gary green

No. 1 Autographic Kodak Special Model A. Earl Grey 100, HC110, Epson V600.

For the 20th, benches and shadows.

No. 1 Autographic Kodak Special, Model A. Earl Grey 100, HC110, Epson V600.

A shot from my Kodak Vollenda 620 6x9. Fomapan 100, HC-110, Epson V600.

Steel truss pedestrian bridge

Whenever I see a discussion of how remarkable it is that an old lens is quite sharp I want to point out that the human eye hasn't evolved much (if at all) since the first photographs were made and that if lenses made unacceptably sharp images then they probably wouldn't sell very well. What has changed is how most people look at images: most of us now look at things on a screen and we can increase the magnification easily, leading to the current trend of very large, heavy and expensive lenses that do out resolve lenses from 30 or more years ago.

I think part of the fun I have in collecting and using older cameras is that oftentimes the performance of the lens exceeds my (low) expectations. I can't speak for Chuck but I suspect his response was based on similarly low performance expectations of older cameras. I certainly don't make any claims nor expect that these old lenses can equal or outperform modern ones.

Also, the term "unacceptably sharp images" is relative. I recall looking at tons of snapshots my parents took that would be unacceptably sharp to me today but were just fine to them (using the same basic eyeballs we have today). In fact, I think most folks in their generation just subconsciously compared the photos they took with those their neighbors and friends took and accepted it as the norm. I suspect most folks back then didn't want to fiddle with aperture, shutter speed, and focus settings which is why the camera makers kept looking for ways to automate and simplify everything. Also, most folks gave up control of the film developing and print making to a third party whose quality control was probably unquestioned. I know my parents would have never questioned a crappy snapshot print returned to them. They would have just accepted that it was probably their own fault.

What I'm getting at is that, in my experience, many of these older cameras, with careful use and properly calibrated, can produce results far exceeding what I expect based on examples I have seen from the same, or similar, camera models. Two good examples of this are my Argoflex 40 and my Goerz Box-Tengor. Neither of these would have been considered high-end cameras in their day. However, the results I've gotten from these cameras are quite acceptable even by today's standards (IMHO of course). I think older cameras marketed to amateurs were subject to many more quality control variables, other than the raw quality of the lenses, that negatively affected the results than the feature-laden cameras of today (e.g., camera shake, wrong exposure, incorrect focus) and this is probably why nobody expects much from them today. The camera in my review above is a good example of this. The focus setting was way off. That is, it was unacceptable to me even though it may have been acceptable to the previous owner(s). But, it wasn't the fault of the lens and I can guarantee the previous owner(s) did not experience the full potential of the camera even if they used a tripod and carefully adjusted the settings. In fact, quite a few of the scale-focus cameras I've collected have not had their focus calibrated correctly.

The images I posted above are reduced resolution to 1000 pixels on the long edge per PN guidelines so they really can't be used to judge the acceptability of the lens. Also, I handheld the camera so that is a factor as well. Given that, here are magnified right and center portions of the "Antique tractor & thresher" photo which I find very acceptable (in subjective resolution anyway - which is what I think we're talking about). This negative could be used to make a print quite a bit larger than I suspect Kodak would have expected their customers to request back 100+ years ago. This is what I find enjoyable about collecting and using older cameras - many people, myself included, are pleasantly surprised at what many of them can do even by today's (amateur) standards.

Thanks for the great post and photos Gary, I now have a favorite windmill also. I'm assuming a "roll of Earl Gray" is either Ilford or Kentmere, no?

It's sold under the Lomography brand. "Earl Grey" is their 100 speed B&W film. 400 speed is branded as "Lady Grey". I suspect it comes from the same factory as Fomapan.

I found this Vollenda 620 6x9 folder about a year and a half ago at a local antique shop. I ran a test roll through it after I first cleaned it but haven't taken it out since.

