michael_gilday

<p>It's quite a nice lens indeed - I have an identical one on a Crown Graphic 23, though the smallest format I've ever shot with it is 6x4.5, with a half-frame RB67 back. (And an even older 105/4.5 Tessar with a dial-set Compur, on a Miniature Speed Graphic. Yes, I have a slightly obscene number of old press cameras.) Because it's unit-focusing, rather than front cell-focusing, it should be from a 6.5x9 plate camera, rather than something like an Ikonta.<br>

Oh, if you want a lens shade, the correct size is 32mm push-on, which are almost common on eBay, et cetera; the 31.5mm and 31.8mm push-on Series V and Series VI adapters will work, too.</p>

<p>Your concern, IMO, has less to do with the shutter than with the eternal worry of front-standard rigidness and, as Rob Holz says, the movement or even flex introduced by the body-release linkage on some cameras. Impeccable rigidness is one of the reasons I usually shoot 6x9 with 2-1/4 press cameras, or even a 6.5x9 plate camera, rather than a folder - If you compare something like an Avus, Vag, or Recomar with an Ikonta, for example, the (considerably) larger cameras inspire much more confidence. :)<br>

As to putting the Heliar on your 4x5, I believe you're mistaking the lens' "area of illumination" with the area it actually covers with good sharpness and no vignetting. If you actually shoot 4x5 with it, you're going to find the corners very soft, regardless of aperture, and probably vignetting badly.</p>

<p>If your students have managed to break both a Speed Graphic and a Medalist, I'd say your efforts would be better spent getting new students, rather than a new camera. But that's just me. :)</p>

<p>I don't have a Solida, but... that very much looks like a flash synchronizer, to me. If I'm right, you'd set the M-X lever to X for a modern electronic flash, and <em>do nothing else</em> . <br>

If you set it to M, you'd have to cock the synchronizer - the flash delay mechanism - with the other lever, in order to actually fire off a flashbulb. If you have the M-X lever on "M", and don't cock the other lever... nothing happens.<br>

On an unserviced shutter, I generally regard flash synchronizer mechanisms as akin to self-timers: just assume they're gummed up and will jam the shutter, and don't touch. :)</p>

<p>Indeed, sounds like you just had poor luck. I picked up a Zenit-EM several years ago; it was my most-used 35mm body for several years, and I've published numerous photos taken with it. In fact, somewhat depressingly, one of my best-selling photos was taken with the EM and the Helios-44. The only problem I've had is that the meter is unreliable, which is fine; I usually meter by eye, anyway. Other than that, and the tripod socket coming loose once, it's been an absolutely wonderful camera, and I still use it regularly when I want an SLR.</p>

<p>...and just to make things more fun, the "M-sync-only" Flash Supermatics do X-sync, too - you just don't cock the synchronizer! Confusing, no?<br>

The nice thing about these old mechanical beasts (the ones with flash contacts, anyway) is you never have to worry about "safe" sync voltages... no electronics inside to fry. :)</p>

<p>1. Around 1939.<br>

2. Probably quite well. They're generally said to be very sharp, but not ultra contrasty, and the few sample shots online seem to support this.<br>

3. Realistically, you probably don't, as I think it's just too dang large. I'd guess a Packard shutter would be your only option, but I could be wrong... and you'd use the aperture on the lens, in that case.</p>

<p>Regarding lenses... are you going to use strobes? A lot of the great classic lenses (Optars, Ektars, Kodak Anastigmats, Tessars) that are so plentiful and inexpensive are often found in unsynchronized shutters. Not an issue for landscape photographers, or people who use hot lights, but can be a problem if you want to use strobes.</p>

<p>John: I actually find more modern cameras more worrying to clean - you never really know just what kind of plastic or synthetic or whatever they used, or what's going to melt or etch it. Chromed brass and leather, by contrast, are reasonably indestructible, though the adhesives used on the leather, like lacquer or shellac, are often annoyingly touchy around solvents.<br>

Louis: Flitz *is* abrasive, and IMO really belongs nowhere near a camera, mainly because it's an incredible pain to completely remove and clean, being essentially oil-based. (It's marketed as "non-abrasive" because its abrasive particles (it's roughly one-quarter aluminum oxide and diatomaceous earth) are (very slightly) smaller than a certain fairly arbitrary definition of "abrasive".)</p>

