don dudenbostel

Thanks!!!

All of the 35 Summicrons are tabbed and lack a serated focusing ring. I had the V1 and V4 and currently have a asph Summicron and the Zeiss Biogon as well as a CV PII 35 2.5 . The Biogon is the only modern 35 that I know of in a small size that has a serated focusing ring. I also like the Biogons focusing ring over tabbed lenses. Optically I like the Biogon over any 35 I've used and mechanically it's atleast equal to any current lens.

If I remember correctly the 12" is a #4 and the 14" is in a #5. I use #4 shutters on my Sinar with no problem. I have a 10" WF Ektar in a #5 on my Deardorff 8x10 so even the #5 will work with no problem on the Sinar board.

I work with x-rays as an art form and use both medical mamography and regular photographic film. Medical x-ray films get most of their exposure from fluorescent screens that either give off a blue or green light when struck by x-rays. Most medical films have either an extended blue or green sensativity for that reason. This screen system reduces radiation exposure to the patient. Some general purpose films are double coated on both sides and mamography film is single coated for greater sharpness. Industrial films are generally of the no screen type getting it's exposure from x-rays only. Dental is much like industrial in tthat it does not receive any exposure from fluorescent screens.

 

Mamo film might be OK for photo work but would have a funky spectral curve. I would suggest developing in HC 110 B under a red safe light by inspection. No idea of ISO because each brand and type of film is different. You might start around 100 and give it a try.

I failed to mention that when it worked it made stunning images.

 

If you don't have much tied up in it then you have little to lose if it doesn't work well but you might have some fun with it if you don't have to work with it for a living.

 

One thing you must have are the IR filters for each type of light you shoot under.

If it's the same model I used it's about 9 or 10 years old. If I remember correctly it's a SCSI device and i don't know if the new mac will support SCSI particularly of that generation. Not even certain if the software will run on OSX particularly 10.4. One thing I can say is it's slooooooooooooow! Not very sensitive to light. In the studio I ran it at max ISO and for a table top I would use around 10 to 15K watts of halogen light and the get f16-22 and a 14 minute exposure. The one I had was a major problem. When it would run for two or so hours it would go wild in color and streak the images. It had to cool down and then work again. Late in it's life Dicomed found a poor solder joint at one of the IC's. After using one I don't think I would use one if it was given to me. Have fun!

My camera was a regular .72x. I may be living in the past and just not up on current pricing.

I just sold my M6 classic on the auction site and the price went higher than

expected. After the auction while packing it I noticed it was a German made body

with the Made in Germany engraving on the back below the wind. Were most bodies

Canadian? It's the only reason I can think of for it going so high.

Robin I owned a Master Technika and shot it commercially for thirty years. I have never seen one of the Ebony cameras but have used my 8x10 Deardorff since 1972 and had a couple of 4x5 and 5x7's also. In 1969 I purchased a new Sinar Norma 4x5 / 5x7 and still have it and have shot tens of thousands of sheets through these cameras. The Master Technika is a fantastic camera and I regret selling it a few years ago. Never a problem with it and precise as can be made. I had the camera, grip, finder and had the 90mm SA 5.6, 150 Symmar S, 210 Symmar S and 360 Tele Arton cammed plus other lenses form 75 up uncammed. I did from time to time use it hand held but not often. I'm a big strong and steady guy but i don't think I coule hold it at 1/4 second unless i was going to contact print the negs only. Maybe 1/60 with a 150mm. It's true the finder isn't very accurate. I looked on the GG and zoomed the finder untill it matched the lens. Cams were dead on and you only have to send the lens in with the master not the camera. The big problem with architectual work and the MT is wide lenses and no bag bellows. Ther's a hinged flap on the top of the camera that allows the front standard to rise with wides and reduce the obstruction of the body. The bellows is very flexable but it's not a bag and the body does restrict my 90 5.6 SA a good bit and would not allow full movement of the lens. Everytime I have a need for architectual work I grab the Sinar. A monorail with a bag bellows is the best and easiest way to do this kind of work. Flat beds are excellent. I still have my 8x10 Deardorff and have a Shen Hao with a bag and standard bellows. I most likely will buy a 5x7 Canham wood camera this year and keep the other cameras too. As good as the flat beds are they still are limited compared to the monorails. Flatbeds can do what you want but the monorails will do it easier but are not as compact.

Thanks Ellis. Were there any problems inserting the back?

 

My main concern regarding the metal camera is sagging with extreme long lenses. i read one review that stated the bed sagged with very long lenses causing a focus problem. Have you or anyone else experienced this? Your impressions of the wood vs the metal 5x7?

I'm considering purchasing a K B Canham 5x7 wood camera this year and also the

6x17 back. I would like to know how owners like the camera and back. Any issues

with either? What do you like and or dislike? I use a wide range of lenses from

72mm XL SA to the 720 Nikkor Tele (on 4x5) so the camera must work well with

extreme wides and long teles. I also plan to buy the wide angle bellows and 4x5

back.

 

I've used a baby Deardorff 4x5 and 5x7 standard for years and no longer have

them and for the past 35 years used my 8x10 Deardorff for commercial work. My

experience with other field cameras is very limited.

I was in Omaha Ne a couple of years ago and went to the Joslin Museum for an Edward Weston show. The prints and transparencies on exhibit were ones he sent to his sister. The collection was basically unknown for many years after her death and a grandson of hers found them as they were headed for the trash. The collection consisted of many letters from Edward and roughly one hundred original prints of which many were signed. Also in the collection were quite a number of 8x10 kodachrome transparencies. The found transperencies more than doubled the know number of kodachromes that he did for kodak.

