javier_gonzalez

Serial number: 317182: split-image and microprism screen, old switch

Serial number 334032: split-image and microprism screen, new switch

I am sorry Jo, but I don't have it any more. It was simply a cardboard frame to position the film and keep it flat. It IS important to make a "window" in the upper part for the light source: just see your 35 mm frame and do another one, only wider. If you try to scan without a frame, only the film, the scanner will not recognize it, because it can not calibrate the light source. Regards

You can scan (sort of) medium format negatives with this scanner. Just don't use the negative carrier for 35 mm. The width of the illuminated area is about 6 cm (I think), but the software limit it to more or less 5 cm, so you can scan 6x4.5 without any problem, and almost 6x6. I made a negative carrier with cardboard, and it works. Just remembar to left uncovered the initial part of the carrier (just look at the carrier you own), because the scanner uses it to calibrate the light source intensity. There use to be an alternative light source to scan up to 4x5 negatives, but I suppose it is discounted now. Regards

I don't know. My gossen sixtino (pilot), from the sixties I think, shows signs of heavy use but it is very accurate. In the manual they recommend not to store the meter in hot places, but say nothing about moisture or light. I would like to know also what are the physical (chemical) processes which kill the cell.

I have used the Soligor several times, and found it sharp at 5.6 or so, but not very contrasty. It is useable even wide open. I have no experience with other telephoto lenses, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

The macro lenses go in pairs. The one to use in the viewing lens has also a kind of prism to correct the parallax. But, as you probably know, TLRs are not the best tools for macro photography. If you want to do that in medium format cheaply, an old plate camera with double extension bellows and a roll film adapter is much more aduquate IMHO. Enjoy your flexaret.

I used to have one of these.

1.- In my camera, as yours, there was no EV values. Also metax shutter.

2.- I think this is a common recommendation for any shutter of this class. Better fix the shutter speed, and then cock it (just by feeding more film). Nevertheless the Metax is not an specially fragile shutter.

3.- I don't remember quite well, but I think it was someting to do with the adapter for shooting 35 mm film. Just don't pay attention to it (You are not going to shoot 35 mm film in this camera, are you?:-))

4.- No, you have to use the filters specially made for this camera. When I had it, I bought a set of filters, and use one to made an adapter to use common 49 mm filters (just by gluing two filter frames). It worked well.

 

I think it is a good, underrated camera. I obtained GREAT negatives and slides from it. But TLR as just too bulky for me, and I sold it for an iskra, equally sharp, or even a little more. The belar is (IMHO) in the same league of tessars or xenars of the same time, sharpnesswise. The automatic frame counter and the auto cocking is quite nice also.

 

Regards

Thank your Peter for your kind response. If it is a triplet, it is indeed a very good one, or at least the better I have used. I have found it sharper than the heliar and the novar anastigmat I have also tried. The few copies I have made of the negatives from this camera, have also a distinctive character hard to describe. I suppose it is "classical look". I sincerely doubt the xenar would perform better than this lens in real world situations. So, unless the lens in my camera is exceptionally good, I think it is a very good choice for a high end camera like this.

Thank you also Stuart an Gene for the cumpliments. Best regards

Thanks for your answers. Please, don't missunderstand me: I have no complaints at all about this camera or its lens construction. I think it is really a GREAT camera and the lens is a jewell. In fact, after looking for a pocketable medium format classic, and trying a nettar and a bessa 66 with heliar, I prefer the kodak (the camera itself and the kind of images it produce), so I will keep it.

It is just I like to know the history of the classics I own (for me is part of the fun of using these cameras) and I was surprised that many people was sure that the KA was a Xenar.

Winfried: you are right, the third reflection is very faint, but in every cemented pair I have looked at (industar, xenar, belar and kodak anastar), is present, but not in this one. Morover, the cemented pairs have usually a flat or concave surface, and this one has two convex surfaces (of course, this is not definitive). Finally, I think it is very thin to be a pair (of course, I may be wrong).

 

Lynn: are you sure that all kodak anastigmats were 4 elements?. In the document cited above there are lots of 3 element anastigmats. I have owned two 6x9 kodak folders equipped with f4.5 anastigmats that were triplets for sure.

 

If some of you own a similar camera, could you confirm these guessings?. Thank you again.

A blow up of the lettering in the previous image, with no sharpening. Scanned with an epson 2400<div></div>

My recently bought Kodak duo 620 II is equipped with a kodak anastigmat 75 mm,

f3.5, compur rapid, scale in meters, and the engravings in german. Looking for

information on this camera there seems to be a consensus about the K.A. being a

rebadged Xenar (see this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FVVo).

I have read a document in a place named orphancamera a document where it is

clearly stated that the K.A. in the duo 620 II is a triplet. Cleaning the camera

I also noticed that the rear element is rather thin, an only two reflections are

present, so it really think this is a single element rather than a cemented

pair. By the way, the lens is pretty sharp (see tha attachments). What do you

think about it?<div></div>

Thank you Peter and Gary for your answers. I think it is possible the lens to be a xenar (the serial number is indeed coherent with Schneider numbering), but I still think that the rear element is too slim to be a tessar, and I cannot see the third reflection, and I have tried it! (disassembling the element from the shutter).

I would like to note that not all xenars were tessar clones. I own a certotrop plate camera from aprox. 1929, with a 150 mm f3.5 labeled xenar, that is a tessar inverted (and a real dog, by the way).

 

Anyway, I have to say also that the lens in the kodak is quite sharp even at 5.6 which is not common in a triplet. Certainly is not worse than a heliar in a bessa 66 I also own, so if it is a triplet is a very good one!.

 

Regards

Hello.

I have just bought an excellent Kodak duo series II, with german engravings and a kodak anastigmat 75 mm f:3.5 and compur-rapid shutter. According to many sources, KAs were rebadged Xenars. However, I am pretty sure that this lens is a triplet: the rear element is a single element (it is far too slim to be a cemented pair, and I cannot see the third reflexion). Moreover, in a prospect from a site named orphan cameras, I have read that the KA, specially designed for the Kodak duo series II is indeed a triplet. This fact is not compatible (I think) whith the lens being a Xenar, as I think that Xenars are tessar copies. What do you think about this?. By the way, this lens is quite sharp, only the shutter action is very prone to blur the picture as with many (all) compur shutters.

Hello. I downloaded it from the net several years ago, (I have forgot from where), but in spanish. I sold the camera, so i don't have it anymore. In spite of being a native spanish speaking, I found the manual very dificult to understand as the translation was really poor. You could try http://www.meopta.com. The camera is very simple to operate. Just load the film, feed it until the arrow in the back paper aligns with the white mark, close the camera and keep on winding until it stops, and number 1 appears in a small window. Feeding the film also cocks the shutter. If you have any doubt, please ask. Enjoy your camera.

Hello. In a previous post:

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IuCl&tag=)

I was concern with the apparent lack of sharpness of this lens. The problem is

solved: it was camera shake!. The negatives taken with flash are very very

sharp, but without it just acceptable, even with a tripod. I had a similar

experience with a nettar (see

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IHy7&tag=).I believe the

camera shake is related with the lightness of the nettar and the bessa. With my

iskra I typically shoot at 1/60 or 1/30 (even 1/15) and obtain good results, but

seems the bessa likes faster speeds. Time to buy faster film and improved my

technique hand holding. Thank you for all your answers and suggestions.

Thanks again for your answers. Bret, you are right, the dates from the chart are not consistent, so its validily is suspicious. Of course it has a pressure plate: it is the first thing I checked. The springs were a little weak, so I suplemented it with foam (it is usually necesary in old folders, to ensure the flatness of the film). Patric: great portait.

 

I suppose it is possible that the lens elements were changed or altered during its live. Nevertheless, the lens seems an heliar, looking at the reflections. The lens has no filter hinged, and the ring is metallic. The serial number is engraved in the rear group mount. I am a little sceptic about great names in vintage lenses. I bought this camera because it was cheap, but in the past i bought a plate camera with a Xenar 150 mm, f3,5 which resulted to be very bad, just enough for a contact copy at f22. Everybody say the Xenar is a great lens, so perhaps I have just bad luck!

 

I am now finishing my second roll. When it is developed, I will post my impressions. Thanks again.

Thank you for all your responses. The camera didn't show any signs of a previous disassembling, at least not an amateur one. In fact it looked like it has been in a drawer untouched for ffifty years. The shutter was completely stuck, the leatherette, unglueded. After taking apart the shutter an a good bath in ronsonol, it looks and works virtually as new, as the lens. I think this camera has seen very little use. The lens' serial number is 2,7xx,xxx (I can not see it now, as the camera is loaded with film) and according to this post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BLYK&tag=

it dates from 1942 to 1945. I agre this is odd in a german camera with scale in feet.

 

The lens IS correctly assembled. It is virtually impossible to assembly this lens incorrectly (it is very easy in a novar anastigmat, with unmounted elements, but not in this lens!). The rear group can only be screwed in one position, and is just the same for the focussing group and the central divergent one. I couldn't assembly this lens incorrectly even on purpouse!. And finally the lens is correctly collimated: not only with a ground glass in the focal plane but also with real film and changing the distance ring position and selecting the sharper one. As said in the previous post, the focus was correctly set in the original position, so I guess it was never disturbed.

 

Summing up, my guess is that this lens is simply not as sharp as many people think, and cannot compete with a tessar clone from the sixties, like the industar in the iskra or the belar in the flexaret.

I will use it for portraits to see if I can get the 3D efect many people talk about. I will post the results. Thanks again.

