stephen_haynes

You got it for a fiver? I paid 15 for mine and thought that was a bargain.

Now that I'm at home, I can give you chapter and verse. The instructions for

the Nettar 515/2 (a 6 x 9 model) say:

'The two dot system on aperture scale and distance ring makes camera ready

for snapshots within a depth of focus ranging from about 12 feet to infinity; set

shutter at 1/25 second.'

The Focal Press Guide to the Ikonta and Super Ikonta (1952) gives similar

information, but without mentioning the shutter speed. So, yes: the red dot

stands for the hyperfocal distance.

My folding cameras by Zeiss, Agfa and Ross Ensign all have the red dots, but

I've not seen it on TLRs except for the Ikoflex.

Have fun!

According to some Zeiss Ikon leaflets that I have (for Nettars and

Ikontas rather than Ikoflexes), the red dots indicate 'snapshot'

settings for use in average conditions with a shutter speed of

1/25. Unfortunately, they don't say what film speeds they have in

mind, but presumably on the slow side by modern standards.

I have what I think is the 1939 version of the Ikoflex I, with

uncoated 75/3.5 Novar. Picture quality is pleasantly soft, in terms

of both resolution and contrast, giving a nice 'period' quality. Your

Tessar should be sharper.

On most folding cameras you can override the interlock by manually pressing

the little trigger at the side of the shutter housing (at the 7 o'clock position as

you look at the camera from the front). If your camera has a cable-release

socket on the shutter housing, rather than on the camera body, this will also

override the interlock. This doesn't actually solve your problem, of course, but

should enable you to carry on using the camera until you can get it fixed.

The interlock simply prevents the body release button from being pressed - it

doesn't do anything to the shutter itself, and I expect the camera would work

OK without it.

John

Sorry if I seemed to doubt you. The lens does indeed pull out - I just hadn't

realized how hard you have to pull!

Thanks for your comments.

As for being able to afford film, it came with an unused roll of Verichrome Pan

inside it, on which I took some quite presentable pictures.

If it really is simple, perhaps I should try looking inside. There really isn't any

part of the lens that can be pushed or pulled - could there be something

missing, or was this feature not present on all models? I will have to find

another one to compare.

I must admit that I bought this camera purely for its wonderful shape - like a

bathyscaphe or something from a Dan Dare cartoon. The fact that it works,

and takes very characterful pictures, is a bonus.

The shutter on my Ensign Ful-Vue (early postwar model with exotic body

shape and fixed focus) does not always close properly: it stays partly open

until I let the shutter release lever back up. Is there a simple cure, or should I

just leave it as it is and save myself the expense of buying a Holga?

I don't know why, but they certainly can get out of adjustment - my Rolleiflex T was miles out

when I bought it - but it's a straightforward job for a competent repairer, and well worth doing.

The distance scale on the focus knob is rarely accurate and I wouldn't rely on it - this is a reflex

camera, after all! Get it fixed and enjoy it.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with the Xenar lens. Looking at one of my negs under the

loupe, I can just make out the words INLAND REVENUE on a sign which is exactly 1mm long.

I'm an admirer of the Autocord too, but in the few months that I've had it my beaten-up

Rolleicord Va has proved to be more reliable mechanically than my near-immaculate Autocord.

Thanks for these suggestions. I do do my own b&w processing,

but by hand, using a plastic spiral, and the problem is definitely

peculiar to this one camera. In fact I've only noticed it on HP5, but

that's probably just because the scratches show up more clearly

on the transparent base than on the black edges of transparency

film.

My Autocord sometimes leaves an unsightly pattern of short

lengthwise scratches on the emulsion side of the film. I think the

most likely culprit is the roller at the lower end of the film gate,

which does not rotate freely - I would guess the scratches occur

when it sticks and the film gets dragged across the surface of

the roller. Any suggestions, please?

The roller is not tight on its bearings - in fact there is quite a lot of

play - but it just doesn't turn, more often than not, when you run a

film or a finger over it. The upper roller is of a different design

and turns freely at all times.

It looks as though the roller and its bearings could easily be

removed from the camera as a unit, but I can see no obvious

way of adjusting the fit of the roller on its bearings, or of

lubricating it without contaminating the film.

