Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by cenelsonfoto, Sep 24, 2004.
Yo, Gene, hay wheels...
looks like some pressure weirdness on the last one.... I think that may have been kinked somewhat.
anyhow, not as bad as I feared they would turn out.
I have a 521/16. There is a 520/16 that is very similar except for lacking the double-exposure prevention. Can't find any references on the web to a 520L. Is this a folder with a flip-up viewfinder?
Yes, sir. See this thread -
Tito Carlos Maria Sobrinho , aug 27, 2004; 10:39 p.m.
CE, I am sorry - "Googled until I became crosseyed" especially today on your birthday. BTW, Happy Birthday!
It is my fault as I should have explained to you on my previous post that, the number (camera body) + those letters represented a "telegraphic code" disclosed only on a catalog (camera + a combination of a shutter+ lens) When a Country distribuitor wanted such and such product he would sent a telegram message to the original factory. This way, there was no language barrier. E.Leitz for years, had telegraphic codes for their products- ELDIA, MOOLY, WINTU, XOOMS so on and so forth.
The telegraphic code for your camera - 520 (6x4.5cm using 120 film) L= Tessar 70mm/f3.5 installed on a Compur Rapid # 00 shutter.
Just in case Gene does stop by this thread, some more haywheel action from my Holga, just for grins.
I love the look. Grear stuff CE.
The 520 looks like a neat camera. The uncoated Tessar can produce very sharp images, though it nearly always seems to need a lens shade and a bit of luck. Don't know if you got an answer on the 6x9 question, but it was on the inside of most Zeiss-Ikon cameras. I think it probably had to do with what was printed on the 120 film boxes and had nothing to do with the actual format of the specific camera.
Nice, but from here the B/W photos look really dark. Barely any details at all in the lower parts.
Or is it just me & my monitor? I'd love to see more stuff from the camera.
The Zeiss-Ikon doesn't suit me ergonomically.... I'm a big man. Nice camera, with more study I could probably get better results from it, but I may just pack it away for safe-keeping along with the Nettar I picked up, maybe I put em back out for sale.
Now, the Shur-Flash box camera I bought is a good user and I am pleased as punch with it.
Hey! My Gators are giving UK hell today! And lookie-there, FSU might have its hands full of Clemson by day's end! The Hogs and Bama should be under way here in Fayetteville very soon if not already, so I will have penty of opportunity to photograph stumbling-drunk fans later if I get motivated.
I love not having to work on Saturdays. Enjoy the weekend.
Love your 'holga haywheel hoopla.' From the short shadows next to haywheels it appears to be early afternoon, but as I wheel back from my monitor, it darkens and fast forwards to very late afternoon. Then it looks a lot like some paintings of George Inness of the 19th cent. Hudson River School. He was famous for capturing that same quality of light. I tried a fast Google search but couldn't find a painting that comes close. I'll dig deeper and post a URL.
Keep up the fine work. Roll of paper going out tomorrow.
P.S. I'm another who can't see the hayweels in your Zeiss-Ikon 520L test roll shots, only silhouette of tree and dark foreground without detail--no matter how close I get to my laptop's monitor.
I'm scanning roll #2 of 6 x 9 made through the Shur-Flash, will re-scan the 520 shots momentarily and see if I can get better results.
Not that anybody is following this thread at this point, but here are some better scans off the Zeiss roll. Some of the negs were exposed a bit hot - mind you, I took them at the same time I shot the Holga above. Fairly bright. I'm having to jack up the contrast while scanning, but results on these are too bad.
Real class there, Dan.
<p>you feel my posts are spam, I feel yours are dreadfully boring...different strokes popeye...
Have I taken pot shots at you in threads (numerous) where you have provided good advice? No. I recognize your obvious wisdom and appreciate. However, posting a link to a reseller link off your own fricken site is not "helpful", it's opportunistic. Parasites are opportunistic, Dan. Are you a parasite?
That link is SPAM. Period. I hate SPAM. Don't be a schmuck about it.
name calling ? hasnt your momma taught you betta ?
Done with you, guy. Have fun.
Separate names with a comma.