dave_g1

If you already have film loaded, obviously do not open the back.

 

There is no interlock between the shutter and the film advance on the C3. So get in the habit of advancing the film and cocking the shutter right after you take a picture. That is the only way to be sure the camera will be ready for the next shot and to prevent double exposures.

<p>http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Agfa_Karat<br>

Scroll down till you get to the Karat 12 and 36 models.</p>

<p>I would just look for a decent pre-war Tessar and leave the Xenar be. They are relatively common, not nearly as sought after as the Biotar and usually don't go for much more than a postwar version. Plus they render very nicely.</p>

<p>My personal observation would seem to indicate that focus is set to about 20-25 feet. For a 100mm lens on 6x9 set at f/16 this would give a depth of field from about 12 feet to about 60 feet. Which on a contact print could easily be "stretched" to 10' to infinity for all practical intents and purposes. Only an enlargement would show that infinity is not actually sharp, nor is 10' quite sharp either. The distance covered in sharp focus would be appropriate for group photos, houses, most scenery, etc. so it also makes perfect sense that the actual focus would be set just slightly short of the true hyperfocal distance. Really old boxes usually had a second smaller stop for use indoors (seems counter intuitive but increasing the exposure time made it easier to count the seconds and get a good exposure) which would have allowed one to move the camera a couple feet closer still for seated portraits.<br>

Now I do have a couple of boxes which have the focus set a bit closer, maybe at about 15', but this could be by design or simply by loose manufacturing. </p>

<p>I think the trouble with most box cameras is film flatness. The majority do not have any sort of pressure plate and rely either on the tension of the film to maintain flatness - or count on the curl of the film itself to keep the film in contact with the inside back of the box. Obviously neither of these designs is great for maintaining reliable film flatness. <br>

The other trouble is the fixed focus, which contrary to popular opinion is not set at the hyperfocal distance (which with a 100-110mm lens would be unuseably distant for average photos). The result being the cameras are neither suited to close up photos or to distant scenery. If you pay close attention you will find the far end of focus falls off usually around 30 to 40 feet.<br>

In both cases it meant little when the cameras were made since these were cheap cameras for making contact prints for albums, and not meant to be used for making enlargements.<br>

But if you're aware of these more subtle issues you can choose your subjects better and actually get away with some very sharp photos. </p>

<p>I had a Kodak Jr. a few years ago with a Rapid Rectilinear lens, the bellows were in good shape, although they had been patched at one time before I got the camera. I believe mine actually stated plainly on itself that it needed 120 film.<br>

Sometimes you can find NOS replacement bellows for these on ebay. A few years ago I bought several when they came up (I've modified them for use on other 6x9 folders).</p>

<p>I would say dropped in a river, but then I imagine it would be full of rust too. I remember an article about a Zorki 6 that was found in a lake 30 years after it had been dropped - and it looked in better shape than that though.</p>

<p>Actually the problem is simple. 120 has numbers for three formats on the backing paper - none of which correlate to the formats of 116 cameras. <br /> To get no overlapping on a 116 film camera when using 120 you can only use every third number that appears. So you have to wind until number 3 appears in the red window, take your shot, and so on. If you want to get more shots and are ok with minimal overlapping you need to use every other number that appears in the window: 2,4,6 etc.</p>

<p>Nova PL1 with some in-house branding. To whom the "Bessel" brand belonged is anybody's guess. </p>

<p>Try looking at some of the Japanese Leica clones, Leotax, Nicca, et. al. <br>

Honestly, and I know this may be an unpopular opinion amongst some - when it comes to LTM cameras there are a lot which are better than the ones Leica made. <br>

Canon P and 7 come to mind if you're all right with having an actually useful viewfinder and actually non-PITA film loading. ;-) If you don't want to have fun and useful features, there were literally hundreds of varieties of Japanese made Leica clones which feature an old fashioned separated viewfinder and rangefinder - as well as strap lugs - and occasionally with the slow speeds un-installed.</p>

<p>I have an older SLR where the mirror does not return to the focussing position completely until the shutter has been cocked. It will sit about 1mm out of place when returning until the film is wound on. The only way to tell really is to put the camera on a tripod, focus on some close point, fire the shutter, check the focus again (now slightly off), then cock the shutter (focus now dead on again). But if you focus before cocking the shutter the result is slightly missing focus when you actually the the shot. <br>

The only related problem might be a focus screen which is not held in place securely, if this could move around the result would be missing focus too.<br>

