andrew_hopkins2

<p>most classic folding camera dont have light seals as such, not like slr's etc anyway..they were built with <em>mechanical </em>light traps, some better than others and rely on things not being bent, worn etc --red window closed etc (not counting the bellows which i guess you could say is a light seal).</p>

<p>the Perkeo (and other Voigtlanders of that era) <em>does</em> have the <strong>one</strong> velvet type seal in it though, along the hinged door edge. if it is only 5cm long (you mention 4-5cm in the other thread) then it is a bit short and probably the cause of your problem. Simply put it should reach the entire length, from bottom to top along the hinged side which is pretty close to 7cm (strip about 69mm on mine).</p>

<p>if this is the problem it will be dead easy to fix using modern foam seal material found on ebay or a local camera repair shop.</p>

<p>you didnt mention in the other thread when asked or this one whether the light leak extends to the edge of the film or is just within the frame (picture). if it extends to the edge of the film then its most certainly from the film back somewhere, if within the frame then look to the bellows.</p>

<p>cheers Andrew</p>

<p>Not that I have gotten around to doing this yet, but on the PC sockets on older folders (i have some folders from the late 20- 30's that have PC sockets, may of placed after) that are set up for M-sync it is meant to be a very simple adjustment to alter it to work with electronic flash, I have few that have been done for me.<br>

<br />On shutters that have no flash sync socket; every now and again I go in search over the net to try and find some directions for how to add a X sync with no luck...one of these days I intend to pull apart a shutter with X (or M) sync to copy and see how it can be added to an shutter without it..just waiting for a shutter that wont be missed if it doesnt make it back from the operating table ;-)<br>

<br />The 'shutter drag' (havnt heard that name before, but sounds good) method mentioned by Patrick and Robert I have used, it can be somewhat arkward at times but at others is very usefull, I find it very usefull with my barrel lens veiw camera as well..what I really need is digital camera LOL so i can see approx results before using the more expensive sheets of film---would that be called chimping haha</p>

<p >Might I suggest Marcus, as has been suggest previously, that you do some research and check some other sources to buy from within NZL. (or consider buying from Oz, for big outlays it would save a few dollars only)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Its not a case of ‘flaming’ ‘trolling’ or any other negative connotation you wish place when another point of view is pointed out. Or perhaps this is as people do they sometimes just get stuck in one frame of mind and believe they are being attacked. And perhaps you were, by being called ‘absurd’ but as I mentioned you have to expect that if one hand you saying you update your gear consistently with the expensive latest equipment, and then on the other complain about the price, inevitably some people with think its absurd—I am not making a judgment but pointing out human nature.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > But you have said in this thread that your reasons are primarily money based, I am trying help and to point out that your quoted prices appear to be incorrect and thus your (primary) reasons are undermined and less credible; for example you said

“For various reasons, primarily because Nikon overcharge too much here in NZ, I am thinking of switching wholesale to Canon.” or “The primary reason for changing is an on-going cost issue.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I pointed out at earlier $8000 US for the D3x is equivalent at this moment to $15 663 NZL. So this quote of yours in the OP is incorrect, as the D3x is available for as little as $15 900-$16 000 in NZL at this moment. Even your stated quote for the price from Photo and Video International NZ of $17 500 is incorrect, a quick check on their site shows they list it for $16 900 with CF 8GB. Also it was only a few weeks ago you were complaining? (<a href="../equipment/nikon/D3X/preview/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3X/preview/</a>) Saying incorrectly that the D3x was $21 500 NZL in another post here on this forum, when in actual fact people bought them for at that time $15 850.00 in NZL (a little research goes a long way)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You also stated earlier in this thread that the D3 is $9590.00 NZL where as they have been selling over the past few weeks up until yesterday, for as little depending on the supplier, for as $6000 -$6200 a couple of weeks ago $6200 a few days ago and easily obtained for $6700-$6900 NZL—that’s a long way off $9590.00!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Again you said the D700 is NZ$6850.00 where as you can buy it for $4550.00…again a big difference!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So to finish I simply suggest you do a little more research into pricing, if you still feel the Nikon equipment is still too pricey for you in the long term (weighed up against what ever virtues or benefits it may have in quality etc.) then by all means change (personally I like canon gear—actually I like some of the lenses, their range and wish they would fit on Nikon bodies, but ya get that eh). I just thought you should be better informed (and others not misinformed) before making what would be a significant cost to you, as well as change to you methods etc…if you prefer to just hear that’s it’s a good idea to change and all your pricing and info is correct ..then no problem..its all correct, I wouldn’t bother with Nikon for a second-ditch the stuff as fast as you can (j/kidding-semi sarcasium –relax)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >all the best Andrew</p>

