silent1

There are two ways to avoid sale a lot below your expectation. One is a starting bid set to the lowest price you're willing to accept, though that's also likely to discourage active bidding. The other is a reserve, which is a "no sale" if the top bid isn't above your set minimum price, but keeps a low starting bid to get those two willing bidders you need.

 

For a package like your Zeca, I'd be inclined to suggest using a reserve -- I don't know what you have into it, but a fully working plate camera with that quantity of holders and sheaths must be worth at least $150 -- as you say, the holders alone are worth $100.

 

Of course, though I hate to see it done, it's well known you'll make more by simultaneously auctioning related pieces in separate lots -- that is, in this case, sell the camera in one auction, and the plate holders in one or two separate auctions, closing times as near the same as you can manage. This will cause bidders to drive up the price, hoping to get both pieces.

 

If I had money, I'd make you an offer -- would you be interested in a trade, perhaps? Not sure what I've got you might find of interest, but I'd surely be interested in the Zeca...

Two things here. First, based on the demon.co.uk page linked above, I have the question of "why would you want one?" It sounds as if it wasn't a particularly good camera when new, certainly not in the same league as your Primo Jr. (aka Sawyers Mk. 4), which is possibly the best 127 TLR ever.

 

Second, if you do a current search on 127 film sources, you'll find them starting to list the color slide film as "out of stock" -- apparently the maker of the film has dropped the slide stock or stopped cutting it in 46 mm, so Maco is no longer able to load it in 127. The Efke 100 and Maco color print stock is still available, though how much longer the Maco print stock will be around is questionable (Maco films under their name seem to be vanishing).

 

These days, I wouldn't put money into a 127 camera with expectation of using it -- stick with 120 or 620 (at least respooling isn't difficult), unless you plan to slit 120 to 46 mm and cut down and renumber the backing to fit the 127 spools...

No, Andrea, what they do is send you another one -- the "handling charge" covers the actual cost of the new camera; all the rest of the retail is markups from half a dozen middlemen.

 

Now, look at the "handling charges" associated with warranty service for a few products, and marvel at how little it costs to make them compared with the cost to buy them... ;)

BTW, my recent measurements of box cameras suggests f/22 at 1/30 is closer to correct for their exposure setting. Use ISO 100 in sunshine, ISO 400 under cloudy skies or in deep shade.

"I have a Brownie Target Six-16 camera that I have never used. I guess, I need to get some 620 film."

 

Raid, 620 film is about a quarter inch too narrow for the Six-16 (which, unsurprisingly, is made for 616 film). I have one of these, converted to pinhole. I've made a simple adapter to hold the 120 in the supply side, a pair of 120 spool ends cut off to make up half the length each, with folded brass strips glued into the slots so they hold in the slots of the supply spool.

 

I'm reworking my adaptation of the takeup; I had cut the original 616 spool and installed it in a metal 120 spool with the center hole expanded, but this keeps me from reloading the camera until I get the film off the spool and into a tank. Next iteration will be to make adapter like those I use on the supply end, but make them from the 616 spool, so they'll correctly engage the 616 drive key. Then I'll be able to shoot 120 (6 shots per roll, at 2 1/2 frames per shot on the 6x4.5 track) in the Target Six-16 as much as I can afford...

Raid, for the cost of developing three rolls locally, you could set yourself up to develop your own. It's easy to do (I learned to do it at age nine and did it on my own without any adult assistance at 10), the equipment is being given away or can be found in dumpsters at times, chemicals are innocuous (some are REALLY innocuous -- coffee and washing soda makes a pretty fair developer, distilled vinegar can be diluted for stop bath, and plain hypo fixer is sold as a pool chemical), and it's cheap. I can develop 2 rolls of 120 for about a dollar, despite using distilled water for both mixing/diluting chemicals and washing the film.

 

Printing is a bit more involved, but if you can scan your negatives, you can burn the scans on a CD and take it to the local Costco or photo store and have them printed for well under 25 cents a print in snapshot size (or upload them and get the prints in the mail for half that price -- even from B&W), or print them yourself on an inkjet printer (though IMO B&W inkjet photoprinting isn't quite up to standards).

