cameras similar to brownie hawkeye??

[matt_pearson3]

I was hoping to use 10-12 Hakweyes, with 3 ISOs (to make up for lack

of camera controls. The camera is perfect for my project, except for

the focus and 1/30 sec shutter speed. I'm looking for inexpensive box-

style cameras, similar to the Hawkeye, but which will allow me to

focus from at least 2 feet away. Faster shutter would be a plus. Does

anyone have experience and advice to share? Which cameras would you

recommend?

[john_shriver]

Not many box-style roll-film cameras had focus adjustments. But their lenses are so slow that depth-of-field makes up for it a lot.

 

Scale focusing is a feature of the more up-market folding cameras. They have front-element focusing. But generally no closer than 3.5 feet.

 

Problem with folders is finding ones with non-leaking bellows, or a source for affordable replacement bellows and the talent to replace them. Also, the later Kodak ones had the disadvantage of using 620 film, which you now have to respool from 120 spools in the dark.

 

You could consider the Russian Moskvas or the Chinese Seagulls.

 

The Zeiss Ikontas are very fine, but probably outside your budget if you want a dozen.

 

There are affordable Agfa folders that use 120 film. Indeed, a lot of non-Zeiss german folders are pretty affordable. They tend to have bellows made of better materials than the penny-pinchers in Rochester (Kodak) used.

 

It helps to be handy at minor repairs to get and keep a dozen folders working.

 

Note that a LOT of folders use 116 film, be sure to get one that uses 120 film. (In Kodak cameras, that would be a No. 1 Folding Pocket Kodak, or a No. 2 Brownie.)

 

By the way, focusing a 75 to 105mm f/3.5 or f/4.5 lens accurately without a rangefinder wide open requires a lot of care...

[silent1]

The focus problem can be resolved by fitting each camera with a +1.5 diopter lens in front of the taking lens; that will change the focus from 12 feet, with 5 feet to infinity with DOF, to about 1.5 feet with DOF carrying out to about 2 feet. If that's too close, you could use a +1.25 diopter instead. Any optician shop should be able to supply lens blanks in that strength, "in the round" (not ground to fet a frame) in plain glass, for a few dollars each.

 

If you really need an adjustable shutter, you're going to spend a lot more than you would on a bunch of Hawkeyes.

 

If you need a faster shutter and fixed focus is still okay (and if so, you can still use a diopter lens to move the focus to your preferred distance), you might consider whether 120 is really necessary (BTW, you do know the Hawkeye uses 620 film, right?); if 35 mm will do the job, there are literally hundreds of different 35 mm simple cameras around that have f/16 1/100, having been made in an era when ISO 100 was common, instead of ASA 25. All of these have cheap lenses that produce similar errors and aberrations to the meniscus in the old box cameras, but none are as pleasant; the large negative forgives many things.

[connealy]

As Donald notes, a diopter will get you close with a simple camera. Without that, you generally don't want to try to shoot anything with a box camera closer than 8-12 feet. Kodak made close-up accessory lenses for the Hawkeye Flash; I have the No. 13 which gets me to within about four feet of the subject, and I've gotten some nice pictures with it.<br>    When I was using box cameras for a time about a year ago, I never found it necessary to carry more than two. I loaded one with tmax 100 and the other with tmax 400. Those films have quite a bit of latitude, and I further controlled exposure with filters. Also, you can process your film for other than the rated ASA for additional control.<br>   I've gotten pretty consistent results that I liked from the Brownie Hawkeye Flash, the Jem Jr. and a Tower Flash 120 Model 8 which I think we decided was actually a German Bilora. Each camera has its own peculiarities and I think you really have to work with them a bit to know what to expect from them.

[joe_dahlgren]

I have a photo using a Brownie Hawkey in my folder.<div></div>

[connealy]

Nice shot, Joe. I still haven't gotten around to trying either color or IR in my Hawkeye. You ought to upload a little bigger copy.<br><br>So, Matt, now that you have the gearhead perspective from all of us, has that answered your question? On re-reading your original question I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled. You don't like fixed focus or a single, slow shutter speed, but those are two of the main things that makes a box camera a box camera. So, what is it that makes box cameras "perfect" for your project other than the fact that they are cheap?

[matt_pearson3]

I find it hard to believe the above image is from a Hawkeye; the foreground and depth of field doesn't look anything like the images I've been able to make. Is it cropped from a larger image. How did you make it?? It is beautiful. Thanks. I don't mind fixed lens or shutter, but 1/30 sec is a little too slow; I'd settle for a fixed 1/60 if I could find it. I'm using 120 in my 620 hawkeye, for what it's worth (Efke, Tri-X, T-Max. Thanks for the info on diopters -I'll give that a try as well. Idaeally, I need a camera which doesn't look like a camera, an antique tourist camera, ability to shoot 3 ISOs, and the ability to make 60 or so consecutive exposures. Thanks again everyone. Very helpful.

[mike_elek]

Joe -- outstanding photo. Those of us with much-more expensive German classics hate it when a $2 camera beats the pants off of us. Excellent shot.

[joe_dahlgren]

Thanks Mike. Just happen to have had luck. I like to play around with old cameras. Most of the time results vary but I have fun. For some reason the infa-red turned out pretty good. I did not have the same luck with Tri-X and my Brownie. Right now I am using an old Kodak Duo six-20 that I can get good results with if I pay attention to what I am doing. I hope to see others results with old cameras.

[alex_lofquist]

See if you can find a Box Tengor. For a box camera it had pretty good optics.