felix_ackermann

<p>AMAZING!<br>

Thank you very much! For quite some time I have tried in vain to find this somewhat weird shape...<br>

I checked the models you indicated, and I'm quite sure it is the SL35E (rounded sides).<br>

You helped me a lot!<br>

When the enterprise was closed down in april 2011 there were enormous numbers of samples around - the collection assembled for the museum with permission of the president for the board is only a small selection. Lots were melted down, hundreds of tons of tools and die cast forms were sold as scrap metal, but I suspect that many employees or others picked out some souvenirs that could enter the market sooner or later...</p>

<p>WOW! Thank you very much - I checked the pictures, and it is really quite evident that it is the body of a Ikoflex IIa!<br>

(I feel ashamed because I thought that I had ruled out the Zeiss models..., but I overlooked the IIa...)<br>

The identification and the link with the dates show that I was wrong with the assumptions "american" and "not later than the 40ies"...</p>

<p>on commission of the museum of the canton of Aargau, Switzerland, I assembled a collection of samples from the closed down die cast enterprise Injecta AG (Teufenthal), and actually I work on the documentation.<br>

There is a sample of a body of a twin lens reflex I wasn't able to identify.<br>

From the place I found it I suspect it wasn't cast by Injecta, but was a study object. It is probably not later than the 1940ies, and it could be an american cast; in the same place there were samples from american die cast enterprises (Doehler / Jarvis), and therefor it may be an american product (there is no manufacturer sign)...<br>

Any hint will be highly appreciated!</p><div></div>

<p>on commission of the museum of the canton of Aargau, Switzerland, I assembled a collection of samples from the closed down die cast enterprise Injecta AG (Teufenthal), and actually I work on the documentation.<br>

They worked a lot for the photo industry; they cast the Hasselblad-body from 1980-2008 (for this body we even have the cast form!), the bodys for the Leicas M4-M6 and R4-R8, and we also have a sample of the body for the Alpa 10.<br>

And there is a tool for a body I wasn't able to identify (see snapshot). Any hint will be higly appreciated!</p><div></div>

<p>I forgot: Image copyright: Museum Aargau, photographer Felix Ackermann</p>

<p>this is very much off topic, but perhaps of interest for Hasselblad enthusiasts.<br>

the Hasselblad body was cast by the Swiss enterprise Injecta (Teufenthal, canton of Aargau), specialized for high precision work. Unfortunately the economic situation forced this enterprise to cease its activity. The museum of the canton of Aargau is documenting samples of the wide activity of this enterprise.<br>

An important object, which will be transferred to the museum deposit, is the form, in which the Hasselblad body was cast. It is a highly complicated monster of steel, weight 1,5 tons...<br>

Here you have a snapshot:</p><div></div>

<p>@Rodeo Joe:<br>

I have a tripod that i can extend with Foba Tubes - and I often use this feature and a ladder, especially to get cars out of the way...<br>

Sometimes you are forced to shoot at close distances, and beside the shifting tilts have also to be used. I might be wrong, but I simply cannot imagine how to get a building in very narrow context on a photograph that has no artistic, but documentary purposes like the following, randomly picked example of a shot with the 47 SA XL on 6x9 with shift and tilt. It was an awful situation - there was only one position and one distance to get the whole complex on the picture.</p><div></div>

<p>@Zenza Bronica:<br>

i shoot mainly on 6x9; only in rare occasions (interiors) i use also 4x5 inch.<br>

For the 47 SA XL it is very important that back an front standarts are precisely aligned. I have never worked with a Sinar F, but the Norma can be finetuned, but a professional is required...<br>

With my standard ground glass and fresnel setting up the camera with this lens is a big itch, and for focussing i have to remove the fresnel and use a loupe. It is hard to see the margins. That's why i know i have to spend some money and send a dedicated back to Bill Maxwell to install his wide angle groundglass.</p>

<p>my main field in photography is architecture. My main instrument is my Sinar Norma. And I still cannot imagine that the work I do could also be done digitally. It's not just the movements, but also the extreme wide angles, that just don't work digitally. What I can do with my Schneider Super Angulon XL 47 mm is just amazing.<br>

Of course I deliver my work also digitally. For me the format roll film 6x9 with the scanner Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is just perfect.</p>

<p>another suggestion:<br>

<strong>Sinar Norma</strong><br>

more compact and sturdier than Sinar F, fully compatible with all actual Sinar parts</p>

<p>all this is a subject that was extensively discussed in the literature on photography...<br>

for me architectural photography of quality has vertical verticals. Especially using wide angles working with a monorail camera with all movements can make the critical difference compared with photographs taken with a digital camera. As Rod wrote: every day we see crappy photographs - so a carefully taken picture with a lf camera can pop out.<br>

In my work I am often in the situation that I have to use my shortest lens (Schneider SA 47 XL) to get all I have to on 6x9 (and sometimes even 4x5). And very rarely I have the impression that the result is a 'unnatural'. Sometimes 'unnatural' perspectives can result from the fact, that the camera position is very close to one angle of a whole complex, that has to figure on the picture. But for these cases we can work with horizontal tilts to get better proportions.</p>

<p>just a few remarks from practice...<br>

I would strongly advise against a dedicated wide angle camera - except you're in the position that it is irrelevant how much money you spend. You could be annoyingly limited. Part of my living is photography - architecture and objects. And very often the specific needs also in the field of architecture require normal to long lenses!<br>

I might be a nostalgic and very attached to my camera - but for my needs with often difficult situations my Sinar Norma meets all my requests. I use a wide range of lenses, from the Schneider Super Angulon 47 mm XL up to the Apo Ronar 600 mm. My main format is 6x9 mm.<br>

If I would just carry around the camera with 1-2 wide angles, without the Sinar shutter, lens shade, one magazine, light meter it would indeed be a 'lightweight' solution.</p>

<p>I am a passionate Sinar Norma user and had the luck, that my teacher in matters of photography gave me his fine equipment 4x5/5x7/8x10 inch as a gift, that I extended mainly in the area of the shorter lenses, from 75 mm down to 47.<br>

My field of activity is mainly architecture, objects, repros 'on site', and I can think of no better camera for this purpose.<br>

The sum you give sounds good, but if you got no other equipment - especially lenses - you have to consider also the investments you have to make to get all you need for your purposes.<br>

Please check if the focussing of the front- and rear standarts are of the newer type that can be fixed. I would strongly advise not to buy the older type. If you need to see the difference I could poste snapshots of both (I have a spare standart of the old type here).<br>

Also check if the bellows are good. Is there a bag bellow as well as a normal one? Is there an auxiliary standart?<br>

I would hesitate to use my Apo Ronars as all purpose lenses - I use them for repro work, for which they were designed (except for the ones with very long focal length). If you need a few lenses (wide angles, symmar / symmar-s ...) the Sinar shutter behind the lens is a huge advantage economically - is the shutter included?</p>

<p>I would back up the advice of the 360 mm focal length. For "object"-photography longer extensions are less comfortable to handle. A nice lens is the Schneider Symmar 360 mm, that offers considerable movements (I suppose tilts could be useful in your case). I bought a very nice Symmar 360 a few years ago on ebay for 120 Euro.</p>

<p>I bought four 6x9 roll film holders on ebay during the last years; two Cambos and two Sinars (Price: the Cambos 80-90 Euro, the Sinars 100 and 120 Euro). I sorted one of the Cambos out, because I had the impression that the pictures were not perfectly sharp on the small sides. The other Cambo and the Sinars work perfectly. I chose 6x9 because this is the largest format I can scan with my Nikon 9000ED. I can slide them into the Graflock type back of my Sinar Norma, and mostly I carry around also some loaded 4x5 inch film holders around for special situations.<br />Both types are very easy to use. I had never overlapping pictures with the good Cambo (the spacing is indeed uneaven, but that doesn't bother me).</p>

<p>and here a detail:</p><div></div>

<p>I have a Apo-Ronar 600 mm, in which I have replaced the rear element with an element of another Apo Ronar. I use it only occasionally, but I have the impression that it is perfectly sharp (or at least sharp enough for my needs). So I suspect that this operation might work also with another focal length.<br>

Here is an example of a picture I took with it on 6x9 cm Ektachrome (scanned with the Nikon 9000ED).</p><div></div>

I am very lucky that I have nearby a lab that runs E6 and C41 several times a workday, in Basel, Switzerland. (www.chromobyte.ch)

 

 

I very much hope they have enough clients to survive in the future. Recently I had to have processed some shots in another part of Switzerland, and I just found a lab that runs two times a week E6 and two times C41...

Some time ago Bill Maxwell sent me informations about his focussing screens: concerning the wide angle version he writes: "It will not work with lenses longer than about 120mm" This means an additional back just for this screen is needed.

 

 

I am considering ordering both the wide angle version (especially for the SA 47 XL) and the all purpose screen. I'd be glad sharing my experiences when the time comes....

 

 

For 65 mm lenses I suspect the all purpose screen might work...

 

@Ivan: As your experiences show that you will use the 65 mm lens often in the future, you might consider buying the 5.6 version, that offers considerably more movement - and a brighter focussing screen... Just for the SA 65 5.6 I probabably woudn't have considered the Maxwell screen - the fresnel does the job.

<p>@Michael:<br /> Compress the bellows on a Sinar???<br /> with a 65 SA on flat lensboard you use the bag bellows of course!<br>

(as I photograph mainly architecture I have the bag bellows on up to 150 mm)</p>

no, you don't need a recessed lensboard for the SA 65 mm, just a flat one. That gives you all possibilities for movements. But you cannot use the Sinar shutter behind the lens! If you want to use the Sinar shutter with the 90 mm SA you need an elevated lensboard.

<p>I only can backup the other statements: the main question is how wide you have to get for your purposes to choose the right lens. And: you'll have some problems with your budget.</p>

<p>My main field in matters of photography is architecture, on commission and for projects of my own, interiors and exteriors. I mainly shoot 6x9 roll film. My shortest lens is the Super Angulon47 mm XL, and I need it quite often, and often with heavy shifting. I just couldn't do my work (sometimes houses in narrow streets...) without, and sometimes (small interiours) 6x9 is too small and I have to shoot on 4x5 inch to use the immense image circle to its maximum. For many critical situations the 65 mm SA is not wide enough. BUT: the 47 SA XL ist far more expensive than the 65. You could begin with the 65 mm. But if you are seriously working in the field of Architecture (narrow situations, small interiours) you shold choose a monorail camera that can also take a wider lens in the future.</p>

<p>My camera is a Sinar Norma, very nice to handle on site and not too expensive to get these days. It works perfectly with the 47 SA (recessed lensboard). For the 47 and the 65 wide angles I have to remove the Sinar shutter and reinstall it for 75 mm onwards, but with some practice this isn't really an inconveniance.</p>

all this sounds like a bad joke.

 

I think the main reason for folks like us to install Vista64 is to get finally enough memory for graphik work.

 

And I cannot run my 9000ED under Vista64!

I think that you can NEVER buy a case that is perfect for your needs. And the perfect solution requires good planning.

 

I built my own case for a Sinar Norma 4x5 inch, 5-6 lenses, 10 film holders, 2 Cambo film holders for roll film 6x9 cm, Polaroid back and film box, camera on standard rail + 3 different extension rails, 3 normal bellows, 1 bag bellow ans LOTS of other accessories. I never have to worry again that I take everything with me! I worked with it intensely and I am perfectly glad about it. The only "problem" is that I usually need much more than just 5 lenses, so I normally take with me a seperate case with additional lenses.

 

My teacher in matters of photography, a highly distinguished professional in retirement, is in fact the one who made the essential "inventions". We worked on the design and the prototype for 3 days...

 

BUT it is a heavy peace of luggage, and I doubt that I could carry it too far from my car... Not the perfect backpack design though...

 

But if you are interested in an all purpose solution I could post pictures and design details...

I would like to join a question here:

 

Are there solid cross levels that could be adjusted to Sinar Norma Backs for 5x7 and 8x10 inch? My Norma 4x5 inch is complete, and I have two spare levels. But there are damaged ones on the two larger backs. I could get replacements from Sinar, but they are obscenely, ridicously overpriced. So I consider good, solid cross levels, that a ingenious fine mechanic could install for me.

 

Any hint for a good product will be highly appreciated!