It came in a reptile skin pattern leather case that a previous owner had written his name and address inside. I did some internet sleuthing and found out he was a Romanian Jew who emigrated to the U.S. in 1940. He was 27 yrs old and sent here by his family due to the worsening situation in Romania. His family never made it over ... most/all were killed in the Romanian holocaust. He passed away in 2000 at age 86. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a story about his son-in-law who collects Nazi anti-semitic memorabilia so people won't forget what happened.

Anyway, this is the only camera in my collection that has an interesting story behind it (that I'm aware of). I suspect he may have brought the camera with him in 1940 but can't be sure. It seems to have been produced for the European markets since the distance scale on the lens is in meters.

An oddball this weekend, the Pentax ME-F fitted with the Takumar AF SMC 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom lens, Asahi's first attempt at an AF lens. The ME-F was the only camera in the ME series that could utilise this lens in AF mode. Big and clunky and loaded with 4 AAA cells, the lens is painfully slow and noisy in AF mode, but optically it's a superb lens and I usually use it in manual focus mode.

 

[ATTACH=full]1417207[/ATTACH]

I have the non-AF version of that lens (SMC Pentax 35-70 f2.8-3.5). Not sure if the optical formula is identical but I've been very pleased with it.

Excellent resume and photographs, Gary, an interesting and inspirational post. I really should pick up a couple of the old folders that languish on the shelves, and take them out for a spin. That's a particularly nice old Kodak and well worth the time and effort you've spent on it. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Rick, much appreciated!

Excellent write up and pictures. You are lucky the (probably leather) bellows are light tight. Some later Kodak folders used a synthetic material for the bellows, which deteriorates badly.

 

I wonder if the focus error was because the lens standard was leaning back slightly, being pulled by the bellows and having some play in the sliding mechanism.

Hi John. I suppose anything is possible but it seemed to me the focus was too far off for this to be the case. The other possibility is that the Kodak assembly person set the infinity focus for one of the other lens options by mistake. It would seem to me that, during assembly, they would have different templates to use to overlay the focusing rail as a guide for the placement of the infinity stop based on the lens option being installed (i.e., I'm guessing they didn't actually calibrate focus on every camera). Just a guess on my part though.

For the last year or so I’ve shifted my camera collecting focus to large and extra large medium format cameras. Specifically, I’m talking about 6x9cm and 6.5x11cm (116 film) cameras that can accept 120/620 format film with little or no modifications. Initially, I was only considering post-WWII cameras with coated lenses since my internal bias was that there was simply no way I was going to get acceptable photos with those old uncoated lenses that, in the online listings, were always so hazy you couldn’t see the shutter blades through the front element. My opinion changed when I recently purchased a Goerz Box-Tengor with its simple, uncoated achromat Frontar lens. I’m continually amazed at the technical quality of the images I get from it. My experience with the Box-Tengor prompted me to look closer at pre-WWII cameras that were designed to take so-called snapshot/postcard sized negatives or negatives that could be minimally enlarged to snapshot size which seemed to be the predominant consumer choice in those days. In this quest, I recently was fortunate to spot a No. 1 Autographic Kodak Special Model A on my favorite auction site and I snapped it up.

Kodak introduced the “Special” concept in the 1908 model year with the No. 1A Folding Pocket Kodak camera which made negatives 2 ½ x 4 ¼ inch size . The “Special” cameras were a step above the base models in quality of materials (e.g., nickel plating and leather bellows) and also offered a choice of high-end lens and shutter options. Kodak gradually expanded the “Special” concept to other camera models and the No. 1 Autographic Special Model A was eventually introduced in 1915 and continued with minor changes until mid-June 1921 when it was supplanted by the Model B.

The No. 1 Autographic Special takes 2 ¼ x 3 ¼ inch negatives (6x9cm) on still-available 120 film which makes it even more desirable for collectors like me who like to experience the thrill of actually using their cameras. Evidence suggests my particular example is a first-year Model A (1915) based on the following clues:

• The lens is a Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat f6.3. In the Kodak catalog for 1916, the Zeiss name on the lens ring was phased out and replaced with Bausch & Lomb (who actually manufactured the lens under license from Zeiss). I suspect this was due to anti-German public sentiment as the United States was starting to be drawn into WWI.
  