<p>Mark: Ah, but decent cameras cost, well, more than Christin apparently wants to spend. And a whole world of "artistic" evils can be produced with cross-processing and grossly unsuitable filtration, but that requires money and planning, too, to say nothing of the decadence of a modern capitalist society (i.e. a photo lab.) :)</p>

<p>The only thing that comes immediately to mind is the Agfa Clack, also known as the Weekender. Mind you, from your perspective, it's probably unsuitable in that it takes quite good pictures, rarely has light leaks, is plastic, and costs as much as if not more than a Holga.<br>

I guess my best recommendation would be to pick a budget - $5, $10, $15, or whatever - and patiently hunt on eBay for old Afga, Ansco, or Agfa-Ansco folders that are offered in "as-is" condition; preferably one with one unmarked shutter speed, two "apertures" (sunny and cloudy), and - if you're feeling especially bourgeois, a selectable yellow contrast/fog filter.<br>

Focusing, if there ever was any, won't work anymore; the plastic bellows will leak light like a sieve; film flatness probably won't be very good; the viewfinder, if any, will be squinty and horrible. You'll love it...</p>

<p>A little bit of soap - perhaps "washing-up liquid", in parts of the Empire - and a damp cloth should clean most of the external bits quite safely, be they plated, painted, or whatever. Lens cleaner for anything glass, though you can often get away with window cleaner (Windex or whatever) for eyepieces, rangefinder windows, and such. I wouldn't clean mirrors unless you really know what you're getting into - you run the very real risk of removing the silvering on front-surface mirrors - or you have no choice, as on an old TLR that's collected gobs of dust.<br>

Things to avoid? Abrasives, "metal polish", power tools, and anything much stronger than soap or a gentle ammonia-based glass cleaner. Rubbing (isopropyl) alcohol, methylated spirits ("meths"), kerosene / white gas, acetone, proprietary "degreasers"... unless you're trying to refinish or overhaul your camera, these are all probably more dangerous than helpful.<br>

99% of the time, I clean old cameras with paper towels, cotton swabs, and Windex, and don't have any problems. It'll remove dust and dirt, which are the usual issues. I've yet to find a really effective way to remove tobacco residue from metalwork, though.</p>

 

<p>Gotta love the Ikontas, and the Nettars. A whole lot of camera in a very little package, and from an era when they built them to last forever because they didn't know better. :)<br>

A bit of Googling turned up an article on the B-25 you photographed, should any aviation buffs want to read about the history of "Panchito":<br>

http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/featured/Featured%20Articles%20-%20Vol.%2026,%20No.%2005-%20July%202003,%20B-25%20Special%20Section-%20_Panchito_.pdf</p>

<p>Likewise; my first response was "What a peculiar place to put a fountain". <br>

Still, that big of a light leak shouldn't be too hard to find. :)</p>

<p>I'm not much of one for fixed-lens rangefinders, but that's a seriously neat little camera. Kind of a prettier version of the original Canonet. :)<br>

JDM: Most people had (and still have) virtually zero photographic knowledge or ability, and a staggeringly low threshold for what they would consider an acceptable, quality photograph. (While I find pretentious "I've got a dSLR and I'm hot stuff!" kids incredibly irritating, more and more people today are making the effort to acquire at least a little bit of a photographic education. It might concentrate heavily on stuff like HDR, but they still know more about apertures and shutter speeds and so on than people who took Kodak's old slogan about "you press the button, we do the rest" to rather too literal heart.) Just look at cellphone cameras, or the old Kodak Disc things, to see just how awful of technical quality people will put up with for their snapshots. Add in somewhat unforgiving photographic materials, processing and printing of extremely erratic quality, and a couple decades of decay and degredation, and it's not too hard to see how the snapshots of yesteryear can look dreadful.</p>

<p>Also, and I really cannot stress this enough, if you want to shoot color negatives and have them printed by a third party lab - which, coming from digital, it sounds like you do - do *not* go with a 6x9 folder. It is unbelievably hard to find a lab that can or will print full-frame from 6x9 negs in color, and even harder to find one that does it well. Stick to 6x7 or smaller for color negs, and you'll be a thousand times happier. </p>