The CONCENTRATE keeps approximately forever, even in a partially full bottle. It's water, more than air, that kills this stuff, because the chemicals aren't ionized in the glycol carrier of the concentrate; if it's kept dry, it could literally last forever.

 

The *stock solution*, OTOH, has about a 3 month life in a full bottle, more like a month in a partly full bottle. I rarely use stock solution, only when I'd need to measure less than 1 ml of concentrate (for a tank I have that uses 2 ounces of working solution for a roll of Minolta 16 film).

 

Dilution B is 1+31 from concentrate -- originally, one ounce of syrup and water to make a quart.

FWIW, I recall 00 film as being similar to 828, but on a different spool; you might be able to reload the backing paper and spools you have with 35 mm in order to use that camera with modern film.

You'll probably be close enough by dividing the amount for a single 8x10 by 12 -- since a dozen frames of 6x6 cm fit neatly on an 8x10 for proofing. If you have volumes in milliliters when you're done, you'll need to test you dropper, since the number of drops in a milliliter varies some (typically between 10 and 30).

I'll second the statement that these are nice cameras. While you can still buy the batteries from Polaroid, it's also easy to rewire the camera to use 2 or 3 AAA cells in a holder (depending whether it's the 4.5 V #531 or 3 V #532 battery called for); if 3 V, the 2xAAA battery holder will even fit inside the original battery compartment, with a little care. You may find you *must* rewire it; if a battery was left in it for many years, it will probably have corroded away an inch or more of the black wire so that cleaning corrosion from the connectors and installing a fresh battery doesn't bring the camera back to life.<p>

 

It's also cheaper to rewire it than to buy a new 531 or 532 battery...<P>

 

The camera will use all 660 series Polaroid films; Type 669 is identical speed to the Type 108 that was the primary fodder for that camera when it was new, 40+ years ago; Type 667 (formerly Type 107) is the super-fast B&W film that will allow hand held photography indoors without flash, and you can also (if you choose) use Type 665 to obtain a reusable negative that can be enlarged like any other sheet film negative (though there's some additional process to preserving the negative).<p>

 

There's more information available about pack-film Polaroids <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~jrpalma/polaroid.html">here</a>.<div></div>

Here's a link to a "review" of the Cruiser 63 camera, written by "toy camera" "expert" Marcy Merrill.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.merrillphoto.com/Cruiser63.htm">Cruiser 63</a><p>

 

Marcy's sources are probably correct; it looks very similar to my Wirgin Auta 6.3, and if it is the same, it's worth loading and carrying. The beauty of an f/6.3 lens is that even though it's a cheap triplet, you can't open it up enough to see the really bad performance; it's permanently "stopped down" almost to the magical f/8.<p>

 

The shutter is extremely simple, but I haven't had to take mine apart; you should be able to get everything you need by removing the shutter from the front standard, unscrewing the rear element, removing any infinity stop screw and unscrewing the front and then the middle elements, and then simply soaking the shutter in a small container full of Ronsonol or similar "lighter fuel" (which is just naphtha). No lubrication is needed or wanted. Work the shutter a few times while it's in the solvent, then work it continuously as it dries, periodically opening and closing the aperture, holding the shutter open on B, and wiping the solvent off the aperture blades and shutter blades (VERY GENTLY) with a soft wad of facial tissue (the kind that comes on a roll works fine). Once the shutter and aperture blades no longer show any liquid when opened and closed, the shutter is dry enough to reassemble the glass and reinstall.<p>

 

The last thing you'll need to do is reset the focus -- the focus thread of the front element has, as I recall, four "starts"; that is, you can start it on the thread at four positions, 90 degrees apart. Only one of those positions will allow setting the infinity focus and getting all the bits and pieces back in their correct orientation, at least if you yours is like mine. You can test the focus with a ground glass in the film plane; I use a piece of stiff clear plastic cut to the width of 120 film, with frosted cellophane tape on one side, and hold it in the film plane with the frosted side toward the lens, then use a loupe or other small magnifier to check the focus of the image of an object at least a quarter mile away (a mile or more is much better). Once you get the focus correct with the lens at the right rotation for the bezel to fit back on and the infinity stop screw to match up with the distance pointer on the shutter, you're ready to load the camera and test it with film.<p>

 

Except that you should still put a strong light inside the bellows and look for pinholes -- mine had considerable wear on one corner where the folding waist level finder had contacted the leather a few thousand times in the past 55-60 years, and would fog the film in the gate if I opened the camera in a brightly lit environment. A little careful application of liquid electrical tape, followed by letting the bellows stand in the extended position for two weeks to dry completely, and I've gotten a lot of good images from mine...<div></div>

Best guess, based on the overall appearance of the camera and without any idea whether it's a rare collectible model, it's probably worth somewhere between ten cents and five dollars (likely the low part of that range).