<p>quote Marcus A "What is absurd about wanting to save money?"<br>

Certainly nothing wrong with that, but surely you realise, anyone that can afford to upgrade with latest and best equipment as they appear on the market cant expect support from all sectors of the community when bleating about high prices--its absurd to think so<br>

<br />Further, it is difficult to take seriously when your facts are incorrect...re; much cheaper to import. also re;the quoted prices you stated. I am not going to state them all here, they are all over the net for all to see. Moreover, the differences between camera's and lens prices were there when you purchaced them but you went down the Nikon path anyway...if you not happy then change, it seems you can afford it.</p>

<p>A quick easy check in the US, Aust and NZL shows the prices are all about the same once you take into account the exchange rates, and once you add in GST for importing from the US, well is it really worth the trouble, i dont think so, looks like it works out more expensive anyway! if you wanted to save few dollars you could fly to and buy from Sydney and post it back or possibly carry it and avoid GST<br>

Further it only took a few seconds to see some discrepancies in the prices Marcus has mentioned...you can buy a D700 in NZL for $4500 and if you paid $8000 US for a D3x that translates to over $15500 NZL and you still have to pay GST, postage, insurance and customs fees...hardly worth the trouble!<br>

I can understand the complaints that Nikon is more expensive than Canon..nothing new there! and perhaps their unworkable warrantee schemes, but as for the complaints that they are dearer in NZL ...well they aint as far I found out with a couple of easy price comparisons....the NZL dollar being further down the dunny than what the Aust $ is ,is the problem!</p>

hmm seems italics dont work

 

Quote PHOTO.NET has several main threads that have been rehashed over the last decade many thousands of times.

 

No doubt they have been rehashed Kelly and if you are spending a great deal of time on the forums then you would be sick of it. But as strange as it may seem, digital is new to me (I just shoot film, I have an old 2Mp digital camera that is the size of a house (well maybe a caravan ;) , but its horrible so I never use it, the one on my phone is better). Considering the technology of digital is always advancing, old discussions aren’t as relevant as new discussions. On occasion in the past and again now I am considering buying into digital. But before I consider spending the huge amount of money buying into it and all that goes with it, computers, hard drive storage, scanners, printer, camera, lens, surge protectors and software ect. I would like to know some of these obvious things that are discussed. So I can weigh up whether it’s right for me given the latest improvements and whether I really want to spend the huge money.

 

I can’t say I enjoy these threads that get taken over with all the techno babble at all, but I don’t mind as much so long as someone eventually comes to a straight forward easy to understand conclusion, that I can relate to in everyday use and the finished print. I don’t have the benefit to hire equipment in my location.

 

Quote(1) Folks buy a gooberflex digital and ask how BIG can I enlarge the image.

 

As lame as this type question is, it does make me wonder sometimes as well. When I go to the camera store they have some picture of a scantly clad girl enlarged to 6x4 foot poster and say ,see this is digital. I don’t get much of an explanation out of them how they achieved it (and they usually come from Canon or Nikon reps anyway) so I eventually brush it aside as sales pitch. Another shop told me I am wasting my time with 8x10 large format negs as digital is just as good as that too…I find that impossible to believe and think it is just them wanting to sell me digital equipment. I do get lost and frustrated with biased advice.

 

Quote(2) Folks learn that slides have less dynamic range than a negative.

 

Well I guess if they don’t know they find out by people saying so, even tho some can understand just by looking at the prints others may appreciate the explanation.

 

Quote(3) Folks learn that many digital sensors have a less dynamic range than a negative.

 

That seems to be what this thread is about and just a few posts have been straight forward enough to understand why. I find it useful.

 

Quote(4)Folks learn that a raw digital file can have more range than a jpeg

 

seems obvious

 

Quote(5) Folks who post giant images on the web and learn that they got borrowed and stolen

 

yeah well duh, but basic good advice given inst any skin of your nose

 

Quote(6)Folks who learn that having more ram makes their Photoshop computer work better

 

may seem obvious, but considering I don’t have photoshop its still a reasonable question if i would like to know just how much ram others find that works with the latest release computer, PS and large (files) negs scanned .

 

Quote(7)Folks who learn that a high contrast lens test shot with camera bolted to a granite block give great resolution numbers to brag about.

 

Quote(8) Folks who learn that disc drive can carsh and "learn" that they should havce had a duplicate file

 

its still useful information; it seems to relate to just how huge a cost I will need to spend on raid storage to hold medium and large format files/scans

 

Quote(9) ZILLIONS OF FOLKs who are are lost souls; who crave an exact megapixel equalvalent for 35mm film; often posting results. The same folks probably want and can prove the number of MP3's per 13 year old girl; shoes per woman, lenses per photo.neter, or beers per football game.

 

Like I say I don’t much like all the techno babble and fine nit picking but I do like to know how 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10 film compare in terms of digital. What cameras or formats can be replaced if I go digital and is it cost effective to me ect.