• The camera body does not have a carrying handle (nor the lugs for the handle). The carrying handle was first depicted in the 1916 catalog.
  
• The latest patent year included on the camera back is 1914.
  

The camera came equipped with the standard lens option which was middle tier for this model year. For $9 less, you could get either the Cooke Anastigmat or the B&L Anastigmat lens, both f6.3 max aperture. Going up in price, you could equip with a Zeiss Tessar, either a f6.3 or f4.5, for an additional $9 or $11 respectively. Here are snippets of the lens options for the Model A from the 1915 and 1916 catalogs so you can see the phase-out of the Zeiss name (only mentioned parenthetically in the 1916 catalog):

1915 Catalog

1916 Catalog

The only shutter option available for the Model A was the Wollensak Optimo which has an impressive array of speeds for the time period: T, B, 1, ½, 1/5, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/200, and 1/300. Speeds of 1 sec thru 1/5 sec are governed by a pneumatic piston which is unreliable at delivering truly accurate and repeatable speeds but, especially at those slow speeds, I think B&W film is generally forgiving enough to tolerate a little inaccuracy. I should note that, after cleaning the shutter, all the speeds seemed fairly accurate but, as I understand it, the slow speeds are subject to variations due to climate conditions (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure). A nice feature of the Optimo shutter is that the release is silky smooth and the shutter is extremely quiet. I have to say it’s the smoothest shutter release of any mechanical camera I’ve owned and makes handheld shooting a pleasure. I understand Leica cameras have really smooth shutter releases but I haven’t been fortunate enough to own one (yet).

The brilliant viewfinder is a step up from those you typically find on old Kodak folders. It seems a little larger and brighter than ordinary. Luckily, the mirror on my example is still in good condition. Also, there is convenient access to dust off the mirror with a cotton swab without disassembling the viewfinder since the sides are open. The viewfinder mask is not the typical cross-shaped mask that is intended to handle both portrait and landscape simultaneously. Instead, the mask is rectangular and, when you swing the viewfinder into position, you have to twist the mask into the proper vertical or horizontal position. I think the Kodak engineers designed it this way to allow the mask (i.e., viewfinder size) to be as large as possible. It’s a minor inconvenience to perform this extra step when you change perspective and I would recommend not cutting your fingernails too short if you have large hands because you’ll need them to rotate the mask.

Adjustable Viewfinder Mask (note V & H settings)

Setting the focus is really simple. First, you squeeze the buttons on either size of the base of the lens mount and pull the lens out until you feel it hit the infinity stop on the panel board between the focusing rails. After that you simply use a convenient lever on the right side of the panel board to set the correct focus distance. Note that, with film in the camera, I recommend that you pull the lens out slowly when first extending it. The first time I did this I pulled quickly and felt a significant vacuum resistance and could hear air rushing in through the seams in the camera back to fill the bellows. I suspect this movement also pulls the film out of alignment with the film plane. In general, I would recommend giving the film wind crank just a slight turn after extending the lens to ensure the film is straight and tight since the camera back does not have a full pressure plate but only holds the film at the long edges.

Focus lever in meters and feet.

After cleaning the shutter and camera body, I loaded my camera up with a roll of Earl Grey 100 B&W and set out to shoot a test roll with high expectations. Boy was I in for a surprise! Every shot was significantly out-of-focus. After further inspection, I determined that the infinity stop must not have been set correctly (there is a channel that it rides in and it clamps down with a hidden screw). From what I can tell, it must have been delivered from the factory this way because it was clamped down strong enough to mar the finish on the panel board beneath it and there was no indication that it had ever been in another position. I can only imagine the frustration of the previous owner(s) in purchasing such an expensive camera only to have results look like they came from a cheap Brownie! During recalibration, I determined the focus was off by about 3ft at a target distance of 9 ft. This is significant when you consider the amount of lens movement there is when focusing at closer distances. I tend to calibrate focus around 9 – 10 ft because, in my opinion, it is more critical to accurately focus at closer distances. Any slight inaccuracies at further distances is usually compensated for by DOF anyway. After recalibrating the focus, I took it out for another spin and this time I got the results I expected. These shots are handheld at 1/50 or 1/100 sec and f11 or f16.