 

Box cameras in nearly extinct film formats are a relatively low demand item; the only film I've seen available in 127 costs five dollars per roll (Efke 100 B&W, and Maco color, both ISO 100). The only novelty here is the half frame, which is relatively rare and makes for a very compact camera.

If you have a 127 spool with the camera, you could cut it in half and mount it into the ends of a 35 mm cassette spool, with centering to match whatever you can manage by shimming the 35 mm supply cassette in the other well (if in fact you can get a 35 mm casette into a 127 camera at all). Of course, you won't be able to rewind, so you'll need to unload in a darkroom, and you'll have to advance film by counting rotations of the advance knob.

 

You might also look at making the same modification to both supply and takeup wells and working from cassette to cassette; doing so would mean you'd only fog (at worst) the last image when unloading, and if you can bulk load without taping the film to the cassette spool (I've seen 35 mm cassettes with a slot in the spool), you might be able to wind the film completely into the takeup cassette, then turn things over and use the empty cassette to take up the next roll.

 

That would require making a removable adapter from the 127 spool, which isn't impossible at all; you need a fork that will engage the drive tabs inside the 35 mm cassette spool, which in turn will mount to the stub of the 127 spool, and the whole assembly (including shim on the other side) come out the correct length so the 127 spool's drive ratchet engages the camera's film advance.

 

This is actually of some practical value, given that there are some pretty good 127 cameras around, but 127 film is almost gone; the same modification on, say, a Sawyers Mark IV, would yield a very practical and high quality camera, quite different from the normal run of 35 mm.

Interesting comments about powder scales.

 

I might point out that if you have a powder scale that really does vary measurement by 0.15 g (which is about 2.25 gr), you'd have a scale that could produce a gun blowup when measuring very light charges of powder for some pretty standard loads -- one of the old standby combinations is 2.7 gr of a particular powder with a particular bullet, which (in a .38 Special case) is almost lost in the cavernous case volume.

 

For whatever it's worth, my Ohaus powder balance is one of the lower end ones with magnetic damping and agate bearings, single beam and a screw advanced weight for fractional grains. It has a maximum capacity of 500 grains, weighs to 0.1 gr (which is just over 6 milligrams) and has an adjustable zero; in my experience, swinging the balance and letting it redamp results in resettling in the same position, to an error of less than half the pointer width (a scribed line, at the end of the beam, less than 1 mm wide) -- corrsponding to a good bit less than .01 gr, or about 0.6 mg weighing error between measurements. In reloading, I've routinely been able to see the effect on the scale of trickling in a single granule of powder a little larger than a crystal of table salt.

 

I'd have to make four weighings for the sulfite to make up a liter of D-76, but damned if I can think of anything affordable that will weigh more precisely (repeatably) or accurately (correctly) than this little scale (which I bought, used, in 1981 for well under $20). An identical model is still available, BTW, with new price under $50.

Regina, if you want "great big shots" consider a 6x9 folder. It's got twice the image size of the 6x4.5, or close to 6 times the area of 35 mm, but the same aspect ratio as 35 mm (56x86 actual negative, usually). The cameras fold small enough to fit in a coat pocket, and with 8 shots on a roll of 120, you can change emulsions often enough to always have the right film for the light. And you can get a good 6x9 folder with coupled rangefinder for under a couple hundred dollars, which saves a lot of money for film...<div></div>

The most direct replacement I'm aware of for Tech Pan is Imagelink HQ. It's about the same speed, similarly fine (invisible) grain, and from the right sources can be had in 16 mm, 35 mm, and 4x5 (but not in 120). It doesn't have as much extended red sensitivity, but it has the same development characteristics -- it's a microfilm, which is essentially what Tech Pan was originally.