 

Quote(10) Folks who buy a lens with a dinky scratch and ask others if it a matters; but do not have the ability to shoot few frames as their own test

 

yeah well you get that, seems obvious to me as well but who knows what goes on in the minds of others. Maybe they just want to know if it didn’t have any marks would their images look better

 

Quote(11) Folks who crave ratings on posted photos; but complain when they get negative feedback.

 

Doesn’t concern me, I guess its bothers people whom spend more time on the forums.

 

Quote(12) More threads about film versus digital; posted like its a new subject; when its several decades old now.

 

It is new to me, old posts a near irrelevant to me as the comparisons are to older digital cameras. I cant say I appreciate the bickering that goes on , I just want simple straight forward answers on the differences, advantages and disadvantages

 

Quote(13) Folks who discover that scanning takes time; when its a 2 decade old known fact.

 

seems obvious

 

Quote(14) Folks who think that cleaning off fungus from a lens "magically" removes the potholes that are etched in advanced cases of fungus.

 

some people just don’t know, it doesn’t help to dismiss

 

Quote(15) Folks who worry about Macs versus PC's instead of worrying about results delivered to clients.

 

This is actually something I was interested in lately so i read up on it. I am due for a new computer and if I have to spend up to $4000 ish then I would be stupid not to gain information and ask a simple question or read posts on the latest equipment available.

 

 

 

 

quote ["It's amazing how many responses this infernal topic has received..." ]

 

["What amazes me is how many people seem to be following this thread. Evidently this thread has a lot of, uh, information content."]

 

people are following, ignoring the ridiculous content, in the hopes that someone actualy contributes to answering the OP question! which is interesting.

what am i missing? i am wanting a wide for a 4x10 view camera but i looked at the specs for the nikon 120 SW and it says it has an image circle of 200mm, not nearly enough for 4x10 at around 270mm?

 

actually i want it for a cut down portion of film to use in a whole plate right at the moment (about 3.75x8inch or 8.5 inch depending which way i slice the film) but intend on using 4x10 in the future so i was trying to choose a lens that would be suitable wide/panorama for both.

 

i was considering my best choice was the super symmar 5.6/150mm..the super symmar 110mm deosnt seem to have any room for movement

i agree it just looks messy and unlikely leitz would of supplied it as messy as what it is and as david mentioned when a leitz lens was offered on a welta is was a costly option. for example the Welta Weltini in 1938-early 39 when supplied with a f2,8 xenar was RM165, f2,8 Tessar RM185, a f3,5 Elmar RM185 and a f2.0Xenon RM195.

 

so in the case of a 1932-35 Welta Perle (this camera shouldn't be later than that as it is a rounded flat end body-in 1935 they changed to the angled body as shown in Peter's broucher) i would expect that a leitz lens, if offered would most likely have been offered with the helical focusing model of the Perle available then (a more expensive and better option). i have one with a xenar and it was available with tessar as well. although, all the lens options were available in front focusing.

 

 

Phil i am definitely doubting its origonality to the camera, although not necessarily that it is a fake leitz lens, although i see where you are comming from. It didn't inspire any further confidence either, after i asked the seller a few questions on some of the points we have made about where/and how the lens focus stops etc, and also what that engraving on the focus ring is near the (just above the) 'C' for 'Compur' on the shutter-it looks to be a few small numbers (perhaps 19xx). he only replied with only the words; 'i dont know. seems original' ignoring all the other questions i asked. the film wind key and rim set shutter on this year/model camera doesn't concern me at all; it is quite normal, i have many other welta of this type of vintage that have the same, although they changed to the wind knob in 1935 on the perle there was still various welta models (garant, symbol and trio) that used the wind key as late as 39.

 

this camera is in less than good shape too! and at near $600 so far in the bidding it is a ridiculous amount even if it was mint and genuine--i suspect a bit of shill bidding here! it seems just too hard to believe there would be people (aparently only 2 seperate bidders) out there willing to pay such an amount-and so early in the bidding!

 

tar david for the info-yeah i see, it is around the right number now that you point it out--that vollenda looks in nice nik too--pricy tho!! and been there for a looooong time eh

Craig my pic shows as attachment on my screen. Pete yours shows on screen to me.

 

pete you have an aussie welta catologue!! thats amazing! please,,, tell me how to get one!!! i have some german and euro ones but no ozzie.

 

i know of a couple of welta that were available with leitz lenses, a plate camera and a1939 weltini (i have one now) and i have some welta pearl's with most of the other lens combinations you mention as well.

 

this camera in question is on ebay now and has now hit record high prices for such a camera...obviously i collect the welta cameras (because no one else did and they are normaly cheap LOL) and was interested in purchasing it but it is just getting to high and ridiculous for such a camera, not to mention it doesn't look quite right!

