adrian_seward

They are great cameras. I particularly like mine for low light. If I got a free one I think I

would try to get it fixed... but then I already know that I like to use it. You have to decide

if you would get any use out of it. I don't use mine for everything, but for certain things

there is no substitute.

Hmm. I'm not surprised to hear that the film has a hard time turning the counter reliably.

I would imagine that it requires a good deal of tension on the supply reel to keep enough

pressure on the roller.

I was trying to figure out how many turns per frame too, so I'm inclined to just go with

your table. I am a little confused how you get nine frames though. Shouldn't it be 8

frames for 6x9? Or 10 for 6x7? Or am I missing something?

Thanks!

It's possible that the self-timer is jammed. As a LAST RESORT, you can hold the shutter

button and force the timer lever. In all likelihood you will then learn that your sutter is

jammed. Jammed shutters are very, very common on these cameras. I had one with an

iffy shutter... It was jamming more and more often. Then one day I bumped the timer and

that was the end. It never fired again.

The bad news is that a repair is over $100, ie more than a working camera. The good

news is that after repairs you would have a camera that you could count on to keep

working. I wouldn't count on any Canonet that hasn't been repaired to keep working. I

have one that seems just great, but if it started jamming up one day I wouldn't be

surprised. I was at a camera shop that literally had a whole case full of them. When I

asked they said none of them fired.

It's such a great little camera that I would send it out for repair. The first one I had was

cheap enough that I thought I would try to fix it myself, and I can tell you you don't want

that. There are some common repairs you can do yourself, like if it winds without

stopping. The shutter is really tough, though. You need special tools to get to it and even

if you have them it is not easy.

I re-read your message and I should clarify: the rental price is not outrageous, but over a

long rental period it just seems better to buy. Also, I see that you were wondering about

the purchase price of a similar camera. You can go to www.bhphoto.com to get an idea.

New large format cameras _can_ be breathtakingly expensive, depending what you are

looking at.

Perhaps more to the point, lenses are very expensive. You can find some good prices on

used lenses, but if you are looking for a bargain set-up, it's entirely likely that you will end

up paying more for the lens than for the camera. If you are willing to accept a less-than-

pristine lens, it can be worth it. It takes more than you might think to ruin a lens. I have

some lenses that make me wince when I take a close look, yet they are not the limiting

factor in the quality of my photos.

Fianlly, some pros use these cameras, but not as many as in the past. The quality of

smaller formats and the ability to digitally alter photos has made them partially obsolete.

Still there are some things these cameras can do that nothing else can, so they are

certainly still used. I think every photographer should learn to use them. Your son will

learn so much from the experience. It is very different from any other kind of camera.

You probably don't need the latest and greatest. Newer camera are a bit lighter, more

convenient, etc., but really this is some low-tech stuff. I would bet an old Calumet

CC400 4x5 like I have would do fine. I got mine with a lens for about $250 on ebay. Ebay

is a gamble, so if you want a guarantee look at KEH. They have good prices, items are

generally better than described, and if you don't like it you can send it back.

The Camera Shop in Bryn Mawr is generally NOT cheap. (I live in Lansdowne...) Also,

buying new

you will never recover what you paid. Buying one of these used you can pretty much count

on selling it for what you paid if you stop using it. Like I said, this technology doesn't

change that much, so there not much advantage to having the latest and greatest like with

digital or 35mm.

If he wants to take a look at the calumet email me. It's the most common cheap 4x5 and if

it's suitable, it will be easy to find one.

Ok.... I'm figuring it out now. The roller was not removable. The bracket on that end was

cut away and repplaced with a little aluminum one. (Pretty nice job.) The new bracket did

not leave enough room for the pawl to spin around so it was cut off. Damn. I didn't

realize until I tried to make a new roller. That was fairly successful but I found that I

couldn't make a long enough pawl. Now I see why.

Right, mine was missing the pawl that pushes on the long rod. Or I assumed that it was.