 

I've used it in Minolta 16 cameras, and it produces nice images, but the sample I have, on a thick base, is a pain to handle and roll into the Minolta cassettes. In 35 mm, it'd be quite nice; shoot at EI 25 or so.

 

Copex Rapid is also nice, though perhaps a little less tonally rich than Imagelink HQ; OTOH, it's about a stop faster. It's also available in 16 mm and 35 mm, if you can find a vendor who'll sell less than a case of 20 rolls, 100 feet long. With the right developer, it can get to EI 80, and EI 50 is routine.

I drilled a 1/8" hole in the tin lid with a conventional twist drill (though I held it in a pin vise and turned it by hand to avoid tearing up the lid with my drill press). I then mounted a pinhole made in .001" brass shim stock on the inside of the lid. With a 115-120 degree field of view, the thinner the pinhole, the better.

 

Larry, what'd I call you crazy over? You don't need a laser drill, just get a sewing needle, some 1200 grit sandpaper or a very fine grained whetstone, and some brass shim stock. I can make a pinhole as good as anything Lenox Laser sells, and do it in about 15 minutes if I don't overshoot the size. I've made them in sizes from .006" up to .020" and could go larger with ease; smaller is less easy, but the .006" is just right for a 16 mm projection distance, which is pretty darned short...

Maco IR820c is available in 120 if you can find it (J&C Photo has it, last time I checked), and will soon be available rebranded (and at 3x the price) by Rollei (but sold in those nice wooden boxes). I don't know if the IR820/400 has become available in 120 yet, and the 70 mm aerial HIE that was being recut and loaded as 120 by a private party has been discontinued, so that film will be gone soon (if it's not already).

 

You can get Wood effect (the bright foliage seen in IR photos) with Classic 200 and Classic 400, available cheaply from J&C Photo, just by using a suitable filter, but the film is very, very slow through the #89A filter needed to see the effect (I mean *really* slow -- EI below 10!).

 

The question in my mind is whether the plastic body of the Lubitel is IR opaque, or will your film get fogged just by carrying the camera around in the sunshine? And I don't know, nor do I know a way to test short of buying a roll of IR820c and loading it up. This isn't known to be a problem with "extended red" films like Classic 200 and Classic 400, though; they don't have actual IR senstivity, just deep enough red to show Wood effect if you have a filter that blocks all other light.

All inch size sheet films are a millimeter or two under nominal size because the original size was for glass plates; when sheet film came along, it was made to fit in a film sheath that would load in place of a plate and in order not to bind in the sheath, the film had to be a little under size. The same is true of centimeter size sheet film -- the 9x12 cm that I use frequently is actually 88 mm wide, and 118 mm long (except the Tri-X 320, which is 119 mm long).

 

What this means is that 5x7 film, at just under 5 inches by 7 inches, is about an eighth inch narrower than 13x18 cm, which is significantly over 5 inches wide. In practice, I'm told 13x18 film will fit in *some* 5x7 film holders, but that 5x7 film will fall out of the slots and cause trouble if used in 13x18 cm holders.

 

As noted above, the holders have the same outside dimension and will fit the same cameras, but the film is not quite interchangeable. What you'll need to do when/if you move to Poland is buy some 13x18 holders for the 13x18 film you'll be able to buy there.

Yep, Lance, that's where the name "Pintoid" comes from, AFAIK.

 

Yes, the Altoids fruit sours are very good, but I haven't yet figured a way to mount film in the tin.

 

BTW, the Altoids mint tins are *exactly* the correct size for 2x3 inch sheet film, I'm told -- no cutting 120 strips in the dark!

 

Hmmm. A pinhole XPan -- I don't think the Xpan has a 115 degree FOV, does it? That'd be about a 15 mm lens (it's 24x60 mm, right?). And mine is about $2000 cheaper... :)

I'll second both previous answers -- freezing is bad for all Polaroid instant films, and the battery is probably no good in 9 year old film regardless of storage.

And a picture of the cameras, final verion.<div></div>

Last one...<div></div>

And another...<div></div>

Another result...<div></div>