612 project

Gari · Jun 16, 2005

Hi folks, I am almost finished with a 612 project using an old Kodak autographic. I have sorted the mask for the film plane and converted it to take 120 film, the lens is proving to be a problem. I have a 90 schnieder from my LF that I planned to use as I use it less and less in that format, but it is too long, it wont fit into the body when folded. I have thought of getting an old MF folder such as Agfa Isolette etc and seeing if I can remove the lense to make fit, thought you guys might have a suggestion or two with this before I commit to canabalising an old camera!! depth of body is 40/45cm.
Gari

argus · Jun 16, 2005

depth of body is 40/45cm.

Wouldn't that be in millimeters?

G

Gari · Jun 16, 2005

hard of thinking.

er..yeah, sorry!!
Gari

Nick Zentena · Jun 16, 2005

Even if you get a lens off a 6x9 I doubt it'll give you good corners on 6x12.

If you want a small lens the shortish Xenars aren't very big. Not sure if it would fit your needs.

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 16, 2005

Which Schneider 90 did you try, the Angulon or Super-Angulon? The 90/6.8 Angulon is pretty compact. If you can't make it work, I'm not sure there is anything much smaller than that in a 90mm lens that covers 6x12. The larger Super-Angulon would definitely be too big.

Nathan Smith · Jun 16, 2005

Gari said:
Hi folks, I am almost finished with a 612 project using an old Kodak autographic.

Hi Gari, this is interesting - can you give me a quick rundown of what you're doing? What kind of autographic are you using, a 3A?

Nathan

medform-norm · Jun 16, 2005

Hi Gari,

nice project! We're working on converting an old Graflex 1A in a similar manner. Not finished either, but getting there slowly.

Have you considered using a 5" Ross Xpres? They can be great lenses and are quite shallow as well. The normal 5" measures a little over 3 cm and the 5" wide-angle (not from the Air Ministry but a civilian one) measures 4.1 cm, so maybe one of these should fit. The Air Ministry Ross lens can be gotten cheap, is slightly more shallow, but it has limited f-stops.

Both our 5" normal Ross and 5" wide angle should easily cover the 612 format without vignetting. They're relatively fast lenses as well: 4.5 (and sometimes available even faster, if I remember well, but way more expensive).

What did we pay for each? Well, the 5" Ross came with the Graflex for £70 and the 5" wide angle Xpres + epsilon shutter (both in good condition) set us back £35 (excluding S+H). For us that falls in the category 'reasonably cheap'.

Personally, we prefer a Ross Xpres over an older Angulon any time for it's special character, somewhat Heliar-like in plasticity. (Agree with that, mr. David -my middle name is Heliar - Goldfarb?)

Hope this helps,
Norm

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 16, 2005

Haven't tried a Ross Xpres myself, but post some sample shots. I'm curious.

medform-norm · Jun 16, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
Haven't tried a Ross Xpres myself, but post some sample shots. I'm curious.

I will, when we have time for proper scanning! We're working very hard right now on a non-photographic project at the moment - so only time for posts, not for photoworks.

Did you try Googling Ross Xpres? There are some great samples on the Japanese folder sites like cosmonet - but I don't know if the Heliar-like quality shines through sufficiently...

There are more Ross lovers on this forum, maybe they have stuff ready to post?

Donald Qualls · Jun 16, 2005

I don't know of any lens from a 6x6 that will come close to covering 6x12. Very few 6x9 lenses will; most cameras with a fixed lens had a lens that was the least expensive that would cover the format with the requisite image quality. The original lens from that camera was probably a 135 mm, likely a Rapid Rectilinear if f/7.7 or slower, possibly a triplet or Tessar type in later models. The lenses from 9x12 plate cameras are excellent candidates for this; the Tessar types should cover 6x12 nicely (they'll just cover 4x5) and as long as it's unit focusing you're all good (the scale will likely even match). None of my four plate camera lenses (two Tessars, a Skopar, and a Radionar, all 13.5 cm f/4.5) is as much as 40 mm deep; all are made to fold into cameras that are only about 40 mm thick when folded.

athanasius80 · Jun 16, 2005

Try the lens off any of the Kodak 3As. Some were rapid rectilinears, many of them had anastigmats, some were B&L Tessars. You could probably even use the whole camera for 6x12, just you'd have to make a new red window in the center back.

Donald Qualls · Jun 17, 2005

The 3A cameras mostly used 165 mm lenses -- that format, 3 1/4 by 5 1/2 (or 9x14 cm) has a significantly longer diagonal than even 4x5 -- and a 165 mm likely won't work on a camera that originally used 116/616 -- it would require an extension in order to set the infinity focus, and then wouldn't fit with the bed closed.

You can get a beater 9x12 camera for $20 or so most days on eBay. That's the way to go if you don't have an original lens for this old Autographic. No, it's not a very wide angle, but any really wide angle lens is likely to be a good bit less compact than a 13.5 cm Tessar type or Cooke triplet.

Murray@uptowngallery · Jun 20, 2005

What about an old Polaroid folder (95B, 150, 160, 800)? 130 mm coated triplet lens big and squarish shell but not very deep, maybe 15 mm? (I don't have one in front of me).