My Super Ikonta IV has no red in its window either, and no sign

that anything is missing. It's not like a normal ruby window - just

a small bullseye, not even big enough to read the numbers

through. Unfortunately I can't say how well the film transport

works because it sticks after no. 3, but I paid so little for the

camera that I may be able to afford to get it fixed...

The Super Ikonta BX is the one to drool over - the IV looks and

feels rather ordinary by comparison.

Jorn Ake is mistaken about the Rolleiflex T: it has a 2.8 viewing

lens, but 3.5 taking lens. From my limited experience:

Rolleiflex T with 3.5 Tessar is a particularly stylish camera,

though mine is a little past its peak. I find the colour rendition on

mine (normally using Astia) especially pleasant. Ingenious EV

linkage allows both aperture and shutter speed to be set with

one lever - I like this, others don't. The one thing I dislike is the

sideways-facing shutter release, which makes it difficult to avoid

jogging the camera. It has no double-exposure facility. It doesn't

take a standard neck strap, and the dedicated ones are hard to

find.

Rolleicord Va with Xenar is my favourite camera - though the Vb,

with improved focusing hood (as Rolleiflex T), would no doubt be

even better. Lens is extremely sharp, but also gives lovely

Impressionistic effects in out-of-focus areas. I much prefer the

knob wind to the lever wind (which tends to rock the camera

about as you turn it), and the shutter release is exceptionally

gentle. You have to cock the shutter before firing it.

Minolta Autocord with 3.5 Rokkor (1961/2 model without meter)

takes brilliant pictures, with exceptionally saturated colours - you

won't need to use Velvia with this camera. I find this the easiest

of all to focus. Film advance seems fragile, though: mine was

serviced last year after seizing up completely, and is already

starting to misbehave again. Unlike Rolleis, it does not have the

parallax mask under the focusing screen; I have never felt the

lack of this.

All these cameras have very similar specifications - 3.5 lenses,

shutter speeds 1-500, nice bright plastic focusing screens - and

all take the same bay 1 (= bay 30) lens accessories. However,

the first version of the Va has a different screen.

All Rolleis have a notoriously thin back and base which can

easily be distorted - my Va was bent and straightened by a

previous owner, but focus seems to be unaffected. Autocords

appear to be more robust in this respect.

The only Ikoflex I have tried is a prewar model - I think it is the

1939 version of the Ikoflex I - with uncoated 3.5 Novar and

red-window film advance. Not bad, but no substitute for a Rollei

or an Autocord.

This happens to me only when using Ilford film, and is probably

unavoidable. Rolleis have a slightly larger image size (57mm

square) than many other 6 x 6 cameras, and the Ilford marginal

printing is unnecessarily large.

A more serious problem is that Ilford attach their paper sealing

strip the wrong way round, so it can easily be torn off by the

camera's pressure plate. Keep some sticky labels in your pocket

for when this happens.

I'm very fond of Ilford film, by the way. These quirks only add to its

character, I'm sure.

Because it's a compromise?

I've never heard of it either. At a meeting the other day in

London's Art Workers' Guild, I noticed that many of the portraits

on the walls (1880s-1950s) seem to be in a 6:7 proportion -

neither square nor decidedly rectangular.

21/0 does not mean 21 pounds no shillings! It means 21

shillings no pence (also written 21s 0d). Pounds are always

written with the pound sign, a curly L with a stroke through it. 21

shillings = one pound one shilling = one guinea. A shilling was

also known as a bob. 2 shillings and sixpence (2/6 or 2s 6d) =

half a crown. A 2-shilling coin was a florin, and a sixpenny coin

(half a shilling) was a tanner. A 3d coin was a thruppeny bit. Half

a penny was a halfpenny, pronounced 'hape-nee'. Ah, it takes me

back... The changeover was around 1972, so you have to be

40ish to remember it. Oh, and the slang word for 5s was a

dollar!

Unlike most Rolleiflexes, it will take a standard modern strap -

though I've never fitted one to mine, because I use it in its case

which has a strap riveted on.

It will take bay 1 filters, lens hoods and close-up lenses. The

Rollei hinged lens caps do not fit, but the one-piece plastic ones

do.

It doesn't need a tripod adapter, and will not fit the Rolleifix

adapter. The base of the camera seems to be sturdier than the

Rolleis, which are notoriously easy to bend when they are

mounted on a tripod without an adapter. It takes a standard

modern cable release.

