Matthew Currie Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 There was a point when I had vowed not to collect any more oddball cameras. I even sold my Sept and my Foth Derby and my 3-1/4 by 4-1/4 film-pack Graphics and my Minolta 16. But I guess the virus was just dormant or something. Apologies for the crummy flat-bed scan. Some of us just aren't meant to own digital cameras. I had a functioning cheapo digicam, and stuck it into an inside pocket which didn't actually exist (changed jackets). It fell into a deep, salty puddle under the car. End of digital age, back to heavy metal boxes with film inside.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_jeanette Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 How many stations does it get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_naylor1 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Well, Matthew, at least your Merc 11 looks in reasonable exterior nick, which is unusual. They normally suffer from oxidisation problems, due to some sort of unfortunate mix of the various metals that went into the alloy body castings. Funnily enough, the mechanical bits inside are usually OK. Weird though it looks, it was a very good design, although you still have to wonder just how a half-frame 35mm can end up being bigger than most full-size ones. I once scored one of these on Ebay from a lady antique dealer in New York who must have retired shortly before, from her previous job of selling icecream to Eskimos. She'd described it as "nice, but needing a little TLC". Nice? TLC? I spent I don't know how many hours rubbing and polishing the damn oxidisation away, with various grades of emery paper and types of polish. Eventually, when my right elbow was screaming "RSI!!! No More Please!!", it began to look OK. However, the "slight fault" with the usually reliable rotary shutter turned out to be as painful on my pocket as the polishing had been on my elbow. After all this angst, I just had to put a film through it of course - only to find then how difficult it is in the 21st Century to get a half-frame 35mm film developed. It had to go to the main Kodak Centre in the end and took 10 days. You'd think we were talking some ancient format like 828 or 616, from the reception I got from the local 1-Hour Lab. "Half-Frame - What's That?" Anyway, the now-shiny and fully-operational old Merc 11 sits in its place in the Trophy Cupboard. A lot of folks call these cameras "ugly", but I prefer "different". Now, moving on to the Argus C and the Kodak 35 RF, that's a different story ...... LOL - PN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 That is funny, Ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjamin_cochrane Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Nice find Matt. I picked up on of these neat cameras several years ago, but have yet to run any film thru it. Mine also is a bit more tarnished then your example. I keep it next to my Perfex, Argus C-3 and Kodak 35 RF. It seems to fit nicely there. Post some photos when you get a chance to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Respect, Matt. I've got nothing as weird as that, though not from want of trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I am more interested in the optical quality of its lens. How sharp are the photos and how is contrast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 "How sharp are the photos and how is contrast?" That remains to be seen. Since it's a half frame, I am currently trying to fire off 48 or so little pictures on a roll of Tmax 100. Should have some results to scan some time next week. I figure with black and white I don't have to worry about the frame size - just get developed and use the strip film holder on my scanner. I'm still a little suspicious of the shutter, although it seems to work all right. The action seems pretty slack, though. If it's right, this has to be one of the quietest shutters ever made (as well as one of the oddest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I like the scan actually. It's a weird camera and looks great floating in the air like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_thoreson Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I have one of those. It once belonged to my late uncle in CA, then migrated to my cousin in Alaska and finally made it's way to me in Wyoming. Been in the family since day one. I wonder if provenence makes it worth more. Ha! The shutters on these do seem to appear lazy but I think it migght be the nature of the beast. These came with two lens options - 3.5 and 2.8. I don't know which one was supposed to be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_williams Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Certainly a neat looking rig. Kind of a cross between '50s medical implements and Star Trek. I think a camera like this had a walk on role in the movie "Public Eye" in the ambulance scene. Hope it works well for you, Matthew. Waiting to see what you get from it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurie Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Off topic and all, but you wouldn't be Matthew Currie of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, would you? Jordan R. Urie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I'm just glad it saw you first ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 "Off topic and all, but you wouldn't be Matthew Currie of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, would you?" Nope, sorry. Passed through Alberta once in 1977, but I live in Vermont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now