I bought this folder quite cheaply in this auction site because the rear

leatherette was missing, the shutter was erratic and the seller thought that the

shutter body release didn't work (It was really the double exposition

prevention). After a good cleaning all works well and the glass is almost mint.

The shutter looks also like new.. BUT, after trying the camera with film and

adjusting the focus, changing the focussing ring position, and using a tripod, I

must say I am disappointed. The best negative is not as sharp as I was

expecting. In fact it is softer than the novar anastigmat in my nettar. It is

not only a lack of acutance (to be expected in an uncoated lens) but a lack of

detail.

 

The lens is really an Heliar (all the reflections are there) and the focus is

correctly set using real film and a tripod (in fact it was correctly set in the

original position, not a common ocurrence!). I don't know if I have a monday

morning lens, or the heliar is not as good as its reputation. The lens is still

able to get decent results, but certainly not better than a triplet, an very

very far from the industar in my Iskra. Pherhaps this lens is intended only to

portraits?.

 

According to the serial number, the lens was made around 1942-1945. The distance

ring is graduated in feet, which I think it is not common (the camera was bought

in Spain). Any comments on this particular lens and its performance would be

greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

Javier

Hello. I am in the same position as you. I used to have a Flexaret, very nice camera but bulky and heavy. Now I use a nettar 515/16. Tiny for the negative size, and more than adequate novar lens. I also own an iskra, super-sharp lens, quite shutter, but very heavy. I am looking now for a retina or karat or perhaps a 6x4.5 folder.

I also own a prewar Xenar, 150 mm f3.5, serial number 284456 from a large format camera, an is very soft at any aperture, just good for contact prints (9x12 cm). It is a reversed tessar. Just my 2 cents.

Hello. In an early post

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IBg0&tag=) I stated my

nettar was only sharp with close subjects. I completely forgot that the only

sharp picture was made with flash!. The lack of sharpness in my negatives is

due to camera shake, no poor lens.

Nevertheless I have checked the ifty focus with the method explained in the link

sugested by Colin Carron (thanks for that). At f8, the resolution of the Novar

is at least as good as my Iskra in the center of the picture (and believe me,

the industar is a sharp lens!), and better than my Flexaret. The borders are

noticibly softer than both cameras (to be expected comparing a triplet with two

tessar clones). I suppose it would improve at f11 or f16. Now I can say that the

Novar is really a sharp lens and the nettar a very usable camera. Thanks to all.

Colin: thanks for the link. I have found it very interesting, and it is coincident with my experience: I have never had luck with frontal element focussing lenses. I have ckecked again the lens, and it reaches infty about half a turn from the (all screwed in) position. It does have two shims made of cardboard. Nevertheless, the camera has obviously suffered a previous careless repair: the shutter was flooded with grease and it even lacked a spring, the one which prevents the blades to open when you cock the shutter. I will try to put one more shim to see if the sharpness improves. Thanks again

Thanks Winfried. It is a very interesting comment. I didn't take off the shutter from the camera, but it has some marks of a previous removal. I do not quite remember the position of the frontal lens, but looking now at the camera there seems to be some space to screw in. What should be the optimal position of the frontal lens to reach the infty position? Screwed in complety, or half a turn or so?. Thanks again

Thank you for your answer. In fact, I did the CLA myself, and I am pretty sure that the camera is focussing properly at infty.

 

My procedure is putting a used film with a piece of "magic" tape (I don't remember the name) and a hole in the paper back matching the red window. In that way you can adjust the focus by looking thru the window with a loupe (I use a telescope ocular). I have a roll with holes and tape in several palces, so you can check also the consistency of the film position between frames. By the way, the focus at different distances (in the distances ring), from infty to 1,5 m or so, seems VERY accurate in this camera. I have used this procedure with several folders and have found it much more accurate than the usual ground glass in the film plane.

 

I am also quite sure that the lens' elements position are correct (I don't see in the negatives the typical effects of reversing an element).

 

Perhaps this particular lens is optimized not for distant objects, but for closer ones, just the opposite you expect in a frontal focussing lens (a quality control issue)??. I don't know

Hello. I have recently purchased a Nettar 515/16 with a folding viewfinder and a

coated 75, f4.5 Novar-Anastigmat lens, Pronto shutter. The negatives are...

soft, at f11, f16 or f22: the better ones are just up to a so-so 5x7" copy. I

have not tried it at f8 or larger apertures. I think it is not a problem of

len's collimation or film flatness as the camera has been CLA and the focus

adjusted. The only sharp negative in my second roll is of a subject at 1,7 m

(aprox 67 inches) from the lens, estimated with a measuring tape and traslated

to the distance ring. It seems that this lens is only good for close subjects.

 

On the other hand the camera is very well made and very portable. I would like

to know if some of you have a similar experience with this or some other lens,

or general comments about the sharpness of the Novar. From the information I

have read about the Novar, I was really expecting something better from it when

closed down!

 

Thank you.