Boowu and all that

[h._p.]

I've just aquired a sinfully cheap BOOWU which I intend to use as

part of my Heath Robinson approach to archiving digital shots.

 

Phase 1 is to get a super-cheap Zorki on eBay (I gather around £20 at

the moment) and use the BOOWU with that (assuming the mount lines

up).

 

Phase 2 is to get a bayonet adaptor to plug the BOOWU into my M3 and

use the Zorki lens.

 

Phase 3, which is where the question comes in, is to buy a Leica

screw lens to use with the setup. So what would be the best copying

lens? I suspect the Elmar f3.5 but has anyone done a lot of copying

and have a preference?

 

'er indoors has put a limit on my spending for the moment so I have

to move slowly, otherwise I'd miss out phases 1 and 2 completely and

just get an adaptor and a Leitz lens. :-(

[jay_.]

Using even the best copy setup (and the one you describe is a far cry from it)you're still photographing prints made from digital files. You may be documenting them but hardly archiving. One solution is to burn your digital shots to CD and find a lab that has a film recorder who will transfer them onto film. The best solution, if you want a film record of your images--is, shoot them on film to begin with ;>)

[walt_delesandri]

harvey,

Almost any M42 (pentax) mount camera, preferably mechanical

plus an M42 normal lens (pentax, yashica, zeiss,etc) and a

$5-10 set of non-metered extension tubes will do a better

job for less...

I've purchased a Pentax (black enamel!!) spotmatic body

(non-working meter-who needs it?) and a 50 f2 for $40...

that, plus a set of off-brand extension tubes (you only really

need the shorter two, for any sane use)...you've got it!!

Stop down to F11, compensate 1 stop for half life size, 2 stops

for 1:1, and you're set!!!

Results are identical to my nikon/macro setup....HONEST!!

Walt

[al_kaplan1]

I have to agree with Jay on this one. Shoot B&W negatives to begin with and scan the negatives if you want/need digital. If you insist on copying prints use a macro lens on an SLR or get a 65mm Elmar and a Visoflex II or III. The straight magnifier is easier to use than a prism on a copy stand. Back when I was teaching I made hundreds of Kodachrome II copies of B&W prints with this set-up.

[h._p.]

Fine, now you've told me all the reasons, which I already knew, why not to do it, how about some help on how to make it happen?

 

Of course the ideal is a high res film recorder but I ain't got one and I'm not about to pay £12 a shot to use someone else's and best of all, I've always wanted a BOOWU and a reason to use one.

 

Surely someone's done some copying with a screw mount standard lens?

[al_kaplan1]

Sorry, Harvey, I've never had or used a BOOWU. They were never all that common. I've had the Visoflex IIs and 65mm Elmar over 30 years. I'd suggest a trip to the library or used book store and getting a copy of the Leica Manual of proper vintage. They covered the BOOWU and other period equipment in painstaking detail.

[jean_christophe_barnoud1]

<p><a href="http://www.1839.org/hors/trucs/boowu/index.html?lang=en">This page</a> is not finished but gives some info on the boowu.</p>

 

<p>If you use a non leica lens, it will not be enough that the mount matches (39mm with the same flange focal distance), you will also need a lens with an exact focal length within the boundaries of Leica's 50mm focal length. To give an extreme example, a 35 or 90 mm LTM will mount on the boowu (39mm) but the legs wont be any help with framing the picture and the plane of sharpness will be much closer with the 35 and much further with the 90. If your lens is 50.0mm or 55mm you will get the same kind of problems to a lesser degree.</p>

 

<p>Anyway, I am not sure you will be satisfied with the quality of the results.</p>

[h._p.]

>>This page is not finished but gives some info on the boowu.<<

 

Thanks Jean-Christophe, that's the sort of thing I was looking for.

 

My current thinking is to stop the lens down to f11, i.e. max depth of field but hopefully not pushing into diffraction territory. From your tables, and thinking back to when I used extension tubes on a Nikon, it looks as if depth of field should cover a flat subject very nicely even if the focal length is off by 10%.

 

From reading the Leica Manual and other books, I get the impression that the Elmar was the preferred lens for this sort of thing. I still think I'll go with the Zorki and see how that fares. If I buy one of eBay and it doesn't pan out I should still be able to get my money back.

[doug_hagerman]

The faster lenses (Summar, Summitar, collapsable Summicron) had more curvature of field, which you don't want when copying. I suspect that you're right that the f/3.5 Elmar is the best choice, or maybe even an f/2.8 if you can find one that's clean.

 

I'm a bit jealous, actually. I've always thought that the BOOWU was the perfect "spy" accessory--sneaking in a government office and copying secret documents in the night and all that. Although I don't think James Bond ever had one...