 

i dont recall discussing this before david, maybe it was something simular. i asked about this camera and lens because it has just shown up on ebay and was hoping that someone may know how to date the lens...this type of serial number doesn't show up on the normal leica lens serial number charts is all...cheers andrew

i am looking at a front cell focusing lens mounted on a c1932 Welta- Werke

camera, model Pearl 6x4.5. the lens reads (in order) f=7,5cm 1:4,5

ErnstLeitzWetzlar No. 112804 (F) Elmar.

 

i am assuming the capitol (F) in brackets stands for front cell focusing.

i dont have any serial number info on these type of leitz lens can anyone assist

with this?? to at least get a date of manufacture i guess

 

the lens distance scale appears to be in feet (larger distance is 100) which would

indicate an export model

 

i am not entirely convinced this is origonal to the camera (if i knew how to post a

picture i would-not sure if that can be done here? ok i think i have the picture now)

because it has a conical shape where the distance scale is and that covers up the

shutter maker and brand name. so at the very least it is not a designed good fit to

the shutter. it is a compur shutter that approriate to that era. there are a couple of

other things that i think dont look quite right but am sitting on the fence a bit to

whether it may be genuine.

 

although i have a reasonable amount of info on welta cameras, i dont have much

on this particular year model Pearl beyond whats in Mckeowns. he makes no

mention of it offered with a Leitz lens (he has been wrong before though!), and

some other Welta cameras were.

 

i appreciate any help with this

 

cheers

Andrew

quite some months late but it still may be worth saying.

 

Jure your Welti is a c1935 without the optional accessory shoe. the 1936 Welti has the shoe as standard. i cant quite see the lens number but it looks like #15.... or #16..... which would match as well.

 

just to add to the comments that were made earlier. I doubt that the name Watson was simply for the benifit of english speaking countries. Even though it is a word we understand,(i dont discount it but just doubt it)and i am under the impression that germans pronounce the letter W as a V at any rate. Welta had a succesful plate camera named Watson (no longer in production at that time)and i guess that they simply had to call this something and thats what they chose.

 

if the range of Welti, Watson, Weltix and what they had as features and the year they were made available is understood then it seems to make a little sence, although by todays standards it is too many models for small differances.

 

first comes the Welti 1935 (as picture by Jure) no shoe but an optional extra

then Welti 1936 (as pictured by Todd). now with shoe as standard

then Welti 1937-39+ (none pictured on this page but chrome top like Todds 4th picture), this camera has been upgraded significantly from before, with chrome top, helical focusing and more. placing it as their top 35mm without a rangfinder (Weltini model has the rangefinder)

1938+, Weltix (as picture #3 by Todd) is needed as a cheaper 35mm option but has body release and top shutter button unlike the first two Welti (resectively).although no acessory shoe!

1938 Watson (picture by Todd top left) has no top shutter release button but does have acessory shoe.

1940 Watson now has the shutter button on top and the acessory shoe. they seem to have been mostly exported.

Danny Z

i have some catalogues with pricing from Welta distributed in Europe and a copy of Burke&James in America 1938. it shows the Perle available with a number of choices in lenses and shutters, 4,5 anastigmat, S/Actinar and Tessar, as well as 2,9 Cassar and 2,8 Tessar. The Perle was available (in 1938) in both 4,5x6 and 6x6 (6x9 before 38) but from reading the catalogues it seems to me that America imported (or Welta exported) just the 4,5x6 version in 1938 as most likely the Weltax was available for 6x6 and 4,5x6 in one camera! curiously also the Perle for export seems to have the older style pop up cross hair veiw finder (like the Symbol and Trio) whereas the European 1938 Perle has the 'spyglass finder' (like the Weltax, Garant ect). At any rate it appears the Perle was no longer produced in 1939 with the Garant used for 6x9 and the Weltax now available for duel format and available with much the same lens/shutter variants

Welta made quality cameras for sure. so much so that Lieca allowed the use of thier elmar lens on a couple of thier 35mm cameras (weltini). the Garant obviously is 120 6x9 or 4,5x6 format; the idea being to save on film cost as it was targeted mainly at the amature/family user according to some advertising catalogues by Welta, albeit a higher end camera than many others on the market (it was no kodak!!). it uses the same body as the Welta Trio and Symbol but is higher spec offering than those, with its lens shutter combo and the use of the paralex correcting veiwfinder (instead of the pop up sports frame). which also converts size to show the 6x9 or 4,5x6 borders. in its day it cost around RM80+ with the c/rapid shutter (many only have the compur 1-250) and the 3,8 trinar (i cant tell for sure what lens yours have but its a guess). a Trio would have cost around RM72 and a Symbol RM40 to give you an idea. on the other end Welta's top offerings in 6x9 were the Weltur (coupled rangefinder) and TLR Superfekta which cost about RM180 and RM200 respectivly. a great camera to use and enjoy, solid as a rock..gota love those weltas!!