My favorite windmill

Windmill pump at closest focus of 6ft

Antique tractor and thresher

Thresher detail

Snow tires

Even though my camera is fitted with the standard, middle-tier Zeiss Kodak anastigmat (a 3-element lens I presume), I think the results look great. Of course, I didn’t really stress the lens by shooting wide open but that’s not typically how I would shoot anyway. The only bogeyman I’m still chasing is that there’s a tiny straight line scratch in the emulsion side of the negatives that shows up in the pictures. This should be easy to find and correct though.

FWIW, I made a couple of other minor “enhancements” to the camera that I wanted to share:

• I added a thin strip of black felt light trapping beneath the pressure plate on the outside edge of the film counter window. I did this to block light that enters through the film counter window from leaking between the pressure plate and the paper backing to the edge of the film. I noticed this leak on a couple of negatives.
  
• I adhered a metal washer over the film counter window using double-sided tape and use a flat neodymium magnet to cover the hole. I can then quickly slide the magnet aside to wind the film and then slide it back. The magnet is strong enough that it won’t fall off but not so strong that I can’t move it aside with reasonable effort. I painted the washer black to match the camera and covered the magnet with a strip of black electrical tape which helps to keep the magnet from grabbing too tight.
  

Felt light trap added

Metal washer over film counter window.

To sum things up, I’m really happy with this purchase and would highly recommend this camera to anyone else who enjoys collecting and using older cameras. The combination of build quality, excellent shutter and lens, and the use of 120 film puts it in the top tier of my favorite collectible cameras.

Thanks for looking!

Gary

Sainte-Chapelle Redux

Goerz Box-Tengor 760 6.5x11 modified for 120 film. Earl Grey 100, HC-110, Epson V600.

Oradour-sur-Glane, France

That is a nice lens. Goez?

Yes, and as far as I know, all Box-Tengors are fitted with the Goerz Frontar achromat.

Posted in an equipment forum as well.

Winter Pond

Kodak Brownie Target Six-16 modified for 120 rollfilm. Fomapan 100, HC-110.

[Author’s Note: I credit the historical references to the Box-Tengor series of cameras in this article to the research of Daniel Sanchez Torres who has documented extensively on the production history of the series here. The Box-Tengor series has gone through a number of variations and modifications over its 30+ years production which, combined with relatively widespread availability and low prices, make it a good choice for a hobbyist camera collector.]

In Part 1 of this two-part series, I discussed my early Goerz Box-Tengor model 760 6.5x11 format camera along with some promising test shots I took after making small modifications to support using 120 roll film instead of the native 116 roll film the camera was designed to use. After a couple of outings and with some more practical experience using this camera, I would like to add a couple of additional points.

First, in the original discussion, I mentioned that the shutter had a B (bulb) setting. This was incorrect. The shutter has an actual T (time) setting where, when activated by the sliding lever, once the shutter is tripped, it will stay open of its own accord after releasing the shutter lever. To close the shutter, the shutter lever has to be moved back to the original position (pushing the T lever back in won’t close the shutter). Also note that, for the Instantaneous shutter setting, the shutter release works in both directions (i.e., there is no return spring to move the lever back to its original position). AFAIK, this behavior is unique to the early models of the Box-Tengor that don’t have the “silver spoon” shutter cap that was added to support the automatic return shutter lever on later models.

Second, regarding the lack of tripod sockets, I mentioned that a cell phone clamp from a selfie stick should work fine. However, in practice, I found my cell phone clamp didn’t quite give sufficient grip or stability. While the spring tension on the clamp was more than sufficient, in fact a little too strong as it tended to distort the thin sheet metal on the sides of the box, the surface area of the clamp was too small to hold the camera rock steady. So, I went to my garage and came up with the following tripod mount design specifically for metal-bodied box cameras. This mount consists of two steel L-brackets with two rare-earth neodymium magnets on the bottom arm of each bracket. The magnets are wrapped with electrical tape to keep from marring the camera surface and to make it a little easier to remove the camera from the bracket. The magnets are more than strong enough to hold the camera in either vertical or horizontal position and provide the necessary rigidity to make long exposures. I should note, however, that to make long exposures, I used a black card to cover the lens before I manually tripped the shutter and then again to cover the lens before I closed the shutter to avoid shaking the camera since there is no cable release socket on this older model.

Now let’s move on to the second Box-Tengor in my collection: the Zeiss-Ikon 54/2 model circa 1931-1938.

The 54/2 Box-Tengor derived from the original Goerz model 756 6x9 format (120 roll film) Box-Tengor that Zeiss acquired after the merger of Goerz and other German camera companies into Zeiss-Ikon in 1926. Initially, Zeiss retained the 756 model number, added their stamp to the body covering, and replaced the original laterally-positioned metal handle with a leather strap. Otherwise, the camera was identical to the Goerz model. In 1929, the 756 model number would change to the new Zeiss numbering scheme as the 54/2 along with a few other changes: the viewfinder ports moved to the top corners of the faceplate, the film wind crank moved from the bottom to the top, and the “silver spoon” shutter cap was added to facilitate the automatic return of the shutter lever to its home position (i.e., the shutter was no longer double-action as in the earlier models) which also supported the addition of a cable release socket.

Around 1931, the 54/2 model was updated with a new hexagonal faceplate supporting a zone-focus lever above the lens that allowed for one of three focus zones to be selected: 1-2 meters, 2-8 meters, and 8-infinity meters. Each of the two close focusing zones has its own diopter lens that is positioned behind the taking lens when the selector lever is moved. The previous aperture-selecting sliding lever was replaced by a circular wheel with Waterhouse stops controlled by a lever below the lens. Finally, a shutter lock lever was added to prevent inadvertent firing of the shutter and/or to hold the shutter open for extended periods (when using the “T” setting for example). This is the variant that I own and, for all practical purposes, contains the essential features that are only slightly augmented in the later 6x9 models 55/2 and 56/2. Note that, unlike the Goerz model, when using the “T” shutter setting, the shutter does not stay open after it is tripped unless you manually hold it open or lock it open via the shutter lock lever or a locking cable release. In this sense, it is actually a “B” (bulb) setting.

My 54/2 was in overall good condition, bruised but not battered, when I purchased it at the antique store. Cleaning was easy as there are only two screws that hold the faceplate on and, once removed, there is full access to the taking and viewing lenses, diopter lenses, viewfinder mirrors and lenses, and the shutter mechanism for cleaning. The only tricky part is reinstalling the faceplate because it’s a tight fit and you have to align the zone focus and aperture levers with their openings.

Once cleaned, I was anxious to shoot my first roll and see the results. My expectations were high based on previous experience with my Goerz 760 model. However, once the negatives were dry, I could see that something was not right. The long arm of Murphy’s Law had grabbed hold of me. Specifically, there were two distinct issues with the images:

1. The in-focus areas of the images were not as I expected. In fact, they reminded me of photos I had seen taken with cheap plastic cameras. I wasn’t expecting the full frame to be sharp since I had used the maximum aperture of f11 but I did expect the central portion of the image to be reasonably sharp. Instead, the upper portions of the image tended to be sharpest and I noticed some vignetting at the bottom corners of the image but none at the top. This prompted me to scrutinize the camera more carefully and, as a result, I discovered that the top portion of the faceplate directly above the taking lens, to which the taking lens is attached, was pushed in enough to cause the taking lens to point up slightly and not be in vertical alignment with the focal plane. This, in turn, would cause the image circle to be shifted down on the image plane which could cause vignetting at the bottom of the image (or at the top of the focal plane since the image is projected upside-down at the focal plane). The distortion in the faceplate did not seem to be caused by an impact because there was no sign of surface damage. Instead, I think the slight depression was due to squeezing of the camera by users trying to adjust the zone focus lever since it is quite tight. The faceplate sheet metal is sufficiently thin that it can be distorted by hand pressure without too much effort. In fact, because of this, I was able to straighten it back using my hands.
    