One way to see if it is a problem with the focusing system or something else would be to put the camera on a tripod, focus on a fixed point - and fire off a few shots without changing any settings. If the focus changes without you touching anything, then it's something other than the mirror or screen moving around.</p>

<p>Well if it is not a lens problem there is really only one thing it could be - a film flatness problem. If the lens and camera are not moving, then the film would have to move for the focus to change. <br>

Or is the problem only happening when you swap lenses? Or is it only happening with a particular lens? You need to eliminate variables, rather than introduce new ones. Does it happen if you use one lens through a whole roll?</p>

<p>JDM I bought one from an ebay seller (marty1107) who cuts mirrors for TLR cameras. I gave them the dimensions of the original and they had one custom cut for me and on its way in only a day or two.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments everybody.<br>

JDM, I shot these images with the original mirror but a few days ago I received a new mirror and it definitely makes the viewfinder image much sharper, although surprisingly not any brighter. I discovered the original mirror was not in too bad of shape so I transferred it into a late model Pilot 6 (the one that looks like the Super) which had a severely discoloured mirror. The procedure is not too difficult, although with the later model removal of the mirror was much more difficult. In both the mirror simply fits under some tabs and is then held in position by a small strip spring. But in the early model the tabs are smaller and the spring weaker which makes swapping the mirror pretty easy to do. For the small cost involved though, it's definitely worth doing.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8589/16563445311_c5f1b664ab_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="533" /><br /> The waist level finder allows a nice low POV. The rendering of this pre-war lens and medium format film is excellent in my opinion.<br /> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/15944922093_6d42148506_b.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Getting this shot took a little thinking ahead as once stopped down the viewfinder is not really useable - the setting is purely manual there is no preset function or even click stops. I had to set the camera, waited for the rower to be centered by my sight and took the photo "blind" with the camera.<br /> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/16377444568_eec4b9e58f_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="549" /><br /> The Ennatar 75mm lens has a minimum focus of just under 5' - so I needed to use a close up lens for anything closer. Despite close up work being an SLRs strong point, the simple front element focusing lenses are pretty much worthless for anything closer than 3.5 to 4 feet - and KW never specified unit focusing lenses for any of the Pilot 6 cameras.<br /> <img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8561/16455307739_041366419e_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="549" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/16640062971_b5c998820c_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="549" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8594/16454089170_954969fdda_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="549" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/16640479352_e7ebb39c61_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="549" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8674/16640479232_e97664926e_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Apparently all of the early Pilot 6 cameras took 16 photos on 120 film, and later a 12 photo version and dual format version were made. I have a later Pilot 6 that I have not used yet which shoots 12 6x6 frames on 120.<br /> I have a few more photos on <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/berangberang/">my flickr.</a><br /> I quite like the way the Ennatar renders, although it is prone to flare - in normal conditions it is surprisingly contrasty for an uncoated lens. The Pilot 6 itself is a little tedious to focus, although I've just put a new mirror in and can see a difference in the viewfinder. It is very compact, not taking up much more space than a 645 format folding camera. I enjoyed using it a lot.</p>

<p>PS: I'm looking for the Chinese made Great Wall SLR which was a copy of the later (slightly more refined) Pilot Super. If anybody has a lead on one get in touch with me!</p>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7366/16247359060_40d7505e1a.jpg" alt="" width="325" height="500" /><br>

I've always wanted a Pilot 6. It has a certain peculiarity to it - something between a box camera and a "real" SLR. Of course it is a real SLR in a technical sense, but in terms adjustments it is about on par with a cheap folder or a better specified box camera of the era.</p>

<p>The Pilot 6 was introduced in 1936 and initially available with an f/6.3 or f/4.5 lens. This is the fast 4.5 version! Shutter speeds from 1/20 to 1/150. A wire frame pulls out of the side for tracking sports action.<br>

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/16239308037_78908a21bb_b.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br>

The aperture is selected with a knob on the front of the camera. The selected f/stop is displayed by a little dial in front of the viewing hood. The f/stops are of a wacky progression, 18,12,9,7.7 etc. This makes setting exposure a little befuddling.<br>

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7336/16425197165_956d409a8e_b.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="713" /><br>

Real single lens reflex viewing on a camera that cost about the same as an Argus C3! The magnifier is built into a plat which swings up and makes the viewing hood shaded from the top - this is about the only way one can focus the camera when used outside. This is neither a condenser nor a fresnel to brighten things up.<br>

<img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7317/16424268412_6e9285ec65_b.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br>