Gari · Jun 23, 2005

thanks for all the advice, the lens I had looked at was a super angulon which is why it won't fit I guess.I have just been looking at a ross lens on ebay, someone mentioned the lens here, I am new to the whole LF/MF thing so forgive the simple questions but what shutters will work with this lens? I am usinf the camera in low light alot with 1-5 secs being the norm so is using a cap an option?
thanks again folks
Gari

Nick Zentena · Jun 23, 2005

Which lens? Is it in a shutter or not?

If you're using 1 to 5 second exposures I'd suggest a packard shutter. Not too expensive. Easier then a hat or lens cap. If you buy used not that expensive. Plus it's pretty easy to rig one up to handle multiple lenses.

Dan Fromm · Jun 23, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
Haven't tried a Ross Xpres myself, but post some sample shots. I'm curious.

Um, David, my Ensign Selfix 820 has a coated front-cell focusing 105/3.8 Xpres. Not as sharp, even when used carefully, as the uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar I use on my Graphics, so the Selfix usually stays in the drawer. I'm not as sensitive to types of blur as many here, don't see anything remarkable about the pictures I've taken with the Selfix.

I have and have taken trial shots with a 5"/4 WA Xpres, a completely different lens. Mine is ex-Air Ministry, is fairly sharp but very, very flary. I just don't know about these things ...

Sorry, no scans. Not that I'm anti-digital -- how can one be opposed to a tool? -- but I'm non-digital.

Dan Fromm · Jun 23, 2005

Gari, my ex-military 5"/4 WA Xpres in barrel won't go into a shutter. My limited experience with UK-made lenses delivered in barrel -- mainly Taylor Hobsons, some Dallmeyers, that WA Xpres, and I have an Aldis Uno coming -- is that they won't easily or inexpensively go into shutters. When attractive lenses sell at low prices, there's often a reason.

Mongo · Jun 23, 2005

I'm almost done with a similar conversion of a Kodak Autographic 3A. The Anuglon 90mm f/6.8 fits just fine. Any old Angulon or similar lens (I believe you could get 90mm Optars with similar specs) should work just fine.

Nathan Smith · Jun 23, 2005

Mongo said:
I'm almost done with a similar conversion of a Kodak Autographic 3A. The Anuglon 90mm f/6.8 fits just fine. Any old Angulon or similar lens (I believe you could get 90mm Optars with similar specs) should work just fine.

I've had a 3A sitting in my closet for a couple of years now waiting for me to get around to working on it. Have you seen Dead Link Removed ?
He recommends glueing a thin sheet of glass in the back to keep the film flat ... did you do anything like that, or just use 120 film as-is?

Nathan

Mongo · Jun 23, 2005

nsmith01tx said:
I've had a 3A sitting in my closet for a couple of years now waiting for me to get around to working on it. Have you seen Dead Link Removed ?
He recommends glueing a thin sheet of glass in the back to keep the film flat ... did you do anything like that, or just use 120 film as-is?

Nathan

I put a thin piece of sponge behind a piece of Delrin that's been carefully sanded on the edges, with this assembly glued to the back of the camera. The sponge provides a bit of pressure without crushing the film...sort of like a pressure plate on a big spring. (Note that the left and right edges of the Delrin were sanded so the backing paper could get onto the plastic without bunching up...when I first tried this this a piece of Delrin I'd just cut out and not sanded, the paper backing would catch on the corner of the plastic.)

I made the film channel (in front of the film) from Delrin as well. I made a channel (about 3mm wide) for the edges of the film to ride in. So far I've been able to run film thought this whole assembly and the film looks flat, but I'll have to get the project completed and do some testing before I'm absolutely sure. I don't yet have the focusing distances marked, and my film holders are temporary affairs. I still have to build the rods to hold the film and the take-up spool, get the lens distances marked, figure out what I'm going to do about film advance (red window or just count the turns of the knob), and then I'll be ready to try out the whole thing. Unfortunately, health issues are keeping me from finishing this project...I really want to get this one done.

(Incidentally, the B&L Rapid Rectilinear lens from this camera is great on my 4x5...a real "old time" look.)

jd callow · Jun 24, 2005

An 80mm Wide Feild Ektar will cover 6x12, and is of the 'pancake' lens design so should (if i understnd your problem) fit.

Neanderman · Jun 28, 2005

Try an 80mm WF Ektar

Gari said:
Hi folks, I am almost finished with a 612 project using an old Kodak autographic. I have sorted the mask for the film plane and converted it to take 120 film, the lens is proving to be a problem. I have a 90 schnieder from my LF that I planned to use as I use it less and less in that format, but it is too long, it wont fit into the body when folded. I have thought of getting an old MF folder such as Agfa Isolette etc and seeing if I can remove the lense to make fit, thought you guys might have a suggestion or two with this before I commit to canabalising an old camera!! depth of body is 40/45cm.
Gari

An 80mm Wide-Field Ektar should just cover the 6x12 when stopped to f16 or below, and they are nice and small and should allow you to fold the camera.

jd callow · Jun 28, 2005

Didn't I just say that?

Neanderman · Jun 28, 2005

So I see that you did.

That's two votes for an 80mm WF Ektar. Do we have a third?

612 project

Gari

argus

Gari

Nick Zentena

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Nathan Smith

medform-norm

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

medform-norm

Donald Qualls

athanasius80

Donald Qualls

Murray@uptowngallery

Gari

Nick Zentena

Dan Fromm

Dan Fromm

Mongo

Nathan Smith

Mongo

jd callow

Moderator

Neanderman

jd callow

Moderator

Neanderman

612 project

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency