darin_cozine

The little Agfas are capable cameras. I used to have a super solinette. Its the same body as your camera but with a coupled rangefinder and Solinar lens. Unfortunately it has problems. The focus was completely frozen and also the supports for the lens had come apart from the folding lid. I also have a silette , which is the fixed lens version with an apotar, and a super silette.. again with a fixed lens but mine has the f2 solagon. I'm always impressed by the pronto and prontor shutters on these cameras which are usually working. That is much to be said for a consumer camera 50 years old now.

Here are a few from a Super Ikonta A. Have not gotten the hang of this camera yet..

Why even bother? The 50mm f1.8 is super sharp, compact, everything you could want.

Speaking of lens hoods, what fits the Selfix lens correctly? I think you are right about the film scan. It is a bit out of focus. The epson film holder is terrible, and the film freshly developed curls horribly. A friend of mine has a betterlight film holder which keeps the film flat. I borrow it from time to time.

Interesting timing Rick! i have an 820 Special on its way. I'm curious to see how it stacks up. I wonder if the 6x9 folders feel larger/heavier (than one would expect) due to poor ergonomics. Mainly the fact that the door opens to the side. This limits the space to get a good grip on one side. In contrast, on many 6x6 folders like the Isolette, the door folds down. And you can grip both sides easily. in any case, the examples you posted look good, but not great. -And you have some great images from simple 35mm cameras. I wonder if the difference is from the camera, lens, film, or image size reduction . Do you have a higher resolution example anywhere? I've had similar results from 6x9 cameras.One thing I've noticed is that they really need a hood. The coatings on these lenses can be primitive. And the lens is rather exposed. Here is one from my Bessa I. Not quite the 'wow' factor I would hope for from a negative 5x the size of a 35mm. Of course it only takes one of many possibilities to degrade an image..

Then I bought a large garment bag, which I used to dry the next roll of film. It made a huge difference in reducing the amount of dust that accumulated on the film. This next image was from that roll. The few specs that are showing are from the scanner. The film is nice and clean. Zeiss Super Ikonta III, Tessar 75mm f3.5.

You may notice some crescent-shaped light leaks on that one. I'm not sure if this is from pinholes in the bellows, or maybe the film number window. Here is another image from the same camera. This was my last roll that I let dry in the bathroom.

Great images so far this weekend! Here are a few of mine. This is the Forrest Hill Bridge. One of the tallest in California. Bessa I 6x9 folding camera, with a 105mm f3.5 Color-Skopar.

Here is a doozie.. The index-finger focus wheel on the Contax ii and iii. Adds unnecessary complexity to the camera. does not work well with other lenses (they dont use the inner bayonet, and are a bit harder to turn) And the focus locks whenever you hit infinity, which is really annoying when trying to focus on something near infinity! Actually I can almost forgive Zeiss for designing this, because it was done in 1930 and was a radically new camera. BUT THEN NIKON WENT AND COPIED IT ON THE S/S2/SP! And Nikon made it even worse. The wheel is a bit 'toothier' so it feels like needles. The shutter release was moved directly behind the wheel so that your middle finger now naturally rests on the focus wheel. -That does two things. First, it stops you from focusing the lens normally with your left hand. And second, when you do focus the lens via the lens barrel, the wheel is turned under your finger AND DID I MENTION THE NEEDLE SHARP TEETH EATING AWAY YOUR SKIN DOWN TO THE BONE!

<p>last one</p><div></div>

<p>In the above pic, what looks like flare is actually some anti-halation that did no get removed.</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a few from my Nikon S2. Delta 100 developed in Xtol 1:1</p><div></div>

<p>So much confusion here!<br> Here are the main versions:<br> Bessa (early model) no rangefinder, flip-up viewfinder, uncoated lens. <br> Bessa (early model) with coupled rangefinder/viewfinder, uncoated lens. helomar, voigtar, skopar<br> Bessa I, no rangefinder, chrome top, integrated viewfinder, coated vaskar or skopar<br> Bessa 66, no rangefinder, 6x6, flip-up viewfinder, coated vaskar. (not sure if ever a skopar)<br> Bessa II, coupled rangefinder, coated skopar, heliar, or lanthar.<br> Bessa III (modern), coupled rangefinder, 6x7 or 6x6, heliar<br> Bessa III W (modern), non-folding, coupled rangefinder,6x7 or 6x6, 55mm wide-angle color-skopar.</p>

<p>And one with the yashica T4</p><div></div>

<p>try 2 with the canon</p><div></div>

<p>Last one was from an olympus XA.</p> <p>This next one a Canon F1N</p>

<p>Here is a random sampling. I hope to have a few recent shots for next week.</p> <div></div>

<p>Rick: That first set from the Xenon looks soft all over. Do you think that was from the film or scanning? The 2nd set looks much better. <br> Don: That Canon f1.8 looks great! I dont think mine is that good. There seems to be quite a bit of variability in that lens. But then many have fungus/haze, and I'm sure some that appear clean have been disassembled to be cleaned. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Late follow-up but I have heard about the canon 100mm f4 as being an excellent lens. But then thats what they say about all the macro lenses.</p> <p>One that I use the most is the Nikon 55mm f2.8. Absolutely stellar lens on mirrorless cameras.<br> <br />Very inexpensive to buy. Easier to focus manually than the f3.5 Nikkor.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Last weeks super moon. Sony NEX 3n using 55mm nikkor with 35mm fujian and a 6" celestron dob,</p> <p> </p>

<p>For a first camera, i would say the Minolta SRT101. <br> The Pentax k1000 is a bit of a clunker to me.. it was built to be a student camera, and it shows.<br> The olympus OM1/2 are great cameras, that is what i shoot with. But it can be hard to find a good clean working body. Lenses are a bit pricey these days.<br> Canon FT FTb's are rugged tanks. Canon EF would be a bit better even, This would be my second choice. Or first if you like the extra grip/weight of a full size camera. Viewfinder is not as nice as the Minolta.<br> <br />The Minolta SRT is a great all-around camera, most of the ones I have seen a thrift stores still work perfectly (except for the abused ones). The metering is excellent. Great viewfinder. Many lenses at reasonable price.</p> <p>-All vintage cameras are going to require some basic maintenance. Replacing the foam seals. Cleaning the battery compartment. Cleaning the mirror box of dust (dont touch the mirror!)</p>

<p>Any day you can pick up a vintage camera, pop some film in it, and make beautiful images like that.. thats a good day!</p>

<p>For travel, #1 consideration is something dependable. Whatever you get, get it now to give yourself some time to try it out. Get familiar with it. test it to make sure all shutter speeds function properly.</p> <p>#2 I would say to get a fixed-lens camera. -Or a camera with just one lens. You are already going to be switching between a digital and film body. Don't complicate it more with switching lenses.</p> <p>I would recommend a rolleiflex with a tessar or xenar -or even a rolleicord (instead of a 2.8). Or a Yashica. If it is broken or stolen you are not out $1000. <br> Another alternative is a mamiya 645 or fuji 645. </p> <p> </p>

<p>last number 3</p><div></div>

<p>and 2</p><div></div>