camera is slightly different from others I have. You first have to remove the screws from the distance scale collar, which can't be removed, because it's a ring. Then you rotate the collar to find the three set screws that hold the focusing ring to the front lens group.

 

The shutter is a standard Compur -- the speed control disc and a couple of other parts are nearly identical to those in a folding Retina B/b or C/c camera. That would makes sense for Compur, because it would lower production costs.

 

The lens helicals needed cleaned and relubed. The shutter needed flooded and relubed. The lens groups, of course, needed cleaned.

 

Once reassembled, the camera is very easy to use. You can focus with one finger -- that's how smooth the lens rotates. And it's a short-throw lens, meaning infinity to 3 feet is just a quarter turn.

The lens accepts 27mm filters and hood. If you have A28.5mm filters for the folding Contessa, then these filters will also work, as the Contaflex has a regular female filter ring. I also have a slip-on Proxar that works well, and a small screw-in Contapol (polarizing) filter that I bought a year ago on eBay for a few bucks.

 

I've also seen Series V adapters for the camera.

Hi Mike! I got your film last week (will email you soon). Just this week I took my faulty Contaflex II out for its first test roll. Talk about coincidence. My camera sure doesn't look as nice as yours and it has some serious issues: self-timer doesn't work and aperture mechanism seems to be broken (f/2.8 only).<p>

I just scanned one picture. I don't want to turn this thread political, but as with the president's visit and all, it has been a busy week and I used that test roll to street photograph the protests.

<p>

I find the Tessar quite soft [wide open] and not too contrasty (maybe it was the poor overcast lighting). Your pics look pretty nice. But I seem to recognize that flare (?) effect in the printing press shot. Overall, I am not to enthusiastic about this camera. Maybe I am doing it the wrong way.<p>

About the picture: f/2.8, 1/60th second, hand-held. Not really cropped, not manipulated.<div></div>

Great shots and its true, these sell for a song on the big auction site.

Mike, I grew up in Pittsburgh and even in B&W the 9th Street Bridge looks bright yellow to me. Nice shots. I love the Gulf Building, too. It's a solid-looking, reassuring structure with a very art-deco elevator lobby, if I remember correctly.

 

...and the Contaflex is neat, too.

None of the shots look sharp to me... except the one of the actual camera. Did you use a tripod for the indoor shots?

The shots look sharp to me - at least within the focus plane.

 

Ahh, nice bokeh, Mike. I know that you're always obsessing about bokeh ;).

 

Robert

As I mentioned, the bridge shot was taken while driving. 1/125 wasn't nearly enough to stop the motion of the car bouncing across some road patches. Guess I'll try 1/250 or 1/500 next time.

 

The parking space photo is plenty sharp.

 

The press shot is sharp. I think. Can't recall the details, though I went for a slower speed and pressed the lens to the glass while trying to shade the lens.

 

The dog shot was 1/15, and the viewfinder blackout makes it tough to handhold. It's slightly sharper than I expected, though you can see some movement, if you look really closely. He was whipping his head around looking for food, and I had to keep whistling to get his attention.

Here's a shot where a perceived softness in resolution seems to result more from a DOF problem than an unsharp lens. This is the Tessar on a Contaflex IV, wide open at 2.8. I focused on the front part of the chair; you can see that the fabric and the boy's shoes are in sharp focus. The rest of the picture is soft because slightly out of focus. I once owned a Contaflex II and found it sharp at maximum aperture. <p><p>

 

<img src="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/edwcont.jpg">

Doesn't the Contaflex IV have a different lens than the Contaflex I and II? If I recall correctly it sports a 50mm Tessar instead of the 45mm. Zeiss Ikon must have had their reasons for changing the lenses.