 

Just guessing the totaL value of the found collection probably approached 50 million dollars.

I sold my 50 summicron when I purchsed my Planar. The planar is absolutely tops in the 50 range. For that matter my experience with the 25 and 35 Biogons are the equal to the Planar. No experience with the others but from what I've read all the Zeiss lenses are first rate.

 

I've used my Zeiss glass along side my current leica asph glass and like the Zeiss best. All work fine on my old and new bodies.

I'm currently using the Planar and asph summilux 50 and could not be more pleased with the Planar. During 40 years of leica shooting ans having owned and shot extensively with 4 versions of the summicron I find the Planar to be more to my liking than any other M 50 including the asph summilux. The Planar is atleast as sharp as the late summicron and much more flare resistant. I have never seen coatings as effective as the current Zeiss or a 50mm any sharper. Mechanically I can say the Planar is better than my previous tabbed summicron that developed binding in the mount.

 

I purchased my Planar new with US warranty from Calumet about a year or so ago for $461 dollars. The box was unopened and all papers were included. With the experience I have with summicrons and the Planar I would select the Planar even if it were more expensive than the summicron.

Thanks for the info!

As in electrical tape? What i remember the old tape was pre cut into the correct lengths and you had to wet it to make it stick. Might be wrong though.

Back in the early 70's I remember there was a company that would refurb cut film

holders. I don't remember the company but imagine there is no one doing this

anymore. At the time they would retape the hinges and replace the felt in the

slide trap. Anyone know of a source? Any source for the hinge tape? I use

3-1/4x4-1/4 old style Graflex holders with my Super D and have a few that need

retaped. I've made do with gaffer tape but it's not as good as the tape designed

for the job. Any suggestions?

 

Thanks!

As Tim H. suggested an enlarging back like a Graflarger light source is an excellent idea. You'll have to use graded paper not VC but no big deal and they're very cheap now. Also you can find Omega D2's and Bessler 4x5 enlargers for next to nothing and often for nothing now. I have a couple of other pro friends that gave away their 4x5 enlargers because no one would pay anything for them. I always wanted and finally needed a 5x7 enlarger and purchased a complete Durst 5x7 floor model with all the bells and whistles from a dealer friend for under $1,000 a few years ago. Recently I've seen the same enlarger for under $400 for sale. Originally I think these decked out were in the $10,000 plus range. I purchased a full blown Omega D5 from a dealer in San Francisco with a Ilford MG head and controller. Actually it came with a second new head and was in super condition. I purchased it for $300 plus shipping. Don't let the enlarger limit you. Look on ebay or locally and see what you can find.

Both cameras are excellent. I've used Deardorff since 1972 and still own an 8x10 and owned a master Technika for 25 years. I've shot many thousands of sheets through both and both are superb in every way. The Deardorff isn't the best wide camera and for that matter the Technika IV is limited too. The bellows compresses a great deal and restricts movements to a great degree. Both perform best with normal to loger glass. IMO there's no big preference either way for wides. For longer glass then the Deardorff has more movements but can not be hand held like the Technika.

 

My suggestion would be to look for a camera with a wide angle bag bellows and a normal bellows. Cambo, Horsman, Toyo, Sinar, Linhof and many others make great cameras and can be found dirt cheap now. The bag bellows is esential for wide lenses.

 

Look at a used 90 Fuji, Schneider Super Angulon, Nikkor or Rodenstock Grandagon and then noprmal 150 lenses and slightly longer lenses like a 210 or 240 by the same makers. Calumet rebadged many Rodenstocks under their name.

 

You should be able to put a nice kit together for a small price.I would suggest putting together an economy kit of basic items to see if LF is your thing. LF is much more involved than 35mm and MF not to say you won't love it.

OOPS, one final image with the 85 @ 1.2.<div></div>

One other example of the 85 @ 1.2. At 1.2 it's exceptionally sharp and contrasty but not harsh. IMO the 135 at f2 is even slightly sharper (slightly).<div></div>

Another sample of the canon 85 1.2 @ 1.2<div></div>

I would second the CV 35 1.2 for M cameras. I have one and love it plus find it to perform exceptionally well. Also Nikon made two 50 1.2 lenses. The Noct which is on the pricy side and designed for night shooting and the old 50 1.2 that can be bought for around $300-400 in nice shape. Currently Canon makes some outstanding super fast glass. The 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L, 135 f2L and previoulsly the 200 1.8L. I have all but the 50 1.2 and fine the 85, 135 and 200 to be the finest in their class. The 85 is a little on the expensive side but the version one may be in your price range at just over $1K. The 135 is very reasonable well under $1k but the 200 is now in the $4-6k range. Here is an example of the 85 at 1.2.<div></div>

Steve:

 

Yes we do have a common friend. I've known Harley since the mid 60's when I was in high school with his two oldest sons Doug and Freddy. I would love to get together with you one day and you can find my name under the yellow pages in commercial photography. I still shoot 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5 but sold my 11x14 and 12x20. The 12x20 needed restoration so I never used it. Actually my 11x14 came from Harley. In the late 70's I swapped him a Linhof heavy duty pro tripod that he still uses for an 11x14 B&J with 5 like new holders. I used that for a number of years in the commercial studio when I ran the photo and TV department for Davis Newman Payne Advertising. Shot many studio setups on 8x10 and 11x14. At one time I shot as much as 250 sheets of 8x10 transparency film a week. Imagine the cost now.

 

Thanks to all. I appreciate the information.

Normal FL on 16mm lens and will only cover a 16mm frame. Old lens most likely from the 40's or 50's. They make a good high power loupe for examining negs.