riccardo_mottola

It doesn't even look so bad, until you see the lens. How old is the camer? Does it have any controls?

The fake selenium cells are too cool: before reading your caption I was wondering why there was a piece LEFT and one RIGHT of the Viewfinder...

well, if it says Kassettenfüllung 35mm Cartdriges come to my mind (I tink they were called kassetten in Germany back then). But I didn't know they were sold pre-loaded...

They type of paper used, the print type and the fact that DIN speed is referred into decimal fraction with a degree (similar to the then popular designation Scheiner Degrees) makes me too think of 1930ies or earlier, although if it is 35mm then it will clearly date as the Contaflex TLR or later! That would be a good marking point.

this camera looks pretty similar to the camera I have: a Goerz Tenax (I tink it is a Taro-Tenax). It is possible that Zeiss continued the Goerz line of cameras by putting their lenses on them.

My camera is more sophisticated though, 9x12cm and has bellow moments as well as rapid focusing. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain much information about it on the internet... so can't be of much help either.

peole here are very quick at issuing negative comments about Prakticas... Up to now my IV has served me well.. my nova is "repair in progress" though. THey are pretty easy to fix in the small details and the good thing is that you may buy another for 5 bucks and get the parts!

Prakticas, especially the old M42 series are old faithful boxes.

 

Your problem is age: these old cameras need a check-up frop time to time, check that the screws are tightened and that pieces do not break. I had highly reputed Exaktas loosing a piece too when "in action". The same goes for my faithful Fujica... the Shutterspeed knob seems just to be designed to break.... although it might look cool when new and working.

 

I'd try to repair the camera, possibly scavenging stuff. Otherwise buy something else if you dislike it!

I don't know either, both keeping them open or closed has technical reasons that look so convincing. Maybe there is no real difference?

 

I have found a folder that was kept in a drawer for years and years... I opened it and the bellows were perfect, the shutter less. But I cannot of course tell if they would have been perfect if stored open but inside a vitrine...

Hi Peter! Cool cover. That's my baby :)

Unfortunatley I need something a bit more deep than removing the front element, which did unscrew pretty easily. One of the diaphgram blades is bent or possibly even broken. I want to access the diaphgram mechanism to be able to either reseat the blades or at worst removing one blade.

 

To to this I'd like to remove the whole shutter assembly (the lenses are nto a problem, with some patience I was able to unscrew the back element too, so I have both lenses in my hands) with the focusing ring.

 

The focusing information gets transferred over the bellow struts thanks to a linkage, a cam. I need to loosen this cam "somewhere". On the lens side it is screwed in and has a riveted pin. On the camera side it enters deep inside the rangefinder mechanism. I unmounted it completely but sadly discovered that the lever inside seems to be milled out of one single piece of metal! I continued removing pieces in moral discomford, up to being able to remove the strut assembly partially, the only thing that keeps the camera together is the bellow itself and this damn cam! It seems so strange AGFA didn't think about a convenient way to disassemble it that I more think I don't know what to do than a design error!

 

Otherwise I can ship you a small bag of assorted karat parts, divided in film canisters...

 

If I get thie thing working again, I'll ask about tricks to get the chrome and the alloy to its old shine again, but looks is second to function!

Miranda internal screw mount?

Indeed, my model has no accessory show and the "old" shutter, so it could be indeed a war model. I can't find a real serial number. Inside the body at the bottom of the film gate I find M 738.

 

I find the film reminder pretty nifty :)

 

Juergen Nau evidently got digitalitis! so sad...

 

I want to repair my little brick of metal here.. THe rangefinder is interesting and I want to check how accurate and how it uses... but I must be able to unmount the lens to check the diaphgram blades.

I have an Agfa Karat 12 I bought from the great eScam in perfect optical and

mechanical condition. Needless to say... after an inspection, I wouldn't agree

with that, especially the mechanical part.

 

I need to unmount the lens and repair the diaphgram. While accessing the

shutter is reasonable, I can't access the diaphgram since I can't *remove* the

shutter from the from the lens board, the problem being the long level with a

riveted (or screwed in from the bottom) guide. This lever goes stright into the

rangefinder and I removed that too, hoping to open it from the inside, but no

avail. Anyone has experience with this?

 

Supposing I'll be able to restore this small jewel to a usable state.. some

questions to the agfa-experts: I found it difficult to date the camera. Reading

on the net, I found its production period was pretty long: 1941-1948. Mine has

the 1/300" compur shutter and it is NOT marked Made in Germany, it has the Agfa-

Rhombus engraved on top though. Interesting is also the lens: The Karat-Xenar

is nuber 799985 which marks it as produced in the thirties! But pre-war karats

had different, slower optics. Did Agfa buy a large stock and was able to

manufacture the camera only later? Nice mysteries!

 

 

Last but not least: how are your experiences with Karat magazines? Someone says

you can reuse standard 35mm magazines... Since there are people who swear on

the Karat like other swear on the retina... I was wondering if only the latest

versions can be used. My front element might be not pristine, but if I repair

the rest and clean everything up it would be usable, provided I can cram some

film in it!

it isn't 60 years old though :) it is a camera from the 60-ies.

It is really a great camera and a pioneer too. My IIb is currently broken/unreliable though :(

if you have one of those ibsor-like shutters, some cleaning and flushing of some elements inside might give you the 3 times back. It did on mine. I don't know how precise the timings are, but I can see the different timings on my 6x9 now.