There was no trace of one. I hoped to drill out the end of the roller, put a screw in and cut

away the head of the screw to make a pawl. I can't seem to drill ir though. The roller

seems to be aluminum, but the pawl must have been some very hard steel. I'm not sure

how the pawl part was held into the roller. It seems like the roller and the small bracket

that held the end with the pawl must have been a permanent assembly. I couldn't unscrew

the remnant. (It occurs to me now, far too late, that it would have had to have been a left

hand thread screw... I wonder if that was it.)

Unfortunately, very specific. The roller not only turns the film around it also increments

the exposure # dial. The problem with mine is that it's missing the foot that I assume

should be there to push on the linkage for the exposure dial. I figured I could make

something if I could drill into it to attach the new foot, but no luck.

I'm thinking now I might be able to make something from scratch if I can't find one.... But

I'm still looking.

Does anyone have any or know where to find them? I'm looking for the roller for a 620

adapt-a-roll-- it's the roller where the film bends before it goes throught the gate for

exposure.

Thanks!

Adrian

Mine is not even marked Agfa. It is a Ventura 69 deluxe. It was made in occupied

germany, and that's what made me curious. The solinae lens is #414366. The conpur

rapid shutter is 6648925.

Really, though I just wondered whether there was a resource for this. "the book" is a great

resource for graflex, but it's frustrating that it's secret.

I'm enjoying the Agfa that I found recently and wondering whether anyone knows how to

date them. Mine has a serial number on the lens, but not on the camera.

Anything like CAMEROSITY? Or "the book" with graflex?

I did tell the people who were at the store, but it's one of those stores where dozens of

different sellers rent space. It sounds like the guy who has the camera is rarely if ever

there.

About this time last year, I started itching to do larger format again. Coincidentally, I

spotted a crown graphic in an antique store. I was in fine shape. The rangefinder was

bright, the shutter worked on all speeds and it was only moderately dusty. The leather

was fine, and it came with a case full of accessories, although they were mostly no good.

It was $225, and at the time I didn't know that that was a reasonable price. The seller was

not there and the people at the register assured me he would not reduce the price. (For

$200 I would have taken it.) So I started watching ebay and eventually got myself a rather

nice one for $107. I was happy. I love to shoot with it.

I never quite forgot the one at the antique store. Yesterday I was back there, and there it

was. I had visions of giving it a good home... and then I opened it up. Someone had

stolen the lens, complete with shutter and lensboard. Also, someone had obviously not

known how to open it and pried it open. The trim that says "GRAFLEX" was broken off and

in little pieces in the bottom of the case. The leather around the top of the front was

rather mangled from prying. And it was still $225.

It such a shame. I wish I had bought it in the first place now. I could have given it a good

home and put it to use.

Well, I got it. I had been warming it in the oven and soaking in alcohol. The alcohol was

turning green so I thought I was getting somewhere, but it still would not budge. Finally I

saw a page that said to use pliers on it. I hoped that would be unneccesary, but once I

saw that it might be required, I gave in. I did damage the front cell threads a little, but it

all went back together nicely. It's too bad that the rear lens cell is scratched, but I think it

will still take nice pictures as long as the sun isn't right in the frame.

For $30, I'm very happy with it.

Thanks for all your help. Now if you really want a tale of heartbreak, read my next post

about the crown graphic.

Well, I got it. I had been warming it in the oven and soaking in alcohol. The alcohol was

turning green so I thought I was getting somewhere, but it still would not budge. Finally I

saw a page that said to use pliers on it. I hoped that would be unneccesary, but once I

saw that it might be required, I gave in. I did damage the front cell threads a little, but it

all went back together nicely. It's too bad that the rear lens cell is scratched, but I think it

will still take nice pictures as long as the sun isn't right in the frame.

For $30, I'm very happy with it.

Thanks for all your help. Now if you really want a tale of heartbreak, read my next post

about the crown graphic.

Hmm.