Some features of the Autocord (focus lever, film advance handle)

are a bit on the flimsy side, but use it with care and you will have

an awesomely good camera.

I am in the same situation: I have woodworking skills and have

thought about making a camera but not done anything about it

yet.

I have a Dallmeyer lens, c.1865, with rack-and-pinion focusing,

so the logical choice for me would be to build something to fit

this. I have seen pictures of lenses of this kind mounted on

sliding-box cameras, and it seems to me that one of these

would be a much simpler project than a field camera, since no

leather-working skills would be needed - possibly no metal parts

either. A simple prototype could be made from nothing more

sophisticated than MDF.

In a book by Andreas Feininger (which has an English title -

something like 'Photographs 1928-1988' - though the text is in

German) there is a picture of a telephoto camera which he made

for himself in the 30s, on exactly these lines. He used it to take

long-range pictures of shipping in the harbour when he lived in

Stockholm just before the war. (Of course, a few years later and

he could probably have been shot for taking pictures of

shipping.)

Thanks for these suggestions. Mike: do you mean the sort of

thing that's used as a bathroom sealant? And would this be any

good for pinholes in bellows as well?

It's a metal-bodied camera (Ensign Selfix 16-20, a British-made

645 folder from the 1950s). What I'm concerned about is the

adhesive reacting with the red material, which I take it is a plastic

of some kind.

I have a camera whose ruby window is loose and keeps slipping

out of position. What's the safest way to reattach it? I am

concerned that some adhesives might attack the celluloid or

whatever it's made of.

My Russian is rusty and I don't have a Russian dictionary to

hand, but the 3 Russian words are:

(left) tsvetnaya (colour);

(below) pankhrom (self-explanatory);

(right) izopankh[rom], which I'm fairly sure means

'non-panchromatic', i.e. ortho.

Western cameras of this vintage also have reminder dials

divided into ortho, pan and colour (and sometimes also daylight

and indoor colour).

Lynn Loeffel (Nov. 14): I love the idea of a camera that knows

whether it works or not. I have one that knows it could if it really

wanted to.

As a book editor I suppose I am abnormally sensitive to this sort

of thing, but it can be a great source of harmless amusement.

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. I use the same (Rollei)

lens hood and the same (Rolleinar) close-up lenses on my

Rolleis and on my Autocord, but the hinged metal lens caps for

the Rolleiflex T and Autocord are not interchangeable - there

must be a fractional difference in the distance between the

lenses. I suspect the push-on plastic caps would fit, because

they are slightly flexible, but I can't check this because my

Autocord is at the menders'.

I have only recently started using Ilford film in 120, and I have this

problem all the time. The strip is attached the wrong way round,

so it faces forward as the roll goes through the camera, and is

therefore torn off by the pressure plate. All my cameras do this,

nearly every time. I live in the UK - perhaps they make them

differently for export markets?

Many thanks for all this helpful advice. I am struck by the fact that the answers

are so polarized between those who have never heard of such a thing and

those who've encountered it more than once. I do hope I can get it fixed

without having to send it overseas or attempt to do it myself (I have no

previous experience).

It does seem likely to me that the problem is with the clutch mechanism, as

Rick describes. What usually seems to happen is that the film starts to move,

but the mechanism 'lets go' before it has travelled the full distance. On the 1N,

before it was serviced for the second time, the lever sometimes went all the

way across without any resistance, as if it was not engaging the mechanism at

all.

Since the repairs to these cameras are still under guarantee, I will refer the 2N

back to the same firm (which actually has a very good reputation amongst

local professionals - perhaps I just caught them on an off day) with the

suggestion that they look particularly at the clutch mechanism.

I agree that the 1N is a very pleasant camera to use, and I'm certainly not

ready to give up on it. The one advantage of the 2N is the dedicated flash,

which in the event I rarely use. The 3 and 4 are out of my price range at

present, though the 4 seems to be getting cheaper by the week. It's not that I

worship old cameras, but I have a preference for reasonably simple ones, and

I can do without the distraction of fairy lights in the viewfinder.

Since I've not had these cameras very long (the 2N for 2 years, the 1N for a

few months), I can't say what wear and tear they received from previous

owners - only that they have no visible signs of abuse.

I'm sorry you had no luck with your TLR, Frank - I'm having such fun with mine

that I'm fighting the temptation to buy another one - but of course they can't do

everything that an OM can do.