I have both the 55/1.8 and the 50/1.4 fujinon. Honestly, do you think that 0.4 will make any difference? the 55 is very sharp and weights quite less. Also its color rendition is more neutral. That said, the 50/1.4 is a pretty good lens, sharp and contrasty. I have noticed some aberration on light points at full aperture on the corners (coma?) but it is pretty normal for such big glass, some compromises had to be made. Some manufacturers went the route of best full aperture but maybe later they lost in some other quality.

 

As a 35mm I have the flektogon 35/2.8. While I have always wondered why a 2.8 has such a big front lens, the quality is impeccable.

 

About zooms, I don't know, I ignore the matter.

good work indeed!

Did you doubt Zeiss gave you bad equipment even if it had a cheaper lens? Triplets can have good results indeed! I have a Radionar on my Adox 35mm camera and it is pretty nice, just full open at 2.8 it gets a bit soft around the corners. I do like the airyness that lenses with few elements have compared to 20-lenses monstrums like zooms or image-stabilized lenses (or both even!). With todays computer-calculated designs, plastic asph lenses and super multicoatings incredible designs are possible and resolutions may be very high, but the images loose "something". This is more noticeable with slides.

pretty cool stuff for that old little camera, isn't it? What film and what lens(es) did you use?

Technically, if your shutter is fine you can make photos like a more Professional Exakta: you can slap on the same lenses!

Oh, apparently nobody mentioned it: the new Leica Elmar 2.8/50mm collapsable. Small, extremely well coated, nice bokeh, smooth to operate and so contrasty and airy... 3 groups in a modern lens are just the maximum.

<p>

Of course there are other lenses (35 'cron Asph) and if we think also of non Leica lenses, the 3.5/75 Planar in old Rolleiflexes is maybe the best lens I ever used.

Despite some very aggressive comments on this thread, I think Puts makes a point in his writing (which of course is his personal opinion). I think he is right in several points.<br>

I would not call an M8 a masterpiece either. What is the purpose of an M8? Appeal to old film-minded people who don't have the guts to use film anymore but need a "classic" handling on a digital thing? The features and design decisions that made the M series great for film do not necessarily apply to digital too. An MP makes sense to me, I can even understand the M7 to some extent, but not the M8.<p>

Then, let me correct dear Erwin, I find the M2 is more a masterpiece than the M3 :) I also partially agree with his statement about contemporary photography and his way of expressing it is very amusing. It is also nice to to note that if several people gets so upset about it, there may be some truth behind it!

It is pretty difficult to judge, Mike! Only you have been there and have seen the original scene, so you remember the color nuances and the lighting effect. As an external observer I don't like either images as far as rendition goes. THe contax images look pretty contrasty and reddish, the digital imageswell are typical digital. They look pretty "balanced" at a first glance and are smooth, but they seem to have some sort of greenish cast, low range and strange color distortions. Shure, I like the colors of the road surface and the eve more, but again, it is up to you to say if the scanning was correctly balanced.<br>

Judging resolution at this size is of course impossible, also the the analog images look sharpened while the digital looks just downsampled.

<p>

Personally I don't think that comparing a prime lens against a zoom is so unfair! "once upon a time" prime lenses were the common thing, today even pros use often zooms. Sure, most manufactures still have prime lenses available, but they are surely not that common anymore. Pentax gives them out as limited edition :)

<p>

One problem with the analog image though: even at the small image size you clearly see more noise... it may not disturb an old fashioned observer, but it is a point were clearly film is inferior, especially when using "normal to high" ASA settings.

I think you had quite some luck... A friend of mine did about the same and the impressive was that the original shots were *perfect* but the photos taken today were blurred and strange, as the emulsion was able to keep the old images but wasn't capable of recording anymore. It probably depends a lot on the emulsion style and how the decades affected it.

Maybe you are able to fix it. If you don't need to touch the shutter (it is normal that one of the blades has a small bend at the tip) the rest should be repairable.

I bought my canonet off 'bay too, I had to fix the rangefinder (the silvered mirror had come off) recalibrate it and other small works. ("Of course it was sold as "perfect".....).

Try to put the camera in manual mode and see if you can cock/release the shutter that way, until the camera is in auto and the needle shows red it blocks the exposure. Check also the "T" lock around the release button.

A bit of oil made also auto exposure work, the mechanism has many moving tiles, although a more thorough cleaning + lube would make it more reliable (since it sometimes stick in vertical position).

 

For the 3$ you shouldn't have fear of tinkering yourself with it. Once done it is nice. I extra bought the original model: I wanted the bottom lever. Try doing street with it, it is fun!

considering your usual technical quality of toy and trash cameras, the humble Agfa Agnar shines!

AFAIK, Revue didn't really make any cameras but was just a german Photostore brand (like Porst). Thus it may even be a Regula rebranded.

they look pretty old to me... look at the truck in the second picture! fifties?

some comments here... when Ladies dressed up properly, although maybe being in front of that shock absorber advertisement was just a coincidence.

 

I *did* find some film.. I was excitedand though "now I post something like Gene!" unfortunately after developing some FP3 it was just perfectly clear.

indeed, the casing looks pretty similar to what you displayed, Patric. Also the handle looks of similar make. Of course the lens is completely different and mine has a sports viewfinder.

after several attempts, I was able to add pictures to the previous thread

(unidentified folder). I had to scale them down so they are viewed inline, still

the previous images were just 80 pixels wider, not that bigger. Some technical

guy has a clue?

 

If someone has a clue about the camera, you can have a look now.