    
   
2. At the “8m-infinity” zone focus setting, the entire image was substantially soft, both near and far subjects. In fact, images shot at the middle zone (2-8 meters) were sharper at all distances. Fixing the previous issue did not affect this. Based on anecdotal evidence published on the web from other users of this model, I tend to believe this defect originated at the factory. My semi-educated guess is that the taking lens is too close to the focal plane and that the mid-range diopter can compensate for this somewhat. If that is true, then I suspect the closest focusing distance is affected as well but I would need to test that hypothesis.
   

Below is an example of the first issue. This image was shot on the middle focus zone (2-8 meters) at f11. In the full-res image, the foreground is pretty fuzzy until you get closer to the trees. Also note the vignetting at the bottom corners.

And here’s an image to show the softness when using the “8m-infinity” zone focus setting. In this photo, the farmhouse is approximately 40 meters away. The full-size photo shows the image taken using the “2-8m” zone setting (the sharpest result) and then magnified views showing both the 2-8m zone and 8m-infinity zone results. All photos were taken on a tripod at the maximum aperture of f11.

Farmhouse - 2-8m focus zone, f11

2-8 meter zone left, 8-infinity zone right

In summary, even with the infinity focus zone issue, this camera is a pleasure to use and I can get satisfactory results using only two of the zone focus settings. I still need to figure out the exact distances covered by the lower two ranges but that’s for another day. In the meantime, I’ve included a couple of sample images below. Thanks for looking!

Gary

Fence Post

Crooked Path

Beautiful image,Gary! You're getting some very impressive results from the Box-Tengor.

Thanks @rick_drawbridge ! I find myself really enjoying the simplicity of this camera.

Local park scene on first real cold snap of the season (14 degrees F). Goerz Box-Tengor 760 (6x11 format) @ f16, Fomapan 100, HC-110, Epson V600.

Thanks for the kind responses everyone. I wanted to share another image from this camera taken two days ago in better weather with more dramatic light. I shared a similar image from the same roll in a separate thread in this forum.

This is an image of Ash Cave in Hocking Hills, Ohio. On a clear day, beams of sunlight manage to sneak through the trees and light up the small waterfall that flows over the cliff. This is a 3-second exposure at f16 on Fomapan 100 using a tripod. I used the T setting on the shutter along with a black card over the lens to make the exposure to minimize camera shake since there is no cable release socket on this model. I have also included magnified sections of the top and bottom areas to show how far sharpness extends to the edges of the frame.

Not too shabby for a simple box camera!

Gary

The sun came out today so I took the Goerz Box-Tengor out for another test. This is Ash Cave in Hocking Hills, Ohio. 3-second exposure on Fomapan 100. Time shutter setting using a tripod with a cellphone clamp.

Sun beams on waterfall

I periodically peruse the antique shops near my home to see if any “interesting” cameras have arrived since my last visit that might need a good home. Over the years of scavenging, my eyes have become trained to spot clues in the various vendor booths that might lead to another prize in my collection. Part of this training over the years has also included being able to quickly pass over the “junk” cameras that dominate the displays: most Polaroids and all Kodak instant cameras, cheap point & shoots, Argus C3s and 75s, and box cameras to name a few. However, lately, as I have become more interested in collecting and using medium format cameras, I’ve decided to take a closer look at box cameras (both researching online and examining in the shops). This has led me to purchase two Box-Tengor cameras from two separate local shops in the past month: a Goerz Box-Tengor model 760 (pre-merger) and a Zeiss-Ikon Box Tengor model 54/2. This thread will focus on the Goerz model 760 shown below.