<p>John: You're preaching to the choir on the Rapid Omega. :) I've got a couple of them, and agree they're one of the best cameras of the type ever made. I don't really think of them as underrated, though; they have a lot of quite vocal fans, and I think there's even a forum dedicated to them somewhere. I'd say they're more under-valued than anything else. If people under-rate or under-appreciate anything about them, it's how absolutely indestructible they are.<br>

As far as cameras that are all-around underrated, how about old plate cameras - the Avus and Vag, or the Kodak Recomar. Ridiculously compact cameras with - usually - excellent Tessar or Skopar lenses in first-class shutters. Sure, the plate formats are obsolete, but there are 120 rollfilm backs for all of 'em, and they're really quite a delight to use. I've been shooting with a circa 1932 6.5x9 Voightlander Vag this past week, and I'm continually amazed just how much they got "right" on the camera. Ground glass focusing, front rise/fall and shift, accurate scale focus, intelligently-placed tripod sockets, double-extension bellows, a wonderfully large "sports finder" *with parallax correction*, of all things...</p>

<p>Certo's cameras are certainly nice, albeit expensive, but as an introduction to MF, maybe not so much. Also, folders - unless they have coupled rangefinders - are less than ideal for portraits, IMO.<br>

The C220/C330 are definitely nice cameras, and you will have no complaints about image quality with them. That said... have you ever used one? Held one in your hands? Seen one in person? They're huge and heavy, even by the standards of medium-format cameras. And if you've never used a TLR before, I don't know that I'd really suggest jumping in and buying one. Photography upside-down-and-backwards isn't for everyone, and if you're new to MF, square photos may or may not suit your personal aesthetic.<br>

IMO - and others will definitely disagree - your best bet as far as getting your feet wet with MF is to pick up an old Koni-Omega or Rapid-Omega 100 (more or less the same camera; the Rapid-Omega is newer, circa the early '80s) and 90/3.5 lens for $150 or so. It's a pretty big, pretty heavy camera, but it's very intuitive and easy to use, takes 6x7 images, has an excellent rangefinder/viewfinder (with parallax correction, even), and produces excellent results. The MF learning curve will be a lot smaller, IMO, with something like an Omega than a TLR, and if you eventually decide that MF - or at least an MF rangefinder - isn't your cup of tea, you're out a fairly small amount of money and have a basically indestructible camera that can't really drop any lower in resale value. :) The only thing to watch for is to make sure you get one with a 120 back, as 220 film is nearly extinct.</p>

<p>Nettars, certainly. The constantly-badmouthed Kiev-60/Kiev-6C, to be sure.<br>

Also, the Busch Pressman, in either format (4x5in; 2x3in), usually (wrongly) viewed as cheap and largely unusable imitations of the Crown Graphic. Also the Burke and James "Watson", which gets even less love in its incarnation as the "Tower Press".<br>

I'd argue quite strongly that the Mamiya Press family (Press/Universal/Super) are grossly underrated, too. Even more overlooked, among Mamiya cameras, than the DTL 500/1000, which is saying something...</p>

<p>The big thing to watch out for with an Iskra is that some have been modified to be 6x4.5 instead of 6x6.<br>

As to whether it, or any other 6x6 folder, will "deliver an image quality that comes close to my Mamiya C220"... it depends on how you use it, and what you mean by "image quality". Sharpness, quite probably. Contrast, maybe. Color saturation, maybe not. Bokeh, impossible to say.<br>

Have you considered a dual-format (6x6/6x9) folder? A good working Moskva-4/5 with a 6x6 mask has everything you want, plus flash sync, and is quite inexpensive. Sure, you have to put up with a longer lens on 6x6, but sometimes that's actually a benefit, IMO.</p>

<p>Depends on your definition of "vintage" or "classic", really. Does a Century Graphic with a Heiland bulb flash count? How about a Rapid-Omega 100 with a pair of Vivitar 283s mounted on top and a Series VI filter or two?<br>

I was out shooting last week with a Voigtlander Avus with a 6x9 Suydam rollfilm back, using only my vintage Eyeball, Standard Issue, Mk. I for a light-meter. Significantly smaller and lighter than a 2x3 press camera, and no rangefinder; significantly larger and heavier than a basic 6x9 folder. Gets a lot of stares, too. :)<br>

My standard tripod was made in the '60s, and the ballhead on it (a Bilora) was probably made around the same time, in (then) West Germany.<br>