The shutter is cocked by a large lever on the side of the camera. The shutter speeds are set with a strange tiller like double knob that has to be pushed down when setting the speed. The shutter is very primitive, speed is controlled by spring tension alone, and so a very strong spring is used. The mirror forms part of the shutter. When the shutter is released the mirror start swinging up, it uncovers the back of the lens and just behind the mirror is a metal sheet that is dragged behind it. As the mirror continues moving up this sheet covers the lens - cleverly the mirror just not stop moving until after the lens is covered again. At the end of its travel the mirror slaps with a "thapd!" sound like somebody slapping the cover of a hard bound book closed. One can feel the camera shake in their hands.<br>

That's how it works, so how about the results? See them in the next post.</p>

<p>I have a personal theory that the Pentaflex was meant to compete with W. Germany's Edixa Prismaflex. The Prismaflex appeared in the mid 1960s, and by using a fixed prism and omitting the slow speeds Edixa was able to just slightly undercut the prices of the Praktica Nova. So what did Pentacon do? Remove the slow speeds from the Nova (and dispense with that fancy fresnel screen) and create a Pentaflex to undercut the Prismaflex.</p>

 

<p>@Donnie - the Clarus is more modern, since the shutter and film advance are interlocked it is a lot more convenient in operation than the Argus. The rangefinder in C3s is almost always inaccurate by now too. Niether the C3 nor the Clarus handle particularly well, although I do prefer the large button of the C3 Standard, and the focus wheel is oddly more ergonomic than the Clarus's very thin focus ring.</p>

<p>But in terms of results, the Cintar probably performs better than the Wollensak Anastigmat, although it's slower. The Clarus does have a 1/1000 shutter setting but this is basically nominal - but then again the C3's 1/300 is also practically nominal. </p>

<p>One more curious thing to note which I almost forgot - the frame spacing in the Clarus is the most generous I have encountered. There's a full sprocket hole between each frame. </p>

<p>JDM, I'm not so sure that I would agree. Sure many are <em>sort of</em> functional - but few function <em>well </em>without a good cleaning. I've been through about a dozen Edixas and Exaktas at this point as well as some Paxettes. While all were in "working" condition when they arrived they all needed some sort of attention to work consistently and correctly. Judging by all of the people who have half functional screw mount leicas - I don't think the Clarus is really any worse off in this respect than any other cameras from the era, excepting box cameras and the like. </p>

<p>The real difference is, if you fix an Exakta or a Leica you have a nice precision camera and access to the best lenses of the era - if you fix a Clarus, you have a Clarus. Which though distinctive and esoteric - doesn't do anything an Argus C-3 won't do.</p>

<p>I think the Clarus is sometimes unfairly picked on and has earned a poor reputation it doesn't deserve. The simple truth is that he Clarus MS-35 is actually a solid camera but like any camera made in the 1950s and 1940s it will need some attention if somebody wants to take pictures with it today. Even a Leica IIIf will need the same sort of attention if one wants it to work properly.</p>

<p>That being said, it's still a rather crude camera with only just satisfactory optical performance, so it is definitely not some sort of American Leica (despite being compared to one in period ads) and I doubt it will ever be worth much more than the current $30-$50 going rate. </p>

<p>For the most part the shutter did not act up, and only a couple photos showed any indication of uneven shutter travel, and then only when used at 1/1000 if my memory of the settings serves me right.</p><div></div>

<p>A few of the photos exhibited a very faint light leak that looks sort of like a reflection on glass. I have no been able to figure out what causes this.</p><div></div>

<p>The rangefinder is still dead on after 60+ years. But because you have to shift your eye from the RF to the viewfinder, there's always the danger of moving the camera slightly and ruining focus when using large apertures at close distances...</p><div></div>

<p>It does work though, and reliably too. The shutter is rather loud (it sounds like a Praktica). The lens on mine is the Wollensak Anastigmat, which seems to be of the lowest order available. It's just an over apertured triplet that delivers so-so performance. The Clarus was also available with a Wollensak Velostigmat, and a Wollensak Raptar 2/50.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The Clarus is not a Leica clone though. It makes no effort to imitate Leica on any front, unlike the Zorkis, Feds, the Perfex, or numerous Japanese cameras. The shutter is a "four drum" affair which has more in common with the Praktiflex or Exakta shutter than anything used in other rangefinders of the era. This design has the advantage that if one accidentally changes the shutter speed before winding there is no damage to the shutter.<br>

The shutter spindles all run through brass bushings and bearings, and everything looks sound - in theory. In practice though there's a bit of trouble keeping things in adjustment because of the crude design and coarse tolerances used. </p><div></div>