It is green goo. And I can't find any way to budge it. Unfortunately, someone did get as

far as taking the lens apart and giving it a nice "cleaning". The inside of the rear cell is

covered in scratches. It's too bad. The overall condition is very good. The shutter even

seems good.

I found a great little camera today. It's a ventura 69. It's a 6x9 folder with a compur-rapid

shutter that goes all the way from B to 400. Full range of f-stops too. It says "made in

germany- US zone. " The lens looks to be 4 elements, and it says Solinar.

So here's the problem. When I found it I thought there was something wrong with the

focusing. It has scale focusing, but when you turn the ring it just slips around and doesn't

seem to do anything. I got it home and started to investigate and it looks to me as if when

you turn the ring it should turn the front element. It looks as though the helical holds the

front element. It also looks as though someone glued it together, and I can't see any way

to break it loose. Why would someone do that? Am I right about the front element doing

the focusing? Does that work?

What could I do with this thing? Has anyone else encountered one? I'd love to be able to

use it, and it would be nice to be able to change the focus.

You can use the same, but...

There are a few things to consider. A normal length lens for the 8x10 will max out the

bellows on the cc400. I can focus a 360mm on mine, but to get any movements I had to

put the lens on a 2" extender lensboard. Also, the rear element of my 360mm caltar just

barely fits into the cc400 opening. You have to hold it at an angle to fit it in, or did until I

went to the extender board.

And that's the next thing-- can you get a board that fits both? I think you could put the

lens on a cc400 board and get an adaptor for the 8x10, but I'm not sure.

Anyway it will work, but there may be some tricks. Lens length is another question. My

360 is a normal for an 8x10, but I love it on 4x5. It's the lens I use most by far. However,

I seem to be seriously in the minority in that preference.

Also consider that you will probably use the 4x5 more-- you can transport it so much

more easily and it's much cheaper. So maybe get a good 4x5 lens and a cheap 8x10 lens.

With a much larger neg the lens will be a little less critical anyhow.

Anyway, no real answers from me, but maybe some things to think about.

Funny, my canonet has three spots as well. The seller warned me about them, but I had

hoped they were small. They are actually pretty large. It sounds like yours has something

very similar. I'm fairly sure that mine are actually three dead bugs.

Right. If the dancer is lit solely by the stobe it wouldn't even matter what speed you used.

(Have you seen "Doc" Edgerton's photos?) If you use flash and other light, then you may

get some blur from the other light when using a slow shutter speed. But, you will also get

a perfectly frozen image from the flash. That's what second-curtain flash is for. You can

get an image of the dancer perfectly clear and frozen, but with motion trails following.

Anyway, my point was that it doesn't take extremely high speeds to freeze most

movements. Not as high as I would have thought. Looking at some performance photos

that I took at 1/60th, the motion is stopped, but the image is blurred by camera

movement. At any rate, if you're using digital it's easy to experiment and see what works

for the effect you want. The fact that the shutter speeds are recorded with the image is so

helpful.

If you're thinking of shooting performances, I don't think sync speed is a consideration.

You'll want to avoid using the flash. First, because you want to capture the lighting, and

second because the flash can really throw a dancer off.

If you're asking about shutter speed to stop motion, it may be lower than you think. 1/

60th will often show a little blur in the extremities, but be sharp enough for most of the

body. Faster is better, but you'd be suprised what you can get away with.

When using flash, shutter speed won't matter-- the flash is short enough to stop motion

regardless.<div></div>

I've got one and I use it for all my 4x5. I've never had a problem-- it reads very close to

my Canon EOS 10s. I use a big lithium battery that doesn't really fit. I think it's 3.5v. I

just went to radio shack and looked for something that looked like it might work.

For $20-30 I don't think it can be beat-- not many other meters that cheap have such a

tight angle of view. This thing is almost like a spot meter.

As mentioned earlier, follow the calibration instructions on Alfred's camera page, and then

compare it to another meter or camera that you trust.

My only complaint-- I can't use it left-handed for when I have something in my right hand.

the proportions of the frame are suspiciously like 35mm.

wouldn't 620 be squarish?