Thinking about it, I probably have about fifteen vintage metal or plastic lens hoods (Series V, Series VI, and also some 32mm push-on) and a truly frightening number of Series V and VI filters. They just don't make 'em like they used to... or in the sizes they used to, either.</p>

<p>If we assume - which may not be the case! - that the roundels on the toy plane are "period" and "correct", then it's post-1947 ("type D" roundel). Beyond that... can't really say. It's hard to say whether it's the top or bottom of the toy that we can see; if it's the top, then no camoflauge suggests the 1950s or even early 1960s; if it's the bottom, it's pretty immaterial.<br>

Much nicer found negatives (and plates) than I ever come across, at any rate!</p>

<p>The 5B is a perfectly good camera; from what I've heard, it's basically the same internal "guts" as the earlier cameras, just in a different body. That said, there are three important things to know about the FED 5B:<br>

1. Many people agree it's the ugliest FSU camera of all time. (Well, after the stereo version of the Lubitel, anyway.)<br>

2. It's a newer camera than the older models, duh; with FSU cameras, there's a widespread belief that newer = poorer quality. As far as paint, engraving, and leatherette covering goes, there may well be some truth to this.<br>

3. Most of them come with the quite desirable Industar-61L/D lens (53/2.8), and the pair often sell for less than an I-61 on its own. This has produced a widespread joke in FSU camera circles: "I bought an Industar 61, and got an incredibly bulky rear lens cap, free!"<br>

Quite a number of people are willing to put up with #1 and #2 for #3... That's how good the I-61L/D is. :)</p>

<p>Humidity won't be a major issue unless it leads to fogging and condensation through temperature changes, which it probably will. I mean, it's generally no more humid in a cave than in a forest in the summer, and thousands of cameras have survived such conditions with no appreciable damage. Sure, you'll want to protect it from direct contact with mud and water, but I wouldn't worry too much about it, otherwise. I photograph fairly frequently in <a href="http://www.kitzi.com/underground.html">caves and other underground locations</a> , as well as <a href="http://www.kitzi.com/sewer.html">drains and sewers</a> , and rarely use anything more than a sturdy camera bag to protect my gear. For humidity and general all-around unpleasantness, a sewer is hard to beat, IMO. :)<br>

Skip the IR films; rock is one of the least IR-reflective materials around, and it's NOT going to work out how you're probably expecting it to. And, honestly, I wouldn't bother with films faster than ISO 400, if that. (Portrait films are your friend, here.) Just bring a powerful manual flashgun (an indestructible, $40 Vivitar 283 works great) or, better yet, large flashbulbs, and lots of 'em.<br>

Do you have a lot of experience doing lightpainting with flashlights *on film*? I don't want to sound negative, but unless you have an extremely bright light - several hundred lumens, minimum - and a lot of experience, the results are rarely pleasing, technically or aesthetically. A <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59203598@N00/">buddy of mine</a> does a lot of lightpainting underground, and uses a 10,000,000-candlepower spotlight to do so. A headlamp or Maglite simply doesn't cut it, as I've found out the hard way... :/</p><div></div>

<p>I've been using a Mir (basically a Zorki-4) regularly since about 2003, as well as a couple of FEDs. If you get one in working condition - or better yet, one that's been CLA'd - they can be truly outstanding little cameras. Sure, they don't have meters, and you're "limited" to a 1/500 or 1/1000 top speed, and the internal viewfinder is only for 50mm lenses; they don't pretend to be do-everything cameras, but what they do, they do quite well.<br>

Lens quality can be pretty hit-or-miss on the older lenses, though - especially on the supposedly more desirable fast lenses. I love the collapsible 50/3.5 Industar-22, and it's hard to go wrong with the 50-something/2.8 Industar-61; your mileage may vary. :)<br>

A lot of people like the Kievs, because they're a sort of poor man's Contax, but I have some serious doubts about continued availability of shutter repairs to them; Zorkis and FEDs have utterly ordinary cloth focal-plane shutters that will probably always be repairable or replaceable, but the Kievs and their crazy Rube Goldberg shutters... I wouldn't bet on.<br>

I'm actually coming to like the Fed-3 more and more; not as aesthetically pleasing as most Zorkis, and doesn't have any strap lugs, but the viewfinder is nice, and the film advance is much, much nicer. As an added bonus, they're usually cheaper than the Zorkis, too. :)</p><div></div>