Goerz Box-Tengor Model 760

Up until recently, my vague recollection of the Box-Tengor cameras was that they were supposedly a higher-end box camera that were suitable for use in tropical climates due to their all-metal construction. I suppose the cardboard and wooden box cameras of the period were prone to disintegrating or warping in the excessive humidity of the tropics. Also, I had only seen them referenced as being manufactured by Zeiss-Ikon. My curiosity was piqued then, when I found this Box-Tengor model without the Zeiss logo. In fact, the only logo I saw was on the lens ring which was marked “Frontar Hahn-Goerz”. The camera was in dirty but decent condition and the shutter worked so I forked over the $20 asking price and took it home for further examination and cleaning. I should note that, while in the store, I tried to open the camera but was unable to do so with reasonable force and didn’t want to risk breaking something so I decided to take the risk and purchase it anyway. As a result, I assumed the camera took 120 film and shot 6x9 format. However, once I got it opened, I was surprised to learn it took 116 film and shot in 6.5x11 format. I was a little disappointed until I examined the mechanism further and realized that, without much effort, I could extend the side film rails and modify 120 spools to fit the camera which would give me a 6x11 format camera after conversion. Further research on this camera showed that it was manufactured by Goerz from 1923 to 1925, prior to the merger into the Zeiss-Ikon conglomerate. A nice write-up on this camera can be found here.

Modified for 120 roll film

Modified 120 supply spool on left, modified 120 take-up spool on right

Unlike later, post-merger Box-Tengors, this camera is pretty basic in operation and specification. It has a fixed-focus achromat doublet lens, three apertures: f11, f16, and f22 via a sliding plate with three Waterhouse stops, and a single-speed shutter with a bulb setting via a sliding lever. There are no tripod sockets but you can use a cellphone clamp from a selfie stick to get around this limitation. The camera cleaned up nicely and the lens was spotless. Internet research revealed the shutter speed as 1/25th of a second. However, after cleaning the shutter and test firing, I would say the speed is closer to 1/50th of a second which is what I used to meter my test shots. The biggest issue I found during the cleaning and modification was that the previous owner(s) had removed the side body latches that hold the back on. This is not a problem because the fit is very snug and it takes some effort to separate the back so I’m not worried about it accidently coming loose. Another issue I found is that the film winding knob ratchet is either broken or stuck open because it’s possible to wind in the wrong direction. Normally, I think this would be a big deal since the ratchet mechanism helps keep the film tight on the reel. However, this camera has a real spring-loaded pressure plate that accomplishes that task - a very nice touch. Finally, like most cameras this age, the front-silvered viewfinder mirrors have some corrosion but, for the most part, are still usable.

An actual spring-loaded pressure plate in a box camera!

Once I had the camera cleaned up and modified for 120 film, I was anxious to shoot a test roll. This turned out to be trickier than I expected because the paper backing on the 120 film is not marked for 6x11 format. I used a spare paper backing to estimate the number of winds to the first frame and the number of winds between frames. For the most part I was successful but I missed the first frame by half and I left too much spacing between frames which resulted in capturing only 5 frames on the roll instead of 6. After adjusting my numbers, I think I’ll get all 6 frames next time.

Below are 4 shots from my first test roll. It was a dismal, damp, and cloudy day so I used Fomapan 400 black & white. All shots are handheld and all shots are at the maximum aperture of f11 except for the windmill which I shot at f16. The windmill is located at a local park and is one of my favorite test targets when I try out a new camera. I have included magnified views of the center and top thirds of the windmill to show the center sharpness and falloff in sharpness at the edge. The other images, taken at f11, show more significant degradation of sharpness away from center (as expected).

Despite the miserable weather, I was more than pleased with the results, especially considering this camera is nearly 100 years old. I look forward to experimenting more with the 6x11 cm format. Thanks for looking and stay tuned for Part 2!

Gary

For the 24th, my granddaughter on top of Mt. Pleasant, Lancaster, Ohio. Zeiss-Ikon Box-Tengor 54/2. Fomapan 100.